sea drones

The simple plan I have in mind is to raise awareness of the economic, cultural and ecological opportunity that government run sea drones can offer. I envisage governments having control of coastal drones to which clients can lease time via the internet.

Government control of the drones provides for safe usage and local economic benefit whilst also reducing the number of divers and hence protecting the local ecology and culture.

To realize this dream the project would require globally trusted champions immune to multinational pressure as well as diplomacy (a role I believe Sir John Bourn could adopt) and oceanography (a role that Sir David Attenborough might adopt).

A programme of sea drones would provide the champions I propose both the satisfaction of furthering causes I know they share my enthusiasm for whilst also providing an enduring legacy to the world.

I am merely attempting to act as an anonymous catalyst for the sea drone vision.

Nigel Salt

belief

Wisdom cannot exist in space and time since what may seem wise now may have unforeseen results
We cannot have knowledge. Creatures in space and time can  have. belief  and since we cannot use logic to resolve belief we must not try to coerce other's beliefs.
We must learn to believe that exploitation, usury, mutilation and sadism arise when people are predisposed t break the golden rule which is to do  no intentional harm, to nurture and protect the world





nxgxl

digital rights

International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance

Final version 10 July 2013

As technologies that facilitate State surveillance of communications advance, States are failing to ensure that laws and regulations related to communications surveillance adhere to international human rights and adequately protect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. This document attempts to explain how international human rights law applies in the current digital environment, particularly in light of the increase in and changes to communications surveillance technologies and techniques. These principles can provide civil society groups, industry, States and others with a framework to evaluate whether current or proposed surveillance laws and practices are consistent with human rights.These principles are the outcome of a global consultation with civil society groups, industry and international experts in communications surveillance law, policy and technology.

Preamble

Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human rights law.[1] Activities that restrict the right to privacy, including communications surveillance, can only be justified when they are prescribed by law, they are necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and are proportionate to the aim pursued.[2]Before public adoption of the Internet, well-established legal principles and logistical burdens inherent in monitoring communications created limits to State communications surveillance. In recent decades, those logistical barriers to surveillance have decreased and the application of legal principles in new technological contexts has become unclear. The explosion of digital communications content and information about communications, or "communications metadata" -- information about an individual’s communications or use of electronic devices -- the falling cost of storing and mining large sets of data, and the provision of personal content through third party service providers make State surveillance possible at an unprecedented scale.[3] Meanwhile, conceptualisations of existing human rights law have not kept up with the modern and changing communications surveillance capabilities of the State, the ability of the State to combine and organize information gained from different surveillance techniques, or the increased sensitivity of the information available to be accessed.The frequency with which States are seeking access to both communications content and communications metadata is rising dramatically, without adequate scrutiny.[4] When accessed and analysed, communications metadata may create a profile of an individual's life, including medical conditions, political and religious viewpoints, associations, interactions and interests, disclosing as much detail as, or even greater detail than would be discernible from the content of communications.[5] Despite the vast potential for intrusion into an individual’s life and the chilling effect on political and other associations, legislative and policy instruments often afford communications metadata a lower level of protection and do not place sufficient restrictions on how they can be subsequently used by agencies, including how they are data-mined, shared, and retained.In order for States to actually meet their international human rights obligations in relation to communications surveillance, they must comply with the principles set out below. These principles apply to surveillance conducted within a State or extraterritorially. The principles also apply regardless of the purpose for the surveillance -- law enforcement, national security or any other regulatory purpose. They also apply both to the State’s obligation to respect and fulfil individuals’ rights, and also to the obligation to protect individuals’ rights from abuse by non-State actors, including corporate entities.[6] The private sector bears equal responsibility for respecting human rights, particularly given the key role it plays in designing, developing and disseminating technologies; enabling and providing communications; and - where required - cooperating with State surveillance activities. Nevertheless, the scope of the present Principles is limited to the obligations of the State.

Changing technology and definitions

"Communications surveillance" in the modern environment encompasses the monitoring, interception, collection, analysis, use, preservation and retention of, interference with, or access to information that includes, reflects, arises from or is about a person’s communications in the past, present or future. "Communications" include activities, interactions and transactions transmitted through electronic mediums, such as content of communications, the identity of the parties to the communications, location-tracking information including IP addresses, the time and duration of communications, and identifiers of communication equipment used in communications.Traditionally, the invasiveness of communications surveillance has been evaluated on the basis of artificial and formalistic categories. Existing legal frameworks distinguish between "content" or "non-content," "subscriber information" or "metadata," stored data or in transit data, data held in the home or in the possession of a third party service provider.[7] However, these distinctions are no longer appropriate for measuring the degree of the intrusion that communications surveillance makes into individuals’ private lives and associations. While it has long been agreed that communications content deserves significant protection in law because of its capability to reveal sensitive information, it is now clear that other information arising from communications – metadata and other forms of non-content data – may reveal even more about an individual than the content itself, and thus deserves equivalent protection. Today, each of these types of information might, taken alone or analysed collectively, reveal a person’s identity, behaviour, associations, physical or medical conditions, race, color, sexual orientation, national origins, or viewpoints; or enable the mapping of the person’s location, movements or interactions over time,[8] or of all people in a given location, including around a public demonstration or other political event. As a result, all information that includes, reflects, arises from or is about a person’s communications and that is not readily available and easily accessible to the general public, should be considered to be "protected information", and should accordingly be given the highest protection in law.In evaluating the invasiveness of State communications surveillance, it is necessary to consider both the potential of the surveillance to reveal protected information, as well as the purpose for which the information is sought by the State. Communications surveillance that will likely lead to the revelation of protected information that may place a person at risk of investigation, discrimination or violation of human rights will constitute a serious infringement on an individual’s right to privacy, and will also undermine the enjoyment of other fundamental rights, including the right to free expression, association, and political participation. This is because these rights require people to be able to communicate free from the chilling effect of government surveillance. A determination of both the character and potential uses of the information sought will thus be necessary in each specific case.When adopting a new communications surveillance technique or expanding the scope of an existing technique, the State should ascertain whether the information likely to be procured falls within the ambit of "protected information" before seeking it, and should submit to the scrutiny of the judiciary or other democratic oversight mechanism. In considering whether information obtained through communications surveillance rises to the level of "protected information", the form as well as the scope and duration of the surveillance are relevant factors. Because pervasive or systematic monitoring has the capacity to reveal private information far in excess of its constituent parts, it can elevate surveillance of non-protected information to a level of invasiveness that demands strong protection.[9]The determination of whether the State may conduct communications surveillance that interferes with protected information must be consistent with the following principles.

The Principles

Legality: Any limitation to the right to privacy must be prescribed by law. The State must not adopt or implement a measure that interferes with the right to privacy in the absence of an existing publicly available legislative act, which meets a standard of clarity and precision that is sufficient to ensure that individuals have advance notice of and can foresee its application. Given the rate of technological changes, laws that limit the right to privacy should be subject to periodic review by means of a participatory legislative or regulatory process.

