Tuesday, March 17, 2009

'Third World NHS'


Twelve NHS trusts face inquiries after report on 'third world' hospital where up to 1,200 patients could have died needlessly


Dehydrated patients were forced to drink out of flower vases at a hospital where hundreds could have died because of 'appalling' care, says a damning report.


Desperate relatives slept overnight in chairs at the Staffordshire General Hospital providing basic care for their loved ones, while other patients were left in soiled linen on filthy wards.
Conditions were described as 'Third World' by campaigners who have been fighting for months to get an inquiry.


The 'shocking' details of a catalogue of failures were released today after an independent investigation into the treatment of emergency patients by the Healthcare Commission.
It found Government waiting time targets and a bid to win foundation status were pursued at the expense of patient safety over at least a three-year period at the trust.


But campaigners claimed the lapses may go back much further and could be happening elsewhere in the NHS.


Health Secretary Alan Johnson pledged high-level reviews of current A&E services at the Trust and standards prior to the investigation.


He said 'I have asked the National Quality Board to ensure that the early warning system for clinical under performance is working effectively across the whole of the NHS.'


The Commission's report found an excess of between 400 and 1,200 deaths over what would have been expected at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, based on statistical calculations, as revealed in today's Daily Mail.


MORE:

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

What do you expect. The NHS is just down-grading to suit the scummy immigrants.

richard chadfield said...

The government ,Labour or Tory, want the NHS gone and replaced by private health care. We citizens pay for the NHS through our taxes (no it is not free that is just one more government lie) but the government have no intention of delivering the service.They intend to keep our taxes and make us pay again by taking out expensive health insurance. The government has broken it's contract with the citizens.They can not tell ciizens their true intensions yet. Doing so would bring the government down. Hence the need to acheive their objective by other means. That other means is to distroy citizens confidence in the NHS and there-by drive them, or at least all those who can afford it, into the arms of costly private health care. If you believe that the NHS is dangerous to your health are you going to use it or are you, if you have the money, going to look elsewhere for your health care? Malfunctioning NHS hospitals are just what the government want--are deliberately creating-- to drive citizens into private health care. Eventually only the bottom social/economic class will be using the NHS (they will have no where else to go) and at this point the government will feel sufficiently confident to terminate the service.
The distruction of our institutions, NHS, Post Office, Education etc, is not the result of bungling it is planned deliberate policy. The NHS is going to continue getting worse--it's planned that way.
Richard Chadfield

Anonymous said...

hope the deplorable NHS kills more of the immigrant scum than English Nationalists - that'll save us shipping the scum bastards back home.

Anonymous said...

Labour and Conservatives dreams have come true.

Anonymous said...

Hummmm....wonder how many common purpose stooges are at Staffordshire NHS hospital?

Anonymous said...

A MOTHER'S CRY FOR HELP FOR HER KIDNAPPED CHILDREN

Last March, 2 Winnipeg children were kidnapped and removed from their parents because Manitoba Family Services believed that the parents' White nationalist views might cause the children harm or abuse, as might the parents' "associations." The latter crime was that the mother had attended the White Pride Parade on March 21 in Calgary, Alberta. It had been a peaceful event. She had broken no law.

The victim children came to the attention of Manitoba Family Services, when the little girl, then 7, was reprimanded for drawing a swastika on her wrist in class. The mother was furious that the teacher had assaulted the little girl and taken it upon herself to remove the child's artwork, a symbol of the religion her parents believed in. The next day, the mother helped the little girl use magic marker to re-draw the symbol on her wrist.

The school, incredibly, called Manitoba Family Services. When the mother came to pick her daughter up at school, she learned that the Winnipeg police "hate squad" had been summoned and that her child was being seized. Soon after she arrived home, her place was raided by more than a dozen police, all entrances to her apartment buildng were sealed off as if she were some deranged terrorist and more police cars were parked on the street and in the parking lot outside her home. Her baby son was wrenched from her arms.

This was more than 11 months ago. An unconscionable series of legal adjournments and delays have followed. At nearly the same time as the kidnapping of these children, the State of Texas seized more than 450 children from a property belonging to the dissident Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints. As outrageous as this state kidnapping was, complete with armoured cars ranged against civilians, the parents appealed and, within two months the Texas Court of Appeals returned the youngsters to their parents.

No so in Manitoba. The cruel state kidnapping continues. The mother's lawyer was, at first, eager to "take this all the way to the Supreme Court." He promised to work pro bono. CAFE raised a small retainer for him. Recently, he threatened to quit unless the impoverished mother gives him $10,000. Recent publicity has caused him to relent.

The mother is an industrious woman who has worked for a dozen years as a bar tender. Yet, every new job she applies for or is hired for seems sabotaged as mysterious phone calls inform the bar owners of her controversial situation and she is fired. Seemingly the only ones who know of her new employment opportunities is MFS to whom she must report her current employment status.

Two weeks ago, the mother of the kidnapped children met with Jayleen Schroeder, a psychiatric nurse, for an assessment prior to further hearings. Perhaps, Miss Schroeder's assessment wasn't sufficiently hostile. Manitoba Family Services wanted yet another assessment [and time delay.]

"It seems," the mother/victim [whom, of course, we cannot name] said, "MFS is putting all its eggs in the new psychiatrist's basket.. If he comes back, on April 20 [the next hearing date] and says I'm okay, the children will be coming back to me."

What sort of questions is the young mother asked? "I was asked about my bowel movements," she told CAFE incredulously.

This week, the young mother was told she had to come back to answer another question. This was naked harassment. She had to take two buses, spent an hour and a half travelling each way, and out of her impoverished purse part with $4.50 on public transit. Her time and money were spent to answer the following query which might have been posed over the telephone. "If a person of another race gives you a wink or a nudge, how would you respond?"

