Friday, 28 February 2014

British Academics Working to Normalize Paedophilia

 The American organization calling itself B4U-ACT is the US version of the infamous Paedophile Information network actively supported by Harriet Harman and other top members of the Labour Party.
B4U-ACT (Before You Act) started as a support network for people who wanted to discuss their unfortunate attraction to minors. It protests about public "prejudice" against paedophiles, and tries to persuade us that paedos are just nice, misunderstood people. Re-branding is the name of the game, and if you call them "minor-attracted persons" it sounds so much less bigoted! They have taken these tactics directly from the LGBT movement which is their breeding-ground.
   Last year B4U-Act sent a public letter to The Editor of  Harvard Mental Health, Harvard University,  calling for  the de-stigmatisation of paedophilia.  This was written to the in response to an article of theirs, entitled, "Pessimism about Pedophilia", saying that curing paedophiles was a near impossibility. 
   B4U-ACT's letter, entitled, “ B4U-ACT Responds to Pejorative Letter in Harvard Mental Health Letter” said, “Inaccurate stereotypes lead to dehumanization..... “people who are stigmatized experience social death when others in society hold attitudes and behave in ways to turn the stigmatized person into an 'other,' or a non-person....The article called for therapies that affirmed a paedophile's "sense of dignity and worth" to "save them from feelings of hopelessness and even suicide." It said “If stigma is primarily psychological, then eradicating it may involve psychotherapy to help patients boost self-esteem. If it is more of a social construct, the way to fight it is through awareness campaigns to change public opinion and policies. And if stigma is a moral issue, then it may be necessary to advocate for basic human rights.” 
  Why, it sounds like the LGBT militants talking and surprise surprise, it is the LGBT militants who are talking.
 The signatories to the letter claim to be mental health professionals but the first two are just the leaders of B4U-Act - how  does that make them mental health professionals? Signatory number seven is "Dr" Eric Anderson of Winchester University, whose credentials as an academic stem from his qualifications in so-called "sports studies". [I wonder if he studied under Jerry Sandusky?] He publishes books of "research" into the need for more promiscuity among young males. "Research", that is what he calls it, and the tax-payer is funding this. 

Glad to help w/ concussion doc. I'm Prof of masculinities/sport and written on it. Email me at my website

When "Dr" sorry "Professor" Anderson was invited to Oxford to speak to the LGBT group here, his coarse, foul language and gross attitudes shocked even them. He was recorded on the Oxford Student website as saying that “The damage that’s caused by child molestation is socially constructed by the western world,” in other words, don't make a fuss about it and there is no problem. He is also reported as saying that paying for sex is just like paying for any other form of "pleasure and entertainment", and boasting  about the thousands of teenage boys who have helped him in his "research" .
These are the sort of people who are taking over in academia thanks to trendy leftie garbage ideology.  
In the letter to Harvard University, the signatory above "Professor" Anderson is that of Wayne Bowers, President of the Board of the so-called, Sex Abuse Treatment Alliance, who is reported by newspapers to be a twice convicted paedophile. 
If you agree that it is wrong for such people to be teaching in British universities and getting public funding, you could write to the Vice-Chancellor Of Winchester University, Professor Joy Carter, and urge her to terminate this unsavoury man's contract.
Personally I think he should be sacked without references and never allowed to teach again.




B4U-ACT > News > April 25, 2011

B4U-ACT Responds to Pejorative Letter in Harvard Mental Health Letter

B4U-ACT joined with seven mental health professionals to object to an article recently published in the Harvard Mental Health Letter. The open letter sent in response follows:

