The 16-Year-Old Vote Plan By Keir Starmer 

Keir Starmer’s plan to give 16-year-olds the right to vote would ‘rig’ the electoral system against the Conservatives for years to come, Tories have claimed.

If the Labour leader wins the July general election, he allegedly intends to decrease the voting age in his first year in office.

More than 1.5 million people under the age of 18 would be granted the ability to vote, making it the biggest modification to the electoral system since the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1969.

Sir Keir said: ‘Yes, I want to see 16 and 17-year-olds voting. If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your Armed Forces, then you ought to be able to vote.’

Speaking on a visit to Stafford, Sir Keir added that young people ‘should have a say on how their money is being used’.

Opponents argue young people are too immature to make informed political judgments, with the policy branded ‘cynical’ because it is expected to benefit Labour.

Tory MP Tom Hunt said it was ‘an attempt by Labour to rig the vote in their favour’, adding: ‘The motivation behind this is perceived political self-interest, nothing else.’

Fellow Tory MP Bob Seely said: ‘Labour haven’t even won and already they are trying to rig the voting system. 

‘Perhaps Labour think younger voters will be easier to pull the wool over than older folks with a bit of life experience.’

And Sir Iain Duncan Smith accused Sir Keir of ‘virtue signalling’, adding: ‘This is a gimmick done by those who think their party is more likely to get the vote.’

Labour has been closely studying how Scotland and Wales cut the voting age. In Scotland, those aged 16 can vote in local and Scottish Parliament elections, while in Wales they can vote in local and Welsh Parliament elections.

In Scotland, the procedure took less than six months, whilst the Welsh law was enacted less than a year after it was first proposed.

A Labour source told The Times the move ‘has the double benefit of not costing very much to do but of helping secure a second Labour term’. Analysis by the newspaper showed that if 16 and 17-year-olds voted in the same way as those aged 18-24, an extra eight seats would switch from the Tories to Labour.

Ashfield MP Lee Anderson, while he was Tory party deputy chairman, said extending the vote to 16-year-olds would mean the Conservatives would be ‘done for’.

When the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1969, most young people left school at 15, myself included, and by their 18th birthday would have had three years working in the real world and would have acquired life experiences on which to base any political decisions. Today most now leave at 18 with no life experiences and because of this, the voting age should be increased back to 21 not lowered to 16.

Most young people will vote for a political party like they would support a football team to win. So, these youngsters might be able to vote, but would still be politically ignorant. 

Many years ago, you went to work at a young age, but by the time you were old enough to vote, at least you had real-life experiences. Today, youngsters have to stay in education or training until they’re 18 years old, but when they leave they still have naivety and unworldliness so should not be allowed to vote until they have some life experiences.

I also suspect that many young voters would be swayed by a single issue such as university fees, rather than taking in the wider problems affecting the country, and lowering the voting age will do nothing to ensure the right balance of policies.

A Model Reveals An Appallingly Inappropriate Question A Nurse Asked Her 10-Year-Old 

A model disclosed the egregiously improper questions she claimed a nurse posed to her 10-year-old daughter following her hospitalisation for a feline bite.

Robin O’Malley, a model and radio show co-host, shared the bizarre interaction that occurred after the nurses asked her to leave the room to ask her daughter questions. The mother did not reveal the name of the hospital where the incident occurred.

During a recent episode of The Outlaws Radio Show, O’Malley sat down with her other fellow co-hosts and said that the topic of the conversation is ‘very triggering,’ especially for parents.

O’Malley began the account with hesitation, revealing that staff at the hospital that must remain nameless had questioned her daughter about her sexual activity and whether or not she had ever used alcohol or smoked.

‘I’ve worked so hard to protect her, just for these nurses to ruin her innocence in a split second when all we did was go to the hospital for a cat bite,’ O’Malley said. 

‘I’m not gonna state what hospital,’ the mother said, adding that her daughter was admitted into the paediatric wing.

She then went over the ‘normal questions’ that nurses and doctors ask patients, including if they feel like harming themselves or if they feel safe at home. 

‘And so, these nurses asked me to leave the room for a moment so they could ask my daughter some questions.’ 

‘I was thinking that they were going to ask those very questions I just listed, and those were not, in fact, the questions that they asked her,’ O’Malley said. 