Legitimate Aim: Laws should only permit communications surveillance by specified State authorities to achieve a legitimate aim that corresponds to a predominantly important legal interest that is necessary in a democratic society. Any measure must not be applied in a manner which discriminates on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Necessity: Laws permitting communications surveillance by the State must limit surveillance to that which is strictly and demonstrably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Communications surveillance must only be conducted when it is the only means of achieving a legitimate aim, or, when there are multiple means, it is the means least likely to infringe upon human rights. The onus of establishing this justification, in judicial as well as in legislative processes, is on the State.

Adequacy: Any instance of communications surveillance authorised by law must be appropriate to fulfil the specific legitimate aim identified.

Proportionality: Communications surveillance should be regarded as a highly intrusive act that interferes with the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression, threatening the foundations of a democratic society. Decisions about communications surveillance must be made by weighing the benefit sought to be achieved against the harm that would be caused to the individual’s rights and to other competing interests, and should involve a consideration of the sensitivity of the information and the severity of the infringement on the right to privacy.Specifically, this requires that, if a State seeks access to or use of protected information obtained through communications surveillance in the context of a criminal investigation, it must establish to the competent, independent, and impartial judicial authority that:

1. there is a high degree of probability that a serious crime has been or will be committed;
2. evidence of such a crime would be obtained by accessing the protected information sought;
3. other available less invasive investigative techniques have been exhausted;
4. information accessed will be confined to that reasonably relevant to the crime alleged and any excess information collected will be promptly destroyed or returned; and
5. information is accessed only by the specified authority and used for the purpose for which authorisation was given.

If the State seeks access to protected information through communication surveillance for a purpose that will not place a person at risk of criminal prosecution, investigation, discrimination or infringement of human rights, the State must establish to an independent, impartial, and competent authority:

1. other available less invasive investigative techniques have been considered;
2. information accessed will be confined to what is reasonably relevant and any excess information collected will be promptly destroyed or returned to the impacted individual; and
3. information is accessed only by the specified authority and used for the purpose for which was authorisation was given.

Competent Judicial Authority: Determinations related to communications surveillance must be made by a competent judicial authority that is impartial and independent. The authority must be:

1. separate from the authorities conducting communications surveillance;
2. conversant in issues related to and competent to make judicial decisions about the legality of communications surveillance, the technologies used and human rights; and
3. have adequate resources in exercising the functions assigned to them.

Due process: Due process requires that States respect and guarantee individuals’ human rights by ensuring that lawful procedures that govern any interference with human rights are properly enumerated in law, consistently practiced, and available to the general public. Specifically, in the determination on his or her human rights, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent, competent and impartial tribunal established by law,[10] except in cases of emergency when there is imminent risk of danger to human life. In such instances, retroactive authorisation must be sought within a reasonably practicable time period. Mere risk of flight or destruction of evidence shall never be considered as sufficient to justify retroactive authorisation.

User notification: Individuals should be notified of a decision authorising communications surveillance with enough time and information to enable them to appeal the decision, and should have access to the materials presented in support of the application for authorisation. Delay in notification is only justified in the following circumstances:

1. Notification would seriously jeopardize the purpose for which the surveillance is authorised, or there is an imminent risk of danger to human life; or
2. Authorisation to delay notification is granted by the competent judicial authority at the time that authorisation for surveillance is granted; and
3. The individual affected is notified as soon as the risk is lifted or within a reasonably practicable time period, whichever is sooner, and in any event by the time the communications surveillance has been completed. The obligation to give notice rests with the State, but in the event the State fails to give notice, communications service providers shall be free to notify individuals of the communications surveillance, voluntarily or upon request.

Transparency: States should be transparent about the use and scope of communications surveillance techniques and powers. They should publish, at a minimum, aggregate information on the number of requests approved and rejected, a disaggregation of the requests by service provider and by investigation type and purpose. States should provide individuals with sufficient information to enable them to fully comprehend the scope, nature and application of the laws permitting communications surveillance. States should enable service providers to publish the procedures they apply when dealing with State communications surveillance, adhere to those procedures, and publish records of State communications surveillance.

Public oversight: States should establish independent oversight mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability of communications surveillance.[11] Oversight mechanisms should have the authority to access all potentially relevant information about State actions, including, where appropriate, access to secret or classified information; to assess whether the State is making legitimate use of its lawful capabilities; to evaluate whether the State has been transparently and accurately publishing information about the use and scope of communications surveillance techniques and powers; and to publish periodic reports and other information relevant to communications surveillance. Independent oversight mechanisms should be established in addition to any oversight already provided through another branch of government.

Integrity of communications and systems: In order to ensure the integrity, security and privacy of communications systems, and in recognition of the fact that compromising security for State purposes almost always compromises security more generally, States should not compel service providers or hardware or software vendors to build surveillance or monitoring capability into their systems, or to collect or retain particular information purely for State surveillance purposes. A priori data retention or collection should never be required of service providers. Individuals have the right to express themselves anonymously; States should therefore refrain from compelling the identification of users as a precondition for service provision.[12]

Safeguards for international cooperation: In response to changes in the flows of information, and in communications technologies and services, States may need to seek assistance from a foreign service provider. Accordingly, the mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) and other agreements entered into by States should ensure that, where the laws of more than one state could apply to communications surveillance, the available standard with the higher level of protection for individuals is applied. Where States seek assistance for law enforcement purposes, the principle of dual criminality should be applied. States may not use mutual legal assistance processes and foreign requests for protected information to circumvent domestic legal restrictions on communications surveillance. Mutual legal assistance processes and other agreements should be clearly documented, publicly available, and subject to guarantees of procedural fairness.

Safeguards against illegitimate access: States should enact legislation criminalising illegal communications surveillance by public or private actors. The law should provide sufficient and significant civil and criminal penalties, protections for whistle blowers, and avenues for redress by affected individuals. Laws should stipulate that any information obtained in a manner that is inconsistent with these principles is inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding, as is any evidence derivative of such information. States should also enact laws providing that, after material obtained through communications surveillance has been used for the purpose for which information was given, the material must be destroyed or returned to the individual.

communal livink uk

You might like to join

https://www.facebook.com/groups/432216810196173/

and visit my facebook pages

nxgxl

speak without sound

I agree that to meet does not need time or space.
Indeed we meet eternally in every time and place
*
Google+ eternal circle

The seasons

To Art for peace and Love
To children of Yggdrasil
To all of us still trying to do little harm to life but do a little good
To those brutally exploited by laws and thugs
To all that cherish our mother earth

May your year be good in the pass of wick whether yours is a waxing or waning.

This valediction is to celebrate my 40th anniversary of a happy meet with others of like mind.

