Malta passes law to ban normalisation surgery on intersex infants

Hey guys, this is really good.

Full story here: http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2015/04/03/malta-just-became-the-first-country-to-ban-normalization-surgery-on-intersex-infants/

Highlights:

"Malta’s parliament just passed new legislation that allows self-determination of gender (with a simple process to legally change gender), and outlaws unnecessary surgery on intersex babies. This bill makes Malta the first country to ban unnecessary surgery on intersex infants.

In 2013, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture announced it condemns unnecessary surgery on intersex babies. “The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to repeal any law allowing intrusive and irreversible treatments,” the UN statement reads, “including forced genital-normalizing surgery, involuntary sterilization, unethical experimentation, medical display, ‘reparative therapies’ or ‘conversion therapies,’ when enforced or administered without the free and informed consent of the person concerned.”

Maltese officials and medical professionals are now working to come up with guidelines to make sure all surgeries done on infants are medically necessary and not “driven by social factors without the consent of the minor.”

Excellent!

Linky time

Look, here's a great post of the vast majority of skirt, bag, dress, shoe etc styles:
http://fullofwhoa.tumblr.com/post/107079509098/dixiejos-right-here-is-it-everything-you-ever
There's a few styles missing, but the vast majority are there.  It looks useful for when I want to start making clothes.

Alternate universe Harry Potter where Aunt Petunia takes him in and loves him:
http://katzenfabrik.tumblr.com/post/106896187643/ink-splotch-what-if-when-petunia-dursley-found
It's beautiful and gut wrenching and well worth reading.

A North Korean defector's view on The Interview:
http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/23066/1/i-watched-the-interview-with-a-north-korean-defector
Really interesting.

A really, really good dahl recipe:
http://georginahayden.com/my-go-to-south-indian-dal-recipe/
Seriously good.  Seriously seriously good.  The recipes on this woman's site are great - always tasty and simply to do (at least I've chosen the simple to do ones - I leave the complicated ones!)

Upcoming council elections and Left Unity

I've just got a flyer through for a new party, Left Unity.  On the face of it they seem pretty good - leftwing, socialist, opposed to our current government's policies.

I see that one of their pledges is to 'End homelessness, overcrowding and high rents'.  Fair enough.  They say they will do this through:
"One million new homes to be built immediately. Refurbish the ageing housing stock. We built twice as many homes in the 1930s - the Great Depression - and they were bigger."

I'm not convinced by this.  Where are they going to build these houses?  On our green areas?  It's not worth building new houses if we destroy our countryside.  We may well have built twice as many homes in the 30s, but there was more space then and fewer people.  Those houses still exist, but Britain hasn't got twice as much land as it did int he 30s - land is a finite resource.  Houses may well have been bigger then and I bet there are a few reasons as to why that is.  One will be that there was more space.  Another would be that housing companies are greedier now - they want as much profit as they can get so they build as many houses as they can in a small space, and give them tiny little squares of gardens.

There are other options to solve the housing crisis - set limits on rental prices.  Ban second homes (or tax them heavily if you want to be less difficult about it).  Do something about all the empty homes.  Stop landlords screwing over their tenants.  Make renting more attractive so people don't need to buy (says she, who owns her own home).

There is nothing in their leaflet about the environment.  Which is why i'll be voting Green again.  I know that Left Unity don't have a hope in hell of getting a seat - you'd vote for them as a protest vote - but i can't vote for someone with such an ill thought out housing policy.  The Greens have some power in Norwich, and a few council members.  They are leftwing and environmentally friendly, which suits me.

Edited to add:
Just seen this news post on the problems of Britain's booming housing market: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27459663
Fuck's sake.  It's a problem if people aren't buying, it's a problem if they are are.  Granting large mortgages will lead to a debt overhang, which could destablise the economy, apparently.
On the same page was an article about how the Sunday Time's Rich List is 'wealthier than ever': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27459621

Is no one else seeing the problem here????