The model said that her daughter is still an ‘innocent,’ ‘normal child,’ who ‘doesn’t try to act older than her age.’ 

O’Malley said: ‘So these nurses asked my 10-year-old daughter if she was having sex and does she drink and smoke?’

After questioning her child, O’Malley said that one of the nurses came out of the room and told her that she ‘may have opened up a can of worms.’ 

‘And I’m like, “What do you mean?’ 

‘And she said, “Uh, I asked her if she’s having sex and she was very confused on what I asked her so now she’s kind of curious”,’ O’Malley recalled. 

The mother then went into the room, where she was ‘immediately’ greeted by her daughter, who asked: ‘Mommy, what’s sex?’ 

‘Oh, okay. So now, I am very livid. I’m very, very, very upset because my innocent 10-year-old child, who I fought so hard to protect her innocence from this already crazy world, just for these nurses to ruin her innocence in a split second when all we did was go to the hospital for a cat bite,’ O’Malley explained.

‘Wow,’ one of her co-hosts responded. 

She then detailed how the questions the nurses asked didn’t sit well with her. 

‘I find that to be an issue because it’s not that they were asking her that because they felt something was wrong,’ O’Malley said.

‘They asked her that because now, apparently, this is a new thing that hospitals ask children starting from the age of seven.’ 

‘And they do not communicate that with the parent beforehand.’ 

After a brief moment of silence, her co-host, Darvio ‘Kingpen’ Morrow, said: ‘Yeah, that’s outrageous. That’s absolutely outrageous.’ 

‘The fact that they thought it was a good idea to do this, and the fact that they did, the most important thing is not only did they do this with a 10-year-old, but they did it without telling you first,’ he added.

‘Because you could have told them, “Aye, don’t do that”,’ Morrow said. 

‘Right,’ O’Malley replied.

 ‘And the fact that they did that without your consent—- that’s wild.’ 

O’Malley said that she was left ‘absolutely fuming’ and ‘distraught’ over the interaction. 

‘I’m pretty sure smoke was coming out of my ears, like, I was heated,’ she said. 

The radio co-host said that she didn’t see the nurse again after she asked her daughter those questions. 

Morrow then said that the entire situation would have been different if O’Malley’s daughter was at the hospital for something that had to do with that ‘region.’ 

‘Like, it was a cat bite,’ said, aid laughing before he added: ‘What are we doing?’ 

The frustrated mother said that following the awkward exchange, she told her friend who works at that hospital. 

‘She was like, “Unfortunately, they make us ask that question now, starting from the age of seven years old”,’ O’Malley said. 

‘And I was like, that is so f’d up.’

 ‘That nurse destroyed that innocent part of her,’ she added. 

The moral of this story is, to never leave your child alone during a visit to the hospital or the doctors. Never leave your child alone with any adult or authority figures, and you should find it highly suspicious if anybody asks to be alone with your child.

To be honest, I wouldn’t have left the room because there would be no way my 10-year-old was going to be alone in a room with anyone.

This woman states that she’s tried to protect her daughter’s innocence, so does that mean that she’s never had a conversation with her daughter about what to do if someone were to touch her inappropriately? Is this keeping her daughter from being aware of what can happen in the world, and sometimes children of sexual abuse have trouble describing what happened to them because they don’t even know the anatomical terms of use.

She has to identify the hospital if this is indeed what happened. In addition, is this lady really under the impression that her 10-year-old child has never heard the term “sex”? It’s very common these days!

This mother ought to have protested the instant the nurse requested her to leave the room. The state does not raise children; families do.

It is impossible to keep your child innocent forever, and if you don’t teach them about their bodies and sex, older kids will, and they will take advantage of their ignorance. Additionally, children who don’t understand what sex is can’t establish appropriate boundaries.

Parents, talk to your children before you even think they need to hear it or someone else will!

The Knickers Of Librarian Sharon Mawdsley Were Paraded In Prison

A married prison librarian whose underpants were paraded around a jail wing ‘like a trophy’ after a sexual relationship with an inmate has been spared jail.

Mum-of-two Sharon Mawdsley, 47, from Blackpool, shared steamy text messages and had sex with Steven Morrell in the library office at HMP Kirkham.

