One In Three GPs Admit They Miss Symptoms

GettyImages-1803610.jpg

More than one in three GPs acknowledge they’ve neglected to properly diagnose patients because short appointment times have meant symptoms have been missed.

Misdiagnoses meant sick patients are forced to return for repeat appointments and further medical treatment as 10-minute consultation windows didn’t give enough time for doctors to assess them correctly, and a monstrous 94 per cent of NHS doctors said short appointment times put patients in danger, with GPs reporting that they thought the minimum “safe” timeframe would be 16 to 20 minutes.

Four in five stated they don’t always have time to properly diagnose patients, with 55 per cent worrying they have missed severe health problems and 37 per cent thinking they have prescribed the wrong course of treatment.

The survey of 200 GPs, by law firm Slater and Gordon, follows a new report from the Royal College of GPs which called the standard 10-minute appointment “unfit for purpose”. The average consultation is 9.2 minutes in the United Kingdom, but the college said increasing it would enable doctors more time to help people with complex health needs.

It also believes more extended and shorter appointments should be available to cater to people’s various conditions, and half of the GPs in the latest survey said they’re expected to keep appointment times to less than 10 minutes, while others were compelled to reduce this further depending on patient demand for attention.

We should be able to trust our family doctor to listen to our concerns and to recognise any problems, without them worrying about hurrying us through to meet hazardous deadlines, which is of course not the most suitable practice, and these doctors need to have enough time to do their jobs correctly and robustly for the health of the UK.

Individual doctors decide on the length of appointments and if a patient requires a longer consultation, they should be given it, and the recent GP Patient Survey revealed that more than nine in 10 patients trusted their GP, and more than eight in 10 people reported their experience at their GP practise as good or better.

Total health spending in England was around £129 billion in 2018/19 and is supposed to climb to approximately £134 billion by 2019/20, taking inflation into account, and it makes you question where all that money goes to because when most people go into consult with their doctor, there are long waiting lists, then longer waiting lists, and if you need to see a specialist, unless you can afford to go private, then you’re going to wait a pretty long time.

1A1B8CB0-C53C-4E7E-A6DC-8D98C4C29CDB.jpeg

And now the expansion of the dubious ‘GP by Skype’ service is to be extended to every patient by 2021, and the GP at hand app is now well established in London and set to be rolled out, but there are concerns it will take money away from conventional practices.

And plans to replace traditional GP appointments with virtual online doctors could fatally undermine care for elderly patients, and Health Secretary Matt Hancock has promised to roll out the controversial scheme across the NHS, and there are concerns it could cream off young patients and increase the digital divide in healthcare.

The GP at Hand smartphone app uses an algorithm to assess symptoms through a ‘chatbot’ and gives ten-minute video appointments with a doctor. It’s now accessible to millions of patients in London and Birmingham, and Matt Hancock is amongst the 55,000 people to have deregistered from their GP to use the service.

But most of those who have signed up are young and rich and only 0.1 per cent suffers from chronic conditions, and this could affect traditional GP practices because they get a set amount of money for each patient on their books, suggesting they will lose money when patients leave to join the online scheme.

And since it’s essentially the young and fit who sign up, operations are left with a greater proportion of costly patients, such as the elderly, weak and chronically sick, and the app risks creaming off young patients and does not address the broader requirements of the population.

And some will worry that the new service will fatally threaten traditional general practice, leaving GPs with sick and complex patients to look after as fit young patients move, and it’s basically taking money away from practices.

It comes as Britain faces a spiralling GP crisis, as a recorded 138 surgeries shut down last year and millions struggled to secure appointments with a doctor, but Mr Hancock thinks technology could offer a solution, and he said that GP at Hand, works brilliantly for so many patients and goes with the grain of how people access modern services.

But GP leaders are concerned virtual consultations could miss less obvious symptoms that doctors pick up through their gut instincts, and they’re concerned the app will threaten the doctor-patient relationship and antagonise those without smartphones.

The Hand app risks destabilising traditional NHS general practice services and it’s really not suitable for those with complicated health needs and patients who value continuity of care, and there hasn’t been a completely independent evaluation of how safe the service is for patients.

And those who don’t have access to a suitable smartphone are not able to start using the new models on offer, therefore extending the digital divide in healthcare, but an NHS spokesman said that GP funding arrangements had been changed to account for new digital services.

An NHS spokesman said GP funding arrangements had been changed to account for new digital services, and added: ‘The NHS is committed to supporting GPs to increase the use of digital technology, with every patient in England having access to online and video consultation by 2021.’

Babylon, the firm behind the app, said the NHS had to decide whether to protect ‘old-school GP practices or to do the right thing by patients and taxpayers’.

Patients get a ten-minute appointment with their doctor, but during that appointment sometimes symptoms are missed, and the Royal College of GPs wants a more extended 15-minute appointment, and one in three NHS GPs admitted that appointment times are restricted to ten minutes that has led them to miss symptoms.

Incorrect diagnoses mean patients have to return for extra appointments and may become more severely unwell, indicating greater use of NHS time than a longer consultation in the first place, and the 200 doctors that were surveyed about their work pressure, 94 per cent said that appointments should be between 16 and 20 minutes at least.

Four in five said they don’t always have the opportunity to properly diagnose patients, with 55 per cent worrying that they’ve missed serious health problems, and usually don’t have enough time to spend with one patient to make a proper diagnosis, and one doctor said that

‘Recently it took three weeks and repeat appointments to get to the bottom of a patient’s medical condition and offer the correct solution’. 

And if these doctors had more time in the first place it would enable them to get to the root of their patient’s complaint right away, and doctors are treated like expendable robots under relenting demand.

Most GPs want to do their very best for their patients, but the system will not let them, and because of this doctors usually burn out, experience significant mental health problems, or simply leave the job.

People put faith in their family doctors to listen to their concerns and to recognise any problems, without having to fret about them racing us through to reach hazardous deadlines which are not the best practice.

They need to have enough time to do their jobs correctly and robustly for the well-being of the United Kingdom, but then it’s characteristic of this government to bring in this kind of system because they don’t care for the sick and vulnerable, and we should all be concerned about this if we value our NHS.

These online companies only dispense with the most salubrious of patients, leaving NHS practices to deal with the sicker amongst us.

