Lycraphobia

There's no doubt about it, cycling is a healthy sport, good for non impact muscle development and cardiovascular stimulation. However it seems some people do not wish to cycle as they do not want to appear weird...
Telegraph.

The fear or seeming “weird” is putting people off cycling to work, an academic study has found.

A three year research project has discovered that not fitting in, alongside “squashed helmet hair” and turning up “hot and sweaty” for meetings are the biggest deterrents for using a bike to commute.
Successive Governments have invested £150 million to promote cycling as an environmentally friendly way of travelling.
But there appears to be a long way to go before the public is convinced, according to the study funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
“I get called the bag lady, because I walk everywhere and I have quite a lot of stuff with me,” said Steph, a respondent from Leeds.
Lara, also from Leeds, complained: The helmet is a problem for me, because I just think it would make my hair a little squashed.” 

Meanwhile Joe from Leicester added: “I probably would cycle if I didn’t worry so much about image and public opinion – me arriving at a meeting hot and sweaty.”
Sally from Worcester observed: “You do get a sense of some people thinking oh, you’re a bit weird because you’re going up on the bike you know. A bit odd.”

And these are all valid points save perhaps for the turning up on a bike being weird. We have a number of guys here cycle to work, oddly enough though none of them are office staff, I rather suspect turning up to work in the office sweating buckets is somehow frowned upon, though there are shower facilities available, but then you have all the extra gear to carry and it just seems like you're doing your morning ablutions all over again. And helmet head is definitely not something a fashion conscious lady really wants to contemplate either.
So essentially the government is wasting £150 million of our money trying to get people to do what they just don't see the point of, cycling for pleasure, yes, cycling to work with a full shift ahead of you? No.
I can't see this changing a great deal in the future either, cars are just too handy if you want to turn up smart.

 

More about → Lycraphobia

Leave us alone!

Just been scanning the various news sites I haunt looking for stuff that interests me enough to put fingers too the keyboard, it's not all I do by a long shot, I sometimes play Baldurs Gate as well.
One of the things you tend to notice after a while is the number of health and safety scare stories out there, either designed to outrage us by over sensationalising the story, or ones that show the "health experts" don't appear to live in the same world as the rest of us.
Outrage in the Telegraph.

For 15 years, a set of disused milk crates had been providing children at an Oxfordshire school with old-fashioned fun. But that was before the health and safety zealots caught sight of them.

Now the 25 crates, which have been used as props for countless games involving ships, cars, dens and castles, have been taken away over fears that pupils could be injured on them.

"In all the time we have had the crates, we have not had a single child hurt themselves," said Anne Bardsley, a teacher at Wychwood Primary school, who described the decision to remove them as "outrageous".

The crates, once donated by a friendly milkman, were seized by Dairy Crest during a routine delivery.

Lyndsey Anderson, from the company, apologised for any distress. "Whilst we understand their disappointment at losing something they had come to view as playground equipment, it remains a fact that milk crates are not toys and current health and safety guidelines require that they should not be used as such," she said.

Mrs Bardsley explained that the pupils were always supervised while playing with the crates and that they helped creative learning. "The children absolutely loved them," she added.

No-one had ever been injured, no harm was being done, they were simply useful props. Now I'm sure the company (Dairy Crest) were simply covering themselves from some sort of claim, but after 15 years? It does seem a tad ridiculous, it's probably also cost the school some money in getting a replacement. Whatever happened to the disclaimer "you do this at your own risk"?
Idiocy in the BBC.

Experts say the health hazards of obesity may have been grossly underestimated because we are not measuring the condition adequately.

Risk calculations have focused on severity of weight gain alone and not how long it persists.

Latest research suggests every additional decade of being obese more than doubles death risk.

The researchers told the International Journal of Epidemiology a new measure is needed - the "obese-year".

Similar to the "pack-year" used for smoking, it gives a further quantification that can be used to help estimate the associated health risks.

Tam Fry, of the National Obesity Forum, agreed: "Obesity is starting to become a problem at supremely young ages. We could see people dying before their parents because of obesity."

He said the findings could be a much needed wake up call for some.

"If the GP can say 'You have got to do something about your weight otherwise you will die at 65 rather than 75' that could be a useful scare tactic."

Yep, apparently we can't be trusted to live our lives the way we want too, someone always knows best and so they'll come up with ways to try and live longer (and more miserable) lives giving up all that can be fun in life, our own personal little pleasures simply to add a few extra years on our lives.
We pay our taxes, we fund our health service, they should simply advise us and leave it at that, not attempt to make us live healthy lives. If we want to smoke, drink or eat our way into an early grave then that is our problem, they should simply tell us the risks not try and implement policies to prevent us doing it anyway.
Most people just want to be left alone to enjoy their lives, is this so hard for the "experts" to understand?

More about → Leave us alone!

How bureaucrats think

Well not all of them I'd guess, though it is only a guess, however bureaucrats running the health service have come up with a novel idea for saving money and it's probably not one anyone with an ounce of decency in their body would have come up with, indeed most of us would not even consider it.
Telegraph.

Health service trusts are “imposing pain and inconvenience” by making patients wait longer than necessary, in some cases as long as four months, the study found.
Executives believe the delays mean some people will remove themselves from lists “either by dying or by paying for their own treatment” claims the report, by an independent watchdog that advises the NHS.
The Co-operation and Competition Panel says the tactic is one of a number used by managers that “excessively constrain” patients’ rights to choose where to be operated upon, and damage hospitals’ ability to compete for planned surgery.
It claims unfair practices are “endemic” in some areas of England and pose a “serious risk” to the Government’s drive to open up the health service to competition.
But managers, who are already rationing surgery for cataracts, hips, knees and tonsils, say they must restrict treatment as the NHS is under orders to make £20 billion of efficiency savings by 2015.

