NHS Hospital cripples young girl through negligence
A teenage schoolgirl was left paralysed from the waist down when a spinal anaesthetic was left in too long after a routine operation, a hospital has admitted. Sophie Tyler, 17, of Risca, near Newport, south Wales, will never walk again after an epidural was mistakenly left in place for more than two days.
A medical law expert is now calling on bosses at a leading UK children's hospital to ensure lessons are learned from the devastating error.
Their admission of liability has left the way open for a full settlement, providing Sophie with financial support for the rest of her life.
Mother Sue Tyler spoke today of how the tragic error transformed her daughter from a normal outgoing teenager overnight. Sophie was 14 on May 27 2008 when she was admitted to Birmingham Children's Hospital for surgery to remove gallstones. While the operation was successful, an epidural to control pain was left in place too long, causing permanent damage to her spinal cord.
The day after the operation, she complained of numbness in her right leg, but the epidural continued to be pumped into her spine as she felt no pain. After two days of receiving the anaesthetic, the numbness had spread to both legs and Sophie was barely able to move her feet.
Despite warnings that something was seriously wrong, hospital staff failed to halt the painkilling infusion until the night of May 29.
The next day she underwent an MRI scan which revealed the anaesthetic had entered her spinal cord and damaged the membranes, paralysing her from the waist down.
The hospital trust has now admitted liability. Tim Deeming, medical law expert with Irwin Mitchell solicitors, representing the Tyler family, said: "Sophie and her family have been devastated by what has happened.
"Other than suffering from gallstones, Sophie was a very healthy and active young girl. She and her family put their trust in the hospital and believed that within a few days she would be on the road to recovery.
"At the age of 14, to be told the news that you will never walk again is unimaginable and to discover that mistakes were entirely avoidable has been incredibly hard for them to cope with."
He added: "Birmingham Children's Hospital has a reputation, both nationally and internationally, for clinical excellence, which is why it is extremely important, both to protect future patient welfare and to provide public reassurance, that the hospital learns important lessons from what happened to Sophie. "We very much hope that the staff responsible have already been retrained so that similar tragedies can be avoided and I am glad that they have now admitted responsibility.
"Although no amount of compensation will ever turn back the clock for Sophie, she will need specialist care and support for the rest of her life. "The Trust's full admission of liability now paves the way for a settlement which will provide Sophie with financial support to pay for the special equipment and care she now needs."
He said: "This is an important case which has allowed our client to access justice and secure the lifetime of future care she needs but it would not have been possible without the support of legal aid."
Mrs Tyler said: "My daughter's life has completely changed as a result of what happened. "From being an outgoing teenager, her life has altered overnight and we have all had to come to terms with what has happened. "Sophie is still taking her A-levels and hopes to then go to university, but to do so, she has had to be very determined and needs a lot of support to enable her to achieve her goals."
Dr Vin Diwakar, chief medical officer at Birmingham Children's Hospital, said: "We are deeply sorry for the unimaginable distress we have caused Sophie and her family as a result of the care she received at our hospital three years ago. "The care we provided fell below our usual high standards and since then we have implemented a whole series of changes to try to ensure that this never happens again."
Soft justice: Thousands of career criminals spared prison in British Coalition's first year
The number of career criminals being spared jail has soared since the Coalition took office.
An astonishing 4,000 offenders have been handed community sentences, despite each totting up at least 50 convictions.
The figure for 2010 – the year Ken Clarke took over as Justice Secretary – was 17 per cent higher than 2009’s and treble that of 2002.
Incredibly, 408 criminals dodged jail last year even when being sentenced for what was at least their 100th offence.
Earlier this year, the Daily Mail revealed that the percentage of all convicted criminals sent to jail had fallen since the Coalition took over last May.
Rapists, drug-dealers, muggers, drink-drivers and thugs caught with knives and guns were all more likely to receive soft community sentences.
If the sentencing standards of 2009 had been applied last year, more than 2,000 extra criminals would have gone to jail.
Critics of the criminal justice system say pressure is being put on courts by Mr Clarke to jail fewer people because prisons are close to overflowing.
The Justice Secretary wants to scrap most terms of under six months and replace them with community sentences – meaning more repeat offenders will be let off.
Conservative MP Priti Patel said: ‘Clearly when you have got serial criminals and repeat offenders causing such harm the Government has got to start addressing the issue.
‘It is not acceptable that these people are being given community sentences when they should be locked up. The Government needs to tackle this situation; these are people who need to be locked away in prison to keep the public safe.
‘If there is a need for more prison places then we need to build more prisons. Prisons are about protecting people on the outside from the vile criminals who are being kept behind bars.’
The latest figures show that the proportion of offenders escaping jail with 50 convictions or more has risen from 0.5 per cent in 2002 to 1.5 per cent last year.
Some 3,898 criminals fell into that bracket in 2010, compared with 3,333 the year before and 1,238 in 2002.
Last year the Daily Mail revealed that the worst of the repeat offenders to be spared jail had a 50-year criminal record and 578 previous convictions or cautions.
These included 300 offences of theft as well as burglary, robbery, assault, possessing offensive weapons and public order crimes.
Conservative MP Philip Davies, who uncovered those statistics, said: ‘This shows that the criminal justice system has become a joke. It shows that despite what Justice Secretary Ken Clarke would have us believe, we have too few people in prison, not too many.’
Criminologist Dr David Green, director of the Civitas think-tank, said: ‘This rise in the number of career criminals escaping jail has been caused by political pressure from the Government to reduce the prison population. Judges and magistrates are failing in their basic duty to protect the public.
'If someone has been convicted even three or four times, jail should be considered. But these are people being convicted 50 or 100 times. It should be obvious that for these people, this is how they make a living.
‘And we should remember that not all crimes are detected. The Home Office admits that for every conviction, the offender has committed five more. So someone being convicted 50 times has in fact carried out at least 300 – and I think that’s an underestimate.’
Mr Clarke wants to replace sentences of six or fewer months – given to around 50,000 criminals a year – with ‘tougher community sentences’.
Last year he claimed: ‘Simply banging up more and more people for longer without actively seeking to change them is not going to protect the public. ‘I do not think prison is, or should be, a numbers game.
‘The army of short-term prisoners we have at the moment, who have a particularly bad record of reoffending within six months of being released, is too big and we’ve got to find some sensible community sentences.’
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: ‘Sentencing in individual cases is rightly a matter for the courts to decide.’
The number of children studying tough subjects at school is to double following a Government crackdown on “soft” GCSEs, The Daily Telegraph has learned. Just days before the new academic year, it emerged that pupils are flocking back to traditional academic disciplines that are seen as vital to the workplace and further study.
Research shows that almost 50 per cent of children starting GCSEs for the first time this autumn will take separate courses in maths, English, the sciences, a foreign language and either history or geography. This compares with less than a quarter of pupils who took GCSE exams last summer.
The rise move follows the introduction of the controversial English Baccalaureate – a new school leaving certificate that rewards pupils who achieve good grades in five traditional subject areas.
It represents the first evidence that the reforms are having a major effect on the subjects studied by children in the last two years of secondary education. This follows repeated claims by the Coalition that education standards were “dumbed down” under Labour.
In the last 13 years, growing numbers of pupils have ditched tough subjects in favour of less rigorous alternatives such as media studies, photography and dance to boost school league table rankings.
It has had a significant effect on the study of key disciplines at college and university and led to a critical shortage of graduates with skills in science, technology, engineering, maths and foreign languages, which are seen as vital to the economy.
But research commissioned by the Department for Education suggests that changes made by the Government are having a dramatic effect on schools in England.
The study – based on a survey of almost 700 state secondary schools – shows rises in the number of pupils preparing to take a combination of GCSEs that leads to the so-called “EBacc”. Some 47 per cent of teenagers entering Year 10 this term – the traditional start of GCSEs – will study EBacc subjects, it was revealed. These pupils are expected to sit exams in 2013. It represents a dramatic rise compared with the 22 per of pupils who took exams in these subjects in 2010 – the last available data.
The number of pupils choosing to study languages is set to rise by more than a fifth compared with 2010, while entries for history and geography are up by at least a quarter this year.
The proportion of pupils opting to take all three sciences – biology, chemistry and physics – will almost double, according to the study by the National Centre for Social Research.
Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, said: “Subjects such as physics, chemistry, history, geography, French and German give students the opportunity to succeed in every field. “The numbers studying a proper range of rigorous subjects has been in decline. Now, thanks to our English Bacc, that has changed.
“More young people are now following the courses which the best colleges and top employers value.”
The Coalition announced that the EBacc would be introduced in late 2010. To achieve it, pupils must gain C grades in maths, English, at least two sciences, a foreign language and one humanities subject – either history or geography. The new measure will be added to school league tables.
According to the National Centre for Social Research study, 52 per cent of schools surveyed said the EBacc had an effect on the type of subjects offered in the curriculum, while almost nine-in-10 said they provided information to pupils and parents about the EBacc.
But the reform has been strongly criticised by teaching unions and Labour, who claim it represents an elitist view of education and punishes children who want to pursue more practical courses.
It is also claimed it will narrow the curriculum and led to huge drops in those taking subjects such as music, art and religious studies, which are not featured in the EBacc.
But a Coalition source said: “Labour and union leaders live in a fantasy world where media studies is valued as much as further maths.
“Between them, over a decade they pushed millions of children into courses that held them back. By bringing honesty to the league tables we are already seeing a return to the subjects that universities and employers value most and this will strengthen education and our economy.”
This is naive rubbish. The side effects of statins are so severe that you have to be pretty robust to stay on them. All we are seeing below is that robust people get fewer illnesses
Statins have been found to cut death from infections that cause illnesses such as pneumonia by a third, which could lead to even more people being prescribed the so–called wonder drugs. Up to seven million people in Britain take the cholesterol–lowering medication, which can save lives by reducing the chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke.
But "unexpected" findings from British researchers suggest that statins' principal long–term benefit is stopping deaths from infections and respiratory illness.
It could mean that patients at higher risk of developing pneumonia could also be prescribed the drugs, despite a fear that too many "worried well" already take statins, which cost the NHS about £500million a year. A study in The Lancet last month suggested some people taking the drugs were unlikely to gain any benefit.
Prof Peter Sever, from Imperial College London's international centre for circulatory health, said of the latest findings: "This result is very unexpected. The benefits of statins for preventing heart attacks and strokes are well established, but after long–term follow–up the most significant effects seem to be on deaths from other causes."
There was now "an emerging evidence base for statins protecting against infections", said Prof Sever, who presented the results yesterday at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Paris. A paper has also been published in the European Heart Journal.
He said: "We know that if you are on a statin and you get pneumonia, you are less likely to die. "There are about 15 observational studies that show statins protect you against worsening infection and death from infection." Prof Sever said the statins appeared to lessen the production of "toxic" inflammatory agents in the blood, which are stimulated by infections.
Prof Sever said: "This study is going to make people think more about the non–cardiovascular benefits of statins."
Prof Sever's team analysed the death certificates of almost 1,000 people. They were among 10,000 volunteers with high blood pressure who had originally enrolled in the Anglo–Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (Ascot) to test a type of statin, called atorvastatin.
They found that, 11 years after the Ascot trial started, deaths from infections and respiratory problems were 36 per cent lower in those originally given the statin, compared with those given a placebo.
Since the Ascot trial started, there were 37 deaths from infections and respiratory illness in the atorvastatin group, compared with 56 in the control group. Prof Sever said of these differences: "The numbers are large. It's a very robust study."
There was no difference in death rates from cancer.
Prof Sever, whose previous work helped formulate NHS guidelines for statin use, cautioned against widening statin prescription based on a single study. He said: "One swallow does not make a summer."
Studies have shown that statins can cause side effects such as muscle weakness, and liver and kidney problems.
Others also questioned the validity of the data, noting the trial was not designed to look at causes of death other than from cardiovascular disease. Guy De Backer, from Ghent University in Belgium, said: "I want to remain cautious. We all know that these findings can occur by chance alone. They are interesting but they don't stand on their own."
Those given the statin at the start of the Ascot trial were 14 per cent less likely to die during that period. The trial was stopped after three years since atorvastatin had been shown to reduce the chance of a non–fatal heart attack and death from heart disease by 36 per cent.
Prof Sever said the lower rate of deaths from infections and respiratory illness over the 11–year period since the trial began was a "carry over" effect from being given atorvastatin at the start. Prof Sever's study was funded by Pfizer, which makes atorvastatin. However, the academic noted: "I have no reason to believe that atorvastatin is unique in these non–cardiovascular actions."
Atorvastatin, which currently costs £26 per patient per month compared with £2 for a "generic" drug, is also due to come off patent soon.
Britain’s new brain drain: A million of our best-qualified citizens now live abroad
More than a million of the highest-qualified and best-trained Britons have gone to live abroad and are contributing to the wealth of other countries, a report found yesterday.
They have made up more than half of the British emigrants who have gone abroad over the past 14 years to work in countries including America, Australia, or, increasingly, Germany, it found.
The report from the immigration think tank MigrationWatch warned of a new brain drain and said that no other country loses as many university graduates through emigration.
But at the same time British immigration rules are offering entry clearance to the country to engineers and other highly qualified technicians because the country is suffering from shortages.
The analysis of who is going abroad comes at a time when numbers of people leaving the country to live abroad have plummeted, mainly thanks to the recession. At the same time levels of immigration have remained at sky high levels.
As a result net migration – the number of people added to the population by migration – last year totalled 239,000, the second highest total ever.
The new report said that professionally qualified workers and experienced managers continue to make up the majority of emigrants from Britain, numbering more than 50,000 in 2009.
It put the number of British graduates working abroad at 1.1 million, and added many will stay away permanently.
Citing the verdict produced by the Paris-based grouping of rich nations, the report said: ‘This is consistent with the findings of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that the UK suffers from a brain drain less serious only than Mexico whereby a significant proportion of its tertiary level educated go overseas to work,’ the report said.
It added: ‘There is something of a brain drain occurring in Britain whereby our most talented and skilled are leaving the UK in search of opportunities abroad.’
The report said the need to import engineers means that British companies may be paying too little for highly qualified staff.
‘The UK Border Agency Shortage Occupation list includes civil engineers, mechanical engineers and electrical engineers among others,’ it said, ‘perhaps suggesting that UK companies are not paying sufficiently well to keep the brightest and the best.
‘Despite the NHS claiming to be reliant on migrant labour, 27 per cent of our skilled emigrants had a health or education degree.’
MigrationWatch chairman Sir Andrew Green said: ‘The profile of those who are leaving is a concern.’
The report said around six out of ten emigrants from Britain have since 1997 been aged between 25 and retirement age, and the most numerous among these are people under 44 looking to promote their careers.
France and Spain have dropped down the table of the most popular destinations for Britons moving abroad during the recession, the MigrationWatch report said.
Numbers leaving for a life in France last year were below 20,000, well under half the peak of emigration to France five years ago, and emigrant departures for Spain are now running at around 25,000 compared to more than 60,000 in 2004.
The report pointed to the high euro and worries about property values as among the reasons.
‘One possible explanation for the fall in emigration to Spain is the uncertainty caused by the illegal construction of homes along the Spanish coastlines, discouraging the British from buying property,’ it said.
‘However, the wider fall in the value of the pound against the euro can explain this decline in emigration to France and Spain; the pound lost 28 per cent of its value against the euro between January 2007 and January 2009. For those on fixed incomes this changes the economics of a life of retirement in France or Spain.’
The European country now attracting greater numbers of British emigrants is Germany, where Britons are going to work in the comparatively strong economy.
Parts of Britain suffer coldest summer for nearly two decades
Global cooling!
Much of Britain suffered the coldest summer for almost two decades, Met Office statistics show.
As Britons return to work today after a soggy Bank Holiday weekend, official weather data reveals that average temperatures were significantly down on recent years.
The UK’s average temperature from June 1 to August 15 was only 57F (13.9C) – the lowest for 13 years.
For central England the average was 59F (15C), making it the coolest summer since 1993.
Helen Waite, a Met Office forecaster, said: “The average temperature for central England this summer has been just 15C – this sort of temperature is normally typical of September. “Generally speaking, you would expect to see temperatures of at least 17C for this time of year.”
He tarnished himself. He's sure got a funny way of fighting against racism. Just an unthinking Left-indoctrinated fool, I guess.
30 August, 2011
'Health Service pays spin doctors more than cancer experts
The NHS is paying spin doctors more than the experts in charge of cancer screening and patient care, it emerged yesterday. Critics said it was an example of the waste and skewed priorities rife in the Health Service at a time when it is supposed to be making efficiency savings.
In the past four years, primary care trusts and strategic health authorities across England have spent £182million on their communications departments, employing 491 full-time ‘media professionals’.
Even in 2010-11, when health bosses were complaining about the threat of cuts to front-line services, they found £44.3million to lavish on spin and public relations. In the last full year in which Labour held power, the bill was £50million.
The most serious example of misplaced priorities was at Yorkshire and the Humber Strategic Health Authority. Karl Milner, the director of communications and public relations, was paid £128,600 in 2009-10. Yet the organisation’s national cancer screening director was paid £106,000, while the director of patient care earned £127,200. All SHAs employ a head of communications, with nine of the ten authorities including spin doctors on their executive board.
The figures, revealed under freedom of information laws, have also shown differences in attitudes between areas.
While Richmond and Twickenham Primary Care Trust claims to have a communications budget of only £15,000 per year, Solihull Care Trust said it had set aside £1.2million per year.
To help meet the £20billion of efficiency savings by 2015, which was demanded of the NHS in 2009, some trusts have cut spending on public relations and communications. Western Cheshire Primary Care Trust slashed spending in these areas by more than 70 per cent between 2009-10 and 2010-11.
But many others have simply carried on spending. MPs say that, if all PCTs and SHAs had made similar efficiencies to Western Cheshire, the NHS would have saved £32million in 2010-11. That would be enough to pay for 820 nurses, 270 senior doctors or 4,560 hip replacements.
The revelations are the latest example of waste in the NHS, which has been ring-fenced from Government cuts. They are likely to infuriate health ministers, who are frustrated by the spendthrift attitude of some health bosses. Under Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s NHS reforms, SHAs and PCTs will be abolished. He has also made a commitment to cut management costs, including those of PR and spin doctors, by 45 per cent over the next four years.
Dr Phillip Lee, Tory MP for Bracknell, said: ‘Taxpayers want their hard-earned money to go on doctors and nurses – not spin doctors and bureaucrats. ‘We already know that under the last Labour government, spending on NHS management soared. And now we find out that vast sums of money were being splashed on publicising the work of these bureaucratic bodies.’
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance pressure group, said: ‘It’s an unacceptable waste of taxpayers’ money to spend more on PR advisers than cancer specialists. The NHS has to make savings, and getting rid of over-paid communications bureaucrats should be the first cut made.’
The Department of Health said: ‘The NHS budget must be spent in ways that secure the best outcomes for patients. That is why we are cutting back on the administration costs of the NHS by £5billion over this Parliament.’
Abortion undercover: Journalist posed as a vulnerable pregnant woman at six counselling services
Her findings raise disturbing questions
Regardless of your moral stance, deciding whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy must surely rank as one of the most difficult dilemmas a woman can face.
At a time when a woman feels at her most confused and vulnerable, it is vital she has access to clear, impartial advice, so that she can reach a decision which, either way, will stay with her for the rest of her life.
For years, campaigners have expressed fears that pregnant women have only been able to seek advice from abortion providers, who are running profit-making businesses, or from pro-life groups, who tend to encourage keeping a baby, no matter what the circumstances.
But can the current situation really be that bad? To find out, I posed as a terrified pregnant young woman unsure of what to do, and sought counselling. What happened next left me confused and traumatised — and I’m not even pregnant. I discovered that vulnerable women are being given advice that is both biased and manipulative — and could easily make them feel pressured into making a decision they will regret later.
At present, a woman seeking an abortion must simply undergo a medical consultation. She is not required to have counselling, but can seek it if she wants it.
The leading private abortion clinics Marie Stopes International and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) both provide such counselling, but are paid per abortion, which hardly promotes independence. On the other hand, charitable and religious services have been accused of manipulating women into keeping their babies.
I made appointments at six centres using the same story: I was 26 years old, 12 to 16 weeks pregnant, I hadn’t told my boyfriend and I couldn’t decide whether to have an abortion or keep the baby.
So, what kind of service should I have been offered? According to Phillip Hodson, of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP), it is essential that pre-abortion counselling is ‘freely available, independent, unbiased and ethical’. But, he adds: ‘Counsellors should never give advice. Pressuring a client to a particular course of action is fundamentally unethical and a contradiction of our profession.’
My first call was to Marie Stopes, a nationwide network of sexual health clinics that provide private and NHS abortions. They claim to allow women ‘access to comprehensive, impartial and non-judgmental information’ and all counsellors are members of BACP.
On the phone, the operator repeatedly tried to book me in for a medical assessment, the first step to getting an abortion — despite me stressing that I hadn’t yet made up my mind. I felt bulldozed into starting the termination process and had to insist on having counselling. In real life, a worried woman might have gone along with whatever she was told.
When contacted later, a Marie Stopes spokeswoman admitted their adviser was ‘slower to understand the client’s needs than we would have liked, but we are pleased that after contacting our One Call service, face-to-face counselling was provided’.
That counselling session took place the next day in Bloomsbury, central London. It cost £80 for just 30 minutes, but would have been free had I been referred by my GP.
It quickly became apparent that my counsellor, Temi, was quite happy to influence my decisions. Her overwhelming advice was that I ‘must’ tell my boyfriend, even though there is no legal requirement to do so. She was openly disapproving when I said I hadn’t spoken to him, and seemed reluctant to talk about any option other than termination. ‘There’s a huge danger to your relationship,’ she said. ‘If you did have an abortion without telling him ..... you could end up resenting him for something he knows nothing about.’
Questioned about the size of the foetus, or the risks of infertility caused by abortion, she said ‘You’ll have to talk to a nurse about that’, or ‘I don’t have the exact statistics’.
Nevertheless, the message seemed very much to be that abortion was the best option. ‘It goes against our very nature to have an abortion,’ she said. ‘But we do things every day that go against our very nature.’ This was followed by: ‘You want what you want ....... is it worth having a child because you don’t want to deal with a bit of guilt?’
I asked about medical abortions (taking pills which encourage the foetus to be miscarried). She said they could leave a woman ‘in agony’ — but did not point out that, as a private clinic, Marie Stopes are not able to give a medical abortion after nine weeks.
The session came to an abrupt end after 29 minutes and I left not knowing the medical or emotional side-effects of abortion. Keeping the baby was not seen as an option at all. I thanked my lucky stars that I wasn’t scared and pregnant for real.
British abortion rules to be tightened in biggest shake-up for a generation
The Department of Health is to announce plans for a new system of independent counselling for women before they finally commit to terminating a pregnancy. The move is designed to give women more “breathing space”.
Pro-life campaigners suggest the change could result in up to 60,000 fewer abortions each year in Britain. Last year, 202,400 were carried out.
The plan would introduce a mandatory obligation on abortion clinics to offer women access to independent counselling, to be run on separate premises by a group which does not itself carry out abortions.
Critics of abortion clinics claim that the counselling they offer is biased because they are run as businesses — a claim denied by the clinics.
But abortion charities said they feared the proposals would prolong the period before an abortion took place, and that the motive was simply to reduce the number of terminations and was not in the best interests of women.
The proposed change comes ahead of a Commons vote, due to take place next week, on amendments to a public health Bill put forward by Nadine Dorries, a backbench Conservative MP.
The amendments would prevent private organisations which carry out terminations — such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) — from offering pre-abortion counselling. Women would instead be offered free access to independent counsellors.
The vote would be the first on the laws around abortion since the Coalition took power. A previous attempt to change the law — to reduce the time limit for abortions from 24 to 20 weeks — was defeated in a free vote in 2008. Ministers appear keen to avoid another such vote. They believe that announcing the consultation on independent counselling will prevent it going ahead.
The plan does not mean pre-abortion counselling will be mandatory — something which is vehemently opposed by pro-choice groups and which has been a flashpoint in parts of the United States.
A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “We are currently developing proposals to introduce independent counselling for women seeking abortion. These proposals are focused on improving women’s health and wellbeing. Final decisions on who should provide this counselling have not yet been made.”
Proposals under discussion would involve withdrawing payments made by the taxpayer to abortion clinics for counselling women.
Mrs Dorries, a former nurse, claims abortion providers are not independent because they have a vested interest in conducting abortions. Last year, Marie Stopes and Bpas carried out about 100,000 terminations and were paid about £60 million to do so, mostly through the NHS.
Mrs Dorries said she had hoped that her proposed amendments to the health Bill would prompt the Government into taking the kind of action which it has now done.
Frank Field, a Labour MP, said: “I’m anxious that taxpayers’ money is used so that people can have a choice — we are paying for independent counselling and that’s what should be provided.”
Ann Furedi, the chief executive of Bpas, said if her organisation was prevented from advising women about terminations it could be impossible to gain informed consent, as the independent counselling was not compulsory.
The failure of British schools to teach history has helped create a wider crisis of identity
History is the most inescapable of subjects: we inherit it, we make it, and we are fated to become part of it. In our education system, however, its study is increasingly neglected: indeed, in a large number of British schools, the end of history is already a reality.
Last year, a total of 159 secondary schools did not put a single pupil forward for history GCSE. In state comprehensives, the number of pupils taking the subject has fallen to 29.9 per cent; in private schools, it has dipped to 47.7 per cent. The only sector where numbers are rising is state grammars, where it is taken by 54.8 per cent.
What the statistics suggest is that the least well-off pupils are also fated to be the most ignorant both of their personal cultural history, and that of the country in which they live. This is, in part, because history is perceived as a “hard” subject. Eager to shine in the league tables, schools with an academically problematic intake shepherd pupils towards “softer” subjects, in which higher marks can more easily be guaranteed. I cannot think of a more depressing illustration of the gulf between “performance” and education.
The pitiful irony is that it is children from poorer, and often more dysfunctional backgrounds that have the greatest need – and thirst – for history. For history, whether of family or nation, is the story of identity, the construction of which is the most primitive, deep-seated urge there is. If you cannot articulate where you came from or what you believe in, and are given few intellectual or emotional tools with which to do so, you are fated to become the most unstable, combustible human material of all.
For an example, one need only look to the recent riots, and that memorable moment in Hackney when a furious 45-year-old grandmother and jazz singer, Pauline Pearce, confronted young rioters against a background of blazing cars. “Get real, black people,” she admonished them, “We’re not all gathering together and fighting for a cause, we’re running down Foot Locker and stealing shoes.”
The difference between Miss Pearce and the rioters – beyond their immediate activities – was that she had a strong conception of history from which she drew evident pride. She spoke of “black people” fighting for a “cause”, words undoubtedly informed by her consciousness of the US civil rights movement and the teachings of Martin Luther King.
In her eyes, the rioters were not simply demeaning themselves as individuals, but shaming a political history that demanded greater dignity. The frenzied youths around her, in contrast, were purely creatures of the moment, and the moment demanded that they seize a pair of looted trainers.
That scene points to a bigger argument: in poorer black communities in both the US and Britain, the hope-filled language of civil rights, rooted in communal experience and holding out the promise of a better future, has too often been displaced in popular culture by the glorification of gangs, drugs, sex and easy money, with little philosophy beyond the buzz of the now. The destructive results of this abandonment of history apply equally to the white working class.
What surprised me, when I became a parent for the first time, is the open craving of small children for family stories. They frequently revisit them, asking for repetitions and expansions, gathering the information in a way that suggests it is almost as necessary to their growth as food.
Now imagine that your own history is something from which you can derive only pain: a story of neglect from the adults around you, of violence, crime or addiction. How then do you describe or construct your identity? For those who are given a strong understanding of national, local, or political history, it can – if taught with imagination – provide an alternative blueprint not only for behaviour, but also pride.
We cannot elude history, but we ignore it at our peril. Cicero argued that “to remain ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child”. If history in schools seems impenetrable, it’s because we’re not teaching it properly – but let’s not deny its lessons to those who need them most.
British government minister attacks 'short-termist' plan for pylons
Greenie versus Greenie
Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, has said that the Government’s energy policy is “short-termist” and will blight areas of natural beauty with huge and expensive pylons.
Dr Fox is opposing plans for pylons to be built across his North Somerset constituency as part of a new transmission line from the Hinkley power station to Avonmouth.
Campaigners say that the 150-ft pylons will unnecessarily damage some of the country’s most attractive areas.
Similar transmission lines also are planned in Suffolk, Kent, Cumbria, north Wales and the Scottish Highlands, to transmit power from the new generation of nuclear power stations and new wind farms.
Dr Fox has written to Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat energy secretary, arguing that it would be cheaper to bury the power lines under ground, or to re-route the line under the sea.
The National Grid has said that the initial costs of burying power lines would be prohibitively expensive, but Dr Fox is arguing that in the long term, it is pylons that are more costly.
Buried lines require less maintenance than overhead lines, Dr Fox told his colleague, in a letter sent in June.
He cited calculations from independent engineers suggesting that over 40 years, the Somerset pylons would cost £1.1 billion, while a buried power line could cost half that.
“If we are to have credible green credentials then the decision needs to be taken on more than short-term economics ignoring the environmental impact in the longer term,” Dr Fox wrote.
Mr Huhne’s Department for Energy and Climate Change declined to comment. A National Grid report on the costs of alternatives to pylons is due out later this year.
Dr Fox is not the first Cabinet minister to oppose a major infrastructure project for constituency reasons.
Cheryl Gillan, the Welsh secretary, has hinted she is prepared to quit over the Government’s planned high-speed rail link, which would pass through her Chesham and Amersham seat in Buckinghamshire.
Words like "meltdown" or "brain-dead" are sometimes used as a form of emphasis rather than as a literal description of anything. But you cannot use "holocaust" that way in Britain, apparently
Football pundit Tony Cascarino triggered an angry reaction on Twitter on Sunday after he described a player as having a "holocaust" of a game.
Discussing defender Armand Traore's performance on the pitch, Cascarino said: "Poor Traore at right back is having a holocaust because he's finding himself against (United winger) Nani, who's literally running him from everywhere and (Arsenal midfielder Andrey) Arshavin's just not tracking his runners."
Angry fans immediately hit out at his comments on Twitter. One user wrote: "Tony Cascarino should be sacked on the spot. He said an Arsenal defender was having a "holocaust". Appallingly ignorant."
Another micro-blogger branded the comment "horrendous", adding: "I hope Tony Cascarino is dealt with appropriately."
Sky Sports News said presenter Natalie Sawyer had apologised straightaway for Cascarino's remarks. It said in a statement: "Tony Cascarino made his comments in the heat of the moment. An immediate apology on behalf of Tony and Sky Sports was made on air as soon as possible for any offence caused."
As everybody knows, I am a strong supporter of Israel but I am inclined to see this as just another kneejerk from the perpetually offended.
Technically, "meltdown" "brain-dead", "holocaust" and "kneejerk" are all used as metaphors and metaphors have a distinguished literary history
29 August, 2011
'Devastating divide': English patients THREE times more likely to get cancer drugs than those in Wales and Scotland
A ‘devastating divide’ has opened up between England, Scotland and Wales when it comes to accessing cancer drugs, campaigners say. People in England are much more likely to get drugs their doctors think might work for them than those living in Scotland or Wales, according to analysis by the Rarer Cancers Foundation (RCF).
Using the Freedom of Information Act, the RCF gathered data from health trusts in England on the types of drugs approved through the Government's cancer drugs fund. The fund, worth £200 million a year, was set up for patients in England to access drugs approved by their doctors but which have not been given the go-ahead for widespread use on the NHS.
The data was then compared with exceptional case approvals for the same drugs in Scotland and Wales.
The analysis suggests that patients in England are three times more likely to access key cancer drugs as those in Scotland, and five times as likely as those in Wales.
Andrew Wilson, chief executive of the RCF, said: ‘The cancer drugs fund is great news for people in England and has already benefited thousands of patients. ‘However, a devastating divide has opened up with Scotland and Wales.
‘A cancer drug does not become any less effective simply because it is prescribed on the other side of a border. ‘Nor does a patient's need become any less pressing. ‘The NHS should be there when you need it the most, regardless of where you live. ‘People in Scotland and Wales will want to know why their chances of accessing a life-extending cancer drug are so much lower than their neighbours in England.’
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said the report would be carefully considered.
‘Scotland has robust, equitable and transparent arrangements for the introduction of newly-licensed clinically and cost-effective medicines through the Scottish Medicines Consortium and Healthcare Improvement Scotland which operate independently from the Scottish Government,’ she added.
‘These focus on equity of access to newly-licensed drugs throughout Scotland, on the basis of their clinical and cost-effectiveness.
‘These arrangements include flexibility for additional factors to be taken into account in prescribing decisions, such as opportunities for local clinically-led consideration of SMC 'not recommended' medicines for individual patients in certain circumstances.’
Unlike many of my comrades in the punditry game, I don't do a lot of TV. But I'm currently promoting my latest doom-mongering bestseller so I'm spending more time than usual on the telly circuit. This week I was on the BBC's current-affairs flagship "Newsnight." My moment in the spotlight followed a report on the recent riots in English cities, in the course of which an undercover reporter interviewed various rioters from Manchester who'd had a grand old time setting their city ablaze and expressed no remorse over it. There then followed a studio discussion, along the usual lines. The host introduced a security guard who'd fought for Queen and country in Afghanistan and Bosnia and asked whether he sympathized with his neighbors. He did. When you live in an "impoverished society," he said, "people do what they have to do to survive."
When we right-wing madmen make our twice-a-decade appearance on mainstream TV, we're invariably struck by how narrow are the bounds of acceptable discourse in polite society. But in this instance I was even more impressed by how liberal pieties triumph even over the supposed advantages of the medium. Television, we're told, favors strong images – Nixon sweaty and unshaven, Kennedy groomed and glamorous, etc. But, in this instance, the security guard's analysis, shared by three-quarters of the panel, was entirely at odds with the visual evidence: There was no "impoverished society." The preceding film had shown a neat subdivision of pleasant red-brick maisonettes set in relatively landscaped grounds. There was grass, and it looked maintained. Granted, it was not as bucolic as my beloved New Hampshire, but, compared to the brutalized concrete bunkers in which the French and the Swedes entomb their seething Muslim populations, it was nothing to riot over. Nonetheless, someone explained that these riotous Mancunian youth were growing up in "deprivation," and the rioters themselves seemed disposed to agree. Like they say in "West Side Story," "I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived." We've so accepted the correlation that we don't even notice that they're no longer deprived, but they are significantly more depraved.
Why is evil paedophile 'The Beast of Sligo' free to roam British streets despite being jailed for 238 years?
One of Britain's most notorious paedophiles - dubbed the Beast of Sligo- is back on the streets and free to mingle with children and families. Irishman Joseph McColgan, 69 was spotted among families at a car boot sale in Plymouth, Devon
Evil McColgan was jailed for a record 238 years for repeatedly raping and beating his own children. He served just nine years before he was released. But in June 2010 when he was locked up again for 30 months for possessing child pornography. He has now been released early on licence before serving even half of his latest sentence.
McColgan is staying at the Lawson House bail hostel in Plymouth - directly opposite one of the city's main colleges. But he was tight lipped about his future and whether he would be staying in Devon - where he lived for some time after being released from Dublin's Arbour Hill jail. He said: 'I cannot talk about it. I am on parole. 'I don't know where I will live. I cannot talk to you.'
Among other offences, McColgan attempted to force his then nine-year-old son to have sex with his seven-year-old daughter. He also abused all four of his children with cattle prods and burning them.
But the evil paedophile was seen happily chatting to youngsters and adults at the car boot sale. He spoke with one young man as he tried to buy some spanners for his old bike and looked at stalls selling children's toys. Shoppers looking for a bargain were unaware of McColgan's notoriety as he potted around on his own before cycling back to the bail hostel.
Before his latest jail term handed out at Exeter Crown Court in June 2010, McColgan had been living in a small block of flats in the seaside town of Exmouth, east Devon. His home was yards away from a primary school and his immediate neighbours were unaware of his vile past - along with parents of young children who played in the street nearby. They were shocked when they discovered who he was and his horrific offending.
When Judge Graham Cottle jailed him at Exeter, he told McColgan: 'You are quite clearly a very dangerous man. 'You are a danger to children and upon your release I very much hope that you are supervised to the highest possible level by the authorities. 'If that is not put in place then children will continue to be at serious risk from you and your activities.'
Detective Constable Steve Harris, of Devon and Cornwall police, said McColgan was an arrogant man who could not accept his offending.
Yesterday McColgan was true to form branding those who made claims against him that he was grooming or watching children as 'liars'.
A National Offender Management Service spokesperson told the Mail Online today:'Sex offenders who are released from prison on licence will be supervised by the Probation Service and police in the community, such offenders are subject to strict licence conditions and can be recalled to custody if they breach their licence conditions.'
Nigerian fraudster allowed to stay in Britain under human rights laws
A foreign criminal who was jailed for his role in a £1 million benefits fraud has used human rights laws to avoid being deported. Philip Olawale Omotunde took part in a elaborate scam which involved claiming social security pay-outs for fictional disabled babies.
The Home Office tried to deport the Nigerian but he won the right to stay in Britain after arguing it would breach his "right to private and family life" to separate him from his six-year-old son - who was going to a school 12 miles away from where his father lived.
Extraordinarily he should not have been in the country in the first place. Omotunde came to Britain as a visitor in 1991, when he was 28, and overstayed his visa. The Home Office made a decision to deport him in 1996 but no action was taken. The last Labour government granted him indefinite leave to remain under a "regularisation scheme" in 2002.
Omotunde's case highlights the way the "family life" rules under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights are being used to overturn the government's efforts to throw foreign crooks out of the country.
Since immigration judges made their decision in May this year, he has been sent to jail again for offences relating to his failure to pay a £45,000 confiscation order for his part in the benefits fraud.
Dominic Raab, a Tory MP who is campaigning to reform Article 8, said: "The judges are using the Human Rights Act to bar deportation in a rapidly increasing number of cases where the government want to deport serious criminals, on the basis that it may disrupt their family relations. "That undermines public protection. It must be for elected and lawmakers to set policy in this area, not unaccountable judges."
The use of the act is currently under review as part of a Home Office consultation.
Omotunde, 48, was part of an organised crime gang which stole British people's names, dates of birth and National Insurance numbers to commit a complex web of frauds. He had already been convicted in 2006 of working as an illegal taxi tout, and fined £100.
The fraud ring set up false addresses and bank accounts to extract hundreds of thousands of pounds per month from the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) tax credits system. The ring claimed tax credits for fake disabled babies aged under one.
After his conviction the Home Office served notice on Omotunde that he was liable to be deported because his son, who was born in April 2005, was young enough to adapt to life in Nigeria. Omotunde appealed to the immigration tribunal.
His lawyers told the tribunal he was the "dominant carer" for his young son, who lived in Lewisham, south-east London - even though at the time the child was going to school 12 miles away in Fulham, on the other side of London. He claimed the child was not being looked after by its mother, who at the time was also an illegal immigrant, but by her sister and a "team" which included two "pastors".
The tribunal refused to overturn the deportation order, but five days after their decision the Home Office granted Omotunde's son British citizenship, a move which strengthened the criminal's argument that he could not be separated from his family. He brought a new appeal to senior judges - headed by Mr Justice Blake - who ruled that the son cannot now be deported and it would be unreasonable to expect him to move to Nigeria.
"In all the circumstances of the appellant's case and the best interests of his child we do not consider that the interference with the family and private life can be justified by the public interest identified in this case," said the immigration judges. "Deportation of the appellant would not be a proportionate measure and is not a fair balance between the competing interests."
He is currently serving 16 months at Verne prison on the Isle of Portland in Dorset, but when freed he will be allowed to remain in Britain indefinitely.
Omotunde and his fellow criminals made 200 false claims using 88 web-based bank accounts during a five-month period in 2004. Omotunde was one of four principal account holders, although the trial judge ruled he was not a central figure in the fraud. He was arrested in March 2007, convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud and conspiracy to transfer criminal property at Croydon Crown Court in June 2008.
Judges said Omotunde - also known by the first name "Wale" - was "drawn into the wrongdoing to the tune of about £41,600". Five other defendants received jail terms of between four and a half years and two years, while a sixth was given a 14 month suspended sentence.
When The Sunday Telegraph contacted relatives of Omotunde about his case he telephoned from prison just over an hour later. He declined to comment on the case. It is unclear how Omotunde's relatives were able to send a message to the inmate so promptly, because mobile telephones and email are banned in jails.
The Sunday Telegraph has also discovered that Omotunde, who lives in Lewisham, south-east London, was registered as the sole director of an events planning company, Lawiomot Magnificus Ventures Ltd, in August 2010, just over two years after he was jailed. There is nothing to prevent anyone convicted of fraud setting up a company in this way.
Next lot of British High School exam results will 'mark end of Labour Party's grade inflation'
GCSE results out today will signal the end to decades of relentless ‘grade inflation’ as rigour is returned to the education system, experts believe. Teenagers receiving their results will pass close to a quarter of their exams at grades A or A* – three times the number of those receiving As two decades ago – before the A* was introduced.
But although the grades will be the best in the exam’s history, they will show only a minor improvement compared with previous years. And assessment experts believe pass rates and rates of top grades will eventually plateau in 2012 before falling in 2013.
The ‘significant slowdown’ – after 23 years of rampant increases – marks the end of Labour’s ‘we shall all have prizes’ culture, and has been attributed to measures designed to end the dumbing-down of exams.
In the past year, the culture of endless re-sits has been axed, easy-to-plagiarise course work slashed and exam boards made to penalise pupils for poor spelling and grammar. Under Labour, pupils could score an A* in
More pupils this year have sat tougher subjects following the Coalition’s attempt to remove a ‘perverse incentive’ for schools to teach pupils soft, easy-to-pass subjects.
Previously, a BTEC in ICT was considered equivalent to four GCSEs for the purpose of league table performance. The end of grade inflation at GCSE mirrors the halt in A-level inflation seen last week. Although overall A-level pass rates improved very slightly, the proportion of top grades awarded stagnated.
Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, said the results herald the end of ‘grade inflation’. He added: ‘A chief factor could be the attitudes of examiners who saw it as their duty, under Labour, to help the Government achieve its targets by awarding top grades to more teens. But now the Coalition is in power the focus has shifted from targets to rigour.
‘The Government has also introduced measures to make exams more tough, such as ending the culture of re-sits.’
Some 750,000 teenagers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are receiving GCSE grades today. Overall almost 70 per cent will have an A* to C, 23 per cent an A* or A, and close to 8 per cent an A*.
The results will also show the gender gap is closing, largely due to the scrapping of course work. Girls tend to work ‘harder and more consistently’ than boys, Prof Smithers said, and therefore score higher in course work, now replaced by ongoing assessment by teachers.
For years Labour had been accused of dumbing-down GCSEs. When the A* was first awarded in 1994, just 2.9 per cent of pupils achieved it compared with 8 per cent now. In 1994, 12.9 per cent scored an A or A*, compared with 23 per cent now.
General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers Russell Hobby, said: ‘Grade inflation was a symptom of extremely high stakes. Everyone has been involved in gaming the system, from politicians to exam boards, to teachers to pupils. But when this is done a lot is sacrificed.’
A Government source said: ‘We’re restoring rigour to GCSEs by getting rid of modules and reintroducing marks for spelling and grammar that Labour disgracefully removed.’
The sentence highlighted in red below makes the whole thing a bit of a laugh
It's the news that chocoholics have been waiting for - a bar of the dark stuff is officially good for your health. It has long been believed that a small amount of cocoa-rich dark chocolate can be beneficial because of its high antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
But a major study has now suggested that eating large amounts of chocolate could also be associated with a one-third reduction in the risk of developing heart disease. It backs up the results of earlier studies that generally agree on a potential positive link between eating chocolate and heart health.
Dr Oscar Franco, from the University of Cambridge, carried out a large scale review of the existing evidence to see the effects of eating chocolate on heart attacks and strokes. He analysed the results of seven studies, which had involved more than 100,000 people with and without existing heart disease.
For each study, he compared the group with the highest chocolate consumption against the group with the lowest. Differences in study design and quality were also taken into account to minimise bias.
Five studies reported a beneficial link between higher levels of chocolate consumption and the risk of cardiovascular events. They found that the 'highest levels of chocolate consumption were associated with a 37 per cent reduction in cardiovascular disease and a 29 per cent reduction in stroke compared with lowest levels'.
No significant reduction was found in relation to heart failure.
The studies did not differentiate between dark or milk chocolate and included consumption of chocolate bars, drinks, biscuits and desserts. But despite the findings, he said they should be taken 'with caution', and will now look at whether other factors could explain the positive effects.
He also advised people to be careful which chocolate they chose to eat. This was because, in particular, commercially available chocolate is high in calories - around 500 calories for every 100 grams - and eating too much of it could lead to weight gain and put eaters at risk of diabetes and heart disease.
The findings, published in the British Medical Journal, are due to be presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress in Paris today.
The World Health Organisation predicts that by 2030, nearly 23.6 million people will die from heart disease.
Extraordinary bureaucratic madness: Nurses’ uniforms that ban patients from trying to speak to them
A row has broken out over a hospital trust’s decision to give nurses ‘Do Not Disturb’ uniforms to wear during routine ward duties to prevent patients from speaking to them. When nurses are wearing the bright red tabards, patients have to address any concerns to care assistants, who do not have clinical qualifications.
The hospital says interruptions, such as patients asking questions about toilets and meal times, stop nurses from doing their jobs properly and could lead to patients being given the wrong medication.
But Joyce Robins, from campaign group Patient Concern, described the initiative as ‘grotesque and ridiculous’. She said: ‘If you’re a nurse and you can’t do more than one thing at a time, you’re a pretty hopeless nurse. It sends patients completely the wrong message.
‘They already see nurses as too important to disturb or too lazy to help and you’re very vulnerable lying there in a hospital bed when your buzzer doesn’t work and no one comes. ‘Often the drug round is the only time you see a nurse to talk to them. Now these red tabards will send out a further “get off me” signal. ‘It’s grotesque and ridiculous.’
After a successful trial at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, the uniforms are being introduced for staff nurses and matrons in hospitals across the country, to be worn during drug rounds on wards.
During these times, patients will be encouraged not to speak to the nurses. Instead, they will have to address concerns unrelated to their medication to care assistants, who will accompany their more senior colleagues on their rounds. The red tabards are worn on top of a nurse’s uniform and have large white print on the front, which reads: ‘Do Not Disturb. Drug Round in Progress.’
In March, a pilot scheme trialled the tabards on two wards at the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital in Margate, Kent. One nurse said: ‘What we do when interrupted is simply turn round to face the patient and point to the words. ‘I don’t have to say anything and it’s amazing how successful a few simple words have been in rectifying a very serious situation.’
The uniforms were considered so successful by staff that the hospital is buying 500 tabards at a cost of £15,000 so they can be rolled out across the trust’s 58 wards. The money will also be used to buy different coloured tabards for nurses carrying out auditing and nutritional work, and buying safety boxes for patients to keep valuables in.
The uniforms have also been rolled out at hospitals in Middlesex, Colchester, Cardiff, Aberdeen and Derby. A study that examined whether they worked was carried out at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.
The research team found the average number of interruptions was reduced from six to five after the tabards were introduced – a difference it described as ‘significant’. It also found a slight reduction in the number of errors made over the five-week period of the study compared with the previous year.
According to the National Patient Safety Agency, getting the wrong medication is one of the most common errors made in hospitals.The hospital watchdog, the Care Quality Commission, is aware of the initiative and supports it.
Penny Searle, ward manager at Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital, said the tabards allowed nurses to be more ‘productive’ and helped them ‘work efficiently’. She said: ‘We cannot change the workload, but we can change the way we address it. ‘Nurses need to be able to concentrate and interact with the patients they are working with at any given time. ‘If we get distracted, whether that’s from other care professionals, staff or visitors, we can’t concentrate and interact with the person we’re giving medicine to.
‘I can see that people might think we’re stopping communication, but what we’re trying to do is not limit interactions but minimise them.
‘If a patient suddenly collapses, we wouldn’t carry on with the drug round.’ Mrs Searle added: ‘It’s not that someone can’t interrupt, but we’re trying to minimise the times that happens.’
Immigration to Britain is no longer taboo – but tackling it still is
The Coalition has merely tinkered with the rules on who gets into Britain, rather than taking real action.
Immigration used to be the great unmentionable. If anyone pointed out the rate at which it was increasing, and the problems for infrastructure, education and the NHS of adding two million people to our population every decade, they were accused of being racist. I know: it happened to me.
It was an effective way of preventing the topic from being discussed, and was frequently used by Labour ministers for precisely that purpose. But at the last election, it was impossible to prevent the issue – which everyone knew was one of the most important for voters – from being raised. The Tories came up with measures that they promised would diminish the number of immigrants, to which the Lib Dems, when they became partners in government, reluctantly agreed.
So it must have been depressing for the Conservative members of the Coalition to see last week’s Office for National Statistics figures, which showed that, far from going down, net immigration (the number of foreigners settling in Britain minus the number of Britons leaving) has risen by 20 per cent, to reach 239,000.
Those statistics are, admittedly, from 2010, when the Coalition’s policies had not yet been implemented. And the net increase is entirely the result of a reduction in the number of Britons leaving the country, rather than an increase in the number of immigrants arriving.
Nevertheless, the figures still raise the delicate question of whether the Coalition’s policies will actually succeed in reducing immigration. The first thing to note is that they certainly could do so. Nick Clegg was simply wrong when he insisted that controls are pointless, because most of the people who settle in the UK are from countries in the EU. In fact, 80 per cent of migrants to Britain are from outside the EU, so there is no legal barrier to restricting significantly the number who are allowed to settle. Nothing, in principle, stops the Government from putting effective controls in place. The difficulties are essentially practical.
So the real question is this: how badly do ministers want to cut immigration? The Lib Dems certainly don't want to do anything: they are frank about regarding controls as either economically damaging or blatantly racist. The Tories say they’re committed to achieving dramatic cuts. But so far, the Coalition hasn’t done more than tinker around the edges of the system – as Damian Green, the immigration minister, must have known, even as he said on Thursday that ministers had initiated “radical changes”.
Around half of the immigrants who arrive each year are foreign students and their dependants. The Coalition’s new regulations require students to speak English, and to provide evidence that they can support themselves and the family members who come with them. It’s a start – but it’s not a “radical change”. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, claims that the rules will reduce the number of students and their relatives by 80,000. But no one knows how easy it will be to evade the new controls. They will be based largely on form-filling: if you tick the right boxes, you will get your visas. Our judges may anyway declare the new procedure by violation of human rights: the decision in a case that will test whether the Government can refuse to let an Indian man, who can’t speak English and refuses to learn, join his wife here is expected soon.
The Coalition also plans to end the link between being given a permit to work in the UK and having the right to settle here. That could diminish immigration significantly. The problem is that the proposal is just that: a proposal, not a policy. It is subject to consultation, a process which may enfeeble it. Whether it will be implemented at all remains to be seen.
The Conservatives have broken the taboo on discussing immigration. But what is still not being discussed are the practical measures that will be effective in diminishing it. That topic is still off limits – which means that it is surrounded by confusion, half-truths and spin. And that is not good for immigration policy. Or for democracy.
British counter terrorism officer sues London cops over De Menezes 'cover-up'
It is a disgrace that nobody was found guilty of anything in this matter. This gives hope that the truth may finally come out.
I have a pretty good idea what is involved. The openly Lesbian and rather aptly-named Cressida Dick was in charge of the operation. Her incompetence at controlling it caused the disaster. But because she is a "minority", she must be protected.
She was clearly promoted beyond her level of competence on "affirmative action" grounds so those who promoted her also need protection.
In my observation, Lesbians tend to be overconfident and often give the impression that they are more competent than they in fact are -- leading to others having to bail them out when they get it wrong. Exactly that would seem to be going on now
A Christian counter-terrorism officer involved in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes is suing the Metropolitan Police over allegations that senior officers tried to cover-up vital evidence.
He says his faith compelled him to blow the whistle and he is now claiming thousands of pounds for loss of overtime pay and promotions after Special Branch bosses allegedly sidelined him.
One allegation involves anti-terror officers perverting justice by replacing a chief inspector with another to give more favourable evidence at the 2008 inquest into de Menezes’s death.
An inquest jury returned an open verdict into the shooting of the 27-year-old Brazilian who was mistaken for a suicide bomber in 2005 – rejecting the police view that he was killed lawfully.
The detective sergeant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, first made his concerns known after he gave evidence under a codename at the inquest.
Two more serious concerns were reported about issues within the Met Police’s counter-terrorism department, known as SO15, last December that form the main part of his tribunal case.
He is also suing for religious discrimination and loss of earnings.
A senior source said: ‘The allegations are about such a sensitive subject that top brass are very worried about what could come out in a tribunal.’ ‘As this has been going on for such a long-time he was moved to another department and believes that his career was stalled because he spoke out.’
Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head at Stockwell Underground Station in South London after police mistook him for bomber Hussain Osman.
He was killed on July 22, 2005, the day after Osman and three fellow terrorists had gone on the run after trying to bomb the Tube in a follow-up attack to the July 7 London bombings which killed 52 and injured 977.
The jury at the inquest on the Brazilian electrician rejected the account of police marksmen, branding them ‘liars’, and sided with Tube passengers who said the officers failed to issue a warning before opening fire.
They returned an open verdict, which was the most strongly critical option available to them after the judge instructed them there was insufficient evidence to rule that de Menezes was unlawfully killed by police.
The Crown Prosecution Service ruled out criminal charges against anti-terror officers in 2006 and after the inquest in 2009. The Met was instead fined £175,000 under health and safety laws.
The Independent Police Complaints Commision has investigated one of the detective sergeant’s claims finding no evidence to support the allegation.
An IPCC spokesman said: ‘We received a referral from the Metropolitan Police Service on 4 January 2011, as a result of an allegation made by a detective sergeant to the Directorate of Professional Standards in December 2010. The allegation had also been the subject of employment tribunal proceedings.
‘The IPCC independently investigated the allegation, examining statements given to the Employment Tribunal and interviewing key people involved. The decision to call the DCI was made by counsel on the basis that he was better able to answer the questions. ‘The investigation found that there was no evidence to support the Detective Sergeant’s allegation.’
A Met spokesman said: ‘The Metropolitan Police Service can confirm that it has received two employment tribunal claims from a Detective Sergeant lodged at London Central employment tribunal offices.’
Rachel’s post yesterday got me thinking about university education. Like many, I’m coming to think of it as being the next big bubble. Money is being ploughed into it higher education, and for many – probably most – people, it’s just not worth it. We’ve become afflicted by acute credentialism: to be taken seriously in many professions, you need a couple of letters after your name.
What’s wrong with this? Well, for a start, it makes it harder to break into new jobs. Credentialism raises barriers to entry, and protects certain professions from competition. (Incidentally, occupational licensure – which I consider to be one of the great evils of our time – is worse.) Moreover, it increases the penalties for making bad decisions. Did you spend your teenage years getting drunk and skipping class? Well, sorry, you’ve ruined your life because you can’t get the degree from that Russell Group university that you needed so you could do the job you wanted to do. And God help you if you chose art history instead of accounting on your UCAS form.
Worst of all, credentialism forces people in education to conform so that they get the grades they need. School and university are the two places in people’s lives where freethinking and contrarianism can thrive; where being brilliantly wrong is better than being boringly correct. When your on-paper performance matters so much to your future job prospects, this becomes more difficult. As a result, university becomes more like a training course and less like the thoughtful, argument-filled Academy that it should be.
In a speech at Oxford Brookes University last June, David Willetts said that more than 50% of degree courses were "license to practice" courses. In fact, the true figure is likely to be a lot higher. By now, almost all university courses are credentialist training courses, even humanities and social sciences, because having letters after your name is now so important to finding a decent job.
How did we get here? Mostly, I blame government. Long ago, it was decided that education was the key to social mobility. Targets were set to get people into university, irrespective of their ability. That someone thought it a good idea to get 50% of school-leavers into university says it all – university was just an extension of mass schooling, and shunting as many people through it as possible was the key to making people smarter.
Where a bachelor’s degree once set people apart from the crowd, now it’s a master’s degree. Some day, I’m sure a PhD will be the minimum. Standards have fallen and costs have risen as the bubble grows. Once, everybody wanted to own expensive tulips. Today, people are putting their money into letters after their name. Bubbles are pointless, madness of crowds hysteria driven by easy money, and we're seeing one in education.
People use qualifications to signal their intelligence. It’s hard to show an employer that you’re smart, and a degree is like a good reference letter vouching for you to an employer. But forcing more and more people into university education has devalued that reference. Like trees competing for sunlight growing taller and taller, the credentials have become loftier and loftier to achieve the same ends. The bubble is growing. Someday, it will have to burst.
A long-awaited government report on green aviation policy has failed to endorse independent proposals for limiting the sector's rapidly growing emissions, to the dismay of green groups.
The government yesterday published its response to an analysis presented by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) in December 2009, which warned that air travel could not increase more than 60 per cent on 2005 levels by 2050 if the UK was to meet legally binding targets to reduce emissions 80 per cent by mid-century.
Yesterday's formal response from the Department for Transport (DfT) acknowledged the CCC was right to warn that aviation emissions would result in the breaching of the UK's legal emissions limits "without further action".
It said aviation emissions were likely to reach 49 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent a year by 2050, just above the CCC's projections, although it added they could reach as high as 59 million tonnes by the same date.
But yesterday's report gave little indication as to how the government will stop emissions rising to this level when it publishes its Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation document early next year.
Instead, the response concentrates on encouraging further responses to its March scoping document on sustainable aviation, the consultation deadline for which has been extended to 20 October.
The document also underlined the government's reluctance to limit airport capacity, suggesting that displacing air traffic to other countries would not only damage the UK economy, but lead to "less-efficient routing of passengers and cargo, with a consequential increase in global demand for aviation and hence CO2 emissions".
Airlines are fiercely opposed to measures designed to reduce demand and instead have agreed voluntary technical and efficiency improvements they say will begin to help curb emissions, while also increasing investment in emerging biofuel technologies.
In a foreword to the response, transport secretary Philip Hammond made clear that cutting emissions from the sector should not compromise growth.
"I believe that to present the challenge we face as one of deciding between economic growth and reducing carbon emissions is a false choice," he wrote. "This government is anti-carbon, not anti-aviation, and our goal is to find ways to meet our carbon reduction targets while supporting economic recovery."
However, green groups said the government should prioritise demand reduction policies such as making the most of available capacity, introducing carbon caps, shifting more people to trains for domestic and short-haul flights and promoting greater use of videoconferencing.
They add that jet biofuels should only come into play once these measures have been taken.
Jean Leston, acting head of transport policy at WWF-UK, said the government was showing "a worrying lack of commitment" to including aviation emissions in the Climate Change Act or setting a national reduction target.
NHS refuses to help little girl with a fixable disability
The NHS was supposed to be there when people had catastrophic ailments but that is precisely when they turn away
Side-by-side these adorable twins look identical. One of them, however, is wearing leg splints and can barely walk without a frame. That's because Isabella Platt suffers from a debilitating form of cerebral palsy. All she wants is 'new' pair of legs so she can do what she loves most - dance with her sister Gabriella.
But Isabella is having to fight for them - because she can't get the operation she needs on the NHS.
The fun-loving four-year-old was born with the condition and needs a frame to stand upright. Her parents have been warned she may never walk unaided - yet the help she needs is available.
Gabriella does her best to make life easier for her twin in the meantime. She wears the clumpiest, biggest black shoes her parents can find so Isabella doesn't feel left out with her corrective boots. And she holds her hands to keep Isabella upright when she struggles to keep her balance.
The family were offered a spinal procedure last May by a surgeon in Bristol. However, Isabella's family say she can't get it done on the NHS because of the strict selection criteria and large amount of aftercare required.
Now the family are fighting to raise £50,000 to go to America where a US surgeon's ground-breaking spinal surgery could promise to see Isabella fulfil her dreams.
Isabella had told her parents: 'I wish I could take my legs off I hate them. They're awful.'
Mother Stacey Platt, an air hostess from Preston, Lancashire, said: 'What I want for Izzy is for her to be happy and do what she wants. She wants to dance and run and ride her bike. 'I want to see her without the leg splints, I want her to be able to walk into a shoe store and get anything she wants.
'At an age where little girls want pink, sparkly shoes, she wears these ugly black ones. We get Gabby the clumpiest, blackest shoes we can find so that they're more similar. 'I think she understands why and she never ever complains. I've told them after the operation they can both get Lilly Kelly shoes. "When the advert for them comes on, they turn to me and say, "Mummy when Izzy gets her legs fixed we'll get these ones".'
'Gabby and Izzy are really close. I'm so glad she's got a twin sister to look after her. 'It gives her that extra support. If Gabby thinks anyone's being rough with her, she'll step in.
Stacey and husband, hairdresser Jason Platt, 47, discovered their daughter had spastic diplegia, a form of cerebral palsy, at 18 months after seeing numerous specialists.
'Gabby walked when she was one, but Izzy didn't sit up, roll over or move much. When we set her up on her legs against the bed her right ankle didn't look right. 'The GP said, "don't compare them just because they're twins". We went to see another consultant and they thought it was club foot. 'We went to see another one and he said it was flat feet.
'It was a junior doctor who said, when she was 18 months, "Has anyone mentioned cerebral palsy?" He said that after five minutes, after walking with her.'
How Izzy got the condition is a mystery - carried almost to full term at 38 and a half weeks, she weighed 6lb 4oz when she was born first, before Gabby born weighing 4lb 4oz. Both babies were healthy and crying. 'All the consultants and specialists don't know why she got the brain damage.' Stacey and Jason, who also have an eight-year-old son Charlie, filmed her first steps aged two and a half.
The family found out about the procedure in the US, called selective dorsal rhizotomy, when a family from Hyde went on the local news to show how well it had worked on their daughter.
It involves spinal surgery and lengthening of the leg muscles.
Stacey said: 'Since then, I've seen about 180 videos after joining a Facebook group with the families of children from all over the world who have had this surgery. 'He has 100 per cent success rate. There's nothing negative to say about it at all. The difference is amazing. He gets kids out of wheelchairs.'
She added: 'Overall it improves the qualities of life of the children who get it. The NHS could potentially offer it, but it would be after she's seven, but I'm worried that it will start to effect her more as she gets older.
'She's really happy, confident and smiley. But I'm worried that's going to start changing. On our last holiday when there were all the activities where people were standing on their feet she went and hid. 'It's starting to bother her a bit. She's a bit embarrassed about it now. If I'll be speaking to someone and she's with me, she'll hide her legs behind me. She's starting to become more shy about it now. I'm worried school might make it worse for her.'
The family have tentatively booked the trip out to the Center for Cerebral Palsy Spasticity in St Louis, Missouri for January 2012 for the surgery, which will include five weeks of rehabilitation. So far they have since raised £10,000 of the £50,000 they need since May.
I spent three years at Cambridge eating walnut cake, but don't let anyone tell you a degree is a waste of time
Tom Utley tells a jolly story below in his usual way but he is notably vague about the way in which university "enriched" his life. He makes it clear that it was not his studies. I suppose I must sound a dreadful swot but for me it was precisely the subjects I studied that I found enriching, with philosophy and economics being most so. I was quite active in student life but the only "extra-curricular" activity of which I have fond memories was my time in an army unit attached to the university. But many men have fond memories of their time in the army
Like so many other history graduates, I’ve found that one of the most useful phrases in the English language is: ‘Sorry, mate, not my period.’
I’ve used it countless times over the years when my sons have asked for help with their homework on the Tudors, or when arguments in the pub have turned to why exactly it was that a nation as apparently civilised as Germany turned so enthusiastically to Nazism in the Thirties. ‘You’re a historian, Tom. Tell us how it could have happened.’ ‘Sorry, mate, not my period.’
The truth (and whisper it quietly) is that I’ve long forgotten almost all the history I was taught during my three idyllic, and heavily subsidised, years at Cambridge in the early Seventies.
Indeed, I can only just recall what my period was — and I’m certainly not going to reveal it here and risk being grilled on it by my boys.
So just how much value is a university degree, in a subject as easily forgotten and with such few obvious practical applications as history?
Over the past fortnight, the question has been weighing heavily on the minds of tens of thousands of teenagers, including my youngest son (of whom more later), as their A-level results have come in and the scramble for the last remaining university places continues.
This year, the dilemma — degree or not degree? — has been thrown into sharper focus than ever by the prospect of tuition fees almost trebling to £9,000 a year from 2012.
For those who fail to find places this autumn, this will mean the truly agonising decision of whether to try again next year, when the price of a three-year course at most universities will rocket from £10,125 to £27,000, while a four-year course will cost a whopping £22,500 more at £36,000.
Rubbing the shine off a degree still further, the Office for National Statistics reports this week that one in five graduates actually earns less than the average of those who went straight into work from school with as little as a single A-level. And that figure takes no account of the many graduates who are currently unemployed or who have never worked.
Seen from another angle, of course, the ONS findings mean that four out of five graduates earn at least as much as less qualified school-leavers, while most earn considerably more.
But, at the same time, the figures do show that for a significant minority the Government’s oft-repeated claim that a degree is worth an extra £100,000 across a working life is pretty meaningless.
I think of my own eldest son, three years after he graduated from Edinburgh with a more-than-respectable 2:1 in Spanish, still working every hour God sends behind a bar in West London for little more than the minimum wage.
Or son number two, the idealist of the family, working for a charity in one of the most run-down parts of the Capital, teaching English to immigrants. If he spent three years studying for his 2:1 in English at Newcastle with a view to getting rich, he’s going a funny way about it.
But then I don’t suppose that when they made the decision to go to university, either of them gave a passing thought to the likely effect of a degree on their future earnings.
Quite right, too. For although a lucrative job may be an attractive by-product of a degree (in most cases), it isn’t really the point, is it?
Certainly, the financial value of a degree played no part at all in my calculations when I accepted Cambridge’s offer in 1972. I went partly because I was strongly attracted by the idea of postponing real life for three years — four, including my gap year — but, mostly, because I was lucky enough to have been to a school where it was simply assumed that everyone would go on to university.
Of course, the decision was very much more straightforward then than it is now, since the State was kind enough to pay my full tuition fees, together with a generous allowance for my food, drink and accommodation.
Indeed, unbelievable as it will sound to my sons’ generation, I graduated after three years with my bank account a few pounds in credit. But if you ask me now what was the point of the taxpayers’ largesse, or what they received in return for it, I’d be very hard pushed to tell you.
If I’d studied engineering, medicine or microbiology, I could probably make a convincing case that the investment was worthwhile, and that my studies had added to the gross domestic product or the general health of the nation. But history?
