Actually this is not a fiasco at all, but something rather more alarming. Cameron accepted £34,000 worth of free flights from Matthew Freud, son-in-law to Rupert Murdoch, this summer (strange that anyone married to an Astor would need freebies, but more worrying that a relative of Murdoch would want to give them) - one flight from Farnborough to Istanbul & thence to Santorini, followed by a link to Dalaman, also in Turkey. In Santorini, Cameron met with Murdoch.
One remembers Tony Blair cosying up to Murdoch in Australia before his election - but his declaration in the MPs Register of Interests at the time mentioned the interest of Murdoch. Cameron's did not. Why not ? We will only really believe that the party of privilege & the old school tie has changed when the con is demonstrably taken out of Conservative.
Saturday, 25 October 2008
More Confusion in Labour's Schools' Policy: putting the sex back into education !
Sex education for 5 year-olds would have been an impossible idea -
but even relationship education will be difficult. My youngest child
is 10 & I can't think that he would have been able to understand the
sort of themes that must be meant by this at that age. Learning
through drama maybe ( although primary kids get little enough chance
for this with the National Curriculum) & working with little ones to
understand the emotions they are going through when they fight or
bully or are upset is a possibility - anger management, sharing,
being supportive. But these are addressed in schools already -
through one to one relationships between teachers, children & parents
& through circle time.
Suggesting that primary teachers need a specific curriculum on this
detracts from their professionalism. Most teachers who stay with one
class day by day through an entire year would seek to address those
issues. Most parents would also probably prefer to have the facts of
life revealed to their children by themselves & when they themselves
feel the child is ready for it.
but even relationship education will be difficult. My youngest child
is 10 & I can't think that he would have been able to understand the
sort of themes that must be meant by this at that age. Learning
through drama maybe ( although primary kids get little enough chance
for this with the National Curriculum) & working with little ones to
understand the emotions they are going through when they fight or
bully or are upset is a possibility - anger management, sharing,
being supportive. But these are addressed in schools already -
through one to one relationships between teachers, children & parents
& through circle time.
Suggesting that primary teachers need a specific curriculum on this
detracts from their professionalism. Most teachers who stay with one
class day by day through an entire year would seek to address those
issues. Most parents would also probably prefer to have the facts of
life revealed to their children by themselves & when they themselves
feel the child is ready for it.
Thursday, 23 October 2008
Dorset County Council's Conservatives took advice from National Conservative Party Treasurer
TORY TREASURER ADVISED IN DORSET COUNTY COUNCIL'S ICELANDIC INVESTMENTS FIASCO
The local authorities facing the largest losses from the collapse of the Icelandic banks were all advised by the same company. Kent, Norfolk, Dorset and Hertfordshire county councils and Nottingham City Council and the borough of Barnet all paid for the services of Butlers, which is owned by the treasurer of the Tory party, Michael Spencer, who has a fortune of £1bn.
Three of the six also paid Butlers' parent company ICAP to broker some of their investment deals. One of the others failed to say who brokered its investments.
Between them, the six councils have £207m in Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki banks or their UK subsidiaries. The money is about 20 per cent of the estimated £1bn potentially lost by local authorities.
Lib Dem District Councillor &Prospective Parliamentary candidate for south Dorset, Ros Kayes, learned on Saturday of the Butlers/IACP link today said:
”What concerns me is not so much that Dorset County Council invested money in an Icelandic bank ( although any public body does have a responsibility to invest public money with some caution rather than just trying to make a quick profit), but that a Tory council was using a company owned by theConservative Party Treasurer to advise them on that investment. I can’t believe they could be so naïve – it was bound to raise questions however it came out.
I'd like to know who else put in a tender for the advisory role; and how Butlers/IACP were chosen, as well as how much they were paid for this advice. We'll need to follow the audit trail on this quite carefully. Just on a matter of ethics, I would have thought it was highly foolish, in dealing with public finance, to be receiving ostensibly impartial advice from a body run by a member of the same political party. It's just poor practice.
The local authorities facing the largest losses from the collapse of the Icelandic banks were all advised by the same company. Kent, Norfolk, Dorset and Hertfordshire county councils and Nottingham City Council and the borough of Barnet all paid for the services of Butlers, which is owned by the treasurer of the Tory party, Michael Spencer, who has a fortune of £1bn.
Three of the six also paid Butlers' parent company ICAP to broker some of their investment deals. One of the others failed to say who brokered its investments.