B4U-ACT, Inc.
P.O. Box 1754
Westminster, MD 21158April 25, 2011
The Editor
Harvard Mental Health Letter
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Dear Editor,
We wish to respond to the article Pessimism About Pedophilia published in your July 2010 issue.
A broader examination of the facts demonstrates that pessimism as a professional response to pedophilia and hebephilia is unjustified and leads to serious undesirable consequences.
People who are attracted to children or adolescents can and do contribute positively to their communities and to society. The non-profit organization B4U-ACT, based in Maryland, consists of such people working together with mental health professionals to promote dialog, the dissemination of accurate information, and the accessibility of compassionate mental health services. The people who are attracted to minors that we know deal with their sexuality in responsible ways and live within the law. They care about the well-being of children and adolescents as much as other people; many are parents themselves.
Most available information about minor-attracted people is inaccurate and incomplete. Most minor-attracted people do not come to the attention of the criminal justice or mental health systems, or when they do, their positive characteristics and contributions are not acknowledged. As a result, descriptions are based solely on non-representative forensic samples and inaccurate assumptions about their feelings and motives. Non-forensic research presents a more hopeful picture, finding that they may be similar to the general population in personality and psychological functioning (Okami & Goldberg, 1992; Wilson & Cox, 1983). In addition, there is strong evidence that their feelings of attraction may be similar to those of people attracted to adults: they may involve feelings of affection, tenderness, and romantic attraction (Blanchard, 2009; Li, 1990b; Sandfort, 1987; Wilson & Cox, 1983).
Treatment can be very effective. Some minor-attracted people connected to B4U-ACT have experienced therapy that helped them to find ways of coping with their sexuality and society's response to it, and to develop fulfilling relationships while living within the law. Such treatment is only effective when the therapist has an accurate understanding of pedophilia or hebephilia, shows empathy and compassion for the patient, and works cooperatively with the patient to develop treatment goals and approaches.
Pessimism, inaccurate and negative characterizations, and a reliance on law-enforcement rather than therapeutic approaches by the mental health profession seriously discourage minor-attracted people from seeking services. Such responses strongly suggest to potential clients that mental health professionals will not understand them, will respond to them with suspicion or hostility, will ignore their mental health needs, or will report their feelings to authorities. In a recent survey of minor-attracted people conducted by B4U-ACT, one respondent said, “I have no way of knowing if they'll call the cops just for telling them my attraction. I wouldn't want to see a psychologist unless I can be truly open and honest. So that's out.” Another said, “I can never reveal the fact that I am a pedophile. At least now, they do not know that they hate me, and that is the best that I can ever hope for.” Altogether, 54% of 166 respondents cited fears that therapists would report their feelings to authorities or others, 63% feared negative judgmental reactions, and 48% feared they would be treated unethically by therapists. Minor-attracted people learn that they must remain in hiding. This does not protect children.
In short, negative stereotypes and reliance on law-enforcement approaches by mental health professionals intensify stigma, causing serious negative consequences. The very same issue of the Harvard Mental Health Letter also contained an article on this topic: The Evolving Understanding of Stigma. The article noted that “the constant background noise of stereotyped or inaccurate information contributes to the persistent stigma about mental illness...stigma is important because it contributes to delays in seeking treatment for mental health disorders and problems in accessing care.” In B4U-ACT's survey, 40% of respondents said at some point they had wanted services to deal with issues related to their sexuality, but never received them due to fear or stigma. In addition, 27% said they wanted services for other reasons but did not seek them because they could not be honest with a therapist about their sexuality. Sixteen percent also said they had received such services, but these services were inadequate for the same reason.
Adolescents and young adults just realizing they are attracted to minors are especially vulnerable to stigma. Feelings of hopelessness can lead them to depression, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts. Some of the volunteers at B4U-ACT have experienced this in their youth. Others have been contacted by youth who abused alcohol, engaged in self-harming behavior, or were suicidal due to the stigma of their attraction to children. In the B4U-ACT survey, 44% of respondents had thought seriously about suicide due to their sexuality; the most common age for such thoughts was 16.
Inaccurate stereotypes lead to dehumanization. As the stigma article notes, “people who are stigmatized experience social death when others in society hold attitudes and behave in ways to turn the stigmatized person into an 'other,' or a non-person...This leads to dehumanizing treatment, such as making psychiatric patients in China wear outfits like those of prisoners, [or] prohibiting them from participating in family gatherings...If stigma is primarily psychological, then eradicating it may involve psychotherapy to help patients boost self-esteem. If it is more of a social construct, the way to fight it is through awareness campaigns to change public opinion and policies. And if stigma is a moral issue, then it may be necessary to advocate for basic human rights.”
We urge mental health professionals to reject pessimistic responses and to join in a hopeful effort both to protect children and to promote the well-being of people who are attracted to minors. Such an effort would involve reducing stigma, conducting non-forensic research on pedophilia and hebephilia, making accurate information available to professionals, the public, and minor-attracted people, and providing visible therapeutic services to minor-attracted people.
Russell Dick, LCSW-CChair, Board of Directors, B4U-ACT, Inc.
Richard KramerDirector of Operations, B4U-ACT, Inc.
Tom Scott, MSW, LCSW-CExecutive Director of Clinical Services, National Center on Institutions and Alternatives
Kevin J. McCamant, Ph.D.Private Practitioner, Clinical and Forensic Psychology, Sex Offender Treatment Provider
Wayne BowersPresident of the Board, Sex Abuse Treatment Alliance
Eric AndersonSociologist and Professor, University of Winchester, U.K.
Lee Beckstead, PhDPrivate practitioner
Marjorie Diehl, ACSW
Amy Craig-Van Grack, LCSW-C
Blanchard, R. (2009), Paraphilia scales from Kurt Freund's Erotic Preferences Examination Scheme
Li, C.K. (1990b), Some case studies of adult sexual experiences with children Journal of Homosexuality, 20 (1-2), 129-144.
Okami, P. & Goldberg, A. (1992), Personality correlates of pedophilia: Are they reliable indicators?Journal of Sex Research, 29, 297-328.
Sandfort, T. (1987), Boys on their contacts with men: A study of sexually expressed friendships. New York: Global Academic Publishers.
Wilson, G. & Cox, D. (1983), The Child-Lovers: A Study of Paedophiles in Society. London: Peter Owen Publishers.