As I may have confessed before, a typical day for me at Cambridge would begin at about 3pm, long after the morning’s lectures were over, when I would crawl out of bed and make my way to Fitzbillies cake shop, opposite the Fitzwilliam Museum.
There, I would buy a large chocolate and walnut cake and take it back to my college, where I’d eat the whole thing. This would set me up for a stroll across the Cam to the history library, where I’d pretend to read for a while until opening time at the Eagle.
Then began hours of conviviality, which would generally end at three or four in the morning, after a Chinese takeaway, with a bottle of port in somebody else’s rooms.
Only once every seven days, on the eve of my supervision, would I have to break this shameful routine with a frantic all-night session, desperately bluffing my way through the weekly essay that was all that was required of me to keep my place.
True, throughout my working life I’ve paid many times more in tax than I received from the State during those three years.
But while it never did my job-hunting any harm to put MA (Hons) Cantab on my CV, I would be very hard pushed to claim that anything I learned at Cambridge added value to my future work.
Indeed, I’ve long been one of those irritating people — mostly graduates, I notice, since those without degrees tend to attach much greater value to them — who believe that too many young people go to universities these days, while for many of them it’s a waste of time and money.
With that thought in mind, I steeled myself for the worst last week, preparing comforting words for my youngest if he failed to get his grades. It wasn’t the end of the world, I was going to tell him. University really wasn’t all it’s cracked up to be — and it was certainly not a guaranteed passport to wealth. Just look at his two older brothers.
And yet, reader, he passed! And as soon as he broke the news that he’d achieved the grades he needed to get into Sheffield to read Spanish — and, yes, history — my heart fair burst with pride and happiness.
Suddenly, the joy of my three years at university flooded back to me. I realised that in countless intangible ways, those seemingly wasted years were the most hugely enriching time of my life — and that everything I’d been planning to tell the boy was rubbish.
To those who see a degree course as a path to making money, I would still advise caution — especially after the fees go up next year. And anyone considering some of the vaguer-sounding courses on offer, such as community development or social welfare, might do well to check the drop-out rates before starting to run up those massive loans.
But even if you forget the lot, you just can’t put a price on three or four years at a proper university, studying a proper subject such as history. And don’t believe any world-weary old fool who tells you otherwise.
Google chief says UK obsessed with 'luvvy' school subjects and calls for 'Victorian' return of science
The boss of Google last night criticised the British education system for its obsession with ‘luvvy’ subjects at the expense of science and engineering.
Dr Eric Schmidt called for a return to a ‘Victorian’ approach of bringing ‘art and science back together’ so that the UK can compete globally.
The internet giant’s executive chairman said there was a lack of students taking science and engineering in Britain and that something must be done to ‘reignite’ children’s passion for the subjects.
Giving the annual MacTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, he warned that the UK risks falling behind in the digital age unless it makes drastic changes.
The American tycoon said Britain was in danger of losing ground to other countries, despite being the birthplace of the TV and the computer.
‘Over the past century the UK has stopped nurturing its polymaths,’ he said. ‘There’s been a drift to the humanities – engineering and science aren’t championed. ‘Even worse, both sides seem to denigrate the other – to use what I’m told is the local vernacular, you’re either a “luvvy” or a “boffin”. ‘To change that you need to start with education. We need to reignite children’s passion for science, engineering and maths.’
Dr Schmidt, who is worth more than £4billion, said: ‘I was flabbergasted to learn that today computer science isn’t even taught as standard in UK schools. First: you need to bring art and science back together. Think back to the glory days of the Victorian era. It was a time when the same people wrote poetry and built bridges.’
In his lecture he praised British television as a success story but warned that ‘everything’ could still go wrong. ‘If I may be so impolite your track record isn’t great,’ he said. ‘The UK is home of so many media-related inventions.
‘You invented photography. You invented TV. You invented computers in both concept and practice. ‘It’s not widely known, but the world’s first office computer was built in 1951 by Lyon’s chain of tea shops. Yet today, none of the world’s leading exponents in these fields are from the UK.’
He said British businesses needed support to become world leaders, otherwise the UK would be the place ‘where inventions are born – but not bred for long-term success’.
Dr Schmidt, 56, who studied electrical engineering at Princeton University in New Jersey, joined Google in 2001 and was chief executive of the company until earlier this year. He is the first non-broadcaster to give the landmark lecture which is dedicated to the memory of actor and producer James MacTaggart.
In the past it has been delivered by some of the biggest names in broadcasting including Jeremy Paxman, Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch.
Dr Schmidt also confirmed plans to launch Google TV in the UK. British TV executives fear the arrival of Google TV, which allows viewers to get internet content on their TV screens, could hit their advertising revenue.
In his speech, Dr Schmidt apologised for not appreciating ‘other’s discomfort’ at the ‘disruption’ caused by Google’s position.
Such claims never seem to stop in Britain. At least they have the benefit of undermining feminist claims that women should always be believed about such things. Good that Britain puts them in jail too. The accusations are so heinous that they should in fact get the same sentence that the man would have got if convicted
Two friends who falsely claimed they were raped were jailed yesterday because the suspect had photos of them all having a threesome. Jennifer France, 24, and Kelly Weston, a 27-year-old mother, posed for saucy snaps on Enes Gozalan’s bed after meeting him in a pub.
A court heard they later made the false allegations because both had long-term boyfriends and were ashamed of what they had done.
Their 30-year-old victim was arrested and kept in custody for 18 hours because the pair claimed they had been raped multiple times.
As soon as Mr Gozalan was arrested, he produced his mobile phone and told officers he had photos to prove his innocence. He later told detectives: ‘The photographs show the girls were having a good time. I do not understand why they would make up something so nasty.’
Carolyn Branford-Wood, prosecuting, told Southampton Crown Court that Weston attended a police station two days after the alleged attack. ‘Miss Weston had been out with her brother’s girlfriend, Miss France, for a family meal,’ she said. ‘During the course of the evening they met two Turkish men. The four of them had been in a pub together and left together. ‘Miss Weston went on to claim that she had been raped by one of these men at his home. 'The following day Miss France also informed the police that she too had been raped by the same man.’
But she said Mr Gozalan’s phone showed ‘not only him engaged in sexual activity, but the two women too’. He was released on bail following his arrest on October 18 last year and later informed no further action would be taken.
Weston and France were arrested in January on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. In two interviews, Weston maintained she had been raped but, in a third, she broke down when she was shown the photographs.
Miss Branford-Wood added: ‘She said she had gone to Mr Gozalan’s house and had consensual sexual activity with both him and Miss France. In police interview Miss France said she had made up the account to cover up the fact she had had sex with someone who was not her boyfriend.’
In a statement read to the court Mr Gozalan said the incident had ruined his life. He added: ‘I was shocked when I was arrested for rape. My first thought was that I was pleased I kept the photographs, which showed the girls were having a good time. ‘I have faced threats of attack following the allegations and have had sleepless nights.’
France, of Southampton, and Weston, of nearby Eastleigh, each admitted a count of perverting justice. They were jailed for 20 months.
The court heard Weston accepted she had done wrong and feared going to jail because she wanted to look after her two children. Natalie Wood, defending France, said she had felt guilty about having sex with Mr Gozalan because she too had a boyfriend.
Passing sentence, Judge Peter Ralls QC told the pair: ‘The allegations you have made are of the most serious kind and were entirely false. ‘Although there had been sexual activity between you and Mr Gozalan and between you together, there was no force and it was consensual. ‘By supporting one another with these wicked allegations, you have aggravated matters. This man was at serious risk of being imprisoned for a long period of time, perhaps ten years, perhaps indeterminately.’
This is interesting but it would be incautious to assume that what works with depressed people will work with normals.
Furthermore, it can reasonably be assumed that depressed people are (for instance) less active and it may in some way be the lower level of activity (or other factors associated with depression) that produced the effect rather than the medication
A commonly-prescribed type of antidepressant cuts the risk of bowel cancer by up to a fifth, according to a study of 93,000 people.
Tricyclic antidepressants also reduce the risk of glioma - the most common type of brain cancer - by up to two-thirds, found the study by academics at three British universities. Taking larger doses for longer increases the preventative effect, the researchers found.
Although the results, based on data from the General Practice Research Database, are startling, it is highly unlikely such drugs would be widely prescribed to those without mental health problems because of their side-effects. Many are sedatives, for example.
Nevertheless, the academics are excited because they say people at a genetically higher risk of the two types of cancer could be prescribed them.
The finding could also lead to the development of specifically designed pharmaceuticals to tackle bowel and brain cancer, said Dr Tim Bates, of Lincoln University and New-Use Therapeutics, a drugs development company. He explained that tricyclic antidepressants worked by attacking the "Achilles' heel" of some cancer cells, their mitochondria. These are the chemical powerhouses that enable cells to function.
He said: "As cancer mitochondria are biochemically different from mitochondria in normal non-cancer cells, they represent an Achilles' heel." Tricyclic antidepressants appeared to interfere with the normal working of mitochondria in bowel and glioma cancer cells, he added.
He went on: "The cancer prevention action of these drugs may translate into one that is also useful in treating glioma, both in adults and in children, and colorectal cancer."
The study, paid for with £75,000 from the publicly-funded Medical Research Council, compared about 31,500 people with cancer with about 61,500 people without, and was adjusted for age, gender, smoking, obesity and other factors.
It showed that people on tricyclic antidepressants were between 16 and 21 per cent less likely to have developed bowel cancer, with those who had been taking them at higher doses for longer receiving greater protection. Bowel cancer is the second bigger cancer killer in Britain after lung cancer, killing 16,000 people a year.
For glioma, tumours of the brain and spine, which kill up to 2,000 a year, the reduced risk was between 41 and 64 per cent. There was no effect on reducing incidence of other types of cancer.
The research has been published in the British Journal of Cancer.
Complaint figures are hidden by NHS trusts: Missing data means 150,000 total is only part of the picture
Almost 150,000 complaints were made about the NHS last year – but the full scale of dissatisfaction is unknown because so many trusts failed to register the information at all.
Although there was a 2.4 per cent drop in complaints, a report from the NHS Information Centre shows 29 of the 138 foundation trusts across England did not submit any returns.
Foundation trusts are allowed to withhold the data and in the previous year 18 had chosen to do so.
Patients’ groups and politicians attacked the lack of transparency among the increasing number of trusts failing to disclose their figures.
Rosie Cooper, Labour MP for West Lancashire, and member of the Commons health select committee, said: ‘Foundation trusts need to realise that they are not a law unto themselves.
‘The money they get belongs to the taxpayer and they need to be publicly accountable for that money, which includes the numbers of complaints, their waiting times and mortality rates.
‘If they are not made to reveal all, then this is a fraud against the taxpayer. Real patient choice depends on having correct and timely information.’
Patients Association chief executive Katherine Murphy added: ‘You cannot have individual organisations picking and choosing what information they will and won’t feed back.
‘You can have local management, local involvement, local anything you want. But if local people do not have access to data to enable them to make comparisons then it is a waste of time.’
Latest figures show just over 148,000 written complaints were made about the health service in 2010/11, 3,700 fewer – or 2.4 per cent – compared with the previous year.
Of the total complaints made about hospital care, the category ‘all aspects of clinical treatment’ accounted for 44 per cent, or 43,200, slightly up on the previous year.
Miss Murphy said: ‘This strikes at the heart of this government’s agenda for reform. The current plan is for all trusts to become foundation trusts and gain ‘‘independence’’. We need to make sure there are the right safeguards in place.
‘Our support for the principles of these reforms will rapidly evaporate if we suspect that after it’s all over people won’t know whether their local hospital is any better or worse off. Not just local, but national comparable data is an absolute must.’
NHS Information Centre chief executive Tim Straughan said: ‘Data about 148,200 complaints was submitted to this report, but I would encourage all foundation trusts to report their complaints to us so that future reports can tell the complex story based on information from every trust.’
Paul Hodgkin, chief executive of Patient Opinion, a website where patients can comment on their NHS experience, said: ‘The fact so many trusts have refused to supply data on complaints means that this report simply cannot be treated as an accurate indicator of how well the NHS is performing.’
A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘Making more information available to patients and the public is essential to inform choice and drive improvements in the quality of care.’
Sue Slipman, chief executive of the Foundation Trust Network, said: ‘Our expectation is that all foundation trusts are making their complaints information publicly available.
‘As independent organisations, they are not under any obligation to report to the Department of Health on this matter, and have therefore not withheld information. They take patient complaints extremely seriously and seek to learn from them and improve services.’
David Starkey's views on race disgrace the academic world, say historians
Notably, they don't say WHERE he is wrong. They just object to generalizations. But rejecting all generalizations is philosophically incoherent. It would make all discourse impossible
David Starkey has brought his profession into disrepute by voicing theories about race "that would disgrace a first-year undergraduate", according to leading academics.
More than 100 historians have signed an open letter expressing their dismay at Starkey's controversial comments on the riots during an appearance on the BBC's Newsnight programme.
They asked the BBC to stop referring to Starkey as a "historian" on anything but his specialist subject, the Tudors, claiming that he is "ill-fitted" to hold forth on other topics.
Signatories to the letter include academics from Cambridge and the London School of Economics, institutions at which Starkey once taught.
Starkey's Newsnight appearance caused outrage earlier this month when he was asked about the cause of the riots and replied: "What has happened is that a substantial section of the chavs... have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion."
In a letter to the Times Higher Education magazine, the collective of 102 academics said: "His crass generalisations about black culture and white culture as oppositional, monolithic entities demonstrate a failure to grasp the subtleties of race and class that would disgrace a first-year history undergraduate.
"In fact, it appears to us that the BBC was more interested in employing him for his on-screen persona and tendency to make comments that viewers find offensive than for his skills as a historian.
"In addition to noting that a historian should argue from evidence rather than assumption, we are also disappointed by Starkey's lack of professionalism on Newsnight.
"Instead of thoughtfully responding to criticism, he simply shouted it down; instead of debating his fellow panellists from a position of knowledge, he belittled and derided them. On Newsnight, as on other appearances for the BBC, Starkey displayed some of the worst practices of an academic, practices that most of us have been working hard to change."
The letter asked why the BBC had invited Starkey to discuss the riots when his academic research and published works have nothing to do with the subject.
"In our opinion, it was a singularly poor choice," they said, adding that "the poverty of his reductionist argument... reflected his lack of understanding of the history of ordinary life in modern Britain. It was evidentially insupportable and factually wrong.
"The problem lies in the BBC's representation of Starkey's views as those of a 'historian', which implies that they have some basis in research and evidence: but as even the most basic grasp of cultural history would show, Starkey's views as presented on Newsnight have no basis in either."
Among the signatories are Paul Gilroy, professor of social theory at the London School of Economics; Steven Fielding, professor of political history of at the University of Nottingham; Richard Grayson, professor of 20th century history at Goldsmith's, University of London; and Tim Whitmarsh, professor of ancient literatures at the University of Oxford.
Liberal leader pledges to defend British human rights laws
Nick Clegg has opened up a new rift in the Coalition by pledging to resist Conservative attempts to change human rights laws in the wake of this month’s riots.
The Deputy Prime Minister said it is a "myth" that Britain’s human rights laws are harmful and insisted that they must not be abandoned. Mr Clegg’s argument, set out in a newspaper article, is at odds with David Cameron’s views.
In the wake of the disturbances in London and other English cities earlier this month, the Prime Minister signalled a fresh move to challenge the Human Rights Act, declaring that he would not be restrained by "phoney human rights" concerns.
The legislation, which enacts the European Charter on Human Rights, is blamed by many Conservatives for problems in the criminal justice system. Critics say that over-zealous application of the law leads the police and other authorities to put too much emphasis on the rights of criminals and suspects, and not enough on the needs of victims.
Without naming Mr Cameron, Mr Clegg criticised people who have allowed "a myth to take root that human rights are a foreign invention, unwanted here, a charter for greedy lawyers and meddlesome bureaucrats."
He added: "This myth panders to a view that no rights, not even the most basic, come without responsibilities; that criminals ought to forfeit their very humanity the moment they step out of line; and that the punishment of lawbreakers ought not to be restrained by due process."
This is not Mr Clegg’s first dispute with Mr Cameron over human rights laws. The Deputy Prime Minister has an ongoing disagreement with his Conservative colleagues over the issue of votes for prisoners. After a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights – which oversees the charter – Britain is obliged to let prisoners vote in general elections. A majority of MPs have opposed that change, and Mr Cameron has said he will listen to the Commons.
However, Mr Clegg – supported by Kenneth Clarke, the Conservative Justice Secretary – is insisting that Britain has no choice but to accept the court judgement and allow at least some prisoners to vote.
Mr Clegg accepted that some aspects of the court must be changed, but insisted that there is no question of the UK pulling out of the convention.
Some Conservatives want the UK to pull out of the convention, but Mr Clegg said that must not happen: "As we continue to promote human rights abroad, we must ensure we work to uphold them here at home. We have a record we should be proud of and never abandon."
The Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights have been "instrumental" to protecting British civil liberties, he said.
I am reproducing the whole of an article by Prof. Boudreaux below as it is itself a very condensed treament of a big topic. I follow the article, however, with what I believe is a better argument
Few questions in economic history are discussed and debated as much as this one. Even if you happen to be among the small number of people who regret what historian (and Freeman columnist) Steve Davies calls “the wealth explosion” of the past couple of centuries, you must nevertheless find this question intriguing, for it asks about the causes of what is surely the single greatest change in human history.
For at least 70 millennia the standard of living of the vast majority of us humans was at, or very near, subsistence. Then all of a sudden (in the great sweep of history)—boom! Starting in the eighteenth century living standards shot upward not only for royalty and the landed nobility but for everyone. And to this very day our standard of living—including our life expectancy and measures of healthfulness—continues to rise.
Why? A question so momentous elicits plenty of answers. Among the well-known answers that have been offered over the years are capitalist exploitation of workers; capitalist exploitation of colonies; religious beliefs that promoted savings and risk-taking; and England’s 1688 Glorious Revolution, which is said to have made property rights more secure. And new answers continue to be offered, such as economist Gregory Clark’s thesis, explained in his book A Farewell to Alms, that genes equipping human beings especially well for carrying out enterprise and commerce were passed down from the English nobility into the English middle classes—thus equipping the bourgeoisie finally to do its thing.
Some of these answers are more plausible than others (with Clark’s being among the least plausible). But not a single one is satisfactory. None explains why the Industrial Revolution began where it began (northwestern Europe) or why it began when it began (the eighteenth century). Another explanation is needed.
And another explanation has indeed just been offered: a change in rhetoric. This rhetoric-based thesis comes from the great economist and historian Deirdre McCloskey in her 2010 book Bourgeois Dignity. It’s a book that, like only three or four others I’ve read, caused a major change in my thinking.
McCloskey reviews with awesome thoroughness all the major (and many not-so-major) explanations for the Industrial Revolution. She finds them all wanting.
Some of these explanations are more obviously flawed than others. Capitalist exploitation of workers, for instance, fails spectacularly as an explanation on a variety of fronts, not the least of which is that the very people from whom the newly created wealth is supposedly extracted (the masses) are the same people who have benefitted most from this wealth explosion.
If capitalist wealth was wrenched from the bent backs and sweaty brows of the working class, then surely workers as a group would today be much poorer rather than (depending on how you count) 10 to 100 times wealthier than were their pre-industrial peasant ancestors. As McCloskey emphasizes, “[M]odern economic growth did not and does not and cannot depend on the scraps to be gained by stealing from poor people. It is not a good business plan.”
A more plausible explanation is one associated most familiarly with the Nobel economist Douglass North and his frequent coauthor Barry Weingast. It’s an explanation I once accepted. According to North and Weingast, the replacement of the Stuart monarchs by William and Mary in the late seventeenth century resulted in more secure property rights in England, which in turn sparked the Industrial Revolution.
While everyone with a modicum of sense understands that the Industrial Revolution would not have happened if private property rights in England weren’t secure, McCloskey argues persuasively that the Glorious Revolution—for all of its undoubted benefits—did not bring about much of a change in England’s property laws or in the security of private property rights. Here’s what McCloskey writes on page 318:
England when at peace, which was the usual case throughout its history, was a nation of ordinary property laws, no more or less corrupt than Chicago in 1925 or the American South under segregation, places in which innovation flourished. It was so, for example, even when the Stuart kings were undermining the independence of the judiciary in order to extract the odd pound with which to have a foreign policy in a new age of standing armies and floating navies. And the amounts extracted, contrary to the Northian suggestion that the king owned everything, were by modern standards pathetically small. The figures offered by North and Weingast themselves imply that total government expenditure under James I and Charles I was at most a mere 1.2 to 2.4 percent of national income. . . .
"[T]he Stuart kings, grasping though they were, and emboldened (as were many monarchs at the time) by the newly asserted divine right of kings, were nothing like as efficient in predation as modern governments—or indeed as were the Georgian kings of Great Britain and Ireland who eventually succeeded the Stuarts."
Indeed so. This explanation fails.
The mainstream economist’s long-preferred explanation is capital accumulation. It fares no better than does the capitalist-exploitation thesis and the North-Weingast thesis.
According to the capital-accumulation thesis, people (for any of a variety of different reasons) began to save more. These savings were transformed into capital goods whose use increased the productivity of labor. And so the Industrial Revolution happened.
But as McCloskey points out, history is full of instances in which people saved just as much as in northwestern Europe at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, but without unleashing any revolutionary industrial forces. Moreover—and contrary to a thesis still fondly held by many people from Marxists to Reagan Republicans—economic growth does not require substantial capital accumulation. It can be, and has been, funded largely out of retained earnings.
What does best explain why the Industrial Revolution began in northwestern Europe in the eighteenth century is that for the first time in history people then and in that part of the world began to talk about the bourgeoisie with respect. This new “habit of the lip” (as McCloskey calls it) replaced the older habit of talking about entrepreneurs and merchants as being, at best, contemptible functionaries whose services society might need in some measure but whose importance to society fell far below the services supplied by warriors, royalty, noblemen, and priests.
With merchants and entrepreneurs in eighteenth-century Holland and England finally accorded widespread dignity, society’s best and brightest no longer avoided the world of private business to pursue careers at court or on the battlefield. The power of the bourgeoisie in these countries with tolerably secure private property rights was thus finally unleashed to revolutionize the economy—first in northwestern Europe and, continuing to today, the rest of the world.
The question discussed above is of immense interest to those of us who are interested in history. But I think the explanation in terms of rhetoric favored above by Prof. Boudreaux is at best a very partial explanation. One immediately asks WHY the rhetoric about the bourgeoisie changed. No answer is given.
Prof. Boudreaux seems to be a pretty thoroughgoing libertarian and, as is common in such circles, sees genetics as of only minor importance. That is presumably why he so airily dismisses Gregory Clark’s thesis in terms of genetics and natural selection (i.e. in pre-modern times the rich and powerful had greater reproductive success).
But why he so airily dismissed the Weberian explanation in terms of Calvinism ("religious beliefs that promoted savings and risk-taking") is mysterious. I can however provide my own reasons for dismissing Weber's thesis (at least in its narrowest sense of applying to Calvinists only) so I will not dwell on that.
I, on the other hand can see no reason to doubt the process that Clark describes (briefly outlined here) except in one important respect: The same thing must have happened in Tokugawa Japan but the same result was certainly not observed.
I take it as given that no one factor is alone sufficient to account for the industrial revolution. Prof. Boudreaux mentions above a number of factors that could have had a facilitatory effect (security of property rights, capital accumulation, a long period of peace etc.) and it seems obvious to me that when you have a lot of those factors present at the one time and in the one place you then reach what we know from nuclear physics as a "critical mass": There is a long buildup with nothing obviously changing and then suddenly it all does change in a big way. A "tipping point" is a similar concept, one much relied upon by Warmists but which anybody who has ever seen an oldfashioned set of counterweighted scales in use will readily understand. You keep adding weights to one side of the scale and nothing happens. But add that last weight and the scale suddenly tips up.
And it seems to me that the genetic process described by Clark is an important one of those crucial factors which together gave rise to the industrial revolution.
But surely the favourable factors came together somewhere else at some time? And Tokugawa Japan would seem to be such an instance. It had the longest period of peace of any country in history, the genetic process described by Clark should have occurred and it was a very orderly law-bound society.
So we have to look at factors beyond the Clark thesis. And I think that the responsible factors are easy to see. Mercants were NOT respected, no religious innovation akin to Calvinism was allowed and the laws were very unequally applied. A Samurai had far greater rights than a farmer, for instance.
So Clark's process cannot stand alone but, seen as a tributary joining with others to form a mighty river of change, it surely has an important place.
And those tributaries started flowing much sooner than is popularly believed. The birth of scientific thinking was surely important in sparking things like the invention of the steam engine and scientific thinking goes back a very long way. It started of course with the ancient Greeks but was lost for a time. The Renaissance is often seen as the revival of Greek learning which in turn sparked the beginning of modern science with Galileo and his telescope etc.
On closer examination, however, the Renaissance was not such a sudden change. There was a continuing quiet evolution of thinking even in the "dark" ages and much that is attributed to the Renaissance came in fact from Medieval times. See here.
Which leads me to my final point: That the whole of history led up to the Industrial revolution. Human capabilities continually expanded in fits and starts and even occasionally gave rise to real civilizations such as ancient Athens and Rome. But, to re-use again the "critical mass" concept, none of the advances in capability and understanding were quite enough to ignite a great change. When enough capability and understanding had built up, however, the scales tipped (to change the metaphor). The industrial revolution seemed sudden but it was in fact the accumulation of thousands of years of social evolution. Everything finally came together at last.
25 August, 2011
Private patients will 'leapfrog' NHS ones under health reforms, says Unison
Private patients will increasingly be able to "leapfrog" those on the NHS due to changes proposed in the Government's health reforms, a leading union has warned.
Unison has claimed that lifting the cap on the number of private patients that hospitals can treat, mooted in the Health and Social Care Bill, will end up "pushing NHS patients even further down the ever-spiralling waiting lists".
During a protest outside the Department of Health in London this morning, the union highlighted the danger it said faced the public by using an acrobat to leapfrog to the top of an NHS queue straight into the arms of a waiting "surgeon".
Simon Burns, the Health Minister, has rejected claims as "scaremongering".
But Christina McAnea, Unison's head of health said: "If the Health and Social Care Bill goes ahead, the outlook for the NHS and patients looks bleak. "The Government's polices have already led to NHS patients waiting longer, often in great pain, for their operations.
"The Bill will make matters worse by taking the cap off the number of private patients that hospitals are allowed to treat. It will be an enormous temptation for cash-strapped hospitals to boost their income by prioritising paying patients, pushing NHS patients even further down the ever-spiralling waiting lists.
"Even 14 of the elite group of foundation trusts ended the last financial year in deficit, a grim warning for the future of NHS finances.
"The economic uncertainty and budget deficits add to this lethal cocktail and it should be obvious to the Government that now is not the time to bring in this massive, damaging NHS reorganisation."
Mr Burns responded by emphasising that the Government was committed to defending the founding principles of the NHS. He said: "The NHS will always be available to all, free at the point of use and based on need and not the ability to pay. Nothing in our proposals will enable private patients to "leapfrog" to the front of NHS waiting lists. To suggest otherwise is scaremongering from Unison.
"Modernising the NHS will both safeguard the future of our health service, and will deliver a world class health service that puts patients at the heart of everything it does. The independent NHS Future Forum confirmed there is widespread support for the principles of our plans.
"Average waiting times are low and remain stable - the vast majority of patients still receive treatment within 18 weeks - and we are committed to keeping them low.”
£10bn legacy of shambles over asylum: 'Labour Party failings have left 250,000 illegals'
Labour spent £2million every day on a shambolic asylum system which failed to remove hundreds of thousands of bogus claimants, reveals a blistering study.
An audit of the last government’s record reveals how officials spent as much as £10billion processing applications as they struggled to cope with a surge in numbers.
But only one in four of the 660,000 decisions made on asylum claims between 1997 and 2010 led to the applicant being removed.
Even where the claim was considered to be unfounded, the majority of failed asylum-seekers were not sent home. They are now living here illegally.
Last night, immigration minister Damian Green said it was a symptom of the ‘hopeless chaos’ which Labour inflicted on the UK’s border controls.
The study by the MigrationWatch think-tank found that 660,000 asylum cases were decided from 1997 to 2010.
Some form of humanitarian protection, including asylum, was granted in 243,000 cases. This left 417,000 claimants who were rejected and should have left the UK. But only 151,540 – or 36 per cent – of those denied asylum were removed. Another 8,615 were found to have left without telling the authorities.
This means more than 250,000 have neither left nor been removed and are therefore presumed to remain in the UK illegally, MigrationWatch said.
Its report also found that between 2008 and 2010, 59 per cent of claims were lodged only after the person had been detected by the authorities. Asylum-seekers with genuine claims are supposed to claim at the first possible opportunity – not after they have been caught working illegally or sneaking into the country.
Britain was also found to approve more claims than France, through which many claimants pass to reach the allegedly ‘soft touch’ UK. In 2009, Britain granted permission to stay in 28 per cent of cases, compared with 19 per cent in France. Under Labour, the annual number of asylum cases increased hugely from 32,500 in 1997 to a peak of 85,000 in 2002.
MigrationWatch chairman Sir Andrew Green said: ‘The asylum system has proved to be a £10billion shambles. Those who, like ourselves, are serious about protecting genuine refugees should be no less serious about removing bogus claimants. ‘The system needs to be much faster. Delays leave the door open for appeals based on the right to family life.
‘It also needed to be much tougher on the bogus. It is absurd that we allow people who have been in Britain illegally for years to claim asylum to delay or prevent their removal; this applies to almost 60 per cent of claimants.’
The study estimated the cost of asylum since 1999 at close to £10billion, including legal aid and court costs. This includes £2.8billion for temporary accommodation, £927million on payments to support those awaiting a ruling and almost £500million for failed claimants who cannot return home or are taking steps to leave the UK.
The report, based on research published by the Home Office, warns it is difficult to know exactly what happened in every case because of the chaos and confusion of recent years. Five years ago, ministers identified more than 400,000 ‘legacy cases’ which officials had never resolved. Some have since been granted settlement or removed.
Mr Green, the immigration minister, said: ‘The system we inherited was hopelessly chaotic and did not provide the taxpayer with value for money. ‘Last year, we reduced the bill for asylum support by over £100million and it is falling further this year.
‘We have nearly doubled the proportion of asylum-seekers removed within a year of their application and around 60 per cent of applicants receive a decision within a month.’
So, is it worth getting a degree? One in five British graduates is earning less than a school leaver
One in five graduates earns less than a person who left school with as little as one A-level. The official figures raise doubts that thousands of students have wasted their time with ‘useless’ degrees.
On average, the Office for National Statistics says that a person with a degree or higher academic qualification, such as a PhD, earns £16.10 an hour. By comparison, a person who got at least one A level, or an equivalent qualification, typically earns £10 an hour. But 20 per cent of graduates earn less than £10 an hour, the amount they would have earned without a degree.
The figure could be even worse in reality because the ONS did not include graduates who are unemployed or who have never worked.
The study also said the proportion of graduates doing low-skilled, badly-paid work has quadrupled to 2.3 per cent since 1993. Many of these end up doing jobs which require little or no training such as hotel porter, postman, cleaner or catering assistant.
Business groups have repeatedly warned that employers are turning their backs on graduates. A recent report from the British Chambers of Commerce said too many graduates have ‘fairly useless degrees in non-serious subjects’.
Phil McCabe from the Forum of Private Business said: ‘The value of a degree is dwindling.’
Tanya de Grunwald, founder of Graduate Fog.co.uk, a website for job-seeking graduates, said many are devastated by the salaries they are offered. She said: ‘Finally, the figures from the ONS back up what our graduates have been saying – that they are just not getting the quality of job that they thought their degree would lead to.
‘One politics and economics graduate told me a massive career low was when he got a day’s trial at a pound shop – and did not get the job. ‘People say that a graduate typically earns £26,000, but this doesn’t reflect the reality. Many of them are just scraping the barrel.’
One anonymous contributor to a student website wrote: ‘If I could have my time back, I wouldn’t have gone to university. ‘I graduated last year and work in a friend’s café for £6 an hour.’
A separate report, published yesterday, asked more than 4,000 people whether they would recommend a young person to go to university. Just 29 per cent of those aged 18 to 34 said they would ‘actively encourage’ it, according to the poll commissioned by the Pearson Centre for Policy and Learning.
A spokesman for the Department for Business insisted that university is not an expensive waste of time for many people. She said: ‘Our studies show that graduates earn, on average, around £100,000 more across their working lives, as well as having other benefits such as greater rates of employment and improved health status.’
History ditched by 70% of British pupils as 159 schools fail to enter single student
History is disappearing from state schools, with just 30 per cent of pupils taking it at GCSE. Alarming figures reveal 159 state schools have ditched the subject and did not enter a single student for GCSE history last year. State schools taught the subject to just 30 per cent of their pupils, compared with 48 per cent – almost half – of private pupils.
History experts blamed the demise on schools dissuading pupils from taking the ‘hard’ subject in a drive to improve league table results.
Paula Kitching, of the Historical Association, said: ‘This is a great concern. Young people will know little of the country or society they live in. Schools want good, fast results and don’t want to challenge pupils.’ She added that pupils typically get around 45 minutes of history a week before the age of 14, leaving them ‘unprepared and uninspired’ to do the subject at GCSE.
The 30 per cent figure fell from 36 per cent in 1997. In 1997, 169,298 pupils were entered for GCSE history, compared with 155,982 last year.
There is also great disparity between parts of England. In deprived Knowsley, near Liverpool, just 16.8 per cent of pupils were entered for history, compared with 45.4 per cent in Richmond upon Thames.
Historian Chris Skidmore MP, who obtained the figures under a parliamentary question, said: ‘We need a concerted drive to get history back into schools.’
The Coalition has pledged to encourage more schools to teach history by including the subject in its performance measure the EBacc – English, maths, two sciences a modern language and geography or history.
The PM's post-riots promise of more intervention into troubled families is mad – it is precisely such intervention that devastated parental authority
In Britain, they start very young these days. An 11-year-old girl who has not yet started secondary school recently pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage. Nottingham Magistrates Court heard she had been seen on the streets of the city, 25 kilometres from home, hurling rocks at shop windows. Her father, in his daughter’s defence, explained: ‘She is going through a bad time at the moment and just ran away from her foster place. She has got a sister going through care.’
Numerous children between the ages of 11 and 14 participated in the looting of shops and the destruction of property that made news around the world. It signifies that childhood has gone astray and that adult authority has been tragically eroded.
Policymakers, politicians and opinion-formers point the finger of blame at parents. British prime minister David Cameron claimed the collapse of families was the principal driver. ‘The question people asked over and over again last week was “Where are the parents?”’, he asserted. Either ‘there was no one at home’ or ‘they didn’t much care or they lost control’.
Reading between the lines, policies designed to ‘improve’ parenting are likely to be one of the main government responses to the rioting. Cameron has promised to put ‘rocket boosters’ under efforts to turn round 120,000 troubled families and has warned that his government will be less sensitive to claims that its intervention was ‘interfering or nannying’. In reality, his policy represents a continuation of New Labour’s failed strategy of early intervention in family life. This was the great idea of former prime minister Tony Blair, who wrote at the weekend that the conclusion he reached while in government was that ‘we had to be prepared to intervene literally family by family and at an early stage’, in order to prevent children from turning into criminals.
Cameron’s call to turn around 120,000 troubled families is an excellent example of what can most accurately be described as a fantasy policy. It is based on the delusion that governments and bureaucracies are capable of solving intimate family problems. But parenting is not an institution that can be reformed through state intervention. Parenting is a cultural accomplishment that is cultivated through decades of interaction in communities. That is why the billions of pounds spent so far on family intervention has failed to realise government objectives.
Worse still, the intrusion of officialdom may be partly responsible for the inability of many parents to control the behaviour of their children in the first place. For more than three decades, policymakers and the child-protection industry have sought to stigmatise and criminalise parents who punish bad behaviour. Official early-intervention programmes discourage parents from disciplining their children and often inadvertently undermine parental authority.
Campaigns against smacking put many parents on the defensive about exercising any form of restraint. Ironically, as politicians complain that parents don’t control their children, parents are lectured that discipline is repressive and results in dysfunctional children. The term ‘discipline’ now carries connotations of an abuse of power. A well-deserved smack on the wrist is represented as a crime against humanity.
The implicit objective of a no-smacking campaign is to restrain the exercise of parental authority. The wider agenda of influential anti-smackers is to undermine the right of parents to discipline their children at all.
No-smacking advocates believe that parents who withdraw affection as an alternative to smacking may cause even more damage to a child, and that punishments designed to make children feel uncomfortable or undignified are just as emotionally dangerous as the physical kind. The main outcome of their crusade is to undermine the capacity of parents to control their youngsters.
This problem is mirrored in the classroom. Many teachers are frightened of exercising their authority and find it difficult to maintain classroom discipline. Last week Brian Lightman, the leader of Britain’s head teachers’ union, said there were some ‘hard questions and ‘uncomfortable truths’ for parents to confront in the aftermath of the riots. Following politicians, he blamed dysfunctional parents who fail to draw boundaries for the looting and rioting. Sadly, he misses an important point – which is that teachers are no less responsible then parents, and more importantly that hard questions need to be asked of adult society as a whole.
Many parents of children arrested during the riots argued that they were not responsible for the violence. One mum of a 13-year-old Manchester boy who appeared in court exclaimed: ‘You can’t say what your child’s doing 24 hours a day, no matter what a good parent you are.’ Her statement was the cry for help of a mother who is all too conscious of the fact that she lacks the means to contain the misbehaviour of her child.
To put it bluntly, adults have become estranged from the task of taking responsibility for the younger generations. Yet the assumption of adult responsibility is critical for the conduct of community life and for the socialisation of children. It is our obsessively protective parenting culture that is responsible for the erosion of intergenerational relationships. Adults feel awkward and even anxious about interacting with other people’s young children. A crying five-year-old is no longer picked up and reassured by a nearby adult. A six-year-old boy who misbehaves will not be reprimanded by grown-ups passing by.
Children will always test the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. And that’s how it should be. However, today children’s behaviour is no longer contained and controlled through the response of adults. Childcare has become entirely privatised. The neighbour, the shopkeeper, the child’s friend’s father, and in many cases even the child’s aunt no longer have a role in the upbringing of a child.
Today, the real damage begins when children are as young as seven or eight. Ironically, the breakdown of adult solidarity, which is driven by the paranoid imperative of child-protection policies, leads to a situation where young people’s behaviour is uncontained by the intervention of responsible grown-ups. A long time before they become teenagers, children know they face no sanction from anyone other than their parents. Is it any surprise that a minority of teenagers will come to regard the absence of adult intervention as an invitation to bad behaviour?
The reluctance to restrain the conduct of youngsters really means evading the task of socialising younger generations. The failure to communicate a community’s traditions and values leads to its slow disintegration. Children, who have not been taught to take seriously the prevailing norms and values, are unlikely to feel strongly about adhering to a community’s conventions.
The display of destructive and anti-social behaviour during the riots is the inevitable outcome of the failure of socialisation. The fault lies not with parents, but with the failure of society to give meaning to adult authority.
One final point. It is important to emphasise that the origins of the weakening of parental control, the erosion of adult authority and the problem of socialisation, are not to be found within the affected communities. Government intervention in family life has done for the self-esteem of its target population what welfare payments have done to the recipients of its largesse. Tragically, well-intentioned social engineering and government policies have systematically devalued the right of parents to discipline their children. When the erosion of adult authority has undermined the capacity of grown-ups to socialise children, it is not surprising that far too many English children, who have little respect for their elders, also have little esteem for the law and the property of others.
If Cameron really wants mothers and fathers to become more effective childrearers, he should challenge all the petty laws and conventions that force parents on the defensive. He could do worse than launch a campaign to restore adult authority, and most importantly he needs to resist the temptation to try to colonise family life.
Constructing community life through fostering adult responsibility for the young is the only way forward for England.
London authorities refuse Kids Tickets To Gun-Related Olympic Events: "Schoolchildren in London are eligible for 125,000 free tickets for the 2012 Olympics next Summer, but any event that involves a firearm will be excluded from the massive giveaway. Why, you ask, would anyone choose to hide storied events and world class competitors from children’s eyes? Because City Hall and Olympic Organizers are afraid of an anti-gun backlash. That’s right — the powers that be in London won’t subject kids to such bloodsports as Skeet and Trap shooting. In supporting the decision to discriminate against Olympic gun events, Danny Bryan, founder of Communities Against Gun and Knife Crime, told the Evening standard he agrees with London Mayor Boris Johnson, and that “It is good kids should enjoy the Games but there’s no way we should glorify guns.” Implicit in this anti-gun activist’s statement is the highly dubious connection between watching Olympic level marksmanship and crime."
24 August, 2011
Paramedic left disabled after surgeon mistakenly removed part of his brain during unnecessary biopsy
Name of the surgeon not given. Any bets that he was "overseas-trained"?
A blundering surgeon left a long-serving paramedic needing 24-hour care after they removed the wrong part of his brain during a botched operation he did not even need.
John Tunney, from Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, underwent a biopsy on a pituitary tumour, but the doctor sliced off healthy brain tissue which led to a serious haemorrhage. Afterwards they found the tumour was benign, meaning that it could have been treated with tablets.
Mr Tunney has been left with permanent brain injuries, including memory loss and partial loss of sight, leaving him incapable of dealing with his own affairs and needing constant supervision. He also cannot walk without the aid of a stick.
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust has now admitted liability for the mistakes, paving the way for Mr Tunney to receive financial compensation for lifelong medical support.
His wife, Pamela, 64, said: 'John's brain injury has had devastating effects on him. Prior to the surgery he was a very easy going person who was always active and on the go. To see the change in him and to know that it was all entirely avoidable is extremely upsetting.
'As a paramedic, John put his complete trust in his surgeon, believing that he was an expert who knew best. 'It is appalling to think the surgeon managed to botch the procedure completely and then to find that the biopsy wasn't even necessary makes me incredibly angry.
'We were both taking early retirement and planning to move to Pembrokeshire when this happened and changed everything. 'John was so capable before and now, although he can speak, he isn't aware of everything around him. 'He'll ask me what day it is, then forget and ask again a few hours later. He's a completely different person.
'This mistake is not something the hospital can just take back.
'I pray they don't make this mistake again and that no other family has to experience seeing their husband suffer the pain and loss that John has.'
Mr Tunney's solicitor Timothy Deeming, from the Irwin Mitchell law firm, also said surgery was carried out unnecessarily as blood tests were done, but not reviewed before the biopsy, which showed the patient had a benign condition called prolactinoma.
Mr Tunney, now aged 63, had worked for the NHS for 23 years. He was based at West Midlands Ambulance Service's Small Health ambulance station but his brain injury, on April 29, 2008, left him unable to work.
Mr Deeming called for the General Medical Council to investigate the conduct of the surgeon responsible. 'The fact the surgeon managed to remove perfectly healthy tissue rather than a sample of the tumour tissue is, in itself, an appalling error,' said Mr Deeming.
'To then find the procedure was totally unnecessary because clinicians had failed to review a blood test, really does add insult to injury. 'We also very much hope the Trust has reviewed its procedures and where necessary retraining has taken place to ensure that lessons are learnt to protect patients' safety in the future.'
Richard Kennedy, Chief Medical Officer at University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, said: 'I very much regret the tragic outcome for Mr Tunney and his family and on behalf of the Trust would like to apologise for this. 'Since 2008, this case has been thoroughly reviewed through our governance process and I am confident that measures have been put in place to prevent this type of incident reoccurring. 'We now collaborate with expert clinicians at other trusts in these kinds of cases.'
Patient, 42, who TWICE had his heart operation cancelled found dead on hospital toilet
A heart bypass patient died in a hospital toilet after his surgery was cancelled twice, an inquest has heard. Richard Thompson, 42, was due to undergo the operation at Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, but was delayed because a previous patient's treatment overran.
Six days after Mr Thompson's surgery slot was cancelled for a second time due to lack of beds, he was found dead in a ward toilet after suffering a fatal heart arrhythmia.
An inquest in Plymouth, Devon was told that lifelong bachelor Mr Thompson may not have died if the procedure had gone ahead at the hospital as planned.
Cardiothoracic Surgeon Dr Clinton Lloyd told the hearing: 'Clearly it is unacceptable to be in a position where surgery has been cancelled twice. 'It is not a guarantee but there would have been slightly less chance of a heart arrhythmia after surgery.
'In an ideal world everyone would be operated on the next day after diagnoses but unfortunately the NHS is not like that. We have to work with the resources available.' 'It is unacceptable to be in a position where surgery is cancelled twice'
Shop manager Mr Thompson, of Helston, Cornwall, visited his GP on February 26 last year complaining of swollen legs - a symptom of cardiac problems. He was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease, which causes reduced blood supply, after an ECG and cardiogram, and was scheduled for treatment.
On October 29 he was admitted to Derriford Hospital, where he was due to undergo two coronary artery bypass grafts. This was postponed after previous treatment to a private patient overran.
Mr Thompson returned on November 4, only to be told the operation was being put back to the following day due to a lack of beds on the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. He was found dead in a chair in a toilet on the ward by a nurse at 8.40pm that night.
The cause of death was given as damage to the left ventricle caused by a lack of oxygen reaching the heart.
Dr Peter McNorton, ICU consultant and clinical director who led an investigation into hospital procedures, said: 'There are three intensive care units in Derriford Hospital, Neuro, Cardiac and General.
'On that day there were seven potential beds free in other wards and I found that although the cardiac ICU team had considered this option perhaps there needed to be a proper mechanism in place for rearranging people. 'Procedures have changed so that the cardiac ward is now part of the twice daily ward evaluation, whereas it was not before.
'I have also ordered a clarification on the priority of patients who have faced cancellations, as while it was custom and practice for them to be seen as soon as possible that has now been formally written down.'
Recording a verdict of natural causes, deputy coroner for Plymouth Dr Andrew Cox said he would have ordered an investigation had one not already been carried out. He added: 'He (Mr Thompson) did not suffer a heart attack but an arrhythmia, which is a disturbance in the function of the heart. 'There is very little evidence as to what extent this would have been prevented if he had had the operation before.
'It was undesirable that he suffered two cancellations. 'But we are not going to be in a position to prevent all deaths like Richard's. Cancellations will happen from time to time.'
Mr Thompson's family declined to comment after the hearing on Monday.
New British immigration system just makes work for forgers
The Brits wonder why more Indians than ever are arriving under the new "restrictive" system. Documents forged in India and Pakistan are very hard to check. They caught a local document wallah but they will never catch the ones abroad
The Minister of State for Immigration in the UK, Damian Green, has claimed the UK is "no longer an easy touch", amidst news of the sentencing of a legal advisor, who masterminded a major immigration scam.
Ravi Gupta, 41, who was living in Hayes, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail and recommended for deportation at the end of his sentence. He was convicted of supplying his clients with fraudulent documents for the purposes of aiding their UK visa immigration applications, allowing them to falsify their income details.
Gupta charged up to £5,000 for each application. Following an undercover investigation by the West London immigration crime team, his scam was uncovered and he admitted 14 charges of assisting illegal immigration and an additional charge of obtaining leave to remain in the UK by deception.
An agency spokesman said: "When someone was coming to an end of their visa he would assist them with the fake certificates or pay slips to make it look as if they were in far better jobs and were more highly skilled then they actually were. But typically the clients were in low paid jobs such as working in supermarkets, restaurants or cleaning jobs that wouldn't count."
Immigration Minister Green used the opportunity to claim: “This case shows we have stepped up action to tackle serious and organized abuse of our immigration system. The message is clear - the UK is no longer an easy touch." He continued: "This summer we are targeting our efforts on breaking up the gangs behind visa scams, hitting rogue employers who repeatedly break the rules and doing more than ever to stop unwanted people coming to the UK."
Gupta’s sentencing comes after news of eight people being arrested in Bangladesh following the discovery of fake visa by UK Border Agency staff in Dhaka last month, working with the agency’s Risk and Liaison overseas network (RALON). A huge haul of fake visas, stolen passports and immigration stamps were uncovered in a factory that served a major visa forgery ring.
UK Border Agency officers are given detailed detection training and last year discovered over 27,000 forged travel documents used to support visa applications globally.
Daughter of racehorse trainer at centre of custody battle was coached to claim her father had sexually abused her
A former jockey and racehorse trainer at the centre of a child custody scandal lied that her former boyfriend was a paedophile, a High Court judge said yesterday.
Vicky Haigh made up the allegations and even coached her seven-year-old daughter to repeat the claims, he added.
Sir Nicholas Wall, the country’s most senior family judge, said that Miss Haigh should be named and shamed and her former partner, David Tune, freed from the false smear that he is a child abuser.
He made the damning remarks as he jailed another woman, Elizabeth Watson, who acted as an ‘investigator’ on Miss Haigh’s behalf, sending ‘aggressive and intimidating’ e-mails and internet postings about social workers involved in the case.
Watson was given a nine-month sentence for contempt of court. The ruling was the culmination of a long-running row involving Miss Haigh which started with her allegations about her boyfriend and social workers.
Initially the secrecy of the family courts meant the public were not allowed to know any of the facts of the affair.
But John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP who named Ryan Giggs in the commons as a footballer with a privacy injunction to hide an affair, named Miss Haigh using Parliamentary privilege.
The MP said Haigh had been unfairly put under threat of imprisonment by Doncaster Council for speaking to a Westminster meeting about family law issues. It led to sympathetic portrayals of the then heavily pregnant Miss Haigh.
But yesterday that changed when Sir Nicholas made his judgement public and ordered that Miss Haigh, 40, could now legally be named, as could Mr Tune, and that Doncaster council be identified as the employer of the social workers in the case.
The judge ordered that the seven-year-old girl’s identity must remain secret and she can be known only as ‘X’. Sir Nicholas said: ‘Allegations of sexual abuse were first made by the mother and not by X. These were false and the mother knew them to be false. X was coached by the mother to make allegations of sexual abuse against the father.’
He added that two judges examined the case at previous High Court hearings and both found that Mr Tune was not a paedophile and had not sexually abused his daughter.
Sir Nicholas said: ‘The child’s mother is wholly unable to accept the court’s verdict and, with the misguided assistance of Elizabeth Watson has unlawfully and in breach of court orders, put into the public domain via email and the internet a series of unwarranted and scandalous allegations about the father and others.
‘She has repeated the untruth that the father is a paedophile and – without a scintilla of evidence - has attacked the good faith of all the professionals who had had any contact with the case.
‘These proceedings have had a serious effect on the life of the father and have threatened the stability of the child. Her mother’s actions are wholly contrary to her interests.’ The judge said that Watson had identified parties in the case in defiance of court orders and had criticised social workers and police.
He said she had referred to ‘social disservices’ and ‘abductees’ who ‘snatched children’ and ‘tortured innocent parents’.
Sir Nicholas said: ‘You have seriously breached an order and seriously compromised the well-being of a child. There is no question of misunderstood. You knew exactly what you were doing – writing the most aggressive, intimidating emails calling everyone in sight corrupt.’
He added: ‘She thought herself above the law. That will not be tolerated.’
Restricting enrolments at top quality universities and encouraging more enrolments at cheap universities seems very destructive
Institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College could be stripped of undergraduate places next year in a move that effectively penalises universities charging the most for degree courses.
Manchester and Leeds – the biggest universities in the elite Russell Group – face losing up to 300 students each, while Sheffield Hallam, in Nick Clegg’s constituency, could be stripped of 450. The disclosure is made as part of Labour research into radical reforms to higher education funding in 2012.
From next year, 20,000 places are removed from all universities before being “auctioned off” to institutions that charge the lowest tuition fees.
Gareth Thomas, Labour’s shadow universities minister, said: “These figures confirm that places at high quality internationally renowned universities for the brightest and best students are set to be axed in order to fund a race to the bottom.”
The Government currently controls how many students each university can recruit. Numbers are capped because of the cost to the taxpayer of providing undergraduates with means-tested grants and upfront student loans to cover tuition and living expenses.
From 2012, English universities can charge up to £9,000 in tuition fees – almost three times the current rate. Figures show the average fee will stand at £8,393.
But to minimise the student loans bill, ministers are determined to ensure that most universities charge far less. In a controversial move, it has proposed creating a “flexible margin” of around 20,000 places to reward the cheapest universities. This would be created by stripping student numbers from each university on a pro-rata basis and awarding them to institutions that charge less than £7,500.
But this means many universities – particularly those charging close to the maximum amount – could be badly hit.
An analysis using data from the House of Commons library shows how many student places each one will lose on a pro-rota basis.
The Russell Group, which represents 16 English universities, faces collectively losing up to 2,300 places. Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and the London School of Economics could lose 50 students each. A further 2,100 could go at institutions belonging to the 1994 Group, which represents smaller research universities such as Durham, Lancaster and York.
But the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills criticised the analysis, which they said failed to take other reforms into account. This includes plans to allow the best universities to recruit unlimited numbers of students who get the best A-level results – at least two As and a B – potentially recouping places lost under the "flexible margin" system.
Must not call an astoundingly thick quiz show contestant astoundingly thick
Britain:
It is a quiz traditionally associated with the finest minds in the country. But media watchdog Ofcom has ruled that Channel 4 was right to brand one Mastermind contestant 'astoundingly thick'.
Simon Curtis recorded one of the show’s lowest scores in the history of the programme, but took umbrage when comedian David Walliams mocked him on a comedy show.
The programme, which was shown on Channel 4 in January, included a clip of Mr Curtis on Mastermind which was introduced by Walliams who said: ‘Sometimes in life, you have to know your limitations... if you’re not, let’s say, very bright, it’s probably not a good idea to go on a quiz show that tests your mental agility. ‘And by not very bright I mean, astoundingly thick.’
The probation worker complained to Ofcom that he was portrayed as being of ‘low intelligence’ and that he had not given his consent for it to be shown.
In its defence, Channel 4 said that it was obvious Mr Curtis was not literally ‘astoundingly thick’ as he was on Mastermind in the first place. But it added: 'This was the worst specialist subject performance ever seen on Mastermind.’
Ofcom agreed and refused to uphold any of Mr Curtis’s complaints. It ruled: ‘We recognise that these comments carried the potential to be offensive and insulting to Mr Curtis. ‘However we took the view that it would have been clear to viewers from the beginning of the programme that Mr Walliams - himself best known as a comedian - intended to provide humourous and light hearted opinion and comment on examples of past television clips.’
Good to see that British officialdom sometimes gets it right.
23 August, 2011
The disgrace of quack medicine being used in the NHS
They say they cannot afford a lot of proven medicines yet they waste money on trash
Edzard Ernst, the world's first professor of complementary medicine, is on a crusade to stop the NHS wasting money on unproved remedies.
Fortified with a nip of papaya leaf extract – the latest essential ingredient for boosting the immune system – I meet Prof Edzard Ernst. As Britain’s foremost “quackbuster”, I feel sure he will have views on such elixirs. I am right.
The world’s first professor of complementary medicine looks at me despairingly as I admit to taking unproven remedies. I may be gullible, but I am not alone. Roughly 100 per cent of cancer patients (I have lung cancer) use alternative therapies, and so do millions of others, including the Prince of Wales. Almost invariably, we are wasting our money, in his opinion.
“If there was good evidence that the immune system was depleted by the cancer or the treatment, there might be a case for something like papaya leaves,” he sighs. “But it is naive to think that the immune system fights the cancer cells, and naive to think that boosting the immune system is the answer to everything.”
What about the Bemer pulsating magnetic field machine, which I used for a while to boost my microcirculation and hence, the manufacturer claims, my ability to fight cancer? “Magnetic treatments are mainstream for non-healing bone fractures, but where is the placebo trial evidence for other applications?”
Small companies say they cannot afford to fund such trials. He snorts. “A trial like that could be done for less than £100,000.”
OK, then, what about the use of cannabis to alleviate the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and other illnesses? “There are better ways to alleviate pain and nausea, so anyone who takes it probably likes the cannabis effect.”
Prof Ernst’s soft voice and teddy-bear appearance give the impression of a charming, elderly academic who is happy to be spending more time in his Suffolk garden since he retired in May. It is a false impression borne, he says, of German being his first language. “I don’t shout because I can’t express myself in English as I should like to. I may appear calm, but I get terrifically angry.”
In the past 18 years, while he has been running the complementary medicine research group at the Peninsula Medical School in Devon (a partnership between Exeter and Plymouth Universities and the NHS), he has often been angry. He has had public run-ins with many alternative therapists – homoeopaths, chiropractors, herbalists and acupuncturists. But the juiciest chapter in the autobiography he is currently writing will cover his feud with the Prince of Wales.
It began in 2005 when he rubbished a report, sponsored by the Prince, which supported the idea that the NHS would save up to £3.5 billion a year if it spent more on alternative therapies. “I knew the facts extremely well as I had done a similar report for the World Health Organisation, and didn’t mince my words.”
Sir Michael Peat, the Prince of Wales’s private secretary, complained that Prof Ernst had breached confidentiality by speaking to a newspaper. “There was a 13-month investigation and I was shown to be innocent, but all fund-raising stopped. After that, I was persona non grata.” This, he believes, led to the funding crisis that forced him into early retirement, aged 63.
“Both the vice-chancellor of Exeter University and the dean of the Peninsula Medical School were knighted.” For taking the Prince’s side? “Cause and effect are not proven.”
Last month, Prof Ernst told a conference in London that he considered the Prince “a snake-oil salesman” for supporting “unproven and disproved” remedies and for selling a £10 Duchy Herbals Detox Tincture. The range, he said, should be renamed “Dodgy Originals”.
The battle between the two men is one of principle, he says. “We urgently need to focus on the safety of alternative treatments, of which there are about 400.
People think natural equals safe, but it is a misconception. If there is an adverse reaction to medication, a doctor fills out a yellow card, sending a signal that can be investigated. There is no such system for herbal medicines. I also know of 30 to 40 cases of serious neurological damage after spinal manipulation, none of them formally reported.”
Fortunately for those who share his concern, the arrival of a new dean of the Peninsula Medical School, Professor Steve Thornton, has led to a reprieve for his research group. Prof Ernst still had to go, but he is helping to appoint his successor. The advertisements for the post of professor of complementary medicine call for “a rigorous scientist”. If this requirement is not stated clearly, he fears, the job could attract promoters of alternative therapies.
The British, who spend around £2 billion a year on unproved therapies, need sceptics to investigate on their behalf, he believes. Individuals can then decide whether to waste their money.
He is, unequivocally opposed to the NHS funding alternative therapies at a time when money is tight and patients are being denied treatments of proven worth.
“I have an advertisement on my desk from an NHS hospital looking for a reiki healer. I’m sure the money could be better spent. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) decided that acupuncture and chiropractic are good treatments for recurring back pain. They have underestimated the risks.”
Those two alternative therapies were among those assessed in Trick or Treatment?, the 2008 book that he co-authored with the eminent science writer, Simon Singh. Ironically dedicated to the Prince of Wales, it examines the case for the safety and effectiveness of various therapies, and finds them mostly wanting.
“There are some positive conclusions about acupuncture, nothing on homoeopathy, almost nothing on chiropractic (a type of manipulation), and some positive findings on herbal medicine. The therapies for which there are strong evidence are supportive rather than curative: hypnotherapy, massage, autogenic training and other relaxation therapies.”
Prof Ernst seems almost surprised that he has become known as the scourge of the alternative medical world because in southern Germany, where he was brought up, it was part of normal life.
“My father practised homoeopathy. I was exposed to herbal remedies, acupuncture and massage, as everyone in Germany is. My first job on qualifying as a doctor was in a homoeopathic hospital.”
Initially he was impressed by how patients recovered after homoeopathy. Now he believes that is because of the placebo effect and the psychotherapeutic benefits of an hour’s consultation. By 1993, he held a professorship in recuperative medicine at the University of Vienna, but later seized an offer from the University of Exeter to set up the world’s first department dedicated to research into complementary medicine. At its peak, Prof Ernst was running 20 research projects. It will take time for his successor to build back up to that level, but he believes it must be done to prevent quackery.
His own health regime is simple. “I eat oily fish rich in omega-3 fatty acids and lots of salad. I drink green tea, which reduces the risk of gastric cancer, lots of water, and rather more red wine than I should because I like it.” He and his French wife, Danielle, keep fit by walking their Welsh terrier.
If he were diagnosed with cancer, what would he do? “I wouldn’t take aspirin [thought to prevent cancer]. I might have a look at selenium [supposedly a tumour suppressor] but, most importantly I would find a good health care team and trust them. You can’t go around torturing yourself with believing every nonsense on the internet.”
I am sure he is right, but I might just finish the papaya leaf extract first.
Being near a good school is top priority for one in three British homebuyers
More than a third of prospective homebuyers with young children say moving to an area with a good school is their top priority, research shows.
Moving into the catchment area of a good school was the top priority for 37pc of prospective buyers with a child aged 10 or under, according to a study for Santander Mortgages.
Many were willing to pay an extra £12,000 to secure the home – and school – of their choice. The average house price premium for moving to a good catchment area was £5,663. One in four of those with a child aged 11 to 17 named proximity to a good school as a major concern.
Homebuyers in the West Midlands were most concerned about moving into a good catchment area, the survey found, with 26pc citing it as a main priority, double the percentage concerned about the issue the last time they bought a home.
In the North East only 6pc of buyers showed a particular interest in the catchment area the last time they purchased a home, but 16pc of people planning to buy a property in the region now considered it a main priority.
The research suggested that women were much more concerned about moving into a good catchment area than men – they were willing to pay a £7,300 premium, compared with £4,450 for men.
Phil Cliff, a director of Santander Mortgages, said: "People are increasingly concerned about the value of a good education, and in some areas of the country there is a significant amount of competition for places at sought-after schools.
"This has led to many parents trying to move to a particular area deliberately to improve their child's chances of getting into their desired school. Some in-demand property features such as being located within the catchment area of a good school can increase the property value considerably."
School's milk crates fall foul of Britain's health and safety police
For 15 years, a set of disused milk crates had been providing children at an Oxfordshire school with old-fashioned fun. But that was before the health and safety zealots caught sight of them.
Now the 25 crates, which have been used as props for countless games involving ships, cars, dens and castles, have been taken away over fears that pupils could be injured on them.
"In all the time we have had the crates, we have not had a single child hurt themselves," said Anne Bardsley, a teacher at Wychwood Primary school, who described the decision to remove them as "outrageous".
The crates, once donated by a friendly milkman, were seized by Dairy Crest during a routine delivery.
Lyndsey Anderson, from the company, apologised for any distress. "Whilst we understand their disappointment at losing something they had come to view as playground equipment, it remains a fact that milk crates are not toys and current health and safety guidelines require that they should not be used as such," she said.
Mrs Bardsley explained that the pupils were always supervised while playing with the crates and that they helped creative learning. "The children absolutely loved them," she added.
Eloquent confirmation that the toxicity is in the dose
A man died after suffering devastating brain damage after drinking 'pint after pint' of water. His family believe the problems started when an Ecstasy pill was slipped into his drink during an evening out.
Matthew Ellis, 29 died more than seven months later from a chest infection in hospital in Sheffield. He was rushed to intensive care after collapsing at his father's home on Boxing Day last year.
Matthew's mother Maureen warned others about the little known but catastrophic dangers of drinking too much water. The drug made him crave water and the excess liquid he drank caused his salt levels to plummet bringing on a rare brain condition called extrapontine myelinolysis.
Mrs Ellis, 62, said: 'There is no health warning, water is good for you if you have a certain amount,'. 'But we want to make people more aware not to drink that much. Matthew went through absolute hell and it's such a waste of a young life.'
Mrs Ellis, a council technical support officer, said Matthew had been working in Wales before Christmas and had taken time off over the holiday period and was staying in Sheffield with his family. He had been due to start a job at Doncaster Prison in January.
He stayed out late drinking on Boxing Day before going back to spend the night at the home of his 66-year-old father Ken in Lowedges, Sheffield. 'The following day he felt poorly and started drinking lots of water,' said Mrs Ellis.
'He was drinking pints and pints . We don't know exactly home much but he was drinking constantly throughout the day. 'The next day my eldest son Andrew phoned and said Matthew was starting to fit and had nearly fallen down the stairs. Then he collapsed in the kitchen.' He suffered five seizures in the ambulance on the way to hospital and eventually died on August 4.
Mrs Ellis added: 'A consultant told me that Matthew must have unknowlingly been slipped an Ecstasy tablet. 'He never took drugs of any kind. He like to go out but not on a regular basis and might go six months without having a drink.'
He suffered irreversible brain damage after slipping into a coma - and his mother gave the hospital permission to switch off his life support machine. However, he came round again in January although he could no longer remember who he was.
His funeral is due to be held on Saturday.
Nutrition expert Mayur Ranchordas, who lectures in physiology and nutrition at Sheffield Hallam University said water intoxication or hyponatraemia can have devastating effects. He added: 'Extrapontine myelinolysis is a very rare condition. Too much water is actually very, very bad for you.
'Hyponatraemia is quite common among recreational runners on half marathon and marathon events. 'They're not running at a high intensity but they're still stopping at all the water stations, taking on large amounts of water and trying to stay hydrated.'
Family banned from having 'fire hazard' doormat outside their flat blast British council's 'ridiculous' elf 'n' safety rules
It can’t spray graffiti, shout at neighbours or play loud music. So a family were bewildered when their doormat was issued with an eviction notice.
The offending mat was covered in warning tape and plastered with a sign reading ‘move it or lose it’ after their housing association said it was a health and safety hazard.
The father of one said: ‘Someone is being paid to walk around and do this. It’s ridiculous. I can’t understand what they are thinking. It’s my doorstep and my doormat. ‘I need to wipe the soles of my shoes dry or I might fall over in my house, then that would be a health and safety issue.’
When an astonished Mr Reyes contacted Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association, which runs the communal areas of his apartment block in Bedford, it said inspectors had ruled the mat was a fire hazard.
But Mr Reyes, a currency broker who shares the flat with his wife Luz, 42, nine-year-old daughter Annabelle and stepson Juan Libreros, 19, is refusing to get rid of it. He said: ‘It’s right at the end of a corridor so it’s not like people will be rushing past it.
‘It had “move it or lose it” written on it, that’s like a threat. ‘It’s like they are saying “don’t mess with us” – but it’s only a doormat. I was very shocked that they would act in this way for something as minor as a doormat.’
Marie Taylor, head of housing at BPHA, said: ‘Like all social landlords, BPHA is legally obliged to ensure all shared areas in its properties are free from items that might trip residents in the case of a fire.’
Hospitals missing vital chance to ensure elderly are eating properly as two in three patients not checked for malnutrition
Two out of three hospital patients are not being checked for signs of malnutrition, alarming figures have revealed. The largest survey carried out into malnutrition in hospitals and the community also found most carers are not keeping track of nutrition problems among the old – or even weighing them.
Health Service guidelines say all patients going into hospital and all outpatients should be questioned about their weight and diet, as well as all those going into care homes.
