Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Leftists sure are a ball of fun

Orwell wrote an essay in 1943 called "Can Socialists Be Happy?" His answer was that they can't even imagine it.

A multicultural nurse in England

A Bupa care home nurse who was discovered pulling a screaming resident's hair by a shocked colleague could face being struck off.

Osironke Olugbile, 53, also barricaded residents in their rooms and dressed them in multiple incontinence pads so as not to disturb her during the night, it is alleged.

She was caught by a healthcare assistant, identified as Mr 1, pulling the resident's hair to force her into bed.

The nurse also layered incontinence pads in stacks of five and repeatedly switched off the call bell so that she could work undisturbed, the Nursing and Midwifery Council heard.

Olugbile also left pensioners fully clothed overnight so that she did not have to dress them in the morning at the Bupa-run Collingwood Court Nursing Centre in Clapham, south London,

Giving evidence Mr 1 said he was initially worried about making a complaint after Olugbile said she had a friend with supernatural powers.

'I was hesitant to report the issue to management because Ronke (Olugbile's nickname) would often comment that she has someone back home, in Africa, with supernatural powers who will do whatever she says, to the point of killing someone if necessary,' Mr 1 told the hearing.

The tribunal found nearly all the allegations against Oligbile proved and she could now face being struck off the register.

Robert Benzyne, for the NMC, told the panel that Mr 1 witnessed the abuse through the resident's room door after it had been left ajar on August 6, 2010.

'He approached room 59 where he heard screaming and shouting. The door to the room was ajar and he witnessed the registrant pulling Resident A's hair trying to get her to bed.'

He also said that Olugbile would remove the stacked up incontinence pads before the day staff arrived.

Olugbile barricaded Patient F who was described as 'restless and aggressive' in his room, it was said.

She also turned off the call bell between August 13 and August 15,  2010 and on several other occasions, preventing vulnerable patients from being able to contact the nurse's desk.

Mr Benzyne said: 'He (her colleague) recalls that the bell had been switched off. The reason that was given to him about why the bell was switched off was that it prevented the bell disturbing her during the night.

'The registrant put the resident's day clothes on intending that they would be able to get up in the morning and they would already be changed and that would save time in order to clean them and get them ready for the day shift.'

On another occasion she wrote that a patient 'enjoyed falling deliberately on to the floor and sliding from the chair' in their hospital passport.

Finding all but one allegation against Olugbile proved NMC panel chairman Clive Powell said she was guilty of 'serious abuse', 'The panel determined that some of your conduct in relation to the vulnerable residents at the Home amounted to serious abuse,' he said.

'The panel noted that you have not shown any remorse or regret. You have denied these charges from the beginning and have sought to blame others and accuse them of lying.  'You have sought to abdicate yourself from any personal responsibility for your actions,' said Mr Powell.

The nurse, who claimed she is the victim of a 'conspiracy', now faces an anxious wait as her hearing has been adjourned for the second time.

When the hearing resumes next year, the panel will determine what sanction to impose which could see the nurse struck-off the register.

Olugbile worked at the Collingwood Court Nursing Centre between March 27, 2006 and February 9, 2011 after registering as a nurse in 2005.


Why was the monstrosity above not stopped earlier?

Because the authorities were too busy fussing about the sort of politically correct nonsense we read about below -- where a lovely lady was taken off her nursing job because she offered to pray for a patient:

Nurse Petrie

A nurse was suspended after offering to pray for the recovery of an elderly patient, it emerged yesterday. Caroline Petrie, 45, was accused of failing to show a commitment to equality and diversity after the incident and is awaiting the outcome of a disciplinary hearing.

The community nurse, who lives in Weston-super-Mare and carries out home visits, has been suspended by North Somerset primary care trust and could lose her job. Petrie, a Baptist who has two children, said she had not forced her beliefs on anyone, but had simply asked if the woman would like a prayer said for her.

She said: "I'm not angry, and I understand if people don't believe in the way that I do. But I am upset because I enjoy this job and it [prayer] is a valuable part of the care I give.

"I became a Christian 10 years ago after my mother died. My faith got stronger and I realised God was doing amazing things in my life. I saw my patients suffering and as I believe in the power of prayer, I began asking them if they wanted me to pray for them. They are absolutely delighted."

She said she had seen her supplications have real effects on patients, including a Catholic woman whose urine infection cleared up days after she said a prayer.

Petrie said the incident that led to her suspension occurred after she visited a woman in Winscombe in December. She said she asked the woman: "Would you like me to pray for you?" after putting dressings on her legs. The woman replied "No, thank you", and Petrie insists she did not press the matter.


After the media got wind of it, nurse Petrie was eventually reinstated.  Which of the two ladies above would you like to have looking after you if you were frail?

Duck Flap: Truth is ‘Hate’ to Those Who Hate Truth

As widely reported, Phil Robertson, the patriarch in A&E’s breakaway hit “Duck Dynasty,” recently ran a-fowl of homosexual pressure groups, ruffling “progressive” feathers throughout concentrated pockets of deep blue America. He remains suspended “indefinitely” for candidly summarizing, in a recent interview with GQ Magazine, the millennia-long “Love the sinner, hate the sin” biblical stance on homosexual practice.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me,” he bluntly opined. “I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes!”

Dudes worldwide – save self-styled “gays,” Pajama Boy and a few liberal men actually rumored to be heterosexual – responded: “Eww! I know, right.”

“You know what I’m saying?” continued Robertson. “But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical,” he noted.

Robertson also addressed other sins, paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

“I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me,” he later added. “We are all created by the Almighty, and like Him, I love all of humanity.”

Barring a handful of “progressive” revisionists, Christian theologians have since observed that, while Robertson’s position on sexual sin is 100 percent biblically, morally and biologically correct, it is, nonetheless, precisely 0 percent politically correct.

Furthermore, Robertson seems to have been quoting directly from the rare, though accurate, “Louisiana Revised Standard Living Translation.”

Even so, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) was outraged. GLAAD spokesman Francis Twinklebean offered a scathing, though typically insightful, analysis of Robertson’s opinion: “Quack quack quack bigot,” said Twinklebean. “Quack quack vile quack intolerance quack quack homophobia quack,” he added, finally demanding: “A&E must fire Phil Robertson.”

The “gay”-activist Human Rights Campaign (HRC) was no less distressed, as evidenced by HRC mouthpiece Randy Van Grindr: “The First Amendment? That’s so 1776,” he said. “This is 2013. Speech isn’t free, you know. Intolerance will not be tolerated. Give us our pound of flesh! A&E must fire Phil Robertson.”

A&E, which had already begun censoring the cast’s Christian speech with fake bleeps to cover words like “Jesus” and “Christ,” dutifully complied. “We’re just sick of all this redneck Jesusy stuff,” A&E representative Moe Ronic told reporters. “And besides, making truckloads of money is really overrated,” he added, referencing the show’s No. 1 all-time ranking.

“In fact,” he continued, “just the other day I was sharing an Appletini with Bob, our program director, and he was pining for the good ol’ days – back when we had ratings like MSNBC’s ‘Winter Solstice Generic Holiday Special.’

“You know, more money means more work – what, with the bookkeeping and all,” he pointed out. “Most of us at A&E are actually quite excited to get back to the utter irrelevance and obscurity from whence we came.”

Meanwhile, the Fox Network and a bevy of cable channels have reportedly lined up with drool bibs to pounce on the show should relations with A&E go deeper south.

A Fox source offered comment on condition of anonymity: “Remember that time someone disagreed with Christianity and got fired?” he asked. “Me neither. A&E needs the Robertsons more than they need A&E.”

Still, questions remained as to who’s got it right on homosexuality; GLAAD, HRC and other “progressives,” or Phil Robertson and Christianity. To get answers, we went straight to the Source: God, Author of all truth, sovereign Creator of the universe and Maker of mankind.

God said to relax. The issue has been long settled.

All sexual sin – adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest and, yes, the practice of homosexuality – is “contrary to sound doctrine,” He noted unequivocally (1 Timothy 1:10). “Guys, when I said, ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,’ I meant it,” He added (Leviticus 18:22).

The Creator then offered an urgent admonition to GLAAD, HRC and others living under both sexual deception and the unrepentant homosexual lifestyle. He warned that unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences: “Because of this, [I] gave [you] over to shameful lusts. Even [you ladies] exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way [you fellas] also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. [You’ve] committed shameful acts with other men, and [have] received in [yourselves] the due penalty for [your] error” (Romans 1:26-27).

Still, being both wholly righteous and merciful beyond measure, The Heavenly Father then offered hope for homosexuals, as well as for every other sinner on the planet (that would be all of us). He was quick to point out that no one person is better than another, and that He loves us all, not because of our sins – to include the “intrinsically disordered” homosexual identity and lifestyle – but in spite of them. “None is righteous, no, not one,” He said (Romans 3:10).

We are all lost and in need of the Savior, He further urged (especially yours truly), saying, with specific reference to homosexuality, adultery and other forms of sexual immorality: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by [My Spirit]” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

As untold thousands – likely millions – of former homosexuals will attest, through the unmatched grace of Christ, there can be freedom from all forms of bondage to sin – even “LGBT” behavior.

Meanwhile, since the Duck flap hit, Jesus Himself has reportedly reached out to Phil Robertson with a Word of encouragement. He told him to keep fishing for souls and hunting for ducks. He said that Robertson shouldn’t sweat the small stuff – like the ongoing assault for speaking truth in love.

“Phil,” He said, “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but [if you] stand firm to the end, [you] will be saved” (Matthew 10:22).

“Oh, and by the way,” Jesus added: “Well done my good and faithful servant.”


Another account of how important fathers can be for their daughters

Tessa and her girls gathered round their grandfather, 2009

I would give anything to be spending the next week with my father. But this will be my first Christmas without him.  Dad died in April, and I am dreading the festive break more than I ever imagined.

So when my friends discussed with such perverse delight how they loathe the arrival of elderly relatives  at their exquisitely  decorated dining tables, it infuriated me.