Updated June 20, 2011
Copyright © 2006–2011, B4U-ACT, Inc.

Harriet Harman and Her Friends Want to Destroy the Family and Make Out Vice is Virtue

Fair is Foul and Foul is said the witches in Macbeth, Likewise the modern left-wingers are determined to persuade everyone that vice is virtue and virtue is vice. Harriet Harman's disgusting support for the Paedophile movement is only the tip of the iceberg.
        Here are some more of Harriet's friends in the Labour party, or perhaps we should say the LibLabCon party as they're all the same:

 James Rennie, director of a Scottish militant LGBT group, was convicted in 2009 of aggravated pedophilia. Why was this never headline news on the TV or radio ?
Rennie was an influential LGBT advisor to the Blair government, guiding it towards the policy of “gay” marriage and “gay” adoption which puts children at the mercy of deviants. These vile groups are getting public funding. Not only did he engage in perverted activities with small children and babies as young as 3 months old, but he ran a network for other pedophiles, attached to his homosexual “rights” group, ironically titled LGBT Youth Scotland.
     Rennie was first charged after the computer belonging to one of his network was sent for repair, and an IT technician found child pornography on it. The owner was reported to the police  and he then informed on Rennie and the entire network. Rennie was convicted of making and circulating a video showing himself repeatedly raping a young boy and indecently assaulting a baby of three MONTHS old. Rennie aged 38 was living in a civil partnership with another homosexual man, but this did not stop him from “cruising” and seeking other partners using the internet. He also actively sought out other pedophiles.
 Seven accomplices were charged along with Rennie. All were found guilty of some sort of pedophile offence. Among them was Neil Strachan, a homosexual aged 41, who had previously been sentenced to 3 years in prison in 1997 for molesting a boy aged 5 to 7 years. He had again been charged in 2005 with attempting to s-d-mize a boy aged only 18 months.
 >>>And these are the people whose demands for “rights” and for redefining marriage are listened to by our weak and corrupt governments.

Here is a very good new article written by a homosexual who agrees with everything I have said over the years about the immoral LGBT movement and its harmful agenda:

ROME, February 27, 2014 – “I am a homosexual, but I’m against ‘gay marriage,’” a French pro-family activist told an Italian Catholic opinion paper earlier this month.
Jean-Pier-Delaume Myard, spokesman for Manif Pour Tous, told La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana that the “sole purpose” of the homosexualist “gay rights” movement is “destroying the family.”