The scandal of elderly hospital patients dying of neglect was laid bare earlier this year when official figures revealed dehydration contributed to the deaths of 800 a year, with malnutrition accounting for a further 284.
But a major survey of 5,000 adults in England, Scotland and Wales commissioned by the Patients Association shows little has changed, even though it is supposed to be a key priority for the NHS.
Altogether 69 per cent of hospital inpatients did not recall being screened for malnutrition on admission. This could mean fewer than one in three are being checked. A slightly higher proportion (38 per cent) were asked about their weight and diet if they were staying in hospital for more than two nights, but only a quarter who were in for shorter stays were screened.
Even though the plight of older patients has been repeatedly highlighted by the Daily Mail's Dignity for the Elderly campaign, those aged over 50 were no more likely to have been checked than those under 50. No action was taken in the cases of two-thirds of inpatients aged over 50, according to the survey, conducted by YouGov.
Worryingly, the survey found even less action being taken by carers – who are ideally placed to check on the weight of those they are caring for. More than half of 1,800 carers taking part in the survey had concerns about the weight of someone they looked after but only 8 per cent had used formal assessment methods to check for malnutrition. Just one in six had ever weighed a person they were looking after.
Among 1,500 people with close friends or relatives in a residential care home, two thirds were unaware how often their diet and weight was monitored.
The Patients Association report – Patients' Understanding of Nutrition – says it is 'alarming' that so few are being checked when staff should be following the screening guideline issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
Katherine Murphy, the association's chief executive, said: 'It is unbelievable that in the UK today there are more than three million people either malnourished or at risk of malnutrition in hospitals and the community.
Local authorities must ensure that health and social care is properly integrated and that vulnerable patients are not discharged and left to fend for themselves. 'We also need to be questioning why only 31 per cent of inpatients are being screened for malnutrition when the NICE guideline clearly states this is a clinical priority.'
She said that treating an individual patient with malnutrition over six months costs the NHS £1,000. 'It is now almost a year since the Coalition announced its plans to reform the NHS, but we are no clearer as to how these reforms will tackle the issue of malnutrition,' she said. 'Malnutrition not only affects patients, their families and carers but it costs the NHS more than £13billion a year.'
Dr Mike Stroud, chairman of the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, said: 'We have long campaigned for all patients to be weighed and screened for malnutrition on admission. 'If screening does not take place, malnutrition remains unidentified and untreated which results in increased complications, longer hospital stays and even death. 'Hospitals have all the evidence, guidance and training materials they need.'
A Department of Health spokesman said: 'In line with NICE guidance, the NHS should screen all inpatients, when admitted to hospital and at weekly intervals. 'Care homes should screen for malnutrition upon admission and whenever there is cause for concern.'
UK riots: It’s not about criminality and cuts, it’s about culture... and this is only the beginning
Condemned as a racist for his comments on 'Newsnight' following the riots, the historian David Starkey speaks out below against those who tried to silence him for confronting the gangster culture that has ruptured British society
What a week! It’s not every day that you’re the subject of direct personal attack from the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. On Tuesday, after he had spoken at his old school, Haverstock Comprehensive, about the riots, Ed Miliband was invited by a member of the audience to “stamp out” the now-infamous opinions I had expressed on the same subject on last Friday’s Newsnight.
Mr Miliband might have replied that he disagreed with what I said, but in a liberal democracy defended my right to say it since it broke no laws. Not a bit of it, I fear. Instead, Miliband – the son of a refugee who fled from Nazi Europe to preserve his life and freedom of thought – agreed enthusiastically with the questioner. Mine were “racist comments”, he said, “[and] there should be condemnation from every politician, from every political party of those sorts of comments.”
Strong words. But what do they mean? Well, the following statements are verbatim quotations of some of the principal points I made on Newsnight: “A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion.” “This sort of black male [gang] culture militates against education.” “It’s not skin colour, it’s cultural.”
“Disgusting and outrageous”, are they? In which case, those who agree with Miliband must believe the opposite of all these. They are therefore convinced that gang culture is personally wholesome and socially beneficial.
But how, then, to explain the black educationalists Tony Sewell and Katharine Birbalsingh defending the substance of my comments on “gangsta” culture, as well as Tony Parsons, who wrote in the Labour-supporting Daily Mirror that, “without the gang culture of black London, none of the riots would have happened – including the riots in other cities like Manchester and Birmingham where most of rioters were white”.
Even stranger is Miliband’s apparent notion that, far from militating against educational achievement as I suggested, “the gang culture of black London” must therefore be a seedbed for scholarship and sound learning. Odd, isn’t it, that Waterstone’s bookshop was the only business unlooted in the Ealing riots? And odder still that Lindsay Johns, the Oxford-educated mixed-race writer who mentors young people in Peckham, argues passionately against “this insulting and demeaning acceptance” of a fake Jamaican – or “Jafaican” – patois. “Language is power”, Johns writes, and to use “ghetto grammar” renders the young powerless.
“So why,” some of my friends have asked, “didn’t you stop there?” “Why did you have to talk about David Lammy MP sounding 'white’? Or white chavs becoming 'black’?” The answer is that I thought my appearance on Newsnight was supposed to be part of a wide-ranging discussion about the state of the nation. Central to any such discussion, it seems to me, are the successes and failures of integration in Britain in the past 50 years. And it was these that I was trying to address.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that my remarks on this subject produced especial outrage. I was accused of condemning all black culture; of using white and black culture interchangeably to denote “good and bad”, and of saying that blacks could only get on by rejecting black culture. Actually, I said none of those things and nothing that I did say could have been construed as such by any fair-minded person.
Instead, I was trying to point out the very different patterns of integration at the top and bottom of the social scale. At the top, successful blacks, like David Lammy and Diane Abbot, have merged effortlessly into what continues to be a largely white elite: they have studied at Oxbridge and gone on to Oxbridge-style careers, such as that of an MP.
But they have done so at the cost of losing much of their credibility with blacks on the street and in the ghettos. And here, at the bottom of the heap, the story of integration is the opposite: it is the white lumpen proletariat, cruelly known as the “chavs”, who have integrated into the pervasive black “gangsta” culture: they wear the same clothes; they talk and text in the same Jafaican patois; and, as their participation in recent events shows, they have become as disaffected and riotous.
Trying to explain why, led me to what all my friends agree was my greatest error: to mention Enoch Powell. Tactically, of course, they are right, as the “Rivers of Blood” speech remains, even 40-odd years after its delivery, an unhealed wound.
Unfortunately, the speech and still more the reaction to it, are also central to any proper understanding of our present discontents. For Powell’s views were popular at the time and the London dockers marched in his support. The reaction of the liberal elites in both the Labour and Tory parties, who had just driven Powell into the wilderness, was unanimous: the white working class could never be trusted on race again. The result was a systematic attack over several decades: on their perceived xenophobic patriotism, on symbols like the flag of St George, even – and increasingly – on the very idea of England itself.
The attack was astonishingly successful. But it left a void where a sense of common identity should be. And, for too many, the void has been filled with the values of “gangsta” culture.
Consider the converse. One of the most striking things about the England riots is where they did not happen: Yorkshire, the North East, Wales and Scotland. These areas contain some of the worst pockets of unemployment in the country. But they are also characterised by a powerful sense of regional or national identity and difference that cuts across all classes and binds them together. And it is this, I am sure, which has inoculated them against the disease of “gangsta” culture and its attendant, indiscriminate violence.
Scotland, Alex Salmond says smugly, is a “different culture”. It is indeed, since the Scots are allowed - and even encouraged - to be as racist as they please and hate the English with glad abandon.
I do not want a similar licensed xenophobia here. But an English nationalism we must have. And it must be one that includes all our people: white and black and mixed race alike.
Fortunately, there is a powerful narrative of freedom that runs like a golden thread through our history. “The air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe in,” counsel declared repeatedly in Somersett’s Case, about the legality of slavery in England, in 1772.
We must focus on the righting of the wrong rather than the original wrong itself. The former heals; the latter divides. And we have had enough of division. There is a final point. If all the people of this country, black and white alike, are to enter fully into our national story, as I desperately hope they will, they must do so on terms of reciprocity. In other words, I must be as free to comment on problems in the black community as blacks are to point the finger at whites, which they do frequently, often with justice, and with impunity.
For the other pernicious legacy of the reaction to Powell has been an enforced silence on the matter of race. The subject has become unmentionable, by whites at any rate. And any breach has been punished by ostracism and worse. As the hysterical reaction to my remarks shows, the witch-finders already have their sights on me, led by that pillar of probity and public rectitude, Piers Morgan, who called on Twitter for the ending of my television career within moments of the Newsnight broadcast.
But the times have changed. Powell had to prophesy his “Tiber foaming with blood”. We, on the other hand, have already experienced the fires of Tottenham and Croydon. Moreover, the public mood is different from the acquiescent and deferential electorate of the Sixties. We are undeceived. We are tired of being cheated and lied to by bankers and MPs and some sections of the press.
We will not continue, I think, to tolerate being lied to and cheated in the matter of race. Instead of “not in front of the children”, we want honesty.
But this is only the beginning. The riots are the symptom of a profound rupture in our body politic and sense of national identity. If the rupture is not healed and a sense of common purpose recovered, they will recur – bigger, nastier and more frequently. Can we stop bickering and address this task of recovery and reconstruction – all together?
Which tells you a lot about their attitudes: They're Britain's Kremlin
The Courtauld Institute was once the best place in Britain to study the history of art. But its director, Anthony Blunt, had, earlier in his life, spied for the Soviet Union. He was the "Fourth Man" in the ring with Burgess, Maclean and Philby. He confessed to the British intelligence services in 1964 (having repeatedly denied all the accusations over many years). The information was kept quiet, partly because he was Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures. In 1979, he was publicly exposed, stripped of his knighthood and disgraced.
The Reunion brought together five distinguished people who had studied under Blunt. They included the director of the British Museum Neil MacGregor, the novelist Anita Brookner and the critic Brian Sewell. All five agreed what a wonderful chap Blunt was – brilliant, kind, civilised, terrific work on Poussin. And all said how appalling it was that Blunt had been attacked by the press after his exposure. Sue MacGregor (no relation of Neil, I think), who presented the programme, said that Blunt had been the victim of "public vilification"; she referred to the scandal as "what had happened to him".
We were told only in the thinnest outline what Blunt himself had done to others. In the mid-Thirties, he began working for the NKVD (the forerunner of the KGB), and helped recruit other British agents for them. It is often alleged that people in the West at that time had no means of knowing what Stalin was up to. This was not the case. Malcolm Muggeridge, attacked on this programme for attacking Blunt, went to the Ukraine in 1933 and reported – in this paper's sister, The Morning Post – that millions were starving there as a deliberate act of Stalin's policy. There were many like him (though not nearly enough).
Much was made, particularly by Brian Sewell, of the claim that the threat of fascism was so great in the Thirties that Communism seemed the only way. This does great injustice to all those – the majority of the population – who detested both. If Sewell is right, why did Blunt, Philby, Burgess etc continue to work for Stalin after he made his pact with Hitler, which lasted from 1939 to 1941, the time of greatest danger for Britain? And why did Blunt continue to shelter Burgess, Maclean and Philby from discovery after the war, when Nazism had been defeated and the Soviet Union was the deadly enemy of the West?
As for Blunt's acts of spying, these were brushed aside by the programme on the grounds that there had been "very exaggerated estimates" of the number of people who had died as a result of his actions. His treachery, said another former pupil, Michael Jacobs, had been "a minor and ultimately irrelevant aspect of his life".
It is a good thing that people feel gratitude to their teachers. It is also true that Blunt's work on Blake, Poussin, Borromini and so on does not become bad because he turned out to have been a Communist spy. So it was difficult to blame the five for their loyalty to Blunt, even when they were talking rubbish.
What was disgraceful, though, was the structure of the programme. For many, The Reunion's version may be the first they have heard of the subject. It is the duty of the BBC to apply to history the impartiality on which its Charter insists. Yet, as with the same programme's treatment of the 30th anniversary of the Brixton riots (which this column criticised on March 28), the entire panel was on the same side. Blunt was a virtually innocent victim, we were told, and the only villain was the press.
Sue MacGregor explained that Blunt "made no secret of his Marxist beliefs". This was perfectly irrelevant. The issue in his story was not his beliefs, but his treachery, which, by definition, was secret. He pretended that he was a normal British citizen and, during the war, a loyal officer of MI5, but in fact he was working for a murderous tyranny. Almost the only censure in the entire programme came from Neil MacGregor. Blunt, he said, had been guilty of "a very serious breach of trust". This understatement was rendered powerful by its solitary splendour.
The breach of trust was made even worse by the "establishment" career which Blunt chose to pursue. At least Burgess, Maclean and Philby ended up, drink-sodden, in miserable Moscow flats supplied by the dictatorship they so admired. Blunt, however, stayed, advised the Queen about her pictures, was knighted and honoured in academe. For a quarter of a century, throughout which time he concealed what he had done, he lived in the Courtauld's grace-and-favour Georgian elegance in Portman Square. His entire (non-spying) career was constructed on principles in direct conflict with his Marxism.
And when he was finally unmasked, even his handling of the news reflected his love of the privilege which had always surrounded him. He had lunch at The Times (then the establishment paper) before the press conference, and restricted access to selected reporters.
The Reunion propagated the theory that spying for the Soviets in the Thirties and Forties was nothing worse than an excess of zeal. This is a shocking untruth. Hitler and Stalin were moral equivalents. Indeed, at the time when Blunt signed up for the Soviet Union, Stalin had actually killed far more people than Hitler because the Führer was only just getting into his stride. The BBC would (rightly) never dream of making a programme which sought to excuse traitors who worked for the Nazis.
In our generation, Blunt's equivalents are the intellectual apologists for Islamist extremism. No doubt it will turn out that some of them worked secretly for countries like Iran, and no doubt, in due time, the BBC will laud them too.
How the British Labour Party let a generation down with easy High School courses
The number of pupils studying core GCSEs more than halved under Labour, creating an under-skilled generation, figures have revealed. Experts said the decision to introduce a raft of easy GCSE-equivalent qualifications had led to dumbed-down teenagers deprived of key skills for survival in the workplace.
Only 22 per cent of youngsters - 152,000 - took GCSEs in English, maths, two sciences, a humanity and a language last year. This is a reduction from 50 per cent - 293,000 - in 1997 when the last Labour Government took power.
Instead of rigorous subjects such as physics, tens of thousands sat soft subjects such as a Certificate in Personal Effectiveness, which includes a module on how to claim the dole. Ministers have now called for pupils to sit the EBacc, a new qualification based on the old O-levels which focuses on traditional subjects.
Tory MP Damian Hinds said: ‘These figures show categorically how, over 13 years, the last Labour government undermined the life chances of a generation by steering them away from the subjects that employers value most.’ He said students need a ‘core of recognised key academic subjects’ to ‘compete in an increasingly global marketplace with their counterparts from countries like China and India’.
The figures, revealed today, emerge as around 750,000 children in England, Wales and Northern Ireland prepare to receive a bumper crop of GCSE results on Thursday. It is predicted that nearly one in four could be awarded at least an A grade and one in 12 exams could score a coveted A*. Last summer, the pass rate rose for the 23rd year in a row, with 69.1 per cent of entries achieving at least a C grade.
The figures showing the sharp decline in core subjects - revealed in response to a parliamentary question - followed a massive increase in non-academic qualification awarded since 2004. Some 115,000 non-academic subjects were taken in school in 2004 - and this soared to 575,000 in 2010. Most of these were taken at the age of 16 and included BTECs in subjects such as ICT, which is equivalent to four separate GCSEs.
An independent review by Professor Alison Wolf, of King’s College London, found that 350,000 young people each year are pushed into courses with ‘little to no labour market value’. She said schools have ‘deliberately steered’ pupils away from the more difficult core subjects to improve their league table rankings.
Official figures show that while only 22 per cent of pupils took five EBacc subjects, fewer than one in six achieved them last year. The EBacc measure was included for the first time in the league tables in January this year. It is thought that next year its effect will be seen in results, bringing a halt to the year-on-year rise of pass rates.
Union leaders are against the EBacc. Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said it would do more harm than good. She added: ‘The pressure on schools and teachers of the league tables has already led to too much teaching focusing on getting pupils through exams.
‘The Government’s intention to devalue and limit vocational qualifications in league tables will tie schools’ hands and push many people into qualifications that don’t allow them to develop their talents and excel.’
Is now the time for a castle law in Britain?: "At a time where home and small business owners face a real threat of violence towards themselves and their property, and when police resources are increasingly stretched beyond their limits, better defined rights of defending personal property would offer peace of mind as well as a definitive deterrent to would-be criminals. Rather than questioning what constitutes 'reasonable force' we would be safe in the knowledge that if we were to ever be put in the terrifying situation of facing an intruder the law would offer us the absolute upper hand."
There is a new lot of postings by Chris Brand just up -- on his usual vastly "incorrect" themes of race, genes, IQ etc.
21 August, 2011
Want to know the NHS's real problem? Ask a nurse for a bowl of cornflakes
It is an all too familiar feeling. Going to see someone in hospital, trying to gee them up and then leaving in quiet desperation, fretting about the lack of basic nursing care.
Post-operative, sore and weak patients are expected to do things that they simply cannot do: lift a jug of water, haul themselves and their various drips to the bathroom, sit up and eat food that has been plonked in front of them.
What happens outside visiting hours or to those who do not have visitors is indeed a worry.
I know that arguments about the NHS are always boiled down to issues of economics, with massive top-down restructuring being cited as the explanation for all ills. But this simply isn’t true.
There was a crisis in caring long before this Government. ‘Cuts’ don’t explain a begrudging manner. ‘Cuts’ don’t explain the complete lack of communication between shifts. ‘Cuts’ don’t explain why nurses sit at their stations chatting and glare at you if you ask for anything.
Nurses complain that they have neither the time nor the staff to deliver quality care and that in these conditions their bedside manner is often compromised. This is an understatement. In some wards they are very rarely at the bedside.
I certainly don’t want to attack all nurses, as I have seen wonderful care at first-hand, but I do want to know why some nurses now armed with ‘care plans’ feel it demeaning to do the basic tasks of nursing.
The combination of skill and care that the best nurses exhibit is remarkable: my daughter, with a fractured skull and blood caked everywhere, had her hair gently washed by two nurses.
I have seen lip-balm slicked on to the mouths of the terminally ill. I have seen student nurses sit long past the end of their shift, chatting to lonely people.
The hospital I was in this week saved my youngest’s life when she had meningitis, so I am well aware of the everyday miracles performed there. Yet on the wards, especially if you are getting on a bit, it’s a different story.
The person I went to see, someone who has spent her life caring for others, needs to be encouraged to eat and move around to recover from major surgery.
Feeling nauseous, she asked for cornflakes but was offered only porridge, which she didn’t want. A small thing perhaps, as is the fact she wants to get up and have a bath and needs help to do so – yet all this would aid her recovery.
This phenomenon of some nurses being ‘too posh to wash’ is not new. Recent scandals over the care of the elderly who are often left hungry and thirsty cannot be a shock to anyone who has been near a hospital.
Boxes are ticked, a tray of food is put in front of patients and removed whether they can manage or not. If a member of the family is not there to act as an advocate, basic needs are neglected. Something has gone awry with the training and recruitment of nurses.
The default defence is ‘staff shortages’. The nursing union has warned of ‘catastrophic consequences’ for patient care as the NHS tries to save £20 billion by 2014, and talks of how Cameron’s promise to protect frontline services has been broken.
But somewhere between high politics and an elderly woman who needs to be coaxed to eat, we need to talk about the valuing of care itself.
To reduce nursing to the systematically inept feeding, watering and doling out of medication is insulting but this is, I am afraid, what some nursing professionals have done.
That this culture of callousness appears institutionalised is what is so deeply demoralising. Such failure is viral. Surely both nurses and patients should be doing all they can to build resistance to it.
Foreigners arrested in Britain riots to be deported
We'll believe it when we see it
More than 150 foreign nationals arrested after the riots in Britain will be deported, a media report said Saturday.
Immigration Minister Damian Green said they will be thrown out of Britain at the 'earliest opportunity'.
Around 150 of the 2,800 people held over the looting and arson attacks were born abroad, the Daily Mail said quoting the UK Border Agency.
Immigration Minister Damian Green said Friday: "We strongly believe that foreign national lawbreakers should be removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity."
"We also have the power to cancel the visas of foreign nationals found guilty of criminal activity, and this is something we will be looking to do when cases arise," the Mail quoted him as saying.
Under immigration rules, criminals from outside Europe are automatically put forward for deportation if they are sentenced to 12 months in prison.
The same applies to Europeans given a 12-month sentence for drugs, violent or sexual crimes, or 24 months for other crimes, the Mail said.
British black man discriminated against by liberal elitists because he speaks too correctly
Their racist stereotypes show. Black men must stay in their place
For as long as I can remember people have been mistaking me for a white man. Not in the flesh of course, but after speaking on the telephone. I have lost count of the times I have arranged business lunches with strangers, only to see them look straight through me as they scan the restaurant for a middle-class white gentleman who answers to the name of Ben.
When, eventually, they realise that I am he, the reaction is invariably one of barely concealed surprise. Conventional wisdom has it that my face and voice do not match. But look at it from my point of view. Why do people assume I am white? The answer is so depressingly obvious it exposes a fundamental prejudice at the heart of our society.
There is no way I could be a black man, the assumption goes, because I am well-spoken. Because my accent – instilled in me by my parents – is old-fashioned RP: Received Pronunciation. Quite simply, I speak with a degree of erudition beyond the ken of a black man.
We live in an age when class barriers have supposedly been torn down, yet the manner in which we speak is as important as ever. Every day people make assumptions based on our language and accent, and we ignore this fact at our peril.
As Britons we are blessed with a language of extraordinary depth and nuance – there is a reason so many other tongues steal from our own. It is almost criminal to witness the dismantling of our rich tapestry of expression by the next generation. Nevertheless, whites, Asians, blacks and children of all racial backgrounds are stampeding towards the low ground, stripping language down to a degree of banal, almost feral simplicity. It is homogenous nonsense, characterised by limited vocabulary and an absence of imagination.
In a sense, they can hardly be blamed. This nihilistic language is the fashion, and for teenagers that is an irresistibly powerful motivation. So it is that we find an entire generation speaking in the same peculiar slang. The Asian youth, the northern council estate boy, the South London gang member and the fashion- conscious public schoolboy all delving into the same preposterous manner of expression.
Poor language skills, epitomised by street talk, are holding back an entire generation. Interviews for jobs or further education places are never going to go well if the young person is incapable of expressing himself. Language is not a privilege of the few. It can be easily learned – just look at the Eastern European workers who quickly pick up the necessary skills.
The gift of self-expression can break down untold barriers and open up a world of achievement – Barack Obama gained the highest office on the planet due in a large part to the power of his oratory. We neglect language at our peril. More needs to be taught in our schools, as a matter of urgency, to instil a sense of justifiable pride.
People say I am an anomaly, that by rights I should be talking with the Jamaican patois so popular with young people today. Utter tosh, I would argue, given that my forebears hail from Barbados – more than 1,000 miles away from Jamaica – and my adoptive parents are from Teddington in Middlesex.
But never mind the prejudice against youngsters, with their ‘street’ language. In my experience the bias works equally powerfully in the opposite direction, in modern ‘liberal’ Britain. I have lost count of the number of white middle-class television producers who have rejected my voice because it is too posh. On one occasion I was told bluntly: ‘I’m sorry, you fit the bill perfectly but you’re not black enough.’
At auditions for acting roles I have been rejected because my pronunciation is too clear. Sir Alec Guinness must be spinning in his grave. Even on news programmes I have been deemed unsuitable to comment on black issues because my accent is ‘inappropriate’.
What a strange world we live in where being well-spoken and articulate is a burden.
Britain has launched a revolution in its university system -- says Matthew d'Ancona
The ritual argument about the difficulty of A-levels strikes me as both rude and pointless. It’s hard to imagine anything more offensive or crass to those celebrating their results than telling them noisily that the currency has been debauched and devalued.
The fact is: they don’t have to be told any of this. Their conduct – the brightest teenagers taking six or seven A-levels to mark themselves out as the best – shows that they know the score, perfectly well aware that pass rates don’t improve for 29 years in a row if standards are stable. Today’s smartest sixth formers pursue A* grades with the same zeal that their forebears sought the old-fashioned A. They do whatever is necessary to distinguish themselves, with much greater ingenuity and industry than was necessary in the past.
It cannot be said too often: the row about grade inflation is a row about the failures of past policy-makers, not a critique of today’s teenagers. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, is committed to an overhaul of A-levels, following a review of the examination commissioned by the Tories in Opposition and led by Sir Richard Sykes, a former rector of Imperial College London. The themes of the forthcoming reform are encouraging – fewer “modules”, more traditional written tests, the probable withering on the vine of the AS level, new exam boards – but the timetable is not yet settled. I would be pleasantly surprised if the poor, ailing A-level is healed in the lifetime of this Parliament.
Which is not to say that the pace of change in education has stalled. Quite the opposite, in fact: as we trot biliously through the traditional arguments of A-level and GCSE fortnight (“This boy has 36 As at A-level, and yet can’t even get a place at Simon Cowell University”, etc, etc), we risk missing the bigger, fizzing picture. As the aftershock of the August riots continues to pulse through the nation, it is easy to forget the violent mayhem in Westminster last November in protest at the prospective rise in university tuition fees. Inexcusable as those earlier riots were, they at least had a measure of political content: the changes against which the protesters bellowed are indeed revolutionary. In this context, the chaos in university clearing last week symbolised the death throes of the old, or, if you are of an optimistic cast of mind, the birth pangs of the new.
Many of those scrambling for a place last week were desperate to slip under the wire to avoid the new system, which will be implemented in the academic year 2012-13 and lift the annual ceiling for undergraduate fees from £3,500 to £9,000 pa. At present, 60 per cent of university funding is public, and 40 per cent private; those percentages will now be reversed. This represents a transformation, not only in higher education finance but in what, since Cardinal Newman, we have called “the Idea of a University”. It completes a shift that has its distant origins in the introduction of student loans in 1990 and, more decisively, in Tony Blair’s Teaching and Higher Education Act of 1998, which introduced fees of £1,000 pa and began the phasing out of maintenance grants.
It has taken more than 20 years, but the deeply entrenched assumption that a university education was an immutable entitlement which taxpayers (graduates or not) were required to subsidise in full has been replaced by the recognition that it is a privilege, positional good and lifetime advantage that ought to be paid for (in large part) by the beneficiary himself. The corollary is that universities will have to raise their game as teaching institutions if they wish to attract funding, and – an important change – publish details of the A-level subjects taken by successful applicants. As long as the fees they can charge are capped, Britain will not have the unfettered higher-education marketplace that it needs to compete globally. But the trajectory is clear.
One of the most significant proposals in the Higher Education White Paper published in June was that universities should be able to admit as many students as they wish with two As and a B at A-level (or better). In effect, this quietly grants the Russell Group – the top 20 universities – something close to market flexibility. “That’s a radical change,” according to one senior source. “It amounts to the quiet introduction of a higher education voucher.”
Co-payment by the consumer; the rudiments of a university marketplace; a discreetly introduced voucher system – so far, so Conservative. But this is not a Conservative Government; it is a Coalition held together by Sellotape and exhaustion. Although many Tories wish that the expansion of higher education could be halted, the Prime Minister and David Willetts, the Universities Minister, are not among them. Both men share the Lib Dems’ belief that campuses can be engines of social mobility and aspiration. For this reason, the new system will be progressive in every sense that matters. No graduate will pay a penny back until he earns £21,000 or more. Less affluent students will benefit from the new National Scholarship Programme, a fund championed by Nick Clegg that will give successful applicants at least £3,000 to offset the annual costs.
But there is still tension between the Coalition partners over the precise extent to which government should twist arms, pull levers and risk confrontation to force universities to admit applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds. All 123 higher education institutions in England are planning to charge more than £6,000 – a decision that automatically makes them subject to much more stringent “access agreements”. Tory ministers are foursquare behind any measures that make universities look at the potential of candidates as well as their achievements. There is no quarrel over the need to get more state pupils into higher education.
The argument concerns means, not ends. Clegg is up for a fight with the vice-chancellors, and has said as much in private. Denied electoral reform at Westminster as his legacy, he demands measurable results on social mobility, especially in the composition of university admissions. The Lib Dems want everything short of formal quotas, which are illegal under the 2005 Higher Education Act. They believe that no progress will be made unless the Coalition bares its teeth. Their Conservative partners fret that the Coalition needs its remaining teeth intact for all the other battles that lie ahead.
Unexpectedly, universities have become the laboratory of this Government’s social ambitions. But these individual ambitions are not necessarily consistent. Is the higher education system to become an ever more independent marketplace of free institutions? Or a great Heath Robinson machine for social engineering? It cannot be both. This is the unanswered question that lurks beneath this year’s university clearing bedlam. Clearing for what, exactly?
British authorities are much more punitive about talk than they are about actual rioters
Most of the real rioters walked free from court with only token sentences. So how come a couple of people whose only offence was talk got such big sentences?
Jordan Blackshaw, 20, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, were each jailed for four years at Chester Crown Court on Tuesday after setting up Facebook pages encouraging riots in their neighbourhood.
Blackshaw set up an event called "Smashdown" in Northwich but no one apart from the police, who were monitoring the page, turned up at the rendezvous outside McDonald's.
Sutcliffe-Keenan set up a page called Warrington Riots. When he woke up the following morning with a hangover, he removed the page and apologised, saying it had been a joke. No rioting broke out as a result of his message.
The pair are clearly just a couple of witless Norman No Mates. But do their misdemeanours really merit such disproportionate sentences?
British anti-cancer pill keeping terrorist alive but not available in Britain
Abiraterone acetate, the life-extending cancer pill keeping the Lockerbie bomber alive, has been hugely successful in drugs trials but is not available to patients on the NHS
A medic in Tripoli confirmed that Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi was receiving Abiraterone, the expensive hormone-based therapy drug which can extend the life of late-stage cancer patients by several months.
Despite being developed by British scientists at the Institute of Cancer Research in London, and tested at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, it has not been approved for use on the NHS.
The man convicted of the aeroplane bombing which killed 270 people over Lockerbie in 1988 was given three months to live when released by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds - but is still alive on the eve of his second year of freedom.
In recent US trials it was found to add two to five months to the lifespan of late-stage cancer sufferers, who have an average survival span of a year and a half. Another study of 21 men found the drug shrank the painful tumours of 80 per cent of patients. Trials are underway to find if the drug is effective on breast cancer patients.
Consultant urologist Professor Roger Kirby, founder and director of The Prostate Centre in London, believes that abiraterone is likely to be responsible for Al-Megrahi’s prolonged life.
“In clinical trials abiraterone was proven to prolong lifespan by almost a third for late-stage cancer patients. Mr Al-Megrahi will have some of the best therapists and medical healthcare at his disposal so he will almost certainly be using this drug alongside other advanced treatment options," he said.
"He has long outlived the speculative three-month prognosis, and it appears he may continue to do so for a while yet. I strongly suspect that this drug has been central to that."
Abiraterone is now set for review by the European Commission, after which it will subject to approval by the NICE, the body which decides which drugs the NHS should provide, according to their cost and effectiveness. It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in April. Professor Kirby is now lobbying the European Commission to fast-track the drug.
“Abiraterone can provide a vital lifeline to men by shrinking tumours and improving the cancer symptoms. It is inconceivable to think that the European Commission would opt against its use in Europe. Put bluntly: it would deny prostate cancer sufferers a chance to extend their lives," he said.
But even if it is approved it is feared the drug, to be marketed by Johnson and Johnson under the name Zytiga and costing around £3,000 a month, may be too costly for use on the NHS. [They've got an army of bureaucrats to feed first]
Warmists have contributed to the nihilism behind the British riots
Got kids? Watched as they've been indoctrinated - sorry, I mean educated - about global warming over the last decade? Then you'll know what I mean. They come home from school moodily depressed about the future of our planet and, of course, what that means for their own lives. What's the point? We're all doomed! Why study? Why bother getting an education? It's futile. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are soaring. Soon we'll all be living in a polluted hell-hole constantly battling the equivalent of the Queensland floods or the Victorian bushfires year upon year. And you want me to waste what precious time I have left studying accountancy?
It's called nihilism, and it's even more terrifying to witness in your teenage children than hickeys, drunkenness, truancy, insolence, idleness, bad marks or bullying. Nihilism, or the conviction that life on Earth is totally pointless, saps the young of their energy, their ambition, and their will to strive, struggle and triumph.
Any amateur psychologist (or even better, parent) will tell you how easy it is to demotivate a child. So as parents we go out of our way to imbue our children with a sense of self-worth and optimism. We try and tell them what a great life lies ahead of them.
Yet at the same time, our teachers and our politicians are determined to do the complete opposite. To convince an entire generation that life on Earth as we know it is, well... stuffed. There is no worthwhile future.
The Sex Pistols are famous for coining two phrases, other than "God Save The Queen", which wasn't strictly theirs. "Anarchy in the UK" and "No Future". Unsurprisingly, the two go hand in hand. As in Australia, the UK education authorities have spent the last dozen years or so doing their utmost to persuade our kids that they have no future. No future for the planet, which equates to a very bleak future for themselves. Combined with an unrelenting culture of consumption and acquisition, the average child grows up believing a) life is shit and b) grab whatever you can whenever you get the chance. Combine that philosophy with a stimulative diet of violent computer games and a "bling" culture that prides overt materialism above all else and you get, um... Give me a moment while I figure it out.
Oh yeah! Got it! Anarchy. No respect for authority, an instant "thrill" addiction, no interest in long-term consequences, and a very real understanding that "the system" will never dare blame you for anything that you have done. Awesome, dude!
"We're just getting our taxes back!" yelled one over-excited young woman as she happily looted a corner store the other night in full view of the TV cameras. "This was the best day ever!" yelled talented athlete and (now disqualified) Olympic ambassador Chelsea Ives after allegedly rampaging through Enfield smashing and stealing.
"Children now have the power over their parents, not the other way around," said the father of another middle-class teenage looter. Every time he tries to criticise or correct his daughters behaviour, she has been taught to loudly accuse him or either verbal or physical abuse.
Clearly, today's "rioters" aren't actually interested in changing the world with catchy slogans and idealistic sentiments. They're far too busy helping themselves to shoes, clothes, electronic goods, alcohol, chips and cash.
Only a few weeks ago, Pink Floyd offspring Charlie Gilmour was sentenced to 16 months for his role in the "student riots" of last year. "We're very, very angry!" he proclaimed, smashing his way into Oxford Street's Top Shop, presumably grabbing the opportunity to get some new clothes. "You broke the moral law, we are going to break all the laws," he carried on, as he then set about attacking Prince Charles's convoy and desecrating the Cenotaph.
All because of cuts to student fees? Um, his step-dad made one of the biggest selling albums of all time. I don't think so. Nihilism is a pernicious, debilitating and self-fulfilling doctrine. In the UK, as here, the "authorities" have been preaching it relentlessly for the last decade. It comes at a price. Al Gore, I hope you watched the riots in a London as avidly as our kids were all forced to watch your breathless prophesies of global gloom, doom and destruction.
It's not rising sea levels we have to worry about. It's a rising tide of nihilism, thrill seeking and moral ambiguity.
Absurd English law-enforcement lies behind the riots
The most amazing thing about the reaction of English MPs to last week’s terrible violence was how surprised they were. For a country whose criminal law is invariably sympathetic to offenders, nearly always harsh on their victims, and unwilling to pay for adequate policing the surprise is that they were surprised.
Two stories hitting English papers during June and July provide a glimpse of current British law in action.
On June 23 around midnight a masked gang broke down the back door of a home in Salford, in northwestern England. The householder, 59, his son and the son’s girl friend called the police and tried to defend the home and themselves. They managed to stab one of the gang who died of his wounds. When the police arrived they arrested the householder, his son and the son’s girlfriend on suspicion of attempted murder.
On July 11, a headline in The Sun read “Shopkeeper, 72, nicked after `stabbing to death robber.’” Mr. Coley’s Manchester flower shop was closed and he was playing dominoes with a friend when two masked men armed with guns broke in. In the struggle that followed, Mr. Coley’s friend was injured but Coley managed to stab one robber, who later died, while the other fled wounded. The Manchester police are holding Mr. Coley for attempted murder.
Since at least 1953 the English government has insisted that citizens depend on the police for protection and not try to protect themselves. The Prevention of Crime Act of 1953 prohibited anyone carrying an article in a public place with the idea it could be used for protection if they were attacked. If discovered they are charged with carrying an offensive weapon.
Since 1964 self-defense has not been considered a good reason to keep a handgun, even if for those who lived in a remote area. Then in 1998 all handguns were banned. Toy or replica guns are also illegal. A man was arrested for holding two burglars with a toy gun while he contacted the police.
More recently knives with points have been made illegal. A list of prohibited weapons, possession of which carries a 10-year prison sentence, includes not only machine guns but chemical sprays and knives with a blade more than three inches long. An American tourist from Arizona who protected herself from attackers in the subway using her penknife was arrested for carrying an offensive weapon.
The government does not permit even someone who is unarmed from acting forcefully when attacked if his or her assailant is harmed in the process. If a citizen is attacked in the street he is to flee. If a citizen is attacked in his home he is not to injure the attacker beyond what a court later considers a reasonable use of force. If a citizen harms his assailant he will be accused of assault, or, as the cases cited above illustrate, murder or attempted murder should the attacker be killed.
Burglars can sue for damages and the police are careful to ensure they don’t get hurt. This past February the gardeners of Surrey were told they could not use wire mesh on the windows of their sheds because burglers might get hurt breaking in.
Tony Martin, an English farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another with his shotgun during the seventh break-in of his home was denied parole because he would pose a threat to burglars. The career burglar he wounded was granted parole and sued Martin for his injuries. Worse, the burglar was given public funds to pursue his lawsuit.
While law-abiding citizens have been treated strictly offenders have not. Since the 1950s it is only under extraordinary circumstances that anyone under 18 is put in jail. Instead offenders are given a warning, a fine or community service. Since young offenders know they will not be incarcerated there is little to deter them from committing ever more bold crimes. One of those brought to court during the recent riots was an 18-year old who had been hauled before the courts 21 previous times but never jailed.
Sentences for adult criminals have been shortened and they routinely serve only half of these. In lieu of policemen on the beat the English have opted for surveillance cameras. These are much cheaper but all a potential offender needs to do is to wear a hood or mask to greatly diminish their value. English police now dealing with the riots boast they have 20,000 hours of footage.
Even offenders who have been apprehended tend to be let off with a caution or electronic bracelet. This saves money on prison but means they are back on the streets in short order. In 2009 70 percent of burglars the police managed to apprehend avoided prison.
The extent of the tolerance of criminality and refusal to allow law-abiding people to protect themselves has led to an atmosphere where gangs can operate with virtual impunity. The recent, widespread riots, apart from their scale, are not radically different from the violence that has been occurring for many years.
Let us hope the English politicians so surprised and angry at the lawlessness in their cities realize it is time for change, time to permit people to protect themselves and to bring some rigour into the punishment of offenders.
"Having made private conduct central to politics, it’s a bit rich for MPs now to slate the press for being obsessed with private peccadilloes."
At the Edinburgh international Book Festival over the weekend, Sarah Brown, author of the Downing Street misery memoirs Behind the Black Door, had a veritable treat in store for her audience. A surprise guest. One can only imagine the anticipation before he made his appearance. And one can only imagine the deflation when he actually appeared, ex-prime minister Gordon Brown, the man with a rain cloud for a hat and a demeanour to darken even the most desolate of wakes.
But Brown is energised these days. He’s got a cause, a target. And he can see that finally, in light of the interminable phone-hacking furore, this target – the press – is on the defensive. Sunday was no different, as once again Brown rounded on journalists and their surfeit of freedom.
So when questioned by an audience member about the phone-hacking scandal, Brown renewed the attack he had made a few weeks ago in parliament. Then, his anger was matched by his rhetoric as he launched himself, figurative fists flying rather than clunking, into the ‘criminal media nexus’ of News International. He talked of the ‘wholly innocent’ men, women and children who had been treated as ‘public property’, and he described how ‘their private and inner most feelings and their private tears [were] bought and sold by News International for commercial gain’.
In Edinburgh on Sunday there was less rage in his attack, no doubt because he was attacking the press more broadly rather than just Rupert Murdoch’s outfit, but his target remained the same: the press’s relentless pursuit of people’s private lives, their willingness to rip an individual to shreds in the interest of a story. ‘In Britain’, Brown said, ‘what the press do if they want to really get at someone is try to challenge their motives and integrity, and try to suggest that they are not the person that they say they are… the way the press acts is that they try to doubt people’s motives and try to suggest we have a malign purpose, and they try to destroy people’s character.’ Brown proceeded to talk of the time when the Sun took photos of him praying at the 2007 Festival of Remembrance in the Albert Hall and claimed that he had fallen asleep during the sermon.
Specific anecdotes aside, Brown’s criticism is far from unfamiliar. In fact it echoes that of his New Labour frenemy Tony Blair, who in 2007, as outgoing prime minister, decided to criticise the ‘feral beast’ that the press had become, ‘just tearing people and reputations to bits’. In this reading, the press, especially its redtop contingency, is held responsible for nothing less than the degeneration of public life. In the words of a columnist at the respectable Guardian newspaper, the scandal-seeking, profit-driven tabloids have made ‘this a shallower, more selfish country’. Peter Wilby at the same paper prefers to talk of how the Sun et al have ‘coarsened British culture’.
If this narrative is to be believed, the press has not just coarsened and phwoarified British culture, reducing so-called watercooler discussion to celebrity and political sex scandals, but it has also degraded and trivialised our political and civic life. As Blair argued four years ago, the obsession with digging dirt, with seeing the venal motive in every public act, ‘saps the country’s confidence and self-belief’: ‘It undermines [society’s] assessment of itself, its institutions and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.’ Where there was once trust, now just a corrosive cynicism prevails – and it is all down to the press.
This is not an accusation levelled solely against the redtops. The broadsheets’ increased interest in personality, character and scandal is equally as marked, something writ large in the diminution and sometimes absence of parliamentary reporting from their pages. Given that for most of the twentieth century, between 400 and 700 lines a day were dedicated just to reporting on parliamentary debates, the loss of interest (and lines) is notable (1). In a piece written in 2008 for the British Journalism Review, ex-BBC political editor John Cole wrote: ‘If you seek the reason parliament now stands so low in public esteem, do not look only at the quality of the speeches, which is doubtless as uneven as ever it was, but at the paucity of the coverage.’
The striking aspect of such criticism is that at some level it resonates. The horizons of public life do seem limited. And what has often passed for politics over the past couple of decades does seem increasingly, achingly trivial. Whether it’s current PM David Cameron snapped drinking champagne at, er, a Spectator champagne reception or, way back in 2002, his predecessor Tony Blair supposedly trying to get a prominent position at the Queen Mother’s funeral, the press seem obsessed with appearances, or rather with politicians failing to keep theirs up. Politics seems to have been sacrificed for a forensic examination of personality.
And yet there’s something that really sticks in the craw seeing the political class – helped by a commentariat which thinks itself above tawdry story-grubbing – come together to condemn the press for diminishing public life, slamming it for reducing public virtue to little more than a parade of private vice. And that is because politicians are not the victims of a personality-obsessed press that has grown craven in search of dwindling profits. Rather, those politicians played a key role in making a public and political virtue of private conduct.
In fact, New Labour’s success was as a party more or less born from this elevation of private and personal conduct into the lingua franca of political life. At the time of New Labour’s rise, during the mid-1990s, its promotion of its members’ general decency was no doubt viewed as a pragmatic step. New Labour was seen as simply capitalising on the rot at the heart of the then Conservative government, whose private failings were manifest in the libel and perjury trials of Tory minister Jonathan Aitken and the ‘cash for questions’ imbroglio of his colleague Neil Hamilton between 1994 and 1996. But New Labour did not just take advantage of its parliamentary rivals’ misfortunes. It made being ‘clean’, being of unblemished character, being privately virtuous, into its political cause.
Such was the political importance now being ascribed to the character of politicians that New Labour’s key 1997 manifesto pledge was to ‘clean up politics’ and ‘reform party funding to end sleaze’. In place of the ‘the totalising ideologies’ of yore, as Tony Blair described left and right in 1996, stood politicians themselves (2). Shorn of grand, overarching political vision, what was important was personal conduct, being seen to be morally upstanding.
The problem with this elevation of private conduct into a public virtue is that it made private misconduct supremely newsworthy. If your electoral ticket is based on appearing as white as Martin Bell’s famously white suit, then any journalist worth his salt will try to seek out the stains. The exposure of hypocrisy becomes the objective. New Labour discovered this in the subsequent 13 years of its rule. From the numerous party-funding scandals to ‘peerages for cash’ right up to the MPs’ expenses scandal of 2009, the cross-party obsession with appearing to be clean, with insisting upon being judged for what one is rather than what one stands for, drove the press to concentrate on what politicians are rather than what they stand for (if anything). And now, with the phone-hacking scandal tainting anyone it touches, even David Cameron, through his appointment of ex-News of the World editor Andy Coulson, is having his private conduct scrutinised for, as Gordon Brown put it, ‘malign purpose’.
Yet rather than grasp the diminution and trivialisation of political life in terms of the diminution and trivialisation of politics, its political party-led reduction to character and private conduct, politicians, even fading ones like Brown, feel able to blame everything on the press. And worringly, given the current post-hackgate climate, few are taking Brown up on what looks and feels like an impending clampdown on press freedom.
It probably won’t seem like an assault on press freedom, of course. The talk will be of ‘raising journalistic standards’, of encouraging journalists to concentrate on the ‘public interest’, of becoming less ‘feral’. But take away the soft-soaping rhetoric and the curtailment of press freedom becomes clear: it is a demand that the press be respectable and pursue respectable stories. While stories about MPs’ expenses and ministers’ peccadilloes might not be edifying, better an unedifying but free press than a controlled one full of prescribed stories about how brilliant a carbon floor price is.
The heartburn Americans feel is over WHICH university or college their kid will get into. Everyone can get into something but what does the something deliver?
In Britain there is a real chance that the kid will get into no university at all, which is a very visible and upsetting failure for many families.
So how to deal with such upsets? I myself cannot help with personal insight as my son's admission to the best university in the State was never in question. He completed a full university subject (in mathematics) during his final High School year and got good marks for it.
So I turn to two approaches by British writers that may help soothe upsets. The first below asks whether bloated modern universities still offer a practical benefit to youngsters and the second points to later success by those who have initially missed the boat
1). What is a university? There’s a discussion in one of A S Byatt’s Frederica novels on the subject. One of the characters gives a beautiful description of the aims of such institutions: in essence, there’s a clue in the word.
A university must be universal: open to support inquiries concerning human understanding of medicine, law, the sciences, mathematics, the humanities. Open, too, in that it should recruit anyone for study; anyone who has the ability to benefit both themselves and the subjects in which they wish to be immersed.
I had the great luck to attend such a place, the University of Glasgow. Remember your alma mater, shouted the dean as we took our degrees, and I always will; the time I spent there remains among the best in my life. You, the British taxpayer, paid me to study for a first degree in a subject I loved: I was allowed, by you, to sink into my discipline and learn how to swim through it. You then paid me to complete doctoral research in one abstruse area of that subject which I found technically fascinating. You never once asked me to prove that the research was “worthwhile”, either in terms of the nation’s GDP or my own future employability; or that, other than through academic aptitude, I deserved the funding.
Neither before nor since have I been so free to pursue inquiry into a topic solely because of the random coincidence that I had a vague talent for it. I don’t exaggerate: I will die grateful to the society that let me do that. There were around 10,000 students at Glasgow when I started in 1986 – hold on to that number.
These days, young people (and their parents) are less likely to ask the philosophical question we opened with. Not so much “What is a university?” as “How much will it cost me to go there?”, followed by (understandably) “How much money will I earn when I’ve got my degree?” These days, there are around 20,000 students at Glasgow: double the number in just over 20 years. There are two other universities in the rest of the city, one extra over the same period. Something has to give when “access” is expanded like this: the vast fees, the concerns over degree quality, the sad complaint (because of what it says about how we view the point of education) that some graduates don’t earn huge incomes.
I do understand that it’s right that people who benefit from a system, as I have, should be expected to pay towards it. But it’s equally undeniable that the path I had through life – bright boy from a good state school goes to a great university; flourishes – is less open to the less wealthy than it was to me in 1986. And yet, more children than ever want a degree.
My partner says something similar about his career. Keith is an electrician, which he became after four years’ apprenticeship in the Department of the Environment: one day a week in college learning theory, and four days a week learning his trade. He received his “deeds” after taking an examination which sounds remarkably like my finals. These days, most skilled trade isn’t managed directly by institutions such as the one which articled Keith. The work is outsourced to third-party contractors, and so there are fewer long-term practical apprenticeships; and the exam now consists of multiple choice questions, which can be taken by anyone, regardless of how much practical work they’ve done. As with the universities, it’s not wrong to worry about a diminution of quality. It’s as though we want more electricians, but we don’t want to pay for them.
Testing the theory, I wrote to a friend who is that living emblem of quality, a London cabbie. I asked Richard how the Knowledge worked and if he had any worries about the maintenance of standards. The good news is that he doesn’t think so – yet. But he does fear that as governance of the Knowledge has moved from the Public Carriage Office (“old-fashioned but effective”) to something called “Taxi & Private Hire” within Transport for London, then one day costs – and access issues – will lead TfL to lump cabbies in with private taxi drivers. We would have more London cabbies, but one of our most venerable institutions would be gone. (Are you reading, Boris?)
This morning a huge number of children, desperate to get into university, might not make it – because the institutions, expanded beyond recognition, still don’t have sufficient places for them. Do we want yet more, vast universities? Or should we wonder if all these children will benefit from attending, in either the intellectual or the financial sense? Compared with 1986 there are more (debt-ridden) graduates, more electricians, more cabbies. The question is: are they better? Or has the drive for volume caused the loss of something precious, something universal, in our training?
2). It’s the same every damn year. We are so busy totting up the A stars, that we forget about the flops with the D grades and less who’ve nothing to shout about. The newspapers are full of golden, jubilant boys and girls, whooping and crying as they rejoice in their brilliant results; hitting the road to adulthood like greyhounds after an electric hare. Forget the clogged-up clearing system, the desperate scrabble for a diminishing number of university and college places, the world is their oyster Rockefeller.
Good for them – and I mean it, although I’d argue for a legal limit on how many weeks their parents are permitted to bang on at dinner parties about their marvellous children. The mother who is doing her best to scoop Harry off the floor and dust him off into a semblance of employability can do without a running commentary on how Tabitha is getting on with her packing for Oxford.
There are two peaks in competitive parenting: When-will–he-walk? and the tougher, what’s-next-after-school? phase. Well, for those dealing with disappointment and despairing offspring, stay out of the game. The best way to get Harry et al back on track – and see some return on your investment in school fees and parenting time – is to boost their confidence so they can make something of their lives. First mantra: It really does not matter. No, it doesn’t. Somewhere inside that child is a seed of talent. School failed to help it germinate – that is the school’s failure, not yours or your child’s. Stick to this line. There are plenty who succeeded in the University of What Now?: Sir Michael Caine, David Beckham, Winston Churchill and John Major; Mary ''Queen of Shops’’ Portas; Richard Branson, Simon Cowell, and the Apprentice Master himself, Lord Sugar – all triumphed without a university or college education.
I remember a remark that radio presenter and screenwriter Danny Baker made on Desert Island Discs. A bright child growing up in London Docklands, he says he wasn’t tempted by grammar school. “If school made you clever, the Cabinet would be full of geniuses,” he said.
Even if you don’t believe it, pretend you do. My mother did. So abysmal were my results, so low my self-esteem, that I retreated into dead-end jobs with no prospects. But three years after leaving school, I began to read, read and read. I found ''it,’’ the thing I wanted (to do) when I was ready – and the chip fell from my shoulder.
So it will be for that boy or girl who now feels that all is lost. The truth is that flunking it will make an adult of your baby, faster than you can say tuition fees.
A baby's first 1,000 days 'determines their health prospects for life'
The article below suffers from a failure in calibration. Severe trauma or deprivation at any stage can obviously affect health. So why is the first 1,000 days picked out? If trauma in that period is particularly harmful, where is the evidence? In fact, the evidence is rather the other way. Brain damage and some other traumas are in fact best recovered from in the very young
You have encouraged them to eat their greens, battled to get them into the best school and sweated with them over their homework – all to give them the best start in life.
But your children’s prospects may have been determined long before all the hard work. A growing body of research suggests the first 1,000 days of a child’s life – the nine months in the womb and the first two years out of it – are vital to their long-term health.
That period can permanently affect everything from a child’s chances of developing diabetes or having a heart attack in old age, to their future weight and life expectancy.
The theory was developed after decades of research by Professor David Barker and his colleagues at Southampton University. They believe there are a series of critical stages in a child’s development. If conditions are not perfect at each step, problems can occur later.
Many of these danger points lie when the baby is still in the womb. Poor nutrition for a mother affects both the unborn baby’s weight and how well the placenta works, while smoking, stress, drugs and alcohol can also take their toll.
Professor Barker believes many health problems can be traced back to poor growth in the womb. He has shown that the lighter a baby is at birth, the higher its odds of heart disease in later life. On average, a baby weighing less than 5lb 7oz is twice as likely to die from a heart attack than one born at 9lb 7oz.
It is thought that when food is scarce in the womb, it is channelled to the fledgling brain, leaving the heart weakened. The seeds of diabetes may also be sown before birth, as the pancreatic cells which make insulin develop in the womb. Conditions in the uterus can also affect weight for years to come, studies suggest.
Professor Barker said many of these early effects are ‘set in stone’ and cannot be undone. He added that the key to health is ensuring women eat well throughout their lives.
He said: ‘It is about building a body that the baby can live off. The baby lives off the mother’s body – not what she snacks on during pregnancy. ‘What we are seeing is a window of opportunity where we can make better people.’
Must not call Britain's rioting blacks 'jungle bunnies'
We read:
"A Tory councillor has been suspended after he made racist remarks about rioters. Bob Frost, who is also a secondary school maths teacher, described those involved in disturbances last week as 'jungle bunnies' on his Facebook page.
The 49-year-old posted the insult, referring to the riots in London on August 7, less than 24 hours after trouble flared in Tottenham, north London
The remark was removed from his Facebook page after he received a phone call from another Conservative party member. Mr Frost then wrote on Facebook: 'I have just had a phone call that accused me of racism for my above posting.
'Looking at the dictionary it would appear that the term jungle bunnies is perjorative [sic] and is a racist slur relating to African-Americans. 'Needless to say I did not mean to use any offensive racist term and was referring to the urban jungle.'
The councillor, who represents north Deal, added: 'As for the bunny bit it was originally animals but I thought people might object to me calling fellow humans this so I chose something I thought was innocuous and also cuddly.'
The councillor has been suspended from the party and an investigation into the comments has been launched before a panel decides what action to take.
"Bunnies" is a bit too kind. They were behaving like jungle beasts
19 August, 2011
British doctors diagnose meningitis as a migraine
The symptoms of the two ailments have a lot of differences so this sounds like carelessness
Karleen Clark, 22, from Manchester, has been suffering from severe headaches before she flew out to the Mediterranean island, but was allegedly told she just had a migraine. Karleen had been suffering severe headaches before she went on holiday to San Antonio Bay in Ibiza.
But Karleen, who worked as a nursery nurse at Kidspiration in Gorton, was determined to go on holiday with best friend Jenna Rooney and flew out on 23 July. She soon started feeling sick and was taken into hospital just days after she arrived on the island.
Doctors diagnosed meningitis and contacted Karleen's parents to give them the chance to say their final goodbyes.
Karleen died on 29 July with her parents at her bedside.
Jenna, 21, said: 'There was a big group of us and we'd saved up for about a year to go out there. 'She hadn't been feeling well and had been having headaches, but the doctor said it was migraines. 'There was nothing that could stop her having that holiday - she really wanted to go. I'll really miss her.'
Greater Manchester Police have been rightly praised for their robust response to the riots. The courts in the North West are equally resolute in their determination to crack down on disorder.
In Warrington, magistrates had no compunction about sentencing two men to four years in jail for using Facebook to incite a riot.
Needless to say, the severity of some of the sentences has been roundly criticised by the usual conga-line of hand-wringers and ‘criminal justice professionals’. They protest that ministers have put undue pressure on the courts to hand down exemplary jail terms, and insist that sentencing should be left to the discretion of magistrates.
So I wonder what they make of the case of Christopher Heathcote, from Stockport, Greater Manchester, who has just been banned from driving for a year — against the wishes of local magistrates.
In April last year, he made five 999 calls when his cousin’s quad bike was stolen. It took the police 90 minutes to respond, by which time the bike was long gone. The next day, when there was a report that the bike was being driven in fields at nearby Wythenshawe, he set off in hot pursuit.
Spotting a police patrol, he stopped to ask officers for their help. But instead of joining the chase, they breathalysed Mr Heathcote and arrested him when the test showed he was over the drink-drive limit. He admitted he had drunk three pints of lager earlier in the day.
While he was being processed, the thieves made good their getaway. They’ve never been caught, and the bike has not been recovered.
The magistrates were sympathetic and refused to give him a mandatory 12-month driving ban because there were ‘special circumstances’.
The police were not satisfied with the verdict and referred it to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer. A High Court judge subsequently ordered the magistrates to disqualify 26-year-old Mr Heathcote for a year.
This week, the chairman of the bench, Alan Bodgers, reluctantly banned Mr Heathcote, while making it quite clear it was only because the magistrates had been overruled by the DPP and a higher court. He added: ‘You’re only a young man, you’re just starting off, and this is a bad lesson to learn. I’m not happy with the police.’
The ‘bad lesson’ Mr Heathcote will take from this case is one which millions of ordinary citizens have already absorbed. We can’t rely on the police to protect us or our property in normal circumstances, let alone in the event of a riot.
In this case, Mr Heathcote wasn’t even taking the law into his own hands, which the police hate. He had actually stopped to ask the officers for help. His only thought was catching the thieves and recovering his cousin’s stolen quad bike.
Let me say right here that no one is condoning drunk-driving. Mr Heathcote was over the limit, but, as the magistrates appreciated, there were ‘special circumstances’. If local courts are better placed to decide on appropriate sentences for rioters and looters, without political interference, why shouldn’t they also be able to use their discretion in cases like this?
Greater Manchester Police may have deserved the plaudits for their rapid response to the riots. But when it comes to everyday crime, they’re not quite so enthusiastic. A senior officer admitted that their target for responding to non-violent thefts and burglaries is four hours. As a result, every small-time crook in Manchester now knows that if they commit a crime, they will have up to four hours to make their getaway.
It’s not just inner city estates like Broadwater Farm which have been abandoned by the police, it’s city centres and suburbs, too. Not to mention vast swathes of the countryside.
A couple of weeks ago, it was reported that one in three reported crimes in Britain is never investigated. As many as 650,000 crimes, from cycle thefts to violent assaults, are ‘screened out’ because officers think there is no realistic chance of a conviction.
Little wonder, then, that they concentrate on easy collars like Mr Heathcote, a man with a previously unblemished record. Still, no doubt it got them off the streets for the rest of the shift.
If the police had done the job we pay them for, Mr Heathcote would never have climbed behind the wheel.
Why were the DPP and the High Court judge so determined to over-rule the magistrates? Simple: it’s because the criminal justice establishment operates a rigid closed shop. They think they own the law.
The independence of magistrates has been consistently undermined by rigid rules and soft sentencing guidelines imposed by the Guardianistas at the Home Office and the Ministry of Injustice to satisfy their own ‘liberal’ prejudices.
JPs are slaughtered when they reflect the public mood and sentence those who attempt to instigate riots to hard time. Yet they’re also over-ruled when they show justice and compassion, and refuse to impose a mandatory driving ban on a decent man like Christopher Heathcote.
Nothing of substance will change until we are allowed to elect our judges and police chiefs.
To add insult to injury, the insurance company has refused to pay out on Mr Heathcote’s cousin’s £2,000 quad bike because it wasn’t in a garage at the time it was stolen.
As for those poor little toe-rags sentenced to four years for inciting a riot, you can guarantee that they’ll be back on the streets by this time next year, if not sooner.
Before the last election, Call Me Dave promised he would be on the side of those who played by the rules, paid their taxes and tried to do the right thing.
If you’re Christopher Heathcote, or you’ve been burned out of your home and business while the police watched and did nothing, that must seem like a sick joke.
British Christians get more rights -- except if it affects homosexuals
The state equality watchdog yesterday set out a plan for a two-tier law for Christians. It said that Christians should be freed to display their faith by wearing crosses or pinning up Christian symbols at work.
But they should not be allowed to follow religious principles if they clash with gay rights, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said.
The decision means that the equality watchdog will back BA check-in clerk Nadia Eweida, who was banned by the airline from wearing a cross at work.
BA caved in during the row caused five years ago by the ban on Miss Eweida wearing a cross with her uniform, but she is taking her case to the European human rights court in Strasbourg to try to establish a right for Christians to wear symbols of their faith.
The Commission, which is headed by former Labour politician Trevor Phillips, will also give its support at the human rights court to Shirley Chaplin, a nurse removed from the wards at her hospital in Exeter because she refused to stop wearing her crucifix.
However the equality body will oppose any leniency towards Christians who asked to be excused from work which involved helping homosexual couples.
Documents released yesterday show that Mr Phillips’ lawyers will go to Strasbourg to oppose the claims of Lilian Ladele, a registrar in Islington who lost her job after she refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies, and of Gary McFarlane, a Relate counsellor sacked for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples.
The double standard for Christianity follows an admission from the Commission last month that British judges have failed to protect religious freedom. All four of the Strasbourg cases are under way because British courts and tribunals found against the rights of Christians.
But Christian groups yesterday accused Mr Phillips of backing down from the Commission’s declaration in July that ‘the way existing human rights and equality law has been interpreted by judges is insufficient to protect freedom of religion or belief.’
The Evangelical Alliance, which represents a million Christians from the evangelical wing of the Church of England and the major nonconformist denominations, said Mr Phillips had been bullied into backtracking by the gay lobby.
Alliance spokesman Don Horrocks said: ‘It seems pretty clear that the Commission has been successfully intimidated against proceeding as they initially announced. They appear to have changed their initial approach as a result of the outcry from those groups who wish to restrict freedom of religion and religious rights of conscience being recognised more fairly by the courts.’
Mr Horrocks added: ‘For many Christians wearing a cross is important, but these situations ought to be relatively easily accommodated by reasonable people on both sides in work related situations. However, being forced to be morally complicit in activities which directly violate people’s religious conscience involves seriously fundamental human rights principles.’
The EHRC is to run a two-week consultation to gather opinions from interested groups before giving final instructions to its lawyers on which line to take when the cases are heard in Strasbourg this autumn.
A spokesman said: ‘There is no change to the question we are asking: have the UK courts properly considered people’s right to manifest their religion?
‘There is a wide range of opinion on this issue and we have had helpful responses to our consultation from a wide range of mainstream religious groups. Our job is not to take sides in political arguments between activist groups, it is to make sure people do not face unjustified discrimination.’
Its consultation document said: ‘The accommodation of rights should not require the rights of one person to cancel out or trump the rights of another.’
Record race for British university places ahead of £9,000 tuition fees means even pupils with new elite grades miss out
Hundreds of teenagers with straight A* grades were left without a university to go to last night in an unprecedented scramble for places. Despite picking up the elite A-level grade – introduced last year as a new ‘gold standard’ – they face a desperate battle through the clearing system. Only 40,000 places are available with 220,000 youngsters chasing them.
One star pupil from a leading private school learnt yesterday that she had achieved three straight A* grades yet has been rejected by the English departments of five universities. Four thousand students with straight As also had no offers. Unless they secure one through clearing, they face going to university next year when annual tuition fees treble to a maximum of £9,000.
One academic said the competition for places was the ‘fiercest in living memory’.Most of the leading universities did not even enter the clearing system, which allocates last-minute places.
Places are available only in lower-ranked institutions and in less sought-after disciplines such as computing, business studies and biological science. The scramble for places came as:
* Universities minister David Willetts claimed it would be ‘cheaper’ to start courses in 2012;
* Boys closed the gender gap with girls, getting the same number of top grades for the first time;
* Pass rates rose for the 29th consecutive year, with one in four awarded an A;
* Maths and science enjoyed a resurgence in popularity. Maths entries have risen 40 per cent over five years;
* Exam boards were braced for a record number of complaints following marking blunders.
The shortage of places was caused by 682,367 candidates applying for 350,000 places. Around 100,000 of these candidates will have now decided not to go to university, to take a gap year or to study abroad.
This leaves an estimated 220,000 hopefuls – including mature and foreign students and students who failed to get in last year – chasing the 40,000 places. Among them are 62,500 candidates who got their results yesterday and either had not been offered a spot or missed their grades.
It is estimated around 50,000 in clearing had grades equivalent to BBB or above. Although 10,000 extra places were made available, there were 40,000 more applicants than usual, probably because of the fees hike.
The rush saw the University and College Admissions Service website close down for much of yesterday morning as those who had missed their grades tried to secure offers. It failed to cope with a fourfold increase in the number of visits and normal service was not resumed until midday.
Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, claimed the system was in chaos. ‘It always happens when the pressure on the system is greatest, the cracks begin to show,’ he said. ‘Not only have the students been in the fiercest competition for places in living memory, but the support system for those who have missed out on their grades hasn’t worked properly.
‘Ucas normally does these things very smoothly, but today, of all days, it hasn’t been able to cope. It’s the worst chaos in university admissions history.’
Those students forced to start university in 2012 will graduate with debts of around £57,000, compared with £29,000 for those starting their studies now.
Those who fail to get into university must now decide whether to reapply for next year or look for work.
Exam boards, some of which have had to admit over the summer that they set impossible questions and made errors in papers, are expecting a record number of complaints as desperate students seek to raise their grades.
One board, OCR, has, for the first time, put all papers affected by errors on a website so pupils can see the examiner’s markings. Defending the chaos, Mr Willetts said: ‘What we’ve tried to do, as our bit to easing the stress, is we have delivered again the 10,000 extra places we delivered last year, so there will be once again a record number of places at universities for young people.’
But TUC deputy general secretary Frances O’Grady said: ‘Because of the rush to avoid next year’s fees hike, and the Government’s refusal to fund extra university places, record numbers of students will lose out on higher education altogether.’
The report below claims to note a dramatic change in the last 10 years and attributes it to global warming. But even the Warmists now admit that there has been no warming in the last 10 years. So the claim CANNOT be true. It would be wise to check the facts before opening mouth
Animals across the world are fleeing global warming by heading north much faster than they were less than a decade ago, a new study says.