Another ASN update/worldwide pickets planned for abortion clinics

40 days of Life are a Christian organisation that picket outside abortion clinics, over (I presume) the Lent period trying to scare and shame women into not having abortions.  Clearly, they disgust me.  If you want to lower abortion rates you need to provide good sex education, free contraception, free childcare and improved benefits for mothers (and fathers).  You do not lower abortion rates by protesting/gathering/praying outside abortion clinics.  A list of clinics they are going to picket is available on their website here: http://www.40daysforlife.com/location.html
I suggest that if you are near a clinic, and feel safe doing so, form a counter picket, or bring in nice goodies to the staff at the clinics.  Cakes, biscuits and fruit would probably be welcomed.

On a similar note, here is a direct fundraising appeal from ASN: 

Have you heard about the recent investigations into rogue Crisis Pregnancy Centres in the UK?Unregulated, anti-choice ‘counsellors’ are telling women that abortion could give them cancer, make them infertile, or even turn them into child abusers. Disgusting, isn’t it?

Unfortunately, this story is all too familiar to me. Crisis Pregnancy Centres inIreland are just as willing to shame, manipulate and flat-out lie to women to suit their anti-choice agenda.

Lorraine - a single mother of three - was over 13 weeks pregnant before she got our number. A ‘counsellor’ at a CPC in Dublin told her that doctors in Britain are “butchers” who would leave her “permanently scarred”.

But that's not all women in Ireland have to worry about. At ASN, we hear from an equal number of women who are horrifically treated by the people they should be able to trust - their own doctors.

When fifteen-year-old Niamh went to her GP for advice, he dismissed her fear and scolded her for wanting an abortion. After the appointment, he made sure everyone in the waiting room knew that the young girl with him was pregnant.

We believe that Irish women who need to end a pregnancy need practical advice, not shame, judgement, and lies. 

When women contact us, we are very clear to them that we are not counsellors or health care professionals. Thanks to your donations, our helpline and email are there to give information and non-judgemental, practical support; if a woman needs, we also arrange hosts and give grants towards their procedure and travel.  If a woman asks for a local resource for medical information, counselling, a rape crisis centre, or a place where she can speak to someone face to face, we only refer to non-directive, pro-choice organisations.

Your donations help us be at the other end of the phone for women like Lorraine and girls like Niamh every day – thank you so much. If you could spare a little more today, every penny or cent helps.

Thank you, as always - here’s to helping more women, together!

Mara Clarke
Director, Abortion Support Network
 
 
*Some details have been changed to protect our clients’ privacy.

More on Thatcher

So, as I sort of said in my last post I felt sort of conflicted about Thatcher's death.  Not anymore I don't.  I have been in a great mood all afternoon - since I heard the news.

I know this makes me a bad person. I know you shouldn't gloat or celebrate someone's death.  But I don't care.  I'm happy she's dead.

She brought in Section 28 which prohibited schools talking about homosexuality and bisexuality.  Effectively, schools coudln't mentioned lesbian, gay or bisexual people existed.  I regard that law as a hate crime.  It led to thousands upon thousands of kids being unaware they were normal, unaware there was nothing wrong with them.  It denied them access to resources to help them come out, it denied them support.  It allowed schools to turn a blind eye to homophobic bullying.   In all my time in school, being gay was mentioned once, when in the sixth form a Sociology teacher said Section 28 existed which was why they were unable to even mention homosexuality or bisexuality.  When I think of how confused I was growing up, when I couldn't work out whether I was gay or bisexual, when I think of all the self doubt and anxiousness this caused me, I know this could have been avoided or at the very least reduced if schools could even acknowledge that LGB people existed.  For Section 28 alone I am glad she's dead.

Here are a few more choice quotes about her, floating about twitter today:

@PeterTatchell #Thatcher legislated UK's first new anti-gay law in 100 years: Section 28. She mocked the right to be #gay. No such right she said. #LGBT

@LorrieHearts

Thatcher's death is throwing up a lazy misconception that never fails to enrage me: that acting decisively makes a woman a feminist. Wrong.

