Friday, 23 September 2016

Sadiq Khan says Get Used to Terror Attacks, They're Part of Life

Is Sadiq Khan London's worst Mayor ever?  Or just the worst Mayor possible?
First he goes prancing around America, abusing his position in London to support the Democrat side in the USA, which is known to be complicit in the setting up and arming of ISIS terrorists.


Then he goes to talk to the Mayor of New York, when there are terror attacks taking place all around in New York itself and in New Jersey, and tells him that we should all "get used to them" because they are just "part and parcel of living in a modern city" along with traffic jams.  What a shamefully weak, pathetic, supine response. We cannot trust this man with the security of London. People's lives are in danger with such a useless, completely unsuitable bungler in charge.

Anyone who voted for this creep should be ashamed of themselves. You were taken in by false promises about frozen bus fares  - promises Khan broke almost as soon as the election results were announced. Now you are stuck with a Mayor who hasn't just let bus fares rise, he has invited every terrorist in the world to put a bomb on the bus too.
It might be wise if the border control at the airport stopped him coming back into England.

Wednesday, 14 September 2016

Fair Representation in the UK - not Gerrymandering

Even the Electoral Reform Society opposes the government's proposals for re-drawing the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies and reducing the number of MPs.  Drawn up by supposedly independent boundary commissions, the proposed changes offer us all the wrong reforms for the wrong reasons. 

With the population of this country higher than ever before, there is simply no logical reason to reduce the number of MPs and make our votes count for less. It does not get us any closer to proportional representation, some form of which prevails in most other parliaments around the world. 
This plan was surely drawn up before the EU referendum, and was intended to shrink Parliament and reduce democracy as more and more powers were transferred to Brussels. In the EU, our Parliament would become superfluous, with no function except to rubber-stamp the decisions of Brussels bureaucrats. So the Cameron government was happy to see the House of Commons decline in numbers and power. Parliament could be left to become nothing more than a club for the likes of Keith Vaz to drop into for a bottle of taxpayer-subsidized champagne and cordon-bleu meals in the intervals of steamy cocaine-fuelled bouts with rentboys (and by the way, when is Keith Vaz going to be prosecuted for supplying Class A drugs?)
Fortunately, the #Brexit vote has made that a little more unlikely, and ensured that in the long term power does remain at Westminster. I hope too that Brexit will ensure that this country never gives votes to prisoners. The idea is an outrage. 
We don't need fewer MPs, we need better MPs. We need MPs of intellectual and moral standing.
The proposed boundary changes do seem in many cases to favour the Conservatives and disadvantage Labour. Nothing is being done to address the real, major failings of our electoral system. 
I am not particularly concerned about the omission of people who are not registered voters. If they don't bother to register, either they are apathetic or they may not be entitled to vote.
As an English Democrat, I deplore the fact that England is the only part of the UK that lacks its own parliament. English people have less autonomy than those of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Last October, the government introduced some steps towards alleviating this disparity, with "English votes for English laws" but the Scots still want to call all the shots at Westminster. Scottish MPs, some of them mere students, prance around dictating to the entire UK and threatening that they could or would block #Brexit, imposing their will on the will of the majority of the British people. I say that injustice, imposed by the stupid Blair government, must stop. 
Scotland actually has a smaller population than Yorkshire, yet it has far more MPs and more money spent on it per head. Voters in England are under-represented. A Scottish voter can write to his MSP or MP and get two representatives working on his behalf. A typical English voter has only his MP, and that MP represents more voters than the Scottish  - or Welsh - equivalent.
The number of Scottish MPs must be reduced, their power to vote in English matters must be curtailed, and there must be an absolute veto on any attempt by them to block decisions which the majority of English people have voted to approve. 
It is the House of Lords, not the Commons, that is far too big. There are 790 life peers now, far more than the number of MPs. It is also now far less representative of the people than it ever was when it was filled with hereditary peers. It is now full of party apparachniks and is used as a pay-off for donations to party funds or services rendered - as in the case of Shami Chakrabarty, clumsily made a peer by Jeremy Corbyn within minutes of writing her report clearing Labour of anti-Semitism. Corbyn supposedly does not believe in the House of Lords, but he believes in it when it suits him.
People were rightly indignant at the way that David Cameron, when stepping down, raised all his party chums and fund-raisers to the peerage, even putting Samantha Cameron's fashion adviser on the list. Why should Sam Cam's dresser make laws for you and me? Cameron was the man who in the presence of the Queen and Archbiship of Canterbury, gleefully burbled that the international anti-corruption conference was attended by nations that were "fantastically corrupt". Look who's talking. If you want to see corruption just look in the bathroom mirror, Dave. 
The House of Lords is full of corrupt people put there for corrupt reasons. Greville Janner could still appear there and vote when he claimed that he was too ill to appear in a court of law, and suffering from advanced dementia. The same went for Leon Brittan.
The House of Lords is full of a quite unrepresentative number of Liberal Democrats, regardless of the fact that their vote share has collapsed and their party is in terminal decline. They are shamelessly greedy, unscrupulous types, such as Lord Paddick, who claimed £9,000 earlier this year in expenses to cross the Atlantic, in order to make a four-minute speech in the Lords. That bill is footed by us, the tax-payers, and that is disgraceful. The TPA rightly highlighted it as a form of corruption. 