About 2,000 species examined are moving away from the equator at an average rate of more than 15 feet per day, about a mile per year, according to new research published Thursday in the journal Science which analyzed previous studies. Species are also moving up mountains to escape the heat, but more slowly, averaging about 4 feet a year.
The species – mostly from the Northern Hemisphere and including plants – moved in fits and starts, but over several decades it averages to about 8 inches an hour away from the equator.
“The speed is an important issue,” said study main author Chris Thomas of the University of York. “It is faster than we thought.” ...
“It’s already affected the entire planet’s wildlife,” Thomas said in a phone interview. “It’s not a matter that might happen in the lifetime of our children and our grandchildren. If you look in your garden you can see the effects of climate change already.”
Book review of "EVERYMAN'S ENGLAND" BY VICTOR CANNING
Review by Val Hennessy:
Talk about the past being another country. Even the recent past. My nonagenarian mother and her contemporaries will certainly recognise, with regretful shakes of their heads, the England depicted by Victor Canning in these elegiac essays commissioned in the 1930s by the Daily Mail. But, for the rest of us, he could be describing another planet.
His England is a place where weekend cinemas are packed to bursting with enthusiastic film fans all cheerfully whistling, shouting and applauding the action.
The main street of a town in the Fens throngs, on Saturday nights, with a good-natured ‘slow-moving, joking, flirting, healthy mob’, dressed in their best, farm-labourers and their girls congregating ‘to forget the toil of the week ... to seek colour, warmth and laughter’.
From the doorway of every inn comes the plunk and tinkle of pianos and the group chorusings of mawkish ballads. By 11.30pm everyone has hurried home to bed, and the streets are deserted.
Hey ho! No vomiting, fornicating, brawling and scantily-attired, knock-kneed, boozed-up girls baring their bottoms. Those were the days...
Canning finds beauty everywhere, but never sentimentalises, and is consistently honest enough to highlight poverty and social inequality.
In Maryport in Cumbria, where the silent pit heads signal the decline of the mining industry, he discovers unemployed men foraging for small fragments of coal on the snow-covered shingle. A morning’s foraging will fill half a sack, to be hauled back to keep fires going in homes where fires are luxuries. Yet there is laughter too, and ‘the happy clatter of clogs’ from children playing in the streets.
In sooty Halifax, a town ‘which has wrung dignity and beauty from chimney stacks, gasometers, canals and mills’, the doorsteps and windows are spotless, and proud working men tog up at weekends in bowler hats, white collars and navy-blue suits.
In the Cotswolds Canning describes the soft patina of lichen and moss on walls, and senses the pride taken in ‘houses built to last ... reflecting the spirit of the master craftsmen who made them’, and in Norfolk he gets talking to an ancient sea salt who had joined the Navy when ‘sails and bare feet and a penny a week for boys made Britain mistress of the seas’.
In Rutland Canning describes an incident which is unthinkable in modern Britain. Exhausted after a long ramble, he knocks on a cottage door to ask for water.
A jolly, motherly sort invites him inside to freshen up, then sits him on the porch amongst the hollyhocks and roses, offers him tea and, referring to her husband who is out hedging and ditching, explains: ‘The master does the kitchen garden and I look after the flowers’. ‘Master’ indeed! What distant times!
His best anecdote concerns the hilarious men-only bathing rules at Parson’s Pleasure on the river Cherwell. Mixed bathing was forbidden due to the tradition that men bathed naked there.
In this male Arcadia (and I think Canning misses a significant social situation here, in his innocence) Oxford dons and undergraduates would loll about ‘clad only in spectacles and a copy of Plato’s Socratic Discourses’.
Any approaching punt steered solely by women would be halted; the punt would be taken through the bathing enclosure by an attendant, and the women were made to avert their eyes as they walked along a special footpath to rejoin it. Forgetful females were known to disobey the rules, causing a mad scramble as naked dons flattened themselves behind tufts of grass or scuttled for cover amongst the willows.
It is astonishing to remember that Canning’s pilgrimage to ‘understand the intricate pattern and appreciate the colour of the fabric of English life’ was made within living memory.
His gentle adventures will probably seem boring, if not ludicrous, to post-war generations who travel more often to exotic, far-flung foreign hot spots than to the towns and villages of England.
Canning travelled through a law-abiding, slow-paced, courteous country where a stranger in town (Canning) would address a passing resident like this: ‘Good day to you, sir. Would it be a breach of good manners if I was to ask you to oblige me by telling me a little history of this town?...’
Good-manners, and respect, yes. It certainly was another country... No obscene gestures, filthy language, feral yoof on the rampage or lawless, mindless morons burning and looting for the hell of it. And if I’m beginning to sound like my mum, I make no apologies...
Only 1 in 3 stroke patients receiving prompt brain scans
Only half of stroke patients are receiving some of the treatments doctors believe are crucial for saving their lives. A national audit carried out by the Royal College of Physicians has found that just 33 per cent of those treated at NHS hospitals after suffering a stroke receive a brain scan within an hour.
Only 52 per cent were given a clot-busting drug when they were eligible for it and 53 per cent were seen by a nurses and a therapist within 24 hours after having the devastating brain attack. In addition, 55 per cent of patients were taken either directly to a dedicated stroke unit or admitted there within four hours.
However 79 per cent were seen by a stroke consultant within 24 hours of being admitted to hospital and 92 per cent had a brain scan within the critical first day.
The figures relate to the first quarter of 2011-12 after the RCP switched to quarterly reporting of the Stroke Improvement National Audit Programme (SINAP), which collects information about the care provided to stroke patients during their first three days in hospital. The data can then be linked to death rates to see if those who receive better quality care are less likely to die.
The RCP says: "If we can show that patients are less likely to die or have another stroke if they get good stroke care, it will encourage all hospitals to improve their stroke services. It will also encourage the funders to provide more money for the most important stroke services."
Dr Lorna Layward from The Stroke Association said: “The first few hours following a stroke are absolutely crucial to the level of recovery that someone can expect to make. These results show that some improvements have been made over recent years, but there are wide variations between hospitals. The guidelines and expectations are set out for stroke care but unfortunately some hospitals are falling short.
"We urge all hospitals that provide stroke care to ensure their data is submitted to this audit, so that we can gather the whole national perspective and help to drive standards of care up so that more people can survive their stroke and make a good recovery.”
My totally "incorrect" heading above completely contradicts an impression that the media has laboured to build up. Most media stories about the British rioters highlight middle class whites. Blacks are rarely mentioned.
One hard-working geographer has however mapped out all the known data about the rioters and where they rioted and superimposed that map on maps of London demographics. He finds that the toxic combination is race and poverty. Poor blacks were the main culprits. Poverty alone was not an important factor as there was little rioting in poor white areas. The big riots were mostly in poor black areas and most of the rioters were poor blacks
Both theoretical and empirical evidence shows that it is improper to disconnect the August 2011 riots from race and ethnic culture. It is, likewise, inappropriate to associate it with the uneducated, low-skilled white lower class ('chavs'). It was severely underrepresented in the riots, and did not produce riots in numerous poor non-black areas. None of the socioeconomic factors have the same predicting power as black ethnicity in this case. In fact, they are meaningless to the riots when not a correlate of black population.
Why the black community played such a prominent role in the riots may be disputed. But it is clear that role of the black community was greater than that of any other group, and it should be accordingly regarded in the media.
The riots are a warning
Thomas Sowell, writing from the USA
The orgies of violent attacks against strangers on the streets -- in both England and the United States -- are not necessarily just passing episodes. They should be wake-up calls, warning of the continuing degeneration of Western society.
As British doctor and author Theodore Dalrymple said, long before these riots broke out, "the good are afraid of the bad and the bad are afraid of nothing."
Not only the trends over the years leading up to these riots but also the squeamish responses to them by officials -- on both sides of the Atlantic -- reveal the moral dry rot that has spread deep into Western societies.
Even when black youth gangs target white strangers on the streets and spew out racial hatred as they batter them and rob them, mayors, police chiefs and the media tiptoe around their racism and many in the media either don't cover these stories or leave out the race and racism involved.
In England, the government did not call out the troops to squash their riots at the outset. The net result was that young hoodlums got to rampage and loot for hours, while the police struggled to try to contain the violence. Hoodlums returned home with loot from stores with impunity, as well as bringing home with them a contempt for the law and for the rights of other people.
With all the damage that was done by these rioters, both to cities and to the whole fabric of British society, it is very unlikely that most of the people who were arrested will be sentenced to jail. Only 7 percent of people convicted of crime in England are actually put behind bars.
"Alternatives to incarceration" are in vogue among the politically correct elites in England, just as in the United States. But in Britain those elites have had much more clout for a much longer time. And they have done much more damage.
Nevertheless, our own politically correct elites are pointing us in the same direction. A headline in the New York Times shows the same politically correct mindset in the United States: "London Riots Put Spotlight on Troubled, Unemployed Youths in Britain." There is not a speck of evidence that the rioters and looters are troubled -- unless you engage in circular reasoning and say that they must have been troubled to do the things they did.
In reality, like other rioters on both sides of the Atlantic they are often exultant in their violence and happy to be returning home with stolen designer clothes and upscale electronic devices.
In both England and in the United States, whole generations have been fed a steady diet of grievances and resentment against society, and especially against others who are more prosperous than they are. They get this in their schools, on television, on campuses and in the movies. Nothing is their own fault. It is all "society's" fault.
One of the young Britons interviewed in the New York Times reported that he had learned to read only three years ago. He is not unique. In Theodore Dalrymple's book, "Life at the Bottom," he referred to many British youths who are unashamedly illiterate. The lyrics of a popular song in Britain said, "We don't need no education" and another song was titled "Poor, White and Stupid."
Dr. Dalrymple says, "I cannot recall meeting a sixteen-year-old white from the public housing estates that are near my hospital who could multiple nine by seven."
In the United States, the color may be different but the attitudes among the hoodlum element are very similar. In both countries, classmates who try to learn can find themselves targeted by bullies.
Here those who want to study in ghetto schools are often accused of "acting white." But whites in Britain show the same pattern. Some conscientious students are beaten up badly enough to end up at Dr. Dalrymple's hospital.
Our elites often advise us to learn from other countries. They usually mean that we should imitate other countries. But it may be far more important to learn from their mistakes -- the biggest of which may be listening to fashionable nonsense from the smug intelligentsia.
These countries show us where that smug nonsense leads. It may be a sneak preview of our own future. "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
Our prisons walls are too high to look over, moan terror suspects in Britain
Inmates complain limited view damaged their eyesight
Suspected terrorists are complaining about a fence around the exercise yard in their high-security prison which restricts their view of the horizon. The alleged extremists are locked up while the Government tries to remove them from the country.
But the inmates have complained the limited view is damaging their eyesight, a prison inspection report revealed.
And astonishingly, inspectors accepted their complaints, criticising the cladding put around the edge of the exercise yard because it stops the men seeing into the distance.
They men are being held in the detainee unit at Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire and are prevented from mixing with other inmates.
Some months ago, prison bosses offered to allow them to join activities involving paedophiles and rapists who are isolated from the rest of the prison for their own protection. But this was rejected because the terror suspects feared they would be ‘stigmatised’ by being seen with the sex offenders.
The report recommended removing the cladding so the prisoners have a clear view into the outside world.
Chief Inspector of Prisons Nick Hardwick said: ‘While detainees’ treatment and conditions were satisfactory in some respects, too little attention was paid to their uniquely isolated and uncertain position.’
The report added: ‘For most of the time, detainees were confined to the unit and largely deprived of contact with the range of people that was possible for convicted prisoners in the main prison. ‘This had resulted in a feeling of claustrophobia.
‘The fence surrounding the exercise yard was clad, therefore preventing detainees from seeing into the distance. All detainee unit cells overlooked the inner courtyard and detainees therefore had no opportunities to see into the distance, and some complained of deteriorating eyesight.’
The high-security detainee unit at Long Lartin holds seven suspected terrorists. Three are foreign nationals whom ministers want to deport to their home countries. The other four are awaiting the outcome of legal challenges to extradition requests by the United States. They are thought to include Babar Ahmed, whose case is being considered by the European Court of Human Rights. Two of the men have been held for more than 11 years as they fight deportation, at a cost of more than £1.6million.
The average cost of a place in a high-security prison is £74,000 per year.
The report revealed the men are allowed out of their cells for nearly 60 hours a week. They also have access to gym equipment and their own kitchen, as well as prepared meals.
British pupils who take harder A-levels should be given priority for university places, says education minister
Pupils who have taken 'traditional' A-levels such as maths and foreign languages should take precedence in the race for university places, the higher education minister has said.
David Willetts said that more modern subjects such as dance and media studies should not be recognised as core academic subjects. His comments came as around 250,000 A-level students wait to discover their exam results tomorrow.
Mr Willetts told the Daily Telegraph that the points system used in university admissions 'sends a very bad message to young people by implying that all A-levels have an equal chance of helping them into university.'
Currently Ucas, which processes university applications, allocates points based on the grade achieved, regardless of the subject.
Mr Willetts added: '[Ucas] are operating a massive system with more than half a million applications, but they need to signal the importance of some A-levels more than others and that message is often hidden behind a tariff point model.'
He also said that work-based apprenticeships should be accepted as a way to get into university.
Concerns have been raised this year about students who fail to secure a university place and could face the daunting prospect of up to three times higher tuition fees in 2012.
Dr Wendy Piatt, of the Russell Group, which represents top universities, said that it was not realistic to expect every student who wants to go to university to get a place. She said: 'The costs to the taxpayer of a very generous system of student loans and grants make it unrealistic to think that the country could afford to offer a properly funded university place to everyone who would like one. 'In a tight fiscal climate, maintaining the quality of the student experience must be a greater priority than expanding the number of places.'
On Monday Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, expressed concern about the financial burden for those who miss out. She said: 'This year, more than ever, we fear for the thousands of students who miss out on a university place and face paying three times more next year or struggle to find careers advice following Government cuts.'
But Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of Universities UK, sought to play down the fears. She said: 'It must be very dispiriting for students who have worked hard for the results they're receiving to be faced with a barrage of gloom and apocalyptic predictions, that usually turn out to be incorrect. 'People making such unfounded forecasts, usually to score cheap political points, are quite irresponsible and they should consider the impact it has on applicants.
'I would advise people looking to secure a university place to speak directly to specialist advisers at Ucas and at universities.' She said that last year nearly 70 per cent of university applicants were accepted onto a course.
This summer's A-level and GCSE exam papers have been beset by errors. Around 100,000 students in total are thought to have been affected by mistakes found in 12 different exam papers this summer. The blunders ranged from wrong answers in a multiple choice paper to impossible questions and printing errors.
The five exams boards responsible for the errors have promised students that they will not be penalised, in what looks to be a record year in terms of top grades.
Education expert Professor Alan Smithers predicted earlier this week that one in 10 A-levels could be graded as A*, as this year teachers and students have a better understanding of what is required to gain the top result. However, he also suggested that the overall pass rate was likely to stay about the same, perhaps rising or falling by only 0.1 per cent.
NHS surgery 'lottery': Bowel patients five times more likely to need second op depending on hospital
Some patients having bowel surgery are up to five times more likely to need another operation - depending on which hospital treats them.
The first analysis of reoperation rates at NHS hospitals in England reveals a huge postcode lottery and some ‘inexplicable’ variations. It shows unplanned reoperation rates were five times higher in some hospitals, prompting concerns about the performance of individual surgeons and NHS trusts.
Experts at Imperial College London used statistics for 246,469 patients treated in 175 English hospital trusts who underwent bowel resection surgery for the first time between 2000 and 2008.
A reoperation may be necessary for several reasons, including complications and a planned ‘second look’.
Of the group, 15,986 (6.5 per cent) patients needed further surgery within 28 days, including of the bowel, to control bleeding or for complications arising from their wound, according to the research published in the British Medical Journal. Eight out of ten patients underwent emergency surgery while still in hospital while the remainder ended up being readmitted.
Analysis showed that patients who had gone in for emergency surgery in the first place had slightly higher reoperation rates than those whose surgery was planned (seven per cent versus 6.2 per cent).
Men and people with inflammatory bowel disease such as colitis and Crohn’s, or other pre-existing conditions, were also more likely to need emergency surgery.
For those whose original surgery was planned, there was a five-fold difference between highest and lowest reoperation rates.
This was around 15 per cent compared with just under 3 per cent – among trusts performing more than 500 procedures during the study.
The researchers said reoperation rates could be a ‘powerful means of checking quality of surgical care’.They also said efforts should be made to reduce ‘inexplicable’ variation in reoperation rates.
Professor Norman Williams, president of the Royal College of Surgeons and consultant colorectal surgeon, said: ‘There is now clear evidence from other studies that publication of clinical audits helps drive up consistency and quality standards in surgery.
“This study will help improve the scope of future work across the profession. It is vital that as well as observing these differences in outcome we also measure aspects of care that help us understand why some units perform better than others and enable individual surgeons to improve.’
A Department of Health spokesman said ‘NHS trusts need to get it right first time and prevent avoidable readmissions’.
So what DOES it take to deport a criminal from Britain? Judge cuts drug-dealing migrant's sentence so he won't get kicked out
A judge cut the sentence of an illegal immigrant and drug dealer yesterday to help him escape deportation. Vincent Miller was kicked out of the UK twice but managed to return and stay for more than a decade by stealing the identities of British citizens.
Yet when the 33-year-old was sentenced, the judge said sending him home to Jamaica would be ‘devastating’ for his three children. Judge Farook Ahmed made his decision on Miller's case during proceedings at Inner London Crown Court yesterday, claiming if he was to be deported it would be 'devastating' for his children
Judge Farook Ahmed made his decision on Miller's case during proceedings at Inner London Crown Court yesterday, claiming if he was to be deported it would be 'devastating' for his children
Incredibly, he deliberately shortened the sentence Miller would have received from a year to 11 months. Criminals given 12 months face automatic deportation proceedings.
Recorder Farook Ahmed told Miller: ‘The sentence I have had in mind was 12 months, but it seems to me that it isn’t necessary for me to pass a sentence of 12 months because a sentence of 11 months will have the same effect, and it would take away the automatic triggering of deportation. I have taken into account that if you were to be deported it is bound to have a devastating effect on your three children, who I’m told are lawfully here in the UK.’
The judge’s decision provoked a fierce backlash. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the pressure group Migrationwatch, said: ‘This raises serious questions about the attitude of the judiciary towards the whole question of removing from Britain those who no longer have a right to be here. ‘To shorten the sentence of a criminal so as to allow him to stay simply beggars belief.’
Tory MP Dominic Raab said: ‘The sentence should be tailored to fit the crime, not avoid Parliament’s rules on deportation which are there to protect the public.’
The case follows a string of outrages where the Human Rights Act has blocked deportation on family grounds.
Criminals have been permitted to stay even where they do not have children or a wife, but only a girlfriend.
Miller arrived in Britain at Christmas in 2000 when he was given permission to stay for only four days.
He did not return home and was arrested and deported in February 2001 only to return that Easter under a stolen identity. Within two years he was deported for supplying class A drugs.
From abroad he successfully applied for a new passport in the name of another man, Joseph Roche, who had no idea his identity had been stolen. That second identity crime allowed him to obtain a driving licence and start work as a barber.
As a result of his fraud, his wife and their three children, aged two, four and six, were able to claim UK citizenship.
His crimes were uncovered only when the real Mr Roche applied for a replacement driving licence, and DVLA officials realised two people were claiming to be the same man.
Miller, of Herne Hill in South East London, was arrested on July 5 and claimed he had given up Mr Roche’s identity some time earlier. He later pleaded guilty to possessing another person’s identity document, three counts of conspiring to obtain property by deception and three counts of dishonestly making a false representation.
Anyone sentenced to more than a year in prison is automatically considered for deportation by the UK Border Agency.
But the judge at Inner London Crown Court said he would reduce the intended sentence to allow Miller to stay in the country and look after his children.
Judge Ahmed told him: ‘You subverted immigration rules and you were able to construct a life in the UK based on your deception. ‘I have taken into account that if you were to be deported it is bound to have a devastating effect on your three children, who I’m told are lawfully here in the UK.
‘At least one other person benefited from your conduct, and that is I’m told your former wife,’ said the judge. ‘She was able to become a UK national as a result of your assumption of Mr Roche’s identity.’
The judge said it was a significant aggravating factor that he had made a ‘wholesale assumption’ of Mr Roche’s identity, who was himself then suspected of being a criminal. ‘He is a real person and is entirely innocent,’ he said.
The Home Office insisted it would still seek to deport Miller at the end of his sentence. However, the Jamaican will be entitled to use Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the right to a private and family life – to attempt to stay in the country.
Figures obtained by the Daily Mail show nearly 400 foreign criminals escaped deportation last year by using Article 8.
A UK Border Agency spokesman said: ‘We will seek to remove this individual at the end of his sentence. If someone has no right to be in this country, and does not leave voluntarily, we will take action to enforce their removal.’
British family's 18 months of hell after two children are taken away when blundering social workers wrongly accuse them of breaking baby's limbs
A couple were accused of child abuse after doctors failed to realise their baby son’s ‘injuries’ were caused by a genetic bone disease. Both parents were arrested and prevented from seeing their children unsupervised for 18 months before their innocence was finally acknowledged.
Yesterday Amy Garland said she and her partner had been treated like criminals after they took their six-week-old son Harrison to hospital when he was ill.
Initial tests proved inconclusive, but X-rays later showed that he had suffered eight separate fractures in his arms and legs. Social services accused his parents of child abuse and took the baby and his elder sister into care.
Miss Garland and her partner Paul Crummey were arrested and banned from seeing their children alone before anyone realised that Harrison actually had brittle bone disease, or osteogenesis imperfecta.
The rare condition is caused by a gene defect which impairs the production of the protein collagen, making bones fragile. Those with the disease can break their bones while being cuddled or even in their sleep. Around 40 to 60 babies are born with the disorder each year.
Miss Garland, 26, who lives near Bristol, said her family had been left in tatters after she and Mr Crummey split up over the stress caused by being separated from their children.
As soon as the fractures were discovered, social services were called in. The couple could not explain the apparent injuries and police arrested them.
Their daughter Bethany, then 20 months, was placed in the care of Miss Garland’s father. When the case went before Bristol County Court a judge ordered them to live in a family placement centre where their every move was observed. Miss Garland said: ‘The judge didn’t want to separate me from Harrison because I was still breast feeding. We were watched 24 hours a day and there were cameras in every room. It was like a prison.’
After three months, staff could find nothing wrong with their parenting skills and recommended that the family be allowed to stay together.
But social workers applied for an interim care order and the children were placed into foster care with Miss Garland’s mother. They were allowed contact with their parents for six hours a day, under supervision. This continued for more than a year until Miss Garland found an expert who said Harrison probably had osteogenesis imperfecta. Six months later, doctors agreed that this was a possibility and South Gloucestershire Social Services dropped the case.
Miss Garland told last night how Harrison had been in obvious discomfort in the weeks after his birth, but hospital tests found nothing. But when she got home she noticed his legs were swollen, and X-rays later showed he had several fractures in his arm, feet and legs. Miss Garland said: ‘We had no idea that this condition was in our family so when they asked us how they happened we didn’t know.
‘They said they needed to investigate it and we were happy for them to do that. The police and social services asked us a lot of questions. They asked me if there was any family history of violence. The police spoke to our neighbours asking what we were like. They went through our house. I was in absolute shock. I felt like a criminal.’
Even in hospital, she was not allowed to be alone with her son. ‘I wasn’t eating and I couldn’t sleep because I was worried they would take him from me,’ she said.
The strain caused the couple to split up two months after the children went into foster care. Miss Garland said: ‘It was horrible. When I went home at night and the kids weren’t there, I broke down. We took things out on each other.’
A month after the case was finally dropped two years ago, Harrison was officially diagnosed with osteogenesis imperfecta. Bethany, now five, was found to have a lesser type of the condition.
Harrison still has vitamin D injections to strengthen his bones and sees a physiotherapist to build up his muscles. Brittle bone disease is often confused with osteoporosis – thinning bones in women after the menopause – but the two are not the same.
Mr Crummey, 41, who recently lost his job as a civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, said: ‘All we wanted to do was help our sick child but we were treated like criminals. We’ve never received an apology from social services. It makes me feel very angry.’
A spokesman for South Gloucestershire Council said: ‘We have a legal duty to protect children and young people and we always put the welfare of the child at the heart of how we deliver our services.’
All the young rioters will have had long experience with the justice system's efforts to confer impunity upon law breakers
by Theodore Dalrymple
The youth of Britain have long placed a de facto curfew on the old, who in most places would no more think of venturing forth after dark than would peasants in Bram Stoker's Transylvania. Indeed, well before the riots last week, respectable persons would not venture into the centers of most British cities or towns on Friday and Saturday nights, for fear—and in the certainty—of encountering drunken and aggressive youngsters. In Britain nowadays, the difference between ordinary social life and riot is only a matter of degree, not of type.
A short time ago, I gave a talk in a school in an exquisite market town, deep in the countryside. Came Friday night, however, and the inhabitants locked themselves into their houses against the invasion of the barbarians. In my own little market town of Bridgnorth, in Shropshire, where not long ago a man was nearly beaten to death 20 yards from my house, drunken young people often rampage down one of its lovely little streets, causing much damage and preventing sleep. No one, of course, dares ask them to stop. The Shropshire council has dealt with the problem by granting a license for a pub in the town to open until 4 a.m., as if what the town needed was the opportunity for yet more and later drunkenness.
If the authorities show neither the will nor the capacity to deal with such an easily solved problem—and willfully do all they can to worsen it—is it any wonder that they exhibit, in the face of more difficult problems, all the courage and determination of frightened rabbits?
The rioters in the news last week had a thwarted sense of entitlement that has been assiduously cultivated by an alliance of intellectuals, governments and bureaucrats. "We're fed up with being broke," one rioter was reported as having said, as if having enough money to satisfy one's desires were a human right rather than something to be earned.
"There are people here with nothing," this rioter continued: nothing, that is, except an education that has cost $80,000, a roof over their head, clothes on their back and shoes on their feet, food in their stomachs, a cellphone, a flat-screen TV, a refrigerator, an electric stove, heating and lighting, hot and cold running water, a guaranteed income, free medical care, and all of the same for any of the children that they might care to propagate.
But while the rioters have been maintained in a condition of near-permanent unemployment by government subvention augmented by criminal activity, Britain was importing labor to man its service industries. You can travel up and down the country and you can be sure that all the decent hotels and restaurants will be manned overwhelmingly by young foreigners; not a young Briton in sight (thank God).
The reason for this is clear: The young unemployed Britons not only have the wrong attitude to work, for example regarding fixed hours as a form of oppression, but they are also dramatically badly educated. Within six months of arrival in the country, the average young Pole speaks better, more cultivated English than they do.
The icing on the cake, as it were, is that social charges on labor and the minimum wage are so high that no employer can possibly extract from the young unemployed Briton anything like the value of what it costs to employ him. And thus we have the paradox of high youth unemployment at the very same time that we suck in young workers from abroad.
The culture in which the young unemployed have immersed themselves is not one that is likely to promote virtues such as self-discipline, honesty and diligence. Four lines from the most famous lyric of the late and unlamentable Amy Winehouse should establish the point:
I didn't get a lot in class
But I know it don't come in a shot glass
They tried to make me go to rehab
But I said 'no, no, no'
This message is not quite the same as, for example, "Go to the ant, thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise."
Furthermore, all the young rioters will have had long experience of the prodigious efforts of the British criminal justice system to confer impunity upon law breakers. First the police are far too busy with their paperwork to catch the criminals; but if by some chance—hardly more than one in 20—they do catch them, the courts oblige by inflicting ludicrously lenient sentences.
A single example will suffice, but one among many. A woman got into an argument with someone in a supermarket. She called her boyfriend, a violent habitual criminal, "to come and sort him out." The boyfriend was already on bail on another charge and wore an electronic tag because of another conviction. (Incidentally, research shows that a third of all crimes in Scotland are committed by people on bail, and there is no reason England should be any different.)
The boyfriend arrived in the supermarket and struck a man a heavy blow to the head. He fell to the ground and died of his head injury. When told that he had got the "wrong" man, the assailant said he would have attacked the "right" one had he not been restrained. He was sentenced to serve not more than 30 months in prison. Since punishments must be in proportion to the seriousness of the crime, a sentence like this exerts tremendous downward pressure on sentences for lesser, but still serious, crimes.
So several things need to be done, among them the reform and even dismantlement of the educational and social-security systems, the liberalization of the labor laws, and the much firmer repression of crime.
British bosses condemn 'useless' degrees which leave graduates unemployable because they lack basic skills
Millions of school leavers and graduates with 'fairly useless' degrees are unemployable because they lack basic skills, a major business lobby group will warn today. The devastating report, from the British Chambers of Commerce, reveals small businesses are frustrated at the quality of applicants, who they say can barely concentrate or add up.
Nearly half of the 2,000 firms surveyed said they would be 'fairly or very nervous' about hiring someone who has just finished their A-levels.
The report warns: 'Too many people [are] coming out with fairly useless degrees in non-serious subjects.' Its findings raise serious questions about the type and standard of education and skills training in Britain.
The group questioned the owners of 'micro-businesses', those with fewer than ten employees. Many have vacancies which they are desperate to fill but were scathing about the quality of candidates.
The report states: 'In general, younger people lack numerical skills, research skills, ability to focus and read, plus written English.'
One unnamed entrepreneur told researchers: 'Plenty of unemployed, mostly without experience in my sector. The interpersonal skills of some interviewed in the past have been very poor.'
Dr Adam Marshall, director of policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said the fault lies with the education system, not with the young people themselves. He said new courses spring up because there is demand from would-be students – but not necessarily from businesses.
Dr Marshall said: 'There may be a course in underwater basket weaving, but that does not mean anybody will actually want to employ you at the end of it.' He cited the American television crime drama CSI as a prime example. It sparked a huge growth in the popularity of forensic science courses, but Dr Marshall said demand for these graduates is low.
He said: 'Despite high levels of unemployment, many micro-firms are frustrated by the quality of applicants for vacant roles. 'There is a real mismatch between business needs and local skills supply. Many businesses are unable to find school leavers or even graduates with the right mix of skills.'
Dr Marshall said he is desperate for the country to listen to business and create the right courses to fit the jobs that are available.
More than half micro-firms want to employ new workers over the next four years, but fear they will not be able to find suitable candidates. When asked how they do hire workers, many said they rely on their own family, personal contacts and people who have been recommended.
The report comes amid the growing ranks of business leaders attack Labour’s record on education and skills.
The former boss of Tesco, Sir Terry Leahy, described school standards as ‘woeful’ in 2009. His comments were echoed in the same year by former Marks & Spencer chairman Sir Stuart Rose, who said many school leavers were not ‘fit for work.’
Despite a doubling of spending on education since 2000, from £35.8billion to £71billion, Britain has plummeted down world rankings, according to the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
A spokesman for the Department for Education said: ‘We share the concerns of many businesses that too many of our young people leave school without the skills needed for work – in particular in the basics of English and maths. ‘It is good qualifications in these key subjects that employers demand before all others. That’s why we are prioritising them.’
Myth of 'eco-friendly' bags exposed as British supermarket chain dumps 'green' carriers that may actually harm the environment
Tesco has stopped using biodegradable carrier bags because they may be even worse for the environment than the conventional type. The decision is an embarrassment for the chain, which hailed its introduction of the bags as the centrepiece of its efforts to tackle litter and waste. Tesco stores hand out more throwaway plastic bags than any other retailer in the country – well over two billion a year.
Most supermarket carriers are used for only 20 minutes before being thrown away, but they can take up to 1,000 years to decompose. Many end up in landfill while others blight the countryside, beaches and the sea.
Tesco claimed that the biodegradable bags, which include an ingredient that makes them break down after 20-36 months, would defeat this problem. However, it is pulling them from stores after five years following independent scientific research funded by the Government which suggests they may damage wildlife and the environment.
Tesco said it began changing to new bags, which are not biodegradable but include 15 per cent recycled material, earlier this year. However, the company has made no official announcement on the change, and its website still boasts about the company’s commitment to using biodegradable bags.
It states: ‘We recognise that many of our bags may go to landfill, so we have made our carrier bags biodegradable. This means that they break down into water, carbon dioxide and biomass, which have minimal impact upon the environment.’
Tesco’s failure means other measures to tackle the blight caused by carrier bags are now necessary.
An independent study published last year raised serious questions about the value of the biodegradable bags. Experts from Loughborough University pulled together all the published research into such bags and concluded that they may do more harm than good. Their report warned that these bags can litter the countryside for up to five years before they degrade, far longer than the supermarket claims. This is because they are not exposed to enough of the heat and sunlight they need to break down.
The additive used in the bags to make them break down also means that they cannot be recycled.
The biodegradable bags do eventually crumble into a fine dust, according to the researchers.
But they said: ‘Although these bags are regarded as beneficial by the producers, concerns have been raised that these particles of plastic may be ingested by invertebrates, birds, animals or fish.’
No evidence was found that the fragments cause harm, ‘but neither was there evidence that they do not’, the authors added.
Explaining the decision to drop the bags, Tesco said it was based on scientific advice and also addressed customers’ concerns that they were weak and likely to break. A spokesman said: ‘We took the decision to remove the biodegradable additive because we believed it contributed towards bags becoming weaker and to help better promote their re-use and recycling at end of life. ‘This decision was underpinned by a detailed review of the science to help us understand the full life-cycle environmental impacts of our carrier bags.’
The Daily Mail’s Banish the Bags campaign, which began in 2008 and is calling for a drastic reduction in the billions of bags handed out each year, has gained support from all major political parties.
Yesterday Scottish ministers announced the start of a public consultation to find ways to limit the use of plastic bags. They are considering a compulsory charge for the throwaway bags.
How the Daily Mail has led the way in trying to banish plastic bags
Wales will introduce a charge of 5p on all single-use bags from October 1, including those from major supermarkets such as Tesco.
Northern Ireland is bringing in charges on April 1, 2013 and a public consultation is taking place about how much to charge.
England looks likely to be on its own in failing to take action, but David Cameron and Nick Clegg are under pressure to follow suit at Westminster.
Despite pledges by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister while they were in opposition, the Coalition currently has no policy on plastic bag reduction.
Last month it emerged that an extra 330million plastic bags have been handed out by supermarkets in the past year. It is the first time the total has gone up in five years.
In 2010/2011, around 6.4billion single-use plastic bags were given out, compared with 6.1billion in 2009/10, according to figures from WRAP, the Government’s waste reduction agency. That means everyone in the country is given 8.6 bags per month on average.
Marks & Spencer was the first major chain to bring in a 5p charge, in 2008.
The incontinence operation that's ruining women's lives
Thousands of women have been left severely damaged as a result of an implantable ‘sling’ operation to treat problems following childbirth. As a result the NHS is now facing a crisis on a par with the compensation claims for leaking silicone breast implants in the Nineties.
Up to 40,000 women in the UK are believed to have received the treatment — an implantable plastic mesh known as trans-vaginal tape (TVT), which is intended to support the pelvic organs to prevent incontinence. Now it’s been found that in an estimated 10 per cent of cases the mesh disintegrates within months of being implanted.
The tiny fragments, measuring only a few millimetres, migrate and become randomly embedded elsewhere, triggering inflammation and infection. Women can also be left in intractable pain and their sex lives can suffer.
Although some women have undergone ten or more operations to attempt to remove the mesh, surgeons say it is impossible to get it out completely. As a result, the sling procedure is no longer recommended in America — the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) there has warned that it causes far more complications than previously thought, and is exposing women to unnecessary risk.
In Britain, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is currently investigating reports of widespread problems and is due to issue guidance soon on whether doctors should stop using the operation.
The problem with TVT highlights a continuing dangerous anomaly in medicine. While drugs have to pass many years of exhaustive clinical trials before being approved for use on patients, new medical devices can be introduced with minimal testing and do not need to go through patient trials.
As well as breast implants, there have been problems with some artificial hip joints and pacemakers, which came to light only after thousands received them.
The sling procedure was developed to tackle a common long-term problem associated with childbearing, as well as the menopause and hysterectomies. Up to two in five women suffer incontinence, or prolapse, when the ligaments supporting the womb are stretched and become ineffective. This means the womb and other organs can press on the bladder. Doctors frequently recommend pelvic-floor exercises to improve muscle tone, but often they do not work.
Some women are too embarrassed to consult a doctor and simply suffer in silence.
Traditional surgical treatment has involved holding up the womb by stitching it into surrounding tissue — this prevents it pressing on the bladder, but the procedure often doesn’t work and involves up to two weeks in hospital.
The advent of TVT in America in 2002 seemed to provide a better solution, and it quickly became available on the NHS as well as privately. Since then, however, lawyers have investigated hundreds of complaints from distraught women who say their lives have been ruined.
A support group called Messed Up Mesh in Bristol has more than 140 members. ‘Some women are having up to 12 operations to get this stuff out of their bodies,’ said Lorraine Evans, who started the group after suffering the same problems. ‘We are hoping to launch a group legal action.’
In America, the Food and Drug Administration has just taken the rare step of revising a 2008 advice document saying problems with the mesh were ‘rare’. After reviewing years of evidence, it has concluded one in ten operations goes disastrously wrong. Its advisers originally assumed the mesh would not present problems because it is similar to a material which has been used in men since the Fifties to repair hernias — gaps in muscle wall which can trap sections of an organ.
The mesh was approved in 2002 for use in female prolapse, where the bladder or womb slips down into the vagina. However, it seems to behave differently in gynaecological use because there is less tissue to support it.
Despite protests from affected women, the U.S. authorities have not recommended complete withdrawal of the treatment. Instead Food and Drug Administration is holding a meeting next month to discuss how to find better ways of identifying patients who will not react badly to the tape.
Meanwhile, here, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has launched an investigation. ‘We are planning to publish our findings soon,’ a spokesman said. ‘If people are experiencing problems with a device, we would encourage them to report this to our adverse incident centre.’
Christian Beadell, of Goodmans solicitors in Liverpool, says his firm has received more than 400 complaints about the mesh. ‘The most common problem was the mesh failing to bond in place. Instead, it works its way through the vaginal wall, causing infection, urinary difficulties and pain during sex.’
Marcus Drake, a consultant urologist at Southmead Hospital, Bristol, is one of a number of senior specialists who have raised concerns about the use of the TVT. He has operated on many women who have suffered problems after the mesh disintegrated and points out that, unlike drugs, there isn’t a proper system for reporting problems.
‘As a result we have absolutely no idea of what the total number might be, but I regularly get requests to remove these tapes from women who are struggling with chronic pain, inability to pass urine naturally, or whose tape has eroded. All regret having had it placed. ‘It is unacceptable that drugs have to go through protracted testing and trials, but devices are put on the market with minimal experience of how they perform in real patients.’
Vincent Argent, another specialist gynaecologist based in Eastbourne, Sussex, says there should be a national register of patients as there is for those with breast implants, pacemakers and hip joints. This would mean that if anything goes wrong with a particular device, doctors can rapidly stop using it, and affected people can be recalled to have it replaced.
‘There are about 25 different manufacturers of this mesh,’ says Dr Argent. ‘They are all broadly similar, but there is no way of highlighting the ones that fail. We know use of this operation has grown rapidly, and there are undoubtedly large numbers of women affected.’
One of the major brands of the tape is manufactured by Ethicon, a subsidiary of U.S. healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson. A spokesman said: ‘Patient safety is our primary concern and we support the FDA’s efforts to review and assess data regarding the safety and efficacy of surgical mesh products.’
The 'green tax con' that is costing British families £500 as finances are under strain
Every household is paying £500 more than they should in green taxes, researchers claim. Their figures show that environmental taxes hit £41billion last year as family finances came under great strain. They say ministers are using the levies as an excuse to take more money from the taxpayer.
In a hard-hitting book called Let them eat carbon, Matthew Sinclair argues that environmental levies are excessive compared with the harms they are meant to address.
The director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance found that after road levies (£9.2billion) and Air Passenger Duty (£2.1billion) are taken out of the equation, total domestic green taxes were £30billion last year. Yet according to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the social cost of greenhouse emissions was £16.9billion.
This means that around £13billion in excess green levies were levied on taxpayers – the equivalent of £500 a family.
Mr Sinclair warned that this figure was likely to be too low because the Government estimate of the social cost per ton of carbon dioxide is itself considered too high.
Mr Sinclair said environmental levies represented a critical new threat to family finances. He claimed that much of the money raised in green taxes goes straight into the pockets of a ‘bewildering range of special interests’ and warned climate change had become ‘big business’.
His book says: ‘Ordinary families are paying a heavy price for the attempts politicians are making to control greenhouse gas emissions. ‘Unfortunately, there is precious little evidence that the various schemes and targets that make up climate change policy are actually an efficient way of cutting emissions.
‘They don’t represent good value and the public are right to be sceptical.’ Energy campaigners say green taxes, which are supposed to help save the planet, make up a fifth of household electricity bills.
The taxes are used to subsidise more wind farms, solar panels and environmentally friendly heating schemes.
Last month, MPs on the environmental audit committee called on the Government to ‘put its money where its mouth is’ and use receipts from fuel and aircraft duties to improve public transport.
A Treasury spokesman said the Government would continue to increase green taxes. ‘The Government is committed to being the greenest ever and will increase the proportion of tax revenue accounted for through environmental taxes,’ she added.
‘But we have also taken action to ease the burden, so taxes on fuel are 6p a litre lower. Diversifying our economy away from imported fossil fuels will also mean greater energy security and be a spur to jobs and growth.’
Motorists have been hit with a record £27billion in fuel duties over the past year. A petition calling for the tax to be frozen is among the most popular on a new Government website.
Starkey backed in furore over 'whites and black culture' claim
David Starkey was defended against accusations of racism yesterday after the outspoken TV historian said white youths involved in last week’s riots were imitating black gang culture.
A string of critics queued up to lambast Dr Starkey, who quoted Enoch Powell in a Newsnight debate and said white youths were adopting a ‘violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture’.
But other commentators rallied to Dr Starkey’s support, saying his arguments about gang culture were ‘indisputable’.
The row erupted after the historian spoke on Friday night opposite broadcaster Dreda Say Mitchell and left-wing author Owen Jones, who wrote Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class.
Dr Starkey said: ‘I think what this week has shown is that profound changes have happened. There has been a profound cultural change. I have just been re-reading Enoch Powell.
‘His prophecy was absolutely right in one sense: the Tiber didn’t foam with blood, but flames lambent wrapped around Tottenham, wrapped around Clapham.
‘What has happened is that the substantial section of the chavs that you wrote about have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion.
‘Black and white, boy and girl operate in this language together. This language, which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that has intruded in England. ‘This is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country.’
But author and commentator Toby Young defended Dr Starkey against charges of racism. He pointed out that Dr Starkey was not criticising black culture in general but a ‘particular form of black culture, the violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture associated with Jamaican gangs and American rap music’.
He added: ‘Had he been talking about these qualities as if they were synonymous with African-Caribbean culture per se, or condemning that culture in its totality, then he would have been guilty of racism. But he wasn’t. ‘He was quite specifically condemning a sub-culture associated with a small minority of people of African-Caribbean heritage. (Admittedly, he could have made this clearer.)
‘Rather than being racist, he was merely trotting out the conventional wisdom of the hour, namely, that gang culture is to blame for the riots. In addition, Starkey wasn’t linking this sub-culture to people of just one skin colour, but condemning working-class white people – chavs, as he put it – who embraced it as well.’
Conservative writer James Delingpole blogged: ‘The cultural point he is making is indisputable. ‘Listen to how many white kids (and Asian kids) choose to speak in black street patois; note the extent to which hip-hop and grime garage and their offshoots have penetrated the white mainstream; check out how many white kids like to roll like pimps or perps with their Calvins pulled up to their midriffs and their jean waistbands sagging below their buttocks. ‘Is anyone seriously going to try to make the case that this isn’t black culture in excelsis?’
A spokesman for Channel 4, for whom Dr Starkey made the Monarchy series, said: ‘We have nothing scheduled with David Starkey. ‘But we wouldn’t comment on this as Mr Starkey made his remarks during an interview with the BBC and not Channel 4.’
London riots: Metropolitan Police is more service provider than a force
Destroyed by political correctness
By retired senior police officer and crisis management specialist Peter Power
Back when I joined the force, every officer had to commit to memory the words of Sir Richard Mayne, the founder of the Metropolitan Police.
"The primary object of an efficient police," he said, "is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed.
"To these ends, all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful."
Judged by those standards, the quality of policing when things started to go wrong last week has, despite exceptional courage and dedication on the front line, fallen grievously short. So what went wrong?
Twenty years ago, I was involved both at the sharp end, confronting rioters, and then in trying to analyse what had happened and come up with new ideas on strategies and tactics.
This was a period when the police were moving – or rather drifting – from the cosy but unrealistic image of Dixon of Dock Green, towards a more answerable, but more politically correct, culture, initiated first by Lord Scarman in his report into the Brixton riots.
Many of Scarman's recommendations were sensible – yet their effect has been to turn a force into a service, leaders into managers, and criminals into customers.
To give just one example, Scarman insisted on the need for more regular liaison meetings between police and community. Those who want to indulge in wide-scale looting obviously have no interest in a cosy chat with the local coppers; so instead, a curious mix of enthusiastic but ineffective community representatives turned up.
During my time in Brixton, the chairman was the local vicar, presiding over attendees from such disparate groups as the Association of Jewish Ex Servicemen. Quite how that was to defuse future rioting, no one was really sure.
On one issue, Scarman did come down on the police's side, clearing the Met of "institutional racism". But in 1999, Sir William Macpherson conducted another major review, following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and came to the opposite conclusion.
Among a series of sweeping changes, he set up "performance indicators" to monitor the future handling of racial incidents, and how satisfied different ethnic groups were with police behaviour.
The intention was noble – but the result of such constant self-criticism, and of other causes célèbres, such as the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005 and the death of Ian Tomlinson in 2009, was a dispirited police force, dominated by a politically correct culture that all but extinguished the last flickering light of any esprit de corps. It had truly stopped being a force, preferring instead to now be a 'service provider'.
The consequence of such changes is that managers are promoted above inspirational leaders, and that the force is crippled by a devotion to community consent in a country that has become a patchwork of discrete and often intolerant communities. As P.J. Waddington says in his book 'The Strong Arm of the Law': "The legitimacy of the police in Britain has traditionally been founded not upon conformity to popular wishes, but upon impartiality." No senior police officer, fearing the heavy hand of the Macpherson thought police, would dare agree today.
This mentality helps explain what happened at the start of events last week - noting the streets were only recovered by the police when they at last returned to being a force.
The injuries sustained by many officers show that we have plenty of men and women prepared to be truly brave when needed. But it's not surprising that the officers in charge thought it safer to wait for orders from the top, rather than use their discretion to act swiftly to protect people and property. Many otherwise very competent and dedicated senior officers are hamstrung by the widely held doctrine that any use of force is only the very last resort – not an ideal philosophy to apply when confronting a riot.
Even when force is eventually resorted to, it has to be "reasonable". But what does that mean in such a context? How many blows of a truncheon can an exhausted constable, who might have spent the last few hours fearing for his safety, land on a rioter who refuses to obey his commands? One? Two? Three? What is the requisite level of disobedience or provocation before force can be applied? Should the officer have to issue a ticket inviting the culprit to complain?
The effective absence of police from the streets in the hours after that tragic shooting in Tottenham, and the spreading message that they took no interest, served to compound the view – held by many within the feral underbelly of our cities – that the police have become enfeebled and fearful of confrontation. Small wonder that a few months ago, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary discovered that fewer than 60 per cent of police services had properly tested their mobilisation plans for scenarios like this.
Worse, the legacy of the past week may yet be more damaging than the initial impact.
Not only will the middle classes feel they are no longer protected, but the temptation towards vigilantism based on geographic or faith communities will only exacerbate the problems already faced by the police. As for the officers themselves, the perception of a lack of support from government, threats to their pay, and a clutch of other fears, had already provoked widespread pessimism; in a recent poll of 42,000 personnel, 98 per cent admitted that their morale was low. That is hardly a recipe for the stability and security that the nation craves.
British universities crack down on resits of High School exams
Teenagers who attempt to resit their A-levels after failing to get decent grades this week face being shut out of top universities, it can be disclosed.
As applications hit a record high, growing numbers of institutions are cracking down on students who boost their scores by taking exams a second time.
Leading universities such as Edinburgh, Birmingham, Sheffield and University College London said students were often banned from retaking an entire A-level to get on to some of the most sought after degrees such as law and medicine.
Days before the publication of A-level results, other institutions said students taking exams twice would be expected to gain higher scores than the standard offer.
Some universities such as the London School of Economics, Imperial College and Cambridge insisted resits were not ruled out but academics “prefer students who achieve high grades at their first attempt”.
The disclosure is made as teenagers across England, Wales and Northern Ireland prepare to receive their A-level results on Thursday.
With competition for higher education places at a record high, it is believed that as many as a third of the 707,000 university applicants this year will fail to secure a degree course.
It is believed that many will reapply next year, even though annual tuition fees will soar as high as £9,000 for students starting courses in 2012.
The Council for Independent Education, which represents colleges specialising in A-level resit courses, said the number of enquiries to its members had doubled in July compared with the same period in 2010.
At present, students can resit individual A-level modules or retake an entire year. It is believed that between 30 and 50 per cent of pupils retake some papers. But headteachers warned that the sheer complexity of universities’ rules on resits risked damaging the career prospects of thousands of students.
Tim Hands, master of Magdalen College School, Oxford, said: “The more complex it is to get into university, the more it is going to deter people from going at all, particularly if they have not got access to the kind of advice they need to negotiate the applications process.”
Neil Roskilly, from the Independent Schools Association, added: “There are often valid personal reasons why a student has taken resits and there are not always opportunities to make that known.”
The Daily Telegraph gained data from almost 70 universities across Britain on their applications policies. The majority said resits were judged in the same way as first-time exams. Others said they devolved decisions in the issue to individual subjects departments. But the most selective universities often exercised more control.
Aberdeen said it considered students resitting their A-levels but not those applying for medicine degrees. Full A-level resits are also ruled out for medicine courses at Sheffield.
Birmingham said resits were “not allowed for medicine or dentistry” but may be considered on a case-by-case basis for other subjects.
At Dundee, students who fail to meet entry requirements in the first sitting “may be asked for higher [grades] depending on their individual circumstances”, a spokesman said.
Edinburgh insisted students would be expected to complete three A-levels “in one examination diet”, adding: “Candidates retaking A-levels will not normally be considered for selection.”
Imperial prefers exams “to have been taken in one sitting”, said a spokesman. Where students take tests a second time, information on exceptional circumstances such as illness may be taken into consideration. UCL said a “limited number” of courses – notably medicine and law – expected A-levels to be sat in a standard two-year cycle.
But Steve Boyes, chairman of the Council for Independent Education and principal of Mander Portman Woodward College in west London, said: “Once again demand for retaking will be very high.
“This may seem surprising with some vice-chancellors preparing for a collapse in the number of applications next year, due to the higher university fees payable in 2012. “On the other hand, just like last August, there are going to be more than 200,000 disappointed applicants this year, and a good proportion of these will want to re-apply with better grades.”
The Robert Gordon University, Scotland: Obesity causes Global Warming
But of course! Why didn't I think of that?
Researchers at the university have completed a study that addresses the link between climate change and obesity.
The academics suggest that global weight loss would result in a drop in the production of the major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO(2)).
The study was carried out by a trio of researchers within the university's Centre for Obesity Research and Epidemiology (CORE). It suggests that if every obese and overweight person in the world lost 10 kilograms (or 1.58 stone), the resulting drop in greenhouse emissions would be the equivalent of 0.2% of the CO(2) emitted globally in 2007 (49.560Mt).
The calculations were based on a previous weight loss study that investigated the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on body weight, body composition and resting metabolic rate of obese volunteers with type 2 diabetes. After six months of following the diet, the volunteers' weight, fat mass, fat free mass and CO(2) production were observed.
Dr Catherine Rolland was one of the lead researchers on the study. She explains: "This decrease can be explained by the principles of respiration - the process by which organisms breathe in oxygen, which is then converted to CO(2) and then exhaled.
"CO(2) production is proportionate to body mass and heavier individuals naturally produce more than those of a healthier weight. The global obesity epidemic, therefore, has resulted in humans producing a higher volume of a major greenhouse gas."
The initial study was carried out by Phd student Ania Gryka as supervised by Dr Rolland and Professor Iain Broom, director of CORE. It was published in International Journal of Obesity on 26 July this year.
The team were inspired to investigate the link between obesity and global warming after reading a paper written by academics Ian Roberts and Robin Stott in November 2010 which put out a call for collective action from health professionals against the causes of climate change.
Dr Rolland continues: "The current climate change has been most likely caused by the increased greenhouse gas emissions, and one of the direct producers of these gases is human beings. As such, Professor Broom felt that we were in an ideal position to present our data in a way that responded to this call by Roberts and Stott.
"While the reality is that global weight loss of this magnitude is unlikely to happen anytime soon, it is clear that working towards this reduction could help meet the CO(2) emission reduction targets and be of a great benefit to global health. It also makes the point that by improving our own health we can play a part in improving the health of our planet."
The CORE team have no immediate future plans for this research, but will continue to contribute to the global understanding and management of obesity.
Bungled NHS scan: They tried to kill a live baby. How could they?
Pregnant woman told baby was gone -- but it was still there and alive. Only her instincts saved it from them
A pregnant woman who was advised to have a termination after an NHS ultrasound indicated she had suffered a miscarriage only found out her baby was still alive after requesting another scan.
Chelsea Muff, 32, spent two weeks grieving after a sonographer told her she had lost the child following an ultrasound scan. But the mother-of-two requested a second scan two weeks later and her child was found to be still alive. She has now told how she is trying to cope with the knowledge that she could have inadvertently terminated the baby.
Now almost four months pregnant, Miss Muff, mother to 14-year-old Corey and 11-year-old Destiny, said: "She said there was an empty sac – she said it had gone. I was shocked and upset.
"After the first scan a consultant came in and confirmed that I had miscarried and gave me the option to book in for an evacuation procedure, take a tablet there and then that would bring labour, or wait for it to come away naturally. "I chose to wait. If I had taken the tablet I could have terminated my baby and never known."
Miss Muff, of Bradford, West Yorks., was seven weeks pregnant when she suffered a small bleed on June 24. She attended A&E at Bradford Royal Infirmary and was given an early appointment two days later.
It was here she was given the abdominal ultrasound scan which appeared to show she had miscarried. She later discovered because the pregnancy was so early, she should have been offered an internal ultrasound.
She was booked in for a vacuum suction on July 8 but never attended because she was still upset. She then rang to ask if they could carry out a second scan. It was at this scan on July 15 that she discovered she was still pregnant and heard her baby's heartbeat for the first time.
She said: "The member of staff was shocked but really pleased for me. She said 'you have a live baby'. I didn't believe it. I had been so upset and couldn't believe this could have happened.
"I was really happy at that point. It was only later, after discussing it with my partner, who was really mad about what I had been put through, that I realised I could have killed my baby by taking the tablet."
Chelsea, whose baby is due in February, has submitted a formal complaint in the hope lessons can be learned and no other women have to go through the emotional turmoil she suffered. "How can they tell you your baby has died and the next minute tell you it is alive?" she said. "When I went to book in with a midwife at the doctors they even had a letter saying I had miscarried so they were shocked as well.
"It should be compulsory to do an internal scan. I don't know what went wrong in my case but hopefully by complaining I will get an explanation about why I wasn't offered one."
A spokesman for Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust said: "We sympathise with Miss Muff for the distress she has experienced. The Foundation Trust is taking all necessary actions to investigate the circumstances and has contacted Miss Muff directly to discuss her concerns."
Miss Muff, a mother-of-two, told how she asked for a second scan because she was still showing signs of being pregnant. She said: "It happened very quickly, after they gave me the scan and told me I had miscarried they offered me tablets to bring on labour there and then. "They offered me the tablets, which I didn't take, and booked me in for an operation for two weeks later.
"I didn't take them because, to be quite honest, I didn't want to believe it was happening to me. "I didn't go for the operation, I couldn't face it, but phoned up and booked myself in for another scan – I didn't mention I hadn't gone in for surgery.
"I couldn't give up yet and wanted to go in for one last chance. I still felt like I was pregnant and was showing signs like a weak bladder and putting weight on so I wanted to be sure. "I had been reading up about miscarriages and in all cases the women involved had been given internal scans, something which I didn't get. "I was going to ask for this after my second scan but then they told me my baby was alive.
"Of course I am happy that my baby is alive but my emotions are still up and down. I worry that if they made a mistake the first time they could make another one and maybe got the second scan wrong. "I worry a lot more and am being very cautious when I'm at work, and am careful with things like lifting.
"I am quite disgusted by the way the hospital have dealt with it, they haven't even phoned up to see how I'm doing."
The BBC's secrecy rather speaks for itself: A media organization that fights to COVER UP information??
For six years, Steven Sugar pursued a one-man legal battle against the BBC in an attempt to force it to disclose a secret report.
He was trying to get the corporation to publish an internal assessment off its coverage of the Middle East conflict, which he believed would reveal bias against Israel.
Mr Sugar won an appeal for a full court hearing but when he died of cancer in January at the age of 61 it appeared his mission was at an end. Now, his widow, Fiona Paveley, has taken up the fight to reveal the contents of the 20,000-word document and the case is to be heard at the Supreme Court.
Mr Sugar’s lawyers told Mrs Paveley that she could represent him and she believes it is her duty to continue his battle.
The BBC has spent more than £270,000 on legal fees to prevent the public from seeing the report, written in 2004 by Malcolm Balen, a senior journalist, for Richard Sambrook, then BBC director of news. But a defeat for the BBC could cost the corporation even more because it could weaken its ability to deny requests made under the Freedom of Information Act.
Mr Sugar lost at the Information Tribunal, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, but his legal team - who have waived their fees - are hopeful of success in the Supreme Court.
Mrs Paveley said: “I used to tease Steven about his obsession with fighting this so I think he would have a wry smile that I’m carrying it on, but I couldn’t let it drop.”
Mr Sugar, a solicitor, first asked the BBC to publish the Balen Report in 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act and refused to accept the BBC’s argument that it was outside the Act’s scope.
The corporation successfully argued in the past that the report should not be released because it was held for “the purposes of journalism, art or literature” and, as such, was exempt. It was commissioned to analyse the BBC’s coverage of Middle East issues and make recommendations for improvement.
Mrs Paveley, a 48-year-old clinical psychologist, was approached by her husband’s lawyers after he died. They explained that the case could only continue if he was represented at court.
“I knew immediately that I wasn’t going to abandon it,” she says. “It would have almost felt like a betrayal to let all his hard work go to waste. He never gave up, so why should I?”
Mrs Paveley said that she and her late husband saw an anti-Israeli bias in the reporting of Orla Guerin, the BBC’s former Middle East correspondent, who was accused of anti-Semitism in 2004 by the Israeli government.
Mrs Paveley said: “Steven thought that reporting should be balanced. As a publicly-funded body, it seems wrong that the BBC is afraid and reluctant to be more transparent.”
Another reporter, Barbara Plett, was found by BBC governors to have “breached the requirements of due impartiality” after she said she cried as a dying Yasser Arafat left the West Bank in 2004.
More recently, Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East editor, was also found to have breached rules on accuracy and impartiality in two reports about the Arab-Israeli conflict.
A BBC spokesman said: “If we are not able to pursue our journalism freely and have honest debate and analysis over how we are covering important issues, then how effectively we can serve the public will be diminished.”
A Supreme Court spokesman said: “This is an interesting case which the Justices have decided raises an issue of general public importance. “It will effectively establish the test for what constitutes a document held for journalistic purposes.”
Riots the predictable result of the Leftist values that now rule Britain
WHEN I was a student, I took a course in the sociology of deviance. After weeks reviewing theories about the causes of law-breaking, the lecturer announced that we were asking the wrong question. "The real question," he said, "is not why some break the law. It is why we don't all break the law."
Following last week's riots in Britain, politicians and commentators have similarly been asking the wrong question. What caused thousands of (mainly) young males to torch buildings where they live, loot local shops and attack fellow citizensis a no-brainer. Kicking against authority is exciting. Being in the thick of the action when the television cameras are rolling makes you feel important. And the chance to grab some designer clothing and a widescreen plasma TV is too good to pass up.
Yet many people did not riot, and they are the interesting ones. Why didn't everyone cash in on the anarchy? The answer lies in external and internal constraints.
External constraints have to do with the likelihood of getting caught, and the consequences if you are. Last week, many people calculated, correctly, that they could mask their faces, join a mob, and act with relative impunity. Police resources were desperately overstretched, and it soon became clear that even if the police arrived in substantial numbers, they would do nothing. The images that shocked middle England most were those showing the police standing watching as young hoodlums ran around breaking into shops and setting light to buildings. There was, for a while, no law, and no serious attempt to maintain order. Shopkeepers and householders were left to defend themselves.
Police chiefs accept they made a strategic mistake, that had they acted sooner and more firmly, the rioting may have been contained or quelled altogether. The perception that you could join a riot and get away with it undoubtedly fuelled the violence. But why were the police so inert?
The answer is that, for many years, they have been accused of being too heavy-handed. Had they acted earlier, and more firmly, we would today be hearing familiar complaints about brutality, excessive use of force and institutional racism. By doing nothing, the police ensured there could be no damaging images on YouTube and no inquiries arising from their conduct. The Brits have neutered their police and last week they saw the consequences.
The calculation by many rioters that they were unlikely to get arrested was reinforced by the knowledge that it wouldn't matter much if they were. There is a widespread belief in Britain that the criminal justice system is weak and ineffective. Blair's ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders) became a joke and are being scrapped; community service orders are often disregarded; and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke insists prison doesn't work and sentences should be cut. Little wonder youngsters are unconcerned about the possibility of a criminal conviction.
So the external constraints have withered. Even so, most people did not join in the rioting. The reason is they knew it was wrong. And this points to the crucial importance of internalised constraints. Internalised constraints are the product of early socialisation, in which we learn the basic norms and values of our society. The process starts from the moment we are born, so that by the time we reach the rebellious years of adolescence, basic notions of right and wrong are deeply ingrained and almost instinctive.
Hormones and peer group pressure might tempt us from the straight and narrow in the teenage years, but a nagging conscience drags us back again.
The key agencies of socialisation are families and schools. In Britain, both are in a state of disarray, so many youngsters grow up without a strong moral framework to guide their actions.
In the schools, there has been a 40-year revolt against structure. Gone are the rows of desks, all facing the front. Gone is the concern for spelling rules, the rote learning of arithmetic tables, the laborious phonic reciting of the alphabet. Teachers in jeans emphasise creativity, self-esteem and child-centred learning, which means students' desires are paramount. In place of the last-resort threat of physical punishment, trouble-makers are excluded, which means they are passed around schools, repeating their mischief-making while attracting no meaningful response.
Those fortunate enough to be raised by committed parents may come out of this system relatively unscathed. Commentators have recently noticed the remarkable success of Indian and Chinese youngsters growing up in Britain. They easily outperform white and Afro-Caribbean kids in school, and they also have much lower crime rates (I saw few Indian or Chinese kids running riot on the streets last week). The explanation is that they are raised in strong, aspirational families.
At the opposite extreme, about one-third of British children grow up in single-parent families, most of which are female-headed. Despite repeated protestations to the contrary, this is not a viable or desirable way to raise children, especially boys.
The problem has little to do with money. A middle-class friend who is a single mum told me last week how she is finding it impossible to control her 14 year-old boy. He recently called her a "f . . king whore" and threatened to knife her when she attempted to punish him. She is a teacher. Boys need adult male role models, and (although it is unfashionable to say it) paternal authority.
It should come as no surprise to learn that societies that fail to socialise their young properly become unhappy, chaotic places. French sociologist Emile Durkheim warned of the dangers of anomie weakness of normative regulation back in the 1890s.
Nor is there any secret about where to search for solutions: more effective enforcement of rules by authority (including the police and the schools) is needed to maintain a predictable sense of order and renewed support for strong, cohesive, traditional families is needed to sustain the conditions required for effective, moral upbringing.
The trouble is, most Brits don't want to hear this. They recoil against the language of rules, structure, authority and personal responsibility. They want the government to do something, but they are unwilling to examine their own codes of living. I suspect things are going to get a lot worse before public opinion resolves to do something effective to reverse the rot.
Leftist laws prevent British children from being disciplined
In another shocking example of middle-class children being involved in the riots, the father of a teenage looter said parents were powerless to punish their children because of the nanny state.
The ‘heartbroken and ashamed’ cameraman, who has helped make BBC and Channel Four documentaries on policing and justice, said that parents cannot discipline their offspring properly for fear of being reported to police or social services.
His 16-year-old daughter appeared at City of Westminster magistrates’ court on Saturday charged with stealing a £500 iPad during rampant violence last Monday.
The father of five said: ‘I am heartbroken and totally ashamed that she got caught up in all this. ‘Basically I feel this is the end product of a society that tells you that you can’t discipline your children. ‘They say, “If you hit me, it’s physical assault and if you shout at me, it’s verbal abuse”. ‘These children are a little bit out of control at the moment.’
‘Children now have the power over their parents, not the other way around. There is no respect as their rights are prioritised above parental authority. ‘When I was young, I was given a good clip round the head by my mother if I stepped out of line – now no parent can do that.
‘My daughter could go to jail for this. I hope it’s the wake-up call she needs.’
Bright British students seek jobs instead of university
Bright teenagers are preparing to shun university in favour of finding a job amid intense competition for degree courses and fears over rising graduate debt.
Research by The Daily Telegraph shows a sharp rise in the number of students aged 17 and 18 directly applying to leading companies after leaving school and college.
Employers such as Network Rail, Marks & Spencer, Laing O’Rourke, the engineering firm, and the accountancy firms PricewaterhouseCoopers and Grant Thornton are reporting huge rises in applications for A-level entry jobs this summer.
The disclosure, which comes days before students throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland receive their A-level results, casts doubt on claims that degrees are a prerequisite for careers at top companies.
The exam results are expected to trigger the most intense scramble for university places ever seen as record numbers of students compete for courses before the introduction of annual tuition fees of up to £9,000 in 2012. With those who missed out on places last year adding to demand, it is believed 220,000 out of 707,000 applicants in total may be rejected.
The demand for places has already prompted an estimated third of universities to declare themselves “full” a week before results are published. In a series of other developments yesterday, it emerged that:
A record one in 10 A-levels could be awarded an A* grade — a rise of around one percentage point on last year — which will make it even harder for universities to pick out the brightest students;
The head of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (Ucas) said that schools were wrecking teenagers’ degree ambitions by advising them to study the wrong A-levels — leaving them locked out of the most academically demanding institutions;
One of Britain’s biggest exam boards, Edexcel, apologised after wrongly posting thousands of A-level results on its website on Saturday — almost a week early.