Their two-week affair came to an end after staff member Sarah Fleming heard whispers among prison inmates and reported her concerns.

Mawdsley’s underwear was allegedly shown to other inmates at Kirkham prison as over 20 prisoners stood outside their cell doors before lock up, a jury was told.

A former prisoner who claimed to have seen this also claimed that Mawdsley had molested him sexually.

He told a court: ‘He [Morrell] took her underwear and when everyone was standing at the doors one evening, he showed them like a trophy.

‘There were over 20 prisoners who saw it.’

Mawdsley was informed on July 6, 2018, that she should not go back to work, and Morrell was sent to a different jail.

After his cell was searched, a secret iPhone was found hidden in a laundry bag, along with a piece of paper with Mawdsley’s personal phone number scrawled on it.

Three days later, she admitted giving Morrell her phone number and engaging in ‘unlawful conversations and text messages’.

She was aware that he had a phone, but she chose not to alert the jail staff.

Mawdsley pleaded guilty to misconduct in a public office in connection with the phone contact with Morrell in January 2024.

However, she only acknowledged having sex with Morrell when questioned about claims that she had sexually assaulted two other prisoners in the library.

The prosecutor, Wayne Jackson, stated that Mawdsley worked ten hours a week at HMP Kirkham.

She had been screened for the position and trained in anti-corruption measures.

Alli Black, the Governor of HMP Kirkham, said: ‘Where an inappropriate relationship develops, the authority of that staff member and other members of staff is diminished.’

If professional boundaries were not respected, she added, staff members may be coerced into smuggling narcotics or cell phones into jail.

Anthony Parkinson, defending, said Mawdsley has ‘an impeccable past history – apart from these two weeks of madness in the Summer of 2018’.

In addition, he emphasised that the defendant had experienced a protracted delay and public humiliation as a result of media attention.

Although Mawdsley and her spouse are no longer together, he nonetheless supported his ex-wife in a letter to the court.

Two other prisoners claimed the librarian had abused them in the library following the inquiry.

The mother of two was exonerated of all additional counts after the trial in April.

During that trial, she confessed to having sex with Morrell.

She returned to Preston Crown Court to face a sentence for a single count of misconduct in a public office.

Given the behaviour of people in authority, it’s no surprise that jails are becoming less like prisons and more like retirement communities for illegal behaviour.

Today’s prisons serve as hubs for gang recruitment, criminal training, and networking, and the majority of state-employed law enforcement personnel are either untrustworthy or poorly trained.

A pair of elephantine pants would not pique most men’s interest, but it takes all kinds, and why does a prison need a librarian? Surely a half-educated inmate could arrange books.

This kind of activity is unacceptable, and prisoners would thrive on it as it relieves boredom; therefore, the woman was fortunate to be released.

The sad thing is that these women believe that male prisoners love them, but they need to realise that they’re just being used for sex and whatever else they can get from them, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the prisoners in question now sue for PTSD.

This prisoner who pumped this lady should be released immediately; he’s been punished enough! After all, she is a hefty lady and there would never be a shovel to fill that hole.

These men are behind bars for a reason, because they’ve done wrong, and now so has she. This was an offence, and this woman should have faced jail like others do.

Stones Pelt Jewish Boy, 16, In Shocking Scene

CCTV caught the shocking moment that a teenage Jewish boy was ‘pelted with stones’ walking to the synagogue in an attack in broad daylight in north London.

The attack on the youngster, who is thought to be 16 years old, on Saturday, May 11 at around 5:55 p.m. on Rookwood Road in Hackney is being investigated as a hate crime by the Met.

Three males were chasing the youngster in the London neighbourhood of Stamford Hill while he was wearing traditional Jewish attire, and one of them was hurling stones at him.

The largest Hasidic Jewish community in Europe is in the North London area, which has traditionally been the target of anti-Semitic attacks; however, these seem to have gotten worse since the terror strikes on Israel on October 7.

Suspected hate crimes reported to police in recent months include thugs on bikes randomly assaulting pedestrians in traditional Jewish dress, a man walking down a street threatening to ‘kill’ Jews and an alleged robbery that saw a 20-year-old woman beaten unconscious.

The victim in the footage is reportedly ‘alright’ following the attack, as he has gotten used to antisemitism in the area, the JC reports.

