‘Most beautiful wife and mother’, 35, dies after clips are left inside her during keyhole surgery
This is inexcusable. In surgery everything is supposed to be counted in and counted out
A mother died after a doctor left surgical equipment inside her during an operation. Nicole Haynes, 35, underwent keyhole surgery to her abdomen earlier this year.
When she passed away unexpectedly several weeks later, staff at the hospital discovered a pair of surgical clips had not been removed following the routine procedure. The doctor, who has not been named, is no longer carrying out operations but has not been suspended.
Eastbourne District General Hospital in East Sussex has apologised to Mrs Haynes’s family and launched an investigation.
Her husband Nigel was yesterday too upset to comment. But the 46-year-old plasterer posted an online tribute to his wife on behalf of himself and their young son, Alfie. He wrote: ‘To the most beautiful wife and mother. We will miss and love you for ever. All our love. Nigel and Alfie. xxxx.’
Mr Haynes’s parents, Pam and Len, also left a message, which read: ‘Daughter-in-law with the sunniest smile, we miss you so much.’
Another tribute read: ‘Our beautiful sister-in-law. We promised to look after Nigel and Alfie and we always will. You’re in our hearts for ever, love you always.’
Just four days before she died on March 29, Mrs Haynes had updated her Facebook page with a piece of art done by her son.
Her operation, known as a laparoscopy, is extremely common and generally regarded as very safe. It involves a surgeon making a minor incision and then using a small flexible tube containing a light source and a camera to access the inside of the abdomen and the pelvis. Surgical clips are routinely used in such operations.
As it is much less invasive than conventional surgery, patients benefit from an easier and speedier recovery, as well as reduced blood loss and smaller scars. An estimated 250,000 women have laparoscopic surgery on the NHS each year to treat gynaecological conditions. Serious complications occur in only one in 1,000 cases.
The cause of Mrs Haynes’s death is not known, but the hospital confirmed the tragedy.
A Trust spokesman said: ‘An investigation is currently under way following the death of a patient after laparoscopic surgery. We have been in contact with the patient’s family and offered our sincere condolences. ‘We are treating this with the utmost seriousness and the surgeon involved is not currently undertaking any operations pending the outcome of the investigation.’
An inquest into the death has been opened and adjourned by East Sussex Coroner’s Court.
Wounded soldiers sue military hospital for medical negligence after receiving ‘poor treatment’
In the last three years, 13 injured soldiers sued alleging they received substandard care. When they signed up to risk life and limb for their country, they expected in return to receive a decent level of care if they were wounded.
But new figures have revealed troops returning injured from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq are suing a specialist hospital for medical negligence. The site cares for heroes airlifted home from the frontline and has won a string of awards for its work.
But details released under the Freedom of Information Act show soldiers taking legal action after claiming to have received poor treatment.
And experts say there is a gap between the world-class care frontline soldiers receive on the battlefield and the aftercare they receive when they are repatriated.
Clinical negligence specialist Philippa Tuckman said: ‘I think as far as Birmingham is concerned, there is a gap between the emergency care and what comes next. ‘The acute care is usually very good. The battlefield and emergency treatment is an example to others which has been picked up around the world.
‘What they are not so good at is the general practice and the day to day less dramatic care, which is just as important. ‘Often you have newly qualified military GPs who are not experienced at dealing with the full range of cases they are presented with, unlike an experienced GP. ‘I have clients who say to me, “I assumed as a serviceman I would get the best care possible” and they are surprised when they don’t.’
University Hospital of Birmingham NHS Trust, which runs the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, refused to comment on matters involving military patients.
As well as physical injuries that have been misdiagnosed or mistreated, Ms Tuckman believes the devastating impact of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is still being overlooked, with sufferers being sent back to the frontline.
‘The biggest area relating to active service is psychiatric harm,’ she said. ‘Part of the deal for servicemen is going to warzones like Afghanistan, seeing horrors and having terrible experiences.
‘In some ways PTSD is to be expected, but there are regulations which are supposed to look after you and make sure you aren’t sent back while you are still vulnerable. We’ve got a number of cases where that simply hasn’t happened. ‘It can lead to depression and drinking. It really can snowball and become very serious if people are subjected to tour after tour of duty when suffering psychiatric problems. ‘A better system is needed for dealing with the problem, particularly for helping those with PTSD who are medically discharged.’
