(ED: Tony does as Tony does, crooks the figures, crooks the weapons of mass destruction, sells honours for New Labour funds, gerrymandering tax spend to suit New Labour Party interests, is there enough space in cyberspace to list the acts of deceit Tony has been involved in. Was he always like this or has he been replaced by an evil spirit?)
Celia Hall, Medical Editor at Daily Telegraph
As much as 85p in every £1 the Government has spent on health has gone into Labour constituencies.
Details from a Parliamentary question show that of the 46 multi-million-pound hospitals built in England since Tony Blair came to power, 33 are in Labour areas. That amounts to £3.5 billion out of a total spend of £4.1 billion.
Government health policy has aimed at removing "health inequalities" and lifting health services in deprived areas many of which are Labour strongholds.
But the Tories say they are still waiting for the Government to tell them why one area is favoured over another and to explain the rationale of agreeing to new hospital developments in particular areas.
Andrew Lansley the shadow health spokesman, said yesterday: "Four in every five of Labour's new hospitals have been built in the constituencies of their own MPs.
The Conservatives say "Ministers are holding secret meetings with Labour Party officials to target up to 60 hospital cutbacks on the constituencies of Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs. These figures confirm what we suspected when Patricia Hewitt went against the advice of experts and ordered a new hospital to be built in a Labour constituency in south London.
A Conservative Party spokesman said that in 2005 Ms Hewitt overturned a decision to build a new critical care hospital on the site of Sutton Hospital, in the Sutton and Cheam constituency of Liberal Democrat MP Paul Burstow.
"Instead, even after seeking the advice of her independent advisers, who similarly recommended the Sutton site, Patricia Hewitt recommended that the new hospital should be built at St Helier, in the Mitcham and Morden constituency of a Labour MP, Siobhan McDonagh," the spokesman said.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Plan to fine rowdy pubs watered down on the quiet
James Slack at Daily Mail - 02.04.2007
(ED: Tony at it again - Big headline then a row back after the media focus is elsewhere. Any trouble with 24-hour drinking in city centres were to have been dealt with Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZ). Unfortunately none of the smarties in the government thought about the Human Rights law, introduced by themselves of course. If you were of a more machavelian frame of mind you might think that ADZ's were always just window dressing to insure that increased working class drinking would keep the prole's focus on the beer and off government incompetence while providing more tax for the machine. Surely not?)
The Government has quietly given up its hardline stance on rowdy pubs thanks to human rights regulations
Labour's promise to make rowdy pubs and clubs pay for the disturbance they cause has been quietly shelved.
So-called Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZ) will be used only as a "last resort" as they risk breaching human rights laws.
Ministers previously said that forcing licensed premises to pay up to £100 a week for extra policing was vital to curb the negative effects of 24-hour drinking.
But papers slipped out Monday during the Parliamentary recess place almost insurmountable bureaucratic obstacles in the way of any police force or council wishing to pursue a "polluter pays" policy.
Police would actually lose out financially from an idea that was supposed to spare them - and therefore the taxpayer - from picking up the bill for binge-drinking and drunken violence.
The Police Federation accused the Government of "deceit" as it had linked the relaxation of the licensing laws to new powers they are now unlikely to use.
Vice-chairman Alan Gordon said: "If it is this bureaucratic and burdensome, police will never use these zones or attempt to use them.
"The Government made great play of the additional powers they were going to give the police. To make them so bureaucratic they are nearly impossible to use is being deceitful in what was involved in 24/7 drinking in the first place."
Ministers promised the zones in January 2005.
But the Home Office now says it has to be careful that human rights laws are not breached. Zones must be declared only in extreme circumstances where all other options had failed, its says.
Monday's consultation documents said no less than 15 times that the zones should be a "last resort".
They warned that charging a pub, club or off-licence for disturbance amounts to an interference with property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Critics say the process for setting up a zone is so complex it verges on the impossible.
