Friday, August 09, 2013

Yet more "diversity" in Britain

A surgeon ‘lied and lied and lied’ to a woman with a brain tumour by claiming he had removed it, a tribunal heard yesterday.  Emmanuel Labram told the woman he had successfully removed the entire growth when he had removed only a tiny sample for a biopsy.

After lying to her he convinced her not to seek further treatment for two years after the operation by insisting she was absolutely fine.  By the time the woman decided to seek private treatment for her problem, the lesion on her brain was inoperable.

Yesterday a Medical Practitioners Tribunal hearing was told Mr Labram had repeatedly lied to the patient, identified as Patient A, after carrying out the operation at the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary in September 2008.

Craig Sephton, QC, for the General Medical Council, told the hearing: ‘It is difficult to understand why Mr Labram initially told the patient and her husband that he had completely removed the lesion when he must have known that no such thing had happened.  'He then lied and lied and lied in order to cover up his initial failure.’

The misconduct hearing was told that after lying to Patient A he forged and falsified documents and also lied to medical colleagues.

Labram, 58, who qualified in Ghana in 1981, even sent letters to the patient’s GP telling him that no further treatment was necessary, it was said.

The hearing in Manchester was told that Patient A had fallen ill on holiday in November 2007, experiencing double vision, and booked an appointment with her optician.

She was then referred to the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary where an MRI scan revealed she had a tumour about one inch in diameter in her brain.

The woman, who saw Labram to discuss her options for treatment in June 2008, told the hearing: ‘My first questions were, “Is it accessible? Is it operable?” and, “Is there anything you can do about it?”

‘He said, “Oh yes. That’s the only way to find out”, so I was confident the surgery would go well and I would find out what was causing the double vision.’  She added: ‘I was under the impression that he was going to remove the tumour.’

After the neurosurgeon operated in September 2008 he told her that he had removed 100 per cent of the tumour, she said.  ‘He said, “It’s all gone”. He said it was just calcium deposits. That’s how he described it,’ she told the hearing.

Mr Sephton said: ‘Mr Labram gave Patient A’s husband a vivid description of how he had removed the tumour. In fact he had not excised the lesion at all.’

The hearing was told that Labram had removed only four tiny hard pale fragments when he knew the tumour was an inch in diameter. In his medical notes he simply recorded that ‘biopsies’ of the tumour had been taken.

Mr Sephton said there was no explanation as to why Labram had told the patient he had removed the entire tumour.  ‘The only explanation is he was being dishonest,’ he said.

‘There is no clinical justification not to tell the truth to Patient A or her GP. Mr Labram acted dishonestly in asserting what he knew was not true.’

In January 2009 the surgeon is said to have altered a pathology report and sent a forged copy to his patient in order to conceal the fact she might need further treatment.  Two months later he failed to tell Patient A that another MRI scan she had had showed the tumour was in fact unchanged.

The GMC claims he did not tell her this because he wanted to conceal the fact he had not removed the lesion in the first place.

Labram then changed his stance after a third MRI scan, telling Patient A and her GP that the lesion had returned, when he knew there had been no change.

He again changed his tune in May 2010, now telling Patient A that he had not known the tumour was present when he operated on her and giving her another doctored pathology report, the panel heard.

Patient A raised concerns about her treatment and the medical director at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary ordered an investigation.

When asked about his actions in 2011, the surgeon allegedly continued to lie to bosses, claiming ‘he did not want to cause further stress to the patient’.

‘He was given the opportunity to come clean about the lies he had told and elected to not do so,’ said Mr Sephton.

Labram, of Aberdeen, faces 11 allegations relating to his conduct.

After a failed application to be voluntarily erased from the medical register, he withdrew from  proceedings and is not present or represented at the hearing.

He is currently able to work within the UK subject to conditions that keep him closely monitored by a professional regulator.

If found guilty of misconduct he could be struck off the medical register.  The hearing continues


'Career criminal' walks free after two-month manhunt because his 'wanted' picture contaminated evidence

A criminal who was hauled to court to face robbery charges after a two-month manhunt has walked free after a judge ruled the 'wanted' picture of him issued by police had contaminated evidence.

Detectives had released a mugshot of career criminal Anthony Morrison, 32, when he was wanting for questioning over a £20,000 robbery at an Adsa supermarket.

But witnesses due to testify against him at his trial told police they recognised his face after seeing the wanted picture - despite all the robbers wearing balaclavas during the raid.

On the first day of the planned trial, prosecutors said there was 'huge potential for contamination' in the evidence against him.

Apart from the eyewitnesses, whose identification of Morrison was 'contaminated', the only other evidence was that his DNA was found on a distinctive jacket linked to the robbery.