‏@thisisrjg

I was head librarian at one of my secondary schools. One job I was given was to remove all Oscar Wilde books because of Clause 28. #dingdong

‏@seyd

O' the irony: RT @calumsplath: "I owe nothing to women's lib. The feminists hate me, don't they? I don't blame them. For I hate feminism....

‏@swanstonmuir

“Thatcher on feminism: "I hate feminism. It is a poison." Thatcher on Mandela: "He is a terrorist." Thatcher on Pinochet: "Welcome."

Another Angry Woman ‏@stavvers 5h

Let's remember Thatcher introduced Section 28, which means my school was forbidden for teaching me that I exist.

‏@Paul_Cornell

Except Thatcher's not dead. She's in every bloody atom of this so-called coalition's Britain.

‏@JamesDRobinson

So Thatcher's dead? No loss, fucking hated her.

‏@GigerPunk

"The impact she made here", @bbcwalestoday? That'd be shutting all the mines, surely?

‏@davidwynne

Anyway. I was the child of a single mother who worked in education in the 80s......and experienced extreme homophobic bullying at school in the 90s, while Section 28 was still in force, so maybe I'm biased.

@davidwynne

Thatcher directly and deliberately caused serious suffering for millions of people. Of COURSE a lot of them are happy she's dead.

It's not nice or pretty, but it's completely natural, and frankly, earned. So shut yer fucking pie holes. Let 'em celebrate.

I'd argue that this is maybe the one instance where it's not the people celebrating who lack empathy...

So, yes I am spiteful.   Fuck it.

Thatcher is dead

Good grief.  I can't quite believe it.  I'm not going to have a party because I think that's crass, and as an individual, I feel sad that she suffered and had dementia in her later years, but regarding what she did while in power....I loathe her.  I loathe her legacy, I loathe her politics, I loathe her actions, her rhetoric and I loathe her successors.  I do actually feel slightly cheered that she's now dead.  Which makes me a pretty terrible person, I know.

On twitter, @pgofton writes: This is a woman who had my mother in tears at the thought of her children dying in a nuclear war. Fuck her and fuck her legacy.

@paulcornell says: Except Thatcher's not dead. She's in every bloody atom of this so-called coalition's Britain.

@simon_price01 says: As a friend of mine succinctly put it, "Thatcher is dead. Now we need to kill off Thatcherism."

My twitter timeline is going to be full of rejoicing over the next few days.  I'm not sure how I feel about that.  She ruined people's lives.  But I know that it's not a good character trait to celebrate over someone's death.  Mind you, people celebrate over dictator's deaths.  Now I know she wasn't a dictator but she did terrible, terrible things.

Police and Crime Commisioners

The government, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that each UK county will now have their own elected police commissioner.

I think this is beyond stupid.  Admittedly, the only thing I know about police commissioners is all wrapped up in the character of Jim Gordon.  So off, I go to do some research.

Here is an article by the BBC on the folk standing for election in Norfolk.
It syas:
"PCCs, as they will be known, will be responsible for setting priorities for their police force, overseeing its budget and hiring the chief constable.
Those in the biggest force areas will get salaries of more than £100,000 and no prior police force experience is needed."

Emphasis mine.

How on earth can you set priorities for something and control a budget when you have no experience in the area?
Anyone running a regional cop shop should have experience of coppering.  It is ridiculous that candidates can have none.

The Tory candidate has more information on what the PCC job will do.  From it:
"Police Commissioner is a new job introduced by the Government to bring direct democratic accountability to England’s policing"
That will only work if the general public also knows about coppering.  if we really understand the process and can boot people out if they aren't doing right.  In reality, the general public (including myself) knows fuck all about coppering and will probably be impressed if the PCC makes a big noise about certain high profile crimes.

Coppering should not be subject to the democratic process, it doesn't work.  Coppering has other checks in it which on the whole work OK.  Certainly they won't be improved by a PCC.

Onto the candidate's election statements.

Jamie Athill, Conservative.  Oh fuck he's got 35 years military experience.  The army and the police force are entirely different things, and no one who is that embedded in the military should be let anywhere the police.  Just, no.  No way.