The problem is that each gets the equivalent volume of per capita funding. This means that the online companies are rolling in profits as they’re dealing with the healthiest and most affordable patients whilst conventional surgeries have a funding shortfall as they’re dealing with the sickest, and most costly patients.

skype.jpg

And now people are going to pay to Skype a random locum doctor at home who can’t examine you whilst bankrupting GP surgeries, so it’s no surprise they’re all closing down, and those who don’t have Skype or don’t wish to use it for such a personal or private matter won’t stand a chance of ever seeing a doctor in person because all their time will be taken up with telephone and Skype consultations.

And what happens when you’re in the midst of a Skype consultation and your connection drops or get cut off? Will that person have to go through all the formalities of getting another appointment?

 

British Boy Given Detention

nick-ferrari-on-inventing-live-topless-darts.jpg

Last year on the Nick Ferrari programme, someone called in to say that their teenage son had been given detention, along with classmates for saying they’d vote UKIP during an election. The teacher reacted to the pupils by saying “All UKIP voters were racists” and then handed out detention for their remarks.

The boy’s father couldn’t believe this had happened at his son’s school, and Nick Ferrari described the episode as outrageous and absurd, and politics should be kept out of the classroom, and it doesn’t matter what party this teenager supports because like adults, children have diverse views too which they’re entitled to have, and this singular teacher needs to do the detention himself for being such an idiot.

Telling people who they can and can’t support is similar to a dictatorship, and the teacher should have been dismissed and the head should have been punished, this is the United Kingdom, not North Korea.

Children should be free to explore their own political interests as they grow into adults, and it’s no different from a student in a class idolising Donald Trump, bet they wouldn’t get detention for that, and like the USA, hysterics appears to have infiltrated our education system.

Perhaps we should award these boys with MBE medals for displaying courage for their fair and honest beliefs, it’s called free speech, and teachers should be encouraging open and free discussion, not closing it down.

So, a couple of children have a discussion, and then when one person objects to their beliefs, the teacher, in this case, the kids are excluded. This is was a discussion, but then it became authoritarian when the teacher didn’t agree. “At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want, as long as I believe it!” Of course, the teacher didn’t say this, but he may as well have.

The problem is, our education system has become an indoctrination platform, and it’s a national disgrace that teachers are persecuting their students for their political beliefs.

At the end of the day, teachers should be doing what they’re paid for, teaching, and they shouldn’t be getting involved in politics, the same as celebrities meddling in politics, and if these teachers can’t teach without intervening, then they shouldn’t teach at all.

On the other hand, if these children want to get politically involved, then they have to understand that sometimes this is the consequence of their beliefs and that not everyone is going to agree.

The problem with numerous schools, kids appear to be taught what to think, rather than how to think, but schools should be supportive of debate and respect democratic freedom of expression to their students, along with their political beliefs.

1200px-Logo_of_UKIP.svg.png

And if these boys are getting detention for defending UKIP, then those who promote Labour, should they be publicly whipped?

Once teaching was seen as a vocation, now they’ve turned it into a profession, and they don’t teach children these days, they instruct them, without any freedom of speech, and teachers shouldn’t be telling these children what to believe, they should be teaching them how to think for themselves, it’s not only freedom of speech, but it’s problem-solving as well.

And if the teacher wasn’t at fault, why did the school apologise?

Basildon Hospital Neglect

16692656-7302977-image-a-12_1564519750132.jpg

A one-day-old baby who died in Basildon Hospital was neglected. Ennis Pecaku died in the hospital at 2 am on September 28 last year, having been born at 7.39pm the previous day.

He had been born in the breech position, meaning his legs came out first, and the cause of death was confirmed to be asphyxiation during a vaginal breech birth, and the inquest, held at Essex Coroner’s Court in Chelmsford, learned that Ennis Pecaku had also sustained asphyxiation for at least 25 minutes before his delivery.

Beasley-Murray (4).jpg

Senior coroner Caroline Beasley-Murray entered a narrative conclusion to Ennis Pecaku’s death.

In the later stages of pregnancy, baby Ennis was in the breech position, and on September 17 an attempted external cephalic version to move him was unsuccessful.

On September 26 baby Ennis’ mother attended Basildon Hospital for a caesarean section, but this was postponed until October 2, and his mother was sent home.

On September 27, Ennis’s mother attended the hospital following a spontaneous rupture of membranes.

Baby Ennis was delivered by breech delivery at 7.39pm but he died at 2 am the following morning.

There were grave shortcomings in the care given to baby Ennis and his mother by Basildon Hospital, and a more timely intervention would seemingly have ended in a more favourable outcome.

Baby Ennis would have seemingly have survived had he been born before 7.16pm, and his death was contributed to by negligence by Basildon Hospital.

The case is really bad, but a hospital spokesperson said that measures had been taken to improve their care in the future, but it’s a tad too late for Baby Ennis because care should have been given, it’s no good saying you’re sorry after the barn door is shut and the horse has bolted!

Bas hospital.jpg.gallery.jpg

But in a statement issued following the conclusion, the parents of Ennis, Edmir Pecaku and Emma-Louise Davies, from Grays, welcomed the verdict, and they said they were satisfied over the conclusion that the coroner gave, and the list of shortcomings identified of administering basic medical care to Louise and baby Ennis amounted to neglect.

But even though the hospital may have made adjustments, nothing will ever alter the outcome for this family, and the overwhelming loss of their son Ennis.

Yet, even though Basildon Hospital, Essex were guilty of negligence, it’s no wonder… it’s the those governing the country that is truly at fault by not tapping enough money into the NHS, instead, they pump into their own pockets.

Of course, mistakes happen all the time, because people are only human and not perfect, and countless people slip through the system, and not only that, doctors and nurses are in short supply, with agency nurses being brought in to cover.

Doctors and nurses aren’t dumb, they will go abroad where there are fewer hours and more money, and over the years we’ve lost many skilled doctors and nurses because of this, but that doesn’t mean we should privatise our NHS, positively not!

And I’m sure the parents of baby Ennis don’t feel comforted that some manager at the hospital said “That lessons have been learnt”, this unfortunate family have to live with this for the rest of their lives, and it’s an outright disgrace.