It is still true that women are under-represented in the British Parliament, despite all the all-female shortlists and lipservice of Blair's Babes. Women are slightly more than half of the population, yet only 25% of our elected MPs are women, 191 out of a total of 650. One reason for this is that women are regularly bullied out of the democratic process by the homosexuals who are undoubtedly over-represented, with 35 out of 650, 36 if you count Keith Vaz. Why should a minority of only 1.5% of the population have 5.5% of the seats in Parliament?  
Sarah Teather who was one of the more principled and ethical members of the Lib Dem party (what was she doing there?) found herself simply bullied out of her political career because she would not vote for same-sex "marriage" and she quite rightly voted to protect the conscience of registrars. She found herself a target of vilification and intolerance. 
The resignation of Louise Mensch in my view had a lot to do with the amount of sheer sexist bullying that she received in Parliament and in the political sphere. It is also true that Christian MPs in general are subjected to such appalling bullying that many retreat from the profession. Stephen Crabbe is the latest victim.

Something ought to be done to address all of these injustices, but the proposals of the Electoral Commissions do nothing to improve the situation, and so I hope that parliament will vote to reject them, and I hope that Mrs May follows suit.

Thursday, 8 September 2016

A Third Option Has Been Suggested to Save Horton Hospital Maternity Unit

‘Third option’ put forward to save Horton maternity unit 

A third option would see Oxford's Caesarean Section ops done in Banbury
Email 17:39Tuesday 06 September 2016 

Medics in Banbury have come up with an innovative ‘third option’ to save the future of Banbury maternity services. The maternity hospital is due to be downgraded to a midwife-only unit starting on October 3. Midwives believe the remaining Horton service would survive only a few months. Experts say their new alternative proposal would allow Special Care Baby Unit to remain in Banbury Experts have drawn up a business case for a new idea to keep the maternity unit active while offering dedicated training to Oxford staff. In the plan, the John Radcliffe Hospital would send its routine, planned Caesarean section births to be carried out in Banbury’s fully kitted-out delivery suite theatres. Having the operations done here would - enable the post natal ward and Special Care Baby Unit to be maintained - help protect the future of the children’s ward - ease anticipated pressure on JR staff and obstetric and gynaecology facilities and - prevent unnecessary expense hiring a portable operating theatre at the JR to house gynaecology ops to make way for planned Caesareans. The experts have cited parts of an OUHFT contingengy plan that admit to a worrying logjam of births at Oxford. The infrastructure is already in place in Banbury and, importantly, allowing the Horton to be kept in use would - prevent inevitable resignations of midwives and SCBU staff being forced to transfer their work to Oxford and - facilitate the smooth return to full consultant-led maternity as soon as sufficient doctors have been recruited - a move the trust has assured the Board it wishes to make. The business case says the OUHFT contingency plan describes a ‘major challenge facing OUHFT’ being emergency theatre time, post-operative recovery beds, anaesthetists and theatre staff’. The experts’ plan claims to eradicate concerns over staffing, availability of beds, weekend gynaecology operating lists and delivery theatre suite availability at the JR. The ‘third option’ suggests the Horton maternity unit would undertake up to four Caesarean section operations per day, seven days a week, potentially 28 a week, easing pressure at the JR immensely. One of the experts said: “Staff at the JR have already expressed concerns to management about staffing levels, sickness levels and infrastructure for the present birth rate at the JR, before the predicted 19 extra births per week from October 3.” Because of the comprehensive nature of the Horton unit, all midwives are already fully trained in all aspects of delivery, including theatre nursing, all categories of Caesareans, post operative and post natal care, so no extra staff or training would be necessary. The Care Quality Commission scored Banbury over the JR for patient satisfaction and the experts believe patient experience would also be maintained by this third option. “This third option will complement the midwife-only unit, save the trust money, utilize and maintain current systems of operation and ensure swift and smooth reopening of the full Horton Maternity Unit once middle grade doctors are employed,” they say. “It will also help repair the lack of trust in OUH displayed at the recent public meeting at St Mary’s Church, Banbury. “It may also help to retain staff at the Horton and JR.” The plan would also reduce costs on bank staff needed in the event of expected resignations and disruption to operating lists at the JR which would help the trust avoid expensive fines for missing targets.