One of the problems that often occurs when various departments are told to go looking for ways to make savings or cuts in expenditure is that those tasked with making the savings rarely if ever see themselves as expendable. In public services, the cuts almost always come in at the frontline services, because those services are rarely if ever asked their opinions as to how to make the service more efficient, mostly because the management know the answers will be to get rid of them rather than the frontline staff. A classic case of never asking a question which you know you wont like the answer too.
This is why most private companies use outside auditors, there's no level of covering their own arses involved in a fixed term contract to see where savings could be made.
Yet you have to admire the bureaucratic mindset (for a given level of admire) in their quest for savings in coming up with the idea of saving money by not spending any on their customers who have probably paid into the system their entire lives.
I'm fairly sure there's a special level of hell reserved for those who did this abominable act of cruelty yet justified it by the savings they made. They really are scum and they really need hanging from a lamppost with piano wire pour encourager les autres.

More about → How bureaucrats think

Disciplinary action?

When you're in hospital, you expect to be treated with a bit of respect even if your situation is somewhat undignified. If friends or relatives are in hospital, you'd expect the same things for them. What you don't expect is this...

Mail.

The ultimate NHS indignity: Body of hospital patient left to die in corridor is ignored for hours... before staff simply drag him away

'He went to them for help and they left him out in the corridor to die', says Peter Thompson's daughter
Senior nurse claims it was 'the appropriate method of handling the situation'

Two heartbroken parents have slammed 'inhumane' nurses who left their dead son lying in the middle of a hospital corridor and stepped over his corpse for more than ten hours thinking he was asleep.
CCTV captured staff pulling the lifeless body of Peter Thompson along the floor like they were 'dragging the body of a dead animal'.
Today a coroner said his death was 'wholly preventable' and believes he could have survived but for the neglect of nursing staff, three of whom now face disciplinary proceedings.
41-year-old Mr Thompson had taken a cocktail of drink and drugs but instead of taking him to accident and emergency, staff at the Edale House unit at the Manchester Royal Infirmary left him sprawled on the floor, where he eventually died.

Disciplinary action is ongoing at the moment, though hopefully it will lead to sackings, culpability has been admitted by means of a written apology from the Trust, yet cases like this keep happening as human dignity seems to be a forgotten term to some members of the NHS.
 Yes the family are in line for compensation, but that just means the costs will be passed back to us as taxpayers, the nurses will lose their jobs (probably) but unless their license is actually revoked, will probably find employment again at some stage.
The whole ghastly business really stems from the social engineering carried out by successive governments since the 70's, and possibly before. People just no longer seem to care about other people any more, oh sure they'll care about family or friends, but the kindness of strangers seems to be sadly lacking from today's society, oh not totally missing of course, we still give generously to charities, though even then the governments foreign aid and fake charity set up's are straining peoples credulity when it comes to their own giving.
Yet it's becoming ever more apparent that some people no longer see the human dignity of another as a matter of any great concern. Perhaps it's down to education, or culture, but it should be a matter of grave concern to us all that this sort of thing can go on with people scarcely able to defend themselves or do anything about it.
Perhaps the disciplinary action should go further or higher into a criminal charge of neglect?
I don't know, but people used to dread going into hospitals because that's where you went to die, seems as if history is starting to repeat itself.

More about → Disciplinary action?

One hell of a day

I'm very tired today, some of that is because I worked a 12 hour nightshift last night and have just started a second one tonight (yes if it's quiet I can blog from work) mostly it has to do with not getting enough sleep. I got home this morning to an unwelcome surprise, my dog had been having a bout of sickness and diarrhoea and naturally had created a bit of a stink and this took some time clearing up as well as disinfecting the areas covered along with myself. The dog other than appearing a bit sheepish seemed ok so I went to bed only to be woken up by Lady QM after 3 hours to tell me the poor mutt was passing blood. Fortunately we have a good vet, unfortunately we had to go to the alternate surgery which took some time and after an examination and some blood tests along with him being put on a drip we were told he had to go to doggy hospital (the PDSA) as in his poo was evidence of intestinal flesh. This had by then set us back £300.
We then had to transport a confused dog, his leg in plaster to hold the drip in, to the doggy hospital which was on the other side of town only to be told he would be in till Tuesday and could they have a £200 deposit, oh and by the way if we have to operate the price could go up to £1700.
Well thank God for pet insurance, though we still have to find the up front money first. Besides other than having an otherwise healthy 5 year old dog put down what else were we to do?
By the time we got home, I only had time for a 1 hour catnap before heading into work hoping that it would be quiet tonight because of the bank holiday tomorrow. No such luck...
I'll get through tonight on extra strong coffee and the hope that nothing requiring logical thought is required.
The one thing I will note, is that paying for treatment means you get the treatment there and then, same day, no waiting lists, no real queues, no fuss, just the feeling you're paying through the nose even if you'll get it back. Wouldn't mind a bit if the NHS was the same.
Lucky dog.

Coal and Lady QM

More about → One hell of a day

Tell us something we don't know

One of the more astonishing things about Labour was how they took a country with a balance of payment surplus into a multi trillion pound deficit. Not because this is the sort of thing that the left do as they only have a very slim grasp if any on the relationship between spending and income, but because of how they wasted it. They poured billions into projects such as the NHS and education and yet at the end of the day they ended up not getting any sort of value for the money they paid in at all.

Express.