Stephen William Bett, Independent.  He's ex Tory. He pledges to keep party politics out of policing.  Which is a good start.  He says his priority crimes include:
drug dealing, sexual offences, domestic violence, hate crime and anti-social behaviour.
I'd quite like to know how he's going to deal with these.


On the plus side, he has actually had experience of coppering, as he's been on the Police Authority for 16 years, and spent the last 6 years as Chairman.  In all honesty, I have no idea how well he's done.  Norwich is one of the safest cities in the UK, with the lowest rate of crime.  Which is good, but I don't know how much of that is to do with effective policing, and how much to do with culture.

James Joyce, Liberal Democrat.  He's got an amazing bow tie.  But more importantly, he has been on the Police Authority for 7 years and has been Chairman of Norfolk Crimestoppers for the last 6 years.
So far it's looking like it will be either Joyce or Bett who will get my vote.

The website says:
His key priorities will include:

• Cutting bureaucracy to help the police to spend more time out on the streets.
• Targeting more resources on rape and domestic violence.
• Developing community policing with new powers for communities to tackle anti-social behaviour.
• Toughening up community sentencing.
• Better support for the victims of crime and the expansion of restorative justice.
• Closer cooperation between the police and other key local agencies, particularly health and social services.

He's specifically mentioned fighting rape and domestic violence.  I think he'll be more likely to get my vote.  Unfortunately he also talks about "driving out inefficiency".  I just feel that's an easy phrase anyone and everyone trots out and it doesn't really mean anything.

Steve Morphew, Labour.  Now, I used to work with his HR organisation so I feel like I do know him a bit.  He has no policing experience and spends a section of the election statement waffling on about peace of mind in regards to areas not linked to policing.  What has council tax got to do with the police force?

Then he says:
I am experienced in leading large public sector organisations, respecting the independence of professionals and holding senior officials to account. I have worked successfully in partnership with many organisations of differing political opinions and none. My overriding priority is, and must always be, your peace of mind.

Experience in large public sector organisations, respecting independence and everything else he talks about there is irrelevant to policing.  Particularly when he's up against candidates with actual POLICE EXPERIENCE.  I seem to recall that when he was leader of the City Council there was a housing scandal which forced him to resign.  I don't think I'll be voting for him

Lastly, Matthew James Smith, UKIP.  Oh christ.  He says he will (asterisks mine):

• Will put the victim first and not the criminal*
• Refuse to pander to political correctness or dangerous quota seeking systems**
• Fight to get our Police force back on the front line and not stuck behind a desk filling in paperwork
• To prioritise real Police over PCSO’s
• To re-connect Police and local communities

*This doesn't happen. Ever.
**Political  correctness is about not insulting people through comments on their race/sexuality/gender/other inviolable things.  It should be considered good to not be rude.  I would be interested to know what quota seeking systems he is referring to and why they are dangerous.  I suspect they do not work as he thinks they work.

So there you have it.  Our candidates for chief copper.  I was considering not voting at all, because I think the whole thing is ridiculous.  And I think politicos should be kept well away from day to day policing.  But, I am rather keen on exercising my right to vote and now that I know 2 candidates have policing experience (of a sort) and one specifically mentions prioritising rape and domestic violence, I think I will vote for Mr Joyce.

We are Norwich organise counter demonstration against racist EDL march

A racist fascist organisation called the English Defence League are marching in Norwich today, because they are upset that a man was selling Islamophobic, hate motivated leaflets.  Well boo fucking hoo.  It is, quite rightly, illegal to sell leaflets containing hate speech.  I was furious when I found out the EDL were marching in Norwich, and very pleased when I heard a counter march was being held by We Are Norwich.  But I'm not at the march, mostly because I heard there might be violence and I'm scared (also because I have house stuff to do, we may be moving soon).  I don't want to get caught up in the fights (if there are any).  But I'm also ashamed of myself for not going, because I'm giving in to their tactics.  If you give in to fear then they can spread and win.  That's not right.

