£6million payout for boy starved of oxygen at birth which caused cerebral palsy

But the irresponsible slime at the NHS delayed a payout for their negligence for TEN years!

The family of a boy who developed severe cerebral palsy after a hospital blunder led to him being starved of oxygen at birth have received a £6million payout.

Joseph O’Reggio, 11, has been left unable or speak or feed himself after staff at Wolverhampton’s New Cross Hospital failed to act swiftly enough when his heart rate dropped.

His mother Rachel O’Reggio, now 40, had gone into labour after a healthy pregnancy on the morning of April 13, 2001. But the following day, from late morning, her unborn baby’s heart rate dropped. Although he was being monitored, it wasn’t until around 10pm that evening – when there was a shift change – that specialist help was called for.

Joseph was delivered by forceps shortly after 10.45pm, but his heart rate was weak and he suffered brain damage.

Now more than a decade on, the Royal Courts of Justice, London, have awarded a £6 million care package to Joseph’s parents.

The couple, from Wolverhampton, West Mids, won their fight to get Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust to accept that they were liable for the majority of Joseph’s injuries and that he should have been delivered earlier.

Joseph requires round-the-clock care and his parents hope the money will allow them to move to a specially adapted home with their three other children.

He will also have access to the specialist rehabilitation equipment he needs including the installation of a multi-sensory room that uses light, sounds, smells and shapes to develop his skills with hearing, sight, taste, touch, language and hand-eye co-ordination.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice today Joseph’s Julian O’Reggio, 39, said he and his wife were over the moon with the figure they have been given. He said: ‘We’ve managed to secure the funding Jo needs now to last him for the rest of his life.

‘This money will be used for extra physio appointments, speech therapy, occupational therapy to really try and bring him out so he can live his life to the full.

Mrs O’Reggio, a part-time credit manager, who also has two daughters and a younger son, said: ‘I cannot describe how it feels knowing we finally have justice for Joe. ‘It is a mixture of huge relief and happiness that he will now always have access to the treatment he deserves and be cared for the rest of his life.

‘His brother and sisters are great with Joe and love to play with him, but at his age he should be playing and running around with them. ‘It is heartbreaking that he has not been able to meet the normal milestones in his life.

‘This settlement means we will always have support and he will always be cared for, as well as funding all the specialist equipment he needs.

‘However, although it draws a line under everything, nothing can turn back the clock and Julian and I will always remember that if the correct decision had been made earlier, Joe would be the healthy boy we dreamed of.’

Sara Burns, a Partner and medical negligence expert at Irwin Mitchell who represents the family, said: ‘Rachel and Julian have waited patiently and with huge dignity for today’s settlement, which will make such a big difference to Joe’s life.

‘The adaptations to a new house and one-to-one support will make life easier for the whole family who have given up so much to care for Joe and juggled hospital appointments and rehabilitation support with trying to provide a normal family home life.

‘This was a complicated case but the fact is the mistakes made during Joe’s care should simply not have happened.

‘Patient safety must be the top priority across the NHS, but sadly, we continue to be contacted by families whose children have been left brain damaged as a result of negligent hospital staff, looking for access to the rehabilitation and support they desperately need to live their lives as independently as possible.

‘Trusts must ensure thorough training of staff and that guidelines are in place for when to call for senior support, not just for midwives, but all areas of the NHS. ‘This will reduce basic, preventable errors from happening that have devastating consequences for patients and their families.’

Joseph was Rachel’s first pregnancy and she said the money was a huge relief and it was devastating at the time.

She added: ‘We were very angry, we were very raw, for a fair few years, we have gone on to have three other healthy children. That made it a little bit easier emotionally.

‘It’s a huge relief today that we can get Jo care for the rest of his life and pay the carers to help him in every day living. ‘Jo needs 24-hour care, he has no functional use of his arms, his hands, or anything. He has to washed, bathed, gel in his hair, he has to fed, he can’t give himself a drink.

‘The apology means a lot, more than anything it means a lot because it’s that acknowledgement of what they did. We fought for this for more than 10 and half years, and it means more than anything.’


Pupils to learn about 200 key British figures from Anglo-Saxons to Winston Churchill as ‘politically correct’ national curriculum in history is scrapped

History lessons will be rewritten to include 200 key figures, such as Winston Churchill, and events which shaped Britain under a new national curriculum drawn up by education secretary Michael Gove.

