THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO

The final PMQs of 2017 observed Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn waving conflicting statistics about the NHS. The Labour leader quoted Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England, stating that the service requires another £4 billion and that it had got less than half that.

The Prime Minister responded that NHS funding was at record levels and that despite Jeremy Corbyn’s objections week after week, there were more demonstrative tests than seven years ago, with 2.2 million people getting operations, with more elderly patients getting hip replacements and approximately 65,000 people who would not be alive today, had they not had advanced cancer care.

Jeremy Corbyn announced that countless patients were kept waiting in the back of ambulances for more than half an hour and if the NHS was suitably resourced, why was it not reaching its objectives, and could Theresa May give a cast iron guarantee that these objectives would be met?

Theresa May stated the government’s NHS reforms were producing results: “We’re proud of the NHS and we’ll make it even better.”

Jeremy Corbyn said A&E waiting objectives had not been reached for two years, and where were the 5,000 GPs the government had pledged to deliver by 2020? Theresa May answered that in Wales, where Labour is in government, the usual waiting time in A&E was last met in 2008.

That was because Wales depended on block income from the United Kingdom, which had been cut by 5 percent. Cancer patients commence treatment inside 62 days, better than in England and there were less GPs than when Theresa May became Prime Minister.

Six million cuts had been made to social care resources, two million older people’s care needs had been unmet, and still, the chancellor, Philip Hammond, had failed to put an extra penny in the budget for social care.

Theresa May announced that the Tories had put £2 billion into social care in the spring budget and Labour’s NHS record was characterised as a mess by Jeremy Corbyn before he was Labour leader.

“When he is running for leader, he denounces Labour’s record. Now he is a leader, he tries to defend it,” the Prime Minister stated.

Jeremy Corbyn replied by reciting the Tory leader of Warwickshire County Council, who announced the government needed to tackle long-standing underfunding in the NHS and this winter, the service is in crisis.

Theresa May terminated by mocking Jeremy Corbyn over his foresight that he would be prime minister by Christmas, stating Labour was “wrong, wrong, wrong” about that, as well as about Brexit and the budget.

Theresa May left Tory MPs yelling “more, more, more”, and it was unquestionably one of her most positive displays in recent weeks, but it was not a particularly illuminating dialogue, or even a really definitive one.

We end the year where PMQs conclude much of the time, with what’s broadly a deadlock. Jeremy Corbyn did not have any particularly interesting moments, but his issues were substantial and sturdy, and his appearance seemingly ended up in the “job done” section.

Contentions about the NHS at PMQs frequently just become statistic-slinging gatherings, and that is what this felt like. Most of the personages including the necessary reference to Wales seemed familiar, although Theresa May did have a new claim about the number of people now supposedly living who would not have been under prior cancer survival rates.

It was somewhat amusing but did not close the debate and Theresa May, did hammer Jeremy Corbyn in the quote bartering challenge towards the end, and her Jeremy Corbyn quote trumped his quote from a Tory council leader and Theresa May’s ultimate soundbite did what was expected in the events.

Depressed benefits claimants are asked “Why haven’t you killed yourself?” when they claim state cash, according to an MP.
Labour’s Ruth George said vulnerable people were left sobbing on the floor during aggressive benefits assessments.

Labour’s Ruth George announced that vulnerable people were left crying on the floor during aggressive benefits assessments and her volcanic allegations came as she interrogated a minister about the way claimants are questioned on whether they are eligible to work.

Ruth George announced during a Commons committee meeting that there were people who were curled up sobbing on the floor and they were in these assessments. The assessor will simply not look at them but will duplicate the questions to them.

Do you believe that is a suitable way to encourage people with really severe mental health conditions?

One of the standard questions in the work capability assessment for people with severe mental health conditions who’ve had self-destructive thoughts is, ‘Why haven’t you killed yourself then?’

Do you believe that is a fitting question to evaluate someone’s ability to work?

Home Office minister Sarah Newton acknowledged the question was totally unacceptable and promised to stamp down on the practice. However, she added that it is essential to ascertain whether depressed people could be suicidal.

Well, no it’s not necessary to determine whether a depressed person could be suicidal, and particularly not at an assessment. That person’s mental health doctor or doctor would have given over that data before the assessment and it’s the role of PIP to request that information.

If they have not done so, then the question should not have even gone through the assessor’s mind at the time of the evaluation.

Many people in the United Kingdom require serious support and to go to the DWP and be viewed upon as a bit of rubbish is not right but some have to do it.

MPs have also criticised the government for paying more than £700 million a year, the bulk of it to private firms to operate sickness and disability benefits and this is a £700 million-a-year administration policy for benefits that are worth between a culmination of £110 and £140 a week.