Myard noted that in a recent talk, he said “we must break the silence” about the real nature of the homosexualist movement, noting that many homosexuals “have nothing to do either closely or from a distance with the gay lobby that has the sole purpose of destroying the family.”
Myard gave the interview following the first big pro-family Manif Pour Tous event in Italy on February 11.
“Since the seventies the gay community in the United States has arrogated to itself the right to speak on behalf of all homosexuals in order to destroy marriage and the family,” he told the Catholic paper. At the start, they were aided by the feminist movement that preceded their own, he said, and have moved from the US to Europe with the help of “astronomical” funding from the EU.
Myard blasted the homosexualist movement for using children as political tools of their ideological aims. Children are treated as trophies in the effort to force states to go along with the ideology, with little regard for their real needs. The emphasis is on the “right to a child” rather than the “rights of the child,” he noted. 
“The child is not an object, nor a medicinal product for those who suffer the pain of love,” he added. “25 years ago – today I’m 50 – I posed the question to have a child in order to transmit a heritage, a welfare state. In short, I wanted a child for unjust reasons. Today, as a homosexual I think only of the interests of the child.”
“We must break the silence to say that we can not reasonably accept depriving a child of his social references.”
“Before we talk about freedom and equality to be able to have children or between persons of the same sex, try to think a minute to freedom and equality of the child who will be born in the society that we are preparing.”
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage. 
“The LGBT community in France, as in Europe, is mainly composed of militants [who achieve their] ideological aims by violent methods,” Myard said.
Because he is a homosexual who opposes the aims of the homosexualist lobby, he says he has received threats on his Facebook page and elsewhere. One said that in a civil war, “I’d be shot for treason to the cause.” Another said he wanted to “cremate” Myard.
“They cannot stand that I do not think like them. I say it loud and clear: it is a homophobic attitude and an indicator of totalitarianism.” Gay ideologues say “that a homosexual cannot think or act for himself.” 
Myard insists that he is not alone in opposing the homosexualist ideologues, saying, “Everywhere in Europe there are homosexuals ready to say that the gay lobby does not represent them, but many others are afraid of retaliation.”
He said that the movement is, in fact, “homophobic” because it is trying to force all homosexuals into the same ideologically-defined categories. “The LGBT community reduces homosexuals for their sexual identity. This is an insult, reducing us to a particular category of people, creating a de facto inequality.”
“Instead, we want to be recognized for what we are, men and women, not in terms of our sexual orientation, which only affects our private lives,” he said.
Myard added that most of the “astronomical” funding for the movement in Europe has come directly from the European Union. He cited particularly the group ILGA Europe, that is funded directly by the European Commission, with additional funding from the Netherlands government and various foundations, including the Open Society Institute of billionaire social engineer George Soros.
He cited the recently passed Lunacek Report that tells all EU member states to implement the goals of the LGBT movement in all areas of society. Also recently, the Italian government issued guidelines for journalists mandating they use language that supports the homosexualist lobby’s goals. Developed from a document produced by the Council of Europe, the guidelines warned of professional sanctions and even potential jail time for failing to toe the LGBT line.
Such gains, Myard said, “show that the LGBT lobby considers the European Parliament as a strategic place to advance their causes and achieve changes in European law.”

Petition for Resignation of Harriet Harman

SHAME on Harriet Harman. SHAME and disgrace on the Labour party with its disgusting policies of sexual depravity. SHAME on all those who voted for this party or who go on supporting them, in any way whatsoever.

  • Petitioning The DisHonourable Harriet Harman MP 
To resign from Parliament due to NCCL former affiliation with the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE)
    2. Petition by
      London, United Kingdom
After maintaining a wall of silence since the story broke about the NCCL's former affiliation to the pro paedophile rights group - The Paedophile Information Exchange - Harriet Harman MP has finally come clean and said she regrets the NCCL's former affiliation while she was the NCCL's legal adviser.
In a Newsnight interview on the 24th February, Harriet Harman admitted that the Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to her former employer, the National Council for Civil Liberties. She has refused to admit that allowing PIE to affiliate was an error of judgement. She has also shown no contrition for the error, and has refused to apologise.

We the undersigned believe that this demonstrates a complete lack of judgement in such a crucial area of children's welfare, and that she therefore should immediately resign from Parliament.

The Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP 
To resign from Parliament due to former affiliation with the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE)
[Your name]

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

Princess Anne Should Keep Her Mouth Shut

What the hell does Princess Anne know about affordable housing? She is the last person in this country who should be making public statements on this subject. Brought up in a family that still owns dozens of castles and palaces, she got her home, Gatcombe Park in Gloucestershire, as a wedding present from the Queen. She knows literally nothing about house-hunting, house-sharing, borrowing, interest rates, paying rent or mortgage, and she should SHUT UP.

