Monday, September 28, 2015
Hospital told Royal Airforce sergeant to leave waiting room in case his uniform upset other patients
An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
Aircraft engineer Mark Prendeville’s treatment was condemned as ‘horrifying’ by military figures and Air Force veterans – but follows a string of incidents in recent years where service personnel were snubbed because of their uniform.
Sergeant Prendeville, 38, was taken to the A&E department at Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital in Margate, Kent, after chemicals from a fire extinguisher got in to his eyes during a training exercise.
He was then taken to an empty corner of the waiting room before being moved behind a corner by hospital staff, The Sun reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice. The words they used were: “We’ve lots of cultures coming in”. ‘Mark was quite annoyed, but he’s a quiet lad and didn’t want to cause a fuss.’
Mr Prendeville added: ‘He didn’t care about the burns, he felt worse about how he was treated. I was absolutely disgusted when I heard. I don’t know what is so offensive about a uniform.’
Veterans and military figures condemned Sergeant Prendeville’s treatment. Former Chief of the Air Staff Sir Michael Graydon described the incident as ‘disappointing’.
He said: ‘I would have thought, regardless of whether he had his uniform on or not, it was more important to deal with the situation, which was the chap had something very unpleasant happen to him, and he should be dealt with immediately. Moving him to other rooms in the danger of offending people strikes me of getting the priorities absolutely wrong.’
Former RAF navigator Flight Lieutenant John Nichol said he was appalled. ‘This is horrifying,’ he said. ‘You should not be treated differently for wearing a uniform – you should be lauded because you’re wearing uniform.’
A spokesman for East Kent University Hospitals NHS Trust apologised to Sergeant Prendeville for ‘any embarrassment’.
Animal rights nuts
Hundreds of animal rights activists covered themselves in fake blood and sprawled across a public square in Paris to protest against 'animal suffering and meat consumption' today.
The demonstration was organised by the 269 Life campaign group as part of the World Day for the Abolition of Meat, which has taken place every year since 2009.
It staged an 'open-air slaughterhouse' at the Place du Palais Royal.
Disturbing images showed one participant - covered in red paint - suspended from his legs as two pretend-butchers stand next to him.
The 269 Life group who staged the demonstration refer to the slaughter of animals as a 'holocaust' and claim 'veganism is is an essential step that any responsible and sensible person must take'.
A statement on their website reads: 'We aim to bring the pain and horror other animals face each and every day out of the suppressed darkness and into the realm of everyday life.
'Most people are well aware of what is being done to other animals, and yet remain apathetic in the face of the atrocities committed in their name, even after witnessing the utmost graphic evidence.'
In Britain, the Labour party's new shadow environment secretary Kerry McCarthy has said meat eaters should be stigmatised in the same way as smokers.
Ms McCarthy, who has admitted she is a 'militant' vegan, has worried countryside campaigners who warned that her veganism and strong opposition to hunting and the badger cull would harm Britain's farming industry.
The World Weeks for the Abolition of Meat (WWAMs) -held every year at the end of the months of January, May and September - are used to promote the idea of 'abolishing the production and consumption of the flesh of sentient beings'.The group's website wants the production and consumption of 'animal flesh' to be made illegal on 'ethical grounds'.
Abdicating parental responsibility
It emerged this week that Facebook reached an out-of-court settlement with a father from Northern Ireland after he sued it for failing to enforce its age-restriction policy. Apparently his daughter, aged 11 at the time the events took place, was exposed to messages and posts from men of an ‘entirely inappropriate sexual nature’. Facebook requires users to be over 13 years old to sign up for an account, but it has no way of confirming ages aside from the dates of birth users input themselves.
The girl had set up several accounts on which she posted suggestive photos of herself, and each time Facebook became aware that she was under 13 the accounts were closed down. But her father’s lawyers argued that Facebook should have done more to prevent her setting up new accounts after previous ones were deleted. The solicitor was quoted in the Daily Mail saying, ‘My own personal view is that Facebook isn’t suitable for under-18s, but the company isn’t even able to uphold its own policy of keeping under-13s out. An age check, like asking for a passport number, would be a simple measure for Facebook to implement.’
Could I propose a radical alternative? Why don’t parents actually go to the trouble of looking after their kids properly? The girl in question was only 11 years old. Never mind unsupervised internet access, when I was 11 I was barely allowed a say in what haircut I had. Admittedly, Facebook wasn’t around when I was a kid, but had it existed the onus would have been on my parents, not Facebook, to stop me using it.
If parents left a pack of fags and a lighter lying around the house where their 11-year-old child could reach them, and they then found their little bundle of joy merrily puffing away, no one would think that Marlboro should be held responsible. The case of an 11-year-old using Facebook is no different, and yet Facebook is being held responsible for a parental mistake.
The internet has done wonders for society, but it has also created new problems for us all, especially children. But these are problems that parents themselves have to take responsibility for tackling. In this case, the family even tried to sue the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on the grounds that it should have brought in legislation to enforce age limits. That really is a staggering abdication of parental responsibility.
Lawyers argued that Facebook had a duty of care to the girl but was ‘negligent in that it failed to have a proper system in place for registration of a Facebook account so that it was impossible, or at the very least difficult, for a child to register by misrepresenting her age’. In my view, Facebook fulfilled its duty of care when it deactivated the accounts after realising she was underage. The only people who failed in their duty of care were her parents. Corporations and governments do not and should not raise our children. Rather than trying to ramp up Facebook’s vetting procedures, parents should start taking responsibility for their kids.
Has Europe Been Cursed?
By Zalmi Unsdorfer, A Religious Zionist
The hordes of migrants overrunning European borders have reached epic, almost biblical proportions and show no sign of stopping. It is as if one continent is being decanted into another; a Third World poured into the First World.
Ironically most of these migrants have made their first landfall on the islands of Greece which so recently caused Europe’s greatest financial crisis and whose bailout has turned the Euro into confetti money.
I am thinking: why this and why now?
As a religious person I see divine intervention in all things and have learned that the G-d of Israel seeks His vengeance Middah K’Neged Middah. This principle was used to drown Pharaoh Ramses and his charioteers as the lex talionis for ordering the drowning of every newborn Jewish boy. There are many other examples throughout scripture and our very laws are built on proportional punishment, right down to the eye-for-an-eye.
Another divine principle is ואברכה מברכיך ומקללך אאר – that G-d will bless those who bless our people and will curse those who curse us.
The EU has been at the forefront of anti-Israel activism, supporting declarations of unilateral Palestinian statehood on sovereign Jewish land. Europe’s academia and trades unions are unashamed patrons of the world BDS movement. Their aims are twofold. To delegitimize Israel as a sovereign Jewish state and to destroy her economy with sanctions and discriminatory labelling of her exports.
How does the God of the Exodus judge a nation that denies the legitimacy of His people’s borders? Answer: He makes a mockery of their own borders.
How does the God of the Exodus judge a nation that seeks to destroy the economy of His people’s state? Answer: He makes a mockery of their own money.
That’s my answer to “why this and why now?” Middah K’Neged Middah.
Last year, at the height of his polling lead to win the UK general election, Jewish opposition leader Ed Milliband demanded that his Labour Party MPs must support a parliamentary vote to recognize 'Palestine' as an independent state. Against all predictions he lost the subsequent general election in a major upset. If that wasn’t enough, he has now been replaced by a Marxist oddball who is tipped to keep Labour out of power for a generation.
Is it a coincidence that the Labour party which was so anxious to recognise the PLO as a state now has a leader who doesn't accept the legitimacy of the English queen?
If, on the eve of that Palestine debate with Milliband on sure course to win the election, you would have presented this scenario as a crystal ball to Labour Party members they’d have laughed at you.
But He who laughs last is usually looking after the Jewish people.
As I write these lines, EU states are scrambling all over themselves for the most sought-after commodity ... razor wire fencing. How rich that these are the same people who excoriated the Jews for building a security fence which stopped 95 percent of terror attacks on our people.
May He laugh the longest.
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.