The Ministry of Defence refused to go into any detail on any of the medical negligence claims.
But a spokesman pointed out that a fund which could total hundreds of thousands of pounds over the lifetime of a serviceman was available for anyone injured on duty.
In 2008 wounded ex-serviceman Scott Garthley, from Northampton, fought a £2.8million compensation battle with the MoD claiming he had been the victim of negligent treatment. He claimed he had to pay more than £60,000 in private hospital bills just to ensure he received the vital care not offered to him by the MoD.
Mr Garthley was also ordered to take off his uniform at Selly Oak hospital – then home of the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine – in case it offended ethnic minority patients, sparking national outrage.
A rich exodus: Thousands of more affluent Britons expected to leave in next two years over fears about high crime and taxes
And that is setting the mark for being rich quite low. You could spend all of £250,000 just buying a house in a middle-income suburb in Australia. Escaping the mess that Britain is in would be worth it though. It’s one of the few countries where the average person gets poorer every year
More than half a million wealthy Britons are expected to move abroad in the next two years amid concerns about crumbling road and rail networks, crime and high taxes, a survey reveals today.
Some 19 per cent of people with savings and investments worth more than £250,000 are considering a new life overseas, which is up from 17 per cent six months ago and 14 per cent a year ago.
The figures suggest that at least 500,000 people with that level of personal wealth may leave the UK in the next two years.
Investing in improving the infrastructure, such as roads, railways and communications networks, is seen as the most important way to make the UK a more attractive place to live, with 61 per cent of wealthy people choosing this option. But cutting regulatory red tape for businesses, lowering taxes and improving public services such as healthcare, education and the police were all high on the agenda.
Nicholas Boys-Smith, director at Lloyds TSB International Wealth, which carried out the survey, said: ‘While the figures strongly suggest we won’t see a mass exodus, it is clear that a significant and growing minority see opportunity and a better quality of life overseas.’
Crime and anti-social behaviour is the most popular reason for people to contemplate leaving the UK, chosen by 56 per cent.
While the figures do reveal that a minority of wealthy people are discontent about life in the UK, a majority of 62% said they are currently happy with the UK as a place to live.
Some 42% of wealthy Britons think the UK offers a worse quality of life than other developed countries, while 41% think life in Britain is generally more stressful than life overseas.
Revealed: How HALF of all social housing in parts of England goes to people born abroad
British taxpayers should get priority in the social housing queue over new migrants, David Cameron’s poverty tsar has said. Frank Field called for the shake-up after a study revealed up to half of all social housing lets are given to those born abroad.
At the same time, nearly five million families are languishing on waiting lists for subsidised housing in England.
According to figures from the Department for Communities and Local Government, in 2010/11 8.6 per cent of new social housing tenants were foreign. But in London – where the waiting list has soared by 60 per cent to 362,000 in the past decade – up to half of such housing was handed over to immigrants.
In Haringey, North London, 43 per cent of new social housing tenants were foreign while in Ealing, West London, the figure was 45 per cent.
Although some boroughs did not record tenants’ nationality, making it impossible to scrutinise who is at the top of the queue, on average 11 per cent of new social housing lets in London went to foreigners.
Mr Field, former Labour welfare reform minister, described the trend as a ‘scandal’ that ‘must stop’. ‘For years we have been told that British people on the waiting list for social housing are getting a fair deal,’ Mr Field said. ‘Yet, when the situation in London is examined, we find that, in reality, nobody has any idea how many new lets are going to foreign nationals and how many to British citizens.’
‘This scandal must stop. I have a bill before parliament that will ensure that those citizens who have made most contribution to society, who have paid their taxes and whose children have not caused trouble, for example, will have first choice of any housing available. ‘This would be a major change in our welfare state whereby benefits have to be earned rather than automatically allocated on need.’
Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch said, ‘The present situation is a scandal. The records are in chaos. British people who have lived in the area for many years are given little or no priority.’ ‘What is clear is that the proportion of new lets going to foreign nationals in London is far higher than has previously been admitted.’
He added that only British citizens – including those who were foreign born but had taken up citizenship – should be considered for social housing.
He added: ‘Foreign nationals would still get housing allowance but not social housing; there is no reason why they should be entitled to subsidised housing provided by British taxpayers while British citizens spend years in the queue.’
