A Future PRIME MINSTER

April 8, 2009 – 11:26 am
Daniel Hannan

Daniel Hannan

Because for some obscure reason, the Daily Telegraph doesn’t allow sharing of blog posts and I know this is totally off subject, but I wanted to share this article via my various Facebook profiles.

I would thoroughly recommend that you take the time to read the comments from Dan Hannans blog, but one in particular is worthy of a partial re post here.

Blank Xavier wrote:

April 06, 2009

09:36 PM GMT

In 1948, when the NHS was formed, there were 480,000 beds and 350,000 staff.

By 2002, there were 186,000 beds and 882,000 staff.

As of September 2008, there are 160,000 beds and 1,368,200 staff.

Ann Keen, the Health Minister, said; “The NHS workforce is now at record levels and has increased by almost 300,000 over the last ten years.”

The NHS is now the third largest employer in the world; surpassed only by the Indian National Railway and the Red Army.

He goes on to elaborate further, but those are quite shocking statistics. Below is Dan Hannan’s Article

Americans! Don’t copy the British healthcare system!

Posted By: Daniel Hannan at Apr 6, 2009 at 20:44:17

It’s difficult not to warm to John Prescott. As part of a Labour Government that lived from headline to headline, he added a dash of authenticity. He may have been oafish, but he was reassuringly human.

Prescott is trying to fabricate a row out of my interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, in which I warned Americans against adopting a socialist healthcare system along British lines. You can watch the old bruiser here. (If you’re an American who likes to imagine that the British are eloquent, please ignore that last hyperlink.)

I wonder whether anyone still falls for this sort of stuff. For a long time, Labour politicians had two slogans which they would trot out whenever healthcare came up: “Envy Of The World” and “Free At The Point Of Use”. These phrases were not intended to be arguments. Rather, they were ways of playing your trump, of closing down the debate.

Prezza uses both (or, rather, a mangled version of each). The NHS, he says, is Britain’s “greatest creation”. Really? Greater than parliamentary democracy? Greater than penicillin? Greater than the discovery of DNA, or the abolition of slavery, or the common law? John, the NHS produces some of the worst health outcomes in the industrialised world. Britain is the Western state where you’d least want to have cancer or a stroke or heart disease. Ours is now a country where thousands of people are killed in hospitals for reasons unrelated to their original condition. If this is our “greatest creation”, Heaven help us.

As for the second slogan, which Prezza renders as “need and not ability to pay”, there is no health system in Europe or North America that leaves the indigent untended. What is at issue is not whether we force poor people to pay, but whether we prevent wealthier people from doing so. The British system treats everyone equally, it’s true: we queue equally, we wait weeks for operations equally, we are expected to be equally grateful for any attention we get.

Outside Westminster, the old incantations are losing their magic. Envy Of The World is no longer a charm to ward off criticism. People can see for themselves that Britain has become a place where foreigners fear to fall ill. Yes, all three parties are committed to the NHS: I am a humble backbencher, and speak only for myself. But I wonder whether, as on tax and borrowing, public opinion hasn’t overtaken the Westminster consensus.

Let me put it like this. Imagine that, in 1945, we had created a National Food Service. Suppose that, in the name of “fairness” and “need and not ability to pay”, sustenance had been rationed by the state. Conjecture that every citizen had been allocated one butcher, one baker, one café and so on. We all know where that would have led: to bureaucracy, to duplication, to surpluses in one field and scarcity in another, to racketeering, to hunger. No one, not even Prescott, is suggesting that we socialise food distribution – even though food is at least as basic human need as healthcare. As those Americans of whom you seem so contemptuous might put it, John, go figure.

This is quite funny

April 7, 2009 – 5:40 pm

Youtube Preview

Women know your limits

March 27, 2009 – 4:33 pm

Legal Beagle enforces an honest online CV after EIGHT YEARS

March 26, 2009 – 2:58 pm

Mr Peter Boyce of Goughs of Chippenham represented my former wife in our divorce April 2002 – June 2004.

In 2002 he displayed this web page and because of the adversarial nature of the divorce that I was experiencing and the contradiction to his advertised persona, I contacted the The Solicitors Family Law Association (Resolution) and questioned his competence to be an Accredited Mediator. Resolution responded by telling me that they wouldn’t intervene in an ongoing case and to contact them at the end of the process. This I  did in November 2004 only to discover that he wasn’t an Accredited Mediator and this was a false claim. I then discovered over a period of four years that the entire page was a false claim and none of his claimed credentials and qualifications were true.

Resolution refused to take any action and continue to this day to endorse Mr Boyce, despite being shown evidence of more serious allegations of professional negligence.
The Code of Practice for Resolution relies upon the honesty and integrity of its members, yet with incontrovertible evidence as to his lack of honesty and integrity in the form of falsified CV online for OVER TWO YEARS and the more serious allegations of mis-directing the court, Resolution first for Family seem impotent in the face of commercial interests. The fact that their Code of Practice was totally disregarded by Mr Boyce has never been investigated by Resolution as they have no quality system in place for such an investigation

In August 2008 it was brought to my attention that Mr Boyce claimed membership of the The Law Society Family Panel was inaccurate as this body has been replaced by the Family Law Accreditation Scheme and it was unclear whether he had that endorsement. I contacted Mr Davis the senior partner at Goughs and brought this inaccuracy to his attention, well the good news is, that this false claim has now been removed.
That only took me seven months which is an improvement on the two years it took me to initially clean up the false claims by Mr Boyce.
Self appointed “ACCREDITED” member of the family panel which was amended to read former member of the UK college of Family mediators( his subscription lapsed in 2001 yet he claimed membership until 2008)

Is it only me that finds it quite bizzare that the legal profession has such a lack luster attitude to professional standards.

Judge hops bench

March 26, 2009 – 10:03 am

Broward Circuit Court Judge Ian Richards jumped over his bench to help a female witness who was being attacked by the man she had testified against.

Good man!!!! how many British judges would be running for the door?

MPs, agony aunts and journalists to meet over family justice system

February 24, 2009 – 9:03 am

Campaigining MPs to highlight continued concerns over family justice system

A group of MPs, led by John Hemming, has organised a meeting at the House of Commons with a group of journalists and media agony aunts to discuss the care system and family courts. Those involved include Camilla Cavendish of The Times, Sue Reid of the Daily Mail, Kate Hilpern who works for the Guardian and Independent and Denise Roberston, Agony Aunt on This Morning. They will be discussing a series of proposals including

  • Allowing social workers more time to see children and families and less time in front of computers
  • Continue progress towards transparency in the family courts
  • Allowing parents to have a second opinion
  • Providing public support for appeals and contesting care orders
  • Providing some public support for Mackenzie Friends
  • Expert evidence should only come from regulated professionals
  • All hearings should have anonymous judgments
  • Clayton v Clayton should not be reversed
  • Serious Case Review chairs should be independent and appointed independently
  • National guidance is needed to define what “risk of significant harm” means

The meeting will take place on 25 February 2009.

Single mother who allowed her son aged THREE to smoke cigarettes walks free from court | Mail Online

January 23, 2009 – 12:32 pm

Quoted from
Single mother who allowed her son aged THREE to smoke cigarettes walks free from court | Mail Online

Kelly Marie Pocock

Parenting classes: Kelly Marie Pocock

A young mother allowed her three-year-old son to smoke, a court heard yesterday.

The boy was apparently familiar with cigarettes and knew how to use a lighter and inhale.

He was allowed to smoke in his bedroom and around the house, and was only stopped when a family friend used her mobile phone to film him and alerted social workers.

Yesterday the boy’s mother Kelly Marie Pocock, 24, was given a 40-week jail sentence – but it was suspended for two years after a judge said her children had suffered enough.

Judge John Curron was told that Pocock, a mother of three, had attended parenting courses and was ‘now putting her children before herself’.

Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court heard social workers were shocked when they saw the mobile phone video.

Prosecutor Jonathan Rees said: ‘The video demonstrates the boy placing a cigarette into his mouth, lighting it with a lighter and sucking.

‘He was drawing smoke clearly into the lungs and seems to do it with some accomplishment. It doesn’t cause him any discomfort.

‘He is sat on a chair close to the mother, who is talking on the phone.

‘It’s clear that the boy, at the age of three, knows what to do with a lighter and cigarette.’

Pocock’s friend Natasha Dudley, 25, filmed the boy smoking while visiting the family home in the village of Merthyr Vale, near Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales.

Mr Rees said: ‘Miss Dudley went to look for the boy after he had been missing for half an hour.

‘She found him under a bed with some cigarettes. He was actually smoking one and Miss Dudley said it looked like he had been smoking for a long time.

‘When the boy was taken downstairs he went into the living room where he picked up a cigarette butt from an ashtray and smoked it.

‘Pocock was on the telephone at the time so Miss Dudley decided to film the boy, such was her concern.’

Merthyr Tydfil social services were given the video and they brought in police to investigate Pocock – whose children are aged between three and five.

She claimed she was shocked by the allegation and did not realise her son was smoking because she was on the phone at the time.

Claire Wilks, defending, said: ‘She has now been able to prove herself both to her children and, perhaps more importantly, to their social worker.

‘She has attended six parenting courses since the incident. One of the changes has been her maturing and putting the children before herself.’ Judge Curran said: ‘The boy would not have been able to smoke without discomfort unless he had acquired a habit.’

He told jobless Pocock: ‘This is an appalling situation and I don’t see how you could have been unaware of the fact.

‘This offence would normally cross the custody threshold but I do not want to cause your children any further emotional harm by separating them from you.’

Judge Curran also imposed a 12-month supervision order on Pocock, who had admitted one charge of child

Arnie Say: For goodness sake, what sort of society have we created with a parents like this.

Naming and Shaming

January 13, 2009 – 1:12 pm

On November 17th 2008 I named and shamed a solicitor because I believe that it is in the public interest to know how professional standards are being defined for divorce solicitors. This blog is only questioning the standards of solicitors in divorce.
Mr Peter Boyce, a divorce solicitor, was quite happy to falsely represented himself online for two years and he has received no sanction from the regulatory authorities whatsoever.
I am alleging that Mr Boyce also mis directed a Caffcass Officer and a divorce court and was complicit in achieving a financial settlement under false premise, I have good evidence to back up these allegation, however despite the fact that his integrity is severely questioned by his false representation, I cannot find a place where this evidence can be properly tested and Mr Boyce is dealt with as would be any other professional who acted in such a manner, if my allegations are proved to be true.

I have slightly amended the original post, as on first publication I didnt make it clear that when talking about mis direction of the court and concealment of funds, that was my opinion, not a proven fact as yet. The false representation however, is a fact and my evidence is uncontested by Goughs and explained as an oversight!!. The original post also noted

“Despite all the previous problems with his inaccurate online CV, his current webpage is displaying yet another  inaccuracy and has been doing so since August of this year. The Law Society Family Panel has been replaced by the Family Law Accreditation Scheme which is run by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. It is not clear whether Mr Boyce has applied or has been accepted for membership of the accreditation  scheme, yet he still claims membership of the  Family Panel. This is despite my alerting both the Solicitors Regulation Authority,  and Mr Peter Boyce and Mr Nick Davis the senior partner at Goughs Of Chippenham, of this inaccurate claim.”
I know it’s nit picking but he is still inaccurately describing himself.

I am not here to slander or diminish all professionals, but I believe in high professional standards and adhereance to codes of practice and in my case, I have evidence to prove that these standards have not been met, and more alarmingly, there seems to be little concern from the professionals, as he wasnt my solicitor. I am not a bad looser, I just expect a level playing feild.

PRESS COMPLAINTS COMMISION clears Times Camilla Cavendish

January 8, 2009 – 10:31 am

Quoted from the Times comment piece on cot death jailings – Press Gazette

PCC clears Times comment piece on cot death jailings

7 January 2009

By Katie Jacobs

The Press Complaints Commission has rejected a complaint by paediatrician Sir Roy Meadow about an article in The Times claiming his evidence at two trials had “led to the jailing of innocent people”.

The article, a comment piece by Camilla Cavendish entitled: “A moving response to our family justice campaign”, appeared in the paper on 17 July 2008.

Meadow is best known for his theory of “Munchausen syndrome by proxy” – where parents deliberately harm their children to gain attention and sympathy.

He was an expert witness at two trials, in 1999 and 2002, involving women suspected of murdering their children and claiming they died of cot death.

Sally Clark and Angela Cannings were both jailed, but later appealed and were found innocent and cleared of all charges.

Clark was accused of murdering her two sons. In the trial, Meadow claimed that the chances of two babies in the same family dying of cot death was one in 73 million.

It was, he added, as likely as an 80-1 horse winning the Grand National four years in a row.

This figure was described as “grossly misleading” by a judge during Clark’s second appeal hearing.

Cavendish wrote in her Times comment piece that Meadow had gone “beyond his remit” in offering statistics, because he was not a statistician.

She suggested that, as a result of his comments, he was partly responsible for the wrongful imprisonment of Clarke and Cannings.

Meadow made his complaint to the PCC under the accuracy clause, arguing that the newspaper could not justify its remarks.

The Times contended that the claims – which were a brief summary of Meadow’s role in the cases – were fair comment.

The paper said it had offered to publish a letter of defence from Meadow, but the offer was refused.

In its adjudication, the PCC concluded that Cavendish’s remarks about the case were not “inaccurate, misleading or distorted” and that the article was clearly distinguishable as an opinion piece.

The Commission said: “Her grounds for coming to this view were the judgments in the two appeals.

“Given that how [Meadow] presented statistics was undeniably a feature in the Clark appeal, [we] did not consider that there was any significant inaccuracy in characterising this as him going ‘beyond his remit’.

“Similarly, it appeared that there were grounds in the second Clark appeal for the columnist to suggest that his evidence had ‘led to’ her jailing,” it added.

Arnie’s Newsround

January 6, 2009 – 12:23 am


The Government are making incoherent mumbling noises about “cleaning up” the internet, and once again demonstrate their lack of understanding of the new media and scant regard for our freedoms of speech.
Apart from being totally unrealistic, to drive the subversive forces under ground is not a great way to maintain order and catch potential criminals.
Long term, the internet is far too profound to be managed like this and pragmatic, far reaching solutions are required not cheap sound bites to frighten the public into compliance. Looking across the Atlantic to a new leader who gained his power through the internet isn’t going to get Andy and NuLiebour anywhere any time soon, not to mention the impossible complexity of what he is proposing.

Guido stuck up two fingers at Carter Ruck (Big City Lawyers), by not only blatantly disregarding a court injunction posted here on wikileaks he also posted the story here.
>
>
divorcesurvivor posted Jack Straws apparent opening up of the family courts. I was quite surprised at the non response from the activists in both the Fathers4justice and the Mothers4justice groups. I personally would consider this statement as a major concession or even a break through. The technicalities of who the qualifying journalist and lay experts are, is key to how much the veil of secrecy is actually lifted.
Arnie’s main concern has always been the pseudo psychiatry that seems to be dominating social services thinking and the plethora of so called “expert witnesses”, as far as I am concerned the bigger the peer review, the better, as that is the basis for all good and honest science.

Interesting bits of new media discovered on my journey to the centre of the earth:

My TV satellite dish isnt ideally placed and I cant receive Al-Jazeera. With the Gaza Crisis it is important to me not to rely on just the UK and US media and in my opinion Al-Jazeera provide a balanced insight into the current situation.
Whilst struggling to watch their website livestream(awful), I discovered LIVESTATION which streams at good quality several international news media channels. The interface is first class and intutative and best of all free and non intrusive.