Blundering NHS medics plaster wrong arm of two-year-old who fell off slide and chipped bone
Government employees with typical casualness about their work
A hospital apologised today and launched an investigation after medical staff plastered the wrong arm of a two-year-old girl. Honey Wight was taken to the accident and emergency department of Southampton General Hospital on Wednesday by mother Katie after she jumped off a slide and hurt her left arm.
Medics X-rayed the arm and found the youngster had chipped a bone. Nurses then plastered the right arm and sent the family home.
Ms Wight, 29, said she did not notice the mistake until the next day because her daughter fell asleep in the car and she put her straight to bed.
‘I was so angry. I just couldn’t believe it,’ she told the Southern Daily Echo. ‘The nurse was there and it said “left elbow” but she put it on the right arm. It is just crazy. ‘I did not even notice. I was busy singing songs to her, trying to distract her.’
The mother said that staff even plastered the correct left arm of Honey’s teddy bear to help calm her nerves. She took her daughter to the hospital yesterday, where the mistake was corrected.
Dr Michael Marsh, the hospital’s medical director, said: ‘We are deeply sorry to Honey and her family. Incidents like this are extremely rare and we will be carrying out a full investigation into how it happened.’
One in four British lap dancers has a university degree
Mainly humanities (Arts) graduates, of course. What else are their degrees good for?
They are traditionally viewed as uneducated young women who are coerced into the lap dancing industry. But the first academic study on the subject has found that one in four lap dancers has a university degree and works in strip joints to boost their income.
Strippers take home an average of £232 per shift – or £48,000 a year – after paying commission and fees to the club where they work. Many are aspiring actresses, models and artists who hope to use exotic dancing as a lucrative platform for breaking into their desired industry. Unemployed new graduates – mainly with arts degrees – are also dancing because they cannot find graduate jobs.
They decided to work as strippers because it pays much better than bar work and the hours means they can still attend interviews, training days or further education courses during the day.
The research, conducted by Dr Teela Sanders and Kate Hardy from the University of Leeds, found the vast majority of women claimed to have high levels of job satisfaction. It concluded that career and economic choices were the key reasons for dancing rather than drug use or coercion. There was no evidence of trafficking in the industry, researchers found.
However, the academics claimed dancers’ welfare was often disregarded because women could be in danger when alone with customers in private booths. They called for better regulations to improve dancers’ safety, including the banning of private booths in clubs. Dancers are also open to financial exploitation by clubs who could impose charges and fines, the study showed.
One dancer told researchers: ‘There’s not enough security. I know of girls who have been raped and abused at work. ‘You cannot go to the police as you are a stripper, so there’s no legal standing.’
The findings come after a change in the law saw lap dancing clubs reclassified as entertainment venues, giving local authorities more power to limit the number of clubs in their area.
Dr Sanders said she had been surprised at the ‘endless supply of women’ wanting to be lap dancers. ‘These women are incredibly body confident,’ she said. ‘I think there is something of a generational cultural difference.
‘These young women do not buy the line that they are being exploited, because they are the ones making the money out of a three-minute dance and a bit of a chat.
‘You have got to have a certain way about you to do it. They say 80 per cent of the job is talking. These women do work hard for their money – you don’t just turn up and wiggle your bum.
‘But there is an issue about whether these women become trapped in the job because of the money. I think people often stay longer than they want.’
All the 300 women interviewed during the year-long study had finished school and gained some qualifications. Almost 90per cent had completed a further education course, while a quarter had undergraduate degrees. Just over one in three dancers were currently in some form of education, with 14 per cent using dancing to help fund an undergraduate degree.
The researchers found arts degree graduates were most likely to turn to dancing after being unable to find other work. Others used dancing to provide a more steady and reliable income when working in more unstable arts jobs.
One dancer had been doing a law degree which included a work placement during her third year. While working, she got used to earning a good wage, decided she would struggle when she returned to university without an income, and began dancing as soon as she went back to finish her degree.
Britain’s “Renewables Obligation”
On every gas and electricity bill that UK households receive, there is a hidden tax. A tax of more than 8%. It’s called the Renewables Obligation. Energy companies are obligated – that is, they are forced by the government under pain of fines and imprisonment – to spend a chunk of their revenues developing and installing non-fossil energy production systems. That means they are forced to pay for things like wind factories, photo-electric technology and wave power, whether or not they think these generation methods have the slightest value, either to themselves or the nation.
Like all political efforts to make companies pay for things, the government’s plan does not work. The energy companies do not pay for these generation technologies. The cost does not come out of their profits, or their shareholders’ dividends. It comes from their customers, naturally. All of us who use energy in the home – and there may be one or two completely self-sufficient households in the UK, but the other 28 million or so do have to buy in gas or electricity – end up paying. We pay this premium on our bills so that our energy companies can subsidise wind farmers.
Or maybe we should call them subsidy farmers, because the fact is that these alternative energy sources are far from covering their own costs. None of those noisy, unsightly turbines that are marching across the country’s most beautiful hill country (since that is where the wind is) would exist at all if it were not for the subsidy. Except perhaps the one on David Cameron’s house.
Just think about it. In ordinary garden soil, there are trace elements that are actually quite valuable. You might even have a gram or two of gold lurking under your lawn. What good fortune: you could be sitting on a gold mine. Except that these things are not valuable at all, because the cost of extracting them would be enormous in relation to the tiny quantities that you could isolate. You could get the excavators in, and boil up all the soil in your garden to find them, sure enough. But it wouldn’t be worth the effort. You could spend £250,000 on digging the holes and refining your soil, and maybe end up with just a few grams of precious metals worth maybe £100. It’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?
So why do we think it is any better to spend more on non-fossil generation than the value it brings to our energy network? Well, there may be a strategic benefit from having diversity, so we are not dependent on Russian oil and gas, for example. That’s a plausible argument, though it still may not justify paying over the odds for that diversity. Then there’s the argument that we want to develop new ‘green’ energy technology and be first in the field. No, we don’t. We’re better to buy technology from the world’s best producers. We don’t make phones for ourselves in the garage, we buy them from Apple. And in any event, the first people into any market aren’t usually the people who make money from it. Usually it is the second entrants, who see the idea but improve the way it is designed and marketed. We’d be better and cheaper letting other countries develop green technologies, then capitalise on their efforts.
And what is true of energy is true of all the other things that governments subsidise. If it was your money, you would buy the cheapest. So why does government force us to pay for the most expensive?
Too white to adopt: Racist British officials tell banker and his wife they can’t give a home to a black or Asian child
Cradling her daughter on her knee, Francesca Polini is every inch the loving, caring mother. She and her banker husband have good incomes, a spacious home and a close network of family and friends. But their hopes of parenthood were initially dashed when town hall bureaucrats said they were ‘too white’ to adopt a child.
Their rejection meant a child in care was denied the chance of a happy, comfortable home and a stable future. And it casts a spotlight on a politically correct adoption system which routinely blocks white couples from giving a home to a child in need.
Mrs Polini, 40, and her husband Rick offered to adopt a black or Asian child, who wait longer for adoption because of a national shortage of ethnic minority couples looking to adopt. But the couple claim officials in Ealing, West London, told them there was a cap on white parents adopting black or Asian children.
Officially, the council denies such a cap exists, but the case echoes those of other white, middle-class couples who have been barred from adopting for the same reason. Mrs Polini said: ‘The woman didn’t even meet us, she just told us on the phone, “I’m afraid you are too white for us to permit you to adopt one of our children”.
‘There was no assessment, it was based purely on our skin colour, and that shouldn’t be what qualifies you to adopt. None of this is about the child’s best interests and frankly it’s immoral.’
Faced with their local authority’s refusal to consider them as adoptive parents, the couple had to search abroad for a child to adopt. Ironically, the same council which had refused their application to adopt a British child was happy to charge more than £4,000 to vet them for international adoption.
After overcoming a series of bureaucratic hurdles, they eventually won permission to adopt a girl in Mexico. Gaia, now two, was granted British citizenship last year, and her parents hope to adopt a second child from Mexico.
Currently there are more than 80,000 children and teenagers in care in Britain, and white children are more likely to be adopted than those from ethnic minorities.
Charities including Barnardo’s have called for a radical review of the adoption system, and Mrs Polini is campaigning for an end to ‘caps’ on inter-racial adoption. The former director of communications at Greenpeace has set up an organisation, Adoption with Humanity, and has written a book about her experiences.
The Department for Children, Schools and Families has apologised to the family for ‘unacceptable and inappropriate’ delays in the handling of their case and has said councils should not bar white couples from adopting black or Asian children.
In a letter to the couple, Ed Balls, then Children’s Secretary, said: ‘We are clear that it is unacceptable for a child to be denied the opportunity to grow up in a loving, permanent family solely on the grounds that the child and the prospective adopters do not share the same racial or cultural background.
‘These are issues that local authorities should take into account, but they should not act as a “bar” in the way that seems to have happened in your case.’ An Ealing Council spokesman denied it discriminated against white couples, saying: ‘We do not have a policy of same-ethnicity adoption.
‘While an ethnic and cultural match is considered important, it is the overall needs of the child that are given priority, and all potential adopters are considered. ‘Since 2006 we have permanently placed 17 children with families of different ethnic backgrounds, which is 19 per cent of the children placed.’
Leftist hate speech from the BBC
” For most of us, condemning someone for where they went to school reeks of the class envy politics of much of the last century. No one, however, seems to have told the BBC where the terms Old Etonian, public school and Oxbridge appear to have become insults.
An editorial in the magazine Country Life has suggested the broadcaster is prejudiced against perceived ‘toffs’. It claimed that the BBC had a ‘family size bucket of chips’ on its shoulder and claimed that this type of ‘bigotry’ would be regarded as unacceptable in any other area of British life.
Country Life published the piece in response to a Channel 4 News item which interviewed state school pupils who wanted to go to Cambridge. The students suggested Coalition leaders had not experienced enough hardship to understand the issues facing the public. The magazine said: ‘These students were merely repeating the mantra of the moment.
‘The BBC, for example, has acquired a new lexicon of abuse, the only one it still permits itself. Milder terms include “Old Etonian”, “Oxbridge”, “public school”, “upper-class”, “toff”, “aristo”, and the unspeakable “posh”.
These look harmless enough, but listen to the animus with which they’re used. Even in lighter contexts, such as Radio 4’s The News Quiz, “toff” is a cue for bigotry of a kind no longer acceptable in any other area of British life.