Britain’s Christians are being vilified, warns Lord Carey
Christians are being “persecuted” by courts and “driven underground” in the same way that homosexuals once were, a former Archbishop of Canterbury has warned.
Lord Carey says worshippers are being “vilified” by the state, treated as “bigots” and sacked simply for expressing their beliefs.
The attack is part of a direct appeal to the European Court of Human Rights before a landmark case on religious freedom.
In a written submission seen by The Daily Telegraph, the former leader of more than 70 million Anglicans warns that the outward expression of traditional conservative Christian values has effectively been “banned” in Britain under a new “secular conformity of belief and conduct”.
His comments represent one of the strongest attacks on the impartiality of Britain’s judiciary from a religious leader.
He says Christians will face a “religious bar” to employment if rulings against wearing crosses and expressing their beliefs are not reversed.
Lord Carey argues that in “case after case” British courts have failed to protect Christian values. He urges European judges to correct the balance.
The hearing, due to start in Strasbourg on Sept 4, will deal with the case of two workers forced out of their jobs over the wearing of crosses as a visible manifestation of their faith. It will also take in the cases of Gary McFarlane, a counsellor sacked for saying that he may not be comfortable in giving sex therapy to homosexual couples, and a Christian registrar, who wishes not to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.
Lord Carey, who was archbishop from 1991 to 2002, warns of a “drive to remove Judaeo-Christian values from the public square”. Courts in Britain have “consistently applied equality law to discriminate against Christians”.
They show a “crude” misunderstanding of the faith by treating some believers as “bigots”. He writes: “In a country where Christians can be sacked for manifesting their faith, are vilified by State bodies, are in fear of reprisal or even arrest for expressing their views on sexual ethics, something is very wrong.
“It affects the moral and ethical compass of the United Kingdom. Christians are excluded from many sectors of employment simply because of their beliefs; beliefs which are not contrary to the public good.”
He outlines a string of cases in which he argues that British judges have used a strict reading of equality law to strip the legally established right to freedom of religion of “any substantive effect”.
“It is now Christians who are persecuted; often sought out and framed by homosexual activists,” he says. “Christians are driven underground. There appears to be a clear animus to the Christian faith and to Judaeo-Christian values. Clearly the courts of the United Kingdom require guidance.”
He says the human rights campaign has gone too far and become a political agenda.
Keith Porteous-Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “The idea that there is any kind of suppression of religion in Britain is ridiculous.
“Even in the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to religious freedom is not absolute – it is not a licence to trample on the rights of others. That seems to be what Lord Carey wants to do.”
Why liberals and progressives should refuse to get on the gay-marriage bandwagon
Who could possibly oppose gay marriage? These days only cranky men of the cloth come out in hives at the mention of it. Everyone else, liberal to conservative, thinks it is a fabulous idea.
In Britain, Tory prime minister David Cameron has become an active agitator for gay marriage. In Australia, despite Julia Gillard’s opposition to it, the Labor Party embraced gay marriage in a “conscience vote”.
Across the Western world, backing gay marriage has become a way of advertising your moral decency and modernness. As one British columnist put it, only those in the grip of the “sickening plague of bigotry” could oppose it.
Well, at the risk of putting myself on the side of evil in this culture war, I must say I’m concerned about the drive for gay marriage.
Not for religious reasons (I’m an atheist) and certainly not from an anti-gay standpoint, but for classically liberal reasons – because I think the gay-marriage bandwagon is bad for heterosexual married couples, and for homosexual couples too.
It’s bad for those who are already married because it is part of an inexorable drive to throw open the institutions of marriage and the family to state snooping and bureaucratic remodelling.
There are many reasons why political actors, including conservative ones, have become cheerleaders for gay marriage. It’s partly about distancing themselves from what are now seen as stuffy traditions and demonstrating that they are modern. And it’s partly about cultivating a new constituency: being pro-gay marriage wins you a sympathetic ear from the influential opinion-forming classes.
But politicians are also drawn to gay marriage because they recognise, sub-consciously, that it gives them a route into that long-time no-go zone of the family.
It is difficult to overstate the enormity of the changes being brought about on the back of gay marriage. For centuries, going back to Roman times, the family, which was largely founded on the institution of marriage, was seen as its own sovereign entity, free from the meddling of the sovereign who ruled society itself.