Save Banbury Horton General Hospital From Extensive and Dangerous Cuts

Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (OUHFT) is consulting on the way services are provided at the Horton General Hospital in Banbury
Their plans could take away A&E, consultant-led maternity, Special Care Baby Unit (SCBU), 24 hour / 7 day a week children's ward and intensive care.

Sign this petition
1,916 signatures

Thursday, 1 September 2016

Christian Convert Ordered to Prison in Iran Despite Failing Health

President Obama obtained the release of a few American prisoners from Iran by paying $400 million. But there has been no change to the policy in Iran of persecuting Christians.


Maryam (Nasim) Naghash Zargaran, a Christian convert who has been imprisoned since 2013 while suffering from several ailments, has been home with her family on a five-day furlough (temporary leave) since June 6, 2016 following her life-threatening hunger strike in Tehran’s Evin Prison. Now her family is repeating their demand for her permanent release. 

“We are happy they gave her furlough, but that’s not why my daughter went on a hunger strike. We want her to be free,” Zargaran’s mother, Zahra Pour-Nouhi Langroudi, told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. “Maryam has served a third of her sentence and by law she qualifies for conditional release. We don’t know why she was sentenced to four years in prison in the first place.”
Langroudi added that Zargaran began her most recent hunger strike on May 29, 2016 after an Intelligence Ministry representative falsely led her to believe that one of her convictions could be overturned.
Zargaran has said she will resume her hunger strike if she is not formally released by July 7, 2016, according to her mother.
“Maryam was sentenced to four years in prison on two charges, but they had no evidence to support either one,” said Langroudi. “They accused her of preaching Christianity in Babolsar (145 miles north of Tehran) with 20 other women, but no one [was presented in court] to prove that he or she had been converted to Christianity by Maryam.”
“During the trial Judge Moghisseh joked with his staff and said: ‘What should I do, Haji? How many years do you think I should give her? Is five years good?’ And then his colleague said: ‘No! She’s too young—poor thing.’ Judge Moghisseh then said he would sentence her to four years,” said Langroudi. 

“Can a judge joke like this about sentencing someone? Shouldn’t he stick to the law and base his decision on evidence?” added Langroudi.
Langroudi also informed the Campaign that her daughter would be going to the hospital during her five-day furlough to receive treatment for health problems that have been exacerbated by her hunger strike. 
“Maryam is suffering from heart, ear, and spinal disc ailments, and neck and hand arthritis. She had heart disease before she was sent to prison and underwent an operation for it last year,” said Langroudi. “The doctors had told her that she must absolutely avoid stressful situations, but the other problems with her ear, back and arthritis are the result of her imprisonment.”

Since March 2011, Zargaran, a children’s music teacher, was regularly summoned and interrogated by security police about her alleged Christian missionary activities. She was eventually arrested on November 5, 2012 and accused of seeking property in northern Iran for an orphanage along with converted Christian pastor Saeed Abedini before he was also imprisoned for his religious beliefs in 2013.  Abedini, an Iranian-American dual national, spent eight years in prison on proselytization charges until he was released in January 2016 along with two other Iranian-Americans following a prisoner swap deal between Iran and the United Sates.

In 2013, despite having no access to legal counsel, Zargaran was sentenced to four years in prison by Branch 28 of the Revolutionary Court, presided by Judge Mohammad Moghisseh, for “assembly and collusion against national security.” The Appeals Court later upheld the sentence. 
Zargaran began serving her sentence on July 15, 2013 in Evin Prison’s Women’s Ward. She has been granted furlough twice to receive specialized medical treatment.
Iran’s Protestant Christian and Christian convert community are subjected to severe persecution and discrimination, and are prosecuted vigorously for what authorities view are their proselytizing activities.