Asthmatic boy, five, died ‘after failings at hospital’
A five-year-old asthma sufferer admitted to hospital with breathing difficulties died within five days after a string of shortcomings, an inquest heard. Harry Mould’s family claim he was not checked enough by overworked staff or given medication when he needed it.
He was so breathless on admission that he had to be given oxygen and treated with nebulisers, which turn liquid drugs into a spray to be more easily inhaled.
The inquest heard the ‘gifted and talented’ boy, from Greenleys, Buckinghamshire, initially seemed to improve after being given the nebulisers every hour. Consultant Abraham Oommen then changed this to using an inhaler. He said he observed Harry for ‘about 15-20 minutes’ before his decision at Leicester Royal Infirmary in March 2009.
The doctor also did not order an X-ray for a suspected chest infection. He admitted Harry, who died of a respiratory infection, ‘did not receive the treatment he should have’
Consultant paediatrician Oommen said: ‘The general impression was that he seemed to be improving. ‘He was alert, he seemed quite comfortable. ‘He seemed reasonably well. ‘I was speaking to his mother about (Harry) going home.’
He said he had ordered Harry to be treated every two hours with an inhaler, but Donald Coutts-Wood, the Deputy Coroner for Leicester City and South Lincolnshire, pointed out: ‘it doesn’t say that anywhere in the notes’, which recorded that Harry should have the treatment every four hours.
When asked by Mr Coutts-Wood why he did not keep Harry on the nebulisers, Dr Oommen replied: ‘I thought he was an older child who would cope well with an inhaler. It can be seen as a more gentle treatment.’ The consultant said he arranged for Harry to be reviewed again by a colleague at 3pm, although the coroner again pointed out that ‘this was not documented anywhere.’
The colleague found Harry ‘did not look as well as he had that morning’ and had needed to be given oxygen to breathe. Harry was then put back on the nebuliser treatment. By 6pm, Harry was assessed as needing ‘frequent’ observations from medics, but was not seen again until 9pm.
Dr Oommen agreed that he ‘would have expected more’ than three-hourly observations of the boy, given his condition.
The court heard Dr Oommen also prescribed a course of antibiotics over a ‘suspicion’ Harry had a chest infection, but did not order a chest X-ray to investigate this further.
As Harry’s condition worsened, the court heard he needed four doses from the nebuliser over a three-hour period, but only received three.
Pathologist Dr David O’Neil told the hearing the youngster had at some point during his treatment suffered a brain injury, which could have caused Harry to not respond to treatment as well as he should.
One law for whites and much more lenient laws for minorities in Britain
In defiance of what the law actually says, judges repeatedly find minorities incapable of racism
Someone holding governmental authority badly needs to tell the British public why there appears to be one rule for them, and one rule for us, when it comes to racially aggravated crime and murder.
Rhea Page is a case in point. Kicked unconscious by a girl gang of drunken Somali Muslims, screaming ‘kill the white slag’: one would have thought this would be labelled a racist incident. Ms Page stated: ‘I honestly think they attacked me just because I was white. I can’t think of any other reason.’
But no, in the eyes of the perverse British judiciary this is not a racial incident, of course. Even worse: Judge Robert Brown allowed them to walk free because he accepted that as Muslims they were unused to drinking… Judge Brown also thought the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from Ms Page’s partner Lewis Moore, 23, who tried to defend her from the attack.
In the wake of the terrible Stephen Lawrence murder, the Macpherson Report defined a racial incident very clearly: “A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.” Is it not a little odd that such a straightforward statement, eagerly embraced by the British police, is open to question only when the victim is white? Ms Page clearly believes this was a racial incident, so why don’t the police or the judiciary?
And this is not a solitary case. Only last week 19-year-old Danny O’Shea had his throat slashed by a gang of black youths outside his mother’s front door in Newham, east London. The police are not treating this as racist murder. Why not?
In 2009, Christopher Folkes died from severe head injuries after he was brutally attacked by three “Asian” males in Queen’s Park, Blackburn. This was not treated as a racist murder. Why not?
In 2004 Christopher Yates was beaten to death by a gang of Muslim males in Barking, east London. One of the attackers, Sajid Zulfiqar, boasted: “We have killed the white man. That will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business.” The Crown Prosecution Service makes it perfectly clear that this was a racially aggravated murder, but again the racial element was overlooked. Why?
Perhaps the most savage murder was that of Mary-Ann Leneghan in 2005. Tortured, gang raped and stabbed to death by a gang made up of Muslims and blacks, this yet again was not a racist incident. The eagerness with which the British police pounce upon white racial transgressors is matched only by their reluctance to label non-white perpetrators as racists.
This simply has to stop. It is bad enough that we are to become a minority in our own land within the next fifty years, but to become an ethnic minority whilst being subjected to grossly unequal state-sponsored racial prejudice is both shocking and horrifying.
Police chiefs often describe the tensions in multicultural areas as “nerve jangling.” Hardly surprising, really. The anger is steadily growing amongst the native Britons, caused partly by the obviously unfair discrimination from which they suffer simply because they are white. If the government and police continue to stoke this anger by their appalling racist attitude toward the indigenous whites, then they must accept and understand that they will be held accountable for the unavoidable multicultural violence of the future.
SOURCE (See the original for links)
British police cross-check just one in seven foreign criminals’ records, even after they are arrested in the UK
Police are failing to check the criminal histories of tens of thousands of foreign offenders – even after they are arrested in the UK. Officers request details from a suspect’s home country in just one in seven investigations involving EU nationals, according to a Home Office review.
And each year, around 30,000 foreign offenders who pass through the courts do so without anyone knowing the full extent of their criminal past. Judges are therefore unaware if the offender they are sentencing is a convicted rapist, murderer or paedophile – or someone with no criminal history at all.
In the worst cases, it could mean the alert is not sounded when dangerous offenders wanted on the continent are picked up in Britain.
Without information on their criminal past, an offender could face a much shorter sentence, be bailed even though they present a threat to the public or escape deportation.
Details of the way officers are failing to carry out even basic checks emerged in a Home Office review of criminal records systems. Sunita Mason, the independent advisor on criminal records in England and Wales, said: ‘It is clear that we should be making such checks routinely when EU nationals are arrested and charged. ‘Even minor offending in the UK might lead to the disclosure of much more serious offending overseas.’
Under EU data-sharing rules, officers can ask to see the records of any EU nationals they arrest. Of the 35,000 EU nationals charged with criminal offences in England and Wales last year, checks were ordered on just 5,500. A similar proportion – 15 per cent – of the EU nationals arrested in this country had their criminal histories explored.
Astonishingly, police may not even be aware they can request the records, the report found. Miss Mason also warned funding for the UK body which handles requests to foreign forces is in doubt. She said: ‘To not address this issue is a potentially huge public protection risk.’
The same report showed EU countries alerted the UK to 20,000 Britons convicted of crimes overseas. That includes 450 Britons convicted of serious violent or sexual offences and 276 criminals who committed offences against children. Just 37 were already known to the UK authorities.
The Association of Chief Police Officers said many offenders refused to say where they were from or lied about their nationality, making it difficult for officers to find out about their past.
The ‘free movement’ directive means it is virtually impossible to stop EU citizens with criminal convictions from entering Britain. Even in cases where officials are aware of serious convictions, criminals cannot automatically be turned away.
Regulations say they can be barred to maintain public security, but ‘convictions in themselves do not constitute grounds for taking such measures’. In reality, they allow all but the very worst criminals free access to the UK.
Just two weeks ago a Latvian axe-killer was jailed after running down an innocent woman while drink-driving. Police had no idea Intars Pless, 34, was a convicted murderer and living in the UK until February this year when he ran his car straight into moped rider Valentina Planciunene, who died on the road.
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘It is an operational matter for police to decide when to request information on foreign nationals. ‘The UK worked hard to implement an EU-wide agreement to share this information – but we know all countries do not currently comply fully. ‘That is why it is important that the new European legislation implemented next spring will require member-states to share this information.’
The leather lady loses: Controversial rules over free places for the poor in private schools to be torn up
Rules requiring private schools to give free places to poor pupils are to be torn up, after a crunch court ruling. In a victory for independent schools, the Charity Commission was ordered to scrap its controversial guidance, which orders schools to offer bursaries or risk losing charitable status.
Judges on the Upper Tribunal – a body which rules on contentious areas of law – gave the Commission three weeks to withdraw its most sweeping guidelines or have them quashed completely.
The ruling comes after a fierce political row over demands that fee-paying schools must provide wider ‘public benefit’ in order to keep millions in tax breaks. The ‘public benefit’ rules were widely seen by independent schools as a crusade by Dame Suzi Leather, the Labour-appointed quangocrat who heads the Charity Commission.
That has pressed private schools to open up their playing fields and sports facilities to local state schools and offer tuition to some local pupils. But they balked at being forced to hand out free places in order to remain in business after the Charity Commission said providing bursaries was the most straightforward way of satisfying the rules.
School heads claimed that would drive up fees for existing parents and price some families out of independent education altogether.
In October, the Upper Tribunal ruled parts of the Commission’s guidance were ‘erroneous’.
The Independent Schools Council had brought a case against the Commission arguing its guidance must be quashed because it was too vague and claimed the commission was guilty of ‘micro-managing’ individual charities. The commission argued its guidelines were clear and it had only provided ‘supportive assistance’ to help schools keep charitable status.
Yesterday the Commission was told to withdraw parts of its guidance, specifically that relating to public benefit and fee-charging charities, which includes independent schools.
Crucially, the judges also decided each case depended on its own facts and it was a matter for the trustees of a charitable independent school – rather than the Charity Commission or the tribunal – to decide how trustees’ obligations to provide public benefit should be achieved.
ISC general secretary Matthew Burgess said: ‘We were vindicated last month when the Tribunal agreed the Commission’s approach to the public benefit of independent schools was wrong. ‘We trust this ruling will now persuade the Commission to discharge its duty to hundreds of thousands of charity trustees to produce clear and accurate guidance.’
A Charity Commission spokesman said: ‘We have received the Upper Tribunal’s decision and, in accordance with this, will be voluntarily agreeing to withdraw the limited parts of our guidance found by the Tribunal not to be correct. ‘We will do this as part of our review of the guidance, which we said we would carry out regardless of the outcome and is already in hand.
‘It remains that in accordance with the judgement, fee-charging schools cannot be charitable if they exclude the poor from benefit and, if established as charities, they have to make provision for those who cannot afford the fees which is more than minimal or tokenistic.’
Rich British environmentalist hates popular newspapers
Compares them to Nazi death camp and wants more controls over them
Tory MP Zac Goldsmith was last night attacked for using a reference to Auschwitz to criticise popular newspapers. The environmentalist made the provocative remark – described by one fellow MP as ‘pathetically stupid’ – at a star-studded session of a Parliamentary committee investigating privacy and injunctions.
Sitting alongside actors Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan, the MP rejected arguments that newspapers should be given free rein to print stories about the private lives of famous people simply so that they sell more copies and remain financially viable.
He said: ‘No one said that Auschwitz should have been kept open because it created jobs.’
Some 1.1million people – most of them Jewish – died in the concentration camp in southern Poland during Hitler’s reign of terror in the early 1940s.
He was appearing before the joint Commons and Lords committee – separate to the ongoing Leveson inquiry into Press standards – because he had previously obtained a so-called super-injunction preventing the publication of private emails which had been leaked to the Press.
But Labour MP Margaret Hodge, a member of the Parliamentary Committee Against Anti-Semitism Foundation, expressed outrage at his use of Auschwitz in his argument. ‘I just think it is a pathetically stupid comparison,’ she said. ‘He should think before he opens his mouth and hurls insults like that. It will cause a lot of distress to people.’
His ancestors, the Goldschmidts, were a wealthy German Jewish family so I suppose he had Auschwitz on the brain