From the ferocious patriarchy of the Roman family to the idealised idea of the nuclear family in the 20th century, the institution of marriage and the units it gave rise to were considered deeply private.
They shielded people from the scrutiny of the state; they were “havens in a heartless world”, as Christopher Lasch put it. Where we’re all subject to moral regulations in the public sphere, through marriage, a public expression of commitment that gives rise to a private unit, people could fashion an institution in which they themselves created morality and forged relationships, free from state exertions.
Such was the power of sovereignty within the family that the rulers of society often borrowed from it in order to justify their authority. Kings and prime ministers referred to themselves as “Father of the Nation” in a nod to the ideal of family sovereignty that enjoyed such authority down the centuries.
Of course, politicians often felt an urge to interfere in family and married life, being instinctively suspicious of institutions that provided some cover from state prying. But they were never successful. The drive for gay marriage could change that.
The attraction of gay marriage for politicians is that it fits neatly with their turn from macro issues to micro ones, from finding solutions to big social problems to getting stuck into what the British Labour Party calls “the politics of behaviour”.
Today, politicians who aren’t very good at traditional politics have given up trying to transform society in favour of reshaping the relationships, lifestyles and attitudes of those who inhabit it. Their gay-marriage agitation is a central part of that.
The usefulness of gay marriage as a tool for attitude re-modification can be seen in the way it is being used to redefine relationships and families in bureaucratic terms. So David Cameron’s consultation on gay marriage proposes erasing words like “husband” and “wife” in official documentation and replacing them with “partner” or “spouse”.
This has already happened in Canada, where gay marriage became legal in 2005. There, the words husband and wife, even mother and father, have been airbrushed from official life, superseded by soulless terms like “Parent 1” and “Parent 2”.
Such top-down rewriting of terminology is always about more than linguistic trickery. Rather it speaks to officialdom’s desire to overhaul meaning and reality itself. That such centuries-old identities as husband, wife, mother and father, which have profound meaning for millions, can be swiftly swept aside demonstrates the extent to which gay marriage is facilitating official interference into our lived experiences.
This is social engineering, the renaming of relationships to suit the prejudices of our rulers. It also acts as an invitation to yet more state interference. The reduction of historic identities like husband or mother to bureaucratic categories like partner and parent presupposes that bureaucrats have the right to define our relationships, and by extension to govern them.
After all, if you are no longer a mother, with all the moral meaning and historic protection such a title affords, but rather are “Parent 1”, then what is to stop the bureaucrats who bestowed that new title upon you from deciding that you aren’t doing a great job and that maybe Parent 2 or 3 or 4 should take over?
Allowing the state to redefine ancient, organic relationships is a short step from allowing it to police them.
The political thirst for gay marriage is underpinned by officialdom’s instinct to get a foot in the door of the family. It devalues marriage as it is currently constituted – in real life, not just in law – and, in an historically unprecedented step, it makes the sovereign of society into the sovereign of marriage and the family too.
The gay-marriage bandwagon isn’t only bad for married couples. It’s bad for gay couples too. For while it’s presented as a positive drive for equality, it’s actually motored by a very defensive clamour for state recognition of gay relationships.
A gay relationship is fundamentally one of romantic love, far more so than traditional marriage is (although that can have romance in it too, of course). But ours is an era which feels uncomfortable with romantic love, viewing it as naive, even as the site of abuse and harm. This means many homosexuals feel increasingly uncertain about their unions based on romance, on pure partnership, and feel compelled to wrap them in the legitimating comfort blanket of that respectable institution, marriage.
This ties in with another gay-activist tactic today: the search for evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Gay-rights spokespeople constantly claim, on the basis of dodgy science, that every creature from penguins to donkeys engages in homosexual behaviour, and therefore it must be natural.
This, too, represents a frenetic search for external legitimation of gay love. Gay activists defensively seek to naturalise their relationships through the use of pseudo-science and to normalise them through state recognition, through the demand for marriage. Both of these activities reveal a profound lack of confidence in the modern gay movement, which once simply declared: “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”
There would be nothing positive about institutionalising gay marriage on the basis of a new defensiveness amongst gay people about their lives and loves. That would leave unaddressed the moral question of why romantic unions, of which gay ones are amongst the purest, seem lacking in confidence today.