Between them, the six councils have £207m in Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki banks or their UK subsidiaries. The money is about 20 per cent of the estimated £1bn potentially lost by local authorities.
Lib Dem District Councillor &Prospective Parliamentary candidate for south Dorset, Ros Kayes, learned on Saturday of the Butlers/IACP link today said:
”What concerns me is not so much that Dorset County Council invested money in an Icelandic bank ( although any public body does have a responsibility to invest public money with some caution rather than just trying to make a quick profit), but that a Tory council was using a company owned by theConservative Party Treasurer to advise them on that investment. I can’t believe they could be so naïve – it was bound to raise questions however it came out.
I'd like to know who else put in a tender for the advisory role; and how Butlers/IACP were chosen, as well as how much they were paid for this advice. We'll need to follow the audit trail on this quite carefully. Just on a matter of ethics, I would have thought it was highly foolish, in dealing with public finance, to be receiving ostensibly impartial advice from a body run by a member of the same political party. It's just poor practice.
Big Brother is Watching YOU!
WHY WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT DORSET’S BIG BROTHER COUNCILS……
Thursday’s debate at West Dorset District Council offers the first & perhaps the only chance for councillors in Dorset to overturn the so called ‘snooper’s charter’, the Dorset- wide Information Sharing agreement between public services in the county that has been brought in without the agreement of elected councillors.
In the News 2 weeks ago I was quoted as saying that……’It is completely undemocratic to introduce these changes without informing elected members…and it makes a mockery of democracy when councillors have not even been allowed to discuss the measures & their impact in the council chamber.’ Now I want to explain my concerns.
When I first heard about these measures, I couldn’t believe that councillors had not been consulted or even informed. Like the two other councillors who became aware of them, (one in Chickerell, one in Wareham) we found out only by accident. The measures include information sharing between public bodies about sexual life of citizens; family, lifestyle & social circumstances; alleged criminal offences & physical or mental health , as well as financial & criminal data .
Alarmingly, there are all sorts of other organisations involved here from religious & voluntary organisations to charities, trade unions & yes, even political parties. Any of these can request exchange of information from the others & I just don’t believe they are all set up to transfer & safeguard this information securely. The whole system is open to abuse.
One of the people who first alerted me to the agreement was Debbie Bond, Bridport resident & member of data campaign group ‘NO 2 ID’. Her main concern is that like much similar national legislation it has been “ brought in by the back-door”.
“ People don’t know about it or understand what’s going on” says Debbie & she urges us to “Act now, before it’s too late.”
Another gentleman living in my ward had contacted me about a questionnaire from Magna Housing which he felt to be upsetting & invasive because it was asking the elderly residents where he lived to give details about their sexual orientation. What was the point of this information he wanted to know ? When I learned about the protocol it got me thinking about the negative effect this information-gathering could have on the privacy & safety of all of us
One of my fears is that some of the information recorded will be inaccurate. In the Criminal Records Database for example, some 2,700 people are wrongly described as having convictions. In the Police DNA Database, which has 1 million profiles, & which has at no stage been approved by Parliament, the DNA of three children who climbed a cherry tree to build a tree-house & were arrested then released on suspicion of Criminal Damage has been recorded, as has the genetic profile of a 14 year old schoolboy mistakenly identified by teachers as having been involved in a fight. In both of these cases police have refused to remove the DNA. These kinds of misdemeanours happen all the time – all of us can think of kids we know who get up to mischief. Now the council, housing associations & probably schools as well could all have access to that data.
Take health records. In Bridport we were asked last year to take part in a pilot of the NHS database – but the protocol could mean that some of your private health information might become available to say schools or social services. Now although the Councils, like the Government, argue that this is designed to protect us – what if someone wrongly used it to check out applicants for a job ? How would you feel if you found out that you hadn’t got your dream post because 10 years ago you’d had an episode of depression ? That’s the reality of a Big Brother society.
Charities, political parties & voluntary groups have also signed the agreement. Many of their staff are volunteers. What if someone unscrupulous checked out sensitive information & gave it out to the wrong person ? Earlier this year the Sun reported how a man employed as a care worker trawled a Council’s database for details of girls who had recently left foster-care – culminating in the vicious rape of an 18 year old. A woman working in a local tax office disclosed details of the whereabouts of a battered wife to her ex husband, whom she was dating at the time. Two workers at an East London police station were convicted for using its criminal database to check up on the criminal records of their boyfriends…… and their associates & family members. These were employees, but volunteers are even less easily tracked & less likely to be vetted.