Police must first give drinkers on-the-spot fines or ban louts from town centres. They must also make attempts to close down any problem pubs using the Licensing Act.
If this fails, they must amass evidence that a street or "zone" is blighted by binge-drinking.
Officers - who are already struggling with mountains of paperwork - would have to produce details of violent incidents, relevant A&E notes and a CCTV incident log.
Once this so-called "trigger stage" is complete, pubs and clubs must be given a 28-day consultation period when they can object to the plans.
While this is taking place, police and local councils must draw up an Action Plan of steps they want the premises to take to reduce the misery they are inflicting on local residents.
Pubs are then given eight weeks in which to introduce these changes.
It is only if police and councils can prove the Action Plan has been ignored that they can declare an Alcohol Disorder Zone and levy charges.
(ED: Tony at it again - Big headline then a row back after the media focus is elsewhere. Any trouble with 24-hour drinking in city centres were to have been dealt with Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZ). Unfortunately none of the smarties in the government thought about the Human Rights law, introduced by themselves of course. If you were of a more machavelian frame of mind you might think that ADZ's were always just window dressing to insure that increased working class drinking would keep the prole's focus on the beer and off government incompetence while providing more tax for the machine. Surely not?)
The Government has quietly given up its hardline stance on rowdy pubs thanks to human rights regulations
Labour's promise to make rowdy pubs and clubs pay for the disturbance they cause has been quietly shelved.
So-called Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZ) will be used only as a "last resort" as they risk breaching human rights laws.
Ministers previously said that forcing licensed premises to pay up to £100 a week for extra policing was vital to curb the negative effects of 24-hour drinking.
But papers slipped out Monday during the Parliamentary recess place almost insurmountable bureaucratic obstacles in the way of any police force or council wishing to pursue a "polluter pays" policy.
Police would actually lose out financially from an idea that was supposed to spare them - and therefore the taxpayer - from picking up the bill for binge-drinking and drunken violence.
The Police Federation accused the Government of "deceit" as it had linked the relaxation of the licensing laws to new powers they are now unlikely to use.
Vice-chairman Alan Gordon said: "If it is this bureaucratic and burdensome, police will never use these zones or attempt to use them.
"The Government made great play of the additional powers they were going to give the police. To make them so bureaucratic they are nearly impossible to use is being deceitful in what was involved in 24/7 drinking in the first place."
Ministers promised the zones in January 2005.
But the Home Office now says it has to be careful that human rights laws are not breached. Zones must be declared only in extreme circumstances where all other options had failed, its says.
Monday's consultation documents said no less than 15 times that the zones should be a "last resort".
They warned that charging a pub, club or off-licence for disturbance amounts to an interference with property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Critics say the process for setting up a zone is so complex it verges on the impossible.
Police must first give drinkers on-the-spot fines or ban louts from town centres. They must also make attempts to close down any problem pubs using the Licensing Act.
If this fails, they must amass evidence that a street or "zone" is blighted by binge-drinking.
Officers - who are already struggling with mountains of paperwork - would have to produce details of violent incidents, relevant A&E notes and a CCTV incident log.
Once this so-called "trigger stage" is complete, pubs and clubs must be given a 28-day consultation period when they can object to the plans.
While this is taking place, police and local councils must draw up an Action Plan of steps they want the premises to take to reduce the misery they are inflicting on local residents.
Pubs are then given eight weeks in which to introduce these changes.
It is only if police and councils can prove the Action Plan has been ignored that they can declare an Alcohol Disorder Zone and levy charges.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Tony weakens NHS pledge to mothers
Jo Revill, health editor The Observer April 1, 2007
(ED: Usual lies from Tony and his mates. Get Big Big headlines then when attention has moved on water everything down. As for Health Minister Ivan Lewis I wonder what he would be saying if his wife was in labour again. Perhaps " oh a 12k a year unqualified support worker excellent eh darling? Or "don't be so stupid that's my wife you are putting at risk.")