"Simple," she replied, ' the same as if a White person had done this. I'm not interested."

Recently as part of the effort to grind this mother into submission, she was denied further visits to her children BECAUSE she told MFS to address further communications to her through her lawyer.

She is being punished for the effrontery of wanting to exercize her right to have legal representation.

CAFE has supported this young mother in her efforts to get her kidnapped children back and has helped her with publicity and fundraising. I've informed free speech audiences across the country of this trsavesty of police state politically correct persecution of dissidents.


Paul Fromm
Director
Canadian Association for Free Expression

Canadian Association for Free Expression
P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale, ON..,
M9W 5L3

CAN YOU HELP?

Send your donation to help the young mother meet her legal fees.


__ Yes, I was to help this mother recover her children.

__ Hree is my donation of $_____.

Name: _____________________________________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

Phone: ___________________________e-mail: ___________________________________

FfAttn:

Wayne Harder,
Eastman Region Child and Family Services,
Winnipeg, MB


Dear sir,

I am writing in regards to your revocation of my 2 hour weekly visitations with my children [8 year old girl] and [3 year old boy].* I am formally requesting written documentation as to why this has occurred.

Also I would request that you take a second to think about how this affects my children and their emotional well being. Having been removed from their mother (me) has been very traumatic for them, and I feel that this action your office has taken will only make it worse.

Please think about the psychological damages that your office has imposed on my children.

According to your act:
“Best interests

2(1) The best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration of the director, an authority, the children's advocate, an agency and a court in all proceedings under this Act affecting a child, other than proceedings to determine whether a child is in need of protection, and in determining best interests the child's safety and security shall be the primary considerations. After that, all other relevant matters shall be considered, including
(a) the child's opportunity to have a parent-child relationship as a wanted and needed member within a family structure;
(b) the mental, emotional, physical and educational needs of the child and the appropriate care or treatment, or both, to meet such needs;
(c) the child's mental, emotional and physical stage of development;
(d) the child's sense of continuity and need for permanency with the least possible disruption;
(e) the merits and the risks of any plan proposed by the agency that would be caring for the child compared with the merits and the risks of the child returning to or remaining within the family;
(f) the views and preferences of the child where they can reasonably be ascertained;
(g) the effect upon the child of any delay in the final disposition of the proceedings; and
(h) the child's cultural, linguistic, racial and religious heritage. “
In regards to each definiton of “the best interests of the child(ren)”

A) My children are being denied the opportunity to have a relationship with myself; as a result of your office’s actions

B) My children’s needs were met on every parameter while in my custody, but as a result of your office’s recent actions their emotional well being is being greatly neglected.

C) My boy* was 2 years old at the time your office kidnapped him, at his stage of development your office’s actions have proven to be detrimental to his sense of security, he has been deprived of his strong bond with his mother (myself) and in turn has regressed in many stages of development both mentally and emotionally.

D) Your office’s actions have caused more disruption then can even be put into the queens English to describe properly to ALL members of not only the immediate family but extended family as well.

E) Your office has had 11 months to come up with a valid “merit” to prove in any way shape or form that there is any risk in returning my children.

F) Has anyone even spoken with either child? No.

G) The delay of proceedings has clearly had an effect on both children any further delays will result in some intense councilling which will be paid for by your office.

H) We come from a family with strong Scottish and English roots, having them attend any church that isn’t Anglican is a refusal to acknowledge their religious and cultural rights, my family is strongly opposed to the practice of Christian Science as we feel it is unsafe to trust only the hand of God.

According to the “child and family services act” your office has shown no consideration to the best interests of my children.

Please respond via letter mail only.

Thank-you

Sincerely,


Mother of Kidnapped Children*

* Because of the poxy, police state secrecy rules, we are not permitted to publicly identify either the victim children or the victim mother.

Anonymous said...

Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Heretical Two Finally Get A Hearing


Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle have finally gotten their first hearing on their application for political asylum in the United States, after eight months in prison. Most asylum seekers with black or brown skins are routinely given low bail, or simply released into the community, and given a perfunctory court date at which they are politely asked to show up, in the full knowledge that's probably the last that will be seen of them unless and until they commit another crime and are arrested later.

Sheppard and Whittle, however, are Caucasian and dangerous thought criminals to boot, so they have been imprisoned for eight months for the "crime" of asking America to fulfill its promise and let them be free.

This is from Tony Hancock, with my own comments in red:

"To-day the Heretical Two's asylum hearing proceeded before the U. S. Immigration Judge, Her Honor Judge Rose Peters. Simon Sheppard and Steve Whittle were brought into court in handcuffs and leg irons. (The feds may have been afraid they might try to type.) They presented their own cases, as their attorney, Bruce Leichty, had withdrawn from the case by leave of the Court, since he was not satisfied with the substantial retainer that he had received from friends of Simon and Steve. (The right to counsel in certain courts and certain kinds of cases is a myth, as I myself can testify from personal experience.) The U. S. government was represented by its attorney, Miss Myers.

"The Court heard evidence from Simon and Steve about their experiences at the hands of the British police and Crown Prosecution Service, and also from their English counsel, Adrian Davies, who gave evidence about the relevant provisions of English law (the Public Order Act 1986, as amended) and the English court's assertion of jurisdiction over web pages hosted on a server located in Torrance, California.

"The hearing was conducted in a very fair, courteous and thorough manner, though inevitably Simon and Steve were at some disadvantage, because they are not lawyers, and are moreover being held in prison, where they have had very limited facilities to prepare for the hearing. After a lengthy sitting, the Court adjourned until 1 p.m., West Coast time, on 24th March."