But there you have it - I'm afeard, and I'm at home blogging about it, and not there.  I am following it on twitter though - search for #wearenorwich, and I'm very proud of my friends and everyone else who is there.

Fuck I'm still furious those bastards dare to turn up in my fucking city.  Piss off EDL.  We don't want you and we don't support you.  Go back to your poisonous little rock.

Women in politics

Responses to the Australian PM, included in the following linked article, calling out misogyny in her Parliament have led me to conclude that it’s ok for men to play the gender card, but not women.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/catcalls-cuties-and-blow-up-dolls--a-womans-place-in-politics-8213117.html

Fuck that.

That pesky slippery slope of marriage equality!

Found on this f word post.

#Spartacusreport : challenging the government

Over 2011 a group of disability activists got together and decided to challenge the government's welfare system reforms.

Headed by Sue Marsh, blogging on Diary of a Benefit Scrounger and tweeting on @suey2y, and by BendyGirl, blogging at Benefit Scrounging Scum, they conducted interviews, researched the meanings of the proposed reforms, analysed the data and developed conclusions on the proposed changes.  This was all pulled together into a document titled Responsible Reform and launched last Monday.  The twitter hashtag is #spartacusreport.

Before Christmas, Sue found out her application for DLA had been rejected.  Instead of appealing that, she elected to continue working on the report.  Several activists involved with the report made themselves ill and ended up in hospital, because of the workload.  These activists are all sick or disabled themselves.  The reforms will directly affect them.

There wasn't much national media coverage on the Monday, or the Tuesday.  Despite the fact that national organisations such as Mind, The Papworth Trust, Scope and United Response support the report.

But on Friday Sue Marsh went on Newsnight, with Chris Grayling, Employment Adviser to debate the Thursday night discussion in the House of Lords.

This is a victory for grassroots activism, and a victory for the cause itself.  It is amazing what these activists have done, and it amazing (in a very different way) what the government is trying to do.

Mega mega kudos to Sue and her colleagues.  Take a gander at the links, especially if you live in the UK.  I reckon most people who don't have direct personal experience of sickness or disability won't understand the implications of the proposed reforms.  Why would you?  But they ain't good.  They are being proposed purely to save money. 

This government is placing a greater importance on saving money than on providing a decent quality of life and standard of living to it's citizens.

This government thinks money is more important than people.

"...And that's what your holy men discuss, is it?" [asked Granny Weatherwax.]

"Not usually. There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment on the nature of sin. for example." [answered Mightily Oats.]

"And what do they think? Against it, are they?"

"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of grey."

"Nope."

"Pardon?"

"There's no greys, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."

"It's a lot more complicated than that--"

"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."

"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--"

"But they starts with thinking about people as things..."

--from Carpe Jugulum, by Terry Pratchett.

State benefits in the UK

I've been following Diary of a Benefit Scrounger for a while now.  It's a campaigning site focusing on the proposed cuts to welfare benefits in the UK.  There's a few posts I think people should read.

The Very Definitions of Irony -the writer of the blog has severe Chron's disease, osteroporisis and malnutrition.  She takes chemo shots every 2 weeks, has had major seizures and a stroke.  Her application for Disability Living Allowance has been turned down.
3 Claimants die after being found for fit for work
An open letter to Iain Duncan Smith
Did you know this about your ESA50 form - Given how strict we are about data protection, why do royal mail sorting officers open the ESA50 applications, and sort them in the post office?  What's it to do with them?

Who is the most deserving? - Since 2008 75% of applicants got gurned down for Employment Support Allowance.  Apparently they weren't sick or disabled enough.
We all know someone who could work but doesn't - don't we? - Hidden, secret disabilities and illnesses.

Accessible site maps on a nature reserve!

 I recently went to France and was lucky enough to visit the Marquenterre nature reserve in the Baie de Somme.  I saw a kingfisher there!!  My first.  It was brilliant and I'm still excited about it.