A government pledge to give every mother the right of one-to-one care from a midwife during labour has been watered down to allow hospitals to use lower-paid attendants with fewer skills.
Midwives' leaders call the move 'scandalous', arguing that it will increase the risks for those women and babies not supported by a qualified midwife.
The policy shift will be in the government's maternity strategy, due to be announced by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt this week.
The government has come under increasing pressure over the state of maternity wards due to a recent spate of reports showing that standards in Britain are falling, with thousands of women not receiving good antenatal care or enough support during the birth.
In its election manifesto in May 2005, Labour promised that by 2009 women would be cared for by a named midwife throughout pregnancy and would receive continuous care throughout the delivery. Instead they could now find themselves in the care of a maternity support worker, a new category of staff without a nursing or midwifery degree who may not be able to deliver a baby safely.
However, Health Minister Ivan Lewis is adamant they would not jeopardise safety. He told The Observer: 'By the end of 2009, we want to see trusts at least giving a commitment to the fact that a skilled professional is present throughout the birth. That could be a midwife or it could be a maternity support worker.'
He defended the use of lower-skilled staff: 'What matters is that the mother feels confident that she is well cared for. There are many maternity support workers who are providing an excellent service.'
Lewis also criticised the 'rhetoric and scare-mongering' of recent media reports that have highlighted problems on maternity wards. 'A lot of the media reporting has been very irresponsible because it scares women. There have been two million births over the past three years, and 50 women died in that time due to obstetric complications that could have been dealt with better. One death is too many - but that number doesn't suggest a crisis in terms of safety.'
The Royal College of Midwives is furious that hospital trusts will be able to claim they offer continuous care during labour when they have replaced trained midwives with maternity care assistants, who are paid around £12,000 a year and are not subject to the same regulation. They were originally introduced to help with lighter duties on maternity wards, such as feeding and washing, but many believe hospital trusts see them as a cheap workforce.
RCM adviser Sue Jacob said: 'This change has been quietly slipped in and is nothing short of scandalous. Do we really see childbirth as so unimportant that you de-skill the very people who will be delivering children? Women want nothing less than a midwife by their side when they are in labour. We know from all the research that's been done that continuous care from an experienced professional makes a huge difference to the safety of both the mother and the child.'
Belinda Phipps, chief executive of the National Childbirth Trust, pointed out that in Scotland the target of offering continuous care from a midwife is already being met. 'It has to be asked why the rest of the country can't achieve this goal, given that it is so very important for women when they go into labour,' she said.
(ED: Usual lies from Tony and his mates. Get Big Big headlines then when attention has moved on water everything down. As for Health Minister Ivan Lewis I wonder what he would be saying if his wife was in labour again. Perhaps " oh a 12k a year unqualified support worker excellent eh darling? Or "don't be so stupid that's my wife you are putting at risk.")
A government pledge to give every mother the right of one-to-one care from a midwife during labour has been watered down to allow hospitals to use lower-paid attendants with fewer skills.
Midwives' leaders call the move 'scandalous', arguing that it will increase the risks for those women and babies not supported by a qualified midwife.
The policy shift will be in the government's maternity strategy, due to be announced by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt this week.
The government has come under increasing pressure over the state of maternity wards due to a recent spate of reports showing that standards in Britain are falling, with thousands of women not receiving good antenatal care or enough support during the birth.
In its election manifesto in May 2005, Labour promised that by 2009 women would be cared for by a named midwife throughout pregnancy and would receive continuous care throughout the delivery. Instead they could now find themselves in the care of a maternity support worker, a new category of staff without a nursing or midwifery degree who may not be able to deliver a baby safely.
However, Health Minister Ivan Lewis is adamant they would not jeopardise safety. He told The Observer: 'By the end of 2009, we want to see trusts at least giving a commitment to the fact that a skilled professional is present throughout the birth. That could be a midwife or it could be a maternity support worker.'