N

Hope for assisted living in UK

This is the first glimmer of hope for assisted living in UK that I have seen.  Please do share it with all the carers and advocates you know.

 

 

rethink

The RETHINK debate on removal of psych care from NHS

From: "Nxgy Sxlyx"
Subject: Fwd: Re: The Big Mental Health Debate
Date: 23 January 2014 19:00
====================================================---------- Forwarded message ----------
My response to latest invitation to support rethink.  Unlikely given that I hold them responsible for making govt chat therapy seem like a solution to chronic lack of NHS qualified psychiatrists or residential wards.  I have personal knowledge of being dumped in A&E with no psych support or even knowledge of the basics of psych meds.  Escape was by physical force and complait against Darenth Valley has still had no response.

Truth is that rethink and others succeeded in conning the few who do care about psych care into believing that more chatters (cheap CBT drones) can take the place of clinically qualified teams.  For those of us with evidence of brain dysfunction this was a disaster forcing those who could pay to seek help from profiteers who will extract available funds in gbp 1000 chunks until patient broke when all records magically vanish and NHS care then even less likely.

I've done with this debate but hope someone who still has some energy to argue will find some of my blog posts informative.

What follows is my reply to the latest begging emath from rethink.
 *TO* Lizzie at Rethink Mental Illness <Elizabeth.Blow@rethink.org>
*Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 5:27 PM
*Subject:* The Big Mental Health Debate

  If you ever did get round to reading my blog you would know that I see
Rethink as apologists for cheap chat therapies which reduces still further
resources for NHS clinical psychiatric care.  You will also see that my MP
is violently opposed to my psychiatry campaign.  CBT is a sham and can be
extremely unhelpful to those of us whose illness has a neurological basis
as opposed to the trendy blues of patients who just need a chat.  Read my
whole blog at http://nigeles.blogspot.co.uk before emailing me again.  If
you wish to contact Evennett feel free to quote anything in my emails or
blog.  I do not think it worthwhile.

I’m blocking all rethink junk mail until you can confirm that you have
absorbed my views.  If you do finish the blog put a comment in it and if I
think your comment reasonable I may unblock you.

Email to which above is response.
=======================================================================
 *From:* Lizzie at Rethink Mental Illness <Elizabeth.Blow@rethink.org>
*Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 5:27 PM
*Subject:* The Big Mental Health Debate
========================================================================

This Thursday 16th May, MPs are dedicating a whole 5 hours of their time to
a debate on mental health in the House of Commons. Last time this happened,
4 MPs talked about their own experiences of mental illness. We want this
time to be even bigger and better.

If you care about welfare changes, cuts to services or stigma, make sure
your tell your MP about it happening next Thursday. Find out how
here<http://rethink.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT0yMzM2NjgxJnA9MSZ1PTc5MDI3NjY1NSZsaT0xMTk0ODE2OQ/index.html>
.

More and more politicians are talking about mental health. This debate can
be another step towards a better life for everyone affected by mental
illness.

Your MP will be much more likely to turn up if you ask them to.  We really
need you to contact your MP to urge them to attend. Please tell them about
what matters to you, and ask for their support for mental health in
Parliament.

Together we can make this another step in the road to better mental health
services.

Contact your MP
now<http://rethink.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT0yMzM2NjgxJnA9MSZ1PTc5MDI3NjY1NSZsaT0xMTk0ODE3MA/index.html>
.

Please remember to let us know what your MP says, by emailing
campaigns@rethink.org (DON'T BOTHER IT BOUNCES)

Best wishes,

Lizzie Blow
Public Affairs Officer
Rethink Mental Illness

Mind

Exchange of emails with Mind
To: Mind 23 jan 2014
I would refer you to my blog article on my useless MP. David Evennett who cares even less about my psychiatric illness than he does about local special needs children like my cerebral palsied daughter or the host of others who desperately need to be helped into assisted communities with ring fenced funding before the psychopaths in charge of our country do any more harm.

I was astounded at your reference to CBT.  It was support for chat therapy which is cheaper than clinical psychiatry that led me to you when rethink espoused chat therapy.  All the CBT, OT, counselling and group activities I had actually precipitated and exacerbated my psychosis.  Please take care that you do not let the government get away with even fewer experienced psychiatrists in favour of amateurs calling themselves psychologists or “therapists” when they have not gone through the 8 year clinical training a psychiatrist has.

Having escaped chat therapy my psychosis was treated laving me to deal with  my own chronic depression but sure that there is no further clinical help just a strong will and help in sleeping.

I want to see crisis centres staffed by clinicians accessible within a week of a psychotic break.  I will argue against CBT to my last breath.  It is a con trick to save money and appear to be doing what you are not.

Unless I see you understand this you have lost my support.

I will post this exchange of emails along with mine to you in my facebook depressionnes group.  You are members of it.  I will put the content in my blog at nigeles.blogspot.com where you are welcome to comment on my view.

***********************************************************

From: Mind campaigns team
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 1:44 PM


When you experience a mental health problem, early access to the right type of psychological therapy - like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or counselling - can make a huge difference to your recovery and prevent the problem getting worse. However research for the We Need to Talk coalition's new report, We still need to talk, has found that people are still waiting far too long for psychological therapies.

Take action and email your MP
You told us you don't always get access to the right therapy at the right time which can have a hugely negative impact on your mental health and your life. In our survey, one in 10 people waited over a year and over half waited more than 3 months. That is not good enough.
Almost 3 out of 5 people weren't offered a choice of the type of therapy they received. Different therapies work well for different people, so we want you to have a full choice of therapies, so you can access the right treatment for you.
People from black and minority ethnic communities and people with severe mental health problems, as well as other vulnerable groups, find it even harder to access psychological therapies on the NHS.
The We Need to Talk coalition is calling for the NHS in England to offer a full range of evidence-based psychological therapies to everyone who needs them within 28 days of requesting a referral. This should be even sooner if you’re in a mental health crisis.

Join us. Get your MP to demand the Government and NHS England invest more in psychological therapies to meet rising demand and introduce maximum waiting time standards urgently.

Best Wishes,

Mind Policy and Campaigns team

UK Clegg promises better mental health care

If those with clinically proven neurological dysfunction listened to the linked radio programme I really do share your despair.
On 2 occasions I hoped it was a joke in some surreal dream

1) Blatant selling of useless chat therapies championed by rethink

but there was more...

2)Presenter says listeners with clinical conditions may now feel suicidal so she provides the samaritan number

Just as well 999 delivery to A & E with no experience psychiatrist is a fate worse than death

Listen if you feel up to it
https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0B0OgrN8p7tPtcGFsUFotVVpBTXM

Free will

From physics we know that there is "no thing" other than infinitesimal quanta of energy.  Fractal maths was described as chaos theory but is actually completely deterministic given the states before any particular one and the fractal logic.  There is no reason to suppose that what perceive to be ourselves is anything more than the result of our energy building blocks obeying universal rules of interaction.