I also noticed that they'd made their site maps accesible to blind and visually impaired people.  How you ask?  By placing braille over the written text and by using different types of material as the key for the site map.  See here:

Isn't that just fabulous?  So simple yet so effective.  I've never seen that kind of thing in England.

Bristol's Deaf Community feel under seige

Cross-posted in it's entirety from this article at The Guardian.

Last week, it was announced that Bristol Deaf Centre, which celebrated 125 years of serving the local deaf community just two years ago, will lose £240,000 worth of funding from Bristol city council. This money paid for their core funding, equipment service and special projects. As a result, the centre is faced with closure, with many staff who have worked there for years served with notices of redundancy.
This comes on the back of the University of Bristol's decision a year ago (despite a campaign that gained international support) to cut a key course at the Centre for Deaf Studies. This year, the student intake for the deaf studies BSc course has stopped and as a consequence, by 2013, the number of deaf studies staff – many of whom are deeply skilled, with years of experience in their field, themselves deaf – is set to be cut by more than 75%. This is a groundbreaking, world-renowned research centre that was the first in the UK to undertake sign language research over 30 years ago.

These two cuts to deaf hubs in the city look like being just the start. In December, the future of Bristol's specialist school for deaf children, Elmfield Deaf School, was placed in doubt after Bristol city council launched an informal consultation about whether its pupils could instead attend units in mainstream schools. Crucially, due to many specialist deaf schools closing across the country, the school also serves many children from far outside the city itself. Elmfield has taken new pupils for this year's intake but its future remains in the balance as staff and pupils await a new council review.

Perhaps just one of these decisions to cut or try and cut, particularly in the current climate, wouldn't seem like the end of the world. But when this all happens in one place, you see how a community can feel under siege, with the very psychological and physical landscape of a city for the deaf people who live there seemingly set to irrevocably change. Jobs are about to be lost, or are in the balance. Deaf and hearing people who currently work together in the deaf community wonder whether it's time to move away, or change careers – if they can. Meanwhile, children wonder whether the environment in which they are educated will completely change, just as older deaf people see a place they have known all their lives, received services from and often contributed to, on the edge of extinction.
We're only just beginning to understand how cuts are affecting deaf services nationwide, most starkly in this online map from the National Deaf Children's Society (NDCS) showing local authority cuts to education services for deaf children. But never before have we seen so many cuts bite in one place, and so quickly.
Bristol's run of cuts and attempted cuts could be an anomaly, a freak series of decisions that happened to land in the same place at the same time. But there's fear now within the deaf world that it may instead be just be the start. Deafness at its heart affects communication. Are cuts to deaf services seen as an easier cut, when they hit people who use sign language or lipread to communicate, and, as a consequence, may be perceived as being less likely to be able to articulate their concerns to the media and the wider world? As we see services, jobs, places and institutions come under threat and disappear, very few deaf people both in Bristol and elsewhere can now hope to escape the impact of the cuts unscathed.

England riots

I want to write about the riots but i'm a) really tired and b) out every night this week.  This causes a problem.

Basically, lots of teenagers and kids are running around big cities in England (not Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, you'll note) and muggin people, setting fire to things and looting shops.  It started last weekend after a guy got shot by the police in London and a protest was organised.  It's no longer a protest (in my eyes, though undoubtedly some of the kids think they're protesting) and it's pure criminal damage.  People have died, others have been put in hospital, many have lost their livelihood as their businesses are burnt to the ground.

My city isn't affected but my friend's cities are.  It's not caused by social media, tuition fees, bad diets, alcohol, single mothers or video games.  It is a fucking nightmare for the people in the areas where the kids are rioting.  It's not even organised riots, just many seperate gangs of kids.

Now they're talking about bringing in the army, rubber bullets and water cannons.  The poor police have not got enough coppers in the force to maintain control.  Personally, I'm swinging more towards arresting all the rioters and chucking them in gaol, cos they know full well what they're doing.

I'll leave you with The Clash, singing London's Burning.