The current syllabus, previously attacked for being too politically correct, will be scrapped with the intention of giving children a deeper understanding of history.

Under new plans school children will learn a narrative about British history and key international developments, including the fall of the Roman Empire, the union that created Britain and the decline of its power.

Winston Churchill and Anglo-Saxon monarchs Alfred and Athelstan will also be put on the list of leaders that children will study.

Gove’s blueprint rejects learning by rote, but emphasises that acquiring a detailed knowledge of history will enable children to understand the reasons behind human failures and achievements, The Sunday Times reported.

Secondary school children aged between 11 and 14 will move on to 50 wider topics about the modern world, including Soviet-U.S. relations and how they shaped the world, as well as the influence of immigration on British society.

The national curriculum review was launched in January 2011 but only drafts in primary school maths, English and science have been released.

Headmistress of North London Collegiate school Bernice McCabe, co-director of the Prince’s Teaching Institute and member of the committee advising on the curriculum review, told The Sunday Times: ‘It is not a backward-looking curriculum but very forward-looking.

‘Teachers from the Prince’s Institute have said over the years that there has been a move too much towards skills without sufficient emphasis on the knowledge that you need to use them.

‘In history, for example, we do not see how you can have a good foundation of knowledge without understanding the chronology of events.’

The current version of citizenship, which includes topics such as identities and diversity and how to negotiate, plan and take action has been cut back from 29 pages to one for 11 to 14-year-olds.

The new syllabus will focus on the British monarchy and parliamentary democracy as well as theories on liberty and rights.

In geography, primary children will study physical features, the nature of rocks, rivers and mountains, the names of countries and the characteristics of countries as well as how glaciers shape landscapes.

Later on in secondary school the topics will become more specific, including aspects of human geography, like the industrial expansion of Asia.

Alan Kinder, chief executive of the Geographical Association, advising on the review, told The Sunday Times: ‘ There is concern that pupils…don’t seem to be acquiring the world knowledge that we would expect them to have and most people in the geography subject community feel there needs to be something of a rebalancing.’

It follows criticisms of the current curriculum for failing to ensure children learn about human and physical processed which shape geography.

The PE curriculum is now expected to emphasise the need for physical exertion, amid concerns the current programme requires too little fitness.

The education department refused to comment on the drafts but said they will be made public ‘in due course’.


Failed Met office attempt to slime their way out of their own findings

They ignore statistical significance and errors of measurement. By doing the same one can equally show global cooling. The Met office “reply” is here. Comments below by David Whitehouse

In response to an article in the Mail On Sunday that points out the absence of a recent temperature rise in the Met Office’s newly released Hadcrut4 global temperature database the UK Met Office released a statement that is misleading.

The Mail On Sunday article uses the Met Office’s Hadcrut4 database that was updated from 2010 to the present day last week.

We live in the warmest decade of the instrumental era (post-1850), and most of the warmest years have occurred in the past decade, but what the Met Office ignores to say is that, at present, we live on a temperature plateau – there is no recent upward trend in global temperature.

The Met Office says that the world has warmed by 0.03 deg C per decade since 1997 based on their calculation of the gradient in the Hadcrut4 dataset. But what the Met Office doesn’t say is that this is statistically insignificant. The gradient of the trendline in Hadcrut4 is very sensitive to the start and end dates used as temperatures vary significantly month-to-month, so the Met Office is being misleading in quoting trendlines for a particular start and end date without taking into account how the scatter of the data, the errors in the temperature measurements, and short-term changes affect the statistical confidence in the resulting trendline.

Trendlines from 1997 to August 2012 vary between 0.04 to 0.02 deg C per decade with an associated error of 0.04 deg C per decade. This has to be considered along with the error in annual global temperature measurements of 0.1 deg C. Hence there is no case to be made for a statistically significant increase in global temperatures as given in the Hadcrut4 dataset between 1997 and August 2012.

Quoting trendlines without errors can mislead. For instance the trendline between January 2002 and August 2012 in Hadcrut4 is negative, being minus 0.04 deg C per decade: Between January 2003 and August 2012 it is minus 0.05 deg C per decade – that is global cooling. Would the Met Office be happy to quote such figures in the same way they have for 1997 onwards and state that the world has cooled in the past decade? Only when the errors are incorporated, which the Met Office did not do, can these be seen to be statistically insignificant.

The Met Office also says that if they were to calculate a linear trend from 1998 (a strong El Nino year) to August 2012 it would show a warming more substantial that 0.03 deg C per decade. Actually the warming since 1998 is the same – 0.03 deg C per decade – and again statistically insignificant.

The year 1997 – roughly the start of the recent temperature standstill – is not cherrypicked. Before that year there is a statistically significant increase to 2012, after 1997 there is not.

The Met Office says the 15-year standstill is not unusual. This is true but again the Met Office is being economical with the truth. The IPCC concluded that the period 1960-80 marked the start of mankind’s domination of the Earth’s climate via greenhouse gas forcing. The period before 1960-80 the IPCC regarded as being solely due to natural factors. In the pre 1960-80 period there was a standstill between 1940-80. In the post 1960-80 period there was warming between 1980 – 96 and a standstill thereafter. The mankind-dominated era has only one standstill, which is becoming the dominant global climatic feature of this era.

Only a few years ago the Met Office said that temperature standstills of a decade were common (about one in eight decades), but that temperature standstills of 15 years were not supported by their climate models. They appear to have altered their view as the observed temperature standstill lengthens. The Met Office’s track record in predicting global temperature changes has been dismal.

The Met Office says that climate change can only be detected in multi-decadal timescales. In the three decades since the IPCC said that mankind dominated the Earth’s climate there has been equal timespans of warming and temperature standstills. Which one do they consider to be more significant?

It is disappointing, if not misleading, that when the Hadcrut4 data was announced in March, with data only available to 2010 (a warm El Nino year), the Met Office promoted it with a press release and briefings to journalists. They told Louise Grey of the Daily Telegraph that the Hadcrut4 data showed that the world had warmed even more than expected in the past ten years and that the warming between 1998 – 2010 was 0.1 deg C.

When the full dataset was available, in the past week, showing global temperatures to August 2012, and telling a very different story, no press release was produced.


In an official response to comments on the Met Office website criticising the Mail on Sunday article by David Rose the Met Office have said regarding their trend of 0.05 deg C in Hadcrut4, “…the figure is not intended to show significant warming has occurred. We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.”

This is clearly in contradiction to the original message of the Met Office’s release, i.e. that there had been warming in the past 16 years. One could ask what is their evidence that the warming in the 21st Century is “very small” when by their own admission their figures are not intended to show statistically significant warming had occurred. As we have pointed out if one uses the Met Office technique of deducing warming one finds that the trend in the 21st Century is negative – i.e. there has been cooling.


Alert over ‘Kafkaesque’ secret justice system that would allow British government ‘to play national security card’ to avoid scrutiny

A secret justice system ‘straight from the pages of a Kafka novel’ is planned by ministers, an influential report has claimed.

Controversial proposals to conduct court cases and inquests behind closed doors would allow the Government to ‘play the national security card’ to avoid being scrutinised, said Amnesty International.

The group’s 50-page dossier is a withering assault on the Justice and Security Bill, due to be debated imminently by the House of Lords.

Critics including the Daily Mail and civil liberties groups have campaigned against the plans.

It has raised fears that inquests into police shootings, soldiers killed by so-called ‘friendly fire’ and other hearings with the potential to embarrass the Government will be shrouded in secrecy.

Some campaigners have gone so far as to say that the legislation is a threat to centuries of legal freedoms and even our democracy.

Under the Bill, judges will be able to listen to more civil cases in secret without claimants being permitted to hear evidence.

Amnesty International’s Alice Wyss said the Bill posed ‘a real threat to the principles of fairness and open justice’.

She said: ‘It’s already bad enough that secret procedures have been allowed to creep into the justice system but the Government is now trying to extend secret justice to an unprecedented degree.

‘It wants a system where it can simply play the “national security” card whenever it wants to keep things secret.

‘Evidence that is kept secret, lawyers that can’t talk to you: it’s a secret justice system straight from the pages of a Kafka novel.

‘This Bill will enable the Government to throw a cloak of secrecy over wrongdoing.’

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: ‘Nothing that’s currently heard in open court will be heard in secret in future.’



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