How is this mugging of the taxpayer that is damaging the lives of thousands of disabled people right?

As an aide to someone who is really sick, it is a frightful encounter and we must have another Government for 2018 as this one has shifted into Fascism and it’s killing the poor, the disabled, the ailing and the old.

It isn’t simply those with mental health problems that are questioned why they haven’t killed themselves. Also, people who suffer from COPD are asked the same question during their evaluation for PIP.

As if not being in work or dealing with depression wasn’t difficult enough, and the level of insensitivity put towards the most defenceless in society became obvious as Labour MP, Ruth George, exposed the disturbing conduct as she appeared before the Commons Work and Pensions Committee.

If you’re looking to claim benefits, odds are you’re now down on your luck and feeling moderately sad and it would be a wrench on anyone’s mental health, and particularly people for whom problems such as depression or anxiety are just a portion of their everyday struggle.

Therefore the most callous question someone could possibly ask in this situation would be why you haven’t killed yourself.

That’s supposedly what’s occurring in the United Kingdom and a number of claimants who are being evaluated for the new Personal Independent Payments (PIP) have talked of their outrage on social media after being asked deeply inappropriate questions by assessors contracted by Atos and Capita.

Alice Kirby, who has mental health problems, posted on Twitter that an Atos assessor appeared to be questioning the validity of her illness because she was still alive and assessors are normally medical professionals qualified enough to handle the evaluations but can have restricted understanding of mental ill health.

Cuts are costing disabled people their lives, but the assessments themselves can further put us in danger. They’re intended to be intrusive and manipulative, and we must boost awareness of this.

When claimants are asked questions like this, those claimants are required to disclose their reasons to stay alive. No one should be expected to do that, particularly in such a virulent and unsupportive situation.

Assessors do not have the experience or abilities to examine the responses to this question, and they’re not capable of implementing the support which may be required after.

This question is sometimes quite unrelated to a person’s assessment and would have no bearing on the outcome of their award and sometimes it’s not even referenced in the report, therefore we need to examine the reasons behind the question.

These assessments are not safe, people are terrified of going through them, and several are traumatised after. The government must examine the assessment method as a matter of urgency, and it needs to demonstrate why questions like this are being asked.

This is absolutely shameful and confirms simply how superior and cruel these so-called assessors have become.

Atos the land of the deceivers, yet these supposedly highly qualified assessors are simply there to prevent people getting through.

There are people being assessed by people who are stating that they have 20 years of knowledge as a nurse, yet that said person didn’t know anything about mental health or mobility problems and it’s degrading for the person who is being assessed and the government seriously must improve the way people are getting evaluated.

Anybody who asks the question, “Why haven’t you killed yourself yet?” must be fired and to have said this to a person who already has a mental health problem is sickening, maybe one day the footwear might be on the other hoof and an assessor might be asked the self-same question but this is why these people are indifferent, cold-hearted fools, they have definitely don’t have any emotions at all in the cold light of day.

One day an assessor is going to ask that question and one day a claimant is going to kill his or herself right in front of the assessor and that my friend is manslaughter because the assessor has essentially harassed and ridiculed the claimant to do the act, and the assessor may as well have said “Why don’t you kill yourself then?”

Security services think they have prevented a conspiracy to kill Theresa May in Downing Street.

Two men have been detained on suspicion of scheming to assassinate the Prime Minister by using a bomb concealed as a bag to blow off the gates of Downing Street and then stab her with knives.

The suspects were detained during attacks in London and Birmingham and charged with terrorism crimes. They’re expected to appear in Westminster Magistrates’ Court today.

The plot was reported to the Cabinet by Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, who further informed ministers that security services have thwarted nine terrorist strikes on the United Kingdom in the last year.

The Metropolitan Police said Naa’imur Zakariyah Rahman, 20, from north London, and Mohammed Aqib Imran, 21, from Birmingham, had been charged with planning a terrorist act.

A Scotland Yard spokesperson refused to validate that the arrests were connected to a plot to attack Theresa May.

It comes as a new report discovered that security services could probably have foiled a suicide attack at the Manchester Arena in May. Bomber Salman Abedi killed 22 people when he blew himself up outside an Ariana Grande concert.

Abedi had been on MI5’s radar but that his true significance was not appreciated at the time and it’s likely that the Manchester attack, in particular, might have been prevented had the cards fallen differently.

Speaking to the Cabinet, Mr Parker reportedly announced that Isis had been defeated in Syria and Iraq but was continuing to organise strikes on the United Kingdom and that militants are increasingly using social media to try to communicate with would-be attackers.

The Prime Minister led gratitude to the tireless commitment of staff at MI5 to fight the unprecedented terrorist threat.