But prosecutors said there was no evidence that Morrison was wearing the jacket at the time of the attack, and he could have worn it previously.

Simon Parry, prosecuting told Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court that he would offer no evidence against Morrison, adding: 'Suspicion isn't enough.'

Morrison, who had previously been jailed for six years for conspiracy to rob, was suspected of being one of four men armed with a sledgehammer and handgun who had attacked security guards filling ATM machines at Asda in Oldham, Greater Manchester.

One of the guards was punched twice in the face during the raid in 2011, while another heard one of the robbers shout 'Just shoot him'.

The thieves made off with a cash box containing £20,000. Suspects Jason Butterworth, 33, and Michael Ford, 34, were arrested but Morrison fled to Spain in December 2011.  The following July he called police from Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam to say he wanted to give himself up.

Arrangements were made for him to board an aircraft to Manchester because officers were legally unable to go to Holland to escort him back to Britain.

Morrison agreed to be arrested by officers when he arrived at Manchester Airport but when he touched down at Terminal One from his EasyJet flight he fled before he got to passport control.

While officers were waiting in Terminal One, he forced his way through a locked door into Terminal Three and disappeared into the crowd before escaping in a taxi.

It was then that police issued his mugshot in a wanted appeal.

They failed to track him down until nearly two months later, when he arrived at North Manchester General Hospital with a bullet wound to his chest.

Morrison staggered from the passenger seat of a BMW, which drove away as he was helped by paramedics outside the hospital on August 26 last year.  It is not known who shot him, why or where.

Speaking at court, prosecutor Mr Parry said: 'Firstly, the main priority for everybody concerned is that they had to save his life. It wasn’t until later in the year that he was arrested.

'On November 12 last year he was arrested, answering “no comment” to questions. The only evidence in the robbery case centred around a very distinctive jacket that had his DNA on the collar.

'Initially the offenders were described as having their faces covered by balaclavas and the victims said they couldn’t identify the men due to this.

'But about a month before Morrison was arrested, the victims said they had seen articles in the press and recognised him, despite the fact he wore a face covering.

'There is huge potential for contamination. Many articles said he was the man responsible for the robbery and then the victims gave a statement saying they recognised his face only after his picture had been released.

'Aside from this identification, the only evidence is his DNA on the collar of the jacket. There is no doubt the offender wore that jacket. However our expert confirms that it is not possible to tell when that was.'

Mr Parry said Morrison was an acquaintance of those convicted of the robbery and said he went to the gym with Butterworth, so it was not possible to confirm when he had worn the jacket.

That meant the only evidence was witnesses' identification of Morrison, which was 'contaminated.’

Mr Parry added: 'The prosecution aren’t confident relying on the evidence. There is an overwhelming likelihood that the identification is contaminated.

'His DNA is bound to be on the getaway car as he goes to the gym with the other offender. He said he has been in the car plenty of times and he has worn that jacket and it is likely that he has.

'But can we say he was the last person to wear it? No, we can’t. For that reason, I offer no evidence. Suspicion isn’t enough, your honour.'

Morrison's family smiled and gave the thumbs up as he was found not guilty by the judge.

Judge Jonathan Foster QC said: 'I don’t know enough about the case. It’s not for me as a judge to intervene or make any further comment.

'If there is not sufficient evidence to go before a jury, it would be wrong for that to now take place. That is my position.'

Defending Morrison, Imran Shafi said: 'It comes as no surprise that the prosecution have taken this view.'

Ford, of Middleton, was jailed for nine and a half years in August last year after pleading guilty to robbery. Butterworth, also of Middleton, was jailed for six years, eight months.


ACLU: Not renting to couple likely violates Iowa law

Why queers want to force themselves on others rather puzzles me.  It does them no credit.  It violates the 1st Amendment protection of religious practice anyway

On Tuesday, KCCI brought you the story of a couple who said a business declined to rent its venue to them for their wedding because they were a same-sex couple.

Lee and Jared toured the Gortz Haus after losing their first choice for their wedding when the Hotel Pattee suddenly closed its doors. After the tour, the couple was told the venue couldn't be rented.

Gortz Haus Gallery owner Betty Odgaard told KCCI the "decision is based on our religious beliefs. We want to honor that. We want people to know that is our stand that comes from our faith, our convictions. I think we should just stand by that no matter what."

Legal experts said the stand likely violates Iowa Code, specifically chapter 216.7.

"We have a civil rights statute that states 'There can be no discrimination against people based on their race, religion, national origin, color, creed, gender identity, sexual orientation or religion," said Randall Wilson of the ACLU of Iowa.