Murdoch gets a pie in the face and we all forget about what else the Tories are doing

Namely, forging ahead with their plans for privatising the NHS.  The following is crossposted from here:

--------------------

The government will open up more than £1bn of NHS services to competition from private companies and charities, the health secretary announced on Tuesday, increasing fears that it will inevitably lead to the "privatisation of the health service".

In the first wave, beginning next April, eight NHS areas – including musculoskeletal services for back pain, adult hearing services in the community, wheelchair services for children and primary care psychological therapies for adults – will be open for "competition on quality not price".

If successful, the policy, known as "any qualified provider", would see non-NHS bodies allowed from 2013 to deliver more complicated clinical services in maternity and "home chemotherapy".
Andrew Lansley – admitting that the government's initial plans for competition in the NHS were too ambitious, and stung by criticism from Steve Field, the senior doctor called in by David Cameron to review the reforms, that the proposals were "unworkable" – has slowed down the rollout of competition.
The health secretary said his plans would now "enable patients to choose [providers] ... where this will lead to better care".

Labour questioned the policy, which the shadow health secretary John Healey said was "not about giving more control to patients, but setting up a full-scale market."

His colleague Emily Thornberry, the party's health spokeswoman, added that "today is a good day to announce the policy because everyone is preoccupied with telephone hacking. (They) hope no one will notice it". This theme was picked up on Twitter with a stream of comments about "it being a good day to bury bad news".

Critics warned of "huge dangers lurking in the plans". The trade union Unison said that "patients will be little more than consumers, as the NHS becomes a market-driven service, with profits first and patients second. And they could be left without the services they need as forward planning in the NHS becomes impossible."

A spokesman for the British Medical Association questioned "the assumption that increasing competition will always mean improving choice. The ultimate consequence of market failure in the NHS is the closure of services, restricting the choice of patients who would have wished to use them."

The Department of Health dismissed these charges and argued the policy would benefit patients by bringing many services out of hospitals, which would make it easier to access healthcare. As an example the policy could lead to patients being able to walk into a retailer on the high street or local GP's surgery for a blood test rather than being forced to go to hospital.

One of the new policy's aims is to promote innovation, highlighting the "Tony Blair example". Abnormal heart rhythms, such as those suffered by Tony Blair, no longer need the immediate attention of a cardiologist. Instead, a concerned patient could today be treated by using the telephone to measure the heart beats and give an instant diagnosis, followed by a call from a nurse advising on whether the patient needed to go to hospital or not.

He said the former prime minister's abnormal heart rhythms could today be treated by using the telephone to measure the heartbeats and give an instant diagnosis, followed by a call from a nurse advising on whether the patient needed to go to hospital or not. "You could cut dramatically the number of hospital admissions like this."

There were also major savings that could be made. The department cited the example of chronic leg wounds, where the NHS pays out £18,000 per patient over four years, often without curing them.
One not-for-profit company – Wound Healing Centre in Sussex – manages to treat patients successfully for £720.

Lansley's commissioning tsar, Dame Barbara Hakin, said the NHS must push ahead with the agenda to offer patients more choice despite the financial challenges and the period of "significant transition". The NHS must save £20bn over the next four years in efficiencies.

----------------------

Screw you David Cameron.  I don't know how you sleep at night, you insipid, cowardly, greedy bastard.

Eu says bugger it to our countryside

Sort of.  I came across this post on one of the RSPB's blogs today:

(fully crossposted)
---------------------------------------------
It’s been a shocking week to say the least! And it’s only Tuesday!


The RSPB announced today that the EU are planning to sever a rather important leg from our Common Agricultural Policy. That all sounds rather jargonny I know so i’ll try to make it as simple as possible. Our old friend Mark Avery couldn’t have put it better himself.

Farmland covers a whopping 75% of our region and is a vital part of the ecosystem for some our most loved (and threatened) wildlife. If President Barroso makes this decision, the money that goes directly into conservation and farming to ensure that our countryside stays fit for wildlife will vanish, along with our turtle doves, our skylarks and many more species along the way.