Free will came up in a recent radio programme and is relevant to the ontology debate so I have linked to it in this post
https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0B0OgrN8p7tPtVk8wWDNwd2h2WFU

Save our home

The infrastructure to maintain the world's critical features from a human perspective was built into a very robust network database model decades ago. See http://www.cpni.gov.uk/about/cni/

The same infrastructure now has much more detailed images and data which is already put to some positive use in enforcing deforestation violations.

Add in our new knowledge of the paths and dynamics of the life our planet supports and those who ignore future disaster in favour of immediate self indulgence could be identified and attacked until they behaved.

It seems that the whole world has chosen to ignore the imminent demise of our ecology perhaps because individuals who do act tend to suffer.

Governments' policies are dictated by their need for funding and that means that the super rich oligarchs who hold 99.9% of the worlds assets must be obeyed even if medium term disaster is obviously a consequence.

To reverse the process requires radical action that remains ethical by doing no bodily harm to the global oligarchs but does cripple their revenue streams whilst  refusing to supply services.

Inaction will lead to famine, energy crises, lack of clean water and devastating effects on our fellow flora and fauna.

20 years ago we knew this and now some impacts cannot be avoided.

Global sustainable communities are the only solution. I fear that mankind's selfish genes will kill our whole world long before sustainable living is established.

Research for yourselves if you doubt the need to address our global crisis

decline and fall of our world

Actually I think the world needs to go back much further before our species started to despoil rather than sustain our home.  Enforced belief, state borders, industrialisation and the arrogance that we are more important than our home must end now else we will have no viable planet within 7 decades..
Much global levelling will be needed, Global policing of dysfunction followed by excision by those who abuse our planet. Democracy is ruled by the rich oligarchy who fund the puppets in states around the globe.  Fast action requires no democracy since we can appoint triumvirates of those with demonstrated ability.  Avoiding despotism merely requires switching one of the highest group of every year.  A triumvirate at every level should help avoid deadlocks if abstain banned.
Exploitation must end to avoid food wars, our communities must shrink to 100 each at most.  Sustainable living can be achieved by frugal communes.
Sadly what is emerging is absolute dominance by bigots, psychopaths and oligarchs so I know the end already.
30 years ago activists were strong but most have given up now.
A new solar year used to bring fresh hope but from now on new fears replace hopes as everything that is despicable in our species gains ground.
Open your eyes and care about our planet's doom
Nxgxl blog nigeles.blogspot.com 

Humanity revisited

Part two of http://nigeles.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/humanity.html

Chaos is the order of what was, is now, and ever will be. It is a world with no end and reason built of energy whatever form it takes. Our species had the gift to destroy evil and protect good where evil is defined as anything dysfunctional in our world. Eden is a parable; man is the serpent driven by self like Dworkin's genes. Even when we intend good we cannot see far enough in time to be sure. Cruelty and greed lie in our genes; redemption is in no genes and therefore no-one.

Much of our barbarity grows exponentially by grouping humans in organised religions, companies and states of all kinds.

Most humans carefully avoid seeing the dark and none could see the light.

A good life is drive by the principles of ethics and great care in any action. Regret and hatred serve to learn what to avoid; this done they must vanish before they reproduce themselves by dominating those who are weak.

We should all learn to become constant gardeners of what came from our chance existence born of one incarnation of energy that we see as space and time. To try to do good is all we can do but this includes removing the dysfunctional.

The universe as motiveless and timeless energy is from cosmology.
Ethics from Kant's pure reason
Evil of religion has so many sources but jihads, sharia law, the inquisitions and crusades are good exemplars.
The nature of dysfunction is from Talcott Parsons but why states end their days in the dark is from the transition from John Rawls politics to the selfishness of Nozick and Dworkin.

N

The limit of tolerance

I have no problem with other entities believing and acting according to their belief providing that believers do no harm and act so that others' beliefs are respected not reviled or attacked. I know of no organised religion that ought to have the power to kill and maim those who differ and can think of no retribution that would be too severe for those who seek to obliterate others in the name of their religion.

Religion will be no help in solving the global disaster we have caused. No deity is needed in my beliefs but if I think of one it has horns and cloven feet. In the name of god I slice off your head, in the name of god women have no rights, in the name of god an endless atrocity is wreaked upon the world

Organised religion has no use today except to encourage their followers to accept that belief is personal, that the panoply of demons is actually the religions true face. Those who fight by the sword as they have for miillennia must now change their tune or leave this world to be with 666 who shares their vision.

Wake up world; states run by religious fanatics cannot be tolerated just as they do not tolerate states where religion is by personal choice. The fanatics inside tolerant states are key assets of the apocalypse; why on earth do we allow such barbarism to be worshipped in our secular state.

Trust no-one who thinks their way to be the only one

There is no one way to end a life content but everyone has a right to seek that peace and this oneness cannot be fully shared and certainly not by tyranny, war and pain.

Count up the wars with organised religion at their base.  Unity not faction is a threat.

Sid Rawle and the Rainbow Tribe

Sid Rawle was often dubbed King of the Hippies in the UK.  Little of his history and thoughts was documented.  The central principles were of equality, communal living, sustainability and peace.

The movement brought together many groups between 1967 and Sid's death in August 2010.

Jeremy Sandford helped lay out a framework of the "Vision of Albion" which was to record the lessons of use to others with an interest in communal living.  Jeremy died in 2003 and the work was never completed but there were fragments that I believe worth preserving.

The Vision, the three video interviews Sid recorded and the Rainbow Tribe tribute are all stored in a public folder which is at
Sid Rawle Archive

Banking behind tech curve

Lloyds put customers through a labyrinthine voice system to set up a Standing Order even if you have an online account.  Last time the entire process took 45 minutes often repeating the same information again.

Lloyds say that they are looking into it and have no plans to replace endless and frustrating phone conversations.  Same applied to their "financial advisers" who just keep phoning regardless of Lloyds telling me that I had successfully barred voice comms.

Barclays have adopted 2 stage authentication using a calculator-like device for challenge and response security; a neat by-product of this is that it generates a one time use key.

Card issuers are pretty sanguine about fraud. I believe they are willing to accept around 5% fraud before improving authentication.

Barclaycard are not so cautious as Barclays bank allowing unauthenticated payments as described at
http://nigeles.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/huge-security-loophole-with-barclacard.html

Brutality of Atos and those who employed them

Government use of the Atos psychopaths again

Every single negative PIP assessment must be appealed as this will affect both future use of Atos and make the puppets who employed them a little more wary of persecuting those with the greatest need in order to avoid burdening the affluent oligarchy that is the real UK government

Article as published by Huffingtom
A woman with cerebral palsy (CP) has been told she may lose her Employment Support Allowance as an ATOS assessment deemed her disability "would be expected to improve".