No Deal Preparations

 

cb7b8ddb120b6fb2f6b5dd1573d3a8e5.jpg

Boris Johnson said, “We’ll be ready”. He said, “The ports will be ready”. No, they won’t, and Europe thinks that Britain is considerably behind in its no-deal preparations, and if you look at what the French have done in Calais, they’ve built a lorry park, and the number-plate recognition software is all up there.

If you look at what’s been done at Rotterdam and Antwerp, the difficulty we have now is simply a bottleneck constraint. Half the traffic that goes through the tunnel is small traffic, and if you talk to the Road Haulage Association, they’re not ready. The small business has not prepared.

So, then, it’s a little like doing your tax return, if you’re a small business, let’s say, doing a US tax return without an accountant, if you don’t know your way around, you’re lost, you need a customs clearance agent, who tells you what you’ve got on your rig, this and this, and this is how your going to fill out the paperwork, these are the numbers you require, these are the certificates you need.

Oh, you’ve got animal merchandise there, you need a… and it’s got beef in it, or its got hormone in it, so what you need is a… fill out that, and it’s not something that Bloggs Transport can do, so where you going to get the customs trainers from?

“We’ll be ready,” says Boris. “The ports will be ready” No they won’t. It’s not like training up a host of security guards for Glastonbury, it’s fairly technical, and you need to train those people up, and there’s going to be a mountain of we told you so along the way, and sadly that means nothing compared to the difficulties Brexit will cause and will continue to inflict on us all.

The stupidity of Brexit is staggering, infuriating and terrorising.

Three years have gone by and we’re still no closer to a deal than we were on day one. The EU doesn’t want us to leave and will never offer a fair deal. Theresa May didn’t want us to leave and as such didn’t even try to get a good deal, so either we leave without a deal or we disregard democracy and stay.

But then there’s Boris Johnson with his “We’ll fight them on the beaches, on the terraces, in Brussels, we’ll never surrender” speech. He’s not Winston Churchill, and he’ll never be, and if that’s what he’s intending on doing, portraying himself as Winston, then we’re in big trouble.

And I’m not convinced that Boris Johnson even wants a deal. The elements have now put him in power and now we’ll be compelled to take whatever the US offers us or more worryingly demands, and I don’t believe our new Prime Minister or a single member of his cabinet is capable of handling the security arrangements at a complex event like Glastonbury, or even directing traffic in a car park, and that’s the problem.

They’re individually and collectively no more able of delivering a managed Brexit than they are of organising a manned flight to Mars, and inadequate Boris couldn’t even sell a bus to Hong Kong.

And does anyone really believe anything Boris Johnson says, given all the lies that he’s told, and more surprising, he appears to believe his own fabrications. He has no idea where the money is coming from for more police, but he said that he’ll do it, and it’s not what he says that counts, it’s what he does that counts.

Of course, this is a political tactic. He wants to make the country feel great and to accept he can do what he says before he calls a general election, and the months that he is in office he’s hoping people will overlook his failures and vote for him, but the people need to be reminded on a daily basis of the shortcomings of this government.

I honestly can’t see this getting any better any time soon, and it feels like half the nation is in a self-destructive spiral and they can’t see it, and the ironic thing is they’ve had three years to get this mess organised, so it’s pretty apparent there wasn’t any endeavour to prepare for a no-deal at all because they never thought we would actually leave.

Talk about misusing taxpayers money. The government seem to be doing a great job of loafing away our funds to a wind of time wasters, but then no Tory ministry has a sweeping record of planning, and they actually don’t give a wriggle, as none of them will suffer from a no-deal, but the remainder of the population will.

Boris Johnson: I campaigned To Leave The EU

boris-johnson-1158587.jpg

Boris Johnson said it’s about taking back control, and that it doesn’t just apply to Westminster retrieving independence from the EU. It simply means that our cities, counties and towns can become more self-governing.

It means people taking more accountability for their own neighbourhoods, and that London and Manchester have expanded partly because they’ve had mayors. Some better than others, but all with vital power, the vital power, to speak for their cities, and to bang their heads together and to get things done.

Boris Johnson stated that over the last three years they’ve treated Brexit like some impending, adverse weather situation.

Of course, Boris Johnson fought to leave the EU because he thought that it was an opportunity to change the direction of the United Kingdom and to make us the greatest country in the world to live, and he said that we should remind ourselves that leaving the EU is a huge economic opportunity to do things we’ve not been permitted to do for decades.

To relieve ourselves of bureaucratic red tape, to generate jobs, to disentangle the creativity and innovation for which Britain is renowned, and of course, we don’t have to wait now to begin planning to embrace the advantages of that project.

But whether or not Brexit is a great idea, most realise that the reason Boris Johnson fought for it was for his own personal advancement, and at the end of the day, people do things for themselves and not for the interest of others, and if it means them getting a promotion for their own personal advancement, then so be it, it doesn’t matter, screw everyone else, as long as I’m okay Jack.

And it’s a huge opportunity for him to stuff his pockets with lots and lots of pounds. Oh, I forgot Boris was born was a gilded spoon in his mouth, he essentially came out of his mother’s womb with money and a job, he didn’t have anyone breathing down his neck to get a job, and he’s been living a charmed life ever since – no Universal Credit for him!

This man isn’t a politician, but he has a pretty good mouthpiece and could be very dangerous, and we’re going to require some really good luck here, and who’s pulling his strings? That’s the troubling thing.

He stated that he fought for Brexit and to leave because he thought it was our best chance, no it was his best opportunity to get into Number 10… there, I fixed it for you, Boris, and please acquaint us to the advantages of leaving the EU, after all, you would be the first person to actually do so.

And if people actually believe that leaving the EU will result in less red tape, well, of course, it won’t, and could Boris Johnson please name one thing we could do that we’ve not been permitted to do before that would be more beneficial than being part of the EU?

Boris Johnson fought to leave the EU because he believed it’s a chance to make us the best country in the world to live, provided you’re wealthy, and the only thing Brexit will be a great opportunity for is the oligarchs and disaster entrepreneurs, some of whom he is really close to.

It is, however, an opportunity to do a trade deal with the USA and to privatise the NHS with American companies, just so that we can become a mini USA. Just watch him dismiss it until it’s a done deal, then he’ll waffle on about how much better off we are.

How can an honest man make a speech such as this when just three years ago the same ‘honest man’ wrote a major article for the Telegraph apparently saying that Brexit and leaving the EU would be an economic and social disaster for our nation?