LABOUR failed to give taxpayers value for money from the billions they poured into hospitals, a report has found.

Despite NHS spending increasing by 70 per cent over the past decade, productivity actually declined in hospitals, the Public Accounts Committee said last night.

Committee chairman Margaret Hodge, a former Labour minister, said: “Over the last 10 years, the productivity of NHS hospitals has been in almost continuous decline. 

“Over the same period, the amount spent on the NHS increased from £60billion to £102billion a year.

“The quality of the health service has improved as a result of this increase in spending.

“But the taxpayer has been getting less for each pound spent.’’

One key problem is that national pay contracts were not used effectively to manage staff performance. While consultants had enjoyed significant pay rises, their productivity had fallen.

Previous research showed the number of NHS managers doubled under Labour and rose six times as fast as that of nurses.

Managers’ pay also rose faster than that of nurses.

 This is one of the greatest flaws in public services, there is no price for failure. A private company would go bankrupt, be sold, be split up, be audited and move towards efficiency or go under. The NHS does no such thing, it simply asks for more money and if threatened with cuts immediately looks to cut frontline services rather than management because that provokes the greatest outrage in the gullible public who think mostly that the NHS is about doctors and nurses and who are often enough under the illusion that it's free. Indeed, only the Chinese Army and the Indian State Railways are believed to employ more people — with 2.3 million and 1.5 million staff respectively — but both workforces represent a far smaller proportion of the national populations.This all has to be paid for out of taxpayers money and we deserve value for that money. I'm not saying that the NHS has to run at a profit, but it does need to be efficient, a public service run on private lines so to speak. This is what Labour failed to deliver, nobody begrudged the nurses and doctors getting a decent pay rise, but nobody expected the massive growth in bureaucracy and the subsequent slip in productivity and standards of care and hygiene, well nobody except the right wingers to whom Labour spending and wise decisions are a bit of an oxymoron.

The committee isn't telling us anything we didn't know, it isn't telling us anything we didn't know 5 or 6 years ago, all they are doing is confirming that yes it happened, despite all the bluster and denial from the left that it wasn't.

What it isn't doing is really telling us how it's going to be put right, efficiency savings of up to £20 billion by 2014 might sound good, but the proof rather will be the details rather than the soundbite. The monster that is the NHS admin will move heaven and earth to save their jobs, they are after all the ones who will be tasked to make the savings, so I fear that the initial savings will be as you guessed it doctors and nurses along with primary care. The left and the liberals will then scream that the evil Tories are gutting the NHS and the whole ghastly business will start all over again.

I think it's long overdue that we looked for and implemented a replacement for the NHS, something that gives the care we need, but provides value for money. I'm sure some country in the world has a better example of how it can be done.

More about → Tell us something we don't know

I'll take my chances

Seems every year now we get some sort of health scare, not just the get your flu jabs kind, but a potential pandemic plague of biblical proportions. It's reached the stage where after the super flu and the bird flu along with swine flu people are just shrugging their shoulders and wondering what all the fuss is about.

Express.

ONLY worldwide mass vaccinations can prevent a possible deadly flu pandemic, experts warned yesterday. People under 50 are at risk of the H2N2 strain – similar to the H1N1 swine flu virus that struck fear across the world in 2009.

Four million people are thought to have died in the last devastating global outbreak of the H2N2 bug in the 1950s and 1960s. A vaccine was produced but the jabs programme was stopped in the late 1960s. It means older people may still be protected but younger people will be at risk because they missed out on the doses. The virus is still present today among birds and swine. Dr Gary Nabel, of the US Vaccine Research Centre in Maryland, said: “Our study suggests people under 50 have little or no immunity.

“Resistance also dramatically increases for those older than 50.” He added: “One approach would be to manufacture the vaccine produced in 1957 and immunise enough of the world’s population to provide ‘herd immunity’ to the rest.”

I probably won't bother, this is of course my choice and I don't have a problem with anyone else getting the jabs, though I'm highly suspicious at the death tolls and scaremongering that has gone on with the various non-existent (it seems) pandemics that  have the various news agencies, doctors and politicians up in arms every year. I'm even at the stage now where I think that these scares are simply a way to try and keep the population living in a state of fear as well as lining the pockets of big drug companies, you can only take so much hype after all and this no longer pushes any buttons of mine, not that it ever has.
Over the years I've become so jaded with various official and MSM announcements about things I should fear that I'm probably in grave danger of risk if something really dangerous comes along, simply because I won't believe them, such has been their effect on my life. I'm not quite at the stage where I'd go out and spot check any politician who tells me the sun will rise in the East, but it's getting close and I'm certainly at the stage where I'd be trying to figure out his angle in telling me. Those in authority and to a certain extent the MSM have by their lies and their general obfuscation and unwillingness to make any statement without various caveats and conditions have lost the confidence and trust of the people they are supposed to be representing. Multi-culturalism, global warming, the EU, immigration, foreign wars, all lied about, all defended to the point of idiocy and still being rammed down our throats as if they are sacred cows to be defended at all costs. It strikes me that in many issues the general public are way ahead of the righteous, certainly in common sense at any rate. Yet at the back of my mind there is the fear that all their machinations might just leave a Pandora's box open one day because we wont believe a word they say which is just another reason to despise them, even if it will be too late.
I'll take my chances with H2N2, I'm over 50 after all, but I am so tired of all the scare stories, the problem is they don't scare any more, they're mostly just sensationalised. So I'll take my chances and just hope that if something really nasty comes along I'll recognise it and do something about it, I'm probably statistically pushing my luck, but I'm definitely not alone.