The Metropolitan Police said: ‘An investigation is underway after a reported assault of a male in Rookwood Road, N16.

‘At around 17:55 hrs on Saturday, 11 May, the victim—a Jewish male—was walking on Rookwood Road, N16 when he was approached by another male and allegedly had an item thrown at him.

‘The incident was reported to police the next day and an investigation was launched by officers based in Hackney. At this stage, the incident is being treated as a hate crime.

‘We are aware of a video being shared online and this will form part of our enquiries. We are in contact with the Shomrim and our enquiries are ongoing.

‘No arrests have been made at this time.

‘Anyone with information should call 101, giving the reference CAD 8409/23MAY. Information can also be provided anonymously to Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.’

Chief of Shomrim, a neighbourhood watch, Chaim Hochhauser, told the source that the victim was attacked on Shabbat while walking to the synagogue.

He said the perpetrators have caused ‘quite a lot of trouble’ since the October 7 attacks, in attempts to ‘frighten and harm the Jewish community’.

Although the police are looking into the alleged attack, no one has been taken into custody as of yet.

Everyone in this country should be able to walk our streets safely. It shouldn’t matter what age, sex, race or religion they are. We are all equals like it or not.

The idea that attacking a child is justified because of what adults from different religions are doing to each other is absurd.

Taking into account the events of World War II, this is tragic. You were astounded by the inhumanity against fellow humans, and it still doesn’t cease, but this is what’s happening to our once amazing country. I used to be proud to say that I was British, sadly, not so much now.

Britishness is a thing of the past. Because we let them take over and seek to replace our culture with theirs. British people in the UK are currently a minority, and what are our police doing about this, let me guess, the usual investigations that are ongoing, which is probably a code for the case is open but we’re doing absolutely nothing about it.

There are far too many migrants in the UK now, and we can’t keep up with them all, not to mention the lack of powers by the police in dealing with minors. We would need to triple the police force throughout the UK and even then that would barely scratch the surface.

A 70-Year-Old Grandmother Chased Yobs After They Broke And Destroyed Her Gate

A grandmother who chased a gang of yobs after they smashed her garden gate claims she was told off by police after telling them she would ‘wring their necks’ if she saw the teens again. 

Gillian Mears, 70, said she ‘just saw red’ after the group damaged her back gate at her house in Kessingland, Suffolk.

Following the incident, Mrs Mears, who has four grandkids, pursued the yobs with assistance from her neighbours.

She reported the damage, but when the police came to her house, she was reprimanded for her threats.

She said, ‘I just saw red and lost the plot in a fit of rage and took to chasing the gang of youths down the street.

‘Our neighbours came out of their houses to try and help me catch them, which was really nice.

‘I called the police and only when I told them that if I got my hands on them, I would wring their necks did they rock up.

‘When they arrived, they told me off for making that threat, which was not a threat; it was me just venting my anger.’

After the attack on April 20, Mrs. Mears and her husband John had to pay a hefty amount of money to have the gate fixed, just to have the vandals come again.

When they came back, Mr Mears, who is disabled, went to confront the gang but fell over and hurt himself.

Mrs Mears then picked her husband up off the floor and called the police.

The couple claimed that the gate was broken by vandals once more and that they had to pay £520 to have it restored.

The couple also added that they are ‘living in fear’ that the group will return.

Mrs Mears said: ‘Those evil kids just laughing at me and my husband make me feel sick and full of despair with the next generation. I have no hope, and their parents should be ashamed.

‘My husband, who is not very mobile in his old age, had a nasty fall attempting to confront them.

‘I had to pick him off the floor and it was very distressing. Then, to add to the misery, we saw the damage to our gate, which had been completely smashed in.’

A Suffolk Police spokesman said: ‘The investigation is ongoing into the criminal damage and anti-social behaviour by a group of youths on April 20.’

For further information, MailOnline has been in touch with Suffolk Police.

It’s no surprise that some people do what they want to do without any consideration for others when the police certainly seem to condone their behaviour whilst condemning those who try to stop it. The police need to get their priorities right and start doing the job they used to.

This lady doubtless said what she said metaphorically, but the police took it literally. How on earth would a 70-year-old lady ‘wring their necks’, even though she probably wanted to, would not have had the strength to do so?