Despite having the life-long, debilitating and incurable condition, Amy Jones, 24, can now expect to undergo reassessment every six months.
She said: "It's ridiculous. I've had six surgeries in my life, four in the past three years to get rid of these contractions that I get.

Amy Jones

"It even says in black and white in my medical reports from the hospital that my CP is becoming increasingly disabling.
"There is nothing in my reports to suggest that my CP is improving or becoming less painful or anything like that."
Jones is paralysed in her left arm and has deformities in her legs that make walking painful and incredibly tiring. As well as surgery she also has botox injections every six months to relieve excruciating muscle contractions.
She requires constant assistance from friends and family for "all aspects of daily living".
Before the coalition government's welfare reforms, Jones received incapacity benefit.
With the introduction of Iain Duncan Smith's radical overhaul of the benefits system, those receiving incapacity benefit have been required to undergo a Work Capability Assessment.
Amy was put in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG), a classification for those "the DWP consider will be capable of work at some time in the future and who are capable of taking steps towards moving into work".
Amy agreed with the decision. She said: "I will be able to return to work one day with the right support."
LIKE HUFFPOST UK POLITICS ON FACEBOOK | FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
But then a week ago Amy received a letter informing her she would need to be reassessed for Income Support Allowance.
Thinking this was a strange, she requested a copy of the ATOS report in which the examining doctor states her condition should improve.

Amy's prognosis

Amy said: "An actual qualified doctor, who I told in black and white during the interview that my disability won't get better.
"She was like 'I understand that' but clearly she doesn't if she expects my CP to get better which suggests she thinks I will regain functions and my needs will change which they obviously won't.
"CP doesn't get better it only ever gets worse because as you get older it puts strain on your body and every single doctor knows that.
"I'm in shock".
Gabriella Czifra from the London Centre for Children with Cerebral Palsy has worked with those with the condition for 15 year.
She said: "Cerebral Palsy is a condition which is not curable. It occurs because of damage to the brain."
Czifra points out a lot of intensive therapy is needed in order just to maintain a level of ability and any improvement comes from adaptation rather than a lessening of the condition.
She adds: "Over all I would not agree that the condition on the statement the condition could be expected to improve.
"You will not wake up the following morning saying 'Ooh, I feel much better'".
Amy has said she will appeal the decision but if unsuccessful she faces reassessment every six months.
She said: "It's ridiculous really.
"I'm quite happy to be in the WRAG so I didn't appeal the decision but as it stands now I have to reapply for ISA to prove my CP hasn't gone away since they last assessed me in June.
"And with that comes the stress of not knowing, the uncertainty that comes with it."

Amy suffers from hemiplegia meaning her tendons are too short and tight

Amy is currently applying for voluntary work so she can test out her capabilities but is worried the lengthy appeals process could prevent her from doing this.
She said: "It takes all your energy to fight it. I want to work.
"It takes all your mental energy trying to fight these stupid decisions that I have less energy to put into getting ready for work."
Amy's case is far from unique. A recent study of cases involving cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's or rheumatoid arthritis led leading charities to brand the assessments "farcical".



@thisisamy_
Amy.
Just had my Atos report through from my last assessment. I'm actually speechless at the way it assesses mental illness.
September 11, 2013 9:02 am via web Reply Retweet Favorite
Richard Hawkes, chief executive of the disability charity Scope, told the Huffington Post UK: "It’s strikingly clear to disabled people that the whole £112 million per year system is broken.
“The cost of appeals has sky-rocketed, assessors have resigned in disgust, and the test has received criticism from the Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office.
"We have also witnessed shocking undercover footage of how ATOS assessors are trained and heard horror stories of disabled people inappropriately found fit to work.
“The government needs to deliver a test that is fit for purpose."
“If the government is serious about getting more disabled people into work they need a test that is the start of the process that gives disabled people the specialist, tailored and flexible support they need.”
Amy agrees, arguing the reforms are actually making it harder for people to get back to work.
She said: "You're literally taking people's income away and pushing them into impossible situations."
An Atos Healthcare spokesperson told the Huffington Post UK: "We fully understand that some chronic and progressive conditions such as Cerebral Palsy will not improve over time but the advice we are asked to give DWP concentrates on how individuals are affected by their illness at present and whether any other factors may lead to change or improvement in a person’s ability to function even if there is no improvement in their prognosis.

“All decisions on the outcome of claims, for example whether they are placed in the WRAG or the Support Group, are made by DWP.”
The DWP would not comment on an individual case but a spokesman said: "Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) assesses someone’s capacity for work and looks at what a person can do because we know conditions affect different people in different ways.

"Someone who is placed in the work related activity group for ESA is too ill to work and gets their benefits, but may with the right help be able to work in the future if, for example, they can manage their condition."

This excellent article reveals the callous inhumanity of Atos and their paymasters who pay according to savings with no reference to the quality of life that their actions cause. The article was published in Huffingtom Post.

• 
  

To chat or treat mental dysfunction

Posted to rethink but then disappeared so cross posted to depressionnes and toy my secure blog at nigeles.blogspot.com

You already know of my belief that the chat therapies you support useful to those needing to learn mood management. Those of us with permanent dysfunction of brain chemistry or neural network are seldom helped by chat. I do realise that it is cheaper to chat but think you are misguided in lack of support for those who have brain function. The priority should be to employ and train more psychologists (NOT psychologists. It is intolerable that have demonstrable brain dysfunction have lost residential care and wait months to meet a fully trained clinical psychiatrists.

Stopping abuse

Abuse of anyone when they are in any state is simply not acceptable. The problem is that it is hard to think of a means of raising instant response when abusers are often able to isolate the abused and take away any alarms that the victim might have. Some help can be gained by frequent access to those at risk by those who care, know the system and are brave in the face of an arrogant, perhaps dangerous abuser. I'm not a typical male in that testosterone does not course through my veins so I float between the hunter and mother model. It is quite easy to surgically adjust males whose rage is driven by hormones to have raped or tortured others.
I am especially concerned about women both here and elsewhere who find attempts to curb abuse result in brutal reprisal against them and their families.
Many laws make it profitable for gangs to make sex slaves of the desperate, battle authorities over drugs that end user get anyway. Some weeks ago the UN suggested the complete abolition of all laws that conflict with the cultivation, purification and distribution of all drugs. Seems to me it is fine to inform a drug taker of likely result but we each have our own path. It is the individual to make an informed choice.
The abolition of all sex industry laws is another example where the perpetrators of abuse lose out whilst men and women can enjoy whatever they mutually consent to do; I do not believe it immoral for either sex to choose to offer or receive services that do no lasting harm and leave both parties happier than before.
I am not a racist and believe in no divinity that is not in the totality of consciousness. All people should be free to believe and act as they wish providing they do not impede the freedom of others. Sadly religion has been the root of all evil ever since man to believe what can never be confirmed.
Nevertheless tolerance has to end when religions have the power to harm transgressors of their own sects or those outside. Sadly that means that the whole of Islam has to go since it condones despicable cruelty and a holy war to enslave those outside their control.
Ours is a secular state and I see no place whatsoever for those coming here to be allowed to run oppressive regimes here. The choose offered might be atheistic humanism or the simplest tenets of morality that the ecumenical players here agree on.

UK public influence

Who does dictate UK policy. An MP is elected as a rep. not a delegate so can do a u-turn any time. Then we have 4 years before repeating the same pointless charade. The oligarchs of industry fund the house clowns and dictate what actually happens. Does anyone really believe that these people care about anything other than money?
When did anything change at ground level as a direct result of third sector organisations.
Is there actually any means of effective protest?
Ministers can come and go but the primrose path remains and, like lambs to slaughter, we all slide on.
No political organisation or oligarch in the UK is committed to the radical changes necessary for our country to achieve a sustainable future.
When did we all become zombies of the machine?
How many people even think more than one  day ahead?
Does anyone think that the real rulers care a jot about media or parliament?

There is more to the selfish gene than the author realised.

Facebook About Replacement

nxgxl sxlx summary
WARNING: SKIP THIS ENTRY IF YOU ARE UPSET BY DESPAIR

It took 14 years to find myself
I spent 6 years in a frenzy of promoting communal living, an end to cruelty and a sustainable alternative to the anonymous  cities I still hate today.
There was hope, free festivals with everyone sharing not fighting.
All this ended abruptly, violently and irretrievably in 1975.

I looked to philosophy for solace but found only the rational and no solace to heal the loss of such a large band of golden friends.

With trepidation I went to work in satan's maw that spews out the thames and attracts the damned with its neon lights and the promise of life imprisonment in exchange for bed and board.  The spirit of peace had gone and the me-first culture of capitalism consumed the world.

I believe in nothing but consciousness and do not need a me for it to be.

For 30 years I hid in the machine until it had no use for me.

In all that time the beliefs I formed have stayed with me but now there is no hope of the realisation of communities based on our positive traits.  All that remains is strife and the struggle to live.

Religion to me is poison that has led to some of the worst barbarity in recorded history and will forever do so since belief cannot be imposed or even shared.  There is no need for any divinity in our world and the arrival of our race that has raped and pillaged our jewel of a planet seems to me proof enough that any divinity there may be must be pure evil.

Our chance to change is past.  It is already inevitable that we will progress towards the end of days without any help from a divinity but rather through our misguided selfishness.

I believe now in helping where I can and for as long as can give more than I take.

Of energy and eternity

Leaving aside the thorny problem of how the energy in our universe became compressed into the singularity where we think the big bang gave birth to everything that followed 13.8 billion years ago there remains the issue of why pure energy should behave in such a way to create matter.

What drove quanta of energy to create a universe that has remained lumpy ever since.  So even without life there is a puzzle in the motivation of energy to coalesce, compress, burn, explode and collapse.

It is indeed remarkable that a habitable planet came out of the fractal chaos.

One step further and we have matter and energy working together to create life.  Why o earth would that happen.  Where does the wick (pagan word for spark of life) come from?

Our own story I am convinced will resemble that of Easter Island.  Our time is insignificant in terms of the cosmos.  Perhaps what remains may be able to evolve to survive sustainably on the detritus of our cursed race but thi is all very parochial.  Mankind is just another dominant life form and the universe will miss us.


I'm beginning to think that Lorenz's chaos is what will endure.

A last thought.... could the initial singularity may be the preceding universe compressed by a massive but tiny back hole until the tipping point when the cataclysm released to make our universe.

It is good to think that mankind is not inevitable and hence that sustainable life may survive our slow suicide.

Buddhism has a meditation exercise to see eternity in a grain of sand.  I think eternity may once have been even smaller than that.

Does it help to know we started from a singularity at which point infinite energy was concentrated and will end up as energy spread evenly through space?  I guess that means that is true that from dust we came and will return though the "dust"  will actually be tiny low energy objects.

To be able leave a lasting contribution to stability, community and sustainability must surely be the only goal.

I'm 57 and doubt that the scourge of exploitation will decrease much in my life.

Interesting though these ideas are they offer no help to our plight or hope of saving our planet.  Another puzzle...most of the world is now living unsustainably,  we are encountering viruses and diseases but few effective defenses.  Should we perhaps spend a couple of centuries on the issues that face us here and now.

Our energetic cosmos

I think Brian Cox did an excellent job of explaining astrophysics in a way accessible to a very wide range of people. In a nutshell the beginning of time and space is a singularity at which extremely large quantities of energy are in the same infinitesimal space which reaches a critical mass for an explosion like the big bang our own universe began in. The energy is blasted into the space / time matrix created at the explosion. After that energy coalesces and sometimes gathers enough mass to form a star, sometimes just enough for dust, asteroids and planets or giant clouds.

The end, Brian argues, is the gradual decay of mass into pure quanta of energy that spread themselves out into a huge uniform space. Brian considers this a necessary consequence of the law of entropy which postulates that all energy has a built in tendency to disorganize the total energy by ending as evenly spread low level heat.

A couple of questions remain in my mind.

Why did the energy gather at the singularity?

Why is it inevitable that energy will eventually be uniformly distributed?

The last thought is that maximum entropy is actually ordered in the sense that the energy is uniform and spread out in a time / space matrix. I think that is is not an entropy maximum since it is ordered and moving any one energy quantum would render the end state more disordered. Perhaps the answer is that energy rather stays clumpy but speed away from all other clumps forming a fractal pattern that is unchanging because no clump has any means of disordering any other.

Rethink Stance on special needs

Rethink Latest output on caring for those with special physical and mental needs

My comments on this misinformed document are on Facebook but copied here for ease of use:
rethink were strongest supporters of govt push for more talking therapy and less clinically trained help.  This won them funding and lost them my support.  I do not believe that those of us with permanent brain dysfunction whether due to dysfunctional brain chemistry, faulty neuron paths in the brain or physically damaged brains can be helped by anyone other than a local team of fully trained and clinically proven psychiatric specialists.  Psychologists are way out of their academic depth and many used to deliver "chat therapy" and triage have no relevant training at all.  Only advantage of using them is to get cheap staff to see referrals from GPs so that the public remains unaware that it takes 3 months for a patient with persistent pain, hysteria and insomnia to see a fully trained clinical psychiatrist

Mental Health Researchers Reject Psychiatry’s New Diagnostic ‘Bible’

By Maia SzalavitzMay 07, 201322 Comments

Getty Images

Follow @TIMEHealthland

Just weeks before psychiatry’s new diagnostic “bible”—the DSM 5— is set to be released, the world’s major funder of mental health research has announced that it will not use the new diagnostic system to guide its scientific program, a change some observers have called “a cataclysm” and “potentially seismic.” Dr. Thomas Insel, the director of the National Institute on Mental Health, said in a blog post last week that “NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.”The change will not immediately affect patients. But in the long run, it could completely redefine mental health conditions and developmental disorders.  All of the current categories — from autism to schizophrenia — could be replaced by genetic, biochemical or brain-network labeled classifications.  Psychiatrists, who are already reeling from the conflict-filled birth of the fifth edition of the Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, are feeling whipsawed.
Insel, for his part, is lobbying for a more comprehensive approach. For scientific purposes, he argues, the DSM may have outlived its usefulness.  He writes:

Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain…  Imagine deciding that EKGs were not useful because many patients with chest pain did not have EKG changes. That is what we have been doing for decades when we reject a biomarker because it does not detect a DSM category. We need to begin collecting the genetic, imaging, physiologic, and cognitive data to see how all the data – not just the symptoms – cluster and how these clusters relate to treatment response…Patients with mental disorders deserve better.

The NIMH has outlined a new diagnostic system — called Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) — that could ultimately replace the DSM, but it’s not yet ready for prime time. For the time being, NIMH and the psychiatrists who use the manual will continue to abide by existing classifications for diagnosing patients and getting treatment reimbursed. “Some people have the idea that we’re trying to ditch or diss the DSM and that’s not a fair assessment,” says Insel.
Dr. David Kupfer, the chair of the APA’s DSM 5 task force said in a statement responding to Insel’s post, “The new manual, due for release later this month, represents the strongest system currently available for classifying disorders…  Efforts like the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) are vital to the continued progress of our collective understanding of mental disorders. But they cannot serve us in the here and now, and they cannot supplant DSM-5.”
But Dr. Eric Hollander, who chaired the DSM research planning agenda for obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders, says it’s hard to deny that the NIMH appears to be rallying support for a different approach to mental-health classification. “I do think it does represent a lack of interest and faith on behalf of NIMH for the DSM process and an investment in alternative diagnostic systems,” says Hollander, who is director of the autism and obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder program at Montefiore/Albert Einstein School of Medicine in New York.
Numerous forces currently undermine accurate diagnosis in psychiatry.  To start, researchers have so far been unable to find specific biomarkers like brain scan results or genetic tests to definitively diagnose conditions like depression and to predict which treatments will best help which patients. Secondly, many psychiatric patients have symptoms of more than one disorder and many are clearly ill without meeting any diagnosis precisely. “That tells you we’re not cutting nature at its joints, that it’s not an accurate way to categorize,” says Insel.
Finally, pressures from pharmaceutical companies have led to a massive increase in prescribing of psychiatric medications and labeling of patients to justify that prescribing. Critics of the DSM 5 process have noted that 70% of people serving on its committees to define specific diagnoses have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, up from 57% for DSM IV.

“People with mild problems are overmedicated and people with severe problems are terribly under-medicated because access to care is terribly  underfunded,” says Dr. Allen Frances, a leading critic of DSM 5, who chaired the DSM IV revision process. He is concerned that the new edition, with its loosening of criteria in several major disorders, will result in even further overmedication.
MORE: DSM-5 Could Categorize 40% of College Students as Alcoholics
“We’ve used a syndromal approach to research for the last 33 years,” he says, “It hasn’t paid off well.”  Indeed, even the pharmaceutical industry seems to be backing away from psychiatry, with almost all of the major players trimming research and development of psychiatric drugs following recent failures.
“I look at the data and I’m concerned,” says Insel. “I don’t see a reduction in the rate of suicide or prevalence of mental illness or any measure of morbidity.  I see it in other areas of medicine and I don’t see it for mental illness. That was the basis for my comment that people with mental illness deserve better.” Adds Hollander, “There’s been a huge gap between some of our basic science information and our ability to develop new treatments because those don’t necessarily map onto DSM diagnoses.”
That’s why NIMH so desperately wants a new system.  Searching the genome for correlates of “schizophrenia” or “ADHD” hasn’t turned up any single gene or group of genes that accounts for most of the risk or has led to a new type of treatment.  Nor have brain scan findings been able to reliably distinguish between psychiatric conditions as now defined or predict which medications or therapies will help.
Instead, RDoC suggests that by precisely targeting one symptom that may occur in multiple disorders— for example, repetitive behavior— it will be easier to find brain and genetic connections than it would be to continue to study a widely varied group of people with a disease like obsessive-compulsive disorder that’s defined by that symptom, plus many others.
Of course, such complex diagnostic issues aren’t unique to psychiatry: classification in areas of medicine as seemingly clearcut as oncology can be fuzzy as well. Recent studies find, for instance, that certain types of severe uterine cancer may share more in common genetically with certain breast cancers than they do with milder uterine disease. The same seems to be true in psychiatry, with new studies finding common genetic roots for ADHD, schizophrenia and autism.
MORE:  Most Common Psychiatric Disorders Share Genetic Roots
With RDoC, Insel wants to bring this same type of what cancer specialists call “precision medicine” to brain disorders, classifying them not simply by symptoms but by genetic analysis and identifying what brain circuits are most affected. Building on a systems approach, RDoC might be able to find a comprehensive regimen that can be individualized for a person’s particular problems, not just an overall classification.
However, just because today’s diagnoses are far from perfect doesn’t mean that mental illness isn’t real or that DSM diagnoses are entirely useless— just as the fact that certain breast and uterine cancers are genetically similar and may require the same treatment doesn’t make breast or uterine cancer “fake” or irrelevant categories.
“We shouldn’t throw out the baby of clinical diagnosis with the bathwater of its limits. It’s still absolutely necessary and often very helpful,” says Frances. “We need to give reassurance for people operating under the current diagnostic system that it makes sense.  It’s not the best way to go forward in research, but it’s the best available form of clinical treatment and planning available now.”
Insel doesn’t object. He says “there’s all kinds of value in using the current [system]” to treat patients whose disorders, whatever they may eventually be called, cause real suffering right now and are dependent upon insurance reimbursement that requires a diagnosis code.”  He adds, “We’ve worked really closely [with the American Psychiatic Association on the] DSM.  This is not meant in any way to be competitive.  We don’t have anything [else] clinicians can use in 2013.”  With any luck, RDoC or some more refined diagnostic system will soon change that and finally offer better treatments for some of medicine’s most painful and debilitating disorders.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/07/as-psychiatry-introduces-dsm-5-research-abandons-it/#ixzz2SxZdKZoK

 

 

special needs uk facebook and google+

Please do take a moment to browse the articles on special needs in my blog, on facebook and google+

https://www.facebook.com/Specialneedsukpage

Nigel

special needs uk 

I have added a Facebook page as seen below in the hope that the myriad of bodies with an interest in the many aspects of the subject will meet up there and start to think of solutions.