More about → I'll take my chances

How do they get to positions of power?

I am of course talking about the Health and Safety brigades nestled into various local and national government sectors as well as various fake charities and quango's.

Telegraph.

Pen-pushers have slapped the ban on the swimming aides amid "fears" a pair could "snap" onto a child's face too hard, injuring them.

Parents branded the ruling by Oxfordshire County Council's healthy and safety brigade as "nutty" and "extreme."

However, bureaucrats defended its no-goggle policy claiming that it reflected national guidance provided by sports bodies.

Children will now need a medical reason for them to be allowed to wear the protective eye wear in the pool during school lessons.

Teenage swimmer Danni McFadden, aged 13 years, said: "It hurts my eyes if we swim without them and I go in the water."

Her mother Carmel Ryan added: "I remember being a child and I thought it was great swimming underwater.

"It makes swimming more fun.

"The professional swimmers wear goggles.

"It's a bit nutty.

"If they think someone is messing around with them, they should correct it. They do protect the eyes."

I remember myself swimming in my youth and having eventually to get out as my eyes were burning due to the high level of chlorine in the water used as a disinfectant. I also remember that many pools banned the larger scuba goggles too, not sure why, might have been because they contained glass and if broken became a safety hazard. But I do remember getting hold of the first type of modern goggle and enjoyed swimming underwater and being able to see clearly without the water distortion on my eyes. It made swimming a lot more fun and the exercise was good for us.

Oxfordshire is not alone in banning goggles.

Last year, Leicestershire County Council advised schools of the "dangerous" eyewear which it said could snap back in children's faces, or make them bump into one another due to reduced peripheral vision.

Hertfordshire County Council has done the same.

A spokesman for Oxfordshire County Council refused to divulge the specific reason why goggles had been banned from its swimming pools.

 I think it's because they know the reaction they'll get for doing something so stupid. Yes kids bump and bang each other occasionally, yes they do stupid things, usually they'll only do it once as they are quick learners, unlike Health and Safety officers no doubt. But doesn't it strike anyone normal (for a given value of normal) that making something like swimming less enjoyable brings a whole new set of dangers such as drowning into the realms of possibility? If kids don't like going to the pool because the water hurt their eyes, perhaps they'll also not learn to swim.
I can't even find an instance of any kid being blinded by swimming goggles, I got to 5 pages in google and merely turned up a load of stuff about teaching blind kids to swim as well as a load of guff from mumsnet about the same subject of goggles.
Perhaps it's time we let kids be kids again and saved a bit of cash getting rid of the health and safety brigades.

More about → How do they get to positions of power?

Bookviews - February Edition Posted

For followers of this blog who love to read, the February edition of my monthly report on new non-fiction and fiction titles, Bookviews, has been posted.

It is filled with news of some excellent books on science, history, health and wellness, books for younger readers, and notice taken of some interesting and entertaining new novels.

Share news of this with friends and family, any one of whom is likely to find just the right book about something of interest to them.

More about → Bookviews - February Edition Posted

Second rate or second best?

The NHS has many faults, in some areas of treatment it compares nicely with the rest of the world. However in other areas it singularly fails to provide a world class service.

Express.

DAVID Cameron came under fire from health workers’ leaders and senior MPs yesterday when he unveiled plans for a huge shake-up of the NHS.

The influential Commons Health Committee hit out at his scheme to sweep away primary care trusts and strat­egic health authorities and introduce more competition into the health service.

And the Prime Minister was attacked by angry doctors and nurses after accidentally describing the NHS as a “second-rate service” in a live radio interview.

Mr Cameron’s keynote speech in London was overshadowed by the gaffe in a radio interview.

Well they're calling it a gaffe, but in this case I believe Cameron had it right the first time. There have been several scandals over the years of patients dying on trolleys, diseases such as MRSA running rampant, even one of my local hospitals (Maidstone) managed to kill 90 patients due to the C-diff bug. So quite clearly there are a few problems in the system which not only is the third largest employer in the world, but has recently come under fire for wages increasing but productivity falling. So clearly not a first class or first rate service by anyones standards, then again, Cameron may have been being kind with his slip of the tongue because quite frankly there are some areas of the NHS where second rate would be a bit of a compliment.

Mail.

NHS shamed by third-rate hospitals: Needless deaths and thousands of blunders exposed.
Death rates at 19 hospital trusts are alarmingly high and tens of thousands of patients are suffering blunders at the hands of careless and incompetent doctors and nurses, a major report reveals.
Many of the substandard hospitals already face investigations that could lead to fines, prosecutions and the closure of wards and units.
The annual snapshot of the state of care in England’s 147 hospital trusts also lays bare huge variations in treatment for strokes and broken hips and in the odds of developing potentially fatal blood clots after surgery.

And this was only in November last year, so I doubt there's been a massive change since then. Certainly even the comment of second best was too kind, other countries health services compare a lot more favourably to ours, particularly France and the Scandinavian countries, anyone doing a bit of research could tell you this. yet Cameron is castigated for a slip of the tongue over the fact he was being critical of the NHS, yet the facts tell a different story, Cameron should be castigated for not going anywhere near far enough. The NHS does ok in certain areas, they saved my arm when I had a cancerous tumour on it and the service I had was good, but not everyone is as lucky as I was. In some areas it offers a well below second rate/second class service and those piling into Cameron should be honest enough to admit this. Whether Cameron's reforms will make a difference, I don't know, but I do know the NHS is in need of reform root and branch and trying to tell us any different is akin to pissing into the wind.
A bit of honesty from both parties might be in order instead of defending both the best and the worst of the NHS.