The government's plans for massive new housing developments in the south of England just prove that they have got no control at all over mass immigration. They are feebly lying down and letting it happen. New housing developments should be built in Poland and Romania, not here.
Of course the housing benefit system, like most of Labour's bright ideas, back-fires and ends up making rents rise and ensuring that rich landlords profit to the tune of billions of pounds....all at the tax-payers' expense. If you stop, or cap, the benefit, market forces should eventually bring those rents down. The BBC ran a sceptical programme to investigate whether a foreigner can just walk into this country, go to a local council office, and claim housing benefit. The answer was ...well actually yes, they can. So eventually the bill for it could exceed our GDP.
One sensible idea to help people into affordable homes would be to abolish stamp duty. That would help first time buyers get on the housing ladder and stop having to pay rent.
      Princess Anne should talk about what she knows  - which is horse riding. Yes, she got an Olympic Gold Medal and that is what she is good at. On any other subject, she should keep very quiet indeed. All her life she has disdained to get her hair done professionally or to choose a style that would flatter her awkward features. She needs a fringe and some soft curls around her face to hide her awful hairline and receding chin. Instead, she chooses a severe, swept-up look that is mannish and just plain hideous. And she has never varied it in a lifetime. Someone who has to appear in public should have more consideration for those who have to look at her.
Helena Rubinstein once said "There are no ugly women, only lazy women." If so, Princess Anne is lazy.

Friday, 14 February 2014

How Green Government and EU Decisions Turned Rain into a Flood Disaster - by Christopher Booker

Christopher Booker explains how the EA failed to prepare for the floods

It has taken six long weeks to uncover the real hidden reasons why, from the West Country to the Thames Valley, the flooding caused by the wettest January on record has led to such an immense national disaster. Only now have the two ‘smoking guns’ finally come to light which show just how and why all this chaos and misery has resulted directly from a massive system failure in the curious way our country is governed. Because I live in Somerset, I first became aware that something very disturbing was going on back around the new year. As it became clear that the flood waters on the Somerset Levels were beginning to rise dangerously high for the third year running, I set out to find technical experts who could explain just what had gone wrong.

I discovered what I was looking for in the members of a small task force set up by the Royal Bath and West Agricultural Society, which from the mid-18th century had organised the effective draining of the Levels, after they were first reclaimed from a marshy wilderness by Dutch engineers in the reign of Charles I. These farmers, with long practical experience of working with the local drainage boards, along with an eminent engineer who chairs the Wessex flood defence committee, were in no doubt as to why in recent years the Levels have become subject to abnormally prolonged and destructive flooding.

The problem began, they said, in 1996 when the new Environment Agency took overall responsibility for managing Britain’s rivers. These men had been alarmed to see a sharp decline in regular dredging. The rivers have always been crucial to keeping the Levels drained, because they provide the only way to allow flood waters to escape to the sea. Equally worrying was how scores of pumping stations which carry water to the rivers were being neglected. And although the drainage boards were still allowed to operate, their work was now being seriously hampered by a thicket of new EU waste regulations, zealously enforced by the EA. These made it almost impossible to dispose sensibly of any silt removed from the maze of drainage ditches which are such a prominent feature of the Levels.

But all this got markedly worse after 2002 when the Baroness Young of Old Scone, a Labour peeress, became the agency’s new chief executive. Dredging virtually ceased altogether. The rivers began dangerously to silt up. The Baroness, who had previously run the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Natural England, talked obsessively about the need to promote the interests of wildlife. She was famously heard to say that she wanted to see ‘a limpet mine put on every pumping station’. The experts I was talking to had no doubt that this apparent wish to put the cause of nature over that of keeping the Levels properly drained was eventually going to create precisely the kind of disaster we are seeing today. Their message as to what needs to be done couldn’t have been clearer.

First, they wanted to see a resumption of dredging those choked rivers.

Second, they wanted responsibility for managing the Levels to be handed back to those local bodies which kept them effectively drained for generations, without having the EA constantly on their backs.

So compelling was their message that I conveyed to our Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, that he should visit Somerset to get a first-hand picture of what was to be done. He was as impressed by what these practical experts had to tell him as they were by how quickly he got the message. After speaking to other local representatives the next morning, he gave them six weeks to come up with a workable action plan. And if only he hadn’t then been snared into a media disaster, when unexpectedly confronted by a mob of shouting protesters crowding so densely around him that he couldn’t even get to the back of his car to don his wellies, he could have quietly returned to London having pulled off by far the most effective practical initiative yet to have emerged from this appalling mess.

Already, however, so much damage had been done by the excessive flooding, for which there could be no quick fix, that, as ever more farms and villages had to be abandoned, the man-made disaster escalated into a full-blown political crisis — taking on a further dramatic dimension as similarly catastrophic flooding began to threaten the Thames Valley.

We had the great and the good converging on those flooded Somerset villages from all directions: a visit from Prince Charles, carried along the floodwaters on an improvised throne; the hapless Lord Smith of the Environment Agency being yelled at by irate flood victims; David Cameron flying in by helicopter; Nigel Farage being regaled by residents in a local pub, Nick Clegg waffling as ineffectually as ever. With Owen Paterson rushed off to hospital for a serious eye operation, we then had Fatty Pickles trying to give the impression that he was now in charge, lashing out at Lord Smith.

But while this media circus and the growing crisis along the Thames have been occupying the headlines, assiduous researchers have finally been uncovering those ‘smoking guns’ which explain how this disaster has come about. The first was revealed by my long-time collaborator Richard North, a real EU expert who, by combing through scores of official documents, unravelled the story of just how Baroness Young had been able to get her way in shifting her agency’s priorities towards promoting the interests of ‘nature’ over those of farming and people.

A key part in this had been played by those EU directives which govern almost everything the Environment Agency gets up to — including two with which Baroness Young was already familiar when she presided over the RSPB — setting out the EU’s policy on ‘habitats’ and ‘birds’. But just as important was a 2007 directive on the ‘management of flood risks’, which required ‘flood plains’, in the name of ‘biodiversity’, to be made subject to increased flooding.

This was just what Lady Young was looking for. She had already been giving lectures and evidence to a House of Lords committee on the EU’s earlier Water Framework directive, proclaiming that one of her agency’s top priorities should be to create more ‘habitats’ for wildlife by allowing wetlands to revert to nature. As she explained in an interview in 2008, creating new nature reserves can be very expensive. By far the cheapest way was simply to allow nature to take its course, by halting the drainage of wetlands such as the Somerset Levels. The recipe she proudly gave in her lectures, repeated to that Lords committee, was: for ‘instant wildlife, just add water’.

In 2008 her agency therefore produced a 275-page document categorising areas at risk of flooding under six policy options.  These ranged from Policy 1, covering areas where flood defences should be improved, down to category 6, where, in the name of ‘biodiversity’, the policy should be to ‘take action to increase the frequency of flooding’. The paper placed the Somerset Levels firmly under Policy 6, where the intention was quite deliberately to allow more flooding. The direct consequences of that we are now seeing round the clock on our television screens.

The second smoking gun, which explains the other half of the story and why we are seeing a flooding disaster not just in Somerset, but also on the Thames and elsewhere, has now come to light thanks to the Whatdotheyknow website which specialises in publishing the results of Freedom of Information requests. The Environment Agency’s response to an enquiry as to "why the Thames has also not been properly dredged since 1996" reveals that this was because the new EU waste regulations of that year made regular dredging ‘uneconomical’.  They made disposal of silt dredged from rivers by local landowners so complex and expensive that it became much more attractive to take advantage of the ‘financial incentives’ given to ‘conservation schemes’. This was exactly what those farmers had found on the Somerset Levels.

So, at last laid bare, has been the hidden background to our floods disaster. Aided by that wettest ever January, it has been brought about by a synergy between ‘green’ ideologues here in Britain and an array of legislation from Brussels which has to guide policy in every EU member state.

Even in Holland there have been fierce rows over proposals to dismantle some of the dykes which protect the 29 per cent of that country below sea level, but in no nation has this ‘green’ ideology found such a sympathetic response as in Britain, where the senior officials of the EA — 14 of them earning more than £100,000 a year — have long been more swayed by those Agenda 21 doctrines of ‘sustainability’ and ‘biodiversity’ than by any practical concern for the needs of people, homes, businesses and farmland.

The overwhelming lesson emerging from this disaster is, that it has been made far worse than it needed to be by a catastrophic policy failure. When Lord Smith weakly tries to complain that this was only because rules set by the Treasury wouldn’t allow his organisation to spend £4 million on dredging the river Parrett, which flows through the Levels, the victims of the policy point to the Environment Agency’s willingness to see £31 million spent on allowing the sea to flood hundreds of acres of prime farmland on the nearby Somerset coast, to create another habitat for birds.

In Somerset alone, quite apart from the Thames Valley, the eventual cost of this disaster is already estimated at well over£100 million. If this cost also includes the drowning of countless ground-nesting birds, hedgehogs, water voles and badgers which the policies of Brussels and Baroness Young have made inevitable, then, even on their own terms, the case for root-and-branch reversal of such a crazily self-deluding policy becomes overwhelming.

How to disentangle ourselves from this mess, when we are committed by law to obey those EU rules, is another problem altogether.

Christopher Booker is a columnist for the Sunday Telegraph and was the first editor of Private Eye. He lives in Somerset.