University still remains the main aspiration for most schoolchildren. But the competition for places is prompting more sixth-formers to seek other options.
These include applying to European universities where tuition fees are often a fraction of the £3,290 being charged in England from September. Yesterday, Maastricht University in the Netherlands, which charges £1,526 a year, said it had seen a 15-fold rise in applications from Britain this summer.
But some teenagers are shunning university altogether to focus on apprenticeships and other school entry-level programmes. According to figures from the Association of Graduate Recruiters, more than a quarter of leading businesses employ staff directly from schools and colleges and a fifth of other companies are considering opening up recruitment schemes to this age group. For the first time, Boots, the chemist, is running an apprenticeship scheme for sixth-formers this year.
PricewaterhouseCoopers has so far received 1,600 applications for just 100 places on its employment scheme for A-level students. Applications for the programme, which leads to a chartered accountant qualification in four years, have doubled in a year and increased almost fourfold since 2008.
Gaenor Bagley, the firm’s head of people, said: “Students are being forced to look at different options for their future and university may not be the right solution. Anyone who has a genuine interest in pursuing a career in business has options.”
Network Rail has received 8,000 applications for 200 places on its paid apprenticeship programme, up from just 4,000 in 2010. The firm said demand for positions was being caused by university leavers unable to find graduate jobs.
Marks & Spencer said applications for just 40 places on its management scheme had increased from 1,100 to 1,600 in a year. Laing O’Rourke said applications for its training scheme had increased by almost 10 per cent to 284 this summer, while Grant Thornton said it had 700 applications for school leaver-entry jobs.
The Government has created more than 100,000 extra apprenticeships for people aged 19 and over this year as an option for young people.
Expectant mothers who can affortd it are fleeing the NHS for home births
Hospitals are in theory safer but NHS hospitals don't fit the theory
Four hours after giving birth, Anna Walker was lying in her own bed, drinking champagne. It had been a short journey from the front room, where she had been attended by a private midwife, as she gave birth to son Tommy at home in Hampshire.
Mrs Walker is part of a growing trend; professional, middle-class women who are used to paying for the best, and are prepared to spend thousands of pounds to ensure that the birth of their child runs as smoothly as the rest of their life.
While total numbers are small, they are rising sharply. According to new figures, last year more than 1,000 women paid for the service; a three-fold rise, in less than a decade.
Demand has become so high in parts of London and the South East that expectant mothers have been unable to find a private midwife to assist them.
The self-employed midwives - who charge between £1,800 and £4,000 for a birth - say their services are especially popular among well-educated women, and older expectant mothers, who have often been horrified by previous experiences of NHS maternity units.
Earlier this year, the head of the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) said services were "teetering on the brink" of crisis, as the number of midwives fails to keep up with rising birth rates.
Although the NHS says women should be given the option of a home birth, staff shortages mean many of those with such intentions still end up being rushed to crowded wards.
Mothers' groups say that for those who can afford them, private midwives offer expectant mothers some degree of control over the kind of care they receive, and the chance to establish a relationship with one midwife, rather than being seen by a succession of strangers.
For Mrs Walker, 37, who gave birth to Tommy, her first child, last year, that meant spending £3,000 - the price of a good holiday, for her and husband Matthew, who run their own communications business.
She said: "I had heard all about my friends' experiences of NHS maternity care, and none of the stories were positive. I wanted to give birth at home with a midwife I had got to know. "I knew that while the NHS said you could have a home birth, that could change on the day; I didn't want to take the luck of the draw, and end up with the bright lights of a hospital, and strangers rushing in and out, changing shifts."
Instead, she was able to establish a relationship with the midwife they hired. On the day her labour started, last March, she felt calm and reassured, and found the experience of a water birth, in their front room "amazing". She said: "I gave birth to Tommy at 6.01pm. By 10 o' clock, I was back in my own bed, drinking champagne. It was perfect."
Mrs Walker is in many ways typical of the women prepared to pay for a good birth.
Eleanor May-Johnson, from Independent Midwives UK, said: "A lot of the women who seek out an independent midwife tend to be a bit older, often over the age of 35, and while they aren't always well-off, the majority are well-educated. "They know that they want a home birth, and they know that while the NHS says they can have one, that can be taken away from them at the last minute."
The midwife, who last year had the highest number of clients since she began private practice seven years ago, said concerns about the standard of NHS maternity care were one of the main reasons for the rising numbers.
Mrs May-Johnson said: "There are parts of the country, especially London and the South East, where the number of independent midwives can't keep up with the demand. "Those tend to be the same areas where the NHS maternity services are under pressure, and turning away women in labour."
The organisation's figures show the number of births involving private midwives increased from 350 in 2002 to just over 1,000 last year. Even these statistics are likely to provide an underestimate, since the group's membership covers about 70 per cent of independent midwives.
Separate figures show that last year, a further 2,000 mothers-to-be paid up to £500 each for "doulas" - birth coaches - to give them one-to-one support through an NHS birth.
The rising popularity of doulas - who have no specific training or qualifications - has proved contentious. While many women who have hired doulas - the Greek word for slave - say they have provided comfort and reassurance, senior hospital doctors have accused them of interfering, and creating dangerous levels of conflict in the delivery suite.
Cathy Ranson of campaign group Netmums said: "Our research has found NHS maternity services are very stretched. Some women are choosing independent midwives and doulas in an attempt to get more control over the kind of care they receive."
Earlier this year, the RCM said maternity units were reaching "breaking point" as midwife numbers fail to keep pace with a baby boom. In the last decade, the birthrate has risen by 19 per cent, while midwife numbers rose by 12 per cent - leaving a shortfall of more than 4,000 midwives across the service.
Last year, an NHS survey of 25,000 women who recently gave birth found one in five had been left alone during childbirth, at a point when it worried them.
Sue Macdonald from the RCM said staff shortages were one of the main reasons women were denied the highest standards of care. She said: "What women want is to feel special, and listened to and cared for, and to develop a relationship with their midwife right from the start of pregnancy. We want every woman to get that gold standard of care, not just those who can pay for it."
Debate over the safety of home births has raged for decades. Forty years ago, more than a third of women gave birth at home, but currently, fewer than 3 per cent of births take place in the home.
Last month, a landmark report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said the NHS should do far more to encourage home births, declaring that in one in three cases, identified as low risk, women were safe to give give birth “without a doctor going anywhere near them” - either at home or in a midwife-led unit.
However, The Birth Trauma Association has warned that cases which appeared low risk could quickly develop life-threatening problems during labour.
Last year a US study which claimed that a home birth carries three times the risk that a baby would die provoked divisions among medics and midwives. The research, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, showed the average mortality rate of babies born in hospital was 0.3 per 1,000 births, rising to one per 1,000 births for those born at home.
The RCM said the research was flawed, and said that in Holland, where one in three women have home births, the perinatal mortality rate is the lowest in Europe.
In 2009 a private midwife who delivered two of the author JK Rowling’s children was found guilty of professional misconduct after a baby died during labour. Deborah Purdue, who ran the Dorset and Wiltshire Independent Midwives company, did not properly examine the mother in labour, so that complications were missed.
Brian Paddick was one of London's highest-ranking police officers. How would he tackle looters?
It would be hard to find a better-qualified candidate to sort out the looting and policing crisis than the former inner-city commander who helped revive relations between public and police in Brixton after the 1981 riots.
"I would have certainly been in my element," nods Paddick. "I would have been in Tottenham on Saturday night or first thing in the morning on Sunday. For Boris Johnson to turn up three days late brandishing a broom is not the sort of authority needed in these circumstances – in my humble opinion."
After 30 years in the Met, he still constructs his sentences with the pedantic care of a sergeant entering a crime into a little black notebook. Alongside this slightly circuitous precision, however, he also has a police officer's attractive habit of answering questions very directly.
As the riots spread across London at the start of the week, police tried to contain disturbances and arrest afterwards using CCTV evidence. Was this wrong? "Yes," says Paddick. "The reason we've seen such widespread rioting is simply because people believed they could go out there, do what they want and get away with it. If the police had acted robustly and quickly on Saturday night then we might not have seen the copycat violence all over the country."
Four years retired, Paddick remains remarkably relevant to the Met's current predicament. The grandson of a policeman, he climbed the ranks to become commander of Lambeth, south London, where he famously initiated a pilot in which officers cautioned, rather than arrested, those in possession of cannabis. Despite falling victim to untrue tabloid stories and probably having his phone tapped, Paddick became deputy assistant commissioner, the most senior gay police officer in the country. His rise was halted when he revealed, five hours after Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by armed police at Stockwell tube in 2005, that senior officers had known he was carrying a Brazilian passport, and was therefore unlikely to have been a suicide bomber.
The police's release of misleading tales to the media following the death of an innocent man has become a familiar pattern. It was repeated when newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson died after being shoved to the ground by a police officer during the 2009 G20 protests. Then, nine days ago, when Mark Duggan was shot dead by police in Tottenham, police accounts told of a shootout with Duggan, and an officer's life freakishly saved when a bullet lodged in his police radio. There was a wearying inevitability about the Independent Police Complaints Commission announcing this week that in fact the bullet in the radio was police issue, and a non-police weapon retrieved from the scene was not fired.
Paddick "completely" agrees these inaccurate accounts disastrously undermine public confidence in the police. "There is still this belief among some senior officers that it's better to cover up than own up. The trouble with that is usually people find out, and then it looks twice as bad," he says.
How do you tackle that culture? Is it institutional? "Well, if it's institutional it didn't persuade me. I told the IPCC exactly what I knew on the day of the shooting of de Menezes, and as a consequence I was sidelined and eventually pushed out. That's what happens with people who aren't institutionalised."
Paddick seems scarred by his experience in the Met hierarchy and, unsurprisingly, has no friends left there. Witheringly critical about former boss Ian Blair, Paddick believes he was briefed against by the Met's communications chief Dick Fedorcio. Blimey, I say, the Met sounds like a box of snakes. "Absolutely. It is," nods Paddick.
Paddick does not think the power vacuum created by the resignations of Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson – an appointment he presciently criticised – and assistant commissioner John Yates over the phone hacking scandal contributed to a failure to combat looting. But his critique of the boss class is more fundamental than simply pinpointing tactical failures and an inadequate use of Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger. Public order policing is not part of an officer's routine duties, but volunteered for. And the rank-and-file have stopped volunteering in droves, says Paddick, "because they felt if they did go in and do what the public wanted, which was pretty tough policing, they would end up under investigation or subject to complaints". He does not accept the rightwing critique that our rights-based culture means troublemakers have lost fear of the police, but believes ordinary officers worry "they would not be supported by their bosses when it came to complaints. So it's a loss of confidence in the hierarchy more than anything."
There is a tension between loss of faith in the police and the desire for tougher policing expressed this week. It is a hard time to be liberal. Paddick declares he is, none the less: "I agree that providing people don't harm other people, they should be allowed to do more or less what they want. The people on the streets this week were hurting a lot of people, and that puts them in play. Even though I'm a liberal, the police should've gone in much harder."
There is always "a fine line between robust police action and reasonable force and unreasonable and criminal assault", he says – but reasonable force for Paddick is not what you might expect of a liberal Lib Dem. Like former Northern Ireland chief constable Sir Hugh Orde (Paddick's choice for next Met commissioner), he has no time for the idea that unwieldy water canons could confront a mobile mob. It would be "like an elephant with a bucket of water". But Paddick has argued in favour of kettling and, most controversially, believes plastic bullets would quickly stop the rioting looters. "These are people who, if you say 'Boo' to them loudly enough, will run away. If you've got a crowd intent on looting and someone levels a plastic baton-round gun at them, they'll run a mile. That is upping the ante to a level where they don't want to play any more," he says.
Catholic nurses use Equality Act to protect their pro-life beliefs
Two Roman Catholic nurses have won the right not to work in an abortion clinic after they accused the NHS of breaching equality laws. The case is believed to be the first in which the Equality Act has been used successfully to defend a “pro-life” position as a philosophical belief and could have implications for other Christian medical staff.
The nurses, who are both from overseas and do not wish to be identified, were moved from their normal nursing duties at a London hospital to work once a week at an abortion clinic.
They were required to administer two drugs to pregnant women - Mifepristone and Misoprostol - to cause an induced miscarriage. The process, known as “early medical abortion”, is an increasingly common method of terminating a pregnancy and does not involve surgery.
When the nurses discovered that they were participating in abortions they objected but were told by managers that they must continue with the work.
One hospital manager allegedly told the pair: “What would happen if we allowed all the Christian nurses to refuse?”
However, the hospital later backed down after the Thomas More Legal Centre, which specialises in religious discrimination cases, took up their case.
After receiving a letter from the centre, the hospital initially told the nurses that they would be excused from administering the abortion-inducing drugs but would have to remain working at the clinic.
The nurses’ lawyer, Neil Addison, wrote again to the hospital stating that the nurses would still be “morally complicit in abortion” if they continued to work in the clinic as nurses in any capacity. The hospital eventually conceded and the nurses were allocated to other duties.
Mr Addison, director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, argued that the NHS had wrongly denied the nurses their right as conscientious objectors not to take part in abortions, which is set out in the 1967 Abortion Act.
He also invoked the Equality Act 2010. In a move that is believed to be a legal first, Mr Addison claimed that the nurses’ belief in the sanctity of life from conception onwards was “a philosophical belief” protected under the Equality Act. Therefore any attempt to pressure them into working in the clinic would be illegal.
“This particular interpretation of the Equality Act has never, to my knowledge, been argued before,” Mr Addison said. “However since the courts have accepted that the philosophical belief in global warming is protected under equality legislation, there seems no reason why belief that human life begins at conception should not be equally protected.”
By invoking the Equality Act, the nurses would be given greater protection, as it carries the potential threat of discrimination, victimisation, or harassment action at an employment tribunal.
Mr Addison said he felt “privileged” to have represented the “brave” nurses.
“Taking the stand they did took immense moral courage and I am delighted that they have been successful,” he said.
The case marks a rare example of equality laws being used to protect the rights of Christians. Previously judges have been criticised for interpreting equality and human rights legislation in ways that allegedly “marginalise” religious beliefs.
Last month, the Equality and Human Rights Commission warned that the courts had failed to protect religious freedom by ruling against Christians who wanted to wear the cross at work.
The watchdog said judges had interpreted the law “too narrowly” and must be more willing to accept that staff who have been prevented from expressing their beliefs have suffered discrimination.
Those of you following the barbaric rioting in Britain will not have failed to notice that a sizable proportion of the thugs are white, something not often seen in this country. Not only that, but in a triumph of feminism, a lot of them are girls. Even the "disabled" (according to the British benefits system) seem to have miraculously overcome their infirmities to dash out and steal a few TVs.
Congratulations, Britain! You've barbarized your citizenry, without regard to race, gender or physical handicap!
With a welfare system far more advanced than the United States, the British have achieved the remarkable result of turning entire communities of ancestral British people into tattooed, drunken brutes.
I guess we now have the proof of what conservatives have been saying since forever: Looting is a result of liberal welfare policies. And Britain is in the end stages of the welfare state.
In 2008, a 9-year-old British girl, Shannon Matthews, disappeared on her way home from a school trip. The media leapt on the case -- only to discover that Shannon was one of seven children her mother, Karen, had produced with five different men. The first of these serial sperm-donors explained: "Karen just goes from one bloke to the next, uses them to have a kid, grabs all the child benefits and moves on."
Poor little Shannon eventually turned up at the home of one of her many step-uncles -- whose ex-wife, by the way, was the mother of six children with three different fathers. (Is Father's Day celebrated in England? If so, how?)
The Daily Mail (London) traced the family's proud Anglo ancestry of stable families back hundreds of years. The Nazi war machine couldn't break the British, but the modern welfare state has.
A year earlier, in 2007, another product of the new order, Fiona MacKeown, took seven of her eight children (by five different fathers) and her then-boyfriend, on a drug-fueled, six-month vacation to the Indian territory of Goa. The trip was paid for -- like everything else in her life -- with government benefits. (When was the last time you had a free, six-month vacation? I'm drawing a blank, too.)
While in Goa, Fiona took her entourage on a side-trip, leaving her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlett Keeling, in the capable hands of a 25-year-old local whom Scarlett had begun sleeping with, perhaps hoping to get a head-start on her own government benefits. A few weeks later, Scarlett turned up dead, full of drugs, raped and murdered.
Scarlett's estranged stepfather later drank himself to death, while her brother Silas announced on his social networking page: "My name is Si, n I spend most my life either out wit mates get drunk or at partys, playing rugby or going to da beach (pretty s**t really)."
It's a wonder that someone like Silas, who has never worked, and belongs to a family in which no one has ever worked, can afford a cellphone for social networking. No, actually, it's not.
Britain has a far more redistributive welfare system than France, which is why France's crime problem is mostly a matter of Muslim immigrants, not French nationals. Meanwhile, England's welfare state is fast returning the native population to its violent 18th-century highwaymen roots.
Needless to say, Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and, as a consequence, also leads or co-leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases.
But liberal elites here and in Britain will blame anything but the welfare state they adore. They drone on about the strict British class system or the lack of jobs or the nation's history of racism. None of that explains the sad lives of young Shannon Matthews and Scarlett Keeling, with their long English ancestry and perfect Anglo features.
Democrats would be delighted if violent mobs like those in Britain arose here -- perhaps in Wisconsin! That would allow them to introduce yet more government programs staffed by unionized public employees, as happened after the 1992 L.A. riots and the 1960s race riots, following the recommendations of the Kerner Commission.
MSNBC might even do the unthinkable and offer Al Sharpton his own TV show. (Excuse me -- someone's trying to get my attention ... WHAT?)
Inciting violent mobs is the essence of the left's agenda: Promote class warfare, illegitimate children and an utterly debased citizenry.
Like the British riot girls interviewed by the BBC, the Democrats tell us "all of this happened because of the rich people."
We're beginning to see the final result of that idea in Britain. The welfare state creates a society of beasts. Meanwhile, nonjudgmental elites don't dare condemn the animals their programs have created.
Rioters in England are burning century-old family businesses to the ground, stealing from injured children lying on the sidewalks and forcing Britons to strip to their underwear on the street.
I keep reading that it's because they don't have jobs -- which they're obviously anxious to hold. Or someone called them a "k*****." Or their social services have been reduced. Or their Blackberries made them do it. Or they disapprove of a referee's call in a Manchester United game.
A few well-placed rifle rounds, and the rioting would end in an instant. A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can't find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds. We can be sure there's no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.
But like Louis XVI, British authorities are paralyzed by their indifference to their own civilization. A half-century of berating themselves for the crime of being British has left them morally defenseless. They see nothing about England worth saving, certainly not worth fighting for -- which is fortunate since most of their cops don't have guns.
This is how civilizations die. It can happen overnight, as it did in Revolutionary France. If Britain of 1939 were composed of the current British population, the entirety of Europe would today be doing the "Heil Hitler" salute and singing the "Horst Wessel Song."
Evangelical church application to set up new free school where it will teach creationism is approved
An evangelical church with creationism at the heart of its belief system has been given outline approval to run a free school. An application by the Everyday Champions Church, based in Newark, Nottinghamshire, has been accepted by the Department for Education. The church intends to teach the biblical belief that God created the world in six days, but evolution will only be taught as a 'theory'.
Education Secretary Michael Gove, had promised that creationism will not be taught in free schools. He is 'crystal clear that teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact', the Department of Education confirmed.
But in January he said he would consider applications from creationist groups on a case-by-case basis.
Now it has emerged that a panel of civil servants interviewed Everyday Champions Church leaders last week after their initial application was approved. It is not known if they agreed to drop plans to teach creationism. Officials told the Daily Telegraph they could not comment on the application but each one would be treated with 'due diligence.'
Free schools can be set up by charities, universities, businesses, educational groups, teachers and groups of parents. They are independent from local authorities and do not have to follow the national curriculum. However, lessons must be 'broad and balanced.' As with independent schools, free school teachers will not need formal teaching qualifications.
The church wants to open the new 625-pupil school in September next year and says there are currently not enough secondary places available in the area.
Pastor Gareth Morgan, the church's leader, told the Independent: 'Creationism will be embodied as a belief at the Everyday Champions Academy but will not be taught in the sciences. Similarly, evolution will be taught as a theory.'
The church's website says the new school, with will be 'multicultural in philosophy and will welcome children from all faiths or none'. However, it adds that the 'values of the Christian faith will be the foundation of the school philosophy'.
The website says: 'We believe that the Bible is God's Word. It is accurate, authoritative and applicable to our every day lives.'
Secular groups have criticised education officials for accepting the application and were 'astonished ' it was even considered. Richy Thompson, of the British Humanist Assocaition, said: 'Everyday Champions Church have been very clear that they intend to teach creationism as valid, and sideline evolution as just ‘a theory’.
'Given this, how can the Department for Education have now allowed this proposal to pass through to the interview stage? '‘The creep of creationism into the English education system remains a serious concern, and the Department have a lot more work to do if they want to stop extremist groups from opening free schools.’
The Government has approved 35 free school applications to move to the business case and plan stage, and eight of these have been given the go ahead to move into the pre-opening stage.
The story of your life really is written on your face, according to new research
As you will see from the journal abstract, the media article below is a rather florid interpretation of the findings. If I put bluntly what they really found you may understand why: What they found was that men from poor families tend to be uglier. Sorry about that but that is the way the cookie crumbles. The authors speculate that the ugliness was caused by disturbances during childhood but that seems unlikely. Genetic differences are more likely the culprit
Any explanation is going to be complex however when we note that there was no such effect for women. Poor women were NOT more likely to be ugly
In some people, the weather-beaten skin and deep lines that crease their face betray obvious clues about the hard life they have led, but now scientists have discovered everyone's facial features may betray their childhood.
Scientists at the University of Edinburgh have found it is possible to learn about a person's childhood by looking at how symmetrical their face is.
Using 15 different facial features, they found that people with asymmetric faces tended to have more deprived childhoods and so harder upbringings than those with symmetrical faces.
Their findings suggest that early childhood experiences such as nutrition, illness, exposure to cigarette smoke and pollution and other aspects of a difficult upbringing leave their mark in people's facial features.
Surprisingly, their facial features were not affected by their socioeconomic status in later life, which suggests that even those who manage to undergo a rag-to-riches transformation can never escape their past as it will be written on their face.
It may explain why celebrities such as Gordon Ramsay and Tracey Emin, who had difficult and impoverished childhoods, have such distinctive asymmetric facial features despite having since amassed personal fortunes.
Professor Ian Deary, from the department of psychology at the University of Edinburgh's centre of cognitive ageing, said: "Symmetry in the face is thought to be a marker of what is called developmental stability – the body's ability to withstand environmental stressors [stress factors] and not be knocked off its developmental path.
"We wondered whether facial symmetry would faintly record either the stressors in early life, which we though might be especially important, or the total accumulated effects of stressors through the lifecourse.
"The results indicated that it is deprivation in early life that leaves some impression on the face. The association is not very strong, meaning that other things also affect facial symmetry too."
Professor Deary and his colleagues examined the facial features of 292 people aged 83 who took part in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1921, a study that has followed the participants through out their lifetime.
They were able to compare the facial symmetry of the participants to detailed information about their social status at childhood, including their parent's occupation, how crowded their home was and whether they had an indoor or outdoor lavatory.
They examined 15 different "landmarks" on the face, including the positions of the eyes, nose, mouth and ears.
They found there was a strong association between social class and the symmetry of the face in men. Those with more symmetrical faces had more privileged and easier upbringings than those with asymmetrical features.
The results in women were less strong and the researchers want to carry out further studies with other facial markers that may give a stronger association.
The researchers, however, found no correlation between participants social status in later life and their facial features.
Professor Tim Bates, who co-authored the study, added: "A small link from parental status to facial symmetry doesn't mean people are trapped by their circumstances. Far from it – as shown by the high levels of mobility in society, not just people like Gordon Ramsay, but to lesser degrees by millions of people."
The link between facial symmetry and exposure to stress in early life might explain why many studies have found that people with symmetrical faces are considered to be the most attractive.
Lop-sided facial features may unconsciously provide a signal that a person is less desirable as a mate due to the stress they experienced in early life which could leave them vulnerable to disease and premature death.
In their study, which is published in the journal of Economics and Human Biology, the scientists suggest that facial symmetry could be used alongside medical markers such as high blood pressure to identify people who might be at an increased risk of disease.
Professor Dearly, however, insisted there was still a lot of work to do before it could be used like this. "It is a research-based measure and quite tricky to calculate at present," he said.
Symmetry of the face in old age reflects childhood social status
David Hope et al.
Abstract
The association of socioeconomic status (SES) with a range of lifecourse outcomes is robust, but the causes of these associations are not well understood. Research on the developmental origins of health and disease has led to the hypothesis that early developmental disturbance might permanently affect the lifecourse, accounting for some of the burden of chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease. Here we assessed developmental disturbance using bodily and facial symmetry and examined its association with socioeconomic status (SES) in childhood, and attained status at midlife. Symmetry was measured at ages 83 (facial symmetry) and 87 (bodily symmetry) in a sample of 292 individuals from the Lothian Birth Cohort 1921 (LBC1921). Structural equation models indicated that poorer SES during early development was significantly associated with lower facial symmetry (standardized path coefficient −.25, p = .03). By contrast, midlife SES was not significantly associated with symmetry. The relationship was stronger in men (−.44, p = .03) than in women (−.12, p = .37), and the effect sizes were significantly different in magnitude (p = .004). These findings suggest that SES in early life (but not later in life) is associated with developmental disturbances. Facial symmetry appears to provide an effective record of early perturbations, whereas bodily symmetry seems relatively imperturbable. As bodily and facial symmetries were sensitive to different influences, they should not be treated as interchangeable. However, markers of childhood disturbance remain many decades later, suggesting that early development may account in part for associations between SES and health through the lifecourse. Future research should clarify which elements of the environment cause these perturbations.
IVF clinic blunders treble in three years as ten mistakes every week bring heartbreak to couples
Since my brilliant 24 year-old son was an IVF conception -- via a 1st class Australian private clinic -- I feel greatly grieved to hear of the careless treatment that British couples are getting -- JR
Childless couples are having their hopes of a baby wrecked by soaring numbers of mistakes at fertility clinics. Some 564 serious errors or ‘near misses’ occurred at centres in Britain last year – more than ten every week. The figures have trebled since 2007, raising concerns over the standards of clinics.
There is also suspicion that the Government watchdog – the Human Fertility and Embryology Association – is not properly regulating the industry and forcing failing centres to close. [The HFEA spends all its energies persecuting first class private IVF clinics such as Dr. Taranissi's. Taranissi's success rates show up the NHS for the 4th rate operation that it is]
Figures from the HFEA also reveal that the number of very serious ‘Category A or B’ blunders has increased more than fourfold since 2008. Some 275 were reported in the last 12 months compared with just 62 in 2007-08.
Such mistakes include the wrong sperm being injected into an egg, embryos accidentally being destroyed or in some cases even implanted into another woman. In 2009 the Daily Mail revealed how one white British couple were bringing up a mixed-race child after the wrong sperm was used during IVF.
In another mix-up a couple were left heartbroken after their last remaining embryo was implanted into the wrong woman, who later terminated the pregnancy.
The demand for fertility treatment has soared since the 1990s as more and more women delay motherhood to pursue their careers. But in the last few years it has begun to level off and just under 40,000 couples had IVF last year, up from 38,000 in 2008. This slight increase cannot explain why the number of mishaps has trebled over the same time period.
Experts fear the watchdog is not properly investigating serious errors so they are simply being allowed to happen again. There are also concerns that clinics are understaffed and are using out-dated equipment, making mistakes far more likely.
Guy Forster, a solicitor from Irwin Mitchell, who specialises in negligence cases involving IVF, said: ‘As a solicitor, the incidents that I continue to see appear to flow from the same old problems of inadequate systems compounded by human error. ‘These types of mistakes cause unimaginable heartache and anguish to couples longing for a baby.’
Mr Forster added: ‘The public should have full confidence that any errors which occur are properly acted upon and, most importantly, that clinics learn from their mistakes. ‘When patients choose to undergo IVF treatment they have the right to know if their clinic has a poor record of incidents, in the same way that clinics are keen to promote their success rates. ‘At the same time they deserve to know that the HFEA will act to uphold patient safety standards across the industry.’
Gedis Grudzinskas, a consultant in infertility and gynaecology at London Bridge Hospital and Princess Grace Hospital, said: ‘The worry is that these mistakes are due to failings at fertility clinics, possibly caused by inadequate resources. ‘These mistakes are avoidable. Each time an error happens at a clinic it should present evidence to the HFEA about how its system is going to be used.’
Mr Grudzinskas added: ‘If a clinic has a high rate of mishaps then it is clear it is not able to improve. ‘In such cases its licence should be suspended.’
Last night a spokesman for the HFEA said it ‘openly encourages the reporting of incidents and continues to work closely with centres to improve quality’.
The spokesman added: ‘As a result, centres are continuing to respond positively to the opportunity to share lessons learned from incidents which have been reviewed and vigorously investigated.’ [Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t, Bullsh*t]
Number of patients waiting four hours in A&E has DOUBLED
The number of patients waiting for more than four hours in hospital accident and emergency departments has almost doubled – despite an overall drop in attendances.
Data from the Department of Health revealed that from April to June this year 165,279 spent longer than four hours in A&E and minor injury units without being seen. The figure is almost twice the 86,626 who faced similar delays in the same period last year.
And the statistics, for England, also showed how the total number of those attending A&E fell from 5.53million to 5.49million in the two quarters being compared.
Overall, 98.43 per cent of people were seen in A&E within four hours in the three-month period in 2010. This year, that percentage dropped to 96.99.
The fall comes after Health Secretary Andrew Lansley last year reduced the target for the proportion of patients to be seen within four hours from 98 per cent to 95 per cent.
Earlier this year official targets were scrapped, but quality indicators say hospitals should aim to see 95 per cent of patients within four hours.
The move to axe the target was welcomed by some medical organisations, who saw it as a blunt instrument. Others said it would inevitably lead to longer waits. But the Department of Health said last night: ‘These figures show that the vast majority of patients, 97 per cent, are still being seen at A&E within four hours.
‘We replaced the old four-hour A&E target because doctors said it was not in patients’ best interests. For the first time, we are measuring the overall quality of care in A&E, as well as the time spent in A&E, which allows doctors to decide what is best for their patients. ‘These figures confirm that, through this change, waiting times remain low and stable.’
Figures released earlier this week showed the number waiting more than six weeks for key NHS tests has almost quadrupled in a year.
In June, there were 12,521 waiting more than six weeks for one of 15 key tests – including MRI, CT and heart scans, ultrasound, barium enemas and colonoscopies – compared with 3,510 waiting more than six weeks in the same month last year.
There has also been a nine-fold increase in the number waiting more than 13 weeks for one of the tests. In June, there were 1,763 waiting more than 13 weeks, up from just 190 in June last year.
Overall, the number of diagnostic tests carried out between April last year and March rose 2.8 per cent over the previous year, to 38.8million.
For many years now British schoolkids have been told by their Leftist teachers that "There is no such thing as right and wrong". We should not be surprised that some of the kids now believe that
Raw with grief, in a voice steady but tight with emotion, his appeal for calm on Wednesday was a beacon of hope amid the tumult and carnage of a horribly dark week for Britain.
Hours before he spoke, Tariq Jahan had lost his 21-year-old son Haroon, murdered in the Winson Green area of Birmingham by [black] thugs who drove at him in their car in what appears to have been a racist attack.
No one could be more aware of the simmering racial tensions between Asians in his neighbourhood and those of Caribbean ancestry.
Yet Mr Jahan had the dignity, the compassion and the common sense to demand an end to the violence that had shattered his life. ‘Blacks, Asians, whites — we all live in the same community,’ he said. ‘Why do we have to kill one another? Why are we doing this? Step forward if you want to lose your sons. Otherwise, calm down and go home — please.’
There was no mention of feral rats or of the sickness in our society. There were no calls for revenge. If he had screamed for retribution, if he had chosen the emotional occasion of his son’s death to denounce whole swathes of the community, there could easily have been an unspeakable outbreak of racial violence.
Instead, Mr Jahan made an open and straightforward declaration of his faith. ‘I’m a Muslim. I believe in divine fate and destiny, and it was his destiny and his fate, and now he’s gone,’ he said. ‘And may Allah forgive him and bless him.’
It was a solemn, peaceful message that will make everyone who stereotypes Muslims as terrorists and fanatics feel ashamed of themselves. Tariq Jahan is a deeply impressive man, and like the great majority of Muslims in this country, he is hard-working, clean-living, guided in his conduct by religious belief, and unshakeable in his devotion to the ideal of family life.
In London at the height of the riots, we saw another clear expression of faith when more than 700 Sikhs lined up to defend their temples from potential arsonists in the suburb of Southall to the west of the capital. The Sikhs have a proud tradition of valuing each human being, male and female, as equal in God’s eyes. Theirs is a religion in which family is paramount.
We do not know the size of the bank balance of those Sikhs, any more than we know how wealthy are the Muslims of Winson Green. From looking at the streets and houses where they live, and the shops where they buy their food, it is safe to assume that they are not rich.
It is probable, too, that their teenagers would like to have large-screen televisions and fashionable trainers and BlackBerries.
But you can pretty well guarantee they would not have been among the looters. Instilled into them would have been the importance of working hard for money to buy these things, rather than hurling a brick through a shop window to help themselves.
Paramount among their moral values would be concern for others, a sense of altruism that could not be more different from the sense of self-entitlement that been so grotesquely on display this week. The reason for this is that they are from religious families.
All the main religions are unshakeable when it comes to self-evident truths about right and wrong; about stealing, harming others, coveting goods, instant gratification and so on.
‘Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more seriously reflection concentrates upon them: the starry heaven above me and the moral law within me’. So wrote the greatest philosopher of the 18th-century, Immanuel Kant, in 1788 in his work of moral philosophy, the Critique of Practical Reason.
It was in 1991 — and the memory is still vivid — that I interviewed Immanuel Jakobovits on his retirement as Chief Rabbi in Britain, and he told me that it was on the basis of Kant’s quotation that his father had named him Immanuel.
During that interview, Rabbi Jakobovits — who died in Israel in 1999 and was said to have been Margaret Thatcher’s favourite clergyman — stressed the absolute centrality of family life to our learning the paths of virtue.
His parting message as he retired, not only to the Jewish community but also to the British people, was that marriage and family life need to be learned; that if necessary we should have classes for young people, teaching them the importance of family life, of how to bring up children, how to discipline them kindly but firmly, and how to instil the sense of that moral law within.
Without that sense, human life falls into absolute chaos, anarchy, and unpleasantness. Yet in our secular age — an age in which, tragically, the Church of England appears to do little more than wring its hands as congregation numbers plummet — this moral bedrock is being steadily eroded.
Today, we live in a society where religion is something for which apologies must be made.
A Christian woman working for British Airways who wears a cross round her neck is asked to remove it for fear of offending other people. A nurse who prays with a patient in hospital is committing an almost criminal act. Catholic adoption agencies which disapprove of gay adoptive parents on religious grounds have their licences taken away.
And all the while, our governing classes and academics and teachers chip away at the fundamental truths of the great religions — truths that have stood the test of time for thousands of years — in their arrogant certainty that there are no moral absolutes and that the human race can make up the rules as it goes along.
At the nuttier fringes of the chattering classes there are those, like the geneticist Richard Dawkins and the journalist Christopher Hitchens, who actually believe that religion is a mental poison responsible for all the evils in the world.
The misguided and vacuous thinking of these so-called intellectuals is compounded by a sordid celebrity-culture which holds up role models who should be despised rather than admired.
Amy Winehouse, a pathetic drug-infused alcoholic girl of very modest talent, is held up as great diva; and when she died, her house was surrounded by fans, laying empty vodka bottles as a ‘tribute’.
Jade Goody, the foul-mouthed, racist daughter of a pimp and drug-pusher who died of a heroin overdose in the lavatory of a Kentucky Fried Chicken, appears on Big Brother and becomes a heroine despite — or because of — her ignorance and tendency to strip off in front of the cameras.
Fornicating footballers, who swagger through public lives dripping with gold and jewellery, parading the vulgar acquisitions of their vast wealth — whether it is fleets of fast cars or call girls, are venerated by generations who have never so much as heard of the very real heroes of history.
In the absence of a moral law, we see a decline in standards in all walks of life. Bankers continue to fill their boots even after they have brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy; politicians fiddle expenses and see no reason to resign when they have committed wrongdoings; town hall fat cats pay themselves ever greater salaries as Britain slips further into debt.
By contrast, every day, Muslim men like Tariq Jahan go to the mosque and fall prostrate before the mystery which Immanuel Kant knew lay at the heart of existence.
The Sikhs likewise build temples because they feel awe at the starry heavens above them and the moral laws within their hearts — laws which all men, women and children can recognise when they reflect deeply and in silence.
The catalogue of the great men and women in the past hundred or so years — from Leo Tolstoy in Russia, to Mahatma Gandhi in India, from the Lutheran student Sophie Scholl executed by guillotine aged 22 for her part in a resistance movement to Hitler, to Archbishop Tutu presiding over the peaceful Truth and Reconciliation committees in South Africa — has been the same.
All these people have held fast to values which they believed ultimately to be eternal and God-given.
Go back 100 years to Winson Green, to Southall, and to Wolverhampton, and to all the other scenes of urban violence scarred by horror in the last week.
The years before and after World War I were marked, for the people who lived in these places, by very great economic hardship. The poverty endured by the inhabitants of Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham and the poor parts of London led to great programmes of political and social reform.
But the crime rate among the people themselves was much, much lower than it is today. All sorts of reasons have been adduced for this. But there is surely a very simple one that towers over all the others. In each of these places, there were chapels, often Methodist, which kept alive the human capacity for awe at the starry heavens above and the moral law within.
Not everyone attended the services, though thousands did. Nearly everyone, however, in these communities, whether church or chapel, subscribed to the idea that Good and Evil are given things, not human inventions.
The Jewish religion of Lord Jakobovits told the story of the Law of God being written in stone on the mountain-side of Sinai, and delivered to Moses. Some people choose to believe this happened literally as an historical event.
In a memorable episode of Radio 4’s The Moral Maze, over 20 years ago, historian David Starkey (an atheist) ribbed Rabbi Hugo Gryn about this. The Rabbi took the teasing in good part of course, but as someone who as a child had been interned in Auschwitz, he knew what a society could be like if it embraced the motto of Milton’s Satan, ‘Evil be thou my Good’.
He knew that whatever the historical truth about the Sinai story in the Book of Exodus, there was an absolute truth in the words Thou Shalt Do No Murder, Thou Shall Not Steal, and Honour thy Father and thy Mother. He’d lived in a country ruled over by a satanic Nazi dictator who thought you could disregard moral truth.
I suspect that when time passes and we look back on this week, it is the religious sincerity of Tariq Jahan that we shall remember. All of us — Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Hindus, Christians — have a rich religious inheritance.
At the core of this inheritance is a sense of right and wrong. And in all these religions, the school where we learn of right and wrong is the family. Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Hindus have all, very noticeably, retained this twin strand of family structure and ethical teaching.
Faith in Christianity itself began to unravel long ago, and the majority of those whose forebears were Christian are now completely secular. They would not even recognise simple Bible stories.
The events of the past week have shown the enormous value of a living religious faith.
Not only was Tariq Jahan more impressive than any of the commentators or politicians who spouted on the airwaves this week. He was more human.
By his religious response to his son’s death, he humanised not only the dreadful and immediate tragedy. He showed us that without a religion we are all less than human.
Historian Starkey says: Enoch Powell was right with infamous 'rivers of blood' speech
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood" -- E. Powell, 1968
Historian David Starkey sparked outrage last night by claiming that Enoch Powell’s ‘rivers of blood’ speech had been right and blaming ‘black culture’ for the riots. He said white youths had adopted a black culture which promoted the violence and looting.
Mr Starkey claimed Powell’s infamous 1968 speech had been right in one sense, but it wasn’t inter-communal violence that was the problem.
‘The substantial section of the chavs have become black, the whites have become black,’ he told Newsnight on BBC 2. ‘A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become fashion, and the black and white, boy and girl, operate in this language together. 'This language is wholly false. It is a Jamaican patois that has intruded in England, which is why so many of us have this sense that we are literally living in a foreign country. ‘It is about black culture, that is the enormously important thing, it is not skin colour, it is culture.’
When challenged by fellow guest Dreda Say Mitchell, a black author and broadcaster, Mr Starkey defended his comments by saying: ‘At these times we need plain speaking.’
Within minutes of the broadcast, Twitter was flooded with comments accusing the historian of blatant racism. One tweet said: ‘“The problem is that the whites have become black”, David Starkey tells #newsnight – close to inciting racial hatred. Awful!’
Another commented sarcastically: ‘I don’t hate David Starkey, some of my best friends are racist historians.’ A third added: ‘This week has brought the boggle eyed racist nut in certain people spluttering out.’
Powell fuelled controversy as a Tory MP in 1968 when he warned about apocalyptic consequences if immigration was allowed to rise unchecked. Although the phrase ‘rivers of blood’ does not appear in the speech, it does include the line, ‘As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood’.
Acid-tongued Mr Starkey has been dubbed the ‘rudest man in Britain’. He once described the Queen as a housewife who ‘lacks a serious education’ and called Scotland, Wales and Ireland ‘feeble little countries’.
Starkey might have noted that the initial riots in London seem to have been almost entirely by blacks
The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom
David Cameron, Ed Miliband and the entire British political class came together yesterday to denounce the rioters. They were of course right to say that the actions of these looters, arsonists and muggers were abhorrent and criminal, and that the police should be given more support.
But there was also something very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in parliament. MPs spoke about the week’s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them.
I cannot accept that this is the case. Indeed, I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society. The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.
It is not just the feral youth of Tottenham who have forgotten they have duties as well as rights. So have the feral rich of Chelsea and Kensington. A few years ago, my wife and I went to a dinner party in a large house in west London. A security guard prowled along the street outside, and there was much talk of the “north-south divide”, which I took literally for a while until I realised that my hosts were facetiously referring to the difference between those who lived north and south of Kensington High Street.
Most of the people in this very expensive street were every bit as deracinated and cut off from the rest of Britain as the young, unemployed men and women who have caused such terrible damage over the last few days. For them, the repellent Financial Times magazine How to Spend It is a bible. I’d guess that few of them bother to pay British tax if they can avoid it, and that fewer still feel the sense of obligation to society that only a few decades ago came naturally to the wealthy and better off.
Yet we celebrate people who live empty lives like this. A few weeks ago, I noticed an item in a newspaper saying that the business tycoon Sir Richard Branson was thinking of moving his headquarters to Switzerland. This move was represented as a potential blow to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, because it meant less tax revenue.
I couldn’t help thinking that in a sane and decent world such a move would be a blow to Sir Richard, not the Chancellor. People would note that a prominent and wealthy businessman was avoiding British tax and think less of him. Instead, he has a knighthood and is widely feted. The same is true of the brilliant retailer Sir Philip Green. Sir Philip’s businesses could never survive but for Britain’s famous social and political stability, our transport system to shift his goods and our schools to educate his workers.
Yet Sir Philip, who a few years ago sent an extraordinary £1 billion dividend offshore, seems to have little intention of paying for much of this. Why does nobody get angry or hold him culpable? I know that he employs expensive tax lawyers and that everything he does is legal, but he surely faces ethical and moral questions just as much as does a young thug who breaks into one of Sir Philip’s shops and steals from it?
Our politicians – standing sanctimoniously on their hind legs in the Commons yesterday – are just as bad. They have shown themselves prepared to ignore common decency and, in some cases, to break the law. David Cameron is happy to have some of the worst offenders in his Cabinet. Take the example of Francis Maude, who is charged with tackling public sector waste – which trade unions say is a euphemism for waging war on low‑paid workers. Yet Mr Maude made tens of thousands of pounds by breaching the spirit, though not the law, surrounding MPs’ allowances.
A great deal has been made over the past few days of the greed of the rioters for consumer goods, not least by Rotherham MP Denis MacShane who accurately remarked, “What the looters wanted was for a few minutes to enter the world of Sloane Street consumption.” This from a man who notoriously claimed £5,900 for eight laptops. Of course, as an MP he obtained these laptops legally through his expenses.
Yesterday, the veteran Labour MP Gerald Kaufman asked the Prime Minister to consider how these rioters can be “reclaimed” by society. Yes, this is indeed the same Gerald Kaufman who submitted a claim for three months’ expenses totalling £14,301.60, which included £8,865 for a Bang & Olufsen television.
Or take the Salford MP Hazel Blears, who has been loudly calling for draconian action against the looters. I find it very hard to make any kind of ethical distinction between Blears’s expense cheating and tax avoidance, and the straight robbery carried out by the looters.
The Prime Minister showed no sign that he understood that something stank about yesterday’s Commons debate. He spoke of morality, but only as something which applies to the very poor: “We will restore a stronger sense of morality and responsibility – in every town, in every street and in every estate.” He appeared not to grasp that this should apply to the rich and powerful as well.
The tragic truth is that Mr Cameron is himself guilty of failing this test. It is scarcely six weeks since he jauntily turned up at the News International summer party, even though the media group was at the time subject to not one but two police investigations. Even more notoriously, he awarded a senior Downing Street job to the former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, even though he knew at the time that Coulson had resigned after criminal acts were committed under his editorship. The Prime Minister excused his wretched judgment by proclaiming that “everybody deserves a second chance”. It was very telling yesterday that he did not talk of second chances as he pledged exemplary punishment for the rioters and looters.
These double standards from Downing Street are symptomatic of widespread double standards at the very top of our society. It should be stressed that most people (including, I know, Telegraph readers) continue to believe in honesty, decency, hard work, and putting back into society at least as much as they take out.
But there are those who do not. Certainly, the so-called feral youth seem oblivious to decency and morality. But so are the venal rich and powerful – too many of our bankers, footballers, wealthy businessmen and politicians.
Of course, most of them are smart and wealthy enough to make sure that they obey the law. That cannot be said of the sad young men and women, without hope or aspiration, who have caused such mayhem and chaos over the past few days. But the rioters have this defence: they are just following the example set by senior and respected figures in society. Let’s bear in mind that many of the youths in our inner cities have never been trained in decent values. All they have ever known is barbarism. Our politicians and bankers, in sharp contrast, tend to have been to good schools and universities and to have been given every opportunity in life.
Something has gone horribly wrong in Britain. If we are ever to confront the problems which have been exposed in the past week, it is essential to bear in mind that they do not only exist in inner-city housing estates.
The culture of greed and impunity we are witnessing on our TV screens stretches right up into corporate boardrooms and the Cabinet. It embraces the police and large parts of our media. It is not just its damaged youth, but Britain itself that needs a moral reformation.
British university 'cannot be too choosy over postgraduates'
A top university was criticised today after academics were told they “cannot afford to be very choosy” when it comes to recruiting students. Birmingham – a member of the elite Russell Group – came under fire when it emerged a senior don had emailed colleagues telling them to go to desperate lengths to enrol large numbers of lucrative postgraduates.
Prof Helen Beebee, head of Birmingham’s school of philosophy, theology and religion, said more students were needed to avoid being fined by the university for under-recruiting.
In the memo, she urged staff to be “VERY generous” when assessing applications from postgraduate students, suggesting candidates should be given places even if they are not totally up to the demands of the course.
The comments will fuel concerns that universities are being forced to give special treatment to postgraduate and foreign students – who pay far more than British undergraduates – to boost their income.
Most postgraduates at Birmingham can expect to pay at least £4,650 from September, rising to £15,660 for foreign postgraduate students.
But Malcolm McCrae, chairman of the UK Council for Graduate Education, branded the email “unfortunate and ill-considered”, suggesting that students risked being accepted onto courses that they could not handle.
“It is well known that students whose capabilities are not on a par with the demands of the programme they are following always turn out to be much more work, accentuating the pressure to compromise academic standards in an effort to get already recruited students through to...completion," he told Times Higher Education magazine.
Prof Beebee wrote to colleagues at the end of July telling them that Birmingham’s college of arts – which incorporates the school of philosophy – was facing a £1m fine from the university’s finance chiefs for failing to recruit enough students.
The email – leaked to the Times Higher – urges academics to be “VERY generous in your judgement about whether the candidate is capable of undertaking the programme applied for”, adding that “we simply cannot afford to be very choosy”.
Prof Beebee says “NOBODY” should reject a PhD candidate simply on the grounds that they are too busy to closely supervise their work. "If anyone is carrying too high a burden because of increased (postgraduate) recruitment, we will look at ways of reallocating work once the academic year starts," she says.
Birmingham insisted that it had set recruitment targets – alongside financial rewards and penalties for individual department – since 2008.
In a statement, it said: "The University of Birmingham requires very high entry standards from students wishing to undertake postgraduate study. The quality of our postgraduate students is reflected in our standing as a leading global university.
"We make no secret of our ambition to recruit significant numbers of highly-qualified postgraduate students, who meet our entry criteria and whose chosen topics are within a field of expertise of their supervisor.
"We do not permit colleagues to accept students who do not meet our rigorous entry requirements. However we do expect students who meet those requirements to be accepted where possible and provide support to our staff in adjusting their workloads accordingly.
"The university manages its financial and academic resources responsibly. To assist in this it sets targets for a range of activities, including student recruitment. Planning of this kind is usual practice for a research-intensive university with a high level of postgraduate recruitment."
*The Government has been accused of “infantilising” higher education by ordering universities to give students more face-to-face tuition.
In exchange for tuition fees of up to £9,000, the Coalition has told institutions to improve the student experience by upping the number of lectures and tutorials given to undergraduates.
But writing in the Times Higher, Paul Ramsden, an education consultant and visiting professor at London’s Institute of Education, said the Government wanted students to be “spoon-fed”.
It should “make more effort to reverse the process of infantilising universities and the patronising culture of that defines undergraduates as immature beings who cannot look after themselves,” he said.
This seems reasonable but the evidence offered is very slim
Working in an office is bad for your brain and can make you less productive, according to researchers. A study has found that the hustle and bustle of modern offices can lead to a 32% drop in workers well being and reduce their productivity by 15%.
They have found that open plan offices create unwanted activity in the brains of workers that can get in the way of them doing the task at hand.
Open plan offices were first introduced in the 1950s and quickly became a popular as a way of laying out offices.
The findings are revealed in a programme made for Channel 4, The Secret Life of Buildings, to be broadcast on Monday.
In the television programme, however, a test carried out with presenter and architecture critic Tom Dyckhoff using a cap that measured his brain waves while trying to work in an open plan office revealed intense bursts of distraction.
Dr Jack Lewis, a neuroscientist who conducted the test, said: "Open plan offices were designed with the idea that people can move around and interact freely to promote creative thinking and better problem sovling. "But it doesn't work like that. If you are just getting into some work and a phone goes off in the back ground it ruins what you are concentrating on. Even though you are not aware at the time, the brain responds to distractions."
Modern offices which refuse to allow personal decorations on walls or desks may also not be helping employees. Dr Craig Knight, a psychologist at Exeter University said that allowing employees to personalise their working area could improve their performance in the office. He said: "Companies like the idea of giving their employees a lean space to work in as it is uniform and without unnecessary distractions.
"In the experiments we have run, however, employees respond better in spaces that have been enriched with pictures and plants. If they have been allowed to enrich the space themselves with their own things it can increase their wellbeing by 32% and their productivity by 15%. "It is because they are able to engage with their surroundings, feel more comfortable and so concentrate."
Professor Fred Gage, from the laboratory of genetics at the Salk Institute in San Diego, California, has also conducted studies by comparing the brains of mice kept in bare, clean cages with those kept in more stimulating environments.
He said "In the period of a month we saw the brains of the mice kept in stimulatni environments increase in volume by 15%. The area is highly enriched with blood vessels and we see new neurons being born. "If we can extrapolate that to humans then it shows that having a stimulating environment can optimise our performance and abilities."
The Secret of Global Warming - Posh Anti-Capitalism
Martin Durkin
The next time you’re forced to attend a dinner party, keep an eye out for the global warmer. Then ask him what he thinks about supermarkets (wicked), ‘consumer society’ (soulless), world trade (cruel) and government regulation (more needed). Global warmers are, in short, anti-capitalist. But – and here’s the really important thing to understand – it’s a very specific form of anti-capitalism. We might call it posh anti-capitalism.
In the old days, when there was less swearing on TV and kids were scared of policemen, anti-capitalism was coloured Red. The Reds complained that capitalism would cause the ‘immiseration’ of the workers, and they dreamed of giant socialist factories, out-producing the West.
The tragedy (for the Reds) was that capitalism didn’t play ball. Instead of getting poorer, ordinary folk got richer – much, much richer. For the simple reason that capitalist mass production must necessarily go hand in hand with mass consumption. What the new-leftists call ‘consumer society’.
But these days, anti-capitalists are coloured Green. They campaign not in the name of the working class, but of ‘Earth’. Instead of giant factories, they dream of little handicraft workshops and organic peasant farms. They complain not that capitalism will impoverish the workers, but, on the contrary, that capitalism has made them too rich. It is the very success of capitalism that seems to upset them.
Green guru James Lovelock says the overconsuming public is like a ‘revolting teenager’ and says we are ‘far too greedy and selfish for our own good.’ Green Party politician Caroline Lucas says we must ‘move away from endless consumerism and materialism.’ Green foodie Colin Tudge, condemns ‘the mindless accumulation of wealth for ill-defined purposes.’ John Naish, in his book Enough, says we should be satisfied with what we have, ‘In the Western world we now have everything we could possibly need. There is no ‘more’.’ To Oliver James, prosperity is a disease - he calls it the ‘Affluenza Virus’. It’s all too much for celebrity journalist Rosie Boycott, ‘Stuff – in all its forms – fills the empty spaces inside, which materialism creates.’
It is more than ironic that the anti-consumption rant comes from people who are, by global standards, rolling in the stuff and from a superior social class. Take a look at Al Gore and Prince Charles, at Jonathon Porritt, the old Etonian friend of Prince Charles, son of Lord Porritt; or the old Etonian Baron Lord Peter Melchett, former head of Greenpeace, or Ecologist editor Zac Goldsmith, another old Etonian, son of the billionaire James Goldsmith, and nephew of yet another old Etonian the Green guru Edward Goldsmith; or ‘eco-warrior’ Mark Brown, who was acquitted of leading the ‘Carnival Against Capitalism’, who is a member of the fabulously wealthy Vestey family; or the founder of the Soil Association Lady Eve Balfour, daughter of the Earl of Balfour; or the author of the Global Warming Survival Handbook, David de Rothschild, and so on, and on. Charles Secrett, former executive director of Friends of the Earth helpfully explains, ‘Among the aristocrats there is a sense of noblesse oblige … a feeling of stewardship towards the land.’
Brendan O’Neill says in The Guardian, ‘It is remarkable how many leading environmentalists come from wealthy or aristocratic backgrounds.’ And adds, ‘There is something irritating - actually, let's not beat around the bush - there is something monumentally infuriating about rich people telling the masses that they should live more meekly.’
It seems that it is not any old consumption that upsets the Greens. It is mass consumption. The Green foodies don’t mind expensive organic free-range food, or hand-made cashmere sweaters, or costly Italian floor tiles. They don’t rail against posh cheese shops or vintners. The problem is not fine-art auction houses or Persian-rug sellers. The problem is mass production and consumption. Greens John Cavanagh and Jerry Mander deplore the vulgar bargain hunter for whom, ‘everyday low prices are the ultimate human conquest.’ The Green group Earth First went so far as to organise a ‘puke in’ in a shopping mall.
It is not exclusive, expensive delicatessens, but rather the wicked low-cost supermarkets frequented by everyday folk which they find repellent. It is a commonly heard complaint from Greens that things ‘aren’t expensive enough’. The ‘rebels’ down from Eton for the anti-globalisation rallies threw bricks through windows – but not the windows of high-class restaurants. Instead they smashed up and ransacked a working class MacDonalds when they marched down Piccadilly. It is not the luxurious Heals furniture shop that makes them angry, but the proletarian IKEA, with its affordable sofas and lamps.
The mass production and distribution of food is deplorable to them. In fact the mass production of goods, whatever they may be, renders those goods nasty and soulless. The mass production of houses, the mass consumption of culture … everything to do with the masses, it seems, every form of economic activity that benefits the many-headed, is held to be vulgar and an offence against the natural order.
Edward Goldsmith decried ‘the mass production of shoddy utilitarian goods in ever greater quantities.’ The debased creatures who buy this stuff constituted a different kind of human - Homo Sapiens Industrialis.
In his book Green Capitalism, James Heartfield says, ‘greens protest against a certain kind of consumption – mass consumption. By their green consumer choices, environmentalists are demonstrating that they are better than the herd … Green consumerism does not mean consuming less than the rest. In fact it ends up meaning that you consume more. Your consumer choices are more finickity, less easily satisfied. They say something about you.’
And the same goes for the Green outrage at mass tourism, ‘The ‘conscientious consumers’ love air travel – for themselves. They just hate cheap air travel that everyone else can enjoy. The reason they first got into tourism was to get away from us. Now that we are all following them, ruining their isolated spots in Ibiza and the Dordogne, they need a reason to stop us. Not to put too fine a point on it, concern over CO2 emissions came after the prejudice that mass tourism was a blight. Global warming predictions provide a useful, quasi-scientific justification for anti-working class prejudice.’
He is right. None of this is new. In 1958 the patrician JK Galbraith looked down his nose at this increasing prosperity in his The Affluent Society. Ten years later, with even greater disgust, Paul Ehrlich, condemned ‘the effluent society’.
In 1973 E.F Schumacher in his classic Green text Small is Beautiful, said the modern consumer ‘is propelled by a frenzy of greed and indulges in an orgy of envy’. He complained, ‘The cultivation and expansion of needs is the antithesis of wisdom.’ His conclusion was devastating. We must abandon any hope of attaining ‘universal prosperity’, because, he said, ‘universal prosperity … if attainable at all, is attainable only by cultivating such drives of human nature as greed and envy.’
But to say that mass consumption was ‘the antithesis of wisdom’ was clearly not enough. The Greens needed some solid reason why economic progress should be rolled back. Conveniently, three years after Small is Beautiful, Lowell Ponte published his big scary book, The Cooling, which predicted that pollution from our consumer society would blot out the sun and push the earth into an ice age. Mass consumption wasn’t just morally depraved, it was now dangerous too. Ponte warned, ‘prosperity could mean disaster.’ In fact ‘the cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people.’ This was a disaster with a moral message. The masses must tighten their belts, ‘Note this word need. It is readily confused with the word want in industrial societies, where the dominant value is consumption rather than conservation.’
The Green anti-consumption rant, though fashionable among the elite, does not go down big with the great unwashed. People who are experiencing wealth for the first time rarely think badly of it. The Greens always moan that the bulk of the population is unmoved by their silly warnings of impending catastrophe. Whether it’s global cooling or global warming or genetically modified ‘Frankenstein’ food, all the end-of-the-world stuff fails to grip the imagination of the masses. No surprise. They know that it’s all directed against them.
The Greens tell us that food should come from peasants rather than industrial farms. Chairs and tables should be produced, not in factories, but lovingly by skilled artisans. But as we all know, such antiquated, handicraft methods inevitably produce far fewer, more expensive goods. Handicraft production was what happened in that Green golden age before capitalist production, when the vast majority of people were grindingly poor – unable to afford such lovingly crafted, hand-made luxuries. These were the good old days, when everyone knew their place in the ‘natural order’.
Green anti-capitalism is Snob anti-capitalism. This is not mere name-calling. It goes to the very heart of what ‘Green’ is about.
Four-fold rise in heart and cancer scan delays with NHS patients waiting more than six weeks
The number of patients facing lengthy delays for vital cancer tests and heart scans has quadrupled in the last year.
Last month around 12,500 people waited six weeks or longer for hospital checks to diagnose tumours and other serious illnesses.
This compares to 3,500 who were waiting more than six weeks in the same period last year, according to Department of Health figures.
It is further evidence that waiting times are going up across the Health Service with patients facing increasingly long delays for diagnoses and treatment.
Some doctors and senior managers blame financial cuts that have led to staffing freezes and redundancies.
The latest monthly figures from the Department of Health also show that in June some 1,763 patients waited more than 13 weeks for certain hospital checks. This has gone up by nine times compared to June last year when just 190 patients waited for this length of time.
The figures involve waiting times for MRI and CT scans, ultrasounds and colonoscopies which are all used to check for certain types of cancer.
They also include echocardiograms to diagnose heart disease, tests for kidney failure, scans for osteoporosis and checks to diagnose breathing problems during sleep.
The Government has promised to drastically improve patient care as part of its controversial health reforms, which centre on putting GPs in charge of buying-in treatments.
But Labour warn that the NHS is ‘going backwards’ under the Tories. Labour health spokesman John Healey said: ‘It is clear David Cameron’s reckless reorganisation of the Health Service is starting to impact on patient care.’
Dr Anna Dixon, of the King’s Fund think-tank, said: ‘While waiting times remain low in historical terms, the rise against a number of key measures since this time last year shows how difficult it will be for the NHS to meet the Prime Minister’s pledge to keep waiting times low as the spending squeeze begins to bite.’
Health minister Lord Howe said: ‘The number of people waiting over six weeks has come down since last month.
‘This was achieved despite increasing pressures on the NHS, with around 125,000 more diagnostic tests in the three months to June 2011 compared to the same period last year.
‘This shows why we need to modernise the NHS to protect it for future generations.’
In trying to identify the causes of the London riots, we could start by reflecting on the comments from former Greater London Council police advisor Lee Jasper in analysing the mindset of the youths on the streets.
In a finger-pointing monologue on The 7.30 Report on Tuesday, Mr Jasper argued that the one group of people who should definitely not be blamed for the riots were the rioters themselves.
“We’ve seen huge levels of austerity cuts in many inner city areas that are leading to a great deal of anxiety and concern,” stated the one-time advisor to former London Mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone. “Unemployment continues to rise and there is a sense of anxiety but also a sense of moral crisis in the country. I think because of the MPs scandal, the corporate tax dodging issue of huge multinational companies, the News International corruption cases with the metropolitan police and phone hacking, there is a kind of failure really of people in power to uphold the kind of moral standards that we all aspire to. And as such, this has had an effect around the country.”
The first notable feature of Mr Jasper’s comments is that they afford a remarkably high level of current affairs knowledge to some of the dumbest and most disengaged people on the face of the earth. In the interviews this week none of the hooded hooligans were telling reporters that they had taken to the streets after reading the Telegraph’s expose of the House of Lords perks scandal – which happened four years ago anyway – or that they picked up a brick in frustration after watching James Murdoch’s evidence to the House of Commons inquiry on the BBC.
Second, Jasper’s comments sought to lend an activist quality to a civil disturbance which is campaigning for absolutely nothing, other than a free television and a shiny pair of sneakers.
This wasn’t a poll tax protest, it wasn’t a show of solidarity with the coal miners or the sacked printers, it wasn’t a G20 riot. At least burning down McDonalds outside a conference promoting free trade makes a crude kind of point.
This was simply an act of mass theft, violence and vandalism by people who, almost to a man, said that they were doing it for fun. It was the first bludger uprising the world has ever seen.
Thirdly, Jasper’s comments have at their centre a belief that, in this case, we are looking at a failure of government to do more. In reality these riots represent a failure of government to do less.
While there is enough material from the four days of rioting to sustain years of sociologists’ conferences, the key issue seems incredibly simple. If you tell several million people that they are under no obligation to work, to learn, to become socialised, and if your laws and your frazzled police and your packed courts don’t treat low-level crimes as crimes at all, you run a pretty obvious risk of ending up with the scenes that we saw this week. If you tell people that life is all take and no give then some of them will end up literally taking things off shop shelves.
One of the first priorities of David Cameron’s relatively new Tory Government has been to rein in the explosion in the British welfare system. Remarkably, one of the central proposals is to stop households receiving unemployment benefits which exceed the average weekly household wage. Remarkable in that things were ever allowed to get that out of hand, with such an enshrined disincentive towards work.
Cameron is a moderate conservative and his welfare overhaul is not extreme. One of his many fair-minded measures is that if you are able-bodied and offered a job but turn it down for no reason, you will be kicked off the dole for three months. This has been denounced as an act of brutality by the welfare lobby, in a country where the number of Britons in employment has fallen by 550,000 since 2004.
In a report on the reforms in The Daily Mail, the newspaper profiled a family in Anglesea, North Wales, Peter and Claire Davey, who have seven children aged two to 12 and receive £815 (AU$1288) a week in benefits. Mr Davey quit his job as an administrator after realising he and his family would be better off living on handouts. On the numbers it makes a sad kind of sense.
Within the welfare sector there is an unusual metric which holds that increases in government outlays on the dole and the pension are the best indicator of success in the portfolio. You see it here in Australia every year – if state or federal governments cut welfare spending in their budgets, even with the corresponding introduction of schemes to get people into work, groups such as ACOSS fire off accusations of heartlessness. These same groups have a broadly left-wing social agenda yet seem completely indifferent to the concept of the dignity of work, which was actually what Karl Marx spent his entire intellectual life working to achieve.
And then there are the likes of Lee Jasper playing the role of random excuse generator, handing out absurd alibis to those too dim to devise one for themselves. The perpetrators are the victims and government should have done more, when the mayhem created by these welfare-funded ratbags shows government has done far too much already.
Tough sentences? Forget it. These teen yobs will be treated as if THEY'RE the victims
David Cameron may have sounded tough this week, promising night curfews, tougher sentencing and new police powers in response to the outbreak of almost untrammelled anarchy in several of our cities.
Police leave has been cancelled and a crackdown on gangs announced. But the Prime Minister is sorely mistaken if he really thinks the rioters will be punished and made to pay for what they've done.
Why? Because the criminal justice system in this country is broken. From my experience as a youth offender worker, little, if anything, will happen to the young people who participated in the riots around the country this week. And what's worse — they know it.
One 15-year-old looter quoted in yesterday's Mail summed up the defiance: 'They can't touch me, I'm still a kid.... what is the worst they can do? Give me a caution or a curfew I won't obey.'
Sadly, he's absolutely right. While magistrates yesterday did seem to be cracking down on adult offenders, some of whom will get custodial sentences, almost everyone under 18 will end up with the ultra-soft, kid-gloves treatment I've seen being handed out on a daily basis.
Figures released so far suggest that could apply to as many as half of those appearing in magistrates' courts this week.
In an extraordinary perversion of justice, those underage rioters will be treated as if they are the victims of the very crimes they have committed.
Only a few will be given custodial sentences. The whole ethos of the youth justice system is to avoid incarcerating offenders — not least because there isn't the physical capacity to house them all.