He defended the use of lower-skilled staff: 'What matters is that the mother feels confident that she is well cared for. There are many maternity support workers who are providing an excellent service.'
Lewis also criticised the 'rhetoric and scare-mongering' of recent media reports that have highlighted problems on maternity wards. 'A lot of the media reporting has been very irresponsible because it scares women. There have been two million births over the past three years, and 50 women died in that time due to obstetric complications that could have been dealt with better. One death is too many - but that number doesn't suggest a crisis in terms of safety.'
The Royal College of Midwives is furious that hospital trusts will be able to claim they offer continuous care during labour when they have replaced trained midwives with maternity care assistants, who are paid around £12,000 a year and are not subject to the same regulation. They were originally introduced to help with lighter duties on maternity wards, such as feeding and washing, but many believe hospital trusts see them as a cheap workforce.
RCM adviser Sue Jacob said: 'This change has been quietly slipped in and is nothing short of scandalous. Do we really see childbirth as so unimportant that you de-skill the very people who will be delivering children? Women want nothing less than a midwife by their side when they are in labour. We know from all the research that's been done that continuous care from an experienced professional makes a huge difference to the safety of both the mother and the child.'
Belinda Phipps, chief executive of the National Childbirth Trust, pointed out that in Scotland the target of offering continuous care from a midwife is already being met. 'It has to be asked why the rest of the country can't achieve this goal, given that it is so very important for women when they go into labour,' she said.
Police have time and officers to investigate 10-year-old for calling his mate "gay"
Jonathan Owen at The Independent - 01 April 2007
(ED: Good to see that the 2.5% of active police officers have enough time to follow up this type of "crime".)
A father launched a furious attack against the police yesterday for investigating claims that his 10-year-old son had called a schoolfriend "gay" in an email.
Company director Alan Rawlinson said he was astounded after two police officers arrived at his home in Bold Heath, Cheshire, to speak to his son George. The officers were called after a complaint from the parent of another boy at his son's school in Widnes.
"They told me they considered it a very serious offence," said Mr Rawlinson, 41. "I thought they were joking at first. I am furious about what has happened. It just seems the politically correct brigade is taking over."
But Inspector Nick Bailey of Cheshire Constabulary defended the decision: "The matter was reported to police as the parents of the boy believed it was more sinister than just a schoolyard prank." He said that they would not be pursuing the complaint any further, commenting: "We would be hard-pushed to say this is a homophobic crime."
(ED: Good to see that the 2.5% of active police officers have enough time to follow up this type of "crime".)
A father launched a furious attack against the police yesterday for investigating claims that his 10-year-old son had called a schoolfriend "gay" in an email.
Company director Alan Rawlinson said he was astounded after two police officers arrived at his home in Bold Heath, Cheshire, to speak to his son George. The officers were called after a complaint from the parent of another boy at his son's school in Widnes.
"They told me they considered it a very serious offence," said Mr Rawlinson, 41. "I thought they were joking at first. I am furious about what has happened. It just seems the politically correct brigade is taking over."
But Inspector Nick Bailey of Cheshire Constabulary defended the decision: "The matter was reported to police as the parents of the boy believed it was more sinister than just a schoolyard prank." He said that they would not be pursuing the complaint any further, commenting: "We would be hard-pushed to say this is a homophobic crime."
UK child mortality rate 2nd worst in rich countries
Roger Dobson at The Independent - 01 April 2007
(ED: I am sure Tony or one of his front men will rubbish the figures as wrong or inccurate without explaining that the inaccuracy is the use of UK rather than U.K..)
Britain has the second highest child death rate among the 24 richest countries in the world, with infants in the UK twice as likely to die before the age of five as children in Sweden, a study has shown.
The researchers, from Dundee University, who link relatively high infant mortality with income inequality, found that in the UK the gap between the haves and the have-nots was the third biggest among the 24 countries. They calculated that the top 20 per cent of people in the UK have more than 2.5 times the income of the bottom 40 per cent, almost double the difference in Japan.