That’s because he’s nothing better than a rattlesnake oil salesperson who will promise whatever satisfies his whim to get his way and come the day of the delivery he will probably be absent, but no doubt he will have an excellent defence.

Remember the recent vote on the third runway at Heathrow? When he said he would lay down in front of the bulldozers to stop it, but come the day of the vote he was conveniently absent from the House of Commons, and nowhere near the runway.

And when Boris Johnson said about getting rid of bureaucratic red tape to create jobs, that appears to interpret getting rid of workers rights… because to them, we’re amongst the worst idlers in the world, but let’s face it, the preponderance of those in the House of Commons are slothful excretions, merely scamming the taxpayers of this country.

And if Boris Johnson doesn’t deliver Brexit in a rational fashion, and the British people do suffer from a calamitous departure, I honestly don’t see the Conservatives recovering from that, so welcome Jeremy Corbyn, as Prime Minister.

Self-governing cities, well, we already have those. Mayors, we already have those as well. Best country in the world, I’m still deliberating that topic, although, if you consider some other country’s, it’s not too bad, although it could be better, and selling off the NHS to the American corporations isn’t the solution.

NHS_0.jpg

At the end of the day the taxpayers finance the NHS, so it’s not the governments to sell off, but then they would sell your grandmother if they thought she was worth something to them, but of course, they don’t see her as a commodity, so they’d rather that she passed on as soon as possible.

Boris Johnson might be able to talk the talk, but can he walk the walk? I just think he likes the sound of his own voice, and he might talk, but really he never actually says anything, and anytime he’s forced to prove anything, it’s immediately shown to be untrue.

And he did give a fairly admirable address, but I question who actually penned it for him? And the best country in the world to live, for who specifically? The rich…

Indeed, their all freeloaders in boats, and the enormous nobility that freeload from us as well, but then Nigel Farage does have a lovely boat and the use of a private aircraft.

Boris Johnson wants England to become like America, and look at how much mess their in. Ninety-nine per cent of the country lives in poverty, and their healthcare system is the worst in the world. Food standards are a scandal, and if that’s what we want for this country, then that’s your choice, but there’s a preponderance of people that don’t.

Boris, in what will coming out of the EU benefit us? In a lot of ways the EU has helped our young and allowed them loads of opportunities that they would not ordinarily have had, including the ability to go and study overseas for free.

nigel-farage-800x480.jpg

And if you believe that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are going to do a great deal for the United Kingdom, you’re mistaken. They’re only in it for the money, nothing else, and why did Nigel Farage get a German passport if he dislikes the EU so much, it’s all about tax dodging, clear and simple, and when Boris Johnson said that leaving the EU will allow us to do things we couldn’t do before, what he actually means is tax evasion, no NHS, no food laws, no environmental laws and no human rights.

There are many people out there that believe we should give him a chance… yes, we should… give him enough rope to hang himself!

Boris Johnson Confirmed As New Prime Minister

skynews-boris-johnson-conservatives_4726586.jpg

Boris Johnson has been announced as the leader of the Conservative party and the next Prime Minister of Britain, with many believing he will do a lousy job and some believing he will do a great job, he might startle us yet!

He might not be liked very much, but if you consider who was against him, then he might not be so bad after all, so long as he does the right thing on Brexit, and by popular demand, Great Britain will now be known as Great Boris.

Boris Johnson has been elected to be the 77th Prime Minister of the UK after defeating opponents to be crowned the victor of the Conservative leadership contest.

Boris Johnson gained a sweeping victory in a ballot of Tory members against the opponent, current foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt, after gaining more than 90,000 votes, and he was backed by 66.4 per cent of the vote, almost double the percentage obtained by rival Jeremy Hunt.

Boris Johnson took to the platform in the presence of cheering MPs and members and thanked both rival Jeremy Hunt and Theresa May.

He stated that he knew there would be some who questioned the wisdom of what the party has done in choosing him as a leader but that it was an extraordinary honour and privilege to have been chosen.

The contest to find the next party leader started on 10 June, with 10 Tory MPs joining the race to take over from outgoing prime minister Theresa May.
Six weeks later, the two surviving candidates, Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson sat in the front of the audience to hear the results as the deciding votes were read out by returning officers Dame Cheryl Gillan and Charles Walker.

Boris Johnson’s mandate of a “do or die” Brexit on the 31 October, regardless of whether the United Kingdom has a deal or not was enough to win him the support of his party, with a winning margin of approximately 45,000 votes, and he addressed the party for the first time as leader on Tuesday afternoon, before officially taking office on Wednesday.

skynews-theresa-may-pm_4727047.jpg

Theresa May congratulated her replacement only minutes after the decision was announced, tweeting: “We now need to work together to deliver a Brexit that works for the whole UK and to keep Jeremy Corbyn out of government. You will have my full support from the backbenches.”

ImageVaultHandler.aspx.jpg

She will take to the House of Commons despatch box in her last assembly of Prime Minister’s Questions before visiting the Queen to hand in her official resignation, and Boris Johnson will visit the palace shortly after, before travelling to Downing Street, and entering Number 10 for the first time as Prime Minister.

But before Tuesday’s decision Boris Johnson was hold up with close advisers putting the last touches to his new cabinet and the team who will guide him on the Brexit strategy throughout his premiership.

Despite being a frequently divisive personality who polarises public opinion of himself, he is expected to appeal for his party to unite behind him as a leader, and he is expected to spend the next few weeks of his premiership, while parliament is in recess, travelling overseas visiting allies in Washington, Paris and Berlin.

Of course, some joker had already pointed out that “Deliver, Unite and Defeat” was not the perfect acronym for an election campaign since unfortunately, it spells DUD, but Boris Johnson said that they forgot the “E”, “E” for energise, and to all the sceptics, “DUDE”, that the Tories are now going to energise the country, and that they’re going to get Brexit done on October 31st.

Boris Johnson is the new Prime Minister, this is a guy that’s spent the whole leadership election carelessly talking up a no-deal Brexit, no matter the cost. If he takes us through a no-deal Brexit, like he said he would, it could be a catastrophe for our jobs and the NHS.

He stated that we’re going to take advantage of all the opportunities and that it will bring a no spirit of ‘can do’ and that they’re once again going to believe in themselves and what they can deliver, and like the slumbering monster, they’re going to rise and ping-off the guy ropes of self-doubt and negativity with greater education, better infrastructure, more police, and fantastic full-fibre broadband sprouting in every home.

He said that he’s going to unite this marvellous nation and that they’re going to take it forward, and that he’s going to work flat out from now on with his team, and that he will build to repay our faith in the Tory party.

There, of course, will be people around who will challenge the stability of the Tory parties decision, and there may even be some people in government who still question what they’ve done, but of course, nobody, no one party, no one person has a monopoly of wisdom.

He said that no one understands more fully than he did about the advantages of migration to the country, but that he’s clear that the immigration system in this country must change, and that for years politicians have promised the people an Australian style points-based system, and that he will actually promise to surrender on those promises.

migration_advisory_comittee.jpgAnd that he will ask the Migration Advisory Committee to conduct a review of that policy as the first step to a thorough rewriting of our immigration policy, and that he’s convinced that the Tories can design a policy that the British people can have faith in.

Over the past few years, too many people in this country feel they have been told frequently and relentlessly what we cannot do, and that since he was a boy, he can remember respectable authorities saying that our time as a nation has passed and that we should be satisfied with mediocrity and manage decline.

And time and again, these are the sceptics and doubters. Time and again by their powers to innovate and to adapt, the British people have shown doubters wrong, but Jeremy Corbyn stated that Boris Johnson has hurriedly tossed together a hard right cabinet, and that given his first assignment as the first Home Secretary for a generation to support the death penalty, can the Prime Minister assure the house now that his government has no intentions to seek and bring back capital punishment to this country?

And before electing the new Education Secretary was the Prime Minister given sight of the Huawei leak inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary?

The challenge to end austerity, tackle inequality, fix Brexit and tackle the climate emergency is what will define the new Prime Minister, but instead, we have a hard-right cabinet staking everything on tax cuts for the few and wild race to the bottom Brexit.

Boris Johnson says he has courage, spirit and passion, but our country doesn’t need arm-waving bluster, but there’s nothing wrong with a points system like Australia’s, and I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with it.

And it’s not because he’s prejudiced, in fact, he should be the least likely person to be discriminatory, concerning his heritage, and an Australian Points Based System or a comparable beast is the way forward, but whatever he does, he’s taking a huge risk, and if it doesn’t pay off, he will weaken the Conservatives and effectively end the political careers of himself and his selected cabinet.

Can we believe what he says? He’s believed greatly in a number of things before and then changed his mind.

Sadly, I don’t believe Boris will be any different to any other Tory Prime Minister that has been, because at the end of the day Boris doesn’t give a poop about the British people, their jobs or their children.

 

Council Abandons Sister

212865515.jpg.gallery.jpg

The family of a woman who can hardly walk unaided claims she has been abandoned by Basildon Council.

Emma Avis, 37, has lived in a first floor flat in Landermere, Basildon, Essex for the past 20 years. She suffers from heart disease, lung disease, arthritis and systemic sclerosis, meaning she can barely walk unaided and suffers unrelenting fatigue.

Despite this, she still has to climb the stairs to her flat each day, resulting in her family having to take time off work to care for her and help her move around, and her sister, Marie Avis, said that despite being on Basildon Council’s letter scheme to get her into a new home, she’s been continually let down and abandoned.

Her sister’s condition means she can barely take a few steps before nearly collapsing, and she’s been in the same flat for 20 years and her health has really declined over the past six years, and she’s so desperate to be moved into a new home but the council simply don’t want to know.

And every time they contact the council, they simply brush them off, and there is never anywhere suitable for her when they put places on offer, and it’s a total disgrace, and when Emma goes into hospital, the family never know for sure if she’s going to make it, and the council have done nothing to support them whatsoever.

Basildon.jpg

A Basildon Council spokesperson said: “Ms Avis has been assessed by our medical officer and awarded extra priority to find a suitable property to meet her needs.

“We operate a choice-based lettings scheme to give our residents the opportunity to choose which properties they are interested in.

“Ms Avis has an active housing application which means she is able to bid on advertised properties that would meet her needs each week.

“A further option available is a mutual exchange where our tenancy and resettlement team can offer help and advice and free membership at homeswapper.co.uk or houseexchange.org.uk.”

Sadly the reality is that with the majority of council properties now sold off, there are precious few properties still in council ownership, and those people with differing levels of need just have to wait.

Of course, it’s not fair if people buy council properties and new ones aren’t built, and because of this, availability is going to be seriously limited, and what was good for one set of people has left future generations needing social housing, and that has made things a lot worse off.

Of course, the answer is that council houses should have never been sold off, and more homes need to be built and to never let them be sold off again, but unfortunately councillors are more interested in vainglorious pie in the sky projects, selling off as much green space as they can to their best buddies Redrow and Bellway, and too preoccupied with calling each other names on social media, and backstabbing and trying to undermine whichever party have control of the council at any one time to actually get off their backsides and do something beneficial for people like this poor woman.

Golden Visa Scandal

4362.jpg

Cunning brokers are helping wealthy foreigners to get British residency without exposing the complete source of their wealth, as two men in open shirts and business jackets were in sober conversation at a corner table of a Savoy hotel’s American bar talking about a somewhat delicate matter.

Alexander Wade, the founder of Knightsbridge Wealth, was listening closely to the Hong Kong executive who was soliciting his help to get a tier 1 investor visa, known as a golden visa, that would allow his wealthy Russian uncle to gain residency in Britain.

There was a catch, however: the uncle had a chequered history, with powerful connections to the Kremlin that might trigger an alarm in the Home Office if it became known.

“I’m telling you this in confidence,” said the Hong Kong executive. “ My uncle has close ties with [Vladimir] Putin’s inner circle, helped them move their assets overseas years ago . . . They don’t want the history to come out. Could you manage to get them across the line?”

The uncle also had business deals with his country’s government which was subject to international penalties and had been accused of corruption and killing political opponents. So the money the uncle would have to invest in the United Kingdom for his golden visa might be tainted.

golden-visa.jpg

Home Office rules require applicants for golden visas to flag up anything that calls into question their moral integrity and requires them to disclose whether they have been involved in activities on behalf of a foreign government that might harm Britain’s interests or safety.

But the Kremlin connection did not daunt Wade, and over the course of many discussions, Wade revealed that a fundamental part of the process would be a letter from his firm regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority explaining the uncle’s source of wealth.

It would further require proof that the uncle had opened a bank account in the United Kingdom, and Wade knew a good guy at a small financial firm who could help, and he warned the Hong Kong executive not to talk too much about the Moscow connections and would assist him to produce a description of the uncle’s business history that would circumvent awkward Kremlin connections.

His comments about the Home Office’s carelessness would be repeated in another meeting between the Hong Kong executive and another golden visa specialist, Houman Mehr of the immigration firm Westkin Associates, who was also recommending a small firm he knew to handle the bank account.

Once the account had been opened, he said, the Home Office would not turn down the application. “If you get past these guys [the investment funds], then getting past the government is easy-peasy . . . There’s not a financial team at the Home Office. These guys are like they’ve just finished school like they might have got a couple of A-levels.”

What Wade or Mehr didn’t know was that the Hong Kong executive was an undercover reporter working for The Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches programme as part of an investigation into how foreign millionaires are able to buy UK citizenship while concealing their dubious sources of wealth.

Investigations discovered that the Home Office relied on a group of immigration middlemen who were able to advise the fictional golden visa applicants on how they could evade disclosing delicate information about their wealth.

They bragged about helping a parade of foreign tycoons enter the country, and on occasion ridiculed the Home Office for its ineptitude in policing the system, and some claimed to have a faultless record in getting visas for clients, even though a few had been from rogue regimes with colourful pasts.

More than 11,000 people have entered the United Kingdom since the golden visa scheme was launched in 2008, and current rules state applicants have to demonstrate that they’re worth at least £2 million and promise to invest that amount in British businesses, amongst other checks.

If they keep their money invested for five years, they get an indefinite leave to remain and can apply for a UK passport as a citizen a year later, but campaign groups such as Transparency International UK and Global Witness have long been critics of the scheme, claiming that it has allowed fraudulent people to obtain residency with tainted money and to launder their ill-gotten gain.

The system has been reprimanded for allowing Russian oligarchs close to the Putin regime to gain citizenship, particularly following the Salisbury poisoning attack by the country’s agents, and during the three-month investigation, firms were approached with years of expertise in investors visas. Knightsbridge Wealth, Westkin Associates, Quastels and Fragomen, and posing as a Hong Kong-based executive called Qihua Huang who was trying to obtain residency in the United Kingdom for members of his family in both Russia and China.

In each case, the undercover reporter made it clear that his family had sensitive political and business connections and therefore sought to suppress the full picture underlying their wealth, contrary to what is expected under the investor visa scheme.

In an initial call to Wade, the latter made clear that it would not be necessary to give a full description of the undercover reporter’s family member’s financial history. “I’m used to working with people who can’t divulge everything and we’ll find a way around it,” he said.

He had got visas for many controversial clients, including a member of the Gadaffi family and one from Eritrea whose case took only three days, despite the red flags about his background. “I don’t know much about Eritrea, but if you google it, it’s probably the highest corruption in the world,” said Wade.

“But it was actually worse than that: it’s an Eritrean living in Dubai . . . the British are very suspicious of Dubai as a country that helps money-laundering. So there was an Eritrean living in Dubai, but all the business, all the money, comes from their business interests in Angola. So that was a really interesting one. And Angola, it’s just arms.”

Mehr was also accommodating when the reporter told him he wanted discretion, and as head of Westkin’s business immigration department, he has completed 15 to 20 investor visa applications and charges £10,000 for the service.

When they met in a private room at the Savoy, the reporter explained that his Russian uncle had a property business but had made his money moving the wealth of Putin’s inner circle overseas. “He doesn’t want to divulge the source of his funding,” said the reporter.

Mehr was quick to suggest an easy way around the problem. All the uncle had to do was sell a property and the sale could be used to show the Home Office that the source of the £2 million investment for the visa had been legitimate. “We send the government the bare minimum, which is the sale of the asset,” he said.

He later agreed that the reporter could create documentation around the sale of a property or a piece of art to make it look as if the £2 million had come from that, and he cautioned the reporter that he would probably not want to disclose that information to whoever was processing the case, but said it would be fine if the documents suggested it had been bought and sold for a reasonable price.

It was a common theme in the meetings that the advisers didn’t expect the Home Office to carry out meticulous checks on the information they were given, and the single most important act in getting the visa, said the advisers, was to set up a bank account in the United Kingdom, as financial institutions are lawfully required to do due diligence on new clients.

The Home Office had tightened up the rules in 2015 to make it necessary that all investor visa applicants have a UK bank account. The scheme then effectively assigns the responsibility for carrying out due diligence to those who stood to gain financially from taking on clients.

Admittedly, the investigation found the checks were usually done by small investment firms that had a vested stake in giving a bank account to new millionaire clients.

The advisers appeared to favour these firms to bigger, high street banks because they were more understanding of clients with questionable credentials or didn’t require such a big financial commitment, and in a preliminary meeting with Tanya Laidlaw, the head of the immigration department at the law firm Quastels, the undercover reporter was told she had dealt with numerous instances where banks said that they would not touch it and that smaller companies would be more creative.

She said that the larger banks would not deal with people with Russian or Chinese links, but that the more modest ones that still had an appetite would look, and she stated that it wasn’t a problem that the reporter’s Russian uncle had helped Putin’s associates take their money offshore, and that if there was no unfavourable publicity, it wasn’t a problem.

Many people who applied in the past didn’t have such a clean past, and once they’d opened a bank account, that was it, they were in, and the little known immigration arrangement gave British residency in exchange for a £2 million investment, and now around 3,000 rich people have entered the United Kingdom under this scheme, with no Home Office Checks.

Well, it now appears that most things can be sold off for a price, and if you’ve got enough cash, even if your character might be a little crooked, it doesn’t matter because anything now seems to be buyable, and it now appears that we’re selling the foundations of our country.

It’s citizenship for the world’s wealthy, while the British poor don’t have the right to family life, and this has become a warped country.

Labour MP leaves son at Number 10

0_School-funding-cuts.jpg

Labour MP Jess Phillips left her son on the steps of 10 Downing Street because his school was set to close early on Fridays thanks to Tory cuts.

Danny, 10, goes to King’s Heath primary in Birmingham which is now having to shut early because of tight budgets, and campaigners announced that more than 250 schools across the nation are now either part-time or going to be part-time because of funding cuts, and they warn that countless more schools will have to follow suit.

0_IVM_MDM_05072019_vogler03jpg4JPG.jpg

Save Our Schools, who headed the demonstration, maintain funding cuts are already harming our children’s education, with numerous schools cutting back on the number of teachers, support staff and teaching assistants.

This will also mean that working parents will have to arrange additional childcare.

0_IVM_MDM_05072019_vogler03jpg13JPG.jpg

The Birmingham Yardley MP had earlier led a short protest march from Parliament Square to the Downing Street gates where pupils, parents, teachers and Save Our Schools campaigners burst into a mantra of “save our schools”, “five days a week” and “no ifs, no buts, no education cuts.”

Education cuts mean that lots of kids will not be able to go to school five days a week, and it’s the government’s duty to look after our children because the government has a responsibility to give universal education five days a week, and they’re degrading that.

We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world and yet, for some reason, we can’t manage to educate and have children in school, and the fact that the government can’t afford to keep schools open five days a week is appalling.

And cutting school hours means that children are missing out, with governors quibbling over how to spend £50.

The government is cutting to the bone, but those with money won’t miss out, they will get the best education, and there will be plenty of working parents who will have a really serious issue getting childcare, which means many will have to leave work to look after their kids.

Will the government pay for their childcare, no, of course, they won’t, which means that many of these parents will then have to go onto Universal Credit, and yet the government are stating that they’re getting more people into work, what a load of rubbish.

Cuts to school hours might not have touched everywhere yet, but it’s said that it’s on the cards for many schools, and budgets are simply getting pushed and pushed, and it should make us question what else the government have plans to cut.

There are so many messages that are put out there about kids and their attendance in schools. So, if your child doesn’t attend school, the parent will get fined by the authorities, so, if this is the case, shouldn’t local authorities be fined for cutting school hours?

Yet there are loads of kids set to miss 20 days a year which the authorities will go ahead and fine the parents £60 per day if their child doesn’t go to school, doesn’t make any sense at all. Really? So the government cut funding, cutting school days and they’re punishing the parents, the parents should be penalising them! And it’s totally double standards and hypocritical.

In fact, these kids could probably do a better job of managing the country than the now and next incumbent of 10 Downing Street, but it won’t be long before our schools are privatised by the despicable Tories, and the same with the police, fire and ambulance.

methode_sundaytimes_prodmigration_web_bin_6dfc09a0-4166-42b3-b74d-66107e9003a6.jpg

Jess Phillips should be ashamed of herself, using her child as a Political Pawn, and those who sell their own flesh and blood regardless of their political persuasion are the lowest of the low, and they should hang their heads in shame.

But Jess Phillips does have a point, the cuts to public services have gone too far, and the problem is that billions are wasted before any taxpayer money is used on services the money was meant for.

_e5l_DEG.jpg

Maybe Theresa May should have let the child in, he might have learnt far more there than in school, but the Tories have made the UK into a backward country that can’t even educate its kids sufficiently, even though there appears to be enough money for tax cuts at the top of the food chain, but not enough to educate children.

Evidently, now our children don’t need so much education. Schools are on a 4 day week and social care is screwed. There aren’t enough police and now our streets aren’t safe.

The NHS is in continuing crisis with patients dying on trolleys, and fire deaths have gone up by 40 per cent after they made cuts to the fire service.

Then there is the food banks and social destruction, and supposedly the Tories are doing away with their sick and elderly under the guise of Universal Credit, and this is deemed to be the fifth wealthiest nation in the world.

panto1.jpg

Then we had to endure the governments Brexit pantomime, just so they can use it to cling onto power, knowing full well either that we’ll seemingly never leave or re-join in just a few years. Meanwhile, the pound is now worthless and our economy is struggling, and the Tories are truly a disgrace.

And before someone says what about Labour, half of them are just as bad, and they should all be working together to end this foolishness. We need an election, rather than assuming that the Brexit party will fix everything, they won’t.

The state of education in this country has plummeted under the Tories, and we should be troubled about the thousands of kids across England and Wales that are between school and not being provided with minimal educational provision.

Although I’m totally puzzled where the money is being saved by closing schools and are teachers being docked money because the school is only open 90 per cent of the time?

It appears that dinner time staff aren’t being cut, the schools are still open for five dinner times regardless, and this is just the same for caretaking and cleaning staff, which suggests there are no savings on heating and virtually none on lighting.

Teaching Assistants might have had their times cut, but then again, that was always the only option in schools anyhow because of their contracts. So, where are the savings?

Teachers may have taken a pay cut, but that’s leaving schools that are run down by neglecting things like maintenance and squeezing resources, so then the headteacher’s job was to become an authority on boosting cash one way or another for their pupils.

Who Is a Jew?

2221624539_1.gif

When a Dad is Jewish and the Mother is not, are the children Jewish? It depends on who you ask.

On March 15, 1983, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), the Reform movement’s body of rabbis, declared a declaration prepared by a committee on patrilineal descent called “The Status of Children of Mixed Marriages.”

The CCAR decision declared that “we face, today, a unique position due to the changed circumstances in which resolutions concerning the status of the offspring of a mixed marriage are to be made.”

Contrary to almost 2,000 years of tradition, the decision accepted the Jewish status of children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers under specific conditions.

There was a great deal of debate about this decision, both before and after its approval. Some saw it as a progressive and unfair departure from tradition, wherein one must have a Jewish mother or undergo a conversion to be recognised as Jewish.

Others praised it as a fruitful and comprehensive approach to the rising predominance of interfaith families, and even though the Hebrew Bible determines Jewish status in patrilineal terms, defined by the status of the father, the Mishnah says that the children of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father are identified as a Jew, while the children of a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father is deemed a non-Jew.

This Talmudic attitude became normative in Jewish doctrine.

But the 1983 decision was not the first effort to review patrilineality. Previously in the 19th century, various Reform rabbis unobtrusively integrated the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers into their religious establishments and validated them into the Jewish religion along with their peer group in lieu of conversion.

In 1947, the CCAR approved a resolution that said that if a Jewish father and a gentile mother wanted to raise their children as Jewish, the declaration of the parents to raise them as Jews shall be deemed sufficient for conversion.

This proposal had a somewhat different connotation than the 1983 decision in that the parents were converting their children, but the social influence was essentially indistinguishable.

The emphasis on conversion was abandoned completely in the 1961 CCAR Rabbi’s Manual. “Reform Judaism accepts a child… as Jewish without a formal conversion if he attends a Jewish school and follows a course of study leading to confirmation.” However, the manual simply offered guidance to rabbis and did not carry the weight of full-fledged resolution.

By 1983, the CCAR was willing to spell out the patrilineal lineage decision in more comprehensive detail. By this time there was a broad-based responsibility to egalitarianism.

To many, it seemed unnecessarily biased to accept the child of a Jewish mother and a gentile father as Jewish while rejecting the child of a Jewish father and a gentile mother. It seemed unfair that children who had no Jewish education were being given automatic recognition if they had a Jewish mother while children who received intense Jewish upbringings but had only a Jewish father were not. Even more importantly, the rising intermarriage rate made it imperative that the net of Jewish identity be cast as widely as possible.

Rabbi Alexander Schindler, the president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC), determined that the Reform movement needed to act, and he urged his fellow Reform rabbis to reach a decision accepting patrilineal children as Jewish, and he thought this would preserve Jewish continuity in the light of escalating intermarriage relationships.

Schindler claimed that most Jews wanted their children and grandchildren to be Jewish, but that if they were told that of this requisite conversion, large numbers would give up and raise their children as non-Jewish.

Schindler began a method that ultimately led to the CCAR voting in favour of what became known as the Patrilineal Descent Resolution. The resolution stated that “the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent. This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people.”

What this meant was that if a child was born of either a Jewish father or a Jewish mother, and was raised as Jewish, that child would be considered by the Reform movement as Jewish. They were, nevertheless, required to engage in the many Jewish life-cycle customs which normally mark the life stages of a Jewish person.

Interestingly, this produced the probability that someone who had a Jewish mother, but had not been raised Jewish and had not had any public religious acts of identification such as a Jewish baby-naming ceremony, a bar or bat mitzvah, or a Jewish confirmation service could theoretically be considered as a non-Jew despite his or her genealogy. Still, numerous rabbis identify lineage alone.

Although the overall view of the decision was broadly received within the Reform movement, there was significant discontent with the expression of the decision and uncertainty over its implications, and in 1996, the CCAR devised an 11-member task force to translate and promote guidelines for the successful implementation of the patrilineal descent policy.

The task force recommended that the decision be applied to as “equilateral descent” or simply “Jewish descent” rather than patrilineal descent since the decision allowed lineage from either the mother or the father.

The patrilineal descent decision gave a viable resolution for couples who felt content with their individual religious diversity but wanted to raise their children with a single religious belief.

Moreover, Jewish status was now something one chooses rather than something that simply “was”, and children with one Jewish parent were being invited to freely undergo notable religious acts of identification as a way of determining their dedication to Judaism and to the Jewish people.

While Jewish children had always been asked to prepare for their bar and bat mitzvahs, their Jewishness was never contingent upon successful achievement of that ceremony or any other, and the Patrilineal Descent Resolution shifted the emphasis from birth to conscious choice.

Tens of thousands of people have been raised as Jews because of the legitimacy awarded them as a result of this decision. Nevertheless, patrilineal Jews are likely to face difficulties later in life if they choose to become more traditional in their observance.

A problem further arises if Reform Jews who are Jewish by patrilineal descent choose to engage in ritual or celebrations at more observant synagogues. Can they be called up for an aliyah? Can they help to form a minyan (the quorum of 10 Jews required for many prayers)? In most instances, the answer would be no.

Conservative and Orthodox Jews do not accept patrilineal descent as a legitimate means of passing on Judaism. “Who is a Jew?” has been a debatable issue for many decades, and the Patrilineal Descent Resolution deepened the division between the conflicting perspectives.

There previously existed a division between American and Israeli Jews as only particular Orthodox conversions were acknowledged in Israel by the (Orthodox) Chief Rabbinate, and the eventual sociological implications of patrilineal descent are still unknown.

And as the first generation of Jews recognized under this resolution starts to have children, Jewish identification and status will only become more complex, with the continued acceptance of intermarriage and the many new approaches being experimented with to make Judaism more welcoming added to the matter.

Nevertheless, as with any extreme variation in Jewish law, it’s obvious that the discussion of patrilineal descent is far from over.

So, according to traditional Jewish law, if someone is born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism, then that child is Jewish, but a child born to a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother is not Jewish even if raised with a Jewish identity.

Today, however, more than one-third of Jews inter-marry, and more often than not, it’s Jewish men who marry non-Jewish women and as a result, there are an estimated 220,000 children in the United States born to non-Jewish women who are married to Jewish men.

But in March 1983, the Reform movement broke with the Orthodox and Conservative Jewish sects, and with Jewish law, and stated that a child born of one Jewish parent, whether it’s the mother or the father, is under the presumption of being Jewish.

This patrilineal lineage resolution went onto state that a person’s Jewishness was not automatic and that it must be activated by proper and appropriate Jewish performances, and that it wasn’t enough to just be born to a Jewish parent.

The Reform movement further noted that in the Bible the descent always followed the father, including the cases of Joseph and Moses, who married into non-Israelite priestly families.

There are countless Jews out there that are born Jewish by birthright because both parents are Jewish or their mother is Jewish, but sometimes that doesn’t make them anymore Jewish than a person that was born of a Jewish father, and a non-Jewish mother, and there are many Jews out there that were born of Jewish descent, yet haven’t been to a Synagogue a day in their life, and will willingly sit down to eat a Bacon sandwich!

Not only that, life today makes it very difficult for Jewish people to be Jewish, and our Jewishness has declined simply because in this day and age many people marry out of their faith. Not that it’s a bad thing, it just means that because a child is born of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother that said child is not allowed to be Jewish, which means that we as Jews are becoming a dying race, and it would make more sense to change the Jewish laws, after all, the bible does say that descent was to be followed by the father, so why not either mother or father?

The problem is many Jews want to conceal their faith now because of oppression, and some Jews exist in areas where there are extremely few Jewish people and no Synagogue, and too far away to attend. I live in a town where there was once 900 Jewish families, now there are only 9 Jewish families and no Synagogue, and certainly, no Jewish food places to keep Kosher.

So, it’s certainly not easy to be Jewish even if you wanted to be!

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started