More about → Second rate or second best?

Bansturbation

It's one of the more annoying things about those who discover that what they want isn't the way it is, it's as common amongst Daily Mail readers as it is amongst Guardianistas, they automatic reflex to ban something rather than deal with it at a personal level. And so it is with flu jabs...

BBC.

People who are not in an at-risk group should be banned from having private flu vaccinations, the chairman of the Royal College of GPs has said.

Dr Clare Gerada told the Daily Telegraph allowing healthy people to buy the flu jab had compounded NHS shortages and left others vulnerable.

There are reports some GPs in England have run out of stock.

The Department of Health said it could not prevent pharmacies from selling the vaccine commercially.

Nearly 15 million doses of seasonal flu vaccine have been delivered to the UK.

Usually that is more than enough but this year there has been a late surge in demand, with reports that some people most at risk from flu - including pregnant women and those with underlying health problems - have been unable to get the vaccine.

Some pharmacies have offered the jab privately for about £15.

Dr Gerada told the newspaper the private flu vaccinations had affected the "delicate balance" of availability and should be stopped by the government.

Yes, instead of lambasting the inefficient NHS and the GP's who failed to stock enough of the flu vaccine, they want to ban private businesses from selling it. Yes I know some groups are vulnerable, but surely the NHS and the GP's know who they are and could have ordered stocks in? There's nothing to stop them buying up the chemists stocks themselves after all, it's only our money they're spending, it's never stopped them before.
I suspect what has got their knickers in a twist is that people have decided they'd rather avoid having flu this year and taken it upon themselves to do something about it and rather than bother their GP's (who may have turned round and refused anyway) went to a supplier and paid the market price. So instead of taking a week off work to recover if they got flu, they keep going and help the country out, yet get the blame anyway for using their heads.
What happened was as usual the state run medical business was slow off the mark in making sure they had sufficient supplies, they are now screaming that those with the jabs now hand them over to them to cover their client base and I'm sure a lot will have sympathy for the people at risk who can't get a jab, I do, however it doesn't blind me to the fact of who is to blame for this. Nor do I have any sympathy for those who say we must rob Peter to pay Paul, perhaps those supplying Peter should have got their order in earlier, one thing in business you do learn is you don't irritate your customers by cancelling their orders.
Yet another example of NHS efficiency, they really couldn't be trusted to arrange a piss up in a brewery, or in this case a vaccination in an epidemic.

More about → Bansturbation

The alcohol jihad

I like a drink, I rarely drink to excess and I have never ever caused trouble when drunk, fallen over once or twice, but never injured anyone including myself. Some people can't handle their drink and do cause trouble though, however that's no good reason to either ban alcohol or make it prohibitively expensive. We have laws to deal with drunk and disorderly behaviour, if they were properly enforced then the situation of public drunkenness  that gets the righteous so up in arms wouldn't be an issue. As it is, the police are either doing paperwork to justify their existence or chasing motorists, a far easier target.

Express.

THE Co-op was accused yesterday of luring teenagers into binge drinking by selling four cans of own-brand lager for just 79p.

Industry experts branded the price “an utter disgrace”, adding that it was probably the cheapest beer deal they had encountered.

One furious mother could not believe it when her eight-year-old son pointed out the four-pack, equivalent to 26p a pint, and worked out that it was cheaper than his favourite chocolate bar.

26p a can is cheap but as for the mothers outrage, well nobodies making the silly bitch buy it now are they? It's not compulsory to buy beer at supermarkets now is it? Did someone change the rules when I was down in Devon?
As for those who do buy it, if they cause a nuisance whilst drunk, lock them up, simples.
As for the experts, what business is it of theirs as to what price the Co-op sells their beer at? The stuff is only 2.5% abv, you'd probably spend more time in the loo than actually getting drunk on it. But no, the quango's and fake charities that get so much of our hard earned cash have to be involved and tell us what we can and can't do. Personally I say sod em! What I do with my body is my business, not theirs, never has been, never will be. If I want to drink myself into an early grave that's my business too. That I choose not too should give them pause, adults are capable of making rational decisions with their lives without their help, that we do would put them out of a job, so that can't be allowed now can it?
So the sad end to this tale comes into view...

“The Co-operative is a socially responsible retailer, and it is our policy not to sell alcohol below cost price. The price of the product was reduced because it was close to its sell-by date.

“This should not happen and we will address this.”

Bastards!

More about → The alcohol jihad

Blackout

The Health and safety lobby are about to clash with the recession, in that a lot of councils have decided to switch their street lights off after midnight to save money. Cue, strong language about the probable carnage on our streets etc, etc.

Express.

FATAL road crashes will soar as cash-strapped councils switch of street lights to save cash during the dark winter months, safety experts warn.

Thousands of miles of roads and motorways are to be plunged into ­darkness as town hall chiefs reign back their spending – hit hard by the ­coalition’s cutbacks.

So far, 36 councils are to implement a “black out” on roads during the early hours of the morning. Others are dimming lights to save electricity costs. 

The Highways Agency also plans to turn off lights on some stretches of motorway from midnight to 5am.

Critics yesterday slammed the money-saving measures, claiming dark roads, coupled with the harsh winter weather, could spell disaster.

The AA said: “Statistics show that more people are killed or seriously injured in the dark, so switching off street lighting at any time of day has safety implications and accidents could potentially increase as a result.

“Councils must monitor the impact of the scheme and be prepared to switch the lights back on if there are any changes to accident trends.”

A survey by ­Halfords found 1.9 per cent of road accidents on major roads are fatal where there are no lights, compared with 1.3 where lights are on. On smaller roads the figures are 4.9 per cent for dark roads, compared with 3.1 per cent when the lights are bright.