Sunday, 9 February 2014

Support Dr Gordon Gancz's fight for Patient Privacy - and Opt Out of Database Scheme

The outrageous new demand for doctors to make all the details of patient records available on one computerized database was foreseeable when all records were digitized a few years ago. The justifications being put forward for it are laughable. The idea that knowing exactly who had what treatment can help the NHS plan future care or funding is absurd. The NHS administration does not need to know the names, or the precise addresses, of the individuals who get prescribed a particular medicine or sent for an operation. It already has the figures for what is being prescribed and how many operations of a certain type take place in each hospital.  

 Does it need to be said that medical records are personal, and sensitive? Does it need to be said that doctors have a duty of confidentiality towards their patients which is part of their professional ethics? Apparently it does because our imbecile rulers don't understand what a "fiduciary relationship" is. 
  Any information on a computer data-base can be hacked into and accessed by all and sundry. It can also be sold by the NHS to advertisers or used for a range of purposes...even blackmail.
  Now Oxford has a hero  - Dr Gordon Gancz who has refused to surrender his patients' records to the database. Dr Gancz of King Edward Street Surgery in Oxford has been told that the NHS will sack him if he doesn't knuckle under. He is determined to stand up to NHS bullying and take them to court if necessary. I hope there is a petition in support of what this brave man is doing and if there isn't one yet, someone should start one pretty darn quick. 
We should all write to our MPs and protest at the policy. 
There is a legal right to opt out, but the vast majority of people will be too busy, or unaware of it, or they may even believe the reassuring blather being circulated by the NHS. Privacy should be the default assumption  - not the other way around.
If you want to opt out of having your medical records sent to the data-base, print off this form and give it to your GP's surgery:-

Pass this information on to others who may not be aware that they have the legal right to opt out.

A CITY GP who has vowed to defy controversial NHS plans to collect patient data said he is prepared to fight the ruling through the courts.
Health bosses warned Dr Gordon Gancz, that he will be in breach of his contract if he refuses to hand over 4,000 patient records under the “” plan.
Records will be passed on to NHS England, unless patients opt out, in a move bosses say will help identify where service improvements are needed.
But the King Edward Street Surgery GP will only hand over records if patients give their consent.
An email to the practice from NHS England said: “GPs are required to comply with all relevant legislation as part of their contract and to allow NHS England access to information.
“We therefore believe any GP who prevents the extraction by opting out of part or the whole of his list without their consent to be in breach of his contract.”
Dr Gancz, who has spent all his 38 years as a GP at the practice, opposes the plan on principle and said few patients know of it.
He said: “If they change the rules of the contract half way through, we don’t have get to have a new contract saying ‘we will sign up’.
“Presumably they can say ‘you are in breach of your contract, you are no longer an NHS doctor’.
“If they do that I will take them to court.”
Records and patients’ date of birth, postcode, NHS number and gender will be given to the Health & Social Care Information Centre.
Dr Gancz said: “It removes my right to protect my patients’ confidential information.
“Someone other than your own doctor will know whether you have had a mental health problem, an abortion, gone to the STI clinic or just had a cold in the last week.”
He warned “there isn’t a database in the world that isn’t crackable” and said patients could be identified using the electoral roll. He added: “We have to play a waiting game. I’m prepared to stand by what I have done.”
An NHS England spokesman said: “We want patients to understand how important their information is to improving outcomes and ensuring we all receive the highest standards of care.
“If a patient wishes to object to their information being used for purposes beyond their direct care, they must do so autonomously, based on balanced, accurate information about how and why their information will be used.
“It is not right for GP practices to make this decision on their patients’ behalf.”
City centre resident Susan Twardowski said: “I am a bit of a libertarian myself, so I agree with what he is doing.”
  • A LEAFLET called Better information means better care has been delivered by NHS England to homes about the changes.
  • Patient records and date of birth, full postcode, NHS number and gender will be provided to the Health & Social Care Information Centre, which collates data on the NHS and social care.
  • Patient hospital data has long been collected and published on issues like waiting times and death rates.
  • But about 90 per cent of patients’ contact with the NHS is outside major hospitals and supporters say the plans are vital for the NHS to work together across all services.
  • The leaflet says records “are linked in a secure system”, adding: “Details that could identify you will be removed before your information is made available to others, such as those planning NHS services and approved researchers.”
  • It said benefits include ensuring local NHS organisations get the right amount of cash from Government, and understanding where people are most at risk of disease.