Their work, which is reported this week in the Journal of Public Health, analysed Unicef data on child mortality and income inequality. The study comes 14 years after the UK and other "Anglo-American" rich countries were strongly criticised in a Unicef study on child neglect in wealthy nations. That study did not report on child death rates but at that time the UK ranked 15th for child mortality;the new research shows it has now dropped to joint 22nd, just above the US.
The results show that the child mortality rate, based on the number of children dying before the age of five per 1,000 live births averaged over a four-year period, was below five in the top six countries - Sweden at 3.25, followed by Iceland (3.75) Norway (4.00) Denmark (4.25) Japan (4.50) and Finland (4.75). The bottom six were New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland (all 6.0), UK and Canada (6.5) and the US (8.0).
The researchers also calculated income inequality in each country by comparing the income share of the top 20 per cent with that of the bottom 40 per cent. The ratio was lowest in Luxembourg, Japan, Finland and Norway, where the income of the top earners 20 per cent was only 1.5 times greater than the bottom 40 per cent. But the ratio was 2.5 in the UK and 2.8 in the US.
"There is a very strong association between income inequality and under-five child mortality among the wealthier OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries,'' said the report. "Within this group the highest child mortality figures are to be found in those 'Anglo-American' countries which attracted criticism in 1993 in a Unicef study on child neglect. Since 1960, the relative ranking, based on increasing under-five mortality, of these countries has markedly worsened relative to the others.''
David Collison, who led the study, said: "All the Anglo-American countries do pretty badly. It is clear that inequality is linked to the poor position of the UK and elsewhere."
(ED: I am sure Tony or one of his front men will rubbish the figures as wrong or inccurate without explaining that the inaccuracy is the use of UK rather than U.K..)
Britain has the second highest child death rate among the 24 richest countries in the world, with infants in the UK twice as likely to die before the age of five as children in Sweden, a study has shown.
The researchers, from Dundee University, who link relatively high infant mortality with income inequality, found that in the UK the gap between the haves and the have-nots was the third biggest among the 24 countries. They calculated that the top 20 per cent of people in the UK have more than 2.5 times the income of the bottom 40 per cent, almost double the difference in Japan.
Their work, which is reported this week in the Journal of Public Health, analysed Unicef data on child mortality and income inequality. The study comes 14 years after the UK and other "Anglo-American" rich countries were strongly criticised in a Unicef study on child neglect in wealthy nations. That study did not report on child death rates but at that time the UK ranked 15th for child mortality;the new research shows it has now dropped to joint 22nd, just above the US.
The results show that the child mortality rate, based on the number of children dying before the age of five per 1,000 live births averaged over a four-year period, was below five in the top six countries - Sweden at 3.25, followed by Iceland (3.75) Norway (4.00) Denmark (4.25) Japan (4.50) and Finland (4.75). The bottom six were New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland (all 6.0), UK and Canada (6.5) and the US (8.0).
The researchers also calculated income inequality in each country by comparing the income share of the top 20 per cent with that of the bottom 40 per cent. The ratio was lowest in Luxembourg, Japan, Finland and Norway, where the income of the top earners 20 per cent was only 1.5 times greater than the bottom 40 per cent. But the ratio was 2.5 in the UK and 2.8 in the US.
"There is a very strong association between income inequality and under-five child mortality among the wealthier OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries,'' said the report. "Within this group the highest child mortality figures are to be found in those 'Anglo-American' countries which attracted criticism in 1993 in a Unicef study on child neglect. Since 1960, the relative ranking, based on increasing under-five mortality, of these countries has markedly worsened relative to the others.''
David Collison, who led the study, said: "All the Anglo-American countries do pretty badly. It is clear that inequality is linked to the poor position of the UK and elsewhere."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)