The switch off comes as the clocks went back an hour yesterday plunging Britain into evening darkness.

Yes, I suppose there's a chance of more accidents, however it's not like they are planning to switch them off at 6 pm is it? One of the strange things you notice when driving about at midnight should you have too is how few people there are about and how few cars there are. You also notice that your car has lights and that they illuminate the road in front of you. Certainly there is an increases danger, but I don't believe for a second that it's going to be anywhere near as bad as the health and safety experts say, after all these are the guys who hammered on for years about speed cameras making roads safer only for Swindon Council to prove that no they don't.
By all means switch the lights off after midnight, switch them off totally on motorways too, save at junctions. They aren't needed particularly, an exception could be made on New Years Eve I guess, but again people would manage,

Would be nice to get rid of some of the light pollution over this country and give people a chance to look at the stars again.

More about → Blackout

Doing a job properly

I take pride in my work, I try not to let my employer down and I abide by the necessary rules, regulations and laws that apply to various aspects of my job. The company monitor what I get up too, to a certain extent and there are policies in place to deal with any problems encountered whilst doing my job. Still, a lot of what I do is covered by trust, my manager can't be everywhere, but because of trust he knows that the job will get done to a satisfactory (at least) standard. However were I not to do the job properly and my actions lead to someone being killed or injured, I'd expect to get more than just a slap on the wrist. A possible prison sentence for criminal neglect could possibly be the least of my problems. I'd imagine that the same rules apply to other people in other jobs, right?

Wrong!

Telegraph.

A total of 15 nurses have been suspended for failing to improve standards at a hospital where as many as 1,200 patients died due to "appalling standards of care". 

But campaigners fear many more could have escaped censure, after a catalogue of failings at Stafford and Cannock Chase hospitals.

The nurses have all been suspended at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust in the last six months, the magazine Nursing Standard discovered. 

In March last year a report by the now-disbanded Healthcare Commission found that patients were left for hours in soiled bedclothes, while some were left without food and water, leaving a few reportedly to resort to drinking from nearby vases.
Attitudes of staff were at times "uncaring'' but managers were "in denial" of the problems, it concluded.
Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of the NHS, described the episode as a "gross and terrible breach of trust".
Julie Bailey, who runs Cure the NHS, which campaigns to improve nursing standards in the wake of the scandal, welcomed news of the suspensions.
"Eighteen months we have been battling for this, and it's only happened because we pushed the Nursing and Midwifery Council to do something about it," she said.
Ms Bailey, whose 86-year-old mother Bella died at Stafford Hospital in 2007, claimed there were more than 15 nurses who should be investigated.
The 15 were identified by combing through an independent inquiry chaired by Robert Francis, QC, she believed.
"It is just targeting a few nurses mentioned in the Robert Francis report," she said.
"We would like them to go through our 180 complaints, that we presented to [former health secretary] Andy Burnham, to identify individual members of staff for the abuse they caused to our relatives."
Mr Francis's report found 18 of the 22 board members who ran the trust over the period under investigation had left their roles.
Only one manager has been disciplined. Kate Levy, the board's head of legal services, was sacked for allegedly suppressing details of a misdiagnosis of a patient who died, John Moore-Robinson, 20. She plans to appeal.
Colin Ovington, the trust's director of nursing and midwifery, said it was unable to comment on why staff had been suspended for confidentiality reasons.
However, he said the "overall trend" of suspensions over the past six months was "slightly upwards". He said this was "further evidence that we are dealing quickly with any examples of poor care or unacceptable behaviour".

Seems like the healthcare industry allows you to get away with manslaughter through neglect with just a suspension. They are also using confidentiality as an excuse to cover their tracks as well though that's common enough excuse in any managerial situation where covering your own back is common enough to prevent an investigation of just exactly where you fitted into the situation. Not the first time this has happened in hospitals either, in my own neck of the woods the superbug scandal at Maidstone Hospital got a lot of headlines, but eventually those responsible didn't go to prison, some ended up with compensation payments in the crazy world of public health.
It would be nice to live in a country where cause and effect has direct consequences, but unfortunately all the rules, regulations both at local, national and international levels often give the guilty a get out of jail free card, complete with pass go and collect £200 compensation. Nor can I see any chance of the main 3 political parties sorting this out, they were responsible for many of the rules anyway and for abdicating responsibility to the EU when they weren't. It would be nice to think that anyone whose actions caused the death of someone through not doing their job properly would end up with more than a suspension, but that's the world the political classes seem to have created for us, still come the revolution...

More about → Doing a job properly

Despicable, but terribly New Labour

People who have and are undergoing treatment for cancer really don't want to end up as political pawns in the most boring general election campaign..... well since the last one really. Yet Labour have used one of their consultancy firms to target cancer sufferers with the warning that their treatment will suffer under the Tories.

Times.

LABOUR has become embroiled in a row about the use of personal data after sending cancer patients alarmist mailshots saying their lives could be at risk under a Conservative government.

Cards addressed to sufferers by name warn that a Labour guarantee to see a cancer specialist within two weeks would be scrapped by the Tories. Labour claims the Conservatives would also do away with the right to be treated within 18 weeks.

Cancer patients who received the personalised cards, sent with a message from a breast cancer survivor praising her treatment under Labour, said they were “disgusted and shocked”, and feared that the party may have had access to confidential health data.

Labour sources deny that the party has used any confidential information. However, the sources admit that, in line with other political parties, it uses socio-demographic research that is commercially and publicly available. 