Sunday, 2 February 2014

Oxford City Council Spends Get Less. SAVE TEMPLE COWLEY SWIMMING POOL

For five years the Labour-dominated Oxford City Council has persisted in its unpopular scheme to build a new swimming-pool at Blackbird Leys, a council estate in the south of the town. There was never been any spontaneous demand for this scheme and the council has ignored a series of petitions signed by 12,000 people protesting and demanding refurbishment instead of the existing pool at Temple Cowley sports centre in East Oxford, which is intensively used and far more accessible.
      The campaigners argue that the scheme effectively spends £13 million to end up with facilities that are no better and will be used by FEWER people.
       The new pool is exactly the same size as the existing one at Temple Cowley, 25 metres long. The contracted building cost is £7.2m, but there is an agreed 'contingency' of £2m to cover all the facilities and some consulting costs. An additional £2m was spent on Blackbird Leys before the main contract was let, to enable the buildings to join up with an existing one, but they miscalculated and put in a fully fitted dance studio... then demolished it to make way for a corridor.
When you include the £2m+ for consultancy fees, the total is over £13 million.
  The campaigners say that Temple Cowley Pool could and should be renovated instead. A number of specialist leisure centre/pool renovation companies gave estimates, all in the order of £3m for a full refurbishment. This would last at least 25 more years  - the same as the anticipated life of the new pool. In fact TCP could be kept operational for much less. The whole centre (including gym, steam room, sauna, exercise studio) is costing under £100,000 a year for maintenance. The Council's own independent surveys identify under £500,000 of minimum remedial/replacement work that would keep it operational for 20+ years.
    TCP is well used and the regulars will find Blackbird Leys hard to get to. It will cost time and money and many won't bother. Before the Council started running TCP down (about 3 years ago), there were 250,000 visits a year. The council estimates that the new pool will attract 180,000 visits a year. So we are paying over £13 million to end up with less!
  The first petition to save TCP, in 2010, got over 12,000 signatures, the highest in the history of Oxford. The petition was rejected by Oxford City Council. Since then the campaigners have presented six more petitions each gaining a minimum of 1,500 signatures, because this is the number that forces a debate in Full Council. Number 7 will be presented at the next Council meeting on February 3rd.
    There is concerted local opposition to the scheme among residents of Blackbird Leys. The scheme means the loss of an existing small pool there and of a lot of green space on Blackbird Leys Park. There will be no diving pool, and traffic into the estate will increase significantly. So the vast majority of people don't want it!
     But the Council is carrying on regardless. Sign the new petition. Contact your city councillor and protest. Tell them that your vote in May depends on this issue.

Saturday, 1 February 2014

School Policy is CRACKERS

For a child of 6 to be excluded from school is a very grave step to take, and unless the child has been behaving in a violent or gravely anti-social way, making it impossible to teach them in a classroom environment, it should never happen.

Now our barmy, politically-correct teaching profession has got so obsessed with healthy eating that they not only tell parents what to put in a child's lunch-box, they go so far as to exclude that child from school for the offence of having a packet of mini-cheddars in it!

Schoolboy, 6, suspended for having Mini Cheddars at lunch

A 6 year old boy in Slough, Riley Pearson, has been suspended for four days from Colnbrook Church of England primary school because his lunch box contained a packet of Mini Cheddars! Riley’s parents Natalie Mardle and Tom Pearson are disgusted, and said he eats lots of fruit and vegetables at home and  the school should have something better to do than raid lunch boxes.
The Headmaster Jeremy Meek, said Mini Cheddars are unsuitable under the school's healthy eating policy.
The school, which is located near Slough, had implemented a healthy eating policy from the beginning of the term, asking parents to provide a balanced meal. Chocolates, sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks were all banned.
The school seems to have overlooked the fact that it exists first and foremost to teach pupils reading, writing and arithmetic and not to get obsessed with the latest politically-correct fads and fashions.
It's one thing to counsel and advise parents about the best way to feed their child. It is okay to give pupils lessons in healthy eating too, now and again.
It is another thing to bully them and harm the child's education for the sake of dietary dogma. The child was getting something to eat and he was eating it. In the photograph above, he looks reasonably healthy. The experience of being suspended could be a hurtful and damaging one for Riley, and he could develop negative feelings about school after this unjust treatment. After all, he did nothing wrong. It is time we took our children's education out of the hands of these imbeciles.

PROTEST by sending an e-mail to the Headmaster :-

Tell him that Riley has a right to his education, he should not be suspended for this and the school has got its priorities wrong.
We need a lot more common-sense in public life and far less PC dogma.