NHS becomes politically stupid

I don't get it with the NHS mandarins. Obviously they are in need of brain surgery, preferably new brains if possible. Hot on the heels of the Christian nurse being refused permission to wear a crucifix on a chain, we now get the politically muddled becoming politically stupid.

Muslim doctors and nurses are to be allowed for religious reasons to opt out of strict NHS dress codes introduced to prevent the spread of deadly hospital superbugs. So it's OK if you're a Muslim with a need to follow what you think are rules but not a Christian. The department of Health has some nutters in it.

The Koran does not stipulate how a medic washes. Neither does the Bible. Muslim doctors and medical students said baring arms conflicted with the Koran’s teaching that women must dress modestly in public. In public? Are doctors scrubbing up "in public"? I hardly think a disposable sleeve shoved up the arm is going to help fight superbugs. If modesty problems are causing Muslim medics to swoon and faint let them scrub up under some kind of tent or clinical tabernacle!

It's all a load of tripe. It's this sort of nonsense that causes people to think badly about minorities. In any case, once the discreet scrubbing has been done, what part of the hand and forearm can't be exposed during an operation? It's nonsense leading madness. But then we have a lot of nonsensical people in high places producing the maddening policies imaginable.

Church, lepers and leaders

Our parish church has succumbed to the government's advice on pandemic flu. The stoups have been closed, the peace is a brave wave and a smile and we are no longer to receive communion on the tongue. Swine flu has intervened in faith, has diminished hope and is acting in a very uncharitable way.

The cynic in me suggests that this is nothing about contracting this disease rather it is the old hoary chestnut of not being sued. The churches could well do without a legal dispute over a contaminated font. Which leads me to wonder about baptism. Is this banned under the government's advice to "faith communities"?

I have serious doubts about all this. We are advised not to shake hands or touch each other during the Peace. However, in the hustle and bustle of everyday life, people are still shaking hands each day. The Prime Minister shakes hands with visiting dignitaries. Does he have a stand with hand gel and washing facilities as his advisers are impressing on the church? Now I know why the Queen wears gloves. You never know where people have been.

Helpfully the government tells the "faith communities" that this advice 'refers only to pandemic flu as defined by the World Health Organisation; it does not refer to seasonal flu or to outbreaks of other communicable diseases'. So those with regular diseases are alright to shake hands, except that they can't because of swine flu.

The whole aspect of faith communicated in the Mass has been hijacked by a secular world obsessed with controls and regulations. Sneezing from seasonal flu in public is OK, if a tad anti-social, but swine flu sneezers watch out. I've never ever considered receiving communion as anything other than a sacramental thing. Now I get flashes of pictures of germs and disease floating about my brain. Again, the cynic in me suggests this might be a crafty way to put me off believing.

When the leper came forth to ask to be made clean my Jesus it was because he had faith. One suspects that if he had had swine flu the pharisees would be out like a shot clearing the streets.

I agree very much with hand-washing but I have a severe aversion to hand-wringing. If everyone had a decent approach to personal hygiene, we'd all be a lot better off. However, over zealous dictats and contradictory instructions will get us nowhere. I suspect it isn't the swine flu virus that the government is afraid of, more the feckless nature of some people. I bet there are still those who think they are indispensible and go to work with fevered brows and sweaty palms. Common sense will defeat the virus, selfish activity and contradictions will not.

Bishop stoops to conquer swine flu!

One wonders if this swine flu epidemic is not so much about the virus itself more about ourselves. Ever since the Mexicans decided that several of their badly kept pigs were somewhat off colour we have been given as many mixed messages about the wretched disease as there are germs making the stuff up.

It has been a godsend to the Murdoch press. They can conveniently forget "underlying health problems" and trumpet the ghastly deaths in as much gory detail as their fevered imaginations can allow. And if Sun readers do not know what swine are, emblazon the rag with "PIG FLU!" - that leaves no misunderstanding.

Of course, if it hadn't been pigs it could have been some other animal. "Cyril's got mouse flu!" doesn't quite hit the same panic buttons. We are told that this flu is marginally worse than so-called ordinary flu, which also kills people. We love a good panic it seems.

Weighing into this ten cents debate comes the Bishop of Chelmsford. He has suddenly developed an aversion to stoups in churches. He thinks the holy water may infect the faithful. The Daily Telegraph has some wonderful quotes from the bishop and his demuring chaplain. Now let's put it into context. Reading the report you would think that this is a grave problem for his diocese and those beyond. The truth is that few Anglican churches have stoups or use holy water in a sacramental way, apart from baptisms themselves.

The bishop opines, with some severity, "The water contained in stoups can easily become a source of infection and a means of rapidly spreading the virus. This practice should be suspended." I doubt that it will. Bishop Gladwin is what is called an open evangelical. Such Christians of this tradition rarely use stoups or believe in such things. No, he is suggesting that Catholic Anglicans should think again. I doubt if my priest will be running to church this morning, toolkit in hand, to remove our stoups. Perish the thought.

The bishop also discouraged pastoral visits and said if a visit was necessary priests should wear sterile gloves, an apron and a face mask. "Is that you, father? Or matron? Or doctor?" Can you imagine a priest on a pastoral visit looking like nuclear weapons inspector?

No, the bishop needs to get a grip of himself. He should be far more concerned by the introduction of bogus doctrines and secular fantasies into the church. Oh, and he needs to be on the look-out for presbyterian prime ministers bearing gifts. One of which may be a poisoned chalice as far as the consitution is concerned!

Swine flu parties are a pig of an idea!

I've been busy lately redecorating the kitchen. Unlike those on generous allowances or big bonus packages, I have currently a financial juggling exercise. I decided it was time to make the place look better but was not keen on paying large sums in labour costs so went down to B&Q and got the paint and got stuck in. Of course, whilst up a ladder my blogging activities are somewhat restricted. But as I gazed at the paint wondering if it would be as it said it was on the tin my mind drifted into blog thoughts. Plenty of them. In fact my mind has far more than I ever put down here.

Now that I am paint free and typing away, I find that the first thoughts are on swine flu. I had a crazy idea. Do Muslims and Jews get swine flu? Of course they do, but it was one of those daft thoughts. I'm not alone in daft thoughts it seems. Some people are throwing "swine flu parties" in an attempt to get immunity against the virus. Whatever next. "Please come to my swine flu party. Infection guaranteed. Bring your own germs!" Doctors say it's not a good idea.

The very thought of intentionally getting this form of flu is itself a form of illness. Mental illness. We already have headlines about people dying. Of course, if you read the rest it always says they had "underlying health problems". Which is exactly what happens with so-called normal flu. People do die but they tend to be the weak, infirm and already ill.

What goes on at a swine flu party? Are they legal? "Excuse me sir, we have reason to believe you are holding an illicit swine flu party contrary to Health Provision 46 of the Penal Code". What if you don't get the flu? Or worse, what if someone got something very much worse? "Dear Griselda. I came to your swine flu party in the hope of catching this disease well before winter. I didn't catch it at all! But I got a form of malaria unknown in the UK. What have you done to me!!"

The mind boggles that such people are in the country. It must be a hoax. Isn't it?

Pigs can be a swine for 'elf and safety!

If you have ever fed a shed load of pigs, like I have, you will know they can create quite a rumpus at feeding time. Pigs have something in common with health and safety experts. Both are highly strung, prone to sudden bouts of squealing, and when determined to go somewhere nothing much deters them.

The latest example of health and safety overkill is in the booklet "Farmwise - An Essential Guide to Health and Safety in Farming". It is bound to be a good read. Because there is a large amount of squealing at feeding time, this handy hint book suggests that mechanical hoppers are used and that farmers keep out at feeding time. They suggest farmers wear earmuffs to protect their eardrums from the noise. I never had a problem with pigs and their noises. What I did at breakfast time was to sneak in whilst the snoring was going on, gently place the grub in the troughs and then announce to the somnolent sows that "Breakfast is served!". They were never amused. It was very cruel cheating these pigs of adequate squealing time.

Yes, it's a racket. But it hardly goes on for long. I never worked in a shed full of 400, but then I'd suggest the Health and Safety Executive passed their concerns over to the RSPCA rather that looking like prize plonkers and colluding with farmers who are involved with factory farming.

This safety warning can hardly apply to pigs feeding in the open on a free range basis. Pigs only squeal when they are distressed or over-excited. A happy, stress-free pig grunts. There's nothing in that booklet about grunting.

Health, safety and stupidity

I'm all in favour of good health. I think safety is something we should all be aware of, but I am dismayed by the increasing level of stupidity that is infecting the powers-that-be in the world.

Good health must surely be a value that everyone strives for. Seeing little children starve in Sri Lanka because the Sinhalese majority has taken against the Tamil minority (racism exists all over the world!) is distressing indeed. There is no reason for malnutrition in the 21st century. Safety is something we should always be championing. It is totally wrong for a construction company, for example, to take short cuts with builders safety. It is wrong for drivers to take a cavalier attitude towards pedestrians. However, trying to judge whether the moon might land on a school full of children represents mind-boggling stupidity.

Captain Mainwaring was keen to judge Private Pike as a "stupid boy". But we have stupid people these days in positions of authority. They stupidly perceive of every possible scenario that danger can present. Stupidly they think we cannot walk in snow, stupidly they think we might fall off stepladders. Tree climbing, jumping, walking fast, all these things are looked at with a suspicious eye. Not because they care much for the person who may fall off a stepladder, but because they fear litigation by greedy people.

That's the nub of health and safety. Precious little to do with health or safety, rather it is fear fighting greed. Lawyers seeking to encourage banana skin dropping so they can pursuade a gullible "trippee" to sue whoever. The prize for monumental stupidity goes to the brain-dead occupants of the Health and Safety Office of the Bodleian Library. These morons deem the stepladders, used to obtain books from high shelves, present a risk to health and safety. Laurence Benson, the library's director of administration and finance, said, "The balcony has a low rail and we have been instructed by the health and safety office that this increases the risk. As part of the process the restriction on the use of ladders on the balcony have been introduced. The library would prefer to keep the books in their original historic location - where they have been safely consulted for 400 years prior to the instructions from the Health and Safety office." There we have it. Used safely for 400 years. Not one undergraduate has fallen off the ladders. So where it was perfectly acceptable in 1609 to go up the ladders, and ever since, in 2009 it isn't.

Now we find another fear-driven bit of nonsense. Schools favour replacing knotted school ties with clip-on ones. Some schools have raised concerns about ties catching fire in science lessons, getting trapped in technology equipment or ties getting caught when pupils were running. They even think pupils might want to strangle one another. All this nonsense is driven by fear. I had a perfectly good school tie I remember. I did science lessons and if the tie got in the way I used to place it over my shoulder or tuck it into my shirt. The good thing in the Sixties was we didn't have such stupidity surrounding us. Now children are growing up with teachers fearful of the slightest trip or fall. It used to be called mollycoddling.

I suggested to one teacher when we had the snow that the school wouldn't be producing any Arctic explorers. My remark was met with a look as if to say "it's the system, not me!". Now where did we hear that last?

Thought police to raid domestic fridges!

Richard Littlejohn has a fantastic article in the Daily Mail. Read it and weep! It's all about the New Labour Thought Police acting through local councils by paying inspectors £8.50 an hour, with double time on Saturdays, to visit our homes and offer ‘advice’ on what we eat and what we throw away.

I like this quote from a spokesman for the health department, who said, "By hitting people at home, rather than in supermarkets, we can get inside their lives. It’s only by knocking on doors you can find out what they are having for their tea and offer some healthy suggestions."

Do you really want these politically correct door thumpers "getting inside your life"?

Teething problems? I'm whiter than white!

Having a grin that shows off your pearly white gnashers is the thing that most Americans assume is the ultimate in dental sophistication. Although I'm not sure there's much "sophos" about it, though.

The BBC has got a nice little piece about the comparison between British teeth and American ones. These whitened teeth, sometimes looking like a clinical makeover, are highly prized by the movers and shakers of the entertainment industry. But others are excited by it all too. One dental makeover said, "The first thing I notice on people is their smile. I wanted a confidence boost - I was putting my hand over my mouth before, now I can smile. And the compliments have come flooding in. People haven't noticed my teeth, but say I look well." Pity about not noticing the teeth, but is it all really necessary.

Good dental health is not about fake teeth, but fine teeth. No human tooth comes whiter than white. Simon Cowell has been promoted as a perfect specimen of white teeth, but they just give me the impression he's become like a Madame Tussaud's character.

It amuses me about some Americans' desire for the perfect body. Does it matter? In a country that professes to hold Christian truths dear, what does such vanity tell us about those with white grinders behind the grins?

Ben Bradshaw claims doctor has only two patients!

That illustrious minister Ben Bradshaw, a man with a penchant for rubbing people up the wrong way, has decided to take on the general practitioners with a combination of innuendo and bribery. He has attacked them for operating "gentlemen's agreements" whereby they promise not to accept other doctors' patients. Where these are he cannot say. He insinuates that there is a doctor with only two patients in his/her practice, "surviving" on the existing arrangements. He said government research had found this one practice in Southern England, but he has refused to say exactly where that is. Neither will he say how widespread the issues are.

So he smears the doctors by saying they are being deliberately obstructive and working against "real patient choice". Personally, I swapped doctors within Solihull due to location reasons (a new practice was set-up nearer to me) and I had no trouble. It's not the doctors who are the problem, it's Mr.Bradshaw and his inability to stop meddling. In that, he is very New Labour!

I am very interested in a group called Doctors for Reform. The way the likes of Bradshaw will have it is that no criticism of the NHS can possibly be heard. Everything is saintly sound and he is one of the guardian angels. Tory types like me can go hang. Doctors for Reform want proper reform. They say "We all work in the NHS. We are committed to its values. But we believe the time has come to consider a new way to deliver healthcare in Britain." I echo that, and I hope many more will do the same.

The time has come where it is not possible to keep this slush fund of Nye Bevan's going. Currently 8% of our nation's wealth is spent on the NHS. In 2020 it will have to be 20% if we are to keep up with the high cost of procedures, the increasing number of elderly, and so on. Whatever Bradshaw and his ilk in this New Labour outfit think, 20% is unrealistic. Instead of antagonising the medical profession, he had better think again. Reform his brain before he tries any more reforms on the NHS.