Cabinet ministers learned that while Daesh underwent significant defeats in Iraq and Syria, this did not suggest that the threat is over. Rather it is expanding to new regions, including seeking to promote attacks in the United Kingdom and elsewhere through publication on social media.

An inquiry found that MI5 was actively investigating the mastermind behind the London Bridge crime at the time the sick deed took place. Plus the official assessment further discovered that the Manchester bombing could have been averted had the cards fallen differently.

The report established that the three terrorists involved in the cowardly deeds that hit Britain between March and June this year had been on the authorities’ radar for some time and the UK’s security apparatus faced questions after dozens of victims were killed or wounded in Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge and Finsbury Park.

MI5 and police began independent reviews to investigate what was understood about the suspects before they struck and decisions made on intelligence and an independent evaluation of the findings by David Anderson QC concluded that there is no cause for despair, declaring most attacks continued to be successfully disrupted.

Although in the case of Finsbury Park, it can’t be said that MI5 and the police were entirely blindsided and Khalid Masood (Westminster) and Salman Abedi (Manchester) had both been subjects of concern, and Khuram Butt (London Bridge) continued to be under active investigation.

Substantial and appropriate coverage was in place around the essential individuals, and mechanisms intended to evaluate risk were operating as planned and MI5 and counter-terrorism policing got a great deal correct, especially in the case of Manchester, they could have succeeded had the cards fallen differently.

Some articles that we see in the tabloids are unbelievable, some are shocking, but this story is the most repulsive and disturbing, this story is appalling and should be considered the most horrifying of them all and this cowardly government have a lot to answer for.

Averil Hart’s death was an avoidable tragedy and this teenager died following a frightening struggle with anorexia and was let down by every single NHS organisation involved in her care and The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has warned that the death of Averil Hart aged 19 shows widespread problems with adult eating disorders services in the NHS.

An investigation found poor coordination and planning of the teenager’s care throughout an especially vulnerable time in her life, as she was leaving home to go to university and there were failures in her care and treatment in two important trusts after she became dangerously sick.

Ms Hart, from Sudbury in Suffolk, was voluntarily admitted to the Eating Disorders Unit in Cambridge aged 18 in September 2011 and she had a three-year history of anorexia nervosa and was seriously underweight with a significant risk to her physical well-being.

Over the following 11 months as an inpatient, she gradually increased in weight and doctors determined she could be discharged in August 2012 as she was really enthusiastic in taking up a position at the University of East Anglia.

Still underweight, she was transferred to outpatient eating disorder services in Norfolk for continuing treatment.

Yet she was discovered unconscious on the floor of her student flat by a cleaner merely four months later and transported to Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, where her blood sugar was not properly monitored.

She died on December 15, 2012.

The PHSO report stated all the NHS organisations concerned in the teenager’s care and treatment between her release from hospital on August 2, 2012, and her demise neglected her in some way and her deterioration and death were avoidable.

Most of the NHS organisations which dealt with her father’s complaint failed to respond to his anxieties in a delicate, transparent and effective way and their inquiries were not adequately precise or joined-up. They did not provide Mr Hart with the answers he sought about Averil’s care and treatment.

These shortcomings drove Mr Hart to feel intense disappointment with the NHS organisations and intensified his and his family’s extensive suffering emanating from Averil’s needless death and a local inquiry into Ms Hart’s passing was totally lacking with the organisations being guarded and protective of themselves, rather than taking accountability.

While Ms Hart began her university course in September 2012, she was not allotted a care coordinator until October.

In spite of the fact she was meant to have weekly appointments with a doctor, she saw a GP on three occasions between October 12 and November 8 and at the last appointment, a locum GP told her she did not need to come back for a month.

Mr Hart visited his daughter at the university on November 28 and was startled by how much weight she seemed to have lost and made an emergency call to the Eating Disorders Unit in Cambridge.

On the morning of December 7, Averil was discovered collapsed and taken by ambulance to A&E where she saw no specialist eating disorders clinician for three days following admission, by which time her health had depreciated more.

Nursing care was further said to be inadequate and neglected to monitor her health efficiently and The Norwich Acute Trust’s actions fell considerably short of what should have happened and constituted service failure.

This was another missed chance to intervene to stop yet the additional decline in her health, decline that ended in her demise and she was then transported to Addenbrooke’s Hospital on December 11.

Overnight her blood sugar dropped to really low levels, but she did not get suitable treatment for this and became unconscious and sustained brain damage and she died three days later.

Cambridge Acute Trust’s actions fell considerably short of what should have happened and constituted service failure.

This was the ultimate failure that led quickly to Averil’s passing, but it was the last of a long string of bungled chances to see her worsening health and intervene to avert the necessity for her ultimate hospital admission as an acutely ill medical emergency.