Underlying the gay-marriage debate is a relativistic reluctance to distinguish between different kinds of relationships. Gay love is fundamentally a relationship between two people. Traditional marriage is not. It is a union between a man and a woman which very often, through its creation and nurturing of a new generation, binds that man and woman to a great many others, to a community. It is an institution, not a partnership.
Collapsing together every human relationship under a mushy and meaningless redefinition of “marriage” benefits no one. Except the political elites, who are so desperate to advertise their modernising zeal that they will ride roughshod over people’s identities if they think it will help them.
British Conservatives plot re-think on countryside wind turbines
Ministers are preparing to veto major new wind farms in the British countryside and cut back their subsidies, according to senior Government sources.
The decision to pull back from onshore wind farms comes after more than 100 backbench Conservative MPs mounted a rebellion against turbines blighting rural areas earlier this year.
Greg Barker, the Climate Change Minister, also said this weekend Britain has “the wind we need” either being built, developed or in planning.
“It’s about being balanced and sensible,” he said. “We inherited a policy from the last government which was unbalanced in favour of onshore wind.
“There have been some installations in insensitive or unsuitable locations – too close to houses, or in an area of outstanding natural beauty.”
Britain already has around 350 wind farms across the country, with around 500 already under construction or awaiting planning permission
This means the number of wind farms built in the British countryside could still double from the current level.
However, it is understood senior Conservatives in the Coalition are behind a determination to scale back support for onshore wind power, amid fears the turbines are deeply unpopular in rural areas. There is also concern that subsidising so many different types of “green” energy is adding too much to energy bills.
They have seen an opportunity to re-think policy since Chris Huhne, the former Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary, resigned to fight charges of perverting the course of justice in a speeding case.
“Chris Huhne’s zealous ambition is being reined back,” one top Whitehall source said. “There’s already enough being built and developed.”
It is understood the Department for Energy and Climate Change is currently considering how it can keep a lid on more wind farms being developed.
Sources said ministers are prepared to block major developments of onshore wind turbines under the new Localism Act that came into force last month.
They are also ready to reduce the £400 million per year in funding that goes to wind farms under the Renewable Obligation Certificate subsidy.
The moves would be popular with the dozens Conservative MPs fighting against new wind developments in their constituencies.
In the letter sent to Downing Street in February, more than 101 MPs sais they have become “more and more concerned” about government “support for onshore wind energy production”.
“In these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines,” they say.
The MPs want the savings spread between other “reliable” forms of renewable energy production.
The news comes as leading Conservatives launched a behind-the-scenes attempt to kill the Coalition’s so-called “conservatory tax”.
Tory ministers are furious that people who want to extend their homes or build conservatories will be forced to pay for extra insulation themselves or sign up to the government’s “Green Deal”, which provides loans to install energy saving insulation that must be paid back with interest.
A senior government source said “aspirational” home-owners who wanted to improve their properties should not be penalised.
“We don’t think this should extend to a ‘conservatory tax’ situation. The compulsion elements are over-the-top,” the source said.
British “Conservatory tax” to be axed for being ‘an attack on aspiration’
Ministers are to scrap plans for a ‘conservatory tax’ following a massive Tory backlash. A senior Government source told the Mail that the proposals are ‘dead in the water’.
This latest abrupt U-turn comes only a week after we revealed the move which would force homeowners to fork out hundreds of pounds extra on measures to improve energy efficiency when they build an extension or fit a boiler.
Although the Liberal Democrat-inspired plans are still out for consultation, the source said: ‘We are absolutely not going to have a conservatory tax. It is an attack on aspiration and we want nothing to do with it. It will be blocked.’
The rethink came as ministers struggled to regain control of the political agenda after an Easter break dominated by Budget rows over tax raids on charities, churches and the elderly.
The Mail’s revelation last week that ministers planned to force millions of homeowners to install costly energy efficiency measures when making home improvements infuriated Tory MPs.
Under the ‘mandatory’ scheme anyone wanting to build a conservatory, replace a broken boiler or install new windows would have to seek permission from the council. It could then require them to improve the energy efficiency of their homes by investing in measures such as loft and wall insulation and draught-proofing.
Loans would be available under the Government’s £14billion Green Deal scheme to help pay for the measures, the cost of which could run into hundreds of pounds.
But the scheme alarmed many Conservatives, who feared it would deter families wanting to improve their homes.
MP Stewart Jackson said: ‘We should be supporting aspirational families who want to better themselves and improve their homes, not clobbering them. It is a crackpot scheme and I hope it is strangled at birth.’ Fellow Tory Mark Pritchard said: ‘The tax on conservatories should be renamed a tax on Conservatives. It is another anti-aspiration tax, and a tax on one of the UK’s favourite hobbies – DIY.’
A powerful group of Tory ministers, including the Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, Employment Minister Chris Grayling and Housing Minister Grant Shapps, mobilised quickly to block the move. Mr Cameron is also said to have been alarmed by the proposal.
The controversial measure is included in a consultation issued by Mr Pickles’s Department for Communities and Local Government.
Sources said it had been included at the behest of former Lib Dem Energy Secretary Chris Huhne as a result of Coalition ‘horse-trading’.
Mr Huhne has since been forced to step down to fight criminal charges over allegations that he asked his former wife Vicky Pryce to take speeding points on his behalf.
A source said: ‘It is a shame that the idea ever made it into the consultation at all, but the Lib Dems got their way.’
A senior Government figure said the mandatory element of the scheme would be dropped when the final proposals are published.
‘We are not against people insulating their homes and we are not against the Green Deal, but it should not be mandatory,’ he said.
The decision to scrap the ‘conservatory tax’ before it has even got off the ground is likely to anger some Lib Dems.
A source close to the new Lib Dem Energy Secretary Ed Davey defended the proposal, saying it would save homeowners money in the long term.
‘We are just asking people to make improvements to make their homes more energy efficient – it seems to me that actually helps the homeowner,’ said the source.
‘Of all the building regulations there are, this is one of the few where the entire financial benefit accrues to the homeowner. It will save them money on their fuel bills over the medium to long term.’
However, a raft of recent research has cast doubt on the level of savings claimed by the Government.
Some pilot studies have found that the cost of energy efficiency measures is far higher than the savings on bills.
It’s beyond belief to teach witchcraft in British schools
Teaching Druidry and paganism in schools is just another example of our liberal fear of religious values, says Cristina Odone
Saint Morwenna, who in the 6th century built a church on a cliff with her bare hands, must be turning in her grave. Her beloved Cornwall, the last redoubt of Celtic Christians, is to teach witchcraft and Druidry as part of RE. The county council regards her religion (and that of other Cornish saints such as Piran and Petroc) as no better than paganism.
It makes perfect sense. Fear of being judgmental is so ingrained today that no one dares distinguish between occult and Christian values, the tarot and the Torah, the animist and the imam. Right and wrong present a problem for liberals who spy covert imperialism or racism in every moral judgment. Saying someone has sinned is “disrespecting” them, as Catherine Tate’s Lauren Cooper might say. Speaking of religious values is as dangerous as playing with the pin on a hand-grenade: it could end up with too many Britons blown out of their complacency. No one should dare proclaim that adultery is wrong; greed, bad; or self-sacrifice, good. In doing so, they’d be trampling the rights of those who don’t hold such values.
This mentality is not confined to Cornwall. When the BBC’s The Big Questions asked me to join its panel of religious commentators two years ago, I was taken aback to find it included a Druid. Emma Restall Orr rabbited on inoffensively about mother nature, but I was shocked that her platitudes were given the status of religious belief by the programme makers. Ms Restall Orr exults in her website that the media has stopped seeing Druidism “as a game” and now invites her on serious faith and ethics programmes from ITV’s Ultimate Questions to Radio 4’s The Moral Maze and Sunday Programme.
God, Gaia, whatever: school children are already as familiar with the solstice as with the sacraments. In pockets of Cornwall, children will point out a nun in her habit: “Look, a Druid!” Their parents will merely shrug — one set of belief is as good as another. How long before the end of term is marked by a Black Mass, with only Health and Safety preventing a human sacrifice?
Doctors hit out at Government’s obesity strategy as they launch campaign to tackle Britain’s junk food problem
These galoots should stick to healing the sick. There is no evidence that anything they propose will do any good
Doctors have hit out at the Coalition’s obesity strategy today as they launched a campaign to tackle Britain’s junk food problem. The body that represents every doctor in the country said there was a ‘huge crisis waiting to happen’ because measures to tackle the fat problem are failing.
A quarter of women (24 per cent) and just over a fifth of men (22 per cent) in the UK are now classed as obese – the highest in Europe. By 2030, experts predict that the problem will have ballooned – with 48 per cent of men and 43 per cent of women obese.
The three-month investigation by the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges will look at the action individuals can take – as well as the impact of advertising and sponsorship.
They are demanding a ban on McDonalds advertising at major sporting events like the Olympics and want the Government to consider bringing in a ‘fat tax’ on the most unhealthy foods. They also want fast food free zones around schools to be brought in.
The campaign will be chaired by Professor Terence Stephenson, vice-chairman of the AoMRC and president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. He said the campaign would see medical professionals coming together in an unprecedented way.
‘Our starting point is the collective desire to ensure the healthcare profession is doing all it can to detect, treat, manage – and ultimately prevent – obesity.
‘It is unprecedented that the medical royal colleges and faculties have come together on such a high-profile public health issue.’
In an apparent attack on the Coalition, he said that current strategies to tackle obesity were not working.
He added: ‘We recognise the huge crisis waiting to happen and believe that current strategies to reduce obesity are failing to have a significant impact.’
He added: ‘Speaking with one voice we have a more of a chance of preventing generation after generation falling victim to obesity-related illnesses and death.’
One in three children are overweight or obese by the age of nine.
The campaign will seek the views of healthcare professionals, local authorities, education providers, charities, campaign groups and the public, in the form of written and oral evidence.
It’s first report will be published later this year and will offer recommendations for how the medical profession, individuals, organisations and the government can reduce obesity levels.
Professor Sir Neil Douglas, chairman of the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges, said: ‘This won’t be just another report that sits on the shelf and gathers dust; it will form the bedrock of our ongoing campaigning activity.
‘We are absolutely determined to push for whatever changes need to happen to make real progress in tackling – which is why we’re casting the net wide to get input from a range of organisations and individuals.
The Academy of Royal Medical Colleges represents all surgeons, psychiatrists, paediatricians and GPs.
Cop is a bit too frank about the ladies at Aintree
The Grand National jump race is held at Aintree racecourse near Liverpool, England. Liverpool is generally a lower socio-economic area. As a major horseracing event on the social calendar, however, the Grand National is an occasion of great prestige.
As they rarely get the opportunity at any other time of attending anything as prestigious, the women of Liverpool turn out in droves for it, making sometimes desperate attempts at glamour. Slim one are rare. And that is what the police officer below is referring to. He has obviously seen it all.
Police have launched an investigation after an officer blasted women attending Ladies’ Day at Aintree for being alcoholics and bad mothers in a Facebook tirade.
PC David Crawford, of Merseyside Police, appeared to be targeting Liverpool women whom he labelled as ‘tramps’ who ‘feed their kids pork scratchings’ for breakfast.
The outburst was posted on the social networking site as thousands descended on Aintree racecourse on Friday.
The officer proclaimed Ladies’ Day as being ‘more like Halloween’ and derided the calibre of the women attending the race meeting.
‘Cos come Sunday ul b back to drinking ya Lambrini at 10 in the morning watching Jeremy Kyle whilst shouting the kids ‘britney and Tyson come down for ya pork scratching breakfast’.
‘Whilst ya 10 quid fake bake tan is smeared all over the place an everything u touch looks like an ARL used t bag has been there.
‘Tramps! Ladies Day – more like Halloween! Rant over.’
The photographers did manage to find SOME slim ones:
Freedom of speech row over British blogger who faces jail for calling councillor a c*** on Twitter
“A political blogger who used an offensive term on Twitter to indirectly describe a local councillor is facing jail in a landmark conviction which has caused outrage on the social networking site.
John Graham Kerlen, who blogs under the name Olly Cromwell, used the word ‘c***’ while tweeting about Bexley Council.
Mr Kerlen, an outspoken blogger whose website heavily criticises the local authority in south east London, posted an image of a councillor’s house, as well as a tweet saying: ‘Which c*** lives in a house like this. Answers on a postcard to #bexleycouncil.’
Mr Kerlen was arrested after a complaint from the councillor in question, and was charged with an offence under Section 127 of the Telecommunications Act 2003.
And in a case which could have huge legal repercussions for Twitter and its millions of users, Kerlen was convicted of the offence by Greenwich magistrates and now faces a possible jail term.
This appears to be an obscenity conviction. In an age when “obscene” speech is very common in Britain, it sounds like the law is being twisted to a political purpose