I for one, couldn’t think of a worse scenario to be in. It worries me greatly that our European leaders think that this is a GOOD idea! If our UK farmers were to lose this vital stream of income and organisations like the RSPB were to lose funding for major species and habitat recovery projects because of this short-sighted approach, then we can all kiss goodbye to a countryside full of birdsong for our grandchildren.

There is something we can do. By signing this e-action you will be pledging your support to the RSPB and perhaps we can get this decision reversed.

------------------

How about you all go and sign the e-action, huh?  You've got till the 29th of June to make a difference.

The referendum was not a success.

40% turn out, only a third voted for AV.  Well done Britain, that's screwed us out of having a decent electoral system for about another 30 years.  I hope you're proud.

*scowls*

I'm narked and people are stupid.  So, to cheer myself (and you guys up) I looked at a couple of posts by notintheface.  One shows Jaimie Reyes mother and the other shows Lois kicking ass in a wedding dress, with a champagne bottle.

Jesus. 40% turn out.  With results like that this nation doesn't deserve a decent elctoral system or a decent government.

Alternative vote referendum

Today there is a UK wide referendum on our electoral system - should we change from First Past the Post to the Alternative Vote system.

I will be voting yes because although AV isn't perfect it's better than our rotten system.  It will decrease the chances of governments winning with huge majorities, it will give us a more representative parliament and it might go some way to changing the 2 party system that we've got now.

I feel I should say far more about this important referendum, but I don't have it in me.  Maybe I'll have more to say once I know the outcome.  Anyway, I hope you all vote yes.

Veils in France

So, last week, France's law banning face coverings came into effect.  It is widely believed that this law was brought about to stop women form wearing the burka.  However, I don't believe the law specifically mentions the word burka.  I think I've talked about this before, but I'll talk about it again.

This is a fairly drastic law that has been enacted to stop a handful of women, (about 300 or so, I believe), from wearing the burka.  It is being enforce din the name of equality and ending oppression.  Now, maybe I'm being a little naive here*, but the idea of fighting oppression with yet more oppression is not only ridiculous, but unworkable.

No woman, no human, should be forced to wear something they don't wish to.  Women shouldn't be forced to wear the burka if they don't want to.  But this law won't address this issue of force.  For those women forced to wear it in public, there is a high possibility that now they simply won't be allowed out of the house, i.e. out in public.

For those women choosing to wear it, how on earth does this law help them?  How does banning their wearing of it make the banners (the government) any better than the people who force other women to wear the burka?

How does taking away women's choice help us achieve gender equality?

Mind you, I don't really believe that this law is about achieving gender equality.  France has always been very protective of it's culture, very keen to preserve the French language and French way of life.  Radio and TV stations must play/show a certain amount of French language songs/TV programmes, for example.  It's a secular country and doesn't have a lot of time for religion.  It also doesn't particularly like immigrants, or anyone un-French.  I get the impression it can be rather racist.

I think these things have led towards the ban on the burka,  I think that mentioning feminism and gender equality is just lip service, and that these terms are used only because it is politically convenient.  France is not free of sexism or misogyny (where is?) and this ban on face coverings does not further the feminist cause.  If this law is to be followed to the letter then I expect to see fancy dress masks and carnival masks also banned.

I don't expect this will happen.  Why not?  Because the French government cares about how French  (as in the degree of Frenchness of a person) people look on the outside.  Muslims in the burka do not look French, so they should be got rid of.  Out of sight, out of mind and all that.

For those that argue for a ban because seeing a women in a burka makes them, the onlooker, feel uncomfortable, well, if you think that you're a prat.

I think the French government would prefer Muslim women to wear more Westernised clothes - no doubt fashionable garments, probably tight and accompanied by high heels.  I.e., swapping one sort of clothing conformity for another, ugh.

No, this ban on the burka and other facial coverings does not help women at all.  There are more effective ways to help abused and oppressed women, whatever their religious or cultural background, but this stupid and downright offensive law is not one of them.


Discussion and comments welcomed.

*Here's a hint. I'm not.