So it’s impossible to monitor all the people who will have access to this information, and over 20% of employees work in the public sector – that’s a hell of a lot of people with access to sensitive data!
At the moment if you work in a school you only have access to data on your students – under this agreement you might also have access to their & their parents health records, criminal records, sexual orientation, credit record – the list goes on. Are you telling me that, human nature being what it is, that it is possible to safeguard against the misuse of this data. Bridport is a small town where everyone knows everyone else– imagine the impact it could have here !
Roger Green from the legal department at West Dorset has argued that the protocol is designed to ensure that cases like the murder of Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman never happen again. But Ian Huntley was allowed to work as a school caretaker because a police administrative officer who was doing some tidying up, threw away documents that should have been sent to his prospective employers under regulations that already existed - having this protocol would have made no difference.
Apparently the Information Commissioner has also given his approval. I find this strange because when last week a furore erupted over proposals in the Data Communications Bill, which gives town halls, the police, security services, health authorities & other public bodies powers to access the data of anyone suspected of even a minor crime by requiring all our mobile phone, email & internet records to be stored (at a cost to the taxpayer of £46.58 million pounds) the same Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, described it as “ a step too far in the British way of life.”, saying that, “…..you can never eliminate the risk that the data will fall into the wrong hands”.
Let’s put two & two together shall we ? If the Data Communications Bill becomes law & the Dorset Protocol continues, will all the public bodies in Dorset have legal access to our internet, email & phone records too ?
This is what really concerns me. An apparently tame protocol in Dorset, added to the national legislation, could give away some tremendous powers to local authorities. Powers that in the hands of an unscrupulous or incompetent administration could be dangerously misused.
There are two things that need to be addressed : inadequate regulation of the collection & transmission of data by public & private organisations as well as the principle ( being constantly chipped away by the present Government in its Control Orders & restrictions on public demonstration), that traditional British liberties, enshrined for centuries in our code of law , freedoms that have made our democracy the envy of the world, can be automatically shelved because a perceived crisis is so dangerous that, we’re told, it’s better to give up our freedom & privacy than to risk the assault on our way of life by either terrorists, organised criminals or the so called ‘broken society’.
Many of us say – “It’ll never happen here”. But sooner rather than later it will.
We are too used in our society to giving up responsibility to the powers above us; to believing that things are just so because that’s the way of the world & there’s nothing we can do about it. I happen to believe that it’s this abdication of responsibility that has led to much that is wrong with our society today.
“Those who would give up essential liberty” observed US liberal President Benjamin Franklin, “to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety.” In other words – we get what we deserve !
That’s why storing & giving away information to increase the powers of those that are meant to protect us makes me worry.
What if the criminals it is trying to protect us from gain access to it ? What if it is simply lost - & then found by someone who has no right to it but who can see the use that can be made of it? How can the bodies that collect this information be monitored to ensure that they store & transport it safely ?
Here are some statistics from the last two years:
In 2008 alone, the details of 150,000 railway workers were stolen in a laptop; 100,000 army personnel & 600,000 recruits had their unencrypted details ‘mislaid’ in a computer hard-drive. Millions of Child Benefit recipients have had bank details stolen & 4 NHS Trusts in 5 have suffered data confidentiality breaches in the last year.
HM Revenue & Customs have disciplined 600 staff over data protection issues; the DVLA was reported for selling data without consent to convicted criminals; 2 council CCTV operators were jailed for spying on a woman naked in her home.
The data revolution of the late 20th century has transformed the way we live, but it has brought with it its own dangers. The safety of information cannot easily be secured. Seeking to increase the exchange of personal information in this way before creating adequate safeguards is surely madness !Personally I object to even the voluntary giving of information when we don’t know how it will be used and I really baulk at the protocol’s statement that those who do not give their consent ‘may receive an adversely affected service’. Like journalist & campaigner Henry Porter I would like to see an Independent Public Inquiry to examine the collection, storage & use of data & a proper regulatory system for ensuring that those who collect it do not misuse it – with custodial sentences if required. I would also like to see the jettisoning of local versions of the national legislation - I want to see the Information Sharing Protocol thrown out of Dorset now.
In West Dorset will be debating it today. I can’t predict what will happen, but as this is a matter of conscience I hope it will be a free vote. Even if the vote is lost it could be debated again in the County Council. If after reading this you have decided that you do care about what is happening to your information & happening now- please phone your District & County Councillor & let him or her know – before it’s too late !
Thursday’s debate at West Dorset District Council offers the first & perhaps the only chance for councillors in Dorset to overturn the so called ‘snooper’s charter’, the Dorset- wide Information Sharing agreement between public services in the county that has been brought in without the agreement of elected councillors.
In the News 2 weeks ago I was quoted as saying that……’It is completely undemocratic to introduce these changes without informing elected members…and it makes a mockery of democracy when councillors have not even been allowed to discuss the measures & their impact in the council chamber.’ Now I want to explain my concerns.
When I first heard about these measures, I couldn’t believe that councillors had not been consulted or even informed. Like the two other councillors who became aware of them, (one in Chickerell, one in Wareham) we found out only by accident. The measures include information sharing between public bodies about sexual life of citizens; family, lifestyle & social circumstances; alleged criminal offences & physical or mental health , as well as financial & criminal data .
Alarmingly, there are all sorts of other organisations involved here from religious & voluntary organisations to charities, trade unions & yes, even political parties. Any of these can request exchange of information from the others & I just don’t believe they are all set up to transfer & safeguard this information securely. The whole system is open to abuse.
One of the people who first alerted me to the agreement was Debbie Bond, Bridport resident & member of data campaign group ‘NO 2 ID’. Her main concern is that like much similar national legislation it has been “ brought in by the back-door”.
“ People don’t know about it or understand what’s going on” says Debbie & she urges us to “Act now, before it’s too late.”
Another gentleman living in my ward had contacted me about a questionnaire from Magna Housing which he felt to be upsetting & invasive because it was asking the elderly residents where he lived to give details about their sexual orientation. What was the point of this information he wanted to know ? When I learned about the protocol it got me thinking about the negative effect this information-gathering could have on the privacy & safety of all of us
One of my fears is that some of the information recorded will be inaccurate. In the Criminal Records Database for example, some 2,700 people are wrongly described as having convictions. In the Police DNA Database, which has 1 million profiles, & which has at no stage been approved by Parliament, the DNA of three children who climbed a cherry tree to build a tree-house & were arrested then released on suspicion of Criminal Damage has been recorded, as has the genetic profile of a 14 year old schoolboy mistakenly identified by teachers as having been involved in a fight. In both of these cases police have refused to remove the DNA. These kinds of misdemeanours happen all the time – all of us can think of kids we know who get up to mischief. Now the council, housing associations & probably schools as well could all have access to that data.
Take health records. In Bridport we were asked last year to take part in a pilot of the NHS database – but the protocol could mean that some of your private health information might become available to say schools or social services. Now although the Councils, like the Government, argue that this is designed to protect us – what if someone wrongly used it to check out applicants for a job ? How would you feel if you found out that you hadn’t got your dream post because 10 years ago you’d had an episode of depression ? That’s the reality of a Big Brother society.
Charities, political parties & voluntary groups have also signed the agreement. Many of their staff are volunteers. What if someone unscrupulous checked out sensitive information & gave it out to the wrong person ? Earlier this year the Sun reported how a man employed as a care worker trawled a Council’s database for details of girls who had recently left foster-care – culminating in the vicious rape of an 18 year old. A woman working in a local tax office disclosed details of the whereabouts of a battered wife to her ex husband, whom she was dating at the time. Two workers at an East London police station were convicted for using its criminal database to check up on the criminal records of their boyfriends…… and their associates & family members. These were employees, but volunteers are even less easily tracked & less likely to be vetted.
So it’s impossible to monitor all the people who will have access to this information, and over 20% of employees work in the public sector – that’s a hell of a lot of people with access to sensitive data!
At the moment if you work in a school you only have access to data on your students – under this agreement you might also have access to their & their parents health records, criminal records, sexual orientation, credit record – the list goes on. Are you telling me that, human nature being what it is, that it is possible to safeguard against the misuse of this data. Bridport is a small town where everyone knows everyone else– imagine the impact it could have here !
Roger Green from the legal department at West Dorset has argued that the protocol is designed to ensure that cases like the murder of Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman never happen again. But Ian Huntley was allowed to work as a school caretaker because a police administrative officer who was doing some tidying up, threw away documents that should have been sent to his prospective employers under regulations that already existed - having this protocol would have made no difference.
Apparently the Information Commissioner has also given his approval. I find this strange because when last week a furore erupted over proposals in the Data Communications Bill, which gives town halls, the police, security services, health authorities & other public bodies powers to access the data of anyone suspected of even a minor crime by requiring all our mobile phone, email & internet records to be stored (at a cost to the taxpayer of £46.58 million pounds) the same Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, described it as “ a step too far in the British way of life.”, saying that, “…..you can never eliminate the risk that the data will fall into the wrong hands”.
Let’s put two & two together shall we ? If the Data Communications Bill becomes law & the Dorset Protocol continues, will all the public bodies in Dorset have legal access to our internet, email & phone records too ?
This is what really concerns me. An apparently tame protocol in Dorset, added to the national legislation, could give away some tremendous powers to local authorities. Powers that in the hands of an unscrupulous or incompetent administration could be dangerously misused.
There are two things that need to be addressed : inadequate regulation of the collection & transmission of data by public & private organisations as well as the principle ( being constantly chipped away by the present Government in its Control Orders & restrictions on public demonstration), that traditional British liberties, enshrined for centuries in our code of law , freedoms that have made our democracy the envy of the world, can be automatically shelved because a perceived crisis is so dangerous that, we’re told, it’s better to give up our freedom & privacy than to risk the assault on our way of life by either terrorists, organised criminals or the so called ‘broken society’.
Many of us say – “It’ll never happen here”. But sooner rather than later it will.
We are too used in our society to giving up responsibility to the powers above us; to believing that things are just so because that’s the way of the world & there’s nothing we can do about it. I happen to believe that it’s this abdication of responsibility that has led to much that is wrong with our society today.
“Those who would give up essential liberty” observed US liberal President Benjamin Franklin, “to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety.” In other words – we get what we deserve !
That’s why storing & giving away information to increase the powers of those that are meant to protect us makes me worry.
What if the criminals it is trying to protect us from gain access to it ? What if it is simply lost - & then found by someone who has no right to it but who can see the use that can be made of it? How can the bodies that collect this information be monitored to ensure that they store & transport it safely ?
Here are some statistics from the last two years:
In 2008 alone, the details of 150,000 railway workers were stolen in a laptop; 100,000 army personnel & 600,000 recruits had their unencrypted details ‘mislaid’ in a computer hard-drive. Millions of Child Benefit recipients have had bank details stolen & 4 NHS Trusts in 5 have suffered data confidentiality breaches in the last year.
HM Revenue & Customs have disciplined 600 staff over data protection issues; the DVLA was reported for selling data without consent to convicted criminals; 2 council CCTV operators were jailed for spying on a woman naked in her home.
The data revolution of the late 20th century has transformed the way we live, but it has brought with it its own dangers. The safety of information cannot easily be secured. Seeking to increase the exchange of personal information in this way before creating adequate safeguards is surely madness !Personally I object to even the voluntary giving of information when we don’t know how it will be used and I really baulk at the protocol’s statement that those who do not give their consent ‘may receive an adversely affected service’. Like journalist & campaigner Henry Porter I would like to see an Independent Public Inquiry to examine the collection, storage & use of data & a proper regulatory system for ensuring that those who collect it do not misuse it – with custodial sentences if required. I would also like to see the jettisoning of local versions of the national legislation - I want to see the Information Sharing Protocol thrown out of Dorset now.
In West Dorset will be debating it today. I can’t predict what will happen, but as this is a matter of conscience I hope it will be a free vote. Even if the vote is lost it could be debated again in the County Council. If after reading this you have decided that you do care about what is happening to your information & happening now- please phone your District & County Councillor & let him or her know – before it’s too late !
"Swanage rubbish must go to Wareham" - Conservative Dorset County
CAMPAIGNERS CAUSE A STIR IN SWANAGE:
MILLION MILE MARCH TO SAVE RECYCLING CENTRE !
Monday 13th October saw angry residents of Swanage proving to Dorset County Council’s Cabinet, just how difficult it really will be to get to the Household Recycling Centre in Wareham, should the existing centre in Swanage be closed down and not replaced.
The County Council claim that it would cost £ 2 million to build a new centre that meets altered health and safety requirements. But Steve Burdis, head of waste management at County Hall, indicated at a recent specially convened meeting of Swanage Town Council that there are 25.000 visits every year by Swanage residents to the current recycling centre in Panorama Road.