The death of Averil Hart was an avoidable tragedy and every NHS organisation involved in her care missed vital chances to prevent the tragedy unfolding at each stage of her illness from August 2012 to her passing on December 15, 2012.

The following replies to Averil’s family were inept and served simply to intensify their suffering and the NHS must learn from these mistakes, for the interest of future patients.

The report calls for junior doctors to be trained about eating disorders as well as the greater provision of eating disorder specialists and greater coordination of care among NHS organisations treating people with eating disorders.

The Ombudsman further called for adult eating disorder services to gain parity with child and adolescent services.

Nothing can make up for what happened to Averil and her family but let’s trust this report will serve as a wake-up call to the NHS and health administrators to make the necessary reforms to services for eating disorders so that they can circumvent comparable failures in the future.

Averil’s shocking death could have been circumvented if the NHS had cared for her properly but sadly, these failures, and her family’s subsequent struggle to get answers, are not unique and the families who brought their complaints forward have helped uncover pressing concerns that need urgent national attention, so hopefully no other family will go through the same tribulation.

Other examples of cases were further supplied in the report, including that of a woman with suicidal thoughts who was inappropriately released from a hospital with an unsatisfactory care plan in place, and died from a heart attack precipitated by starvation.

Another seriously ill woman with a history of being sick and binge eating died of heart failure after taking an overdose following a catalogue of errors by the NHS, including inconsistent and unhelpful therapy sessions, the report said.

The PHSO further apologised to Mr Hart itself for taking too long to conclude its inquiry but the report high points the fatal consequences of a lack of medical and psychiatric error when patients with anorexia nervosa leave the protection of a specialist inpatient unit.

When a patient leaves the hospital, they may still be extremely ill and need special care from a dedicated team and patients with eating disorders can show up anywhere in the health system and each doctor should be able to identify the symptoms.

From medical school upwards, eating disorder education for doctors is negligible and it should not be down to pure chance if a trainee doctor gets any practice in treating eating disorders at all.

The case of Averil is tragic, and the Government should take note of this report so that her family and friends know these blunders won’t be made again.

Stephen Hawking is concerned that responsible care organisations are an assault on the basic policies of the NHS.

They have not been set by law, and they seem to be being used for decreasing public expenditure, for cutting services and for enabling private companies to receive and profit from significant amounts of public funds for planning and administering services.

He is joining this legal battle because the NHS is being taken in a direction which he objects.

He wants the attention of the people of England to be drawn to what is occurring and for those who are trusted with responsibility for the NHS to account openly for themselves in society and to be judged respectively.

Professor Stephen Hawking has joined a legal battle that is aimed at restricting greater privatisation in the NHS, in the latest stage of his continuing fight with Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and a lawsuit already exists that is attempting to stop the establishment of what are termed accountable care organisations (ACOs) in the NHS, which threaten to ration specific resources inside the system.

In August Professor Hawking denounced the Conservatives underfunding the NHS and attacked the Health Secretary for falsifying research to produce misleading statistics about the organisation.

Mr Hunt claimed Professor Hawking was incorrect to imply the NHS was being converted into a US-style insurance system and the lawsuit is meant to stop the introduction of ACOs without them first being subject to parliamentary examination.

He is joining this legal battle because the NHS is being taken in a direction which he objects, without proper public and parliamentary examination, discussion and argumentation and he requires the attention of the people of England to be drawn to what is occurring and for those who are trusted with accountability for the NHS to account openly for themselves in society, and to be judged respectively.

Stephen Hawking cares really deeply about the NHS and is joining this legal battle and the complete details of the ACOs must be published and discussed upon before they proceed any further. This should be the first practice of good and transparent administration for the NHS.

If Jeremy Hunt and Simon Stevens won’t budge, then this is the time that everybody must to come together and state explicitly that the NHS is ours, and that we are going to fight to keep it that way.

The Department of Health strongly oppose the misleading allegations in this lawsuit and that it is reckless scaremongering to propose that Accountable Care Organisations are being used to support privatisation and harm the basic policies of the NHS.

Plus they stated that the NHS will continue to be a taxpayer-funded system free at the point of use and that ACOs are solely about making care more joined-up between various health and care organisations.

Jeremy Hunt was part of an organisation of Tory MPs who Wrote a book on how to privatise the NHS called Direct Democracy: An Agenda For A New Model Party it is full of half-truths and dodgy statistics.

The 2005 policy book, called Direct Democracy: An Agenda For A New Model Party, was a collection of articles authored by a group of Tory MPs. Amongst other ideas, the book included a plan for substituting the NHS with an insurance market system and called for the private sector to be brought in.

The Health Secretary is noted as one of the authors, though he has earlier dismissed that he wrote the chapter on the NHS and states it does not reflect his beliefs.