The postal campaign started last month before the general election was called. This is the first election in which parties have been able to use internet databases and digital printing to personalise their mailshots.

Labour has sent out 250,000 “cancer” postcards, each addressed to an individual, asking: “Are the Tories a change you can afford?”

Many of those receiving the cards have undergone cancer scans or treatment within the past five years. 

- A card was sent to a woman who has died of breast cancer. Her 33-year-old husband was so upset that he sent a message to the Facebook page of Diane Dwelly, the woman whose case is featured in the mailshot, accusing her of being a pawn for the Labour party.

This weekend Dwelly, 48, from Rugby, admitted she had “probably been used by Labour”. She believed her photograph had been taken for use in a magazine for the National Health Service, not as part of Labour’s election campaign.

The cards are being distributed by Ravensworth, part of Tangent Communications, which has won accounts sending out mail for the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.

Tangent claims that it specialises in “highly targeted marketing”.

The cancer cards are part of a wider postal campaign targeting various groups. Others are aimed at parents whose children attend Sure Start centres, pensioners and the owners of small businesses.

Labour has so far sent out 600,000 cards. It plans to distribute 4.5m during the election campaign.

Janet Arslan, 40, a graphic designer who also lives in the Sherwood constituency, said: “When I received the breast cancer card at first I thought it was from the hospital.

“I did not think Labour would be that crass to deliberately target a terminal cancer patient like me.”

I really do think that the Labour leadership and election campaign team have had a morality and decency bypass, yes certainly they could scream this belief in the MSM, but to deliberately target cancer sufferers and play on their fears with political one-upmanship goes well beyond what any political party can or should do. Yet this campaign is only the first results of political parties using the database state where our details have been collected, correlated and sorted into target groups for specific election threats/warnings/promises. They might just as well have sent a leaflet to the cancer sufferers saying "If the other lot get in, you're all going to die!" That is at core, the level to which they have sunk in an attempt to win votes.

Quite frankly Labour should be ashamed of themselves over this issue. Yet the most damning thing of all is they believe they are justified.

A Labour party spokesman said: “These leaflets highlight the Conservative party’s actual policies on cancer treatment. Cancer is a terrible condition and sadly all too prevalent in our society, which is why some of the 250,000 people we sent this message to are likely to have suffered from it.”

Every time I think politicians have gone as low as they can get, some berk proves me wrong. I wasn't planning on voting Labour (or Tory) anyway, though I have nothing against my local MP as he's helped me out in the past. But this would have turned me from a die hard supporter to a neutral at least, disgusting, simply disgusting.

More about → Despicable, but terribly New Labour

Broken promises

A year ago, Labour made a promise to victims of rare cancers that they would get the neccesary (if expensive) drugs to extend their lives.
1 year later and the true story emerges.

Daily Mail. (so to be taken with a pinch of salt)

A dying mother last night became the human face of an election battle over the NHS.

Nikki Phelps, 37, who has a rare glandular cancer, has been refused the only drug that could prolong her life.

Despite pleas from her consultant, her local NHS trust says it will not meet the £100-a-day cost. 

Labour ministers promised more than a year ago to give sufferers of rare cancers easier access to life-extending drugs.

But the rationing body NICE has since refused to approve ten such drugs. Experts say the rulings cut short up to 20,000 lives. 

Former teacher Mrs Phelps and her husband are now selling their £200,000 Kent home to give her a chance of precious extra years with her two-year-old twin boys.

Her plight has been highlighted by the Tories, who have already promised that no one in her situation will be denied a drug their specialist says they should have.

A Tory government would set aside £200million to fund the pledge. 

West Kent primary care trust refused - because NICE has not specifically approved the drug for her type of cancer.

The Labour pledge came amid rising public anger over the denial of life-prolonging rare cancer drugs which are freely available in Europe and the U.S. Ministers put pressure on NICE, which said in late 2008 it would change its rules so more drugs could be licensed. 

But since then only five have been approved and ten rejected. 

First it's a shame that this lady has become a political football particularly when so ill and being forced to sell her home to pay for a treatment to extend her life even though it is temporary.
I can also sort of see the point of NICE, though their dogmatic approach leaves them open to massive criticism, their £30,000 a year cost limit on drugs seems fine but rarely takes individual circumstances into account.
Perhaps one year when someone finally deals with the waste in the NHS properly and trims away the excess bureaucracy the cost of these drugs will more easily be met. But as both Tory and Labour seem to have ringfenced health spending rather than admit there is a serious problem I doubt it's going to happen soon. I know Cameron intends to tinker around the fringes of the NHS, but this wont be the wholesale reform that's needed, then again just wading in with an axe wont help either. Careful thought is going to be needed on reform and an apolitical approach taken to produce a good service without the attendant administration costs we have now.
A good long look at how the private sector does things wouldn't hurt either.

In the meantime I wish Mrs Phelps all the luck in the world, having recovered from cancer myself I have an idea of the devastation in her personal life she'll be going through. Though never in a position where I needed to sell all I have to pay for treatment, I know had circumstances been different we could and would have done so even for a few months extra.

More about → Broken promises

About time

NICE, a harmless seeming acronym for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, they're the people who weigh and measure our health in England and decide if the treatment cost justifies whether or not it's worth keeping you alive. A death panel in other words. They're mostly notorious for denying cancer drugs in England that are available in Scotland and Wales. For instance many cancer medicines which are widely available in Europe, such as the bowel cancer drug, Bevacizumab, and the kidney cancer drug, Sorafenib, are not available in the England. France gives out on average 1,600 mg of Bevacizumab per bowel cancer case, compared to virtually none in the England. Some of the more expensive drugs which have been approved by NICE are used less than in other countries, the figures show. Patients are 20 per cent more likely to be given the breast cancer drug Herceptin on average in Europe than in England, 50 per cent more likely if they live in France or Spain.

Telegraph.

Cancer sufferers in England will get access to drugs refused approval by a NHS watchdog if the Conservatives win the general election, David Cameron has announced. 

Patients are currently subject to a national system of rationing, which means they are routinely refused treatments for breast, colon, kidney and lung cancer which are available free in other countries.

David Cameron pledged that any patient with the disease should be allowed any drug licensed in the last five years, if their doctor seeks it, even if the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has ruled against its use. 

The manifesto commitment means thousands of people could secure medications which are now rarely prescribed on the NHS, despite the fact they can extend lives by months and even years.

Mr Cameron said: "Other European countries are doing better than us at giving people longer, happier lives with cancer.

"We want to get more drugs to people more quickly and in the UK today there are some people – thousands of people – who want a certain cancer drug, whose doctors tell them they should have a certain cancer drug, who don't get it."

He said the costs of paying for the drugs would be met by the £200 million which the NHS stands to save from the Conservatives' decision not to go ahead with Labour's planned 1 per cent rise in National Insurance.

Finally a decision of Cameron that I fully agree with. Hopefully it will be put into practice if the Tories get elected. Still as we all know (at least according to Labour) Manifesto promises are not subject to legitimate expectation. However this isn't labour we're talking about and it does make a change from the "sour little Englanders" position Cameron has taken in the past. Perhaps he's realising where his real power will reside, will make a change for politicians in Westminster to finally put England on a level footing.

 

More about → About time

I just hope this is possible

Many years ago my son was diagnosed with leukaemia, it wasn't a pleasant time for him as he had to go through chemotherapy and spent almost 6 months in hospital plus a further 2 years on and off being treated for various illnesses as his immune system was devastated by the drugs he had to take to kill it off. There were other side effects too, the stress of one parent or another always being in hospital along side him destroyed the marriage, still, we made good friends there too yet also had to witness the death of many of their children and the misery it wrought on their lives.
We however were lucky my son is fine now, been in remission over 10 years, though it changed my life forever, still I have no regrets now on that part.

Telegraph.

A vaccine for leukaemia is about to be tested on human patients for the first time, in a breakthrough which could offer hope to thousands.
British researchers have developed a treatment that can be used to stop the disease returning after chemotherapy or bone marrow transplant.
Eventually it is hoped the drug, which activates the body's own immune system against the leukaemia, could be used to treat other types of cancers.

The first patients will be treated in the New Year as part of a small clinical trial at King's College London.
The patients in the trial have the form known as Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), the most common form in adults. Even with aggressive treatment half would usually find the disease returns.
The idea behind cancer 'vaccines" is not necessarily to prevent the disease. Instead, once a patient has been diagnosed, the 'vaccine' programmes the immune system to hunt down cancer cells and destroy them.
The vaccine then prompts the immune system to recognise leukaemia cells if they return which prevents a relapse of the disease.
The vaccine is created by removing cells from the patient's blood and manipulating them in the laboratory.
The cells are given two genes which act as flags to help identify the leukaemia. It effectively focuses and boosts the immune system's ability to seek out and destroy cancer cells.

This is an incredible breakthrough and a truly brilliant achievement, it will give hope to many and may even lead to more treatments and a far higher rate of recovery. With this treatment lives will no longer be disrupted and destroyed, parents will no longer have to grieve missing children. These doctors are offering hope to so many people and I wish them well and good luck with the trials.

 

More about → I just hope this is possible

The last resort of the scoundrel?

Health Secretary Andy Burnham has accused a Tory MEP who attacked the NHS on American TV of being "unpatriotic".

Labour has stepped up its criticism of Daniel Hannan, who waded into the debate over Barack Obama's health bill.

Turns out Barack Obama doesn't want to copy our system either.

President Barack Obama has made an impassioned defence of health care reform but told Americans he would not use Britain's "socialised" system as a model.

It's been mildly diverting watching the current "witch hunt" as Labour turn their guns against Dan Hannan to try and turn the public's attention away from their own shortcomings. Unfortunately they've forgotten that public disdain for politicians means that the minute they got involved the cause died a death (bit like the unlucky ones that the NHS occasionally fails)
You see, what Labour has failed to realise (along with a good few of Joe public) is that the majority of people don't love the NHS, what they love are the Doctors, Nurses, Ambulance Drivers, Radiotherapists, Ancillary staff etc who look after them on the wards and in A & E. What they don't love is the bureaucracy, the jobsworths, the parking charges, the denial of drugs because of expense (Yes Death panel was a good swipe at the quango called NICE) and the various other things that go to make healthcare in this country a slight tarnishing of the soul.

You also have to wonder which country Andy Burnham thought you were being unpatriotic about, because his title "Minister for Health" is a bit of a misnomer, he's actually only the Minister for Health of England as his portfolio only applies there and not in Scotland or Wales who have to all intents and purposes their own NHS's. No doubt he thought he was making a good point, but any left wing authoritarian really needs to avoid patriotism as their own shortcomings in this area really don't bear scrutiny. Is it patriotic to starve our troops of equipment when fighting in two conflicts? Is it patriotic to allow unbridled immigration? Is it patriotic to refuse democracy in England whilst allowing Scotland and Wales their own Parliaments as well as still allowing their MP's to vote on English matters?

When it comes to Labour, Samuel Johnson was quite correct, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

More about → The last resort of the scoundrel?