But it also made me feel a deep shame. Because once, I, too, would join in this moaning. My list of complaints about having Dad over for Christmas was endless.

It would irritate me that he insisted lunch was served at 2pm - he'd be snoozing if it was any later - while I'd prefer to serve it at 4pm. I carped about having to heat rooms to the temperature of an orchid house because Dad felt the cold.

I groaned every time he would butt into a conversation because he was deaf and didn't realise anyone else was talking.

With hindsight, I can see that it was these eccentricities, his gloriously quirky, determined character, which gave me the 'perfect' Christmas. It just took me a long time to realise it.

I know without Dad I will feel lonely, even though I will be surrounded by people. My daughters Ellen, 22, and Elise, 20, will be home for Christmas. My single brothers Simon and Andy will arrive on Christmas Eve loaded with presents, wine and food.

And while my boyfriend Richard (I divorced four years ago) will be spending Christmas Day with his daughters, both in their 20s, we will be together for much of the rest of the time.

But for all the company around me, I will still feel bereft.

It was different when my mother died, aged 77, of cancer in January 1995. Although I missed Mum desperately, I didn't feel the aching loneliness I do now. Perhaps it was because she lived on through Dad, who talked about her so often she remained a vivid part of our lives.

After Mum died, I took on the role of running Christmas at my home for all the relatives who wanted to come. Until then, I had normally taken my daughters to my parents.

Dad was always there at the head of the table. He was the glue that kept our family together. He was so excited and happy to have his family around him that his pleasure permeated everything.

Dad was 98 when he died, peacefully in hospital after a bout of pneumonia, so I cannot possibly argue that I wasn't prepared. Nor can I claim to be cheated.

But perhaps his absence is more acute because, for the past two-and-a-half years of his life, ever since he fell and broke his hip, Dad lived with me.  The thought that Christmas morning will break without Dad giving me a peck on the cheek fills me with dread.

And this will be the first year there will be no box of Black Magic chocolates wrapped up under the tree for me. For 40 years, Dad was convinced they were my favourites when actually it was my sister - who died in a car accident in 1973 - who loved dark chocolate, not me. I never had the heart to tell him.

The very best part of Christmas for most people will be the hardest to endure: exchanging presents.

It's not just that there will be no gift from Dad. Like most men of his generation, he largely left it up to my mother to choose presents. After she died, Dad contented himself with handing over a generous cheque and the reliable box of Black Magic. No, it's much more than the gifts themselves. It's the ritual.

Ever since I can remember it was Dad who handed out the presents on Christmas morning, straight after Mass.

It took hours because every present would have to be individually admired, and the wrapping paper carefully removed without ripping it so it could preserved for next year. He couldn't abide waste.

Who will hand out the presents this year? Me? One of my brothers? I can't bear to think about it.

I'm trying to maintain as many traditions as I can, not just for my girls but for myself. But so many of them seem pointless without Dad.

He had a weakness for sweet things and adored puddings and cakes, particularly Christmas cake. So every year, my festive preparations would begin with making him a traditional cake. To please Dad, I even followed Mum's well-thumbed Fanny Craddock recipe from 1966.

A cup of tea and a slice of Christmas cake would be the highlight of Dad's day, right through until the last crumb disappeared some time in late February.

But I know no one else really appreciates the cake - me included. Although I've baked one this year because not doing so would just be too sad, I know that without Dad's eager enjoyment, my heart won't be in it. 

Even dressing the tree rekindled memories I knew I'll find painful. The box of baubles I've inherited from Mum is stuffed with decorations my parents bought together. And this was always a job I used to do with Dad.

Then there is our wooden crib with beautifully painted figures. My parents bought it in Germany when Dad - a teacher in the Army - was posted to Dusseldorf for a brief period in the early Sixties.

This year, I've laid it out carefully on the hall table as always, waiting until Christmas morning, as my parents did, to position baby Jesus.

This year, with Dad no longer here and champing for breakfast, I can luxuriate in bed until late. We will eat Christmas lunch at whatever time suits me best. 5pm? 6pm? It won't matter a jot.

Instead of The Sound Of Music or some other twee family film, we'll sit down to the final series of Breaking Bad, something I know Dad wouldn't have liked.

But all these self-indulgent little treats suddenly seem a very poor substitute.

Even sitting down at our dining table with elicit a painful memory. Last year, Dad was so frail he couldn't manage the stairs when lunch was served, so we decided to take it up to him instead.

There were ten of us crammed into Dad's room, balancing our dinner plates on our knees.

Did we know this was our last chance to eat a Christmas meal together? Maybe it was at the back of our minds, because to us it was perfect.

There was brandy butter in the bedsheets, gravy splashes on the carpet and, of course, there was Dad at the centre of it, wreathed in smiles.

I hope I showed him how much I loved sharing Christmas with him. But did I show him the depth of my feelings? I doubt it. The truth is I only realise now, my first Christmas without him, just how much he meant to me.

Would I swap all the perfect table decorations, fancy food and expensive presents to have one last Christmas with Dad? In a heartbeat.

So everyone, please, as exasperating as your relatives may be, as much as they might make you grit your teeth, cherish them this Christmas.



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.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: