Foreign nurses soar by 40% as NHS is hit by shortage of trained staff
The number of foreign nurses working in the NHS has soared by 40 per cent in the last year. Hospital bosses blame the rise on many senior nurses retiring and a fall in the number of trainee nurses.
NHS executives say they have been forced to hold job fairs in Europe in a bid to recruit more nurses.
Figures show 3,197 nurses from the EU were registered here between November 2010 and November 2011, compared to 2,256 in the same time the year before. Around 87,000 of the 660,000 nurses working in the NHS are from abroad, mainly from the Philippines, Australia, India and South Africa.
To cope with the influx many hospitals have been running language classes to coach staff on English phrases, such as ‘I need to spend a penny.’ One of the biggest overseas recruiters, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Norfolk, runs weekly language sessions.
Many foreign nurses are thought to just book a flight to the UK in the hope they will get a job at a care home as wages are double what they would earn at home.
The influx has been made all the more easier as rules have been relaxed for overseas staff, with competence exams being scrapped.
Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, told The Sunday Mirror: ‘We fully support nurses’ rights to work in other countries around the world. But patient safety must remain the top priority and staff must have the skills for the job.’ He added: ‘Britain should plan ahead and train enough staff to meet our needs.’
More than half of hospital beds cut were for elderly patients
More than half of hospital beds cut in the past year were for elderly patients as NHS cost-cutting drives take a disproportionate toll on older people, according to new figures.
Experts have warned that elderly patients are being discharged too early, putting their health at risk and increasing the likelihood of them being readmitted to hospital.
The full scale of the cuts emerged after a year in which the NHS faced sustained criticism for its treatment of the elderly.
The Daily Telegraph surveyed 172 NHS trusts about how many beds they had closed. Of the 39 trusts which responded, it emerged a total of 469 hospital beds have been cut since April 2010. Of these, 259 were specifically elderly beds.
According to the latest Department of Health figures, 17% of the 121,000 beds in NHS hospitals are for the elderly, suggesting that managers have deliberately targeted elderly beds for cuts.
Dr Ian Donald, policy chair at the British Geriatrics Society and consultant geriatrician at Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust, said hospital managers were targeting elderly beds for cuts because they were more expensive.
“Hospitals are desperate to cut costs. We are coming under pressure to discharge people or shift people elsewhere perhaps earlier than might be good for them,” he said.
“The main reason is probably financial; they see elderly care beds are expensive to run and associate it with stays of a couple of weeks rather than a 50-year-old in for three days. “You do have to understand there is a person at the end of this, who is shunted around. They will be better served by staying in one place.”
The beds are designated for older patients to meet their extra needs, including getting washed and dressed and help with meals. Dr Donald said he estimated they cost twice as much as general medical beds.
Earlier this year, the health service watchdog warned that elderly patients in half of NHS hospitals are not being properly fed or cared for because of a lack of “kindness and compassion”. Unacceptable care has become standard in some trusts, with doctors and nurses talking down to patients, ignoring their calls for assistance and failing to help them eat, drink or wash, it was claimed.
Among the trusts that have cut elderly care beds was City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust, which reduced its numbers by 69 from 201 in 2010/11 to 132. The trust said some had been transferred to specialist wards.
At Derbyshire Community Health Services NHS Trust, 16 per cent of elderly beds were cut, down from 454 in 2009/2010 to 380 in 2010/11.
And 45 elderly beds were cut across three hospitals at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, while there were also 51 fewer urgent care beds.
On Friday, ministers warned patients were being treated like “parts on a production line” after it was reported that the number of patients returning to hospital in an emergency within a month of discharge had risen by more than 75 per cent.
Research has also shown staffing levels on elderly wards vary widely from hospital to hospital. South Tyneside District Hospital had the worst staff to bed ratio with 59 elderly care beds looked after by just two nurses and four health care assistants, according to the Dr Foster hospital guide.
And the most recent bed figures come months after the health watchdog found one in four NHS hospitals was failing to provide basic standards of care for elderly patients.
Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association said: “If this was a result of a more effective and efficient NHS, with elderly patients receiving better treatment in the community, then this would be a welcome move.
“However, calls to our Helpline suggest this is far from reality and what we are seeing is cuts to services with patients having to wait longer to be treated in hospital. “Many patients would prefer to be treated at home, but we know that community services are very patchy across the country. “The elderly population in the UK is expanding daily – when will the Government realise that we must invest in the long term health of our older generation?”
The NHS is facing efficiency savings of £20 billion by 2015 with this year’s health service budget frozen.
Liz Kendall, shadow minister for care and older people, said the reductions in beds showed the health service was being “cut to the bone”. “Patients and their families will be extremely concerned to hear that – on top of cuts to vital council services like home help, which can make a big difference in keeping older people out of hospital – the number of hospital beds is being cut too.”
Health Minister Simon Burns said: “It is for local trusts to determine their specific needs on beds. We have made it clear that efficiency savings must not have an adverse impact on the quality and safety of patient care.
“Reducing overnight bed numbers is consistent with medical advances which allow more people to be treated as day cases, when clinically appropriate. This is what most people want – to avoid unnecessary stays in hospital.”
Welcome to Britain’s Nagging Health Service
Some health fanatics want everyone from GPs to hospital porters to lecture to us about our lifestyles.
‘Make every contact count’ is the big idea. Whenever a health worker – any health worker – meets a patient, they should be ready with advice on how to change that patient’s lifestyle. This notion is crystallised in a new proposal to discuss patients’ habits every time they see their doctor. In other words, it’s ‘make every contact a nag’.
The proposal, put forward by the National Health Service’s Future Forum, would see patients asked about their eating, smoking and drinking habits whenever they see a health professional – even when the patient is suffering from an unrelated illness. Dr Steve Field, the Lib-Con coalition’s so-called NHS troubleshooter and chair of the NHS Future Forum, told the Guardian: ‘In future if you come for your flu vaccine at a GP’s surgery or pharmacy, the health professional should give you your injection but also use the opportunity to talk to you about your diet, smoking, alcohol intake and how much exercise you’re taking, discuss any anxieties you may have about these, and offer advice and support. Similarly, a podiatrist who’s looking after the feet of a diabetic patient has an absolute responsibility to talk to the patient about their smoking, because smoking makes diabetes worse and means the patient is more likely to have a foot amputated.’
Now, it is obviously entirely sensible to talk to someone about their personal habits when those habits have a direct connection to a health problem and during a consultation with the person in charge of dealing with that problem. So, if I have breathing problems, it would seem sensible for my doctor or hospital consultant to find out if I smoke. If I have a gastric ulcer, then my eating or drinking habits might be making that worse.
However, there is nothing worse than going to the doctor only to be lectured about something irrelevant to your condition. There is every chance that this policy will simply put people off visiting their doctors. The chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Dr Clare Gerada, made exactly this point to the Guardian: ‘Young men pluck up the courage to go and see their GP, maybe about a sexually transmitted infection, and would not want to be lectured by a middle-aged woman like me. So we have to be careful that we don’t impose our agenda on to the patients and don’t inadvertently frighten patients who are coming in to see the doctor and who fear that they might be preached at.’
Turning the NHS into the Nagging Health Service will only compound problems. It’s bad enough when your doctor bends your ear about your smoking or drinking. But some would like to take the nagging culture much further. Writing for the Guardian’s Public Leaders Network last year, Dr Wendy Richardson – director of public health for Hull – discussed how the NHS in Yorkshire and Humberside is getting everyone involved: ‘Instead of relying solely on medically trained staff or public-health professionals to promote healthier lifestyles, we need to recognise the huge potential of the wider NHS workforce. From hospital porter to GP receptionist, every day frontline staff have millions of interactions with people that could make a positive difference to their health. Yet all too often, through lack of awareness or confidence in addressing what are often sensitive issues, they miss these opportunities.’
Who would find this process more cringe-inducing? The patient, for whom every contact with the NHS is now an opportunity to be lectured about his or her personal pleasures, or the porter or receptionist given a script to lecture every patient with? If any idea could be more exquisitely designed to poison the relationship between NHS staff and its users/customers/clients, it is this ubiquitous evangelising about ‘lifestyle behaviour change’.
But while the criticisms of the new policy made by Gerada and others are correct, there is another more fundamental point: what I choose to drink, smoke, eat and so on is no business of health workers. In fact, it reverses the proper relationship between doctor and patient.
When people with power over us – like the gatekeepers of healthcare: family doctors – start quizzing us or lecturing us, it has an entirely different character to a friend or workmate gently suggesting we should ease off on the booze or fags. When a doctor starts dishing out stern advice, there is the implication of a refusal to help if we don’t play along. That inference is not an unreasonable one to make; in recent years, treatment has been refused more and more to those who do not live in the prescribed manner.
Yet as the microbiologist Rene Dubos noted in the 1960s: ‘In the words of a wise physician, it is part of the doctor’s function to make it possible for his patients to go on doing the pleasant things that are bad for them – smoking too much, eating and drinking too much – without killing themselves any sooner than is necessary.’ Doctors should apply medical knowledge so that I can be free to live as I see fit, not use medical authority – at the bidding of their political masters – to browbeat me into adopting a lifestyle that receives the official seal of approval.
British government admits illegal immigrants are no longer routinely fingerprinted
Border staff have been instructed to stop fingerprinting illegal immigrants caught trying to enter Britain via the Channel Tunnel, it has emerged. Documents confirm that stowaways found in vehicles at the Eurotunnel compound at Coquelles, north of Calais, are no longer subjected to routine fingerprinting.
The news is likely to increase pressure on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, who was embroiled in controversy over the secret relaxation of British border controls late last year.
The scandal led to the resignation of the UK Border Agency (UKBA) chief, Brodie Clark.
Damian Green, the immigration minister, has defended abandoning the “lengthy” process of taking fingerprints, saying UKBA staff were better served searching cars, lorries and coaches instead.
So-called “clandestines” caught at the border have been fingerprinted and handed over to French police since 2006. Mrs May and Mr Green are under pressure to explain why the change to the policy had not been made public.
Roger Gale, the Conservative MP for North Thanet who wrote to the Home Office to demand an explanation after being told of the development by a constituent, told The Sunday Times: “My constituent works for the [UKBA] service and felt there were a number of real concerns about the changes. He was very worried that no records are being taken.”
In a letter to Mr Gale, Mr Green confirmed that the fingerprinting of illegal immigrants found concealed in vehicles in Coquelles “has been discontinued” and was now undertaken only when deemed to be of “added operational value”.
He added that the UKBA believed the change “will enable its staff to focus on the high priority of searching vehicles and therefore prevent such individuals from even getting to the UK”.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, described Green’s letter as “astonishing” and said: “By not even bothering to fingerprint anyone, the government is sending a signal that this is not a serious offence and people should feel free to keep trying.”
If we go by the daft definition of racism proffered by Diane Abbott’s own social set, then she *is* a racist
Brief background on the Abbott story here. She is a black British Leftist politician and something of a loose cannon
Is Diane Abbott racist? By any reasoned, rational assessment, of course she isn’t. There’s far more to being a racist than writing the occasional clumsily worded tweet. But if we go by the definition of racism proffered by Abbott’s own social and political set – particularly by the Labour Party – then she is a racist. After all, who was it who redefined racism to include speech and action that is not even consciously bigoted (“unwitting racism”) and to include “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”? Yep, it was Labour and its various cliques. Abbott has fallen victim to her own mates’ ruthless relativisation of what constitutes racism.
One of the most destructive legacies of the New Labour years was the racialisation of everyday life: the way in which all of us were encouraged to see racism in every off-the-cuff remark, tense encounter in the workplace, and even playground scuffle (last year more than 20,000 under-11s in British schools were punished for “racist” or “homophobic” behaviour). By turning the hunt for racist behaviour into a new moral crusade for a chattering class that was seriously bereft of one, New Labour did not defeat the scourge of racialised thinking. Rather it did the very opposite, inviting us all to think in increasingly racialised terms and to have our Offence Antennae permanently switched to High so that we might spot anything even remotely racist. The end result was a more divided, tense and racialised society, which is a far cry from the kind of equality and peace fought for by generations of anti-racists.
Under New Labour, racism was most clearly relativised through the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. It was Macpherson’s report, published in 1999 and enthusiastically backed and adopted by New Labour, which introduced the idea of “unwitting racism” – the idea that one can be racist without even knowing it – and which defined as racism any incident that is deemed to be racist by the victim of it or by any other person. In short, almost anything – any dumb remark or thoughtless comment – could now be labelled a “racist incident”. New Labour divorced racism from power and politics and reconceptualised it as a form of bad manners that was allegedly widespread in impolite society.