The book was presented as a whole and chapters are not identified with specific authors, however, and it says that they should finance patients, either through the tax system or by way of universal insurance, to purchase health care from the provider of their choosing, the book states on page 74.

It continues on page 78: that their ambition should be to break down the walls between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the requirement of health care in Britain and the booklet quickly shot in popularity in 2012, when Mr Hunt’s post as Health Secretary prompted Labour to highlight the book’s contents.

Then Shadow Health Secretary wrote a letter to Mr Hunt that patients and staff will have grave anxieties about the comments and had a right to know whether Mr Hunt remained of this view. Mr Hunt has since frequently declared he believes in the policies of the NHS and that the Conservatives are the party of the NHS.

Nevertheless, Jeremy Hunt has been mocked following making the bizarre assertion that the invention of the NHS was down to Tory Support but it was Aneurin Bevan, frequently known as Nye Bevan, who was a Welsh Labour Party politician who was the Minister for Health in post-war Attlee ministry from 1945-1951.

He was the son of a coal miner and Nye Bevan was a lifelong supporter of social justice, the rights of the working people and democratic socialism. He was a long time Member of Parliament, representing Ebbw Vale in South Wales for 31 years.

He was one of the chief spokesmen for the Labour Party’s left wing, and his most memorable success came when, as Minister of Health, he created the institution of the National Health Service, which was to administer medical attention free at the point of need to all Britons, despite their wealth.

He quit when the Attlee government chose to transfer funds from the National Insurance Fund to pay for rearmament. The left-wing group within the party was described as Bevanite but he did not control it.

When health secretary Aneurin Bevan began the NHS at Park Hospital in Manchester today known as Trafford General Hospital, it was the culmination of a hugely enthusiastic plan to bring excellent healthcare to all.

For the first time, hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, opticians and dentists were brought together under one umbrella organisation to implement services that were free for all at the point of delivery.

The fundamental policies were explicit, a health service that would be accessible to all and funded solely from taxation, which meant that people pay into it according to their means.

Presently we’re becoming more like the American’s with their health care system and the idea that if somebody were to crash their car and end up in intensive care, it could bankrupt them and make them destitute, that would make life so much more entertaining, living life on the edge.

It doesn’t make any sense for this Tory government to privatise the NHS, we’re not America, this is the United Kingdom. The NHS, although not perfect does work for the people. Jeremy Hunt is totally blind to the reality that people want an effective NHS.

Privatising the NHS will at the very least discredit our understanding of humanity, consequently, the slope becomes pretty slippery.

It makes sense and if you look at it in terms of the ideas and philosophy of privatisation, marketisation and profiteering that underpins everything this government does, they’re not worried about what works or fairness, all they’re bothered about is giving public money to the private sector to make a profit from what they perceive as fruitful agreements.

The smokescreen has been cleared and facts have been exposed to Hunt’s plans. The Tories have, and always will be, utterly incompetent of speaking the truth on anything, because of the entire ethos of theirs, is the absolute dogma, of total and unmatched levels of selfishness.

They will always be, compulsive, sick, cruel cheats, who will say and do anything to a naive electorate so as to accomplish their own targets of personal indulgence.

Other nations have turned on politicians such as these vermin, but for some incomprehensible reason, the British haven’t, which I can only put down to, the cowardly and spinelessness of the British people, who are obviously too jaundiced-looking, to say enough is enough.

The Tory methods have already been associated with 120,000 deaths. Let’s not add to that number by privatisation.

The NHS is a mess which needs sorting. BUPA has said that if people are anxious that they might have cancer, they can by-pass their GP completely and locate a specialist quickly and all too frequently GPs put off people developing cancer until it is well into stage 4 and terminal.

Stephen Hawking contentions were destroyed by Jeremy Hunt but
the only thing that Jeremy Hunt is destroying is the NHS.

Stephen Hawking is a gifted man but an inappropriate liberal type talent. The NHS has become an unaffordable beast swallowing our national treasure. It should be financed to a degree through taxation and partly through individual benefactions.

Nevertheless, no politician will allow an alternative to the money pit funding of the NHS. Not that many MPs use the same NHS foisted on the rest of us. Have you ever seen an MP lining up in A&E? Or queuing for anything?

Therefore they will go on booting the can down the road until the NHS really does grind to a standstill.

How can anyone believe the statements coming out of the forked-tongued Tories?

They don’t fool us any longer with their flawed Tory chatter. The NHS may remain free at the point of use, but the issue here is how much the bill for the taxpayer is going to rise if taxpayers are required under the Tory rule to pay increasingly more for the profits of shareholders of private companies?

