Father sent home from hospital with a broken NECK after falling two storeys from a ladder and landing on his head

This is the second time recently that an NHS hospital has been unable to read an X-ray of a broken neck. See my posts of 18th. It can only be gross negligence. Did anybody look at the X-ray at all? If they can’t get such old technology as X-rays right, what hope is there?

An outraged father has told how doctors failed to spot that he had broken his neck in two places. Labourer Gary Green, 51, was taken to Ipswich Hospital in agony after falling off a ladder from the second floor of a building and landing on his head.

Medics carried out scans and X-rays but discharged him, unaware that that he had broken two bones in his spine. For two days Mr Green said he experienced ‘excruciating pain’ before he returned to hospital on a physiotherapist’s advice.

An MRI scan then revealed he had suffered a severe neck injury.

Mr Green has since had emergency surgery and is now recovering in hospital. He said: ‘I knew I had neck injuries because I spent two days in excruciating pain.’

Gary’s daughter, Kerrie Dunnett, 26, has issued a complaint to Ipswich Hospital demanding answers over the medical error. Mrs Dunnett, said: ‘I want to know how they managed to miss the fact that my dad had a broken neck. ‘My dad had the X-rays and the CT scan and then was discharged. ‘He went back to Ipswich Hospital on Wednesday and he was in such excruciating pain that he had to lie on the floor. ‘I am just so disgusted about this and someone needs to do something about it.’

Ipswich Hospital has told the family that it will investigate the mistake. Spokesperson Jan Rowsell said: ‘All patients deserve the very best standards of care and we are concerned to hear about Mr Green’s experience. ‘We are looking at all aspects of his care very carefully and urgently to understand all the issues involved.’

SOURCE

Many UK rioters were immigrants: 1 in 7 jailed after summer of violence was a foreign national

Foreign looters from 44 countries have been locked up over the riots which scarred the country in August. Robbers, vandals and thugs from as far afield as Afghanistan, Cuba, Ethiopia and Samoa joined in as shops were plundered and businesses set ablaze, causing millions of pounds worth of damage.

The sheer number from different corners of the globe who took part in the mayhem is one of the strongest indicators yet that the riots had nothing to do with political protest or civil unrest, but was born of greed and opportunist criminality.

Last night campaigners said anyone convicted of a riot-related offence should be thrown out of the country at the earliest opportunity.

Prison statistics revealed that 14 per cent – about one in seven – of those jailed for burglary, robbery, theft, criminal damage and disorder during the riots were born abroad. But the true number could be even higher as at least four per cent of those remanded in custody refused to tell police their nationality.

Jamaicans represented the largest group of foreign inmates, followed by Somali and Polish offenders. The list also included those from Colombia, Iraq, Congo, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.

Hundreds of other foreign suspects are facing deportation as separate figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that police have referred 367 ‘suspected foreign nationals’ to the UK Border Agency.

That number is expected to grow as police are still hunting thousands of suspects, with experts predicting it could take up to two years to sift through all the CCTV evidence.

The Ministry of Justice has released a breakdown of the nationalities of those jailed for riot-related offences committed between August 6, when the trouble exploded in Tottenham, and August 9, when disorder had spread outside London to Manchester, Wolverhampton and Birmingham.

A snapshot of the prison population on September 9 reveals that there were 153 foreign nationals and prisoners of ‘unrecorded nationality’ – which in most cases refers to those from the European Union – representing 18 per cent of the 865 criminals imprisoned over the riots. That compares with 712 offenders from the United Kingdom.

One in four of those jailed for robbery were born abroad, as were one in ten convicted for violent disorder or other disorder offences such as possession of a knife or drugs.

Yesterday Sir Andrew Green of the MigrationWatch pressure group called on the Government to kick out foreign rioters and looters. He said: ‘It’s absolutely unacceptable that any foreign citizen should take part in a riot in Britain. ‘It’s important that the courts should recommend deportation in every case which would qualify.’

Immigration Minister Damian Green has said criminals born abroad should be thrown out of Britain. In the immediate aftermath of the riots, he said: ‘We strongly believe that foreign national lawbreakers should be removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity.’

Yesterday Mr Green repeated his commitment to deport offenders from overseas, saying: ‘Foreign nationals who were convicted of offences during the riots will be returned home wherever possible.’

But Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Tom Brake has said the Government would ‘need to exercise caution’, particularly in cases where foreigners have families established in the UK.

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, and courts can recommend deportation in other instances.

However offenders can use the Human Rights Act to appeal against deportation on the grounds that they are entitled to a family life or to avoid the risk of torture.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘It is important to bear in mind that this is only a snapshot of the prison population on September 9. ‘It would be misleading to suggest that it provides a complete picture of those involved in the riots

SOURCE

British grandmother accused of race hate for putting golliwog in window has charge dropped

Racial harassment charges against a woman who displayed a golliwog in her window have been dropped. Jena Mason, a 65-year-old grandmother, was arrested after her black neighbour Rosemarie O’Donnell complained about the toy to police.

Today at Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court, Chris McCann, head of the complex casework unit at the East of England Crown Prosecution Service, offered no evidence. In a hearing lasting less than five minutes, he said a ‘review has been carried out at the highest level’.

Mrs Mason, who did not attend today’s hearing, had been due to stand trial after denying that she displayed an item likely to cause racially-aggravated harassment.

Mr McCann said Mrs O’Donnell and her husband Stephen had been informed. He said: ‘To establish that an offence has been committed, it would have been necessary to prove that Jena Mason was the person who placed the doll in such a prominent position likely to cause her neighbours racially-aggravated harassment, alarm or distress. ‘On the evidence available, it is not possible to show exactly who was responsible for placing the doll in the window.

‘Despite further inquiry and review, we have determined that the evidence is insufficient and there is not a realistic prospect of conviction. ‘We appreciate that this case has caused the O’Donnell family a great deal of upset and we have met with them to explain our reasons for not pursuing a prosecution.’

Outside court, solicitor James Hartley said: ‘I have spoken to Mrs Mason and she now wants to focus on rebuilding her relationship with her neighbours.’

The row erupted after a disagreement between the neighbours over plans by Mrs Mason and her husband Terry, who live in a listed manor house in the village of Worlingham in Suffolk, to build new stables on their land. Their son-in-law, Daniel O’Dell, who also lives at the 16th century manor, is in training for the British Olympic dressage team and needs the space for his horses.

But the O’Donnells, who occupy a £1million barn conversion behind a red-brick wall, hired a planning consultant to object to the application, citing boundary and right-of-way issues, traffic increase and problems from disposing of liquid and solid waste from the horses. They have also complained about the Masons’ dogs allegedly coming on to their land.

Then the golly appeared in a ground floor annexe window of the Masons’ home near the main entrance to the barn.

Days after the local council granted planning permission, Mrs O’Donnell, 48, made a formal complaint to police about it, and supplied a photograph. The businesswoman and mother of two, who has Jamaican roots, said the sight of it left her ‘shocked and upset’.

Mrs Mason was arrested, questioned at Lowestoft police station, charged and bailed.

The dispute centred around whether the golly was a deliberate act of racism – or, as Mrs Mason insisted, that it simply ended up on the window sill when she tidied it up with her grandson’s other toys.

SOURCE

Today’s men need a touch of old-fashioned chivalry, says star of period drama

Women may have won equality since the days of Downton Abbey, but that doesn’t mean they don’t hanker after a degree of old-fashioned male chivalry, according to one of the show’s stars.

Actress Michelle Dockery – who plays Lady Mary Crawley in the period drama – believes modern men have lost some of the most appealing aspects of their personalities.

She explained ‘chivalry’ and good ‘manners’ were two ‘lovely’ traits which have disappeared over the decades.

Asked how she thought the role of women had changed since the days of Downton, set during the First World War, Miss Dockery bemoaned a lack of social graces amongst the younger generation.

The 29-year-old told the Radio Times: ‘We take so many of our freedoms for granted nowadays. ‘I can travel where I like, I can have a baby when I like, I can do any job I want – but I do think chivalry has been lost a little bit.’

Miss Dockery – whose character regrets turning down her distant cousin Matthew Crawley’s marriage proposal – went on: ‘Those old manners – such as men standing when women arrive at the dinner table or opening doors for you – are lovely, and it’s lovely when you see a man doing that today. ‘But young men wouldn’t think about that for a second because it’s not the culture anymore.’

And her co-star Laura Carmichael, 25, who plays Lady Edith Crawley, said: ‘The requirement in those days to find a husband, simply to survive financially, was just awful. ‘But for the drama it’s great because there is a real sense of jeopardy for the girls and that’s what Julian [Fellowes, creator of the series] writes so wonderfully.’

SOURCE

Single women are being offered IVF by the British socialized medicine system — while some couples are denied help

Single women are being offered fertility treatment by almost a fifth of NHS trusts, a Daily Telegraph investigation has found, casting doubt on the Government’s family-friendly credentials.

Women not in relationships are receiving publicly-funded IVF despite official guidance that suggests support should go to couples who have been trying without success to have a baby for several years.

Meanwhile in other parts of the country married couples are being denied help in starting a family, forcing them to spend thousands of pounds on private treatment.

It comes after a Labour law removed the requirement for fertility doctors to consider a child’s need to have a male role model before going ahead with IVF.

Critics say the Government, which David Cameron promised would be “the most family friendly we’ve ever had in this country”, should tackle the postcode lottery of IVF provision and ensure that the needs of children are put first.

Frank Field, the Labour MP who carried out a high-profile review into poverty and life chances last year, said: “It’s clearly wrong that while couples in stable relationships can’t get IVF and in other areas, single women can.

“It’s really important that Government ministers speak up for children who are the ones left out of this. It needs someone in a position of authority to reflect what most taxpayers think.”

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester who once chaired the ethics committee of Britain’s fertility watchdog, said: “The irony is that at the very time research is showing the need for both parents, we are writing fathers out of the legislation.

“It’s one thing for a mother to find herself a single parent because of tragic circumstances. It’s quite another to plan for a situation where the child comes into the world without having a father or any possibility of having a father.”

Most local health authorities stipulate that couples must have been in a relationship for two or three years to qualify for IVF treatment.

That requirement is based on guidance issued in 2004 by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the NHS rationing body,.

It states: “Couples in which the woman is aged 23–39 years at the time of treatment and who have an identified cause for their fertility problems … or who have infertility of at least three years’ duration, should be offered up to three stimulated cycles of in vitro fertilisation treatment.”

The document does note that the guidelines do not address social criteria “for example, whether it is single women or same-sex couples who are seeking treatment”.

However the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 removed the reference to “the need for a father” when considering the welfare of the child when considering fertility treatment, replacing it with “the need for supportive parenting”.

Gareth Johnson MP, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on Infertility, said that trusts offering the service to single women were going against one of the guiding principles of IVF, “that you are treating an infertile couple, not an infertile individual”.

Mr Johnson, the Conservative MP for Dartford, said: “Speaking in a personal capacity, if you are going for IVF, you are trying to create a baby, so there should be some evidence of a stable background, which you would expect to be a couple.”

Earlier this year he led an APPG report that found startling differences between what health authorities offered in terms of IVF.

It found three-quarters of Primary Care Trusts were failing to offer three cycles of IVF, as stipulated by Nice. Each cycle comprises a woman’s ovaries being stimulated to produce eggs, which are then fertilised in vitro and implanted in the womb. Spare eggs should be frozen for use if the first attempt fails.

The report found five trusts offered no IVF at all – Warrington, West Sussex, Stockport, North Staffordshire and North Yorkshire and York. Since then, NHS West Sussex has decided to start funding IVF again.

Many trusts have also started putting in place further barriers to IVF funding – for example demanding obese women lose weight – in part to limit demand as health budgets tighten. Yet 24 of the 135 PCTs that responded to this newspaper’s enquiries said they offered the service to single women.

Against a background of increasingly scarce provision, as the NHS tries to save £20billion by 2015, Mr Johnson said the decision to offer IVF to single women was misplaced. “There’s always going to be limitations on what treatment can be offered, but this seems to say we should be giving IVF wherever we want.”

Among those offering fertility treatment for single women are 10 PCTs in southern England, including those covering Oxford, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight.

Criteria for access to IVF and related fertility treatment from the South Central Specialised Commissioning Group, which covers the 10 PCTs, states: “Sub fertility treatment will be funded for women in same-sex couples or women not in a partnership if those seeking treatment are demonstrably sub fertile.”

It continues: “Women in same sex couples and women not in a partnership should have access to professional experts in reproductive medicine to obtain advice on the options available to enable them to proceed along this route if they so wish.”

Six PCTs in southwest London – Richmond and Twickenham, Wandsworth, Sutton and Merton, Croydon, and Kingston – also offer fertility treatment to single women. Others in southern England to confirm they offered NHS funding for IVF to single women include NHS Swindon and NHS Wiltshire.

A spokesman for NHS Surrey said it would fund fertility treatment for single women under “exceptional circumstances”.

Those in the north include South Staffordshire PCT, NHS Central Lancashire, NHS Halton and St Helens, NHS Knowsley, NHS Liverpool, NHS Sefton, NHS Wirral and NHS East Riding of Yorkshire.

In July Elizabeth Pearce, 39, claimed she was the first lone parent to have given birth thanks to IVF funded by the NHS. She has a son, Leo, who is now eight months old.

She said: “I understand this is a sensitive issue—but I truly believe single women have just as much of a right to a child as couples do.”

Yet exactly how many single women have actually claimed for fertility treatment through the NHS remains unclear.

Juliet Tizzard, head of policy at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, said at a public meeting last week: “There are more single women wanting to have treatment with donor sperm.”

Figures from the HFEA, which helps regulate the sector, show that there were 764 IVF cycles in single women in 2006, the latest year for which information is available. There were also 740 donor insemination cycles in single women the same year. The figures are due to be updated in the next few weeks.

However, a spokesman said the figures were not broken into those who were NHS or self =0funded. The vast majority of single women are thought to pay for fertility treatment privately, where it can cost £5,000 a cycle.

Anastasia de Waal, director of family and education at the think-tank Civitas, said: “The important thing is that the funding is done in an equitable way. It does seem like it is very confused and potentially unfair.”

SOURCE

What IS going on in Britain’s mosque schools? Beatings, humiliation and lessons in hating Britain

The punishment is almost medieval in its cruelty. Victims are forced to crouch down and hold their ears with their arms threaded under their legs. Beatings are often administered at the same time.

This brutal practice has its own name: the Hen, so called because those forced into the excruciatingly painful squatting position are said to resemble a chicken.

It is the kind of shockingly degrading treatment you might expect to feature in an expose of torture techniques, like say, the use of waterboarding (simulated drowning) on terrorism suspects. You’d be wrong, though.

In fact, the Hen is used to discipline children, many under the age of ten, at British madrassas, the after-school Islamic religious classes invariably attached to mosques.

We have been told of one little girl who was forced to stay crouched and contorted in front of her class for an hour.

‘It’s a particularly unpleasant and painful punishment,’ said Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, a founder of the Muslim Institute think-tank, and one of the few Muslim voices in the country to speak out about the abuse of youngsters at madrassas.

The harrowing stories now emerging from such establishments are all too familiar to detectives in Lancashire, where there are 15 madrassas in Accrington alone. They have received at least 37 separate allegations against local Islamic teachers or hafizes, ‘holy men’ who have memorised the Koran by heart.

Among them is a girl who says she was hit and kicked in the leg and face, causing bruising. The victim’s age? Just six.

Then there’s the eight-year-old boy who was punched in the back several times for making a mistake in his studies, or the boy, also eight, who had his head pulled back by the hair for not praying loud enough, or the nine-year-old forced into the ‘Hen position’ before being punched on the back and slapped in the face for not learning his Koranic lines and talking in class.

These are just some of the incidents which have recently been investigated. Yet, so far, not one of the perpetrators has been brought to justice or even reprimanded. Nor are they likely to be. Why? Well, at least some parents, it appears, were pressurised into withdrawing complaints by their own community where the clerical hierarchy are afforded great deference.

Indeed, more than 400 such allegations of physical abuse have been made to local authorities in the UK over the past three years, but there have been only two successful prosecutions.

It’s a shameful indictment of the modern British justice system and one has to wonder if political correctness means the authorities are reluctant to vigorously investigate such crimes for fear of being labelled racist.

The true scale of the scandal is unknown. Many families, it is suspected, are reluctant even to report the ill-treatment of their sons or daughters for fear of upsetting their fellow Muslims. Such fears are more than justified. In some cases, parents have been intimidated and threatened for going to the police. So the brutal treatment meted out to Muslim children continues; in silence.

The plight of many students inside Britain’s madrassas — and the implications for wider society — was highlighted by the respected File On 4 programme on Radio 4 this week, and follows a Dispatches investigation on Channel 4 in February, which not only captured beatings on hidden cameras, but also pupils being taught hatred for the British way of life, which they were told is influenced by Satan.

Anyone with ‘less than a fistful of beard’ must be avoided ‘the same way you stay away from a serpent or a snake’, some children were instructed. Non-Muslims were referred to as the ‘infidel’.

In other words, religious apartheid and social segregation is being taught to a growing number of Muslim youngsters in our towns and cities; an agenda, it seems, increasingly being reinforced by beatings and brutality.

So how much influence do madrassas hold over impressionable young Muslims? The statistics are compelling.

There are now believed to be around 3,500 madrassas in Britain although such is the demand for them that new ones are springing up all the time, not only in mosques but also in living rooms, garages, and even in abandoned pubs. Some have only a handful of pupils; others several hundred. Overall, up to 250,000 children, aged between four and 14, attend madrassas, all dutifully attired in Islamic dress; girls in headscarves, boys in skull caps.

In a typical daily scene, students hunch over wooden benches, rocking backwards and forwards as they learn the Koran by rote in Arabic, as a man with a long, dark beard dressed in traditional shalwar kameez — tunic and trousers — sits at the head of the class or paces up and down.

More HERE

Demoted for not backing gay marriage: British Christian’s pay slashed for criticising proposed new law on Facebook

We read:

“A housing manager has been demoted, and his salary slashed, after he criticised a controversial new gay rights law.

Adrian Smith, a Christian, was found guilty of gross misconduct by his publicly funded housing association for saying that allowing gay weddings in churches was ‘an equality too far’.

He posted the comment in his own time, on his personal page on the Facebook website, which could not be read by the general public.

But after a disciplinary hearing, he was downgraded from his £35,000-a-year managerial job to a much less senior £21,000 post – and avoided the sack only because of his long service.

Campaigners attacked the housing association’s decision – the latest in a series of cases in which Christians have clashed with employers – as a ‘complete over-reaction’ by an organisation ‘drenched in political correctness’.

Lawyers for Mr Smith, whom friends describe as affable and non-confrontational, say his comments were merely expressing an ‘honest belief’ based on his Christian faith.

Source

He is now suing

Advertisements

About jonjayray

I am former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party. 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
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s