Even those who are imprisoned will spend their days watching TV and playing video games. A colleague working in a youth detention centre recently told me he is no longer allowed to call their rooms 'cells' because it infringed their human rights. And these were offenders who'd done very bad things, including sexual assault and extreme violence.
The other underage rioters will be sent on an Intensive Surveillance and Supervision Programme (ISSP) — the laughable sentence that is the most rigorous non-custodial punishment young offenders can receive. It's designed to take them from their criminal environment and show them they can have a future on the straight and narrow.
What they'll actually do is spend the majority of their 'sentence' escorted by youth workers — whose wages are paid by the state — to gyms, adventure centres and even DJ-ing courses. Already this week, we've read about a group of offenders like this who were taken on a day trip to Alton Towers.
These violent youths will have their lunches bought and paid for, and even be given bus fares to attend their 'punishment'.
The surveillance element is worthless. Some offenders will be tagged and under curfew. If a tag is broken, a private security firm alerts the youth offender service, which alerts the police. In the time that takes, the offender can have carried out any number of crimes.
ISSPs are also supposed to involve community service, but often there is none at all. I know people in the Manchester Youth Offending Team who were reduced to driving offenders around for hours to fill up the time, because no community work had been arranged.
Instead, the programme usually amounts to no more than enforced leisure: football and tennis on Monday, boxing and squash on Tuesday.
One day, we took ten offenders to an indoor rock climbing centre. Each of them had a conviction for burglary — in effect, we were just improving their breaking and entering skills.
On another occasion, we drove a group to a youth club with a music studio. There they spent the morning listening to hip-hop, posing as gangsta rappers. When they got bored, they amused themselves by playing pool or being rude to the staff.
At lunchtime, the offenders gave individual orders for takeaways from a chip shop. Once the food arrived — delivered by a member of staff as though he were their butler — they fell on it like ravenous wolves, without the slightest restraint or manners, screeching foul abuse if their order was wrong. They then spent the afternoon on PlayStations or playing on Nintendo Wii games consoles.
Occasionally, these activities will be broken up by classroom exercises in a youth centre, pointless sessions where offenders' 'needs' are assessed — where they are viewed as children, as opposed to people who have done something very wrong.
'How are you feeling?' they're asked. 'Are you feeling better?'
Who cares how they feel? The offenders I saw had broken into old ladies' houses. What about the feelings of the decent, predominantly working-class victims of this new criminal underclass? The victims of the looters and arsonists this week, for example, who may have seen their livelihoods or homes destroyed.
Sometimes the offenders will hijack the classroom exercises themselves. In a recent session on homophobia, several members of the class were causing disruption. Eventually, the frustrated youth worker asked the ringleader to come up to the front and take over the class.
With relish, the chief culprit launched into an offensive comic routine about different types of homosexual. Afterwards, the youth worker boasted to me that the lesson had been a great success because the class was 'engaged', despite surrendering her authority.
I'm not an enthusiast for excessive punishment, particularly not for young offenders — who often hail from deprived backgrounds or dysfunctional families. But what I have experienced shows that the current, ultra-lenient approach is a disaster. It is hopelessly unbalanced, providing neither discipline nor boundaries.
The appalling message to juvenile criminals is they have nothing to fear from the courts or penal bodies. Far from being made to pay for their crimes, they are often rewarded.
I have escorted a 16-year-old, unemployed, criminal teenager by taxi from his home to the benefits office so he could sign on for the dole, even though he lived only ten minutes away by foot. He was from a large Albanian family of Romany gypsies who had come to Britain seeking asylum, but each had ended up involved in criminal activities, including violent muggings and burglary.
Despite his criminal conduct — because of it, in fact — the local youth offending team was desperate for him to claim as many benefits as possible, even laying on transport.
The bizarre logic, as it was put to me, was that poverty was the cause of his illegal actions (a trite and misguided argument trotted out this week by bleeding heart liberals in defence of the looters).
In the words of the youth worker: 'We need to work with him to remove the underlying causes of his criminal behaviour', by ensuring he received 'all the benefits that are entitled to him, his partner and future baby.' (He had got his Bulgarian girlfriend pregnant.)
My colleague's worry was that, if this support, including the taxi service, were not provided, the Albanian would slide back into a life of crime; even though she knew, from his expensive clothes, that he earned so much from crime he didn't even need those benefits.
Some of this week's rioters, having been processed by the courts, will end up doing 'poster work', where they will draw and colour in examples of criminal behaviour — just in case they're not aware that torching local businesses and throwing masonry at the police, fire brigade and passers-by are criminal acts.
One recent offender made a mockery of the programme by producing large drawings of cannabis joints. He received no punishment.
Is it any wonder we have such high rates of recidivism among more serious young criminals? Many of the rioters you saw on the streets will have been through the system already. They know that there are no real consequences for their actions.
Some of the young thugs who've been interviewed said they did it because the Government and the police couldn't stop them. And they are dead right. There are no boundaries to their actions, with or without any supposed crackdown by David Cameron. And so they will riot again.
Encouraging social mobility has become a watchword of the political class for the past 15 years or so. Whether it is bribing working-class teens to stay on at school or making internships ‘open to all’, everybody wants to help ‘the poor’ to help themselves. The death this week of English novelist Stan Barstow is perhaps a reminder of when and why social mobility had real meaning in British society.
Barstow, who died aged 83, belonged to a pioneering set of working-class writers who chronicled new opportunities available to working-class youth in the late 1950s. Alongside his peers Alan Sillitoe, John Braine and Keith Waterhouse, Barstow was successful enough to avoid factory sweat and toil in the process as well. It led arch conservative Evelyn Waugh to complain about ‘these grim young people coming off the assembly lines in their hundreds every year and finding employment as critics, even as poets and novelists’ (1). It seems social mobility wasn’t always encouraged by the well-to-do after all.
Barstow was born in Horbury, a railway town on the outskirts of Wakefield in West Yorkshire. His father was a coalminer and the household was barely literate – not exactly the most promising background for an aspiring writer. Nevertheless, Barstow had already managed a modicum of social mobility through attending grammar school and becoming a draughtsman in a nearby engineering firm. As a result, he quickly experienced a tension and resentment between his new-found middle-class occupation and his working-class background – a tension brilliantly explored in his most famous novel, A Kind of Loving.
Set in West Yorkshire in the late 1950s, A Kind of Loving follows the ‘shotgun wedding’ and marriage between draughtsman Vic Brown and company typist Ingrid Rothwell. At the time, its frank depiction of sex and marriage among the northern working class made it a literary breakthrough. It was also subtle and complex enough to stand out within the slightly over-crowded ‘kitchen sink’ genre. Whereas Arthur Seaton in Saturday Night, Sunday Morning crackled with an incoherent rage against the post-war consensus, and Joe Lampton in Room at the Top rails against white collar ‘zombies’, Vic Brown appears pragmatically happy with what postwar Britain has to offer.
Underneath it all, though, Brown wrestles with his conscience: between wanting to uphold traditional values (getting married) and new-found sexual freedom (extra-marital affairs); between loyalty to working-class communal mores and the desire to broaden his horizons. Brown’s contradictory feelings for Ingrid – one minute infatuated, the next minute infuriated – reflect the pull of these new and alien social influences. In an earlier period, marrying such a gorgeous girl as Ingrid and having kids would be as good as it gets in West Yorkshire.
Barstow’s skill as a writer was to shed light on the confused inner world of the ambitious working classes of the period and, in the process, highlight broader social changes. In particular, the tortuous contradictions of class identity that Brown experienced anticipate such preoccupations for the ‘affluent worker’ that became sociologically documented in the early 1970s. A Kind of Loving was also fortuitous in recognising how despised the aspirational working-classes would eventually become. Not only is Vic Brown an effete draftsman, but he is also passionate and knowledgeable about classical music and literature. For his dreadful mother-in-law, Mrs Rothwell, this is a transparent ‘affectation’ and ‘our Ingrid’ doesn’t need to put on such ‘airs and graces’. She scornfully says the ‘airs and graces’ phrase so often that Vic wearily ends up repeating it for her. Far from Vic ‘not being good enough’ for Ingrid, these pretensions and ambitions mark him out as being ‘unworthy’. Fifty years on from Mrs Rothwell’s ethos of ‘know-your-place’, disdain for working-class aspiration has a surprising degree of cultural and political resonance today.
Barstow eloquently explored these themes with equal conviction in Watchers on the Shore (1966) and, a decade later, The Right True End. All three novels were adapted for a Granada TV series in 1982 starring Clive Wood and 17-year-old debutant Joanne Whalley. A trilogy set in the 1940s, Just You Wait and See (1986), Give Us This Day (1989) and Next of Kin (1991), appeared without generating much literary interest, but Barstow’s name was still instantly recognisable.
Barstow came of age long before Sure Start, education maintenance allowance (EMA) or patronising sermons from the political class on facilitating social mobility. Going to university wasn’t presented then as a life-or-career-death ‘option’ in the way it is now. What you did have, though, was a broad acceptance of the value of learning and high culture, reflected in the autodidacticism that influenced Barstow and his novels. Today, no amount of official ‘aim higher’ initiatives can compensate for the demise of such social and individual aspiration. You only have to re-read A Kind of Loving to understand that.
There is an amusing side to this. "Green" investments are based on false assumptions so will probably go broke. And that will take the retirement funds of the BBC staffers with it
Guess what? The man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of the boys and girls at the BBC is a climate change fanatic, and he is part of an international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in 'climate change' schemes. He's called Peter Dunscombe, and he runs the œ8.2bn corporation pension fund, advising trustees on a day-to-day basis about their investments. Mr Dunscombe, who addresses conferences about 'ethical investments', is also chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC), which has 47 members and manages four trillion euros' worth of investments; yes, four trillion. Their goal is to find as many 'climate change' investment opportunities as possible:
The IIGCC Investor Statement on Climate change was launched in October 2006. Asset owners and asset managers who signed the Statement committed to increasing their focus on climate change in their own processes and in their engagement with companies and governments.
So now we really know why BBC staffers are so fanatical about 'climate change'. It's naked self-interest. In 2008, there were 18,736 contributors to the BBC pension fund; every man jack of them benefits from climate alarmism.
Update: I've been going through the latest BBC Pensions Trust report, and it reveals that Helen Boaden, who is the overall boss of the BBC's news and current affairs operation, was appointed to the trust in 2008. So the woman who tells environment reporters such as Roger Harrabin and Richard Black that the science is settled also works to maximise the returns of the pension fund with Peter Dunscombe. I thought that needed spelling out fully, just in case any subtleties might be missed.
Doctors criticise 'needless' death toll in childbirth that could be cut by a third if given the right care
Doctors have condemned the ‘needless’ deaths of scores of mothers caused by substandard care in pregnancy and childbirth. They want urgent action over the ‘worrying’ number of women dying from conditions that could have been spotted.
A rise in high-risk pregnancies, including those of older and obese mothers, means women can suffer a complex mix of health problems.
GPs and hospital doctors must be on their guard for preventable or treatable medical conditions, said a group of leading doctors led by Professor Catherine Nelson-Piercy, of King’s College London. They want more obstetric physicians and better training for GPs.
Writing in the British Medical Journal, they said that while the overall number of deaths had decreased since the 1950s, there was a ‘worrying trend’ of a rise in the number dying from conditions not directly caused by pregnancy.
The leading cause of maternal death is heart disease while the second is neurological disease.
Most of these deaths are associated with substandard care and ‘in one third of cases this is classified as major substandard care, where different care might have prevented death of the mother’. ‘These failings require urgent attention,’ insist the doctors.
In March, the Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries reported that 261 women in the UK died of conditions directly or indirectly related to pregnancy for the three years from 2006 to 2008.
Of those, 107 were ‘direct deaths’ from conditions linked with being pregnant, while 154 died of indirect causes, including infections and underlying health problems.
Some are dying from treatable conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes and asthma, and a failure to diagnose these women properly, investigate their symptoms and treat them amounts to substandard care, wrote the doctors.
They added: ‘Obstetricians and midwives alone cannot reduce indirect maternal deaths – they need support from physicians and general practitioners.
‘But many doctors are unfamiliar with the interaction between pregnancy and medical disease, the safety of radiological investigations in pregnancy, and the risk-benefit ratio for the use of different drugs in pregnancy.’
Dr David Williams of the Institute for Women’s Health at University College Hospital London, said: ‘Many women are now delaying pregnancy until they are older, and as we get older we become more overweight. As a consequence of that there’s more diabetes and hypertension in pregnancy and these pregnancies are higher risk.
‘There is also increasing numbers of women who are having IVF treatment and some of these women are over 40, 45, even 50.’
Dr Williams, one of only four obstetric physicians in NHS specialist centres, is calling for a ten-fold rise in their numbers.
Patients referred to hospital by their GPs are being refused treatment by panels of nurses, according to new research. One man was even denied a hip replacement - although his hip was constantly dislocating.
Doctors have criticised NHS trusts for hiring non-doctors to overrule the decisions of more qualified GPs. An investigation by Pulse magazine found that several trusts are are using nurses, podiatrists and physiotherapists to determine whether referrals made by GPs are appropriate.
The 'referral management centres' which review referrals by doctors have proved controversial after it emerged they block some GPs' referrals to save cash. In February, Pulse revealed that one GP in three had their referrals screened by a referral management centre, while up to one in eight referrals is rejected.
The treatments denied to patients included hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery, allergy care, IVF and tonsillectomy.
Five - NHS Bournemouth and Poole, NHS Hertfordshire, NHS Manchester, NHS Oldham and NHS Plymouth - said they used non-doctors to assess GP referrals. NHS Manchester uses two podiatric nurses and a non-medical prescriber with a diploma in podiatric medicine to triage GP referrals for vascular conditions. In NHS Oldham, more than a third of its staff screening GP referrals in ophthalmology, diabetes, urology and musculoskeletal conditions are non-doctors, according to the study.
GP Dr Andrew Mimnagh, from Merseyside, told Pulse he knew of instances elsewhere where 'patients had come to harm from not being referred'. He said: 'Nurses assess patients according to rigid criteria and do not have the experience to make flexible decisions in the same way a doctor can.
'In one case, a patient was rejected for a replacement hip operation by a nurse at a referral centre despite the fact his hip was dislocating. According to the nurse's criteria, he wasn't reaching a high enough pain threshold because he already had an artificial hip that cured the pain. 'Nurses do not have the knowledge to know when they are out of their depth.'
A spokesperson for NHS Oldham said: 'Nearly all GP referrals go through a referral gateway, run by local GPs. 'There are some areas where we've had multidisciplinary teams in place for some years. They are people with the appropriate clinical skills and experts in that specialty.'
Racial tensions flare after five days of rioting across Britain
Black thugs and useless police
WITH police overwhelmed, a desperate attempt by Birmingham Muslims to protect their properties and mosque has turned to tragedy with three men mown-down. The Muslims of Dudley Road armed themselves with bricks and stones, clubs and cricket bats to fend off carloads of marauding gangs.
Their vigilante stand may have saved a humble row of family-run shops and a red-brick mosque from the looters' grasp - but at a terrible cost.
A carload of rioters sped into a fleeing crowd of shop defenders, witnesses said, hurling three young men into the air and killing amateur boxer Haroon Jahan, 21, and brothers Shazzad Ali, 30, and Abdul Musavir, 31. Police have since detained the alleged driver of the car, charging him with murder.
"We all had stones in our hands. But we had no defense to stop a car. They revved their engines and drove right at us as fast as they could," Mohammed Ibrahim, 23, told The Associated Press. "These black men deliberately tried to kill us all."
Wednesday's 1 a.m. slaughter has laid bare racial tensions underlying this week's riots in Birmingham, Britain's second-largest city and its most ethnically diverse. A fifth of the city's 1 million "Brummies" are Muslims, most commonly of Pakistani origin. About 7 percent are black, mostly Caribbean, in background.
While the riots that have swept England this week have involved looters of every creed and hue, the street anarchy also sometimes has exposed the racial fault lines that run beneath the poorest urban quarters.
Resident after resident of Dudley Road and its surrounding Winson Green district commented that the attackers were black and accused them of targeting Muslim shops.
The passions echo streetfights from previous years, such as in 2005, when a neighbouring Birmingham district suffered two nights of violence between Caribbean and Asian gangs over unsubstantiated rumours that a gang of Pakistani men had raped a 14-year-old Jamaican girl. Two men were stabbed to death, firefighters faced machete-wielding mobs, and Muslim graves were desecrated during those clashes. The west side also suffered riots in 1981, 1985 and 1991 fuelled by minority hatred of white police and black resentment of the Asians' dominant position as shopkeepers.
"We'll hunt down these black men, cut off their heads and feed them to our dogs," said Amir Hawid, 20, who lives just a hundred meters from the killing scene and heard the screams of the crowd at the moment of impact.
As forensics specialists combed the bloodied, rock-strewn pavement for clues, hundreds of local Muslims and Sikhs - some wearing ceremonial daggers at their waists - packed into a community hall Wednesday to confront three white police commanders who had come seeking to calm tensions. Twice as many Muslims, many in robes and kufi caps, stood outside.
Speaker after speaker complained that they had pleaded by phone for police protection the previous night, when black gangs raided local markets and chased bar staff onto the roof of one pub, yet police failed to respond. Some argued that the police had warned them not to attempt to defend their own streets, yet had offered no alternative.
The three dead men "did nothing wrong! They died because they were doing the job of protecting our community. The job that you lot should have been doing!" one speaker shouted, jabbing an accusatory finger at the police panel.
Detective Superintendent Richard Baker, commander of the 60-strong police team hunting the killers, said they already had arrested the suspected driver and 11 others potentially linked to the shop attacks on Dudley Road. He pleaded for locals to overcome their antipathy to the police, give eyewitness statements and hand over amateur camera footage.
"I will deploy whatever it takes to get justice for this community," Baker said above a din of muttered heckles and shouted accusations, dozens of men trying to speak at once.
Baker and the local commander, Superintendent Sean Russell, defended their force's response to the killings - which Russell admitted he could see from the police control centre on a closed-circuit surveillance camera - because gangs were attacking shops in the city centre. That triggered angry cries that police cared more for protecting downtown shopping centres than Muslim communities.
Russell said it took officers 10 minutes to arrive; locals insisted it was a half-hour and the officers arrived in riot gear thinking the Muslim crowd might pose a threat. The officers said they had to be cautious.
Afterward, a chastened Baker said it had been the toughest community meeting of his life. In quiet one-to-one conversations, he offered his cell phone number to local residents and pleaded for them to find eyewitnesses.
"We really want to help you, but you need to help us too," he told one man, who said he'd been afraid to speak up and express moderate views during the meeting.
And a local black resident, who didn't want to be identified by name because of fears for his safety, pleaded outside with the departing Muslim crowd not to start targeting blacks in retaliation.
"Don't take your anger out on everyone. Don't keep saying it's black, black, black, black. Don't take this too far," he declared, street preacher-style, after abusive comments were directed at him. "I've lived and worked here seven years alongside you. I don't want to be afraid to walk down that street now. Don't make me afraid, because I didn't do it, man."
Several witnesses outside the hall, who like the dead men had taken up crude arms and manned the sidewalks in hopes of keeping the invaders at bay. None expressed confidence that the police would bring justice.
"We will avenge our brothers. This is a tight community, and someone in their group will brag about how they attacked the Muslims," said Waseem Hussain, 24, who joined the defense of the shops.
Hussain said several carloads of would-be shop raiders began casing Dudley Road, driving cars up and down the road before midnight, as scores of locals were still in the mosque observing the night's final Ramadan prayers.
He said one carload stopped at the local gas station and convenience store - which had been ransacked the night before and was now closed with metal shutters - and asked a few youths whether there was "anything new to rob."
He said locals threw stones and bricks at the cars, whose occupants had their windows rolled down. The two sides traded verbal abuse as the cars repeatedly passed, Hussain estimating at least a dozen times. The Muslim crowd grew as prayers concluded around 12:30 a.m.
After the cars canvassed the crowd once again under a hail of rocks, Hussain said, one of the occupants shouted a threat at them: "Are you asking for it?"
Two of the cars did a U-turn at the top of the road, he said, and gunned their engines, shifting their gears rapidly as they reached a speed he estimated at 110 km/h.
"The first car cut extremely close to the crowd but didn't hit anyone. We all were running for cover, but there were too many people and nowhere to go," he said.
"Some people didn't see the second car coming. It went deeper into the footpath and struck these three men, all standing in the same spot," he said. "They must have flown 20, 30 feet. One, Shazzad, was dead when he hit the ground. All of them were bloody and unconscious. They never had a chance."
British rioters the spawn of a bankrupt ruling elite
Theodore Dalrymple
THE riots in London and elsewhere in Britain are a backhanded tribute to the long-term intellectual torpor, moral cowardice, incompetence and careerist opportunism of the British political and intellectual class.
They have somehow managed not to notice what has long been apparent to anyone who has taken a short walk with his eyes open down any frequented British street: that a considerable proportion of the country's young population (a proportion that is declining) is ugly, aggressive, vicious, badly educated, uncouth and criminally inclined.
Unfortunately, while it is totally lacking in self-respect, it is full of self-esteem: that is to say, it believes itself entitled to a high standard of living, and other things, without any effort on its own part.
Consider for a moment the following: although youth unemployment in Britain is very high, that is to say about 20 per cent of those aged under 25, the country has had to import young foreign labour for a long time, even for unskilled work in the service sector.
The reasons for this seeming paradox are obvious to anyone who knows young Britons as I do.
No sensible employer in a service industry would choose a young Briton if he could have a young Pole; the young Pole is not only likely to have a good work ethic and refined manners, he is likely to be able to add up and -- most humiliating of all -- to speak better English than the Briton, at least if by that we mean the standard variety of the language. He may not be more fluent but his English will be more correct and his accent easier to understand.
This is not an exaggeration. After compulsory education (or perhaps I should say intermittent attendance at school) up to the age of 16 costing $80,000 a head, about one-quarter of British children cannot read with facility or do simple arithmetic. It makes you proud to be a British taxpayer.
I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty, from my experience as a doctor in one of the areas in which a police station has just been burned down, that half of those rioting would reply to the question, "Can you do arithmetic?" by answering, "What is arithmetic?"
British youth leads the Western world in almost all aspects of social pathology, from teenage pregnancy to drug taking, from drunkenness to violent criminality. There is no form of bad behaviour that our version of the welfare state has not sought out and subsidised.
British children are much likelier to have a television in their bedroom than a father living at home. One-third of them never eat a meal at a table with another member of their household -- family is not the word for the social arrangements of the people in the areas from which the rioters mainly come. They are therefore radically unsocialised and deeply egotistical, viewing relations with other human beings in the same way as Lenin: Who whom, who does what to whom. By the time they grow up, they are destined not only for unemployment but unemployability.
For young women in much of Britain, dependence does not mean dependence on the government: that, for them, is independence. Dependence means any kind of reliance on the men who have impregnated them who, of course, regard their own subventions from the state as pocket money, to be supplemented by a little light trafficking. (According to his brother, Mark Duggan, the man whose death at the hands of the probably incompetent police allegedly sparked the riots, "was involved in things", which things being delicately left to the imagination of his interlocutor.)
Relatively poor as the rioting sector of society is, it nevertheless possesses all the electronic equipment necessary for the prosecution of the main business of life; that is to say, entertainment by popular culture. And what a culture British popular culture is!
Perhaps Amy Winehouse was its finest flower and its truest representative in her militant and ideological vulgarity, her stupid taste, her vile personal conduct and preposterous self-pity.
Her sordid life was a long bath in vomitus, literal and metaphorical, for which the exercise of her very minor talent was no excuse or explanation. Yet not a peep of dissent from our intelllectual class was heard after her near canonisation after her death, that class having long had the backbone of a mollusc.
Criminality is scarcely repressed any more in Britain. The last lord chief justice but two thought that burglary was a minor offence, not worthy of imprisonment, and the next chief justice agreed with him.
By the age of 12, an ordinary slum-dweller has learned he has nothing to fear from the law and the only people to fear are those who are stronger or more ruthless than he.
Punishments are derisory; the police are simultaneously bullying but ineffectual and incompetent, increasingly dressed in paraphernalia that makes them look more like the occupiers of Afghanistan than the force imagined by Robert Peel. The people who most fear our police are the innocent.
Of course, none of this reduces the personal responsibility of the rioters. But the riots are a manifestation of a society in full decomposition, of a people with neither leaders nor followers but composed only of egotists.
Only half of British maths and science teachers have 'good enough' degrees to do their jobs
Many trainee maths and science teachers do not have good degrees in their subject, a study suggests. While nine in 10 classics trainees and almost four-fifths of would-be history teachers have a first or 2:1 university degree, this falls to around half for maths and science trainees.
Those training to be foreign language teachers are also less likely to have a 'good' degree, with more than a third holding a 2:2 or lower, the Good Teacher Training Guide 2011 found.
Researchers at Buckingham University's Centre for Education and Employment Research conclude there is a clear link between lower degree qualifications, low course completion rates and the numbers entering teaching.
About 80 per cent of English and history trainee secondary school teachers entered training after completing their course.
But this fell to 70 per cent for maths, 69 per cent for science and 66 per cent for modern foreign languages, all of which are subjects where the numbers with 'good' degrees are lower.
Report author Professor Alan Smithers said it means that teacher training departments have more choice when recruiting history or English teachers, but struggle with other subjects.
'Training departments are able to choose more carefully who they recruit, but if there are not enough people studying science and maths, the training departments really struggle to recruit and bring in people who don't want to be teachers and are not as well qualified,' he said.
This has an impact on the enthusiasm of pupils, who are then less likely to take up subjects like science and maths, Professor Smithers said. 'A teacher, to be really enthusiastic, has to have a full grasp of their subject, so the chances are if you have got a very well qualified historian or somebody teaching classics, they will make the subject come alive for their pupils.
'But if you have got somebody in maths, or the physical sciences who is really trying to keep up with it themselves, then they are not going to convey the same sense of enthusiasm.
'Young people can easily be exposed to very enthusiastic historians and people who are struggling with their own grasp of physics.'
Ministers have announced plans to scrap public funding for teacher trainees who do not hold at least a 2:2 in their degree.
The report concludes: 'The low entry qualifications of some postgraduate and undergraduate trainees, as the Government recognises, has to be tackled. 'No one wants to see teachers attempting to teach subjects which they do not fully grasp themselves.
'But if not enough people with the necessary expertise put themselves forward, the difficult question that has to be faced in formulating policy is: is it better to have an able graduate who has not studied a subject at university or someone who has studied the subject at university but not done very well in it?
'Is it better, for example, to have a good biologist or a poor physicist teaching physics?'
What does the 'E' in Environmentalist stand for? Ego, exaggeration, and error'
Says Marcus Gibson, ex-Financial Times journalist in his 'Global warming speech' at the Oxford Union, Oxford, UK
[13-minute video] What does the 'E' in Environmentalist stand for? Ego, exaggeration, and error', says Marcus Gibson, ex-Financial Times journalist, who demolishes the claims of the global warming clique at the famous Oxford Union debate, on July 14th, 2011. Marcus is the only journalist to have interviewed all of the key members of Royal Society who rebelled against the 'catastrophe' theory accepted by the council at the society - and finally got its stance radically changed. Marcus Gibson disputes the conventional view held by the global warming clique.
Grandmother dies after locum doctor who had received no training in Britain failed to detect heart condition
"Overseas-trained" doctors, generally from the Third World, are a plague in the NHS
A grandmother died after being sent home by a foreign locum doctor who had not had any NHS training. Irene Mitchell, 59, had a serious heart condition which was not diagnosed by locum Ali Mehri.
She arrived at hospital suffering from what her family believe was a heart attack and in need of urgent attention. But Dr Mehri misread the results of an electrocardiogram and sent her home from Doncaster Royal Infirmary without treatment.
After her condition deteriorated, Mrs Mitchell returned to hospital three days later. It took two more days for her to be transferred to the coronary care unit for surgery at the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield.
A narrative verdict was recorded by Doncaster coroner Nicola Mundy at an inquest. Ms Mundy said failure to act upon the ECG and administer urgent treatment had contributed towards Mrs Mitchell's death.
The coroner heard existing staff had raised questions about Dr Mehri's clinical methods and the standard and speed of his work. Despite these concerns, he was one of the most senior doctors in the accident and emergency department.
Dr Mehri had received no induction or training when he arrived at the trust, having previously worked in Qatar. He was recruited via an agency just three weeks before Mrs Mitchell's death.
Health bosses deny that Mrs Mitchell, manager of a bookmakers in Doncaster, suffered a heart attack, but accept she had serious heart problems.
Mrs Mitchell's daughter Sadie Daines said she was concerned an agency doctor without NHS training had been in charge. She said: 'Our anger is never going to go away. We are still angry that this was allowed to happen. This man was the senior person that day and she was sent home. 'We want people to challenge what doctors say. We asked for her not to be sent home, but that is what happened.'
The family's lawyer said Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust had recognised failures involved in Mrs Mitchell's case and apologised to the family. She said: 'The failure to read the results of Irene's ECG test in this case led to a lengthy delay in diagnosis and by the time her cardiac problems were eventually recognised the opportunity to give her drug treatment, which may have saved her life, had been missed.
'Although we welcome the changes the Trust has made at Doncaster Royal Infirmary since Irene's death, and the apology made to the family, the Mitchells want assurances that lessons learnt will be shared throughout the NHS to prevent any other family from suffering.'
The NHS trust recognised that mistakes had been made, but defended its hiring of Dr Mehri. A statement from the trust said: 'The inquest into Mrs Mitchell's death found she had died from the effects of coronary artery atheroma.
'But the coroner also indicated that, had the abnormal ECG on December 17 2009 been acted upon, Mrs Mitchell's life would have been prolonged and she would on balance not have died when she did. We have accepted that verdict and have apologised to the family.
'Dr Ali Mehri started work at DRI on November 23, 2009, coming from a specialist agency. Excellent references were received that put him well within the capabilities of a staff grade role, and able to work without direct supervision.
'Events surrounding this case were investigated in line with NHS Clinical Governance arrangements. The conclusions were shared with the family and an apology from the Trust was given.'
BRITAIN'S riots show what happens when we underestimate the underclass. Or when we even more stupidly import one. Three days of arson, looting and violence started, not surprisingly, in Tottenham, coyly described as "very diverse". That means it has a large population of people of African and Caribbean descent, and is poor, crime-riddled and sullen.
This time the flashpoint was the shooting by police of Mark Duggan, which led family, friends and locals to protest outside a police station.
There they were joined by yobs summoned by SMS and Twitter, the technology of the mob.
Duggan actually best symbolised fault lines which have yawed open in Britain. He was black, although barely a single report dared say so, so irresponsibly timid has been the reporting.
He had three children with his girlfriend and another with someone else. Thus does the underclass ape the destructive freedoms too lightly flaunted by the more monied.
And he'd the adopted the culture that makes a rabble puffed with pride. He was a crook with a gun, a nightclubber who gave a finger to the camera. He was trash, blinged as success.
Yet to the mob at the police station he was a martyr, allegedly "executed" by a police force seen as an invading army, yet only too eager to apologise for its largely invented "racism".
And it was on. Over the next three days, the riots spread over London, and on to Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. And they spread to tribes of every colour, as ferals celebrated the freedom to dominate and to steal.
One video I've seen shows a black man gently helping a badly bleeding Asian to his feet, so a white thug could zip open his backpack and steal everything in it.
Animals. Just animals in a mad pack.
We're now told that this is not a "race riot" like all those others Britain has suffered. Yet race may indeed be a factor, not least for adding to the bonfire -- and for helping to make the born-right-there trash feel even more unmoored in their own country
Large-scale immigration, much of it of people who'd struggle to fit in, has given Britain even more of the poor and marginalised, with no ownership of their new home and its institutions. Are you surprised that most gun violence in London comes from its black minority?
The multiculturalists long reassured Britain, as they have Australia, that with each generation such fault lines would blur, as if culture didn't repeat itself.
But most of these rioters seem young enough to have been born there, just as were the university-educated Islamists behind the 2005 London bombings.
Yes, the many white rioters prove race alone cannot explain this frenzy. Britain has a white underclass, too, and one dangerously loosened from the soft ties of tradition, religion and class.
How it's been made overmighty in this aggressively egalitarian age by being taught to take pride in the feral, to honour hate in its music, to plead the victim to the welfare officer, to not fear the police, and to owe no duty to the families they form, then forget.
And see how they can be reduced to yet another contending ethnic class, fighting newly introduced ones for scarce jobs and government patronage.
Then comes the multicultural lobby, stupidly trashing their own culture and traditions, not realising there's little else to inspire the loyalty of the mob.
Do I sound too pessimistic? Then look at London burning and ask from where came the people to light those fires and to rob even the maimed by their light.
What we have on the streets of London and elsewhere are welfare-state mobs. The youth who are shattering their own communities represent a generation that has been suckled by the state more than any generation before it. They live in urban territories where the sharp-elbowed intrusion of the welfare state during the past 30 years has pushed aside older ideals of self-reliance and community spirit. The march of the welfare state into every aspect of urban, less well-off people's existences, from their financial wellbeing to their child-rearing habits and even into their emotional lives, with the rise of therapeutic welfarism designed to ensure that the poor remain "mentally fit", has undermined individual resourcefulness and social bonding. The antisocial youthful rioters are the end-product of this antisocial system of state intervention.
The most striking thing about the rioters is how little they care for their own communities. You don't have to be a right-winger with helmet hair and a niggling discomfort with black or chavvy yoof (I am the opposite of that) to recognise that this violence is not political, just criminal. It is entertaining to watch the political contortions of commentators who claim the riots are an uprising against the evils of capitalism, as they struggle to explain why the targets have been Foot Locker sports shops and why the only "gains" made by the rioters have been to get a new pair of trainers or an Apple laptop. In the Brixton race riots of 1981, looting and the destruction of local infrastructure were largely incidental to the broader expression of political anger, by-products of the main show, which was a clash between a community and the forces of the state. But in these riots, looting and smashing stuff up is all there is. It is childish nihilism.
Many older members of the urban communities rocked by violence have been shocked by the level of self-destruction exhibited by the rioters. Some shop owners have got together to defend their property, even beating up rioters who have turned up with iron bars. In one video, a West Indian woman in her 50s braves the rubble-strewn streets to lecture the rioters: "These people worked hard to make their businesses work and then you lot wanna go and burn it up. For what?" On Twitter, the hashtag #riotcleanup is being used by community members to co-ordinate some post-riot street-cleaning, to make amends for what one elderly Tottenham resident described as "the stupid behaviour of the young".
But it is more than childish destructiveness motivating the rioters. These are youngsters who are uniquely alienated from the communities in which they grew up. Nurtured in large part by the welfare state, financially, physically and educationally, socialised more by the agents of welfarism than by their own neighbours or local representatives, these youth have little moral or emotional attachment to their communities. Their rioting reveals not that Britain is in a time warp in 1981 or 1985 with politically motivated riots against the police, but that the tentacle-like spread of the welfare state into every area of people's lives has utterly zapped old social bonds, the relationship of sharing and solidarity that once existed in working-class communities. These riots suggest that the welfare state is giving rise to a generation happy to shit on its own doorstep.
This is not a political rebellion; it is a mollycoddled mob, a riotous expression of carelessness for one's own community. And as a left-winger I refuse to celebrate nihilistic behaviour that has a profoundly adverse affect on working people's lives. Far from being an instance of working-class action, this welfare-state mob has more in common with what Marx described as the lumpenproletariat. Indeed, it is worth remembering Marx's colourful description in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon of how that French ruler cynically built his power base among parts of the bourgeoisie and sections of the lumpenproletariat, so that "ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie rubbed shoulders with vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, brothel-keepers, organ-grinders, ragpickers, knife-grinders, tinkers, beggars and from this kindred element Boneparte formed the core of his [constituency], where all its members felt the need to benefit themselves at the expense of the labouring nation". In very different circumstances, we have something similar today where the decadent commentariat's siding with lumpen rioters represents a weird coming together of sections of the bourgeoisie with sections of the underworked and the over-flattered, as the rest of us, "the labouring nation", look on with disdain.
There is one more important part to this rioting story: the reaction of the cops. Their inability to handle the riots effectively reveals the extent to which the British police are adapted to consensual rather than conflictual policing. It also demonstrates how far they have been paralysed by the politics of victimhood, where virtually every police activity gets followed up by a complaint or a legal case. Their kid-glove approach to the rioters only fuels the riots because, as one observer put it, when the rioters "see that the police cannot control the situation, [that] leads to sort of adrenalin-fuelled euphoria". So this street violence was largely ignited by the excesses of the welfare state and intensified by the discombobulation of the police state. The riots tell a very interesting story about modern Britain.
While London was ablaze and looters raged through the streets with impunity, Sir Paul Stephenson – the police officer best equipped to deal with this carnage – was sitting at home, his vast experience going unforgivably to waste.
Caught in the grip of the political class’s lust for media blood, former Commissioner Sir Paul – acknowledged by all in the police service as a ‘good copper’ with an iron will – was driven from office over a link to the phone-hacking scandal.
He had employed an ex-News of the World executive – which, in sane times, would have earned him nothing more than a modest carpeting.
Many Londoners would have wanted Sir Paul Stephenson at his desk during the riots
He also accepted free hospitality at a luxury health spa that also employed the said executive, Neil Wallis – but it must be noted that this was while recovering from surgery to remove a pre-cancerous tumour.
Ask residents of Croydon, Enfield, Tottenham and Lewisham if they would rather have had Sir Paul at his desk during the mayhem of this week, and it’s not hard to guess the answer.
Undoubtedly, the Met this week got its tactics shockingly wrong, from its ineffective handling of the initial Tottenham riot last week, to standing off while the fires burned on Monday.
For all his good intentions, the less experienced acting commissioner, Tim Godwin, cannot have the authority of Sir Paul, who showed his mettle after his officers blundered over the handling of last year’s student riots.
In the wake of those disturbances, Sir Paul ordered a full review of tactics, which led to police being far more aggressive, using snatch squads to drag troublemakers from crowds of protesters at subsequent demonstrations.
In April this year, he returned early from sick leave – after the operation to remove the pre-cancerous growth – to mastermind security for the royal wedding.
Anarchists had been threatening to wreck the event but, due to tough police tactics – including pre-emptive arrests of known troublemakers – the day was entirely peaceful. It was considered a huge policing success.
Contrast it with this week, when officers sent on to the front line were wondering how much force they could deploy to protect property, not to mention life and limb. They know that the stopgap Mr Godwin will not be in charge to cover their backs if recriminations over their actions, or inactions, begin to fly in the coming months.
To make matters worse, the same officers are burdened by decades of political correctness, which began with the Scarman inquiry into the race riots of the early 1980s, and culminated with the Macpherson report into the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence.
The appalling handling of the heinous murder of Stephen was born out of incompetence, yet the Macpherson inquiry branded the police ‘institutionally racist’ – and they have been doing their jobs with their hands tied behind their backs ever since, especially in situations like this week’s riots where large numbers of the protagonists are black teenagers.
Use stop and search to check for weapons or drugs and they are accused of racism. Use strong force against rent-a-mob rioters – whose own actions are not subject to the same levels of scrutiny by a Left-wing establishment determined to undermine the police – and they will be hammered for alleged brutality.
Meanwhile, the controversy over the G20 riots of two years ago – during which newspaper-seller Ian Tomlinson died after being struck by a policeman – and the use of the tactic of ‘kettling’, where protesters are confined to a small space, has left the police terrified over what level of force to use, if any.
Thus, while undoubtedly courageous, this week they felt forced to stand behind riot shields while teenage thugs in hooded tops bombarded them with missiles, set fire to family businesses, smashed through store windows and burned down homes.
A final disturbing thought is that the other senior officer forced out over hacking, John Yates, was in charge of counter-terrorism operations. He was highly rated by security officials, who considered him first-class at his job – keeping this country safe from terrorist attack. We can only pray that he will not be as badly missed as Sir Paul has been in recent days.
Armed with swords and hockey sticks, Sikhs defend their homes and temples against rioters
Some armed with swords, some carrying hockey sticks, defiant Sikhs stood guard outside their temples last night. More then 700 men, some in their 80s, took to the streets to protect the homes, businesses and places of worship in Southall, West London.
The locals rallied to keep the rioters at bay following reports of a planned attack on the area. It is just a few miles from Ealing, which was targeted on Monday night. Each of the Sikh temples was guarded by around 200 men.
Amarjit Singh Klair from nearby Hounslow, who helped rally the men, said: ‘We are working along side the police, they’re doing what they can but they are stretched. ‘Why shouldn’t we defend our homes, businesses and places of worship? This is our area. There’s lots of talk about it kicking off here. But we’re ready for them.’
Hooded youths could be seen scouting the area but appear to be have frightened off. Only a handful of police could be seen patrolling the area.
The Sikh community were running a military style operation to protect themselves after almost 100 rioters tried to attack the heart of the area early on Tuesday. With few police around, elders at London’s largest Sikh temple in Havelock Road resorted to telephoning male worshippers for help.
Last night groups of Sikh men stood guard at different parts of the town, keeping in touch via their mobiles.
One man in his 20s said: ‘They caught us off guard last night but we still managed to get people together to protect the area. We saw them putting on their balaclavas preparing to jump out of three cars but we charged at them and managed to chase them off.’
What price education? Quite a lot, it turns out, with the average school fees for a private pupil now £4,393 a term according to the Independent Schools Council. New research today shows that parents who want their children to be educated independently are having to get savvier, thanks to above-inflation fee increases and the economic downturn.
Figures from Schroders suggest that some parents are now choosing to send just one child to private school, while the rest are educated in the state system. Others are cutting the pie a different way, with a quarter of parents with children under 15 in the state system considering switching their offspring into a private school sixth form just for their final pre-university education.
“Families are being forced to make extremely tough decisions in the current economic climate, as inflationary pressures erode monies available for discretionary spending on private education,” said Robin Stoakley, managing director of Schroders’ UK Intermediary Business.
His solutions are predictable enough – invest in high quality funds that can “realistically deliver inflation-beating growth”. However, anyone who has been looking at the sea of red that has been London’s stock market in recent days might be forgiven for wondering whether their investments are really going to deliver enough to pay eye-watering school fees – especially with university fees being an issue as well.
Janette Wallis, editor of the Good Schools Guide, said that many families found it distasteful to send one child private but not another, but that they are having to save money. “We have seen lots of people save money by targeting their spending,” she said, saying that GCSEs can be a popular time. “It’s perfectly possible to send a child private for two years – age 14 to 16 – and then move them on to a state sixth form.”
“Parents should think more in terms of equivalency of experience, rather than parcelling out the exact same experience to each child. So, if for example there is a good boys’ grammar school in your area that your son can attend, but no equivalent for girls, then it may make sense to pay for your daughter to attend a private school, while taking advantage of state provision for your son.
Money can be saved and a bit extra be made available to the son for tutoring or similar educational add-ons. So long as it is discussed openly and both children are content there’s no cause for guilt,” she said.
If you are panicking about how you will educate your children, you need to start thinking realistically. The longer you have to plan, the better, but whatever stage you are at, there are things you can do to take the sting out of the prices.
Curry component could one day cure your tennis elbow by reducing inflammation
Study in laboratory glassware only so far
Eating curry could offer new hope for sufferers of tennis elbow and other forms of tendinitis, says new research. A key ingredient found in Indian curries blocks tendon inflammation in the joints, which causes pain and misery for thousands.
The discovery could eventually lead to the development of a remedy for a painful condition which is on the increase, according to an international team of researchers.
They have shown that curcumin, which gives the spice turmeric its trademark bright yellow colouring, can be used to suppress biological mechanisms that spark inflammation in tendon diseases.
In a paper due to be published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, researchers at The University of Nottingham and Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich described laboratory experiments that show the ingredient can switch off the inflammatory cell cycle involved.
Dr Ali Mobasheri of the University’s School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, who co-led the research, said: ‘Our research is not suggesting that curry, turmeric or curcumin are cures for inflammatory conditions such as tendinitis and arthritis. ‘However, we believe that it could offer scientists an important new lead in the treatment of these painful conditions through nutrition.
‘Further research into curcumin, and chemically-modified versions of it, should be the subject of future investigations and complementary therapies aimed at reducing the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, the only drugs currently available for the treatment of tendinitis and various forms of arthritis.’
Tendons, the tough cords of fibrous connective tissue that join muscles to bones, are essential for movement because they transfer the force of muscle contraction to bones but are prone to injury, particularly in athletes.
Tendinitis (or tendonitis) is a form of tendon inflammation, which causes pain and tenderness near to joints and is particularly common in shoulders, elbows, knees, hips, heels or wrists. Other examples of common tendon disease include tennis and golfer’s elbow and Achilles tendinitis.
The global incidence of tendonitis is on the increase because people are living longer and older people are more at risk of inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes.
At present, standard treatment aims to relieve pain and reduce inflammation using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), such as aspirin or ibuprofen. In more serious cases of tendon injury, steroid injections can be given directly into the tendon sheath to control pain and enable physical therapy to start.
However, NSAIDS and steroids are associated with undesired side effects including stomach ulcers, nausea, vomiting, heartburn, headache, diarrhoea, constipation, drowsiness and fatigue.
There is an acute need for new treatments with fewer debilitating side effects, said Dr Mobasheri. This latest research looked at curcumin, a key ingredient of the spice turmeric, which has been used for centuries in traditional Indian or ‘Ayurvedic’ medicine as an anti-inflammatory agent and remedy for symptoms related to irritable bowel syndrome and other disorders.
In the laboratory, researchers used a culture model of human tendon inflammation to study the anti-inflammatory effects of curcumin on tendon cells.
The main objective of the study was to observe the effects that curcumin had on the inflammatory and degenerative properties induced by signalling molecules called interleukins. Interleukins are a type of small cell-signalling protein molecules called cytokines that can activate a whole series of inflammatory genes by triggering a dangerous ‘switch’ called NFkB.
The results showed that introducing curcumin in the culture system inhibits NFkB and prevents it from switching on and promoting further inflammation.
Previous research suggests turmeric may be useful in a variety of conditions, including cancer, arthritis and Alzheimer’s.
However, experts say it is difficult to get a big enough dose to remedy medical problems from a curry meal, as 100g of curry powder has to be eaten to deliver a 3.6g clinical dose.
Hundreds of thousands of people suffer inflammation of the tendons each year. Apart from exercise-related injury, the condition can be sparked from repetitive strain on the joints and overuse.
Father at 'medium risk' of developing blood clot dies after hospital fails to call him back for scan
A father-of-three deemed at 'medium risk' of developing a dangerous blood clot died after he was sent home from hospital.
Mark Bonehill visited Hull Royal Infirmary's accident and emergency department complaining of pain in his calf. But doctors sent him home and failed to call him back for a further scan - despite him being assessed as being at 'medium risk' of developing a deadly clot.
The 42-year-old, who was an area manager for Autoglass, died less than three weeks' later after the clot in his leg travelled to his lung.
His family have now been awarded £300,000 compensation after Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust admitted negligence.
Mr Bonehill's widow Karen, 46, said: 'What is so hard to deal with is the fact his death was entirely avoidable. 'The compensation won't bring Mark back. Mark has an 18-week-old grandchild he's never met. 'I had been with him since I was 19. He wasn't just my husband he was my best friend.'
Mark, from Hull, became worried about the pain in his leg and went to Hull Royal Infirmary in September 2008.
A scan showed no sign of a clot at that stage. But the pain was the early signs of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a serious condition characterised by blood clots in the deep veins of the legs. A re-scan could have detected the clot that later formed in his leg, which then dislodged and travelled to the lungs, known as a pulmonary embolism.
Karen, who has battled breast cancer since losing her husband, said Mark was not warned about the symptoms of DVT. She said: 'We were not given a leaflet or given advice about what to look out for. 'I just wanted to know lessons had been learned and this won't happen to another family.'
Mrs Bonehill said her children, Nicholas, now 22, Gareth, 21, and Abigail, 16, have been left heartbroken by their father's death. She said: 'Abigail was just 13 when he died. She was a proper daddy's girl. 'She still bursts out crying now because she misses him so much.'
After her husband's death, Mrs Bonehill wrote to the hospital to ask whether any changes would be made to its policy regarding DVT. Mrs Bonehill says she has never received a response to her question, although the trust insists it did contact the family.
Phil Morley, chief executive for Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, said: 'I know my predecessor wrote to Mrs Bonehill and I would reiterate this apology and our sincere condolences.
'Since this case occurred in 2008 the trust has implemented the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) recommendations across the organisation and monitors that all in-patients have undergone an assessment as part of the admission process.
'A full education programme is being launched across the organisation to ensure all clinical staff are fully aware of the Nice guidance and to ensure we are able to respond rapidly to introduce new treatments and practice.'
Nick Gray, of the Hull branch of Williamsons Solicitors, which dealt with Mrs Bonehill's case, said: 'This is a good settlement. However, Mrs Bonehill is relatively young. 'If you think of it in terms of what Mr Bonehill would have brought into the family in earnings and the pension he would have received, the settlement is about £10,000 a year.'
The hidden risks of top herbal remedies that pharmacists don't tell us about
Herbal medicines can pose serious health risks that consumers are not warned about, researchers say. They surveyed different versions of the five most popular remedies – St John’s wort, Asian ginseng, echinacea, garlic and ginkgo – and found they were commonly sold over the counter with no safety warnings.
Yet St John’s wort, widely used to combat low moods, can reduce the effectiveness of the contraceptive pill. And Asian ginseng, used to boost the immune system, and echinacea, often used to protect against colds, also have their dangers. Even garlic – used to lower high blood pressure – can be dangerous in large quantities.
The researchers at Leeds University’s school of pharmacy surveyed 68 products on sale to the public and found 51 of them (75 per cent) contained no information on precautions, interactions with other medicines or side effects.
Seventy per cent of them (48 of the 68 products) were marketed as food supplements, despite their powerful effects. Just three products contained sufficient information on risks and side-effects. The products were bought at two health-food stores, three chain pharmacies and three supermarket chemists.
Under an EU directive in April this year, certain herbal medicines have to be licensed and carry health information, but of these five products, only St John’s wort and echinacea require a licence. Of the 12 St John’s wort products surveyed by the Leeds researchers, four contained no safety messages, and of 13 echinacea products, nine failed to provide the required information.
The other three remedies do not have to carry any warnings, as long as they make no medical claims.
The fact that so few products provided sufficient information could be because shops are allowed to continue selling old stock, with no warnings, until their expiry date.
Professor Theo Raynor, who led the study, said: ‘The best advice to consumers is “buyer beware”. Herbal medicines ...... should be taken with as much caution as any over-the-counter medicine. ‘Any substance that affects the body has the potential to do harm if not taken correctly.’
He advised consumers to look for the Traditional Herbal Registration (THR) logo, which means remedies have been approved by the Government. ‘People should tell their doctor about herbal medicines they are taking so they receive the best care,’ he added.
Apologists for these thugs should hang their heads in shame: A stinging rebuke from an inner-city youth worker
The riots in London over the past three days may have been shocking, but much of the response to these appalling events has been all too predictable.
As the smoke clears over the wrecked buildings and the torched vehicles, a growing army of apologists has indulged in an orgy of excuse-making for the widespread violence. We are told the rioters have been motivated by their rage at inequality, deprivation and unemployment. Some have blamed police brutality; others have wailed about ‘Tory cuts’ or the closure of youth clubs.
But such explanations are as misguided as they’re immoral. In reality, there is no justification for the outbreak of carnage that’s gripped the capital. What we witnessed was despicable. Far from representing a political act, it was nothing more than a mixture of mindless criminality and opportunistic materialism. There was no 'legitimate grievance' behind the mass thuggery, only feral mob rule which should have no place in a civilised society.
Those hand-wringing over today’s riots would have us believe the explosion of savage behaviour represents the modern cry of a disaffected people, struggling in the inner city under the yoke of economic and state oppression.
The shrill defence of the rioters is an affront to the thousands of people who live in straitened circumstances in the inner city, yet who did not loot or set vehicles ablaze or hurl missiles at the police.
Indeed, the biggest victims of the frenzied mayhem are the law-abiding, hard-working citizens — black, white and Asian — of the areas including Tottenham, Brixton, Hackney, Lewisham and Streatham (where I live) who have been made homeless, had their businesses destroyed or their livelihoods ruined in these senseless and disgusting attacks. They are the ones who have suffered the greatest injustice, not the bullying youths rampaging through the streets.
There are, of course, concerns about the incident in Tottenham which triggered the riot, when a man who had a reputation as a gang leader and drug dealer was shot dead in a clash with the police. An investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission is under way.
The anguish of the dead man’s family is understandable, but what is deplorable is that local speculation about the conduct of the police has spiralled so wildly out of control.
This combustible hysteria has no sense of proportion, no moral imperative. Why has the same fury not been displayed over the mounting catalogue of black-on-black knifings and shootings in our cities? Why were the police the target of loud demands for vengeance, while gangland killers are rarely the subject of such outrage?
Tragically, young black people are using guns to kill each other with alarming regularity, but very few people ‘in the community’ — save distraught relatives — kick up a fuss. Yet when the police kill an alleged crack-dealing gangster, the so-called ‘dispossessed’ of our inner cities go crazy.
This is by no means to downplay the tragedy for the dead man’s family, but the eagerness of community leaders to focus all indignation against the police, while ignoring the lethal realities of gang feuds, displays a warped double standard which is hindering the acceptance of moral responsibility.
In truth, the rioting has nothing to do with any concept of justice and everything to do with a twisted sense of power and spirit of brute materialism.
There is no rationale that can legitimise the desire to set a bus ablaze or smash in shop windows. The portrayal in some quarters of the rioters as idealistic heroes striving for the rights of their community, as though they were latter-day followers of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, is as preposterous as it is blatantly untrue.
Thuggery knows no colour. We have seen plenty of white youths joining in the looting, too.
These young people wholly buy into a shallow culture of instant gratification. Oblivious to traditional ideas of hard work and social obligation, they seek to grab what they want, whether it be a new set of trainers from JD Sports or a flat-screen TV from Currys.
For all such condemnation, however, it is important to maintain a sense of perspective. The police may have made more than 100 arrests in the past couple of days, but most youths in the inner city have no involvement with violence whatsoever. The thuggery is confined to a hard-core minority.
In my spare time, I work as a volunteer mentor in Peckham, an even more deprived neighbourhood than Tottenham. Most of the young people in my scheme wear hoodies, but all are fine, upstanding citizens. Not one is in a gang or involved in criminal activity, and all are seeking to better their lives through education. Unlike the rioters and looters, all of them have a fully functioning moral compass.
We should also recognise that this kind of mindless aggression, masquerading as protest, is not confined to the world of inner-city black youths. Over the past year, we have witnessed disgraceful scenes on the streets of the capital, where the perpetrators have largely been white, privileged middle-class students.
Charlie Gilmour, son of a millionaire rock star, is a symbol of this pattern, having been jailed for 16 months following his conviction for violence during the tuition fees protest last December. Gilmour’s swinging from a Union Jack on the Cenotaph was just as great an insult to public decency as Saturday night’s looting in Tottenham.
Nor is vicious materialism by any means solely the preserve of black youth culture. Thuggery knows no colour. We have seen plenty of white youths joining in the looting, too.
In fact, we see this nasty, self-centred mentality all round us — reflected in the greed of bankers over their bonuses or MPs over their expenses. The pernicious spirit of instant gratification and ruthless entitlement transcends race and class, undermining the codes of morality that once built our civilisation.
That is why these riots are different to the unrest that gripped Britain in the early Eighties, epitomised by the flames of Toxteth and Brixton. Then, there were justified grievances about social exclusion and police heavy-handedness. But none of that applies today. Things have vastly improved for ethnic minorities since then. Job and educational opportunities are far greater. Contrary to what the Left claim, public resources have been poured into the inner cities.
After the Brixton riots in 1985 there were several regeneration schemes and today Peckham has a state-of-the-art library and new art gallery. The quality of the social housing stock has been transformed.
Attitudes among the police are also much better, as shown by Operation Trident, a highly successful community-driven initiative to combat gun crime within the black community.
But none of these changes will help if the worst aspects of youth culture are not tackled. Too many young people will never reach their potential if they are allowed to remain in their mental ghettoes. Education unequivocally provides the best path for young people out of the ghetto, both geographical and mental. That also means providing guidance and discipline, rather than pandering to their shallow teenage whims.
It is our own politically correct cowardice that has been the greatest force behind their marginalisation.
A motley crew of left-wingers is using the fallout from recent scandals to grab a bit of influence for themselves
Taking advantage of Hackgate and the banking and MPs expenses crises, a section of liberal thinkers is vying for greater influence by launching a campaign against the straw man they dub the ‘feral elite’. Worst of all, they are doing it under the façade that they are representing the interests of the public, who it’s clear they hold in contempt.
They may call their campaign In the Public Interest. They may be calling for ‘a new jury of people to put the public interest first’. But it’s evident from the outset that In the Public Interest supporters have no interest in reflecting what the public is actually interested in. Because, surely, if you were going to randomly select a panel of 1,000 members of the public to act as a ‘jury’ of what’s in the public interest, the first, most glaringly obvious thing you would do is ask them what social and political issues concern them?
That’s far from obvious to this campaign, established by the left-wing pressure group Compass. After all, they already know what’s in the public’s interest. How could the issues that most concern the public be anything other than those In the Public Interest has already determined the public jury will examine? These are media ownership, the role of the financial sector in the crash, the selection and accountability of MPs and policing. Surely such a choice is self-evident given, in the words of the campaign’s founders, the ‘waves of extraordinary public horror’ in reaction to Hackgate and other incidents?
Far from it. In reality, there was no such collective sense of horror among the public after Hackgate. As Frank Furedi has observed previously on spiked, it was instead confined to a ‘narrow stratum’ of British society: ‘People in the pub or on the streets are not having animated debates about the News of the World’s heinous behaviour. Rather it is the Twitterati and those most directly influenced by the cultural elite and its lifestyle and identity who are emotionally drawn to the anti-Murdoch crusade.’
The same can broadly be said about the MPs’ expenses scandal and the financial crash, neither of which invoked the public outcry opportunist members of the media and political classes often claim it did. And, following the knockout blow the public gave to the electoral-reform lobby in the referendum on the Alternative Vote earlier in the year, how ‘selection of MPs’ is seen to be a burning issue among the populace is simply baffling. ‘Policing’ is simply added to the list without explanation, as if this was self-evident.
Not wanting to leave anything to the public to decide in this proposed jury, In the Public Interest has even helpfully pinpointed the cause of all this ‘horror’ the public are experiencing, something they dub the ‘feral elite’: the ‘politicians, bankers and media moguls [who] share a common culture in which greed is good, everyone takes their turn at the trough, and private interest takes precedence over the public good’.
They even go so far as to dictate the outcomes of their proposed initiative, which would be ‘a new public-interest test with ethical procedures for the corporate world… and the proper treatment of national assets, services and utilities; and the outlawing of excessive concentrations of elite power in places like banking or the media’. Offending members of the ‘feral elite’ would also be mandated to attend public hearings – just like the Murdochs did in parliament - where members of the public can grill them on issues that In the Public Interest has ordained are relevant.
Astoundingly, this clique of campaigners is actually attempting to masquerade as the public. In an open letter to the Guardian – where else? – a gaggle of luminaries claim: ‘Only we, the public, can hold power truly to account by testing whether what happens is in the public interest.’
‘We the public?’ There is not a single shred of evidence of a groundswell of public support or demand for such an initiative. In fact, if you click to see who their supporters are on their website, the only signatures you can view are figures deemed ‘influential’ enough. Either public support is lacking, or they don’t want to sully the petition with the names of insignificant, irrelevant plebs who might put their name to it. Or both.
In an article outlining their intentions, the campaign’s founders are at least a little more forthright, admitting: ‘There is an irony in that this call is coming from another group of the self-appointed and self-righteous. But in today’s celebrity world, this is the only way left to draw attention to an issue; and the issue is, letting the public decide.’
For people who claim to have faith in the public’s ability to decide, their complete disdain for the ability of the public to be able to draw attention to an issue of concern to them is simply breathtaking. The only way the interests of the feeble demos can be heard, it seems, is if a few celebrities bang the drum loud enough for the little people to be given a platform.
It is true, however, that it’s a bit ironic – and, many would likely add, more than a bit rich – that this campaign is being undertaken by ‘another group of the self-appointed and self-righteous’. What we have here is nothing more than a left-wing section of the liberal elite, emboldened to the point of atrocious arrogance, jockeying for greater power and influence as the hollowed-out condition of the right becomes apparent. They are, it should be noted, already making a complete hack job of it, managing to alienate swathes of groups and individuals who would, if the campaign had been approached differently, likely have proven enthusiastic bedfellows.
But this new self-appointed and self-righteous clique is actually far more insidious than even the most caricatured version of the coterie of ‘greed is good’, Gordon Gecko types they claim to be calling to account. Not just due to their slippery, underhand attempts to cloak their own special interests in democratic garb, but also because of their contempt for the idea that the public is capable of engaging in democratic activity without the help of a carefully-managed ‘public jury’. Individuals can make their own minds up without being spoon-fed about what their interests actually are and without having ‘celebrity’ campaigners getting their concerns heard for them.
In truth, the In the Public Interest campaign is about as far from being in the interests of the public as you can get.
Children's grasp of WW2 'sanitised' by books and films
Pupils’ understanding of the Second World War is being undermined by sensationalist films, television programmes and books, according to a leading headmaster. Children are increasingly distracted by the “prurient and commercial elements” of the conflict employed by the entertainment industry to make profits, it was claimed.
Graham Lacey, headmaster of the Berlin British School, a private international school in the German capital, said schools had a moral duty to “rescue” the subject by focusing on more challenging topics such as the Nazi’s exploitation of democracy and the state’s treatment of minorities. The comments come amid ongoing controversy over the way the conflict – from 1939 to 1945 – is taught in British schools.
Successive German ambassadors to London have criticised Britain’s “unbalanced” obsession with Nazi stereotypes at the expense of any aspect of the nation’s history beyond 1945.
Four years ago Labour also sparked outrage by suggesting that Winston Churchill – Britain’s wartime leader – should be erased from the secondary school curriculum in an attempt to give teachers more freedom to teach history.
Mr Lacey, former deputy head of Sevenoaks School in Kent, said schools “must be careful not to downplay the significance of a period when the world almost fell off its moral axis”.
But writing in an article today on Telegraph.co.uk, he suggested that the biggest threat to the subject was the entertainment industry, which prioritises a “populist narrative over objective analysis”.
It follows the success of films such as Saving Private Ryan and video games including Call of Duty: World at War. The Second World War is also one of the mainstays of satellite channels such as UKTV History and the History Channel, where recent programmes have included Hitler's Bodyguard, Hitler's Women, Nazi America and Nazi Guerrillas.
But Mr Lacey said: “The argument that this period should retain its elevated position in UK school history syllabuses has, ironically, been hindered rather than helped by the popularisation of the subject. “Students have been too easily distracted by its more prurient and commercial elements, whether it be the sex lives of its leaders or the pop memorabilia of the SS, for example.
“Even the horrors of the Second World War have been sanitised through books and films that have inevitably given higher priority to commercial success over factual accuracy, and populist narrative over objective analysis. “All this has undermined the pedagogical and moral justification for teaching the subject.”
The study of the two world wars is compulsory in English secondary schools. Pupils are also expected to study the Holocaust as a distinct topic.
But Mr Lacey said schools had a responsibility to focus on the “less familiar but more intellectually fulfilling topics of the period, to rescue the academic respectability of the subject as well as to ensure their students appreciate the relevance it holds for all who wish to protect the civilised values which the Third Reich displaced.”
The Nazi’s rise to power should be used as an example of how a small minority can exploit democracy or exert “undue political influence at a time of instability”, he said.
Mr Lacey added that a study of the Nazi’s murder campaign can also shed light on the “sanctity of human life and the state’s approach to the treatment of minorities”.
“Unless you fall for the myth that ‘it could never happen to us’, a study of the Third Reich still provides lessons for us all, and should retain its prominent place in the history syllabuses of the UK’s schools and universities,” he said.
Health trusts pay £1m to STOP patients getting expensive drugs
Health trusts have been accused of paying £1million of taxpayers’ money to a lobby group to stop patients getting vital drugs.
The Commissioning Support Appraisals Service gives training and advice on how trusts can avoid paying for expensive drugs approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the NHS rationing body.
When drugs are approved, trusts must find money from existing budgets to pay for them.
So there is widespread concern that they have a vested interest in discouraging Nice from approving treatments, by arguing they are too expensive and not cost-effective.
The CSAS has been attacked by leading doctors, charities and even Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.
Now it has emerged that each of the 152 Primary Care Trusts in England is paying £2,000 for its services each year – a combined sum of £304,000. PCTs have been paying the money since 2009, so by the end of this year nearly £1million will have been spent in total.
The CSAS trains staff and managers from PCTs so they can ‘advise’ Nice when it is making key decisions on whether to make new drugs available on the NHS.
The first PCT to fund the lobby group was Birmingham East and North, whose chief executive Sophia Christie has spoken out against paying for cancer drugs. She once described Herceptin – a breast cancer wonder drug credited for saving thousands of lives – as ‘the worst thing I could choose to spend that money on’.
Birmingham PCT now takes charge of collecting money from all other PCTs to pay the CSAS.
CSAS insists its purpose is ‘not to stop life-saving drugs and treatments’. It says its role is to ensure PCTs’ contribution to Nice guidance is ‘respected and credible’.
Campaigners warn that health trusts are ‘engaging in secret lobbying campaigns’ and squandering taxpayers’ money on denying new drugs for patients.
Professor Karol Sikora, a leading cancer specialist, said: ‘It seems very murky. The problem PCTs have is that if Nice approves a drug they have to fund it. ‘But cancer drugs here are so far behind Europe. This will just put us back even more.’
Andrew Wilson, chief executive of the Rarer Cancers Foundation, which uncovered the figures, said: ‘The NHS should be focusing on how to improve cancer treatment, not how to stop patients gaining access to it.
‘At a time when money is short, PCTs should be prioritising paying for much needed services and not engaging in secret lobbying campaigns. This just serves to reiterate how important the Cancer Drugs Fund is to patients. Decisions on access to cancer treatment should be made by doctors and not administrators, who sometimes seem more concerned about denying access to treatment than improving it.’
Ian Beaumont, campaigns director for Bowel Cancer UK, said: ‘We would be very disappointed if pressure was being put on Nice in what is already a very complicated system. ‘Nice is doing a good enough job of not approving drugs on its own. ‘The UK is falling way behind European countries in terms of cancer survival. This is partly because there are fewer treatments available.’
Call to scrap 'useless' equalities watchdog which costs taxpayers millions
Britain’s embattled human rights quango should be scrapped, a report says today. It claims that the Equality and Human Rights Commission contributes ‘very little to meaningful equality’ despite costing the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds a year.
The Civitas think-tank says that abolition would come at ‘no obvious cost to the public’.
The report is scathing of the pay and expenses of the Commission’s most senior staff, including chairman Trevor Phillips who receives £112,000 a year for working three and a half days a week. It also criticises the quango’s ‘illogical’ use of statistics and ‘narrow approach’ to social policy.
The report is a fresh blow to the quango which has suffered a series of financial scandals and high-profile resignations, culminating in a scathing Government review which found it had failed to do its job and had cost too much money. It is now facing large-scale cuts in its Whitehall funding.
The report found ‘serious flaws’ in the way that the EHRC demonstrates inequality in Britain. It says the Commission is quick to blame unfairness in society while ignoring other important influences which could explain the differences between social groups.
It says that, for example, the EHRC points to differences in life expectancy between British-born women (80.5 years) and women of Pakistani origin (77.3) as a sign of unfairness. However, it fails to draw attention to the much larger difference in life expectancy between Pakistani women living in Britain (77.3) and women living in Pakistan (67.5 years).
Jon Gower Davies, the report’s author, says the Commission’s goal of equality is unrealistic as it wishes that ‘life outcomes be entirely divorced from health limitations, cultural practices and lifestyles’.
A Civitas spokesman said: ‘Abolishing the EHRC would not just be a cost-saving exercise. It may well be an opportunity to channel resources into pertinent issues holding back equality and fairness.’ Mark Hammond, chief executive of the EHRC, said: ‘There are many reasons why people experience different levels of prosperity, health and happiness, but in some cases this can be because of discrimination and unfairness.
‘No one blames Britain for that, but it’s our job to start a debate on issues where we could see better outcomes for people suffering unfair disadvantages.’
Having a satellite dish 'is a human right,' says European court
It is regarded as a luxury that allows people to watch top sport and blockbuster movies from the comfort of their armchairs. But owning a satellite dish is actually a human right, according to unelected European judges.
In an extraordinary ruling, lawmakers in Strasbourg have warned that banning dishes on listed buildings, social housing and even private homes could breach the right to freedom of expression by preventing people from practice religion.
The judgement is a huge blow to campaigners who have fought to stop the large metal dishes blighting the brickwork of historic buildings and rental properties.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Britain’s discrimination watchdog, has now published new guidance warning that landlords could be at risk of being sued if they try to stop their tenants putting up a satellite dish.
Housing Minister Grant Shapps said that the ruling, under the Human Rights Act, threatened to drive ‘a horse and cart’ through planning laws.
The quango issued the guidance following a recent case at the European Court of Human Rights. Two tenants in Sweden took their government to court after they were evicted by their landlord in a dispute over a dish. The couple installed one of the dishes on their rented property but the landlord ordered them to take it down. They refused and were later thrown out of the property.
But European judges ruled that the Swedish government had failed in its obligation to protect the couple’s right to receive information. It found that satellite dishes come under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In its guidance, Britain’s equalities watchdog suggested that a disabled tenant who received transmissions of religious services held overseas would have their rights to freedom of religion breached if their landlord banned satellite dishes.
The European Commission’s Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said: ‘The right to use a satellite dish [is] one of the many concrete benefits for European consumers of the free movement of goods and services within the internal market.
‘Satellite dishes are an increasingly popular tool for receiving multiple services via satellite: they facilitate mutual exchanges between our various cultures by overcoming national borders, and familiarise the general public with the new remote communications technologies. Their use must therefore be free from any unjustified obstacle.’
Twice as many British universities now looking for A* grades
The number of universities requiring the elite A* grade for entry has more than doubled. Six more leading institutions want students to achieve the ‘super grade’ in one A-level this year, while a further two will require one from next year. And ten are considering adding it to their entry criteria, according to a Daily Mail survey.
In 2010 just four made it a necessity for a place – but all these have dramatically increased the number of courses for which it is required.
The elite grade was initially used to choose pupils studying pure maths or science courses, but it has been broadened to include psychology, philosophy, economics and law.
It comes as analysis indicates that independent schools are set to further tighten their grip on the elite universities following the introduction of the new top grade in 2010.
In the first year that the A* was awarded, pupils in independent schools won 4,112 A* grades in maths, compared with 3,420 in the comprehensive sector.
In languages, they achieved 1,068 A* grades, more than twice the total for comprehensives, according to figures obtained by Elizabeth Truss, a Tory MP on the education select committee. This is despite the private sector educating just 15 per cent of A-level candidates.
The statistics will increase fears that government pressure for leading universities to boost the numbers of comprehensive pupils they admit is being undermined by the poorer grades achieved in key subjects.
This year, for the first time, Exeter, LSE, Bristol, Sussex, Birmingham and Manchester are asking for an A* and two As. Oxford and King’s College London say they will require an A* for entry in 2012.
Last year, the only universities to make an A* a requirement were Imperial, Cambridge, UCL and Warwick. Except for Cambridge, these universities asked for the top grade in just a few courses. Cambridge’s standard offer was an A* and two As.
The trend comes as competition for places at university is fiercer than ever, with 220,000 predicted to miss out on a place this year.
Alan Smithers, professor of education at Buckingham University, said: ‘The A* was controversial but it is winning widespread acceptance. ‘There had been a marked rise in the number of top grades awarded, making it difficult for universities to distinguish between applicants.’
Eight per cent of A-levels taken last year were granted an A* – 62,665. But 17.9 per cent of independent school pupils achieved an A*, compared with just 5.8 per cent from comprehensives.
Miss Truss’s figures were based on the ten subjects deemed by the Russell Group of leading universities to be the most useful for winning a place.
She said: ‘Students at comprehensives are seven times more likely to take media studies than those at independent schools... in too many schools it is taken at face value that an A in media studies is worth the same as an A in any other subject. Students are effectively being misled.’
Catastrophe of British school leavers who can't add up
Children should be taught maths up to the age of 18 to avert the ‘educational catastrophe’ of 300,000 teenagers a year failing to grasp the basics, a hard-hitting report claims.
By 16 there is a ‘colossal’ ten-year range in mathematical learning between students, the report by former Countdown presenter Carol Vorderman reveals.
She calls for a ‘mathematics for citizenship’ course to be introduced for those studying A-levels that don’t involve the subject. And she recommends splitting the maths GCSE into two qualifications, one designed for those going on to A-level.
Miss Vorderman, who studied engineering at Cambridge and has said maths is her ‘passion’, believes 16-year-olds should continue with lessons in the subject to develop the skills that are vital in today’s world. Many still struggle with numbers in the workplace and in their personal lives despite 11 years of being taught maths.
Universities and employers are being forced to hold catch-up classes while the lack of numeracy threatens the country’s economic prosperity. This is because almost half of teenagers ‘fail’ GCSE maths, meaning they do not get a grade C or above.
Even those students who ‘scrape’ a C ‘are still incapable of truly understanding how to calculate percentages and fractions or to interpret data’, according to Miss Vorderman.
She was asked by David Cameron and Michael Gove to head a taskforce reviewing maths education when the Conservatives were in opposition in 2009.
The findings of the report, A World Class Mathematics Education for All Our Young People, are likely to be considered as part of the Coalition’s review of the national curriculum in England. Last year, 41.6 per cent of students – more than 317,000 – failed to get a grade C or above in maths GCSE.
Carol's formula for success
About 85 per cent of students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland give up maths after GCSE. However, in ‘almost every developed country, all, or nearly all’ students continue for a further two years.
The report says maths education must continue in ‘some form’ between 16 and 18. This would tie in with the reform to raise the age of participation in compulsory education to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015.
For the most able, continuing with maths study would involve AS and A-levels. However, new qualifications should be introduced such as the ‘mathematics for citizenship’ course aimed at those with a grade C or above at GCSE who are studying A-levels where no maths is involved.
Those with a C or below should sit a ‘mature GCSE’, which would involve studying vocational units in basic numeracy, financial calculations and spreadsheets.
The single maths GCSE should be withdrawn when twin qualifications being piloted become widely available in 2015. One, applications of mathematics, concentrates on more functional maths without going into great depth. The other, methods in mathematics, contains the formal elements such as algebra that students need if they go on to AS and A-level.
Improving the maths knowledge of primary school teachers, encouraging more daily maths activities in primaries and helping parents who ‘have a fear of mathematics themselves’ are also among the recommendations.
The report, released by the Conservative Party, adds that Key Stage Two national curriculum maths tests should end in their current form as ‘most secondary schools pay no attention to the results’.
Education Secretary Mr Gove welcomed the report and admitted the country is ‘falling behind our competitors when it comes to mathematics education’.
The attention seeking Greenfield now claims that internet use leads to autism
Greenfield speculates again. Criticizing TV and computer usage is her shtick but we have not yet heard what she thinks of the finding that regular Facebook users have MORE friends in real life than others
A neuroscientist has sparked a war of words after suggesting a link between increased internet use and autism. Baroness Greenfield, former [fired] director of the Royal Institution, believes digital technology could be leading to changes in people’s brains.
The professor of pharmacology at Oxford University has previously argued that constant computer and internet use could be shortening attention spans, encouraging instant gratification and causing a loss of empathy.
But a fellow Oxford professor condemned her remarks on autism as ‘illogical garbage’. Dr Dorothy Bishop, a professor of neuropsychology, wrote an open letter to Baroness Greenfield saying: ‘You may not realise just how much ill-formed speculation parents of [children with autistic spectrum disorders] are exposed to.
‘Over the years they’ve been told their children’s problems are caused by a cold style of interaction, inoculations, faulty diets, allergies, drinking in pregnancy – the list is endless.’
She believes Baroness Greenfield, who was speaking in an interview with New Scientist magazine, has ignored a body of evidence which suggests most, if not all, of the rise in autism is down to a widening of the diagnostic criteria and better understanding of the condition.
She said: ‘Most cases are diagnosed around the age of two, when not many children are using the internet. And this rise has been documented over the past 20 years, long before Twitter and Facebook.’
Baroness Greenfield said: ‘I have never claimed new technologies are causing autism. Rather, I’ve said that the increase in lack of empathy, that is documented scientifically, may be leading to behaviours like that and this should be explored.’
She said one recent Chinese study found excessive internet use can cause parts of teenagers’ brains to waste away. She added: ‘We may be in danger if we are creating an environment for the next generation where a premium isn’t put on eye contact, body language and hugging someone.’
British government ministers go to war with green charities over planning shake-up "smears"
Ministers have launched an unprecedented attack on two of Britain's leading environmental charities for opposing the government's planned shake-up of the planning system.
The National Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) came under fire as they mobilised against new planning rules that they say put the Green Belt in peril.
The planning reforms are supposed to streamline complicated rules on new buildings, reducing 1,300 pages of national planning policy to just 52 pages. In a highly controversial change councils will be told there should be a "presumption for development".
Conservation groups say the reforms could allow un-checked development in the countryside and lead to parts of the Green Belt being concreted over.
For the first time in its history, the National Trust is to mobilise its 3.6 million members against the Coalition's proposals and urge every visitor to its sites to sign a petition opposing the framework.
The 60,000-member CPRE is preparing to take the attack directly to David Cameron, citing a speech he made to the group in 2008 in which he promised to "cherish" the "beauty of our landscape [and] the particular cultures and traditions that rural life sustains".
But both organisations were heavily criticised by Bob Neill, the Local Government Minister. He accused them of being "vested interests" that were peddling "deeply misleading and simply untrue" claims.
He insisted that Green Belt land, as well as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Parks would continue to be fully protected. "This is a carefully choreographed smear campaign by Left-wingers based within the national headquarters of pressure groups," he said. "This is more about a small number of interest groups trying to justify their own existence, going out of their way by picking a fight with Government."
His attack came amid mounting opposition to changes to the National Planning Policy Framework that were announced last month. Tories were among MPs raising serious concerns as a three-month public consultation period got under way.
Despite ministerial assurances, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that the Green Belt could come under threat. A government "impact assessment" of the planned changes states that it "could lead to greater development on the Green Belt".
It is under threat from new powers to develop "community build schemes" and "a wider range of local transport infrastructure".
The Planning Inspectorate, which rules on appeals and is an arm of the Department for Communities and Local Government, says it will be using new guidance on presumption in favour of developers with immediate effect despite the consultation period having three months to run.
Major changes are also likely in town centres and industrial areas, where ministers will create "business zones" allowing local businesses to approve their own schemes and bypass council planning altogether. The West End of London, home to thousands of listed buildings and 36,000 residents, has been made one of the first zones.
Barbara Keeley, the shadow local government minister, voiced her concern at the proposals. "The Government is allowing financial considerations to become key determinants in how councils decide on planning applications," she said. "Labour shares the concern that this might lead to inappropriate development and loss of greenfield land."
Potentially more worrying for ministers were growing concerns expressed by backbenchers from both Coalition parties. Andrea Leadsom, the Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire, said she had "real concerns" over the policy. "I am a big fan of localism and letting areas decide for themselves what is appropriate for the community and yet a presumption in favour of development takes that power away," she said.
Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP for Newark, where greenfield land has been earmarked for 7,100 new houses, said it was important that “local voices are properly heard”.
Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives and vice-chairman of the all-party Commons parliamentary housing and planning group, said the Government had “got it very wrong”.
“It will not go down well in constituencies,” he said. “This 'let rip' approach to development will not help the housing situation in Cornwall, it will simply drive up the value of undeveloped land and therefore make it even harder to find affordable homes.”
The all-party communities and local government committee will be carrying out an inquiry into the planned changes in the autumn. “One of the key concerns is how the presumption in favour of sustainable development fits in with the localism agenda,” said Clive Betts, its Labour chairman. “Could there be a conflict of interest here? Might, in some cases, it be carte blanche for developers to come in?”
Residents fear that housing schemes previously rejected by planners, including new towns proposed under the previous Labour government, could be revived. Peter Nixon, the director of conservation at the National Trust, said local people would not get enough say in developments. “The Government is making warm noises about local communities, but in practice the dice are heavily loaded to favour development,” he said.
“Ministers have put short-term financial gain ahead of everything else. It fails to protect the everyday places that communities love. Power in planning goes to the powerful.”
Shaun Spiers, a former Labour MEP who is chief executive of the CPRE, described his group as “an organisation of Middle England”. “CPRE’s branches are up in arms about the Government’s proposals and our opposition to them is coming from people in the shire countries who deal with planning issues every day, are committed to the countryside and are deeply worried about what the Government is proposing,” he said.
Greg Clark, the Planning Minister, said it was a priority of the Coalition to sort out planning policy. “The Localism Bill got rid of regional bodies and took back planning decisions for local people, who are the best judges,” he said. “It is absolutely clear that the Green Belt continues to be protected. It is clear and explicit in the document.
“There is no change in the status of the countryside. Everything that was previously protected — Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Parks — continue to be protected. “It is simply scaremongering to trump up any particular site and say the status changes as a result of this.”
How "light" food options 'have as many calories as ordinary foods'
They are promoted as the lighter option. But many supermarket ‘diet’ ranges are in fact heavier in fat and calories than standard versions.
Keen to catch the eye of the weight-conscious shopper, supermarkets and big brands have spent millions of pounds on formulating lower fat, sugar or salt versions of their most popular products.
But some of those ‘light’ versions actually contain more fat or calories, suggesting that the only pounds that slimmers will be parting with are those in their wallets.
A snapshot survey of supermarket shelves has revealed ‘light’ versions of crisps, salad dressings, biscuits, cereals and yoghurt drinks may not be as low-calorie as they first seem.
Walkers Lights are promoted as having 33 per cent less fat than ordinary crisps and around 115 calories per 24g bag – making them as calorific, weight for weight, as the brand’s Extra Crunchy cheddar and sour cream crisps. This compares to a standard bag of Tyrell’s sea salt and vinegar crinkle cut crisps – which are not even promoted as a ‘diet’ food – containing just 107 calories per 24g.
Salad dressing labels also bear close inspection. For instance, Pizza Express’s Caesar Light dressing, which is widely sold in supermarkets, contains 348 calories and 34.1g of fat per 100ml. In contrast, 100g of standard caesar dressing in the Tesco Finest range contains just 300 calories per 100g and 28.1g of fat.
Marks & Spencer sells its reduced fat rich tea biscuits using the slogan ‘more nice, less naughty’. They contain 34 per cent less fat than the chain’s standard rich teas. But, at 40 calories per biscuit, the calorie count is the same, and two more than in McVitie’s standard rich tea biscuit. McVitie’s Lights on the other hand contain more sugar than its standard Digestive.
How they add up
Kellogg’s Special K is heavily promoted as an aid to weight loss. All but one of its ten flavours contain more calories per 100g than the cereal giant’s sugar-coated Frosties. Special K Honey Clusters, for instance, contain 389 calories per 100g, compared with 375 for Frosties. The cereal also has 3g of fat per 100g – five times as much as Frosties.
Under European rules, the word ‘light’ can only be used to promote food when there has been a reduction of at least 30 per cent in calories, fat, sugar or salt. The anomalies arise because manufacturers use their own products as a benchmark, rather than similar products by competitors.
The 30 per cent rule means foods that are still high in fat, sugar or calories can still be labelled as ‘light’ – simply because levels are lower than in the standard version.
Food companies say they clearly set out the nutritional content of their products on the labels. PepsiCo, which makes Walkers crisps, said Walkers Lights contain fewer calories and less saturated fat per bag than its standard crisps.
Kellogg’s said Special K Original has an average of 114 calories per bowl. Spokesman Paul Wheeler added: ‘Importantly, it has been developed with the right balance of vitamins and minerals especially for the diet of women looking to manage their weight.’
Marks & Spencer said its reduced fat rich tea biscuits are labelled as being low in fat, rather than ‘light’.
£750,000 for patients left in agony by "top" NHS surgeon
Five patients have been paid a total of £750,000 compensation by an NHS hospital after they were left in agony and with permanent mobility problems following surgery by orthopaedic specialist Manjit Bhamra.
Mr Bhamra, who has advised the Government on hip replacements and fractures, is being investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC) but is still working in the NHS. There are now calls for all operations he carried out to be reviewed.
One patient, Wayne Pickering, 59, had his pelvis fractured during surgery which damaged a major nerve and left him in so much permanent pain he has been unable to work since.
Another patient, a 23-year-old woman who needed a hip replacement, was given the wrong implant which was then inserted incorrectly, leaving her needing extensive surgery to revise the problems and a lifelong disability.
A third patient in her 50s woke up after a routine hip operation with one leg longer than the other. The subsequent pain was so bad that she had to have her entire hip joint removed for nearly three months before it could be corrected.
The two other patients receiving payouts have not agreed to have details of their claims released.
All have now received substantial out-of-court settlements after Rotherham District Hospital in South Yorkshire, where the operations were carried out between 2005 and 2007, admitted liability.
The individual sums cannot be disclosed. It is understood several more complaints are awaiting investigation.
Mr Bhamra, 55, left the hospital in September 2007, before the complaints emerged. He is now employed by the nearby Pinderfields Hospital in Wakefield and also works for the private Care UK group in Southampton and London.
Mr Pickering, from Doncaster, had surgery on his hip carried out by Mr Bhamra in February 2006 and underwent a repair operation in 2009.
He said: I went into hospital expecting to come out the other side in ¬better shape. Instead, I found myself in agony and unable to work.’
Solicitor Tim Annett, from law firm Irwin Mitchell which has brought the claims by Mr Pickering and other patients, said all operations carried out by Mr Bhamra should be reviewed.
Assurances needed to be given ‘that the same situation cannot be allowed to happen again’, he added.
Walid Al-Wali, chief medical officer for Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, said the hospital had referred Mr Bhamra to the GMC after concerns emerged.
‘We understand the investigation is still on-going,’ he added.
Scandal of the labs that refuse to check under-25s smear tests
Hundreds of young women given smear tests on the advice of GPs are having their test samples rejected by bureaucratic clinics - because they are under 25.
Patients and GPs are becoming increasingly frustrated at the zero tolerance approach by laboratories, which saw 712 women across England have tests ignored last year because of Government rules which say those under 25 do not need to be tested. This was up from 244 rejections the previous year.
GPs and patients groups are increasingly calling for a return to pre-2003 rules when the minimum age for a test was 20. Around 3,000 women in the UK each year contract cervical cancer and it accounts for more than 900 deaths.
Dr Clare Gerada, of the Royal College of GPs, told BBC Newsnight: ‘I think if a GP has made a clinical decision to give a cervical smear then that smear should be processed. ‘The decision not to process it should not be made by a lab with no details about why that smear has been done.’
The Government insist that if a woman under 25 needs a smear test they must be referred to a gynaecologist. But one consultant told Newsnight, which compiled the data using the Freedom of Information Act, that decision was crazy. Professor John Shepherd said: ‘I think that’s not sensible, It’s crazy. GPs are well trained doctors.
‘In most practices there will be partners who specialise in gynaecology. To send patients straight to a gynaecologist is actually a waste of man power, time and money, and not sensible.’
The age for cervical screening was raised to 25 because experts believed it caused more harm than good in younger women. Under 25s are more likely to present falsely positive results, meaning unnecessary treatment.
TWO police cars were set on fire overnight as hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets of north London to protest the fatal shooting of a young father by police.
Trouble flared after a crowd of around 300 gathered in the Tottenham area, with some hurling missiles and smashing shop windows as the unrest threatened to spiral into a riot.
It followed a march, involving around 120 people, from the Broadwater Farm area to Tottenham police station demanding "justice" for the shot man named locally as Mark Duggan. The black father-of-four, 29, died on Thursday, allegedly after he exchanged fire with police officers.
Shortly after dark last night, two police cars parked around 180 metres from the police station were set on.
A spokesman for London's Metropolitan Police said officers have been dispatched to disperse the crowd. He could not confirm that those responsible for the trouble were connected to the protest.
Local resident David Akinsanya, 46, said several store windows were smashed and a second police car was also torched. "It's really bad," he said. "There are two police cars on fire. I'm feeling unsafe. It looks like it's going to get very tasty. I saw a guy getting attacked."
The Broadwater Farm area was the site of a notorious riot in 1985 that followed the death of an African-Caribbean woman who suffered heart failure during a police search of her home.
Police Constable Keith Blakelock was brutally stabbed and beaten to death in the ensuing unrest.
Prison drug taking in Britain is so bad that even the wardens are getting stoned... on the fumes
Solution? Improved ventilation!
Prison officers have complained to the Government’s health and safety watchdog that staff are getting ‘high’ from cannabis fumes escaping from prisoners’ cells. The warders’ union says its members suffer headaches and sickness because inmates smoke pot. It raised fears that this is affecting officers’ mood and performance.
The Health and Safety Executive has asked the Prison Service to carry out a risk assessment, which might lead to improved ventilation.
The Prison Officers’ Association (POA) says the use of cannabis is widespread among the 80,000-strong population of British jails, where inmates are allowed to smoke tobacco in their cells because they are exempt from the ban on smoking in business and office premises.
The union claims that the drug is being brought into prisons more easily because of staffing cuts.
Brian Traynor, the POA’s health and safety chairman, said that while serving at Walton Jail in Liverpool he felt giddy and that night had to lie down while gardening. ‘I am convinced I was stoned because of the passive effect of the drugs smoked by prisoners,’ Mr Traynor said. He warned that officers could be driving home unaware they were under the influence of cannabis.
At Wandsworth Prison in South London, POA branch secretary Stewart McLaughlin said: ‘It is outrageous that we are exposed to cannabis smoke. We are the only members of the emergency services to have fitness tests in a smoke-filled environment. It could not be more upside-down.
He said prison officers at Wandsworth – one of Britain’s toughest jails – were complaining of vomiting and headaches. POA deputy general secretary Mark Freeman said: ‘The Government knows that this is going on in prisons all over the country but they are doing nothing about it. ‘After a 12 to 15-hour shift breathing in the fumes from cannabis, our members won’t be driving home. They’ll be flying home.’
Mr Freeman claimed that even though jails were experiencing high levels of drug use – including heroin, cocaine and cannabis – the Government planned to reduce daily cell inspections in an effort to reduce costs.
A spokeswoman for the HSE said: ‘Our expectation is that Her Majesty’s Prison Service should carry out an assessment of the risks posed to staff and, in consultation with those working in affected areas, devise some reasonably practicable control measures.
‘This might include some of the same measures identified for controlling smoke from cell fires, such as improved ventilation and mobile ventilation units.’
A Prison Service spokeswoman said yesterday: ‘We work hard to keep illicit drugs out of prison, using a range of security measures to reduce drug supply, including working closely with police forces and carrying out random mandatory drug tests. ‘Targeted cell searches are undertaken in all prisons on a risk-assessment basis, with daily searches in Category A prisons.
‘Prisoners are allowed to smoke tobacco in their own cells. No smoking is allowed in communal areas. ‘There has been no change to the staffing level during visits at HMP Wandsworth.’
The clipping attached comes from the City of Westminster police’s “Counter Terrorist Focus List” (PDF, H/T to Liberal Conspiracy). I’m not quite an anarchist – although some of my best friends are, and the works of people like David Friedman (PDF) and Georgetown legal philosopher John Hasnas (PDF) make me unsure. But saying that "anarchists should be reported to your local Police" is a pretty extraordinary command that should worry everybody. Disliking the state is now enough for your neighbours to report on you, and for plod to take notice.
Instead of a legitimate request for information about people who might be violent at riots (who quite incorrectly call themselves anarchists while demanding more state spending), the police have targeted people who believe something to spy on. The reason, in the police’s own words, is that anarchists:
consider the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society.
Heaven forbid that anybody think the state might be harmful. Where could they have gotten that idea from? Fortunately the police are on their way, and they’re here to help.
The thinking behind this is, at best, a misunderstanding of the police’s role. They police are supposed to protect people from harm – not the state from peaceful change. Thinking that the police should protect the state from peaceful reform is more akin to 20th century totalitarianism than modern liberal democracy. Let’s not fall for the myth that a small group of violent thugs somehow implicates other people who share some of their beliefs. Nobody should be considered a criminal because of their opinions. If the police are getting involved, actions are what count.
We should be profoundly disturbed by this development, and not because it’s people who mistrust the state that are being targeted. The police section that released this piece is probably incompetent. But they’re incompetents who have the power to throw innocent people in jail, and they're sniffing around people who've had "bad" thoughts.
No, this isn’t East Germany, where you’d be thrown in jail (or worse) for holding unusual political opinions. But, when the police investigate people for thoughtcrime, it’s not the England that most people think they live in either.
British Teenagers can earn university entrance by by going trekking, diving and whale-watching
Teenagers on gap years are being given university entrance points for adventures abroad. They can put experiences such as whale watching, trekking and diving towards a Certificate of Personal Effectiveness – equivalent to an A grade at AS-level.
Those who gain a level three in the CoPE receive 70 Ucas points, which could help them secure a university place. An A* at A-level is worth 140 Ucas points. Gap-year companies are promoting the certificate as a way for teenagers to secure university places.
But critics say the inclusion of such qualifications in the Ucas tariff system is ‘crazy’ and warn that the CoPE could give students a false sense of security when applying for courses.
There are also concerns that the extra points awarded for gap-year activities could see wealthier students edging out rivals who have the same grades but cannot afford to spend a year out travelling and volunteering.
The CoPE requires students to choose challenges from six modules: global awareness, enrichment activities, work-related activities, active citizenship, career planning and extended project.
They gain five credits for 50 hours’ activity, with at least 15 credits from three different modules required to complete the qualification.
The Frontier website, which provides gap-year advice, says the CoPE ‘will appeal to potential employers or university applications’. It adds: ‘If you just missed out on a university place or just want to boost your score, a CoPE would be a good way to do it.’
Holly Taylor, from Camps International, which specialises in expeditions to Africa and Asia, said acquiring Ucas points for overseas trips was a convenient way for ‘gappers’ to kill two birds with one stone. She said: ‘As well as doing a gap year they are able to come back and better themselves at university here.’
She added that the first two students from Camps International to achieve the CoPE secured their university places with the extra Ucas points they gained.
But Professor Alison Wolf, who led a government inquiry into education qualifications, said: ‘It underlines the craziness of trying to put points on everything that moves. ‘There is a danger that people will believe that universities will treat all points as equal and a terrible danger that the most vulnerable people will be misled and make choices they shouldn’t make.’
Professor Alan Smithers, director of Buckingham University’s Centre for Education and Employment Research, said: ‘To get into Oxford or Cambridge, I’m not sure these gap-year A-level points will make any difference. They are not going to rate very highly among A*s in physics, maths and chemistry.’
Overseas volunteering is a multi-billion-pound industry, with the average gap-year traveller, aged 18 to 24, spending £3,000-£4,000 on the trip, according to analysts Mintel. But the economic downturn and next year’s tripling of the limit on tuition fees have seen the numbers planning gap years fall from 20,000 in 2010 to 6,000 this year, Ucas figures show. And students who defer their places for gap years face paying fees of up to £9,000 next September.
A spokesman for The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said it was up to universities whether they wanted to charge those students under the current fee regime or at 2012 levels.
However, students can complete the CoPE without taking a year out or going abroad. It is aimed at anyone aged over 16 and some study for it by doing voluntary work during their A-levels.
A Ucas spokesman said it was possible to use activities gained ‘from a wide variety of experiences to inform a course of study’ and to attract tariff points.
Book Review of "Junk Medicine" by Theodore Dalrymple (Harriman House Ltd)
Review by Dr. Alick Dowling -- review originaly prepared for the Bristol Med Chi society. The "junk" referred to is alleged drugs of addiction, principally opiates
This book will be of special interest to members of the Bristol Med Chi and the Bristol BMA. Many flocked to hear Theodore Dalrymple at the annual joint meeting in Bristol, Jan 2005. He spoke on ‘The Story of the Corruption of Britain’, summarized in The Spectator 22 Jan 2005 describing his retirement from the NHS in ‘A Doctor’s Farewell’. He has regular columns in the BMJ, Spectator and other outlets such as The Wall Street Journal. In his alter ego he is also an admired book reviewer. This book published in the UK in September appeared last year in the USA as Romancing Opiates. Theodore Dalrymple himself summarized it in the article: ‘Poppycock’ in The Wall Street Journal 25 May 2006.
His sardonic wit is famous and readers familiar with his written style could legitimately wonder how he entices patients to speak so frankly. It seems unbelievable they could actually say what he reports. Those who assume his speech resembles his written style suspect him of invention, but anyone who had the opportunity to talk to him at the Bristol meeting found him courteous, cheerful, smiling readily and listening attentively. It must be difficult for his patients to remain hostile when confronted by an engaging smiling face eager to listen to anything you say. In short, his charm disarms those patients inclined to be surly. A less sympathetic questioner would not have so soothing an effect. Dalrymple’s columns make compulsive reading because he can convey succinctly, yet with humour, their usually bleak message.
In Junk Medicine he questions the long-held belief, popular since 1822 when Thomas De Quincey published The Confessions of an English Opium Eater, that addiction to opiates is a medical problem, when it is not a medical but really a moral or social problem. This message is encapsulated in the subtitle ‘Doctors, Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy’.
It is stated explicitly in the Introduction: “Addiction to opiates is a pretend rather than a real illness, treatment of which is pretend rather than real treatment. How and why addicts came to lie to doctors, how and why doctors came to return the compliment, and how and why society in general swallowed the lies wholesale, is explored in this book.”
At the beginning of his career as a doctor and psychiatrist in prisons Dalrymple accepted uncritically the belief – which he now knows to be a myth – that addiction was a medical problem to be treated by doctors. As the incidence of addiction increased steeply, despite and probably because of, the increasing number of drug clinics he began to think about it more.
He does not rely exclusively on medical or pharmacological sources though these are fully discussed in Chapter 1 ‘Lies! Lies! Lies!’ The title Junk Medicine is not an oxymoron but a reference to Junkie, William Burroughs’s autobiographical first book in 1953. Under the subheading ‘The Addictive Nature of Opiates’ Dalrymple dismisses Junkie in his characteristic way: “This book is a mixture of self-serving lies and exhibitionist frankness typical of the genre of opiate confessional. In one of his rare moments of truthfulness, probably accidental and certainly without realization of the moral significance of what he is saying, the psychopathic Burroughs writes: ‘You don’t wake up one morning and decide to be a drug addict. It takes at least three months’ shooting twice a day to get any habit at all.’ In other words, the establishment of an addiction requires a certain discipline or determination.”
Later in Chapter 1 under the heading ‘The Alleged Horrors of Withdrawal’ we read “But are the withdrawal symptoms from heroin (and other opiates) so very terrible? In the standard view of heroin addiction, they are. But let me quote from some of the major medical textbooks of our day: ‘Although opiate withdrawal is not life-threatening, patients can become extremely dysphoric. (Jay H. Stein, Internal Medicine, 5th edition, St Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1999, p. 2297)’. ‘Dysphoric’ means, of course, unhappy or disgruntled, though ‘dysphoric’ sounds very much more precise, technical, and medical: In other words, they are unhappy or disgruntled because they are not getting what they want. But, to adapt P. G. Wodehouse slightly, which of us is gruntled all the time?”
In the middle Chapter 2 –‘The Literature of Exaggeration and Self-Dramatisation’ The author uses his literary knowledge to explore the historical reasons why such a widely held false belief, including the impossibility that heroin or opiate addicts can stop without unbearable suffering, can be traced back to the mass credulity in descriptions by such writers as De Quincey and Coleridge on opiate addiction. Theodore Dalrymple with his interest in English and foreign literature and writing is akin to another much admired medical writer of the last century, Richard Asher (1912-1969) now out of fashion but well worth reading. The latter was also eager to espouse unpopular causes and was a champion of common sense.
In Chapter 3 ‘The Show Must Go On’ the recurring theme is the influence of bureaucracy. When a ‘Drugs Tsar’ was appointed in the UK, it was only to be expected that there would be an ‘Empire’ for him to administer. And so it was: bureaucrats built the appropriate house of cards that took over the whole edifice of drug treatment clinics. The doctors and ancillary staff who work in them accept the assumptions on which they are run, including the idea, quite contrary to common sense, of substituting methadone for opiates. Though it is a house of cards, it will be difficult to dismantle: the bureaucrats have fixed the cards with glue, and the inmates have no incentive to destroy their place of employment – and has anyone heard of bureaucrats being defeated on their chosen pitch?
In ‘Auxiliary Workers’ Need for Addicts’ Dr Dalrymple tells of how he once pointed out that there was no ‘evidence-based medicine’ to support methadone substitution for opiates; a medical colleague “reacted with something akin to a cry of panic: You’re challenging the consensus, he said, as if to do so were automatically to be wrong, or worse still, wicked. The apparatchik mentality is far from unique to the former Soviet Union.”
Under his final subheading ‘What Is To Be Done?’ the author discusses whether opiates should be legalized. We might expect Theodore Dalrymple, with a reputation for dogmatic statements, to have a decided view, but he puts the alternatives clearly and with moderation, and comes to a conclusion with some reluctance that “on balance, therefore, I think that the arguments against legalization, however formulated, are stronger than those in favour.”
At the end of this section he writes: “I would suggest the closure of all clinics claiming to treat drug addicts, the modern bureaucratic institutionalization of Romantic ideas. This would put an end to the harmful pretence that addicts are ill and in need of treatment. In the former Soviet Union, there was a saying of the workers that ‘We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.’ Drug addicts could say something similar to capture the reality of the current system: ‘We pretend to be ill, and they pretend to cure us.’ Henceforth, instead, doctors should treat addicts only for the serious physical complications of drug addiction: abscesses, viral infections and the like. Addicts would then have to face the truth. Whatever their background, they are as responsible for their actions as anyone else. The truth will not necessarily set them free, but neither will it enchain them in ‘mind-forg’d manacles’.”
The Appendix ‘A Short Anthology of Nonsense’ provides examples to show how the influence of De Quincey and his followers still underlies the view that opiate withdrawal is so difficult and painful that no victim should be expected to undergo something so dreadful. These examples make melancholy reading. It is depressing to realise how many of the young are still wilfully misled by literary traditions that persist in books like Trainspotting, (1993) – later a popular film.
Junk Medicine is a well presented, and well produced book; even its index is worth reading, with many literary references, including Wodehouse and Violet Elizabeth. (Somerset Maugham gets one page reference, though he appears in the Appendix as well as Chapter 3). My only regret is that the impressive structure of the overall argument is not displayed in the list of Contents. That parsimoniously lists only the Introduction, the three Chapters, and the Appendix and Index. To omit the very relevant, witty and instructive subheadings, hidden in the text of the three Chapters, is a shame. These subheadings divide the logical argument into short essays typical of Theodore Dalrymple’s style, a master of concision. They are like a series of gems joined into the three necklaces that constitute the three main Chapters – a total of twenty-seven essays. For example, Chapter 1 has eleven essays distinguished by subheadings such as: The Misconception of the Problem, The Standard or Orthodox View, The Alleged Horrors of Withdrawal, The Alleged Need for Treatment, The New Methadone.
It is a pity that all eleven are not set out in full in the list of Contents as that would help the reader to find gems he wants to re-read. All will bear re-reading. And of course the same is true of Chapter 2, devoted to The Literary Tradition, and of Chapter 3 bringing the argument to its conclusion, divided respectively into seven and nine no less compact and forceful essays.
This book is one to be welcomed wholeheartedly, and needs to be read widely both by doctors, who will enjoy the education it gives so refreshingly, and by the ‘drug-treating community’ who perhaps will not.
Received via email from the author
Device designed to beat obesity helps cure diabetes
Very interesting. Obesity is sometimes held to CAUSE Diabetes but note below that the diabetes remits BEFORE weight loss. It's consistent with the view that obesity challenges diabetes but does not cause it
An implanted sleeve that looks like a giant sausage skin is being used to tackle the most common form of diabetes. The 2ft-long device, developed as an incision-less alternative to a type of weight-loss surgery known as a duodenal switch, can reverse the disease within weeks.
The duodenum is the name for the first 10 to 12in of the small intestine, which attaches to the stomach. A duodenal switch is a keyhole procedure that involves making two incisions at the start and end of the duodenum. The lower part of the intestine is attached to the stomach, forming a new pathway.
Food then bypasses most of the duodenum, which limits absorption. Long-term risks include hernia and bowel obstruction.
The device, the EndoBarrier, is designed to have the same effects as surgery but is far safer. It is a plastic sleeve that lines the duodenum, meaning food can only be absorbed lower down the intestine.
The procedure is performed under anaesthetic in less than an hour. The sleeve – made from a thin plastic – is inserted via the mouth and passed into the digestive tract using a thin tube. Once in place, a sprung titanium anchor prevents it slipping out. It is removed after a year.
During trials researchers found that in obese patients who also suffered diabetes, the disease went into remission. Initially experts believed it was a result of weight loss – but many patients were able to stop taking their diabetes medication before they began to lose weight.
The discovery has led to clinical trials at three hospitals, which found the implant also seems to lower cholesterol levels and blood pressure.
Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition caused by too much sugar in the blood. Initial symptoms include extreme thirst, tiredness and blurred vision. Sufferers are five times more likely to suffer from heart disease and strokes and can suffer sight loss, nerve damage and kidney disease. Ten per cent of all NHS spending – £9 billion a year – goes on treating diabetes, and £130 million is spent on tablets alone.
Type 2 diabetes occurs due to problems with the way the body handles insulin, a hormone that controls the amount of glucose in the blood.
When we eat, the digestive system breaks down food to release the nutrients from it. These nutrients, including glucose, enter your bloodstream. Normally, insulin is produced by the pancreas to move glucose from the blood into the cells, where it is broken down to produce energy.
It is thought that type 2 diabetes is a result of the body being unable to produce enough insulin or because the cells in the body do not react properly to insulin.
Affecting 2.8 million Britons, poor diet, lack of exercise, carrying excess weight as well as a family history contribute to the development of the disease. The condition is treated with drugs designed to increase insulin production or reduce insulin resistance, but these do not stop the progression of diabetes, and some can also have side effects such as nausea, weight gain or liver damage.
With the EndoBarrier, the duodenum is bypassed, altering the balance of hormones in the body leading to a reversal in diabetes symptoms. ‘Food passing through the intestine triggers the release of hormones in the body,’ says Dr John Mason, consultant gastroenterologist at Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust, who implanted the first EndoBarrier in the UK. ‘These hormones have different functions, including signalling that the pancreas gland should release insulin.’
Results from a new study at Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, Somerset, show that in 72 per cent of cases, diabetic patients went into remission after the EndoBarrier was fitted, and after a year all had no need for medication.
‘The operation is available only privately,’ says Dr Mason. ‘The NHS has yet to decide on whether it should be a treatment.’ The operation costs £8,000. One patient to benefit is Jason McCullen, 39, an IT consultant from Sale, Manchester. He developed diabetes in 2009. He had the EndoBarrier implanted at Trafford Hospital, Manchester this year. ‘I didn’t feel any pain afterwards. My waist over the past three months has gone from 42in to 38in. And I don’t need medication.’
Breakthrough MS pill rejected as too expensive by NHS watchdog (but you can get it in U.S and Germany)
The first pill to treat MS could be banned for use by NHS patients because it’s ‘too expensive’. The once-a-day pill fingolimod cuts by half the relapses that can lead to people being increasingly disabled, and experts hoped it would replace injections and hospital infusions for thousands of sufferers.
Until now, many people with Multiple Sclerosis have had to self inject at least weekly or travel to hospital for infusions.
But the NHS rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), says it is not value for money despite criticism over how it reached its verdict.
The MS Society said sufferers would be better off living almost anywhere else in Europe because access to new treatments is so poor in the UK – it is ranked 13th out of 14 countries in terms of getting advanced care.
The charity and the drug manufacturer Novartis plan to appeal the provisional Nice decision.
MS is the most common disabling neurological condition, affecting almost 100,000 Britons - 50 young people are diagnosed each week. It involves damage to myelin, a protective sheath surrounding nerve fibres of the central nervous system which means the body's immune system attacks itself.
Symptoms range from mild, occasional illness involving numbness, muscle weakness and eye problems to rapid and severe deterioration, resulting in serious disability.
Dr Eli Silber, consultant neurologist who leads an MS service for South London based at King’s College Hospital said ‘This is disappointing and I hope Nice will review its draft decision.
‘The computer models used to determine cost effectiveness don’t take into account the significant amount of money that would be spent on patients at the end of life with severe disability, when there isn’t much we can do.
‘MS often affects young people, with families and work, and this decision denies them the opportunity to have the risk of disability reduced at a much earlier stage.’
Experts believe the drug, which is the first oral treatment, has the potential to be one of the most significant advances for a decade. Trial results in the New England Journal of Medicine last year show fingolimod, also known as Gilenya, cuts relapse rates and holds back progression of the disease.
Patients treated with fingolimod had a 50 per cent cut in disabling relapses compared with commonly used injections of beta interferon. The chances of progressing to a worse form of the disease were cut by about a third, without significant side effects. The new drug appears to dampen the immune response that causes nerve damage in multiple sclerosis.
The £19,000 annual cost of the drug compares with the £21,000 annual cost of hospital infusions using Tysabri, but is more expensive than interferon injections ranging from £6,000 - £8,000 a year.
However, MS specialists say the drug could make overall savings for the NHS, because fewer patients would need hospital treatment costing £3,000 a time after relapse and disability is lessened....
Professor Carole Longson, director of the Health technology evaluation centre at Nice said ‘While it’s important that people with multiple sclerosis have treatment options, Nice has to ensure that the NHS provides treatments that bring benefits that are value for money.
'Unfortunately our independent committee wasn’t given sufficient evidence to show that fingolimod could reduce relapses considerably better than the other treatments currently being used. 'Based on the available clinical evidence and economic analysis, our independent committee concluded that fingolimod would not be effective good use of NHS resources.’
EYE DRUG APPEAL
Four UK charities are appealing against a decision to ban a drug that could lead to thousands of people with diabetes needlessly losing their sight.
Lucentis was launched earlier this year for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema (DMO), which affects around 50,000 Britons causing problems with reading, driving and recognising faces.
Previously laser treatment was used to stabilise the condition which if left untreated causes 30 per cent of patients to go blind, but clinical trials show Lucentis can help reverse vision loss for some patients.
But the NHS rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), has decided the drug is not ‘an effective use of NHS resources’ and proposes to ban it.
Nice tried to ban Lucentis before, when it was initially used for wet age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, in 2007, with a decision that meant patients had to go blind in one eye first but was forced into a U-turn after thousands of protests.
The charities Diabetes UK, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), Macular Disease Society and the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) say the latest proposal to ban the drug was made without proper consultation and Nice should be trying to find a solution allowing diabetic patients to get it on the NHS.
Lucentis costs around £750 per injection, although a patient access scheme for AMD patients capped the cost to the NHS at £10,400 for 14 injections or more.
The charities are arguing that they and other key stakeholders have not been able to comment on significant new evidence submitted to Nice by the drug's manufacturer Novartis.
The charities are calling for a proper consultation allowing stakeholders to submit their evaluations.
Steve Winyard, RNIB head of policy and campaigns said at least 5,000 diabetic patients a year could be eligible for the drug, which has a better chance of saving their sight than existing treatment. He said ‘Patients at risk of losing their sight have a right to expect that a full review of all the available information takes place.'
The charities are also urging the drug manufacturer, the Department of Health and Nice to reconsider the option of a Patient Access Scheme. Simon O'Neill, Director of Care and Advocacy at Diabetes UK, said ‘It is vital people with diabetes are able to access this treatment on the NHS.’
A Novartis spokesman said the company had submitted a patient access scheme to Nice and the Department of Health and is continuing negotiations to achieve a ‘mutually agreeable solution, which will ultimately benefit patients’.
Distinguished old lady dies after doctors miss her broken NECK and send her home without an X-ray
A former school inspector died after hospital medics didn't notice she had fractured her neck. Pensioner Joan Mary North, known as Mary, complained of severe neck pain but was discharged in agony without an x-ray, an inquest heard. The 82-year-old, who was a long-serving member of the Conservative Party, had received an OBE for services to politics and education.
The cause of death from the autopsy was given as a heart attack, but the fractured odontoid neck pain was given as a contributing factor.
Mrs North suffered a fractured odontoid peg - part of the spine - after a fall on March 19. An outpatient appointment with a physiotherapist revealed the fracture and she was readmitted in April 5 and died in hospital on April 13.
Mrs North, a former president of the Croydon Conservative Federation, was admitted to Croydon University Hospital's accident and emergency department the same day but doctors said she did not need an X-ray and she was discharged.
Mrs North was a domestic science teacher before she became a schools inspector and her dedication was rewarded with an OBE in 1997 for her services to politics and education.
At an inquest into her death a Croydon Coroner's Court last week, her friend Shirley Trimmer described the agony Mrs North was in when she was being discharged. She said: 'I watched my friend die in the most ghastly situation imaginable and it could have been stopped if she had been admitted.'
Croydon University Hospital chief executive Nick Hulme wrote to Mrs Trimmer to apologise for not dealing with Mrs North's pain sufficiently.
Mrs Trimmer said Mrs North should have been kept in overnight 'if only for the shock', which meant somebody would have noticed the fractured neck. She said: 'She was terribly upset. She said "they are going to send me home" and I thought they had made a mistake. 'She was saying "my neck hurts so badly, please do something" but the nurse was adamant.'
Mrs Trimmer hoped the inquest would mean the same mistakes were not made again.
Chief executive Mr Hulme said the doctors carried out a five point Nexus test to see if Mrs North's neck needed an X-ray and results indicated she did not.
He added Mrs North could move her neck 45 degrees in both directions and this contributed to the decision to discharge her. But he admitted she was experiencing a lot of pain and she should not have been discharged.
Gavin Marsh, medical director at the hospital, told the inquest the accident and emergency department gets 400 patients a day and cannot admit them all. He said the proviso was that if the condition gets worse then come back to hospital. He said: 'The prediction was that Mary's pain would go away in a day or two and she will be fine but that did not happen.'
He blamed fewer beds and performance markers putting pressure on how many people can be admitted, saying 20 years ago this would not have happened.
Mr Hulme said staff involved in the case had been 're-educated' about how to deal with similar situations.
Dr Roy Palmer, Croydon coroner, read a report from Mrs North's GP which showed she had suffered from multiple health problems including heart disease.
The British primary school where just FOUR pupils out of nearly 500 speak English as mother tongue
A School with more than 400 pupils has only four for whom English is their mother tongue. In one of Britain’s most extreme cases, it has emerged that less than 1 per cent of pupils at Bradford Moor Community Primary School speak English as their first language.
The school is in one of the city’s most deprived areas, and 90 per cent of the 417 pupils are from Pakistan. Many arrive at the school unable to speak a word of English.
A leading think-tank said it was a worrying sign that cities were becoming ‘racially segregated’ and leading ‘parallel lives’, while MPs described the situation as ‘unacceptable’.
Almost one million children in the UK speak English as a second language. Last month, the Mail reported on St Matthew’s Primary School in Redhill, Surrey, where pupils can speak 44 languages.
A snapshot survey of Bradford’s primary schools revealed that more than half of pupils spoke English as a second language. In three schools, fewer than ten children spoke English as their native tongue.
Last night Shipley MP Philip Davies criticised parents who allowed their children to start school with scant knowledge of their adopted home’s language. He said: ‘This is a totally unacceptable situation that primary schools find themselves in. 'Primary schools have got to presume that children can at least communicate in some form. Teachers are having to start with one hand tied behind their backs. ‘For me it is one of the key factors as to why Bradford so under-performs nationally on education.’
Official figures show that nearly 17 per cent of pupils in state-funded primary schools did not speak English as a first language last year, up from 12 per cent in 2006.
Dr David Green, of independent think-tank Civitas, said the language barrier was creating ‘dangerous divisions’ in society. He said: ‘Children cannot even start to get an education if they do not even speak the same language as the teacher. ‘It is also not fair on the 1 per cent of children who do speak English because their lessons will be compromised.
‘The only long-term solution is that people should not be allowed into Britain if they don’t speak English.’ Razwana Mahmood, the chairman of Bradford Moor’s governors’ board, is a former pupil and did not speak English when he started. On the school’s website, he writes: ‘I remember very clearly my first day at school and everything the teachers said to me. ‘Nothing unusual you might think, except, I had only just arrived from Pakistan and could not speak a single word of English.
‘My teachers were very kind to me. They offered me words of reassurance and went out of their way to comfort me as I was so distraught. Years later, when I had a better understanding of the English language, it all fell into place.’ He says that despite ‘most of our children still starting school unable to speak much English’, this has never been considered a ‘hindrance’.
The school holds several ‘booster’ classes every week to help pupils with their English and is understood to have teaching assistants to help the students with their language skills.
One former Asian pupil, who attended Bradford Moor in the mid-1990s, said: ‘When I was at school there, there were white kids speaking to us in Urdu or Punjabi. ‘Many kids were embarrassed to speak their own language. I had one white friend who could speak Punjabi fluently. ‘Bradford is full of Asians and their first language is always going to be Urdu or Punjabi.’
In a 2009 Ofsted report, inspectors noted that ‘most pupils enter school with either little or no English and are weak in home language development.’
How are the self-righteous fallen! Journalist at "The Guardian" admits phone hacking
THE British phone-hacking saga deepened as it was revealed that the assistant editor of The Guardian - the newspaper that originally uncovered the scandal - admitted hacking into telephone messages and getting a "thrill" from it.
In an article written for the media section of the newspaper in 2006, David Leigh said he hacked into private voicemails in order to explose "bribery and corruption," not "witless tittle-tattle."
Leigh, a Guardian executive, wrote the article after News of the World (NotW) royal editor Clive Goodman pleaded guilty to phone hacking, a crime for which he was later jailed. He wrote, "I've used some of those questionable methods myself over the years. I, too, once listened to the mobile phone messages of a corrupt arms company executive - the crime similar to that for which Goodman now faces the prospect of jail."
The journalist said the trick was "simple" as the businessman in question had left his voicemail pin code on a print-out.
Leigh added, "There is certainly a voyeuristic thrill in hearing another person's private messages. But unlike Goodman, I was not interested in witless tittle-tattle about the royal family." He also admitted to blagging - pretending to be someone else on the phone - to get stories and added, "As for actually breaking the law? Well, it is hard to keep on the right side of legality on all occasions."
The article came to light as it emerged that several alleged victims of phone hacking will soon file lawsuits against a second newspaper group, Piers Morgan's former employer, Trinity Mirror. The victims' lawyer, Mark Lewis, said the claims would be filed in a few weeks but did not disclose his clients' identities.
So far, the phone-hacking scandal centered on Rupert Murdoch's News International newspaper group, leading him to shut down the NotW.
A businessman has been awarded record costs of £100,000 against a former employee who made false allegations of sexual harassment. Debbie Smith claimed she was forced out of her job after Tim Watts, chairman of the Pertemps recruitment agency, called her a ‘sexy nurse’ as part of a stream of ‘degrading and offensive’ comments.
Mr Watts, 62, said: ‘These vexatious spongers have to be taught a lesson. And she has been, big time. ‘Like many others, Debbie Smith no doubt thought she could secure an easy bung. Most companies, even when they are in the right, which I would submit tends to be the majority of the time, settle such disputes because of the spiralling cost of fighting them. ‘Not me. I have never taken a backward step in my life. My reputation means everything to me, and I wasn’t having it. I wanted the truth to come out. And it did.’
Mother-of-three Mrs Smith was sacked as the £90,000-a-year managing director of a subsidiary of Pertemps, P Investments, after it lost £250,000. She sued for sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and victimisation.
Mr Watts maintained there was no truth in the allegations, which he said were made in ‘pique and anger’ following Mrs Smith’s dismissal, and the claims were branded ‘vexatious and frivolous’ by a Birmingham tribunal in March.
It ruled that 50-year-old Mrs Smith had been ‘out to get’ Mr Watts, and said she made her allegations to try to force a payout after the ‘catastrophic’ failure of the subsidiary venture.
Last month the tribunal ordered Mrs Smith to pay P Investments £100,000. Mr Watts had initially claimed £250,000, but settled for less than half that rather than see his accuser go bankrupt. The previous highest costs award is thought to be £67,000.
Mr Watts, whose fortune is estimated at £35million, said small firms and charities were ‘groaning under the burden of complying with employment law that encourages employees to misrepresent themselves as victims of discrimination whenever their poor performance or behaviour is tackled’. He added: ‘The Debbie Smiths of this world should never get to the starting block.’
Girl paralysed after diving into her friend’s swimming pool loses £6m damages claim after judge says owner 'didn’t need warning signs in his own home'
A teenager who was paralysed in a swimming accident at a late-night party lost her £6million compensation bid yesterday. Kylie Grimes was left paralysed from the chest down after hitting her head diving into a pool at a friend’s house when she was 18.
A High Court judge said she had suffered ‘catastrophic’ consequences from the misjudged dive, but ruled it would not be fair to allow her to sue the pool’s owner – her friend’s father – for £6million in compensation.
Mrs Justice Thirlwall said: ‘She was an adult. She did something which carried an obvious risk. She chose, voluntarily, to dive when, how and where she did, knowing the risks involved.’
Miss Grimes, now 23, hit the bottom of the pool with such force that she broke a vertebra below the base of her neck. She has lost the use of her arms and legs and is confined to a wheelchair. An ‘accomplished swimmer’ before the accident, she had drunk three or four small glasses of wine before the dive, but was not drunk.
Other teenagers at the party, at the home of businessman David Hawkins, were jumping and ‘bombing’ into the 30ft heated indoor pool, the High Court in London was told.
Mr Hawkins, who runs a forklift truck business, and his wife were not at home on the night of the party in August 2006. They had given permission for their 18-year-old daughter Katie to invite two friends to stay the night, and later said another two friends could stay. But around 20 teenagers ended up at the house in an exclusive area of Farnham, Surrey, after Miss Hawkins met up with friends from her sixth-form college at a nearby pub. Miss Hawkins insisted she had only invited five people she knew well and told the court: ‘Everyone else just turned up.’
Some of the youngsters had been drinking, and there was a ‘party atmosphere’ at the house, worth an estimated £1.5million.
The court heard that Miss Hawkins had handed a bikini top and tracksuit bottoms to Miss Grimes so she could go swimming.
The teenager, a keen horse rider and school athlete, swam for around 30 minutes before getting out, then re-entered the pool in a ‘shallow racing dive’. The judge said the dive must have been steeper than she thought, as she hit the bottom and immediately told friends her legs were not working properly.
Miss Grimes was taken to hospital but despite doctors’ efforts she was left tetraplegic. She can only move with the aid of a specialised wheelchair.
Miss Grimes sued Mr Hawkins claiming he was negligent because there were no signs warning against diving. Her lawyers said the combination of a teenage party and an unlocked swimming pool was ‘a recipe for disaster’.
But lawyers for Mr Hawkins said there was no legal requirement for such signs on a private pool and that other people, including his own teenage daughters, had dived there safely. Mrs Justice Thirlwall threw out the negligence claim, saying: ‘It would not be fair, just or reasonable.’
She said diving into a pool always carried an inherent danger, adding: ‘Every adult of normal intelligence knows it. The claimant in this case knew it.’
Miss Grimes has also launched legal proceedings against Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust, which has admitted breach of duty over her treatment but denies that its actions made her injuries worse. That case has yet to be heard.
British bureaucrats just love finding excuses to put other people out.
When her seven-year-old daughter complained of dry lips, Joanne Wilkins gave her a tiny tin of Vaseline to apply at school. But when Ellie-Maye went to use it, it was confiscated – because it is not a prescribed medicine.
And when Mrs Wilkins queried the decision, she was told if she wanted her daughter to moisturise her lips, she would need to take her out of school to apply the Vaseline.
‘This is health and safety gone mad,’ said Mrs Wilkins, 28, a project manager, yesterday. ‘Where has common sense gone? I can’t believe how my daughter was humiliated. ‘This harmless ointment was taken away in front of all her friends. She was made to feel naughty and as a result was close to tears – all over a tiny pot of Vaseline.’
Mrs Wilkins took advice over her daughter’s dry lips from her pharmacist. She said: ‘She recommended Vaseline Lip Therapy. It is the basic original Vaseline – just petroleum jelly - and is colourless and odourless. ‘She could apply it as often as she wished and it comes in a tiny pocket-sized tin that Ellie-Maye could easily carry in her schoolbag.
‘In fact, Ellie-Maye needed help opening the tin and the first teacher of the day helped her and had no problem with the Vaseline at all. But at lunchtime, when she went to apply the Vaseline again, a second teacher she asked to help open it said she shouldn’t have it in school at all. ‘Then in front of all Ellie-Maye’s friends, she took it away.’
The next day, puzzled as to why the Vaseline had been confiscated, Mrs Wilkins went to see Graham Prince, headmaster of Wistaston Church Lane Primary School near her home in Sandbach, Cheshire.
Mrs Wilkins, who also has a son Issac, two months, with her husband Nick, said: ‘Ellie-Maye was really upset and I thought there must be some mistake. ‘But he just confirmed that unless the Vaseline was prescribed then she was not allowed to use it in school.
‘I was shocked – especially when he suggested one way round it was to “medicate” Ellie-Maye by taking her out of school. ‘Alternatively, I could come to the school to apply it. I thought this was ridiculous that I would be expected to find time off work or that Ellie-Maye’s education should suffer in some way.
‘Anyone of any age can buy Vaseline in the supermarket. As she had my permission to use it and you don’t even need to buy it from a chemist, it seemed such an over-the-top reaction.’
Mrs Wilkins has now been forced to have the Vaseline prescribed with a doctor’s note – at a cost of £15. She said: ‘My GP said that as it wasn’t a medicine and doesn’t need to be prescribed, it shouldn’t be done under the NHS. It would therefore need a private doctor’s note.
‘It seemed ridiculous as the little tin to buy costs under £1. However, as Ellie-Maye still suffers from dry lips and I don’t want her to suffer, I’ve had no choice.’
Last night the school head refused to comment. However, a spokesman from Cheshire East Council said on behalf of the school: ‘The school has to be one hundred per cent certain that any ointment or medication that a child brings into school is safe to use.
‘Our school policy sets out that any type of oral ointment or medicine to be self-administered in school should be prescribed by a physician. ‘Our only interest is the protection of children in our care and it is with this in mind that we applied our school policy.’ [Rubbish!]
Green taxes to pay subsidies 'will cost up to 30,000 jobs', British report warns
Green plans to boost renewable energy will destroy up to 30,000 British jobs, according to a hard-hitting report.
David Cameron and his ministers have repeatedly claimed that raising green taxes to pay for subsidies for low carbon technologies such as wind farms will boost economic growth and create 70,000 ‘green collar’ jobs.
But that claim has been torpedoed by John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, an independent group that studies the green energy industry.
He said the Prime Minister’s hopes were ‘staggeringly far-fetched’ and warned that the subsidies will put people on the dole and lead to higher energy prices. Mr Constable studied the EU-wide subsidies and concluded that Spain will generate huge numbers of green jobs while workers and consumers in the UK are hit hard.
‘Green economic policies mean more pain than gain for Britain,’ he concluded. ‘The “green economy” will drain investment from other sectors, making Britons pay more for electricity indefinitely and live less productive lives with access to fewer jobs.’
Mr Constable’s findings are a blow for Mr Cameron, who has made pushing renewable energy a centrepiece of his campaign to detoxify the Tory Party since he became leader six years ago.
The report, entitled The Green Mirage, exposes the colossal scale of public subsidies for renewable energy and warns that by propping up many of these schemes, ministers have simply ‘picked losers’ and prevented the development of more cost-effective ways of generating energy.
It says the UK’s £5billion subsidy to renewable electricity generators in the eight years to 2010 was the equivalent of paying every worker in the wind industry £230,000. Each job in the wind industry was subsidised to the tune of £54,000 last year.
The Green Mirage quotes models developed for the European Commission which suggested that the EU’s climate policies will have only ‘slight’ benefits for GDP and employment by 2020, but that these will not be felt by Britain.
The Commission’s study suggested that Spain would gain 120,000 jobs under current green policies, rising to more than 150,000 if subsidies are increased, the report said.
But Britain stands to lose 10,000 jobs under the current anti-global warming regime, potentially rising to 30,000 if policies are speeded up.
Mr Constable said: ‘Continuing to subsidise renewables will impose high costs on the rest of the economy. This will result in net job losses and loss of international competitiveness.’
A Government spokesman said: ‘Increasing the amount of renewable energy we produce in Britain won’t only help our energy security, but will create new business and job opportunities for the economy.’
A spokesman for industry body RenewablesUK said the figures used by Mr Constable were not a reliable guide.
Developments over the past decade were largely focused on onshore wind technology, where the UK had been left behind. But in the coming years, investment was expected to be directed towards offshore wind, where Britain is set to be a market leader.
Clinical negligence claims against the National Health Service have increased by almost a third over the past year, with an extra £100million paid out to victims of medical blunders.
Nearly 9,000 patients claimed for damages after allegedly suffering at the hands of doctors or nurses, figures from the NHS Litigation Authority show. It paid out £863m to victims of accidents in hospitals and clinics, up from £787m the year before, after settling 5,398 cases.
But a quarter of this was spent on legal costs, with £200m going to claimants’ lawyers under the system whereby so-called “ambulance chasers” can charge up to £900 an hour to pursue claims.
The litigation authority’s annual report is scathing about the current regime, which it claims is driving the “rapid growth in claims numbers” rather than any increase in mistakes by NHS staff.
Under the “no-win, no-fee” system set up by Labour so poorer people could have access to justice, known as Conditional Fee Arrangements, claimants do not have to pay for lawyers upfront. But if they win cases, the lawyers can claim big “success fees” from the defendant.
Steve Walker, chief executive of the NHS Litigation Authority , said: “We believe very strongly that a regime which allows success fees and the recoverability of After the Event (ATE) insurance premiums makes litigation so profitable that solicitors and so-called ‘claims farmers’ are drawn into the market thereby fuelling the rise in claims volumes we have experienced.”
However he added that the body is “delighted” that the Ministry of Justice is acting on the Jackson review of civil litigation costs, which recommended that success fees and ATE premiums should not be recoverable in no-win, no-fee cases.
At the same time the Government hopes to save millions every year by scrapping Legal Aid in cases of alleged malpractice.
The litigation authority’s report shows that in total it recorded 12,142 claims against NHS trusts in 2010-11 but expects only 4 per cent to go to court, as most will either be settled beforehand or dropped. Of these, 8,655 were clinical claims, up from 6,652 the previous year, and 4,346 were non-clinical, up from 4,074. A further 22,364 claims were still open at the end of the financial year.
The authority – funded partly by trusts and partly by the Department of Health directly – paid out £729m under its main clinical scheme and a further £134m under claims relating to incidents that took place before 1995. This was an increase on £651m under the current scheme and £136m under the old schemes recorded in 2009-10. A further £47.9m was paid out in non-clinical cases.
However these figures do not only include compensation paid to patients, staff and members of the public but legal costs as well.
“The costs claimed by claimant lawyers continue to be significantly higher than those incurred on our behalf by our panel defence solicitors. This continues to be a major concern.
“The availability of Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) and the continued increase in their use by claimants in clinical negligence claims has also meant that claimants’ costs are almost invariably disproportionate, often significantly, to the amount of damages paid, particularly in low-value claims.
“In the 5,398 clinical negligence claims closed by us with a damages payment in 2010/11, we paid over £257m in total legal costs, of which almost £200m (76 per cent of the total costs expenditure) was paid to claimant lawyers.”
Something that "multiculturalism" has done for Britain
Shaking hands in celebration on a bus, thugs who had just hunted down a schoolboy, 16, like a pack of animals and stabbed him to death
I wonder what they all have in common?
Leaning across the bus seat, these teenage killers shake hands in a sickening moment of self-congratulation. One is heard to say to another: ‘You’re the new young boss.’
Just half an hour earlier they had been among a vicious gang who hunted down a schoolboy ‘like a pack of wild dogs’ before knifing him to death.
The gang are now behind bars. They were jailed for a total of 74 years yesterday over the killing in broad daylight in a busy shopping street of 16-year-old Nicholas Pearton.
The teenager was pursued across a suburban park by his attackers, many of whom were still in their school uniform, before he was stabbed through the heart and collapsed in a shop doorway in front of his mother, Kim.
As the gang fled, they waved their knives in the air and shouted the name of the gang ‘triumphantly’.
Another member Joseph Appiah, then 15, carried out a head count to make sure none of the gang – known as Shanks and Guns (shanks being slang for knives) – had been arrested after the attack in Sydenham, South London, in May last year. Other gang members had abandoned an armoury of weapons including knives and wooden poles in the park.
Lamarr Gordon was sentenced to a minimum of 15 years for his role Dale Green was identified as the person who did the stabbing
The Old Bailey heard that Nicholas, who was training to be a carpenter, was ‘in the eyes of his attackers’ involved with a rival gang, the Sydenham Boys. It was a rivalry, the court was told, fuelled by a threatening video posted on YouTube.
Yesterday the victim’s father Vince Pearton, 43, and mother Kim Whoolley, told of how their family had been torn apart by the death of their son. Lucy Kennedy, prosecuting, read an emotionally-charged statement from the parents.
In it, Mr Pearton said his son’s murder had ‘broken the chain that bonds our family together and we will be forever incomplete. Our loss and accompanying feeling of emptiness is an all-consuming and inescapable daily torment for us’.
The gang were all from South London and aged between 15 and 17 at the time of the attack. They were unmasked yesterday as judge Anthony Morris lifted a ban on reporting their names.
Passing sentence, the judge said the gang was responsible for the ‘senseless and tragic loss of a young life’. ‘This case involved gratuitous violence in public places, which seriously discourages law-abiding citizens from walking the streets,’ he said. ‘The group was like a pack of wild dogs hunting down its prey. ‘This was a particularly cowardly attack, as all the defendants knew he was alone and unarmed.’
Green, 17, of Catford, Gordon, 17, of Bromley, and Appiah, 16, described as a talented athlete of Lewisham, had denied murder but were convicted. They were all sentenced to life with Green jailed for a minimum 15 years, Gordon 14 years and Appiah 12 years.
Four others, Terell Clement, 18, of Deptford, Claude Gaha, 17, of Bromley, Edward Conteh, of Peckham, and Demar Brown, 16, of Hither Green, were jailed for a total of 33 years after being convicted of manslaughter.
Rule change may allow British GPs to ask for divine help with patients and not risk disciplinary action
Family doctors could be allowed to pray with their patients without facing the threat of being suspended. The General Medical Council is to have another look at its rules which mean doctors can face disciplinary action for discussing their religion during appointments.
Earlier this year a Christian GP, Dr Richard Scott, was handed an official warning by the GMC for suggesting a young man under his care could find comfort in Jesus. The patient told his mother about the appointment, who complained to the GMC claiming the doctor had ‘pushed religion’ onto her son.
Dr Scott, from Margate, Kent, is fighting to have the warning removed from his unblemished record, insisting he acted professionally and within the guidelines.
Two years ago a nurse was suspended after offering to pray for an elderly patient during a home visit.
Several GPs, specialist doctors and nurses have since expressed concern that even simply mentioning the topic of religion with patients could lead to them being suspended.
Now the head of the GMC, Niall Dickson, has said he will look at the rules on praying. He told Pulse magazine that GPs should be able to pray or discuss religion as long as the patient was comfortable or ‘receptive’. But he stressed that patients do not go and see their doctor to be ‘converted’ to Christianity or any other faith and that a doctor’s prime responsibility was treatment.
He said, however, that should a patient want to discuss religion or pray with their doctor they should be able to do so regardless if a family member later took offence. He added: ‘The fact the person drawing it to our attention is a relative, friend, or another professional is not important. What is important is what actually happened, what is the evidence behind the complaint and the doctor’s explanation?
‘How does the patient and their relatives view the situation? What are they each bringing to the GMC in terms of evidence for us to consider? ‘Clearly the patient themselves will have a direct experience to tell and therefore will provide stronger evidence than somebody who wasn’t there.’
In 2009 nurse Caroline Petrie was suspended by North Somerset NHS Trust for offering to pray for an elderly patient during a home visit. She has been allowed back to work on the grounds that she offers to pray for patients only after she has asked them if they have any ‘spiritual needs’.
70 per cent of Britons think there are too many migrants in the country
Seven out of 10 Britons think there are too many migrants in the country and only a quarter think immigration is good for the economy.
A survey of 23 countries by pollsters Ipsos Mori, will fuel the row over David Cameron's pledge to cut non-EU immigration to the "tens of thousands". Three quarters said migrants put too much strain on public services and 62 per cent said they made it harder for Britons to find work.
Russians showed the greatest opposition to immigrants with 77 per cent saying their country had too many, while Britain was in line with Belgium, Italy, Spain and South Africa.
The Japanese were happiest, with just 15 per cent wanting fewer. Brazilians were the most positive, with half saying immigrants make their country more interesting.
A spokesman for Ipsos Mori said: "Clearly people in Britain are concerned how immigration is affecting their job opportunities, the strain on public services and impact on a sluggish economy. These concerns are also reflected in many countries around the world."
Elite ISN'T a dirty word as Eton headmaster says it's time to reclaim tarnished term and celebrate success
Society should not be ashamed of elitism, the headmaster of Eton College has insisted. Tony Little believes the term should be ‘reclaimed’ because striving for excellence is vital for success in all walks of life.
He says that elitism has become mistakenly confused with ‘social exclusion’. The headmaster of Britain’s most exclusive school, where fees are £30,981 a year, agreed that Eton was ‘elite’.
He added: ‘But what we need to do is reclaim the word elite. ‘We live in a very strange society where it is possible to talk with impunity about elitism in football, but not in medicine or plumbing or other aspects of life. I would like the plumber I engage to be an elite plumber, and I want to see an elite doctor – it’s to do with excellence. ‘And we are unashamed that excellence is at the heart of what we do. The word has become muddied of course by the notion of social exclusion and that is an important issue.’
His comments come amid concerns that mediocrity has been institutionalised in state schools by encouraging teachers to neglect the brightest pupils, alongside a ‘prizes-for-all’ culture. A recent report by the Policy Exchange think-tank revealed that teachers focused on bumping up pupils from a grade D to a C, rather than those in other grade divides, to improve their rankings in school league tables. And in Key Stage Two results released this week, the number of 11-year-olds exceeding the standard for their age group fell in English, with a dramatic slump in reading prowess.
Mr Little, interviewed for magazine publisher Archant Life London, rejected claims that Eton is restricted to the wealthy and privileged. He said: ‘Eton is more of a mixed clientele than most people would appreciate. For example, 20 per cent of our boys come here with significant financial help, so there is a wider range of backgrounds than I expect people would be prepared to accept or understand.’
Financial help at the school in Berkshire, where most of the 1,300 students enter at age 13, comes in the form of scholarships and means-tested bursaries which can be up to 100 per cent of the fee.
Mr Little said: ‘It’s not just the people who can’t afford anything. ‘It’s the people who used to be able to afford it who now can’t. We are talking about swathes of Middle England – the GP, the country solicitor – who would now find it nigh impossible, unaided, to match the fees of a place like Eton.’
Mr Little wants Eton to have ‘needs blind’ admission in future, which would further widen access to less well-off families. A handful of independent schools currently aim to fund enough bursaries to achieve this, among them St Paul’s School in South-West London.
However only the wealthiest institutions, with wide networks of former pupils in highly-paid jobs, have a realistic chance of raising the millions to fund bursaries for any pupil who needs them.
The Eton admissions process involves testing students’ skills and abilities, evaluation of a report from the pupil’s current school and a face-to-face interview. Five assessors with no knowledge of family financial circumstances then decide who will be offered a place.
Mr Little said: ‘We are ‘‘needs blind’’ in the sense that we look at boys purely in terms of their calibre as candidates to come to Eton. ‘But we are only ‘‘needs blind’’ up to the limits of our bursary pot. That’s what we are working on, to try to build up more money.’
More universities to be created under British government plan
Specialist colleges with just 1,000 students will be allowed to call themselves universities for the first time under Government reforms being published today.
More than a dozen small-scale institutions – often specialising in media, the arts, education or agriculture – could win the right to full university status as soon as next year, it is revealed.
Currently, higher education colleges must attract at least 4,000 full-time students – at least 3,000 of whom must take degree courses – before winning the prestigious title. But the Coalition is proposing to slash the minimum threshold to just 1,000.
Ministers claim the move will improve the status of many small-scale colleges that can already award degrees to undergraduates.
It is likely to herald the biggest expansion of universities since more than 60 former polytechnics and higher education colleges were awarded the title by the Conservatives in the early 90s.
The reforms come as part of wider proposals to create more competition and diversity in English higher education. It follows the publication of alternative plans to grant full degree-awarding powers to private colleges and give students greater access to subsidised grants and loans to take part-time courses.
But the move is likely to anger traditionalists who fear a further expansion in the number of full universities risks devaluing the status of the higher education system and making it even harder for employers to differentiate between institutions.
Prof Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, said universities should be required to teach a range of courses. “What worries me slightly about some of these higher education colleges is that they are very highly specialised,” he said. “An important criteria for me is whether the spread of the courses offered is what you would expect from a university. “It is an essential part of the university experience to learn one subject but interact with a wide variety of students specialising in a number of different fields.”
But David Willetts, the Universities Minister, told the Telegraph: “I want to see a more diverse higher education sector without in any way sacrificing higher education standards.”
Ministers will set out proposals in a consultation document being published today to introduce “wider access to [the] university title for smaller institutions”.
Under plans, higher education colleges with 1,000 full-time students – at least 750 of whom are studying for a degree – would be able to apply for the university title.
Those able to qualify include institutions such as Norwich University College of the Arts and University College Falmouth, which specialise in art, design and media courses, and Bishop Grosseteste University College, which specialises in education and teacher training. Others include agricultural and veterinary science colleges such as Harper Adams and the Royal Agricultural College.
In all, it is believed the title could be extended to around 14 institutions. Those eligible for the change already have degree awarding powers and carry out Government-funded research.
Prof Peter Lutzeier, principal of Newman University College, Birmingham, a Catholic institution specialising in a range of academic subjects, welcomed the change. “While we operate in the same way as universities – conferring our own degrees comparable in quality to those from full universities – we are currently prevented from using the universally-understood term of ‘university’ due to size alone," he said.
"This creates a real perception challenge that means smaller higher education institutions have to spend additional time and resources educating students and employers about the nature and quality of their institution, as well as finding it more difficult to develop international links due to a perceived ‘lack’ of full university status.
“This state of affairs is not only confusing for the public but is also something of an anachronism given that many of our most prestigious full universities actually operate on a smaller, collegiate system. "The collegiate approach is widely praised for allowing students to benefit from high levels of one-to-one tuition and support so why should newer institutions effectively be penalised for following a similar model?"
More leading NHS hospitals predict financial problems
More leading NHS hospitals predict they are getting into financial difficulties as they enter their “most challenging time”, an official report has found. In total 21 Foundation Trusts say they will likely experience cash problems over the next year, up from 13 the last time they were surveyed.
Meanwhile 16 of the hospitals say they are at risk of failing to meet a key target to treat patients on time, while a similar amount may breach A&E waiting time limits.
And in further evidence of the pressure the NHS is coming under, more than half of the Primary Care Trusts that pay for treatment say they are failing to make unprecedented savings of £20billion by 2015 as ordered by the Government.
The regulator for the semi-independent Foundation Trust sector, Monitor, is now warning hospitals not to try to balance their books by cutting back on patient care.
Its chairman, Dr David Bennett, said: “The challenge of reducing costs must be met, but it is essential that good patient care is at the heart of this. This year we have put extra focus on identifying the potential risks to quality that could result from each trust’s plan.
“The evidence we have seen in foundation trusts’ plans suggests they are not planning to make savings by treating fewer patients or reducing the level of care for patients. Instead they plan to make them through more efficient working on the front line and by reducing administrative or clerical costs.”
All 137 Foundation Trusts had to submit their current three-year plans to Monitor and its analysis of them, published on Thursday, says they face their “most challenging time”. They face lower margins as they take over contracts to run community services and as their operating expenses increase. Managers must also make efficiency savings of 4.4 per cent and plan to do so mainly by cutting staff costs.
A total of 11 trusts expect to have the highest financial risk ratings on Monitor's scale by the end of the year, up from four last year, while another 10 forecast to be in danger of breaking the economic rules that guarantee them FT status at some point in the year.
A breakdown of their income and expenditure suggests spending on drugs will increase next year along with the cost of Private Finance Initiative deals to build new sites. “The complexity of some financial issues will require long-term solutions that take time to plan and implement.”
Sixteen trusts are at risk of not treating patients within 18 weeks of referral by GPs, a critical issue for the Government, while the same number fear they will not be able to keep rates of the superbug C.difficile low as required.
In addition, 14 face breaching the target to see A&E patients within four hours but higher admissions in the winter “could see an increase in breaches by the year end”.
The management bodies that pay for NHS patients’ treatment are also facing financial trouble as Government funding remains flat and demand rises. They must make 4 per cent efficiency savings over each of four years, but a survey carried out by GP newspaper found that 59 per cent expect to miss this target in the current financial year.
Health experts warn that this could mean pressure to “cut even more next year”, leading to more treatment being rationed.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said: “Foundation trusts have greater autonomy to innovate new ways of delivering health services - they are truly responsive to patients, not ministers. “But their freedom comes with responsibility and foundation trusts must demonstrate that they are improving outcomes for patients and managing their finances effectively as well as ensuring that waiting times are kept low.”
EU demands that Britain admit immigrants intending to go straight on to welfare
The European Commission may finally have hit on an issue that jerks Britain from its euro-torpor – an issue that simultaneously presses the buttons of border control, welfare abuse and Brussels intrusiveness. Whether from hubris, power-hunger or from sheer stupidity, Eurocrats are demanding that Britain stop asking immigrants to show that they won’t immediately start accessing the social security system.
As the law stands, people wishing to settle in Britain must demonstrate that they have the means to support themselves, either through work or through an alternative source of income such as a pension. The European Commission claims that this amounts to discrimination against EU citizens, who are supposed to enjoy the same rights as British nationals.
In fact, as so often happens, Eurocrats are disregarding the plain text of their own rules. Article 7(1) of the Free Movement Directive gives EU citizens the right to reside in another member state only if they have “sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State”.
In order to get around this clause, the European Commission is deploying a piece of sheer sophistry. It argues that, if immigrants were able to top up their income with British benefits, they would have “sufficient resources”.
In May, the Supreme Court ruled on the claim of a Latvian pensioner, who had just moved to Britain and had demanded Pension Credit on grounds that her Latvian pension was too small. Although our courts like to rule in favour of immigrants, the law here was so clear-cut that, by 4-1, judges turned her down. If the European Commission were to get its way, she would not only be able to claim Pension Credit, but also council tax and housing subsidies – despite not having paid a penny into the system.
This blog has droned on and on about the way in which the EU is preventing the Coalition from fulfilling its manifesto promises. This ruling – if upheld by the European Court of Justice – would strike down Iain Duncan Smith’s pension reforms. His scheme, which has been warmly applauded across the political spectrum, aims to replace the current complicated system of state pensions with a flat entitlement, available to all pensioners regardless of assets, employment history or past contributions.
Such a scheme, however, depends on a minimum residency requirement. (New Zealand, which operates a system very like the one IDS is proposing, makes payments only to those who have spent at least ten years in the country.) If every EU resident over the age of 66 whose income came to less than £140 a week were able to draw a British pension, the system would be bankrupted. Are we past caring?
How radical activists in Britain shifted from viewing the working classes as powerful to pitying them as pathetic
Criticisms of the government’s ‘fit for work’ welfare tests betray a view among radical campaigners that, far from having the capacity to forge a living for themselves or even change the world, many working people are only fit for a sickbed.
Official UK government statistics released yesterday showed that, of the 1.3million Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) – formerly Incapacity Benefit – claims made between October 2008 and November 2010, only seven per cent of people attempting to claim incapacity benefits were actually deemed too ill to work. A further 17 per cent were categorised as fit for ‘work-related activities’ and a total of 39 per cent were deemed to be fully capable of working.
Many on the left have reacted strongly to these findings. The general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) Brendan Barber argued that this ‘much tougher’ test is cynically ‘designed to save the government money by excluding more people… These figures certainly don’t suggest that thousands of disabled people are suddenly “trying it on”’.
The vast majority of claimants probably weren’t ‘trying it on’. Following advice from government officials, many were undoubtedly led to believe they were genuinely incapable of working. And, without question, a proportion of them suffer from conditions that prevent them from doing so. But Barber’s comments assume that the individuals being ‘excluded’ from state support are all genuinely disabled and unable to work. This fails to explain why, over a period of decades, the number of people claiming incapacity benefits has rocketed in a way that can’t possibly be explained by increasing numbers of people becoming ill.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the numbers of men claiming incapacity benefits rose sharply, increasing almost every single year, from 463,000 in 1981 to 1,276,000 in 1999. Tellingly, a significant proportion of these claims came from areas of the country which had seen a hollowing out of productive industries, and the jobs that they provided. As observed previously on spiked, it’s not feasible that so many people have actually fallen ill. Rather ‘the welfare state was cynically soaking up these people, desperately attempting to offset their potential political anger at being unemployed by inviting them to view their predicament as a health-based problem instead’.
Instead of being seen to be deprived of work by social and economic factors – such as factories closing down and the government lacking a strategy for economic growth - the jobless were instead recast as physically or mentally incapable of working. It’s understandable that some, not least those who have been led to believe they are incapacitated, now find it jarring to hear the government backtrack on this and redefine what it is to be incapacitated. But the extent to which some on the left have reacted to welfare reforms, viewing the unemployed as suffering from health-related problems, incapable of surviving without state help, jars even more.
As Guardian columnist John Harris wrote recently, our ‘flexible labour market and increasingly brutal welfare system are now so constructed that even if you are doing well, it is perfectly possible that you could fall ill’. We are all potentially vulnerable individuals who would face a nasty, brutish and short existence under the new system of welfare support. Riffing on the National Lottery slogan, Harris claims we are all fragile and potentially facing a life of ‘terror’ under the benefits system: ‘it could be you’.
This sense of utter dependency on the state for support is exemplified in the recent protests held against Atos Healthcare, the French-owned private company contracted by the government to carry out tests to see if someone should receive ESA. They carry banners declaring that, by deciding some people on benefits are actually capable of working, Atos is effectively committing murder, undertaking ‘unlawful killings’, ‘making money out of misery’ and depriving people of their ‘freedom’. Atos’ very name, according to one MP, generates a sense of ‘fear and loathing’ among those applying for benefits.
Although there are aspects of Atos’ bureaucratic ‘computer says no’ approach to assessing whether people are deserving of benefits that have been rightly criticised, the hysterical casting of Atos as ‘killers’ reveals an underlying attitude toward the people who are being assessed. Since when did people gain ‘freedom’ by demanding that the state support them? When did it become the role of progressives to emphasise the incapacity of working people?
Historically, working-class people were seen as active, decent, strong and capable of running their lives and of changing society. Now they are instead seen as incapable and in need of defence from harm and harassment. If the state doesn’t offer sufficient support and protection, so the protesters argue, then it’s leaving helpless working people for dead.
In other words, working-class people are weak and are in need of big, strong defenders like the trade unions. Once upon a time, the workers were seen as a force that could seize control of society; now, the working classes are increasingly seen as in need of nursing.
Huge NHS waste: £7bn electronic records system to be axed. Yes: That's 7 BILLION
A key part of the controversial NHS computer system is to be scrapped, it emerged last night. Ministers are set to announce that plans for an ambitious system that links all parts of the NHS are to be abandoned. Instead of a centralised set-up, local NHS trusts and hospitals will be able to buy computer systems to suit their needs.
The decision to axe an important element of the £11billion NHS IT project comes as MPs launch a scathing report into a system they describe as 'unworkable'. The £7billion electronic care records system – a key part of the botched NHS IT project – could be targeted under the new strategy. It follows years of controversy and criticism that the project has missed deadlines and run over budget.
Next month, ministers will set out plans for a new strategy for IT in the health service that will abandon any attempt to link up the NHS in a central system. It will instead focus on integrating systems that are already being used by NHS trusts.
A government source told the Independent: ‘We want to give control over decisions about new systems to the local NHS, rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all solution. ‘This allows trusts to retain the systems they want to suit their local needs, while taking advantage of elements of the new system. It means change can happen without ripping out entire existing systems. ‘We are working with the Cabinet Office to ensure we secure maximum value for the taxpayer.’
The Department of Health admitted ministers were looking to find more value from the programme. ‘The Government recognises the weaknesses of a top-down, centrally imposed IT system,’ said a spokesman for the department. ‘Although elements of the programme have been delivered successfully, the policy approach previously taken has failed to engage the NHS sufficiently. ‘We have already .... reduced spending on the NHS IT programme by £1.3billion. We are determined to deliver even more value for money from the programme.’
Launched in 2002, the NHS IT project was supposed to revolutionise the health service, but a report by the Public Accounts Committee says today that the scheme has fallen behind schedule and costs have escalated. The cost of the electronic record element of the NHS IT project is estimated at around £7billion. To date, the Department of Health has spent £2.7billion on it.
But the MPs’ report says ministers should consider cutting their losses by spending the remaining £4.3billion on better systems that have been proved to work and offer more value for money.
Labour MP Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said: ‘The Department of Health is not going to achieve its original aim of a fully integrated care records system across the NHS. Trying to create a one-size-fits-all system in the NHS was a massive risk and has proven to be unworkable.
‘The department has been unable to demonstrate what benefits have been delivered from the £2.7billion spent on the project so far. It should urgently review whether it is worth continuing with the remaining elements of the care records system. ‘The £4.3billion which the department expects to spend might be better used to buy systems that are proven to work, that are good value for money and which deliver demonstrable benefits to the NHS.’
Matthew Sinclair, director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘The failure is rooted in the overly centralised way the NHS is managed, answering to politicians and bureaucrats in Whitehall.’
Top A-level students to be offered cut-price degrees and cash incentives at British universities
Students with top A-level grades are set to be offered cut-price courses and cash sums by universities desperate to attract them.
These deals are being aimed at pupils with grades of at least two A's and a B after the Government announced they can take-on as many students as they want as long as they meet those standards.
At Britain's top universities 85 per cent of people will achieve those grades, meaning many will benefit from the bidding war.
In the wake of tuition fees rising to a maximum of £9,000 from 2012, it has also been claimed today that some middle-ranking universities may perform a U-turn and reconsider charging the full fees. The decision sparked days of violent student protesters causing chaos and millions of pounds worth of damage in central London.
This change of heart has come a matter of weeks before the next cohort of A-level students apply for university places across the UK.
Sir Steve Smith, outgoing president of Universities UK and vice chancellor of Exeter University, says changes brought in by the Coalition will force many institutions to offer enticing deals to students. 'They are going to have to work out if they start buying AAB students,' he told the Sunday Times. 'One of the implications is that those students become like gold dust for their reputation. So you might have an incredibly strong series of incentives.'
Cash deals are already being offered in Essex and Kent to attract students for next year, where students getting three A's will get a £2,000 scholarship regardless of their financial circumstances.
Goldsmiths College in London is to waive the £9,000 fees for ten of the brightest students from the borough of Lewisham, where it is based.
De Montfort University in Leicester is also offering £1,000 to students with AAB grades or above at A-level.
Meanwhile it seems students going to less prestigious universities will also benefit from a fee cap of £7,500. Universities Minister David Willetts has taken 20,000 student places and put them in a central pool only for institutions up to that price bracket.
A leading animal welfare expert has been practising the opposite of what he so insistently preaches. Chris Laurence is veterinary director of the politically tinged charity Dogs Trust. He used to be chief vet at the RSPCA, another outfit that has become distinctly political.
In animal rights circles, Mr Laurence MBE is a top dog. He is a trustee of the Feline Advisory Bureau. He frequently lobbies British and European parliamentarians and has appeared on telly.
One of the issues on which both Dogs Trust and the RSPCA have pressed politicians is electric fences for pets. These devices are, to my mind, practical and humane. I wrote a feature article about them recently. Many (though not all) readers agreed.
Last year they persuaded the Welsh Assembly to ban such devices. Using one in Wales could now cost you £20,000 in fines or six months in prison. Last week, a pet owner was left £3,000 worse off after such a case. Serves him right, Dogs Trust said.
But hang on. Information comes my way that Mr Laurence is himself an enthusiastic user of these electric fences. Can it be true? After some sucking of gums, Dogs Trust said: 'Chris Laurence does have a containment fence which can be set up to emit electric shocks. 'However, he has never used the fence in this way with his dog and the electric shock component on his dog's collar is permanently turned off.' Believe that if you will.
But what about cats? Pause. Then came a further admission. The charity said that Mr Laurence had indeed used the shock aspect of the fence to stop his cat straying into the road. 'Chris's personal opinion is that for cats this system can be the lesser of two evils. This does not reflect the view of Dogs Trust,' growled the statement.
'Dogs Trust will continue to lobby government in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to ban electric shock devices.'
So a charity, some of whose staff seem to hold an anthropomorphic view of pets, is campaigning for the criminalisation of a device — even though its chief expert himself uses one. What hypocrisy.
A 54-year-old Indian woman has launched a human rights challenge in the High Court to overturn a new immigration rule, introduced by Home Secretary Theresa May, that bans her husband from coming to the UK from India because he can’t speak English.
Needless to say, we’re footing the bill for this preposterous case, since she’s funded by legal aid.
And it won’t be cheap — Rashida Chapti is represented by one of our leading human rights lawyers. She claims the law violates her right to a family life under the Human Rights Act.
Mrs Chapti, who has lived here for six years and can hardly speak English herself — she needed a translator when she appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme this week — says her 57-year-old husband, Vali, will be ‘a valued member of society’.
But how can a person who cannot speak English possibly be a meaningful member of British society?
Isn’t it time we ended all this nonsense? This case goes to the heart of the debate over what a nation is and what it is that holds us together. And central to that debate is a shared language. It’s got nothing to do with human rights, or the subjugation of minority cultures.
In isolation, Mrs Chapti’s sounds a pitiful case. What difference would the arrival of one middle-aged Indian man make, even if he can’t speak English?
But we can’t treat this case in isolation. Unless we insist that people arriving here speak our common language, we can’t operate as a harmonious society. If those who arrive on our shores can’t communicate with us, how can they expect to work and contribute? How can they avoid being a leech on others?
The great multicultural experiment failed precisely because it encouraged incomers not to sign up to our common culture. It has resulted in ghettos and isolation.
Communities that do not integrate are breeding grounds for anger, joblessness and welfare dependency. They often have an appalling record for women’s rights and, at worst, give rise to home-grown terrorists.
Mrs Chapti says her husband has no intention of learning English even if he is allowed to join her. And why should he? There will be plenty of interpreters on hand — whom we pay for — to help him complete his benefit forms when he fails to get a job.
She claims her husband can’t learn English, as he lives too far away from the nearest school. Yet she’s been able to afford to fly to and from India in the past five years — on her machinist’s salary in a clothes factory — so surely she could stump up the bus fare he needs to get to the school. And how long do you think it will be before her six children decide they want to join her in the UK as well?
This case reminds us how hollow is David Cameron’s promise that the despised Human Rights Act would be replaced by a British Bill of Rights.
Mother-of-three dies after waiting months for X-ray to reveal tumour the size of a football in her chest
A mother-of three who repeatedly visited her GP suffering from breathlessness over seven months was finally sent for an X-ray... which revealed a tumour the size of a football in her chest.
Her family have today received a six-figure out-of-court settlement after she died on the operating table in November 2005.
Terri Bailey from Bedworth in Warwickshire visited her local health centre complaining of difficulty breathing and pain under her left breast. However, she was only referred for an emergency scan when she was seen by a third GP. He spotted her 'red flag' symptoms and referred her to the George Elliot Hospital in Nuneaton.
The X-ray revealed a large tumour which weighed 1.6kg and covered most of her chest. Her family said they were told there was only a two per cent chance she would die during an operation to remove the tumour, but Ms Bailey passed away after developing a severely abnormal heart rhythm that couldn't be restored.
The settlement comes just weeks before the case was due to go to trial. The three defendants - University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust and GPs Dr Peter Hickson and Dr Sukhdev Singh - jointly offered to settle the case out of court for an undisclosed sum. None has admitted liability for failings into Ms Bailey's care.
The compensation, approved in the High Court in Birmingham today, will provide for her three children, Zac, 15, Leah, 18, and Connor, 20.
Ms Bailey, who was a home care supervisor, died on the operating table while undergoing surgery at the Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry in November 2005. Tests later showed the tumour to be malignant.
Her mother, Janine Dennis, 58, from Bedworth, Warwickshire, said: 'When Terri died we were shocked and devastated, particularly as the surgeon had told her that the risk of dying during surgery was only two per cent. 'We just wanted answers about how and why she died but the more we learned from the medical experts instructed by our solicitor, the more angry we became that steps were not taken by those supposedly caring for her, that could potentially have saved her life.
'It has been a long legal battle in our fight for justice for Terri which has been made particularly difficult due to the fact an out of court settlement was only offered just weeks before a trial and that despite this pay-out no one has been held accountable or apologised for Terri's death.'
She added: 'We understand that Terri had a malignant tumour, but she should not have died during surgery. 'She was taken from us so suddenly under circumstances which should have been avoided. 'I just hope that lessons have been learnt, as no other family should have to go through the pain and devastation that we have.'
The medical law firm which represented the family says Ms Bailey's death was an avoidable tragedy, which raises serious questions about pre-surgical preparations and has urged the hospital to learn lessons to protect future patient welfare.
Lindsay Gibb, a medical negligence expert at Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, said: 'This tragic case has sadly left three children without their mother and raises a number of extremely serious concerns regarding the level of care Terri received from both her GPs and the hospital.
'The symptoms which Terri was suffering from should, in the view of our medical experts, have rung alarm bells much earlier and prompted a chest X-ray which would have been easy to arrange and would have led to a much earlier diagnosis. 'Instead it would appear two GPs ignored signs that something was seriously wrong, which delayed her being referred to hospital.
'By the time a CT scan finally revealed the true extent of her illness, the tumour was very large making the operation more difficult. Terri did not know at the time of surgery that her tumour was malignant, which would in all likelihood have limited her life expectancy.'
Third of British 11-year-olds fail to grasp the 3Rs: 200,000 pupils STILL struggle to read, write and add up
One in three pupils is leaving primary school without a proper grasp of the basics, official statistics reveal today. Around 200,000 still struggle to read, write and add up, despite billions of pounds poured into education under the last Labour government.
The figures, unveiled by the Department for Education, will raise fears that thousands of pupils will find it hard to cope with the secondary curriculum from next month and may fall even further behind.
The Coalition has already pledged to drive up poor standards with a focus on arithmetic and the ‘synthetic phonics’ reading scheme, where children learn the 44 letter sounds and how they blend together.
There will be a toughened up literacy test for 11-year-olds in spelling, grammar, punctuation, handwriting and vocabulary from 2013. And a reading test is also being introduced for six-year-olds next year. Currently, children sit three exams in reading, writing and maths during the final May of primary education. The results are then published in Key Stage Two national league tables in December.
Last year, 35 per cent failed to reach the expected standard, known as ‘level four’, in all three tests. The figure is expected to be about the same this year.
But Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, said there may be ‘a bit of improvement this year’ as schools pay more attention to the measure. ‘The Government distinguishes between performance measures and accountability measures,’ he explained. ‘This combined figure (for reading, writing and maths) is a performance measure and therefore public information. Schools recognise this is being presented so they’re putting more effort into it.
They would pull out the stops if it became an accountability measure.’
Last year, the proportion of pupils passing English, combining the reading and writing paper, was 81 per cent. This was up from 80 per cent in 2009, but no better than in 2008. In the reading paper, just 84 per cent of pupils hit national targets, down from 86 per cent in 2009 and 87 per cent in 2008. Results in writing increased from 68 to 71 per cent. The proportion of pupils reaching the standards in maths rose from 79 to 80 per cent. Overall, 65 per cent of children reached ‘level four’ in reading, writing and maths, up from 62 per cent in both 2009 and 2008.
Previously, all 600,000 Year Six pupils used to take science SATS and the results were also used to compile school league tables. But now a representative sample takes the test. Last year, 81 per cent achieved ‘level four’.
This year’s national curriculum tests were hit by controversy as almost 2,000 headteachers reported problems, raising concerns that pupils had been let down by poor marking. More than a third of heads questioned by the National Association of Head Teachers said that the problems with marking were ‘severe’ or ‘outrageous’.
Reaching the required ‘level four’ in maths means 11-year-olds should be able to do basic tasks such as multiply in their heads. For reading, they should understand themes and refer to the text when explaining views. Pupils should also be able to use grammatically complex sentences and spell accurately.
Last year, Ofsted estimated the cost of delivering Labour’s literacy and numeracy programmes since 1998 at £4.5billion.
British weathermen discover that they were wrong about big storms and basic theory for the last 90 years
"This research shows how much more remains for us to learn about the weather around us". So could they be wrong about global warming too? OF COURSE NOT! That's not falsifiable
Researchers found that our basic understanding of "low pressure systems" has been flawed for more than 90 years. Scientists from the University of Manchester contradicted traditional understanding of how low pressure systems evolve.
The Norwegian model in use since the 1920s is that when a storm occludes, it will automatically weaken.
Writing in the journal Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, they found that the Great Storm of October 1987 and the Burns’ Day storm of January 1990 did not fit the model.
Dr David Schultz, from the university’s School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, who led the study, said that while both were occluded (evolving), but still deadly. He said scientists know that the deepening of a low pressure system is not dependent on when a cyclone occludes.
Dr Schultz said: “The Norwegian model of low pressure systems served us well for many years, but it’s time to move on. "What we teach students in school needs to be changed. And forecasters need to be retrained to have this latest information.
“I hope that this model will help people understand the particular weather conditions associated with these potentially hazardous storms. Yet, this research shows how much more remains for us to learn about the weather around us." He added: "With this new interpretation of the occlusion process we can explain why not all low pressure systems occlude – the winds are not strong enough to wrap up the storm.
“The Norwegian model of low pressure systems served us well for many years, but it’s time to move on. "This new model is better than the Norwegian model at explaining the available observations of the structure and evolution of occluded low pressure systems."
Dr Schultz added: “I hope that this model will help people understand the particular weather conditions associated with these potentially hazardous storms."
Horror! Farmland prevents rare plants from getting pollinated
So farmland must be CUT BACK, is the implicit message
A study has challenged the idea that areas such as farmland provide pollinating insects with a "corridor" between fragmented habitats. Researchers suggested that the pollinators in their survey were "fickle foragers" and would concentrate on areas rich in pollen and nectar.
The team warned that these behaviour could have an impact on rare native plants that are pollinated by insects. The findings have been published in the journal Current Biology.
The team of researchers from Oxford University and Earthwatch UK said their findings were a surprise, as the result challenged the long-held assumption that areas that were rich in resources would encourage the movement of pollinators from one group of native trees to another.
However, they added, it actually created a barrier effect for non-specialist feeders. "Looked at from an insect's point of view, it makes sense," explained co-author David Boshier. "These insects are not trying to pollinate a particular species of tree, they are just foraging. So if they leave a patch of native forest and fly across farmland which happens to be rich in resources, they are likely to collect pollen and nectar there rather than carry on to another patch of native forest."
However, Dr Boshier added: "Conversely, areas of sparse resources - such as (conifer) plantations - have less to offer so the pollinators are more likely to continue their journey and reach other patch of the native forest."
Pollination patterns
The researchers focused their attention on the pollination of Gomortega keule, an endangered species of tree whose natural stands only survive in patches of native forest in central Chile. Gomortega keule, listed as Endangered (Image: Tonya Lander) The study warns disruption to pollinators' behaviour could threaten Gomortega keule's long-term survival
The trees' primary pollinators are hoverflies. By sampling seeds, the team was able to develop an understanding of how pollen was transported across the study area.
"If you can imagine about 900 trees, and all of the potential connections between those trees, then you end up with a lot of data regarding where pollinators are moving or not moving," explained co-author Dr Tonya Lander.
"We used that data to build a model and, on average, these look like the patterns that are emerging," she told BBC News. "In general, there was more pollination happening when trees are separated by tree plantations, and less pollination happening when the trees were separated by agricultural land."
The team explained that they decided to call this effect the Circe Principle, after a nymph in Homer's Odyssey who seduced Odysseus on his journey home from his adventures.
Another member of the team, Dan Bebber from Earthwatch, said: "This study shows that new landscape models need to take into account the positive contributions and benefits of landscapes defined as 'non-habitat', as well as how best they can be managed. "Our results identify possible actions to improve the interactions of landscapes of endangered species such as G. keule, and other species pollinated by common insects."
The team now hope to carry out further studies to test whether the Circe Principle applies to other environments.
UK faces green agenda backlash as energy prices rise
The British government faces a public backlash against its green energy agenda as consumers are unwilling to spend more on power and gas bills to pay for investment in low-carbon forms of energy, a parliamentary committee warned on Monday.
"Our evidence points to the danger of a backlash against the government's green agenda if it means rising bills for consumers," the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee said in a report.
It urged the government and the energy industry to better engage with the public to explain underlying factors that create higher energy prices.
Three of Britain's six major energy suppliers have announced double-digit increases in power and gas tariffs from this summer, raising fears about consumer price inflation.
An opinion poll published by utility Centrica last month showed only one quarter of respondents thought the government should stick to its plans for a greener economy if it means higher energy price.
"I don't think there is enough understanding of the charges that are there and which are coming through, and that is why we want much greater clarity on people's bills," Energy Minister Charles Hendry told the committee in a hearing last month.
The group of parliamentarians also said energy providers should not wait for government or regulator action to make energy tariffs more simple.
UK consumers currently have to choose from 400 different tariffs, a complex system which the minister said also got him confused.
"I went on line to compare my tariffs and I was so confused by the options that I decided to stick where I was, and I think I am probably not untypical in that respect," he said at the hearing.
Britain's energy regulator Ofgem proposed last month to impose mandatory auctions on the UK's large power producers to give access to alternative suppliers.
The proposal is part of a wider regulatory review of Britain's energy retail market, details of which are expected later this year.
Green targets 'could force companies to leave Britain'
Industry faces energy price increases of up to 70 per cent as a result of new 'green taxes' imposed by the Government.
Studies by the Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents industries such as chemicals and steel, show that the extra costs are so high that many companies may be tempted to move to countries that do not have such extreme environmental laws.
The group fears that a study by the Department of Energy into the impact of climate-change laws on energy prices for industry will attempt to downplay the impact of the new taxes. The DoE study is due to be published in the autumn.
Energy Secretary Chris Huhne last week boasted that no other country had binding environmental targets as ambitious as Britain. 'In 15 years, our net emissions will be half what they were in 1990,' he said.
The Department of Energy last year admitted that environmental policies had already increased average costs for non-domestic users by 20 per cent. This will rise to 28 per cent by 2015 and 43 per cent by 2020. But those figures do not take into account environmental measures that are in the pipeline.
Business pays proportionately more for its electricity because it is subject to tax through the climate change levy.
Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, warned that the Government's estimates for the effect of their policies on domestic fuel bills were highly unrealistic and 'need to be taken with a bucket full of salt'.
He said the figures were unreliable as they made 'utterly implausible assumptions' about the benefits of energy efficiency measures such as lagging.
Official British Price Estimates Dubious: 'DECC Has Massaged Green Energy Costs'
Britain’s policies to curb emissions and spur investment into nuclear and wind to secure power supplies may raise electricity prices for factories by as much as 58 percent by 2030, according to a government study.
The U.K.’s Department of Energy and Climate Change published today an initial estimate of the costs of its policies on so-called energy-intensive users such as steel factories, cement works and paper mills. The biggest rise would come a scenario whereby natural-gas prices fall, the analysis on the government website shows. Price rises would be curbed to as little as 7 percent should gas prices remain unchanged, according to the analysis.
Natural gas is used to produce about half Britain’s electricity, so its cost is used as a proxy for power prices. The government is overhauling the electricity market and studying measures such as long-term contracts to give price certainty and help attract funds for offshore wind turbines, nuclear reactors and carbon capture and storage projects. A tax on emissions from fossil fuels, under the so-called carbon floor, is planned from 2013 as well as programs to drive energy efficiency such as its Carbon Reduction Commitment.
“There are some wholly implausible assumptions about the pass-through of carbon and renewable subsidy costs,” Jeremy Nicholson, London-based director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, said by telephone. “The analysis confirms that significant compensation would be needed to offset the impact of these policies. Our suspicion is that DECC has massaged the figures to make the impacts look less severe.”
Large industrial users faced electricity price increases of 45 percent from 2007 to 2009, according to the analysis. Government policy is aimed at cutting power sector emissions and the U.K.’s dependence on fossil fuels, according to the report.
They must be the first teenage boys in history to take offence at the sight of a scantily-clad Playboy model. Most young men would salivate over a poster of a voluptuous Kelly Brook pouting provocatively while thrusting her ample bosom in their direction.
But when Mohammed Hasnath and Muhammed Tahir encountered the image of the model/actress/whatever on the side of a bus shelter in East London they were horrified.
The sight of Miss Brook dressed as an angel in a Lynx deodorant advert was too much for their religious sensibilities. So they painted a burka over her. They said it was a ‘sin’ for a woman be uncovered in public.
This poster was just one of a number the pair defaced on decency grounds. At Thames Magistrates Court, in Tower Hamlets, they admitted six counts of criminal damage, were ordered to pay £283 each and given a 12-month conditional discharge.
Hasnath and Tahir, both 18, told police that the way the women had been photographed was against their religion. Hasnath said: ‘If someone was to look at our wife or mother or daughter with a bad intention, we would not like it, so we were just trying to do good.’
There will be some sympathy for them — and not just from other Muslims. Plenty of people, especially those with young children, are uncomfortable with the proliferation of sexually-explicit advertising in public spaces.
You don’t have to be a purse-lipped prude to believe there’s far too much gratuitous nudity and hard-sell soft porn on daily display.
On one level, Hasnath and Tahir are no different from those Victorians who insisted on covering table legs lest they unleash pent-up male passion. It would be easy to dismiss them as harmless eccentrics.
But their actions come against a backdrop of growing militancy among young Muslim men and attempts to impose Islamic Sharia law on whole areas of Britain.
The most serious incident of religious intolerance in Tower Hamlets came back in April. I brought you the story of a 31-year-old Asian shop assistant in fear of her life because she refused to wear a headscarf.
Islamist hardliners first threatened to organise a boycott of the chemist’s where she worked and then, when she still wouldn’t cover up, told her: ‘If you keep doing these things, we are going to kill you.’
Up the road in Waltham Forest, which is home to one of the country’s largest Muslim populations, extremists have taken to the streets and declared the area a ‘Sharia Controlled Zone’.
As Sue Reid reported in Saturday’s Mail, stickers have appeared on walls, lamp-posts and in shop windows proclaiming ‘no alcohol, no gambling, no music or concerts, no porn or prostitution, no drugs, no smoking’.
Militants say they will patrol the streets to enforce the Sharia code. It will come as no surprise to discover that one of the prime movers behind the Sharia Zone is Ram Jam Choudary, the jihadist formerly known as Andy.
While at college he was fond of a drink, a spliff and casual sex before he underwent a religious conversion and teamed up with Captain Hook at the Finsbury Park mosque.
Somehow he manages to stay just inside the law. I’ve always assumed that’s because he is a paid MI5 informant. There’s no other good reason why he hasn’t been banged up.
Whether it’s beheading enthusiasts screaming abuse at British troops, burning poppies on Remembrance Day, or celebrating the mass murders on 9/11 and on the London Underground, Ram Jam’s never far away.
His partner in jihad, Abu Izzadeen, styles himself ‘Director for Waltham Forest Muslims’ and was recently released from prison after serving a term for funding terrorism. Izzadeen (real name Trevor Brooks from Hackney) is especially keen on killing homosexuals and segregation of the sexes.
Mainstream Muslim leaders are outraged at the activities of these extremists and denounce the likes of Ram Jam and Trev (sorry, Abu) as ‘small-minded idiots’.
Small-minded they may be, but they think big. There is a tendency towards complacency in the face of their blowhard threats.
Of course they are not representative of wider Muslim opinion. But if someone tells me he wants to kill us if we don’t covert to Islam and embrace Sharia law, I’m prepared to believe him.
What I fail to understand is why the authorities continue to indulge them. Both Ram Jam and Izzadeen are able-bodied and in the prime of their lives but they live on benefits. Izzadeen even boasts that his weekly stipend from the state is his ‘jihad-seekers’ allowance’.
Ha, bloody, ha.
Yet both of these jokers are heroes to young Muslim men of a certain mindset. I would hazard a guess that Mohammed Hasnath and Muhammed Tahir are among their admirers.
There are plenty of sexually-confused, impressionable young Muslim men ready to rally to the extremists’ flag. Hasnath and Tahir would seem to exemplify them. Brought up in Britain, they have the appearance of any other young man of their generation.
Hasnath may subscribe to a medieval philosophy when it comes to women, but he is pictured wearing 21st century iPod headphones. What’s he listening to, I wonder — Adele or a podcast of the latest rantings from some preacher of hate?
There seems to be no shortage of frustrated foot-soldiers in the scramble to impose Sharia law. But the Government has just quietly shelved an inquiry into the spread of Sharia courts because no one would co-operate.
And except in the more extreme cases there’s a reluctance not only to prosecute but make any connection between extremism and Islam itself.
Hasnath and Tahir were originally charged with ‘religiously-aggravated’ damage. The religious bit was dropped when they agreed to plead to common or garden criminal damage.
But their actions were religiously motivated. The same philosophy underpins both painting a burka on Kelly Brook and issuing death threats against a woman shop assistant who refuses to wear a headscarf.
Let’s hope these two young men have learned their lesson and can now grow up and channel their energies in another direction. Getting a girlfriend might be a good start.
Rules which ban the sale of liqueur-filled chocolates without an alcohol licence and demand permits for selling toilet cleaner are just some of the laws ministers will tear up as part of a war on red tape. Around two-thirds of the 257 regulations imposed on retailers are being repealed or revised as part of the coalition’s ‘red tape challenge’.
Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, will abolish 130 pieces of red tape and simplify a further 30 rules which apply to the retail sector.
The Cabinet minister said some of the most ridiculous regulations he discovered included the poisons licensing system, which makes retailers hold £35 licences for selling products such as fly spray or bleach.
The legal age for buying Christmas crackers will also be dropped from 16 to 12 – the minimum in the European Union.
Redundant laws such as the war-time Trading with the Enemy Act, which restricts trade with the old USSR, Germany and Yugoslavia – a country that no longer exists – as well as other nations, will also be repealed.
The requirement on shops to notify the licensing authorities when people buy new TVs will be scrapped. Officials insisted it would not drive down collection of the TV licence fee.
Mr Cable conceded that governments had announced repeated crackdowns on red tape with little action, but he said the latest scheme would tear up legislation quickly to make it easier for firms to do business. He said: ‘We have struck a balance between keeping regulations necessary to protect consumers, the workforce and the environment, while rolling back the number of rules and regulations our businesses have to deal with.
‘We have heard these promises by successive governments before, but these first proposals from the red tape challenge show that we’re serious and we are making real progress.’
Mark Prisk, the Business Minister, said: ‘Every 30 minutes a business somewhere has to fill in a form. We have four million businesses in this country – that is a lot of productive time lost.’
Sunday trading laws will stay in place after employees made representations to the Government over being able to spend time with their families.
Business groups met the announcement with scepticism, calling on the Government to tackle the bigger regulatory burdens rather than tinkering with less important rules. David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: ‘There is no doubt that scrapping some of these specific regulations will have a positive effect on some firms in the retail sector. ‘But we question how these incremental changes will deliver real change on the ground at a time when the Government is introducing more big ticket regulation, for example around parental leave and flexible working.’
John Walker, chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: ‘It is evident that hefty regulatory changes in pensions, flexible working and maternity and paternity are still going to hit small firms hard.
‘Some of these regulation cuts being announced today will have no tangible impact on small firms at all as they are outdated and unused anyway.’
When Elsie Campbell began having cravings for lettuce, she thought it was a passing fancy. Even when it became an obsession that saw her eating four whole lettuces a day, she still tried to shrug it off as harmless.
Luckily for Mrs Campbell, her husband Jim, a research scientist, suspected there might be something more to it. He worked out that lettuce contains a particular nutrient that is lacking in breast cancer sufferers and that his wife’s urge to eat so much of it could mean she was suffering from the disease.
After a visit to her doctor, the mother of three was diagnosed with breast cancer, but has now made a full recovery thanks to the early diagnosis. She credits her husband’s quick-thinking for saving her life.
‘I’d always eaten it in salads, but suddenly, I just couldn’t get enough of it. I could eat three or four whole lettuces a day. I’d eat a whole iceberg lettuce at work, and sit on the bus on the way home thinking about eating more and more. ‘I’d get home and cut one into chunks and eat it like a watermelon. ‘I knew something wasn’t quite right – and my husband and my sons started to get quite worried about me.
‘Jim started investigating which nutrients and minerals were found in lettuce – and realised they were the same ones that your body can be deprived of when it is fighting cancer.’ Mrs Campbell, from Derby, added: ‘Not long afterwards, I discovered a small dimple on my breast – and my doctor confirmed I had breast cancer.
‘It’s only now that I realise my body was making me eat lettuce to combat the cancer. It was like my body was trying to cure itself.’ Mr Campbell has now created a website, questionmyhealth.com, that he says can help identify if users are suffering from a nutrient deficiency caused by something more serious.
The website asks users to answer a series of questions about themselves – such as whether they have white spots on their fingernails, whether they have a high libido, or whether they crave Marmite. It then analyses the answers and warns of any minerals or vitamins the user may be deficient in – and what that could mean.
The scientist, who has also written a book on nutrient deficiencies, hopes the site will help others spot potential diseases and cancers while they are still in the early stages.
Mr Campbell said: ‘Some chronic diseases, like diabetes and Alzheimer’s, can take 20 years to develop, but your body can give you a clue to what you are dealing with early on if you know what to look for.’
He added: ‘As a scientist, I know that everything has to have a cause and effect. Elsie didn’t start eating lettuce for no reason, so I started to do some research in which minerals and vitamins are found in it. ‘I discovered lettuce, like a lot of green veg, contains sulforaphane – which can attack cancer cells. I wondered if that was the reason why her body was craving it and suggested that Elsie visited the doctor.
‘Coincidentally, she discovered the small dimple on her breast the same day. We were devastated when the doctors told us she had cancer – but relieved that they managed to catch it so early.
‘Her lettuce cravings really were a warning sign – if she hadn’t suspected something was wrong, she would have probably never found the dimple, or certainly would not have been so concerned about it.’
Mrs Campbell, whose lettuce craving began in 2004, was diagnosed with breast cancer in early 2005. She had the small lump removed from her breast and had months of treatment but has now been given the all-clear.
She added: ‘Strangely, since the lump was removed, I haven’t wanted to eat a single lettuce leaf – the craving’s completely vanished. ‘I was so lucky Jim spotted the signs when he did – my lettuce addiction probably saved my life.’
Anorexia victim, 23, hits out at hospital bosses after specialist unit which saved her life is closed
A young woman who suffered from anorexia and starved herself until she weighed little more than three stone has urged hospital bosses to reopen the eating disorders hospital which saved her life.
Charlotte Ord, 23, spent her teenage years gripped by an obsession with food in a deadly disorder which almost cost the petite Northumbria University student her life.
What began as a diet to cut out sweets and treats descended into an eating disorder which saw her survive for days on end with absolutely no food, only drinking small amounts of water.
At 14 years old she weighed just 3st 5lb - less than the average weight for a six-year-old - prompting her to be hospitalised and placed on a drip at the Nuffield Hospital in Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Yet it was only when she was admitted to the eating disorder unit at Prudhoe Hospital in Northumberland that she began the slow journey to turn her life around.
So now, five years after she left the unit, she has hit out at the NHS North of Tyne for moving the child eating disorder unit 49 miles away to a new specialist centre at West Lane Hospital in Middlesbrough. The changes have angered Charlotte, who grew up with her grandparents near Ashington, and now weighs a healthier eight stone.
She said: 'It's really important they save the Prudhoe unit. 'I'm so thankful to the staff there because they basically saved my life. If I had been in Middlesbrough I don't know if my family would have been able to make that long journey, and it would have just added to the stress everyone was feeling.'
It took six years for Charlotte to overcome her obsession with food, which began when she was 12 and she weighed around six stone. She said: 'I wasn't happy with myself - not necessarily the way I looked or my weight, just everything. I was being bullied at school and was generally unhappy.
'At first I cut out sweets and chocolate but that quickly progressed to missing lunch at school. 'For quite a while I'd just had a few bits of fruit a day, but I ended up having no more than three sips of water a day.
'It was mainly a control thing - I couldn't control the rest of my life but I could control what I put into my body. I was 15 and a half years old when I was admitted to Prudhoe, basically because I was going to die.'
Charlotte spent around 18 months in the unit as an in-patient before she was discharged shortly after her 18th birthday and now she's looking forward to life with her new husband, after getting married four weeks ago to husband Peter, 25.
Investing in their children's future: UK parents 'biggest spenders on private schooling in Europe'
Parents in Britain spend far more educating their children privately than those in any other European country, a study has revealed. In a damning indictment of our state system, 11.3 per cent of school funding in the UK comes directly from the pockets of parents – almost double the level in France.
The figures indicate that families are increasingly unhappy with the quality of our state schools – pushing them to opt out and pay expensive private fees.
By contrast, just 6.2 per cent of school funding in France comes from parents, compared with 4.8 per cent in the Netherlands, 3.2 per cent in Italy, and just 0.1 per cent in Portugal. Even in the U.S., household spending accounts for just 8.6 per cent of funding.
The results reflect not just the numbers of British children going to private schools, but the higher fees they are charged compared with Continental ones.
The report, by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, also showed that money for education from private sources – including business funding for academy schools – soared under Labour, rising from 11.3 per cent to 21.9 per cent between 2000 and 2007.
Around 510,000 children in the UK are privately educated, with average fees at almost £4,200 a term. Top schools charge around £30,000 a year, however.
Fears over discipline and a dumbing down of the curriculum are thought to be driving the disenchantment with the state system.
Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, West Yorkshire, said: ‘Parents who send their children to private schools are not all rich and snobbish. They are people who make enormous sacrifices because they do not think state schools are up to scratch.
‘Private schools are popular because of the ethos they have which state schools are seen to lack. It’s to do with discipline, standing up when the teacher comes in the room, turning out nice people who treat people with respect. ‘And there’s the fact that exams have been dumbed down so much.’
Margaret Morrissey, of campaign group Parents Outloud, said: ‘There is a problem in cities, where parents have little confidence in inner city schools and so have to give up on something else and pay for their children to go private. ‘Part of this is the perception that the increasing number of children whose first language is not English would hold their child back.’
The OECD report also found that students in Britain pay more towards their university education than in any other European country – even before the huge rise in tuition fees unveiled earlier this year.
And parents here also have to contribute far more to their children’s nursery education.
In total, across all forms of education from age three to when students graduate from university, British households pay 21 per cent of education costs – with the Government contributing less than anywhere on the Continent.
The comparable figure in France is just 7 per cent, according to the report. The OECD figures are from 2007, the latest ones available for all countries.
The pro-immigration Left should stop using Anders Breivik to further its political agenda
According to Thorbjørn Jagland, a senior member of the Norwegian Labour Party and chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, centre-Right politicians like David Cameron and Angela Merkel should stop criticising multiculturalism in case their words inspire another Anders Breivik. In an interview in today’s Observer, the former Norwegian Prime Minister says:
We have to be very careful how we are discussing these issues, what words are used. Political leaders have got to defend the fact that society has become more diverse. We have to defend the reality, otherwise we are going to get into a mess. I think political leaders have to send a clear message to embrace it and benefit from it. We should be very cautious now, we should not play with fire. Therefore I think the words we are using are very important because it can lead to much more.
This is cynical political opportunism of the worst kind. Has Thorbjørn Jagland ever spoken out against Islamist hate preachers on the grounds that their words may inspire terrorist acts? Of course not. Nevertheless, he doesn’t hesitate before exploiting the deaths of 77 innocent Norwegians to promote his own multiculturalist agenda. (Note: from 2000 to 20006, he chaired the Socialist International Committee on the Middle East and was an outspoken critic of Islamophobia.)
Anders Breivik’s crimes are completely appalling, but we shouldn’t allow the Left to exploit the public outrage they’ve quite naturally given rise to in order to suppress free speech. The fact that Breivik claims to have been “inspired” by the opinions of Melanie Phillips and other journalists and authors who’ve questioned multiculturalism doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t in future be allowed to express those views. You might as well argue that since Mark Chapman was “inspired” to shoot John Lennon by Catcher in the Rye that J D Salinger’s book should be withdrawn from public libraries.
David Cameron and Angela Merkel should be applauded for having the courage to confront the centre left consensus about multiculturalism. Whatever your feelings about the manner in which immigration has transformed the countries of Western Europe, you should welcome the opportunity to engage in a public debate on the subject. For Thorbjørn Jagland to invoke the crimes of Anders Breivik in order to avoid doing so is a disgrace and suggests that he’s not confident this is an argument he and his fellow multiculturalists can win.
Hatred, smears and the liberals hell-bent on bullying millions of us into silence
By Melanie Phillips
The baleful effects of the recent attacks in Norway, where Anders Breivik bombed Oslo’s government district and then gunned down teenagers at a Labour party camp, murdering at least 77 people, have not been limited to that horrific carnage.
For the atrocity has produced a reaction among people on the political Left in Britain, Europe and the U.S. that is in itself shocking and terrifying.
Former Norwegian prime minister and current chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee Thorbjorn Jagland has said that, in response to the violent attacks, David Cameron and other European leaders should use a more ‘cautious’ approach when talking about multiculturalism.
Cameron has said multiculturalism (the doctrine that gives the values of minorities equal status to those of the majority) has failed, and has also talked about ‘Islamist extremism’ as a cause of terrorism. Jagland, however, said leaders would be ‘playing with fire’ if they continued to use rhetoric that could be exploited by extremists such as Breivik.
This is because Breivik’s so-called manifesto shows that he is violently against mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation — and that he wants the forced repatriation of Muslims from Europe and the murder of all who have promoted multiculturalism.
But to connect such abhorrent ravings with Cameron’s comments is simply grotesque.
Yet the former Norwegian premier is treating Breivik as if he is a political terrorist whose words have the authority of a sane and coherent creed.
Even if he was motivated by hostility to multiculturalism and Islam, it is perverse to suggest that no one should write about these things because some deranged person raving about such ideas has run amok.
It’s a bit like saying no one should express concern about late abortions or animal cruelty because it leads straight to the firebombing of abortion clinics or animal-testing laboratories. Breivik's so-called manifesto shows that he is violently against mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation - and that he wants the forced repatriation of Muslims from Europe and the murder of all who have promoted multiculturalism
Breivik's wants the forced repatriation of Muslims from Europe and the murder of all who have promoted multiculturalism
Multiculturalism and Islamic extremism raise entirely legitimate and very serious concerns about defending a culture from attack both from within and from without.
Jagland seems to be cynically exploiting the murder of more than 70 innocents to make a connection which is as obnoxious as it is opportunistic in order to bully into silence those who express such legitimate democratic concerns.
Shockingly, he is merely one of many who are doing so. As soon as the atrocity happened, people on the Left saw a heaven-sent opportunity to smear mainstream conservative thinkers and writers by making a grossly distorted association between Breivik’s attack and their ideas.
They claimed that anyone on ‘the Right’ who had spoken out against multiculturalism or Islamic extremism was complicit in the atrocity and therefore had a moral duty to stop writing about such things. To my stupefaction, I have become a principal target of this incendiary witch-hunt, being smeared for having helped provoke the Norway massacre.
One of the first out of the trap was British blogger Sunny Hundal, who delt at length upon two of my articles which had been quoted in Breivik’s purported manifesto and gave the impression that I was a major influence on Breivik’s thinking.
But in Breivik’s 1,500-page diatribe, I was mentioned precisely twice. The first time was a quote from an article in this newspaper about family breakdown. The second was another article about the revelation by a former civil servant that the previous Labour government had kept the public in the dark about a covert policy of mass immigration. Breivik made no mention of anything I had written about Muslims, Islamic terrorism or Islamisation.
Moreover, he also mentioned dozens of other conservative or liberal writers and thinkers. Among others, he quoted: Winston Churchill, George Orwell, Mahatma Gandhi, the Labour MP Frank Field, Tory Nicholas Soames, philosopher Roger Scruton, Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson and Swedish thriller writer Lars Hedegaard. Oh, and William Shakespeare, as well as the fathers of English liberalism John Stuart Mill and John Locke.
So the fact that Hundal singled me out like this while failing to mention these others (apart from a brief reference to Mr Clarkson) was an egregious smear — which was soon circulating and building up hatred on Twitter and the internet.
Soon, others joined in the hate-fest — even across the Atlantic. In the Toronto Star, columnist Heather Mallick wrote that unlike ‘almost everyone else praised by the killer’, I had not said I was horrified by the atrocity in Norway. Not only that, but whereas everyone else had wept at the murder of schoolchildren, ‘she [Phillips] spits’. But, on the contrary, I had written on my own website in terms far stronger than many other writers that there could never be any excuse for mass murder.
And the quote from my writing on which she based her ‘spitting’ claim was actually not about the atrocity at all, but about the people using those murders to foment just this kind of hatred.
Then there was Seumas Milne in the Guardian — who tried to make the smear stick by insisting that my criticism of the secret policy of using mass immigration to destroy British identity was ‘Breivik’s feeling precisely’.
But the truth is that the outrage at that policy is shared by millions of decent British people. So Milne was in effect smearing not just me, but all those millions by implying that their opinions also formed a ‘continuum’ with Breivik’s actions.
As one Guardian reader commented following Milne’s contemptible attack, the fact that he had deliberately blurred the distinction between reasonable political opinions with which one might disagree and the actions of a terrorist meant he was creating hysteria and polarisation. Indeed, the result of such incitement has been a veritable tsunami of electronically-generated mob hatred.
No, it is those who under the cover of accusing me of incendiary writing are themselves inciting hatred.
The claim that ‘blood is on my hands’ can so easily translate into someone seeking my own blood. Heaven forbid that should happen — but if it did, there would be a direct causal link with those who have whipped up this wicked firestorm.
Indeed, those who have exploited the killing of innocents in Norway to provoke such an eruption of distortion, demonisation and irrationality should disgust and alarm all decent people everywhere.
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Some TERMINOLOGY for non-British readers: The British "A Level" exam is roughly equivalent to a U.S. High School diploma. Rather confusingly, you can get As, Bs or Cs in your "A Level" results. Entrance to the better universities normally requires several As in your "A Levels".
Again for American readers: A "pensioner" is a retired person living on Social Security
Consensus. Margaret Thatcher in a 1981 speech: "For me, pragmatism is not enough. Nor is that fashionable word "consensus."... To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner "I stand for consensus"?
For my sins I have always loved G.B. Shaw's witty comment: "No Englishman can open his mouth without causing another Englishman to despise him". But Shaw was Irish, of course.
Britain has enormous claims to fame -- most of which the Labour goverment has been doing its best to destroy. But one glory no-one can destroy is British humour. And if you don't "get" British humour, your life is a dreary desert indeed. A superb sample here
Here is a link to my favourite British political speech since WWII. It is by Nigel Farage, the Leader of the UK Independence Party. He is referring to the Fascistic decision by the EU parliament to act as if their huge new "constitution" had been approved by the voters when in fact majorities in France, Ireland and Nederland (Holland) have rejected it at the ballot box. He points out that abuse is all they have to offer when he points out the impropriety of their actions.
Farage's expression, "A complete shower" is British slang meaning a group of completely incompetent and useless failures. It originated in the British armed forces where its unabbreviated version was "A complete shower of sh*t".
Britain appears to be the first country where anti-patriotism gained strong hold. Even Friedich Engels (the co-worker with Karl Marx who died in 1895) was a furious German patriot. Much of the British elite were anti-patriotic from the early 20th century onwards, however. The "Cambridge spies" (from one of Britain's two most prestigious universities) are a good example of that. Although Cambridge appears to have been the chief nest of spies-to-be in Britain of the 30s, however, Oxford was also very Leftist. In 1933 (9th Feb.) the Oxford Union debated the motion: "This House will in no circumstances fight for King and Country". The motion was overwhelmingly carried (275 to 153).
I have an abiding fascination with the Church of England. It is the sort of fascination one might have for a once-distinguished elderly relative who has gone bad and become a slave to the bottle. But nothing I can say about the C of E (which these days seems to stand for The Church of the Environment) could surpass what the whole of English literature says of it -- which ranges from seeing it as a collection of nincompoops and incompetents to seeing it as comprised of evil hypocrites. Yet its 39 "Articles of Religion" of 1562 are an abiding and eloquent statement of Protestant faith. But I guess that 1562 is a long time ago.
Links about antisemitism in 21st century Britain here and here and here and here and here
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could well have been thinking of modern Britain when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.
I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.
I imagine that the RD are still sending mailouts to my 1950s address
The kneejerk response of the Green/Left to people who challenge them is to say that the challenger is in the pay of "Big Oil", "Big Business", "Big Pharma", "Exxon-Mobil", "The Pioneer Fund" or some other entity that they see, in their childish way, as a boogeyman. So I think it might be useful for me to point out that I have NEVER received one cent from anybody by way of support for what I write. As a retired person, I live entirely on my own investments. I do not work for anybody and I am not beholden to anybody. And I have NO investments in oil companies, mining companies or "Big Pharma"
UPDATE: Despite my (statistical) aversion to mining stocks, I have recently bought a few shares in BHP -- the world's biggest miner, I gather. I run the grave risk of becoming a speaker of famous last words for saying this but I suspect that BHP is now so big as to be largely immune from the risks that plague most mining companies. I also know of no issue affecting BHP where my writings would have any relevance. The Left seem to have a visceral hatred of miners. I have never quite figured out why.
I am an army man. Although my service in the Australian army was chiefly noted for its un-notability, I DID join voluntarily in the Vietnam era, I DID reach the rank of Sergeant, and I DID volunteer for a posting in Vietnam. So I think I may be forgiven for saying something that most army men think but which most don't say because they think it is too obvious: The profession of arms is the noblest profession of all because it is the only profession where you offer to lay down your life in performing your duties. Our men fought so that people could say and think what they like but I myself always treat military men with great respect -- respect which in my view is simply their due.
Although I have been an atheist for all my adult life, I have no hesitation in saying that the single book which has influenced me most is the New Testament. And my Scripture blog will show that I know whereof I speak.
Many people hunger and thirst after righteousness. Some find it in the hatreds of the Left. Others find it in the love of Christ. I don't hunger and thirst after righteousness at all. I hunger and thirst after truth. How old-fashioned can you get?
My academic background
My full name is Dr. John Joseph RAY. I am a former university teacher aged 65 at the time of writing in 2009. I was born of Australian pioneer stock in 1943 at Innisfail in the State of Queensland in Australia. I trace my ancestry wholly to the British Isles. After an early education at Innisfail State Rural School and Cairns State High School, I taught myself for matriculation. I took my B.A. in Psychology from the University of Queensland in Brisbane. I then moved to Sydney (in New South Wales, Australia) and took my M.A. in psychology from the University of Sydney in 1969 and my Ph.D. from the School of Behavioural Sciences at Macquarie University in 1974. I first tutored in psychology at Macquarie University and then taught sociology at the University of NSW. My doctorate is in psychology but I taught mainly sociology in my 14 years as a university teacher. In High Schools I taught economics. I have taught in both traditional and "progressive" (low discipline) High Schools. Fuller biographical notes here