Abbott’s daft tweet conforms very well to the surreal New Labourite definition of racism. She may not have intended to be racist, but so what, you can still be an “unwitting” racist. And as other people have judged her tweet to be racist, that apparently means that it is racist. The bizarre furore over Abbott’s tweeting should remind us that, sadly, racial thinking has not been defeated but rather has been intensified in the post-New Labour era. Perhaps it’s time to go back to having a serious definition of racism – which is after all a very serious thing. We should aspire to live in society of equals, not one in which both whites and blacks alike are continually invited to play the victim card.
Do as I say, not as I do
The British Labour party opposes private education but a prominent Labour politician sent her son to a private school. It reminds me of Barbara Castle in the Wilson Labour government. She said it was obscene to carve your way to a hospital bed with a chequebook but when her son got sick she sent him to a private hospital — under an assumed name
The black Labour MP accused of racism after claiming that white people ‘love to divide and rule’ sent her son to be privately educated – in a former British colony.
Diane Abbott caused outrage last week after she used Twitter to comment on the Stephen Lawrence murder trial, saying: ‘White people love playing divide and rule. We should not play their game,’ and referring to ‘tactics as old as colonialism’.
Now it has been revealed that when Left-winger Ms Abbott’s son was 16, she shunned the British education system in favour of sending him to a fee-paying school in Ghana, a country run by the British as the Gold Coast Colony between 1874 and 1957.
James Abbott, now 20, was sent to study in the sixth form of the £6,000-a-year SOS-Hermann Gmeiner International College in Tema, Ghana, which boasts facilities such as a ‘near-Olympic-sized pool’ and declares that its students ‘graduate with an internationally recognised baccalaureate and are then able to study at almost any university in the world’. It worked for Mr Abbott – he is now a student at Cambridge University.
The college, established in 1990, also says in its promotional literature that it ‘seeks to focus pupils’ attention on the development of Africa in order to instil a sense of social responsibility and commitment to the continent’.
Ms Abbott was humiliated last week when her party leader, Ed Miliband, rang her while she was being interviewed on television and ordered her to retract her comments.
‘Divide and rule’ was a central strategy of British imperial policy, under which different ethnic groups – including those in Ghana – were encouraged to use up their energies fighting among themselves, rather than plotting to overthrow their colonial masters.
It is not the first time Ms Abbott’s decisions over her son’s schooling have raised eyebrows.
When she was running for the Labour leadership in 2010 she was attacked for sending James to the £13,000-a-year City of London School, despite her party’s opposition to private education.
She explained: ‘I knew what could happen if my son went to the wrong school and got in with the wrong crowd. ‘They are subjected to peer pressure and when that happens it’s very hard for a mother to save her son. Once a black boy is lost to the world of gangs it’s very hard to get them back.’ She added, in an interview with BBC pundit Andrew Neil: ‘West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.’
Mr Neil hit back by demanding: ‘So black mums love their kids more than white mums, do they?’ Ms Abbott responded: ‘I have said everything I am going to say about where I send my son to school.’
James Abbott himself once defended the decision, insisting that his mother was only following his own wishes.
‘She’s not a hypocrite, she just put what I wanted first instead of what people thought,’ he said, adding that he had wanted to go private rather than attend one of the comprehensives in Ms Abbott’s Hackney constituency. ‘It’s a good school. The facilities, the resources and the teachers seem better than the state school,’ he said.
Community leaders complain that black pupils are frequently failed by the state system. Nearly three-quarters of black boys in London leave school without managing to achieve five GCSE passes at grade C.
When James took his GCSEs at the City of London School four years ago, he earned 11 A* grades.
Ms Abbott married James’s father, architect Richard Thompson, in 1991, but they divorced two years later.
Official anti-racism: the new British nationalism?
I must say I was rather surprised by the explosion of self-congratulation when the white killers of a black guy were convicted. Blacks attack whites all the time in Britain and it gets only minor attention. Is it wrong for whites to attack blacks but not wrong for blacks to attack whites? Very strange. Perhaps you have to be a guilt-ridden Brit to understand it — JR
Once the British state and establishment used the politics of race to boost its authority. Today, in pursuit of the same self-serving ends, they are instead engaged in a phoney moral crusade behind official anti-racism. Is that anything to celebrate?
The conviction of two men for the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 has sparked a national celebration of this apparent victory over the evils of racism. Every section of the media and political elite has jostled to line up behind Lawrence’s parents and sign up to the official anti-racist consensus. As one leading press figure put it, the guilty verdict is ‘a triumph’ not only for the Lawrences but for British justice, policing, politics and the media.
For those of us who campaigned against racism in the bad old days of the 1980s, this looks like so remarkable a turnaround in attitudes that one might almost wonder if we are living not just in another century but on a different planet. Thirty years ago when I joined a group called Workers Against Racism, there was no sympathetic media coverage or mainstream political support for the Asian families being burnt out of housing estates or the black youth being routinely brutalised by the police. The national debate was all about the scourge of ‘immigrant scroungers’ and black ‘muggers’. Those who fought against racists were branded extremists, the flipside of the fascists.
Let’s be clear. This was not the ‘unwitting’ prejudice described by the Macpherson inquiry into Lawrence’s murder as the basis of ‘institutional racism’ in the UK. It was deliberate, politicised and vitriolic racism, popularised from the top down and enforced by the state as a weapon to divide the working class and consolidate white support for the authorities.
Living in Moss Side, Manchester during the 1981 riots, I remember police vans cruising the streets while riot cops beat their batons on the side and chanted ‘Niggers, niggers, niggers – out, out, out!’. A veteran comrade of mine recalls being arrested in east London around the same time while carrying some Workers Against Racism pamphlets, and being repeatedly asked by the police ‘Do you like monkeys?’ and ‘Why do you live in a monkey cage?’ (that is, his largely black council estate in Hackney). After the Broadwater Farm estate in Tottenham exploded in a riot sparked by police brutality in 1985, in which an officer was killed, the Metropolitan Police arrested hundreds of youths and told the white kids to cooperate because ‘we only want the blacks’. And so it went on. The incompetent police investigation into the Lawrence murder should have come as little surprise.
And the problem went far beyond police ranks. Tory prime minister Margaret Thatcher is remembered for her declaration about British culture being ‘swamped’ by immigrants. But there was little more sympathy for the victims of racism among leaders of the Labour Party and trade unions. In 1982, we marched from London to Brighton to call on the TUC to take a stand against racial discrimination and violence. Our message was not well received.
Now look at the contrast with the carnival of official anti-racism around the Lawrence murder verdicts this week. What has brought these remarkable changes about? New Labour home secretary Jack Straw summed up the widespread view that, ‘if Britain has changed for the better in the intervening 19 years… that’s above all down to two extraordinary people, Doreen and Neville Lawrence, Stephen’s parents’. Are we really to believe that the Lawrences have magic powers to transform a nation?
What has happened over the past two decades is that Britain has undergone a major cultural shift as the old politics of nationalism and race have lost their grip on public consciousness. This would have happened whether or not Stephen Lawrence had been murdered by racists. Indeed, the fact that his killing remains the benchmark for racist violence 19 years on shows how rare such incidents have become.
But here is the thing. The truth is that the less overtly racist British society has become in recent times, the more the authorities have started preaching about the evils of racism and launching new crusades against it. What has altered most is the perception of racism. Where once it was society’s guilty secret, now there is a concerted effort to trawl for and publicise any hint of racially incorrect language or behaviour from the school playground to the football pitch. The less racism is in evidence, the more everything appears to have been racialised. Why?
Official anti-racism has become the beleaguered elites’ political weapon of choice. The old British Establishment used the traditional politics of nationalism, race and empire to assert its authority. Those days are long gone. Instead, today’s political and cultural elites have seized upon the new orthodoxy of official anti-racism to try to give them a sense of moral purpose. Official anti-racism has also become a tool both to demonise and to discipline the white working-class people whom the elites fear and loathe.
The Lawrence case has indeed played a big part in this process, though not in the way widely assumed this week. The key was not so much the murder itself, but the publication of the 1999 Macpherson report into the case, which formally rewrote the state’s doctrine on the politics of race.
Macpherson introduced two landmark changes. First, it introduced a new official definition of a race crime. A racial incident is now ‘any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’. Such a sweeping subjective definition of a race crime has inevitably confused debate and fostered the view that racism is everywhere and that ever more laws and initiatives are required to police it.
Second, Macpherson defined the problem of ‘institutional racism’ at the heart of British society, leading to the reorganisation of the police and other public institutions around this assumption. But whereas the Sixties radicals who coined the phrase were talking about the deliberate wielding of power by a racist state apparatus, Macpherson explicitly rejected any such link between institutional racism and the exercise of power. The report stated that the Metropolitan Police was not racist; the problem was more the ‘unwitting words and actions’ of individual officers acting together.
Once racism is reduced to a problem of the individual rather than the state or society, the solution becomes re-education to alter individual attitudes. This is an open invitation to the state to intervene to police people’s words, actions and even thoughts – particularly those of the white working class now seen as the source of the problem. Macpherson even proposed that the use of racist language in your own home should be made an explicit criminal offence. The report led to an explosion of race-based codes of conduct, awareness training and surveillance measures throughout British institutions.
New laws have made it possible to charge people with ‘racially aggravated’ offences, rather than just old-fashioned assault or criminal damage, and sentence them more stiffly on conviction. The law has thus extended into punishing an individual, not just for what he had done, but for what he was assumed to be thinking when he committed an offence – his supposed ‘racial motivation’. This was reflected in the sentencing of those two men for the racially motivated murder of Stephen Lawrence.
Redefined on this individualised basis, racism has been taken up as the cause of the moral crusade. Declaring that you are not a racist has become the bottom line that helps mark you out as one of the ‘right-thinking people’, in the words of one police chief. In an age when many of the old moral certainties have been badly eroded, distancing yourself from racist remarks and following the new etiquette is seen as one of the few ways to draw a clear line between Good and Evil.
That is why every British leader and institution is now so keen to swear their abhorrence of racism, as a pass to the moral high ground that might once have been provided by declaring their belief in God. As the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission boasted after the Lawrence verdicts, racial prejudice is now seen ‘as a secular sin that is not to be tolerated’. And the worst sinners are now deemed to be the white working classes, who must have the new catechism/etiquette of official anti-racism drummed into them at every opportunity. That is why, for example, any hint of racism around football, patronisingly seen as a modern opiate of the masses, is made such a public example of today.
It was against this background that the killing of Stephen Lawrence was belatedly singled out by the authorities as so important. It became more than a murder inquiry; not just a criminal case, but a political cause, as the Met’s deputy commissioner Cressida Dick effectively admitted this week: ‘All murder cases are absolutely dreadful, but this case for reasons you will all understand is extremely important, not just for the Metropolitan Police, but for society at large.’ It had become a way for the state to regain some moral authority around official anti-racism.
I have little sympathy for the two men jailed for the killing of Stephen Lawrence. But for some of us who campaigned against racism on the basis of a belief in freedom, equality and democracy, the wider changes the case has become a vehicle for have not been for the better.
Indeed, some of the most worrying political and legal trends evident in recent years have been promoted in the name of official anti-racism post-Lawrence. These include the rewriting of the law along subjective, arbitrary lines through the redefinition of a race crime; the spread of conformist codes of conduct that police language and thought and suppress open debate; the institutionalisation of mistrust and mutual surveillance; and the notion that people are to be judged on their private attitudes at least as much as their public actions.
In the name of ‘zero tolerance’, the codes of official anti-racism have turned intolerance of offensive views into a ‘value’, even a virtue. Indeed, such is the intolerance of those suspected of harbouring sinful thoughts today that anything can apparently be justified to get them – up to and including, as Brendan O’Neill argues on spiked today, the abolition of such an historic principle of the justice system as the law against double jeopardy. This is the modern elite’s version of the old corrupt copper’s mantra – if they’re wrong’uns, anything goes to get them.
On spiked, and even before that in LM magazine, we have argued from the start that there is no benefit for those who believe in freedom in the phoney moral crusade of official anti-racism launched around the Lawrence case. As I wrote here 10 years ago, ‘It is the new thought police, rather than the old racist ones, who are running riot through Britain today’. The exploitation of the Lawrence verdict this week confirms that official anti-racism is now every bit as authoritarian and intolerant as the state racism of old.
There is a new lot of postings by Chris Brand just up — on his usual vastly “incorrect” themes of race, genes, IQ etc.