Taxpayers should not be treated as the cash cows for private businesses so they can continue giving funds to their shareholders. The NHS should be free at the point of use and should be the best possible value for money and that only occurs without any kind of privatisation.

Because when a growing part of what you finance in the NHS goes to pay for the profits of shareholders in the private businesses that are given access to administer services, but the service is no longer value for money for the taxpayer.

The NHS is being used by the Tories as an excuse to syphon money from taxpayers straight into the pockets of shareholders of private businesses. The problem here is how many Tory MPs and Tory donors have vested investments in the privatisation of the NHS?

I hadn’t realised how far gone Jeremy Hunt was until I watched a speech in which he declared it was the Conservatives who set up the NHS in 1948, despite the Conservative government of the time voting against it dozens of times.

There was always an element of uncertainty on peoples minds as to who was lying when junior doctors came out of a meeting with Jeremy Hunt and both gave directly contradicting viewpoints on what had been addressed in the meeting.

Jeremy Hunt always appeared so cool, sane and believable, that the people never knew who was lying and Jeremy Hunt’s address on the NHS was a light bulb moment, making people realise that he was a Trump type misleading sociopath who lived in another La La world to the rest of us.

The reason that such things are occurring is that the entire NHS policy is too complex and the Government following David Cameron set up a different policy for the NHS and is trying to get away from the work of their own party, in particular, Margaret Thatcher’s hostility of the NHS leading to actions intended to damage it, such as the internal market.

An endeavour to build a quasi-private system which can actually dispense with high amounts of patients which private medicine at the present time could not dispense with. There are too many inconsistencies in the prevailing NHS.

Too many of its administrators have connections with political parties, in particular, an additional upper layer which is progressive Toryism in the NHS and the policy has been violated for years.

Regionally the acute psychiatric unit has a waiting list of 14 months which is ridiculous and it’s obvious that the system is failing. No one expects half-privatisation to be anything more than a failure only because British administrators are nincompoops as the NHS shows.

Is there no boundary to what this Government will privatise? As the Government was accused of gambling with the UK’s blood supply by selling the state-owned NHS plasma supplier to a US private investment firm.

The Department of Health overlooked various healthcare or pharmaceutical firms and at least one blood plasma professional before deciding to sell an 80 percent stake in Plasma Resources UK to Bain Capital, the company co-founded by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in a £230m transaction.

The Government will maintain a 20 percent stake and a percentage of possible anticipated earnings.

PRUK has yearly sales of about £110 million and consists of two companies. It employs 200 people at Bio Products Laboratory (BPL) in Elstree, Hertfordshire, and more than 1,000 at DCI Biologicals Inc in the US.

DCI collects plasma from American donors and transfers it to BPL where it is divided into blood proteins, clotting factors and albumin for supply to NHS hospitals in the treatment of immune deficiencies, neurological diseases, and haemophilia.

British jobs are being protected in a settlement and Bain, which has funded in dozens of private and state-owned health businesses globally, is prepared to pay £50 million in capital investment on the Elstree laboratories.

Nevertheless, critics of the settlement warned the Government that Bain Capital was the wrong company to own the NHS plasma supply line.

Lord Owen, the former Health Minister, had written to David Cameron urging the former Prime Minister to intercede and prevent the sale.

In 1975, facing some opposition from those overseeing the investments of the DHSS budget, as Minister of Health he decided to invest in self-sufficiency in the United Kingdom for blood and blood products.

He now thinks this country is on the point of making precisely the same blunder again. The world plasma supply line has been in the past infected and he fears it will almost unquestionably continue to be tainted.

It would be quite nice if Jeremy Hunt were prosecuted for illegally giving away and selling our confidential medical records to an insurance actuary company.

It would also be nice if every segment of the Government discovered themselves in demand of medical attention, the sort of attention that most people have come to expect, with exhausted and overburdened doctors and nurses, what few remain.

Then have to remain in A&E in excess of four hours, something that has risen by 120 percent in only 4 years and then to discover that the treatment that would make life bearable is no longer accessible.

The system that the Royal Family underpin is that by luck of background you are given all of this prerequisite and that’s not fair in the grand design of things for black people, it’s not right for people who are of working-class backgrounds.

We should be really pleased for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and there will be a number of young black people who will be overjoyed and laughing. Nevertheless, while we should be pleased for them as a couple in general, it’s a glorious thing, in general, and it’s not actually that radical and we shouldn’t be bouncing up and down with merriment.

As a mix raced person growing up as a British person it’s pretty difficult to reconcile feeling British but the Royal Family apparently being the most influential of Britishness and the message from succeeding governments has been that we are a multicultural society, and we celebrate being a diverse culture.

For a family at the top of our society to be totally undiverse and unintegrated just always seemed completely unsustainable. Therefore, this is really much overdue and it’s been fascinating to observe the response because people have said that Meghan Markle doesn’t portray the antithesis of European class criteria, you know she’s the sort of, acceptable black, and we’ve seen much of that discourse lately.

The former editor of Vogue, speaking about the ideal mixed race person and if you’re a mixed race person, you fall into that class where you are targeted with the same contempt and loaded baggage around blackness but at the same time, you’re perceived as less black and so more acceptable.

It is pretty representative of what we believe is a particularly British dilemma, which is that we don’t communicate directly about race. We allude to it in all sorts of obscure ways and really for Meghan Markle to come out and maintain her heritage and state that she’s proud of being mixed race and that she’s proud of having a black mother, is especially significant because one thing we have done in Britain is we tend to sweep colour and identity under the rug and say we don’t notice race, it will go away and it’s fine.

There’s nothing forbidden about having black heritage. She’s not going to overthrow the class system and structural injustice, but the Royal Family is symbolic and the symbolism she represents is that heritage is not something to be self-conscious of, it’s something to admire.

We’ve had a brown president in the White House and now, that palest of institutions, the Royal family, is formally allowing a mixed-race girl into its bosom and does this recognition of colour into one of the world’s oldest sovereignty imply that brown people have finally been accepted as being an integral part of the framework of modern culture?

So, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have announced that they’re tying the knot and it’s all really overwhelming, not simply to find out what dress she’s going to be wearing, although I’m sure everybody will be waiting with bated breath.

People are about to get there first ever mixed-race princess, technically she’ll be a duchess but she’s marrying a prince and she’s marrying a redhead. Two great minorities blending into one.

A mixed race, divorced, non-British actress is about to enter our Royal Family, this is immense news.

Interracial relationships might be de rigour in the realm of showbiz but in high society, they’re rather unique.
Back in 2013, we got our first mixed Marchioness in Emma McQuiston the daughter of a Nigerian oil magnate and the Bystander pages of Tatler swiftly had a little more intensity and charm about them.

Meghan is going to be the role model for every non-white girl in this country. She’s going to be evidence that beauty isn’t alabaster, that colour isn’t a barricade to leap over, that you don’t have to be white to be rich, successful or in power.

There aren’t that many mixed race women out there to look up to and when you’re growing up with two parents who seem totally different, it can be difficult to understand your own individuality but this isn’t going to be the problem for mixed-race children anymore.

Plus this wedding is also massive for all of those in interracial relationships and you can feel a little on display when you’re dating someone of another race. You get asked all sorts of questionable things about your sex life that make you feel like a piece of exotica erotica.

This union is the ultimate screw you to all those who still don’t actually believe in discovering love outside one’s own race, and to those who believe that it’s a rarity.

Meghan and Harry’s relationship is evidence that prejudice or racial bias has no role to play in our upper classes anymore, even Philip’s been moderately placid of late and as such, are a broader observation about how our nation is developing to deal with race.

When they first went public, he had to step in to get right-wing rags to stop printing ethnic content about her and the papers believed that the British people wanted to read unfair criticism about a possible royal imposter.

They believed we would support a smear attack upon a non-white woman seeming to elbow her way into power and they apparently believed too that Harry who hasn’t managed a totally faultless life himself, would sit silently and let it all play out.

However, they were mistaken, because he circulated a statement whipping the papers for subjecting Meghan to a wave of abuse and harassment and some of this has been quite public, the distortion on the front page of a national newspaper, the racial connotations of commentary articles, and the outright sexism and prejudice of social media trolls and web article remarks.

The papers were mistaken, nobody appears to have slagged the pair off or say anything remotely discriminatory about their marriage because that’s not the country we live in anymore and it’s just confirmation that media companies are out of touch with the development on the ground.

Dating and marrying outside your race is presently part of the institution.

It isn’t a minority culture. It isn’t exotica erotica. It’s part of British culture from the lowest to the very highest tiers.

On the BBC’s Newsnight programme, it highlighted an outline of Philip Hammond’s Budget address. It further purported to highlight a clip of the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s reply. But it didn’t.

Here on the left is a still taken from Jeremy Corbyn’s reply as he laid into a heckling Tory whip attempting to sidetrack attention from the situation of sick and disabled people under the Tory government. On the right is a still taken from the Newsnight coverage.

Can you spot the variations?

Different ties, different people behind him, even different glasses. The clip the BBC showed has Sarah Champion on the front bench behind Jeremy Corbyn. She is no longer a front-bencher. In the real footage, Dawn Butler is immediately behind him.

The Tories neighbouring Hammond in the Jeremy Corbyn clip are an entirely different set from those in the clip shown by Newsnight of Hammond’s Budget speech, too.