Specialneedsukpage

6 January

This is a very good summary of the views on special needs that I believe in. Thank you Kathy Depledge for posting it. Sadly, in these times of economic meltdown in the UK and elsewhere, the special needs and assisted living services have been hit especially hard. I guess it is easiest for the government to hit those least able to fight back.

I've been campaigning for special needs for 25 years but it is still the case that the more you need help the harder it is to get it.

Not even the third sector organisations can work together, the benefits maze is beyond many who need help and there is deep division between the education, housing, social workers, health workers, DWP and HMRC which makes a happy and effective outcome very hard to achieve.

I'd love to see even a glimmer of light at the end of this particular tunnel but despite all the problems they face the people I know with special needs pull together and manage to cope so it is themselves who shine brightest against the uncaring society we live in.

David Evennett stance on special needs

Some time ago I wrote to my local MP, David Evennett about the need for assisted living communities for those with special needs and also better psychiatric care.  A fuller description of the assisted living idea is already in an earlier nigeles blog.

What followed was a very disturbing series of emails that made it quite plain that there was little understanding of those with special needs and a brutal determination to cut costs rather than improve services.

Having just read the series of letters again I thought it instructive to place copies on my blog so that others could see and discuss the views that divide Mr Evennett and I.

The letters are in chronological order.


My first letter

David

There are two initiatives that concern my family.

I have long term manic depression that finally defeated the medication a
year ago leaving me "retired".  Having been through the assessment process for
ESA I was struck by the total absence of any consideration of mental health
and understand that both Rethink and Mind are now campaigning to ensure that
evidence from claimant's psychiatrist is taken into account.  In my case I
am pleased to report that my appeal was successful thanks to a lot of help.

The second issue relates to mobility allowance to which my daughter is
entitled.  The proposal at issue is to withdraw mobility allowance.  Just because 
people have special needs does not mean that they will not wish to travel just
like others.  I am writing to ask you to consider the case of the long term
disabled in relation to cuts in benefits that would affect them.


What I would really love to see is a caring community where those with mental 
or physical special needs can live and work in with friends - one of my campaigns is at
http://www.facebook.com/?sk=2361831622#!/group.php?gid=117965814884402

Best Wishes
Nxgxl Sxlx

*****

and the reply to the above

From: "EVENNETT, David" 
Subject: RE: Thank you for your email
Date: 25 November 2010 14:20

Dear xxxxt

Thank you for your two emails of yesterday afternoon about the changes to the mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance, which I read with interest.

The Government recognises the important role cash benefits play in supporting disabled people to overcome barriers and wants to ensure support is targeted at those with the greatest need.

In the current financial situation it cannot be justifiable to prioritise payments to people whose needs are largely met through state funded residential care over others in greater need. Residential care homes have a duty to ensure that they meet the mobility needs of their residents, and the Government will be monitoring this over the coming years. However, residents who meet the full costs of the care home themselves will continue to be paid both components of DLA, if they are entitled to it.

Yours sincerely

David Evennett MP
Member of Parliament for Bexleyheath and Crayford
Address: House of Commons, Westminster, SW1A 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 8403 | Fax: 020 7219 2163 | evennettd@parliament.uk

******************************************************************************

My second letter

Sent: 25 November 2010 21:07
To: EVENNETT, David
Subject: Re: Thank you for your email

Thank you for your reply.

It looks like the lifelong disabled are a key target of the current
government since carers, Disabled Living Allowance and mobility allowance
(http://tinyurl.com/36dmrfd)are all to be cut .  In my view it is grossly
unfair to target those least able to help themselves.  In the case of
cerebral palsied children who become cerebral palsied adults the dependence
on the state is absolute yet the care and support is subject to a maze of
organisations, some of the most complex regulations affecting access to
services and now further financial pressure.  If one individual satisfying
the current stringent criteria that my daughter met was hit by all of the
cuts they would be left to die on the streets.  Is this the face of the new
conservatives?

xxxxx

***********

Mr Evennett simply repeated the same government line

GP accountability

In the UK we have General Practitioners (GP) who act as the gateway to "specialists" for things like cancer, mental illness, fractures and so on.  The procedure is that you have to first acquire a GP who may choose whether or not to take you on.  Having achieved this you have to fit in enough evidence into a 10 minute slot as you can to get the GP to refer you up to the next level of expertise.

If you get through the first hurdle you might get a hospital letter sometime in the next three months with an appointment.  The initial appointment is invariably with a newly qualified student who may then initiate the process of seeing someone with more expertise than you.

If you get to see one of the consultants who do know their field it will be a while later.  At this point the consultant can order medications to be prescribed by the GP assuming you are still living at this point that is.

You should not expect to see "THE CONSULTANT" more than once every 3 months as they mostly have a busy private practice to maintain as well as doing the minimum required to qualify for payment by our National Health Service as well.  Such people usually require extensive holidays in tax havens so their time is limited unlike that of those of patients.

That sounds bad but it gets worse.  If your GP chooses to prescribe drugs you find intolerable or is told to by the consultant then the means of redress is tortuous and painful as well as leading to you no longer having a GP.

Of course you can skip this charade if you are wealthy and just go to a private clininic at charges of £250-£500 per visit or £1200-£3000 per night if you want to stay the night.

For those outside the UK this might sound bizarre given publicity on UK public services but I assure you that it is at least this bad everywhere in the UK.

If you want to make a complaint then you do so online via the NHS internet site http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/HomePage.aspx

If you only have one GP near enough for you to use then getting removed from their list is bad news since then the only health care there is comes via a 4 hour wait at hospital A&E

It is really a system designed in favour of medics and not patients and this is not how a public service should be.

Auditing Public Sector Ethics

In September 2010 I wrote an article on changes that would improve UK public sector audit. I suggested or implied that considerable change to the machinery of government would help. In particular I see no need for a political layer between central government and delivery and suggested that end to end audit of programmes of activity would be more useful than the current fragmentary approach which has more to do with the central government structure that has emerged from historical chance than it does with effective service delivery (see blog entitled public sector audit and public sector programme accounting)


Since then I have not observed any significant improvement in the accountability brought about by the restructured audit arrangements within the UK except for appointment of single body to audit central and local government.


Two years on I have concluded that the changes I suggested would still be beneficial but that there is something more that an audit office can contribute in the form of feeding into the consideration of the practicality and ethics of policies formulated centrally. It seems to me that Parliament, and hence its auditors, is responsible for ethical as well as effectiveness considerations.


One example is the policies of regressive taxation that the current government has put in place and the targeting of those with special needs. Neither is morally defensible and both might usefully be discussed by the Public Accounts Committee.


The responsibility to comment on the ethics as well as effectiveness is particularly important for the public sector but might also be of interest to private sector stakeholders.

Disability UK group

Google disabilty circles