This saying is as old as the hills. My mother used to say it to me as a child, but wouldn’t have done it!

It was misconstrued by the police, who clearly have a literacy problem.

Instead of serving and defending people who are defending their rights by defending their property, the police have shifted more in favour of those who engage in criminal activity. This raises the question of whether we have a police force at all.

London’s Pro-Palestinian Marches Are ‘Genuinely Dangerous’ For Jews, Says Michael Gove

It is ‘genuinely dangerous to be Jewish’ near Gaza marches in London and other cities today, Michael Gove warned as he accused pro-Palestinian protesters of turning a blind eye to ‘lurid demonstrations of anti-Semitism’.

In a major speech at a Jewish community centre today, the Communities Secretary raised the spectre of Nazi Germany, warning that attacks on Jews were often ‘the canary in the mine’ for the state of a nation.

Mr Gove urged the pro-Palestine march organisers and “good people taking part” to take further action to prevent anti-Jewish hate symbols from being shown by certain participants in the marches.

He said Jews were unable to be ‘their authentic selves’ near the marches and while many protesters are ‘thoughtful, gentle, compassionate people’, they are ‘side by side with those who are promoting hate’.

In recent weeks, one man has been arrested for carrying a placard emblazoned with a swastika, while police sparked outrage by telling a Jewish woman that the notorious Nazi symbol was ‘not necessarily anti-Semitic’.

Mr Gove further attacked demonstrations on college campuses, questioning if comparable demonstrations against China, Syria, or Burma’s violations of human rights had not taken place. He brought up the fact that Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad was the only person to have killed more Muslims in the recent past.

The Cabinet minister described anti-Semitism as the ‘common currency of hate’ that is shared by the Far Right, the Hard Left, and Islamists and attacked the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement as ‘explicitly anti-Semitic’. 

Mr Gove’s speech came ahead of the publication of a long-trailed report by the government’s independent adviser on political violence, Lord Walney.

Lord Walney accused authorities of being ‘insufficiently robust’ with groups on the left.

In a long-awaited report today, he said groups like Just Stop Oil, who make lawbreaking a central part of their modus operandi, should face serious curbs on their fundraising and be liable to legal action from disrupted businesses.

He also proposed changing the legislation to make it simpler for police to deny permission for large-scale gatherings, with an eye towards pro-Palestine demonstrations. The groups could also be made to pay a portion of the costs associated with upholding the legislation.

He also recommended that governments look at outlawing rallies outside the Houses of Parliament in the heart of London to protect MPs from harassment, which may be the most contentious aspect of the report.

Based on the visas granted, our government is bringing in 1.2 million illegal immigrants annually. Since Brexit, there has been no improvement, and the British people are now a minority.

It is time to outlaw all forms of public protest. We can protest all we want thanks to social media, and here’s Michael Gove along with his buddies who turn a blind eye to the consequences of mass migration.

Thousands of people enter the country illegally every year, yet this is legal migration, approved by our government. Rishi Sunak could halt this influx tomorrow, but he won’t since voting and cheap work are two benefits that illegal immigrants provide, and the anti-semitic, fascist, hate-filled rhetoric that’s spewing out of the mouths of these protesters is truly sickening and terrifying, and frighteningly reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s.

The UK is becoming a Muslim country and we are becoming like Germany—never again, which means never again.

London has become a no-go zone for decent people when these hate marches take place, and they’re costing the taxpayer millions and millions of pounds to police and clean up after them.

She Had A Bright Future

The parents of a baby killed by a ‘callous’ nursery worker said they could ‘never forgive’ her as she faces a lengthy jail term for their daughter’s manslaughter.

John and Katie Meehan spoke for the first time about the loss of their nine-month-old daughter Genevieve Meehan, known as ‘Gigi’ after jurors found Kate Roughley guilty of killing her.

Roughley is due to receive a maximum sentence of life imprisonment over the ‘ill-treatment’ of Genevieve, who was left for over 90 minutes before being found ‘unresponsive and blue’.

The 37-year-old worker from Heaton Norris, Stockport, was said to have ignored the ‘serious and obvious’ risks of strapping a baby face down on a bean bag to sleep.

Speaking about Manchester Crown Court today, barrister Mr Meehan said: ‘We will never forgive the callousness of Kate Roughley’s actions. She was entrusted with the care of or our daughter but instead, she treated her with contempt.’

Mr Meehan stood with his tearful solicitor wife Katie and paid tribute to their daughter, who ‘loved life, played the tambourine, and spent time with her big sister’, and was ‘kind, infectious, and mischievous’.

‘We loved every day watching her develop. We’ll never accept the cruelty of her life being taken away,’ he said. ‘Her life was full of promise and wonder, and it was taken.

‘Genevieve’s loss has destroyed our family and we grieve for her every day. We’re desperate to see her smile, see her laugh and feel her warm embrace.’

Mr Meehan said he and his wife do not want to see her defined by the manner of Genevieve’s death and that ‘our beautiful daughter deserves to be remembered for the wonderful person she was.’

During a month-long trial, jurors heard Roughley displayed a ‘lack of sympathy’ towards children, labelling Genevieve ‘vile’, a ‘whinger’ and a ‘diva’.

CCTV cameras showed her disregarding the child’s cries and frantic last-ditch attempts to live while the child was forcibly fastened to the bean bag and wrapped in a blanket.

Roughley, who had 17 years’ experience as a nursery worker but no children of her own, then ‘lied’ to cover up what she’d done, claiming she constantly checked on babies in her care. 

The prosecution said Roughley’s ‘deliberate conduct’, ‘ill-treatment’ and ‘lack of any effective monitoring’ causing Genevieve’s death.

After more than five hours of deliberation, the Manchester Crown Court jury gave their verdicts, and Roughley looked forward without displaying any emotion.

Mrs Justice Ellen Bogan adjourned sentencing until Wednesday and remanded Roughley, whose parents were at the back of court, in custody until then.

Mrs Meehan and other family members emotionally hugged outside court and thanked the prosecution.

Manchester Crown Court heard Genevieve suffered fatal asphyxia and pathophysiological stress caused by the ‘unsafe sleep environment’ at Tiny Toes Nursery in Cheadle Hulme, Stockport, on May 9, 2022.

During the trial, Peter Wright KC, prosecuting, told the jury: ‘Her death was not the result of some terrible or unavoidable accident.

‘We say her death arose from ill-treatment she suffered at the hands of this defendant.’

On the day of tragedy, deputy manager Roughley was acting as leader in the nursery’s understaffed baby room, where she was one of only two workers looking after 11 babies.

Genevieve had been dropped off by her parents, barrister John Meehan and solicitor Katie Wheeler, at 9 am and was found unresponsive at 3.12 pm. She could not be revived and was later pronounced dead in hospital.

Mr Wright said the reason for the baby’s condition wasn’t immediately apparent but became clear from CCTV footage.

He added that Roughley had put Genevieve to sleep that afternoon, wrapping her in a blanket so tightly that she was immobile.

The child had also been placed not on her back, according to safe sleep policies, but on her front and face down, strapped to a bean bag using a harness.

A blanket was also placed over her that practically covered her head to toe, with the ‘inevitable consequence’ that it would make observations more difficult and increase the risk of overheating.

He said Genevieve was visibly ‘distressed by this treatment’ yet her thrashing and cries were ignored and she was left from around 1.35 pm until she was discovered unresponsive—an hour and 37 minutes later.

Mr Wright said: ‘The risk to her of asphyxiation and death was, we say, both serious and obvious.

‘Yet the defendant ignored it and by the time she checked on Genevieve with anything vaguely representing any genuine interest, it was too late.’

The jury heard how the baby had been enrolled at the nursery just a few weeks earlier in April after she ‘thrived’ despite being born prematurely at 35 weeks.

Genevieve had been treated in hospital for bronchiolitis, which is common in young infants, and was using an inhaler but expert witnesses said the condition was not a factor in her death.

Mr Wright said that in the days leading up to the tragedy, Roughley had displayed a ‘lack of affection’ towards Genevieve that was ‘not merely visible, but tangible’.

On the day of Genevieve’s death, Roughley had used the bean bag as a ‘form of restraint’, Mr Wright said, ignoring safety advice never to place babies face down.

Under cross-examination during the trial, Roughley insisted: ‘I would never not like a nine-month-old baby. To say I disliked her is far from the truth.’

Asked if she thought that Genevieve’s death was avoidable, she said: ‘I feel that if I had checked on her a couple of seconds or minutes earlier, it may have been different.

‘It was a common practice for children to sleep in the bean bag bed.

‘I feel responsible in the fact that Genevieve was in my care that day. However, I don’t feel my actions were the reason for the death.’

She denied that calling Genevieve a ‘whinger’ and ‘a diva’ was ‘malicious’.

Roughley said: ‘Often we would say to children ‘stop whingeing’ This was not shouted at the children or said in any malicious way. They were just passing comments through the working day.’

Sarah Elliot KC, defending, told the jury Roughley looked after children in a ‘practical, responsible, no-nonsense but caring way’.

She said the defendant denied failing to make safe sleep arrangements and had ‘kept an appropriate eye’ on Genevieve.

Nine-month-old babies are not swaddled; only newborns are. It is not appropriate to strap a baby down for anything other than high chair or pram use! And why weren’t there any more cots? The proprietors of the nurseries must have been aware that the number of newborns whose parents pay a high price for their care required more than their equipment could accommodate.

Why on earth would you swaddle a child that age? Why on earth would you restrict any movement, it’s natural for them to move and unnatural to prevent it.

Newborns can’t control their movements when they’re born and often disturb themselves when they’re sleeping. Supposedly, swaddling keeps them snug as they are in the womb, but when they’re born, they should be allowed to move around freely.

To have to deal with their child’s shocking mistreatment and eventual death at the hands of this woman would be enough to rock the foundations of any loving parent. I do feel bad for the parents, who were both working to provide a better life for their child, paying handsomely in the belief that their child was being cared for with kitten gloves.

Accidents happen, I know that, but this was not an accident; rather, it appeared to be the inevitable result of blatantly nasty and deliberate disregard and abuse of the woman’s position.

The toddler was disturbed and sobbing on a bean bag for ninety minutes while being fastened face down. Abuse, plain and simple, was the cause of this.

This was poor practice and I wonder how many other children had been subjected to this treatment, but were lucky they did not have the same fate. The loss of a child is something no parent ever gets over, and more so when it could have been avoided.

This could not have been the woman’s first instance of abusing a child in this way. She did something inappropriate out of a fit of rage. The same is true with senior care facilities—there are many unscrupulous ones out there.

NHS’ Worst Treatment Disaster: Rishi Sunak To Apologize

Rishi Sunak will apologise to infected-blood victims, as a devastating report blames successive governments and the NHS for the scandal.

The Prime Minister will issue a formal apology on behalf of the Government for the handling of a scandal which has claimed more than 3,000 lives and continues to wreck countless others.

Plans for a major compensation programme that may end up costing taxpayers more than £10 billion will be unveiled by ministers.

According to insiders in Whitehall, NHS head Amanda Pritchard is expected to apologise for the greatest treatment scandal in the health service’s history.

The actions are being taken in response to the long-awaited publication of the public inquiry’s conclusions by retired High Court judge Sir Brian Langstaff, which were initiated in 2018. Since the inquiry’s inception, an estimated 710 more victims have passed away.

The National Health Service (NHS) and the Department of Health are likely to come under fire for allowing the use of imported blood products years after the initial alerts that they may be tainted with diseases including hepatitis C and HIV.

They will also be savaged for their evasive response to campaigners seeking the truth, in what victims believe to have been a concerted cover-up lasting decades.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the NHS supplied tainted blood products to around 30,000 patients in the UK, who subsequently contracted hepatitis C and HIV. The contaminated goods were inexpensively imported from the United States, where blood was procured from individuals who were paid to donate it, including drug addicts, prisoners, and the homeless.

Individuals receiving treatment for blood diseases like haemophilia and those receiving blood transfusions made up the majority of those affected.

Kate Burt, chief executive of the Haemophilia Society, said: ‘The contaminated blood scandal has been a stain on our nation for too long.

‘For the sake of the thousands of lives lost to this disaster, the Government must accept all the Infected Blood Inquiry’s recommendations and begin work immediately to rebuild trust in our public services. Only a commitment to deliver radical reform and to treat those it serves with compassion and respect will begin to end this shameful episode in our country’s history.’

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt yesterday described the episode as ‘the worst scandal of my lifetime’ and said the families ‘have got every right to be incredibly angry that generations of politicians, including me when I was health secretary, have not acted fast enough to address the scandal’.

The compensation plan has been approved by Mr Hunt, but the exact cost won’t be known until a new committee has created a payment structure.

Labour health spokesman Wes Streeting said he expected Sir Brian to criticise ‘successive governments’ over the issue.

Mr Streeting said an incoming Labour administration would honour any compensation deal agreed by the Government, adding: ‘Everyone has got their responsibility to bear in this appalling scandal and we have got a shared responsibility to put it right.’

Even if Rishi Sunak was not Prime Minister at the time, he is today, hence he should apologise for the wrongdoings of his predecessors! And he actively shares the same Tory ideology of treating ordinary people like dirt but it will be a farse as is every other word spoken by the Tories.

However, this isn’t the worst treatment disaster in NHS history. The damage caused by the COVID-19 jabs will massively eclipse this, so let’s see how this plays out over the next decade.

The taxpayer won’t object, in my opinion, to the victim’s recompense. But why should the taxpayer foot the bill for something they had nothing to do with? My sympathies are with the victims who have died without receiving justice, but no amount of money will make things right, and our government must bow down and acknowledge its wrongdoings.

Wig No More

English courts could drop the requirement for barristers wearing wigs amid accusations they are ‘culturally insensitive’, it has been reported.

After several barristers protested that the obligation to wear wigs discriminated against people with Afro-Caribbean hair, the judiciary is reportedly in negotiations to amend court dress standards.

According to reports, judges are considering recommendations put forth by the Bar Council, which represents solicitors in England and Wales. The Telegraph said that any adjustments will be made as soon as possible in the autumn.

This happened as a result of objections made by several black solicitors who demanded that the requirement to wear wigs be removed.

Since 2007, wigs, also referred to as perukes, have not been required in civil, family, or Supreme Court proceedings. However, they continue to be necessary for criminal cases.

Barristers who like to wear a turban or a hijab to court may seek special permission if they would like to avoid wearing a wig.

Styled after 17th-century fashion, they are made of horsehair.

Over the last two years, a black barrister has been at the centre of a heated controversy regarding the wearing of wigs in court, with orders to wear one or risk disciplinary punishment.

A Bar Council spokesman told the Telegraph: ‘Following questions from barristers about wigs and hair discrimination, the Bar Council set up a working group to consider court dress in the context of all protected characteristics.

‘The findings of the working group are currently being discussed with the judiciary as part of our regular dialogue on equality and diversity matters.’

Leslie Thomas KC called for the ‘ridiculous costume’ to be brought to an end.

He said: ‘The wigs certainly should go. There isn’t any place in modern society for barristers to be wearing 17th-century fashion.’

A spokesman for the judiciary said: ‘Senior judges are in active discussions with the Bar Council about the findings of their working group on court dress.

‘We welcome these discussions as part of our continuing joint work on diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.’

How many years into his study of the profession did it dawn on him that he would have to wear a wig as part of the uniform? When the professional dress code is relaxed, so does the profession.

A formal dress code? I don’t think that wigs are necessary and never have been, but it’s an old law that needs to be updated so long as the profession doesn’t fall. However, other countries seem to get away with it perfectly fine without having them, and it doesn’t seem to have affected people receiving justice, and a fashion show is not and never will be essential for the dispensing of justice.

However, we would be removing something because of a particular demographic that finds the wig offensive or dislikes it. People lose hair, let’s face it, but they don’t want others to chop off theirs because they find it offensive.

Because barristers’ wig wear is so famous, maybe if they don’t like it, they should practise somewhere else. If wig producers stopped making wigs to appease certain groups, they would go out of business.

A barrister’s wig lends them a sense of authority, thus they should be treated seriously rather than as props for a fashion show.

I’ve seen female barristers with all manner of hairstyles and they seem to manage perfectly well with their wigs. These groups should follow our culture or go elsewhere.

However, wigs can be hot, uncomfortable, and quite unfashionable. They might have been fashionable hundreds of years ago, and maybe they need updating, but they’re still iconic, and if we are going to oust them from the courtroom, they should go because of that reason and not because it offends others.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started