The clip Newsnight showed was of Jeremy Corbyn articulating well enough, but it was the Jeremy Corbyn of March 2017, not the post-GE Corbyn articulate, poised and owning the room in the style that he has done consistently since the supposedly shock General Election outcome and the polling lead he has achieved over the Tories since.

The oddity was detected by a friend of Twitter user Helen Cherry, who tweeted about it. That tweet was flagged to the SKWAWKBOX by a follower an illustration of the co-operative way that the new left media phenomenon works and bothers the Establishment.

Was this just an oversight? If so, it was an immense one to take entirely the wrong address and put it out to millions as one that took place. The video Newsnight presented wasn’t even from last year’s Budget response, as Jeremy Corbyn donned a red tie to that, so it’s not like someone looked in the Budget Response portfolio and pasted in the wrong file.

Or did someone at Newsnight want a different Jeremy Corbyn on display to spectators?

Whether intentional or unpremeditated, the BBC and others launch fake news distortions at the independent media, however, presented what amounted to misleading news on one of its flagship politics and current affairs programmes.

Newsnight has been contacted for comment.

The first one solely has Jeremy Corbyn reprimanding the Tories on the absence of funding for Public Services. The second reprimand The Strong Economy with official predictions all down which is far more serious for the Tories in truth.

As George Osborne’s friend, this still Political Editor of BBC News, there’s a whiff of intentional prejudice and you’d guess they might have seen different-coloured ties or the different attire of the different people in different positions in the different frames.

And then they question why many are turning their backs on Mainstream media, this is precisely why.

Supposedly, on their website, they maintain they just made an error. The blunder being, going to their archives of past Jeremy Corbyn clips and obtaining one that’s irrelevant, airing it first and retracting it after.

But only if they are exposed. Can’t have a clip of Jeremy Corbyn mopping the platform with the Tories, can we? They are the BBC after all and it might lead to contradictory remarks on Dimplebores Tory Time.

It’s seemingly the most accomplished and advanced news outlet in the world and they made an obvious schoolboy blunder. Yet, the subliminal messages remain in millions of brains that saw it live, most will never find out about the error.

Evidently, the BBC are massively into propaganda, not News, and apparently, this was no fluke.

The public used to support the BBC, now there’s nothing left to preserve, except some of their drama and most of that is outsourced these days.

A pastor supported GOP Senate front-runner Roy Moore for pursuing younger women, following allegations that Roy Moore harried and violated adolescent girls when he was in his 30s.

Pastor Flip Benham, who appeared alongside other anti-abortion advocates at a press gathering with Roy Moore, suggested on an Alabama radio program that there was nothing wrong with dating adolescent females, stating that Roy Moore never did so without their parents’ approval.

He is married to a younger lady and supposedly, he did so because there was something about the simplicity of a young lady, that’s genuine, pure and true and that’s what he was looking for.

Roy Moore previously said that he generally didn’t date teenagers, but said he might have done so and that he never dated girls without their parents’ permission, and has dismissed accusations that he initiated a sexual association with a 14-year-old girl in 1979 when he was 32.

It was claimed that when Roy Moore returned from his assignment of duty in Vietnam with the Army, numerous ladies his age were then taken or married and that there was nothing wrong with dating younger women with parental consent.

All of the women or many of the females that he perhaps could have married were not free then, they were now married, so he looked in another direction and President Trump, who supported Roy Moore’s primary opponent, Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.), earlier this year, seemed to throw his support behind Moore despite the sexual misconduct allegations from various females.

As Alabama headed to the polls to elect their next senator, the race has overshadowed recent media coverage as nominee Roy Moore stands indicted of sexually preying on numerous underage teenagers, and in some instances, touching them inappropriately.

Typically, President Donald Trump chose to defend him.

But while Donald Trump’s kind of approval of Moore may ultimately prove to be the most outstanding, Moore nevertheless has a loyal supporter base that doesn’t intend on leaving his side. In fact, they’ve already tried to justify the things he’s cited of, even though Moore has categorically dismissed them.

As it turns out, Moore stated he had first seen his wife, Kayla Moore, when she was as young as 15 years old.

When he was deputy district attorney, which was several years before they got married, he had noticed her at a dance performance and he was standing at the back of the hall and she was up front. Moore stated that after he had first observed her when she was 15 he knew she was going to be a special person in his life.

He then started dating her when she was 23, and they married a year later.

The news that has garnered a lot of late about Moore’s prior conduct which has been astonishing and alarming to say the absolute least, and even in the center of a stream of women coming forth about accusations of sexual harassment, or otherwise misconduct, whether it’s in Hollywood, the media, or the chambers of Congress these accounts somehow prompted Trump to support Moore.