Multiplied by the number of households in Swanage that makes a million miles, for annual visits to the Wareham tip – a 24 mile round trip. And this despite the County’s aim in the Draft Waste Management Strategy to take sustainability into account in future policy developments.
“Expecting people in Swanage to make this journey several times a year is simply ludicrous” says Ros Kayes, newly selected Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for South Dorset, herself an experienced environmental campaigner.
“What about those people without a car ? It’s a £ 5 round trip on the bus – plus 2 ½ hours of their time. When they get to Wareham there’s a 45 minute walk to get to the centre and back – all this carrying their rubbish. It’s hideously impractical.”
“The County Council must put their money where their mouth is. If they are committed to the environmental principles behind effective waste recycling, and they say they are, then it makes no sense at all to take away an existing centre if it’s going to increase car use in this way. They need to commit to providing an upgraded centre in Swanage & commit to it quickly.”
Cllr Kayes, also Deputy Leader of the Lib Dems at West Dorset District Council said that they aim to physically demonstrate to Dorset County Council, whose waste forum meets in Dorchester on Monday, just how “impractical, awkward and environmentally unsound” closing this recycling centre would be “Just think of the carbon footprint of that million miles “ she added.
Residents, complete with bin-bags, travelled by bus to the Wareham centre, where they were interviewed by a reporter from BBC South, explaining that they felt fly-tipping would be increased by the proposed closures.
The County Council Cabinet is likely to make a decision on the issue on Wednesday November 5th.
MILLION MILE MARCH TO SAVE RECYCLING CENTRE !
Monday 13th October saw angry residents of Swanage proving to Dorset County Council’s Cabinet, just how difficult it really will be to get to the Household Recycling Centre in Wareham, should the existing centre in Swanage be closed down and not replaced.
The County Council claim that it would cost £ 2 million to build a new centre that meets altered health and safety requirements. But Steve Burdis, head of waste management at County Hall, indicated at a recent specially convened meeting of Swanage Town Council that there are 25.000 visits every year by Swanage residents to the current recycling centre in Panorama Road.
Multiplied by the number of households in Swanage that makes a million miles, for annual visits to the Wareham tip – a 24 mile round trip. And this despite the County’s aim in the Draft Waste Management Strategy to take sustainability into account in future policy developments.
“Expecting people in Swanage to make this journey several times a year is simply ludicrous” says Ros Kayes, newly selected Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for South Dorset, herself an experienced environmental campaigner.
“What about those people without a car ? It’s a £ 5 round trip on the bus – plus 2 ½ hours of their time. When they get to Wareham there’s a 45 minute walk to get to the centre and back – all this carrying their rubbish. It’s hideously impractical.”
“The County Council must put their money where their mouth is. If they are committed to the environmental principles behind effective waste recycling, and they say they are, then it makes no sense at all to take away an existing centre if it’s going to increase car use in this way. They need to commit to providing an upgraded centre in Swanage & commit to it quickly.”
Cllr Kayes, also Deputy Leader of the Lib Dems at West Dorset District Council said that they aim to physically demonstrate to Dorset County Council, whose waste forum meets in Dorchester on Monday, just how “impractical, awkward and environmentally unsound” closing this recycling centre would be “Just think of the carbon footprint of that million miles “ she added.
Residents, complete with bin-bags, travelled by bus to the Wareham centre, where they were interviewed by a reporter from BBC South, explaining that they felt fly-tipping would be increased by the proposed closures.
The County Council Cabinet is likely to make a decision on the issue on Wednesday November 5th.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Condemned to the PTSD Dustbin
As an NHS Counsellor in Yeovil for 13 years I can't count the times I've had traumatised ex-servicemen referred to me. The state must take responsibility for the damage being in a war zone does to ex servicemen & women. Sometimes the trauma doesn't emerge immediately - it gets picked up years later. Psychological care needs to be added to the service contract. It's okay to say that military personnel know what they're letting themselves in for - but no-one can predict the way the individual will react to the horrors of modern warfare. There needs to be a contract with the NHS to ensure that these people get proper access to psychological therapies in an aftercare package even after they've left the forces: the proportion of ex- servicemen in the prison population sends the message that after they've served their purpose as far as this country is concerned all they've earned is a place in the psychological dustbin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