Wilson said that according to the code, the couple should not have been denied because the business is a public accommodation.

"They are not serving a private club, closed group of people. They actually invite the public to come in and take advantage of their services for a fee. Any place that does that is a public accommodation," said Wilson.

Chuck Hurley is an advocate who has fought against same-sex marriage in Iowa as vice president of The Iowa Family Leader.

He said believes despite what is in the code, Odgaard should be able to stand by what she said are her deep religious convictions.

"The issues here conscious protection is hallowed by our founding fathers. We've had that in this country for over 200 years. We ought to be able to respect people's sincerely held beliefs and not force them to participate in something against their conscience," said Hurley.

There are exemptions to the Iowa Code for a religious institution; however that does not cover a business being housed inside an old church.


Political cortrectness killed Hasan's victims

Finally. Four years after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, and perpetrated the bloodiest massacre ever on an American military base, the self-confessed jihadist's court martial proceedings began this week. Have you forgotten?

Americans obsessed over the O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias trials. Gun-control lobbyists turned Newtown, Aurora and Tucson into national awareness-raising, fundraising and legislation-promoting campaigns. But where are the celebrity lobbyists and high-profile advocates for the victims of bloodthirsty Muslim vigilante Nidal Hasan?

The White House, which downplayed the terrorist mass murder as "workplace violence," exacerbated national apathy for his evil acts. Our soldiers deserve better. Here are three facts you've probably forgotten — or never knew — about the Fort Hood terror spree.

—Fourteen victims fell on Nov. 5, 2009, not 13. Thirteen of our U.S. military personnel died in cold blood at the deployment center. But the death toll was actually 14. Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, was pregnant when Hasan shot her during the first round of gunfire. At a military Article 32 hearing in 2010 (analogous to a civilian grand jury hearing), a survivor of the Fort Hood shootings testified that Velez cried out, "My baby! My baby!"

In his opening statement on Tuesday, Hasan (acting as his own lawyer) apologized to his fellow jihadists for not destroying more innocent life.

—The victims were all unarmed. Soldiers inside the deployment center were and are forbidden from carrying weapons — either issued weapons or personal arms — on base. When Hasan commenced his shooting spree by shouting, "Allahu Akbar," several brave men and women in uniform used chairs, tables and their own bodies to try to stop him. But it wasn't until a courageous, armed civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberley Munley, arrived on the scene with her 9mm Beretta that Hasan's rampage was interrupted.

In a gunfight outside the deployment center, Munley wounded Hasan — who was able to return fire and shot her in the hand, thigh and knee. While she lay on the ground, Hasan kicked away her weapon. Another armed civilian police officer, Mark Todd, was able to fire at Hasan five times and brought him down.

Gun-control zealots led by the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence exploited Fort Hood to argue for even tighter gun restrictions. But it was a 1993 Clinton administration gun-control directive banning most military personnel from carrying their arms for personal protection that facilitated Hasan's massacre except under very limited circumstances. Despite the death of 13 soldiers and the wounding of more than 30 at Fort Hood by a jihadist who warned his superiors that Muslim soldiers posed a specific threat, gun-free military base policies remain in place.

—Hasan's military colleagues were more concerned with being accused of discrimination than with ridding our military of this known, deranged Islamic radical. In 2007, two years before he carried out his homicidal plan, Hasan laid out his murderous means, motives and Koranic inspiration for all to see.

His PowerPoint slide presentation to fellow Army doctors was titled: "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." Hasan warned: "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims." And: "We love death more then (sic) you love life!" As first reported by Pamela Geller, Hasan carried an official calling card with the designation "SoA (SWT)" — for "Soldier of Allah" and "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala" (Islamic for "Glory to Him, the Exalted").

Hasan told his superiors he was not alone among Muslim soldiers who believed they "should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly."

He reminded the Army of the fatal 2003 fragging attack on American soldiers in Kuwait by Sgt. Hasan Akbar (who was sentenced to death but remains alive while his case drags on in appeal) and the desertion case of Lebanon-born Muslim Marine Wassef Ali Hassoun.

A Joint Terrorism Task Force had been monitoring Hasan's communications with jihad spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki all along. But the military was not notified. Even without that information, military officers expressed concerns privately that Hasan might leak classified information to terror groups if he were deployed and that he was capable of committing a fragging.

Yet, they were prepared to deploy him anyway and did nothing to remove him from his job. One email from an Army investigator before the Fort Hood massacre fretted: "Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified."

Instead, 13 soldiers and one unborn child were slaughtered and paid with their lives for our country's reckless political correctness and bureaucratic fecklessness.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.



No comments: