Thousands of protesters hit streets across the US and begin to mass outside Clarence Thomas’ home | Daily Mail Online


The prospective law changes, released in a concurring opinion Friday’s decision by the justice, would see limits put on gay marriage, same-sex activity, and citizens’ access to birth control.

===========================================

 

With the overthrow of Roe v Wade the Supreme Court have made America no longer the ‘Land of the Free’, if it ever was.

You may argue that if women don’t wish to have babies, then they should not undertake actions in which they could become pregnant, but do they really have that choice in respect of RAPE and maybe incest. If men could be able to carry an unborn baby and then give birth, then maybe abortions may not be necessary, but in those instances a rapist would need to be caught in time.

As now women are not free to live their lives as they wish to and while the abolition of abortion rights is bad enough that may not be the last actions against freedoms from this Supreme Court. For now they could move onto birth control, same sex marriage, LGBTQ rights and many more, for religion and politics have no place in dealing with legalities, but Human Rights have.

Not only is it withdrawing human rights, but are, in effect, creating situations where the health of women will be of grave risk and could be a cause of their deaths.

To do so the Supreme Court will, in many respects, be equal to the Taliban and other Islamic zealots, for Christian zealots are just as bad as Islamic zealots, if not more so.

The Supreme Court are, in effect, abusing women by withdrawing their rights, for now there is no equality in America.

 

Source: Thousands of protesters hit streets across the US and begin to mass outside Clarence Thomas’ home | Daily Mail Online

Look at 3 enduring stories Americans tell about guns to understand the debate over them


The ways Americans talk about firearms is full of contradictions, two communication scholars explain – and that powerfully shapes the country’s approach to gun policy.

===========================================

Guns in America is a contentious agreement and yes, America does have a right to live how they wish, but that is also said that each American has a right to live their own lives and be conscientious that by doing so do others around them.

True that American history did to a large extent resolve around violence of which the use of guns was a major part. But, in effect the ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ were invaders, in 1620, into a country which was already populated, but being a large country there were many parts which were no way overpopulated and so with much negotiation, maybe, all could have lived peacefully together. But Europeans in that day and maybe currently and not only Europeans, had a desire to explore and, in many instances, did not accept the right of the Native American population to live their lives as they had done for many 100s or even 1000s of years. After all the Native Americans there were only protecting property which they viewed to be theirs, just as we all wish to do currently.

But in many instances the invaders believed they had rights over and above the natives who were already there. In some parts of the world considerations to natives was given and some trust was built, but it is easy to break or lose trust and also then not easy to regain and if done keep. As one action, which may not be viewed well, will invariably lead to a trust breakdown, thus resulting in maybe violent actions by one party or more.

Eventually, the Pilgrim Fathers (settlers) and others who came from Europe wished to move further inland and found the vast areas of land, which appeared to be unoccupied, but the Native Americans were there first, and many did not just reside in one place but moved  However they wished to. So many incidents of meeting each other occurred which resulted in many instances pf persons being injured and killed. The Native Americans (natives)generally were only armed with bows and arrows and tomahawks and knives, whereas the settlers were more likely armed with the guns of the day, even though, initially they may have been only single shot rifles or muskets. But the natives were generally experienced fighter and very skilled with the weapons they used, while the settlers may not have been with their weapons. Also usually the natives were in groups where everyone was armed, while the settlers, maybe, at least, initially were not in large numbers and were family units so only a few were armed.

Many massacres occurred on both sides and for the settlers, militaries were formed in 1861 with legislation from the newly formed American Government of 1776. However, the natives were not generally consulted about this process and were forced to move onto them. A substantive few, possibly of the young adults were not content with this and came off them and were then rounded up eventually and returned. But some settlers also didn’t respect the reservations, which they were not legally allowed to enter and certainly not settle in, but many did, showing to the natives, that, again, they were not being respected. So many disputes occurred over many years and the natives were, generally the one to suffer most.

All this is occurring in a country invaded by, initially the Pilgrim Fathers, who were puritanical Christians, but in many instances Christian principles were not extending in contacting with the natives.

The main governing document of America is the American Constitution created by the Founding Fathers written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789 and in the main this is still substantially followed to this day.

But times have moved on, but in some respects not the Constitution as this is religiously defended by many in America. It was, however, written by middle aged to older white men of the puritan Christian view of that time. However, America, now is a varied mixture of cultures and religions, which this Constitution may well not take into account. Also, now politics play a hand in many areas of America and while, currently The President Joe Biden is a democrat and Congress and the Senate both have a democrat majority, albeit very small.

But the main legal body the Supreme Court as nine justices of which 5 are deemed to be Republicans with the other 4 being Democrats, so could it be said that this court has political leanings to republican views, in their interpretations of the Constitution, and not the views of human Rights as defined today

This could be said of the recent decision of the Court to abolish Roe v Wade re Human Rights of women regarding abortions and maybe Gun rights although a recent amendment to Gun rights has been passed by The Senate

So we have Human Rights v The Constitution, especially for women,  non-white ethnicities and areas of sexuality, very worrying times for many in America.

 

Source: Look at 3 enduring stories Americans tell about guns to understand the debate over them

UK faces ‘significant risks’ to quality of food imported post-Brexit, says report | Food & drink industry | The Guardian


Better controls on EU goods needed as impact of Covid and Russia-Ukraine war also put pressure on standards

============================================

This is very confusing, for the UK and the DUP is very concerned about border checks being imposed by the EU on goods coming from Mainland UK to Northern Ireland regarding quality, when this article is virtually stating that Border checks should be being imposed by the UK on goods coming to all of the UK from the EU as some could be sub-standard to UK regulations. This is very worrying for all the time the UK was in the EU and within the ‘Single Market’, so no real border checks, so, once again, we appear to have been badly let down by Tony Blair with his insistence of the UK becoming part of the EU through the Maastricht Treaty without any referendum..

But ‘Teflon’ Tony strikes again, so he gets away with it again.

Source: UK faces ‘significant risks’ to quality of food imported post-Brexit, says report | Food & drink industry | The Guardian

Morning Call: Can’t We Strike a Deal? | The New Statesman


To strike or not to strike, well that is the question. But, is it easy to answer for it all depends on who you believe, for it could be that each party is exaggerating the areas in question.

It is true that inflation has begun to rise, now 9.1% from the similar period last year, so say, a 3% salary increase would be, in real terms’ a wage cut. It is also said that due to COVID and persons working from home there has been a reduction in rail travel of say, 20% and by striking this reduction could well increase and be hard to recover, especially in the short term.

The government could do more for all UK workers by bringing in tax cuts to Income tax, thereby increasing net pay, by reducing the rate of VAT, which would reduce, to some extent, the costs of goods and services, but would mean there would be less revenue for the Government, thereby to recover this shortfall some Government spending could have to reduced, which could lead to some services being reduced, especially those funding by Local Authorities, as, to a large extent the Government funds Local Authorities. But there are other services and organisations which are funded by the Government, including the Police, the armed services, the NHS, etc., so funding could have to be cut to these organisations and services.

With the railways some alterations to working conditions could be a solution to save on costs and release more money for salaries, as there are some restrictive practices. Some of these are relating to work processes before modernisations or automations were made, such as ticket machines instead of ticket booking offices. But the Unions appear to be against alterations affecting the reductions in the workforce due to these modernisations and automations, so staff are effectively having less to do. There are also possible future automations, such as driverless trains, automated track inspections, automated signaling and others.

But there is something which has not been mentioned to any large degree and that is the large pay gap from the lowest paid workers to that of the highest paid workers, of which the highest would be the Chief Executives, so the highest paid could have there salaries restricted to a certain percentage increase above that of the lowest paid.

Much needs to be looked at and nothing should be off the table, including compulsory arbitration on all parties, with strikes being not required.

Source: Morning Call: Can’t We Strike a Deal? – The New Statesman

The ‘big rip-off’: how Trump exploited his fans with ‘election defense’ fund | Donald Trump | The Guardian


The former president used donations to a nonexistent legal defense fund for his hotels and the January 6 Ellipse rally

============================================

Trump says he is the greatest, but the greatest what, well it is evident that he is the ‘Greatest Conman’, for he has been conning people ever since he was born and his biggest con was conning the US population for him to become the 45th President of the US.

If he is not convicted for his cons during his Presidency, then that will show that the US judicial system is as corrupt as Trump himself.

I feel really sorry for Trump supporters that they can so easily be conned, even by the greatest expert living.

 

Source: The ‘big rip-off’: how Trump exploited his fans with ‘election defense’ fund | Donald Trump | The Guardian

Rules to be relaxed for foreign teachers to work in schools in England | Teacher training | The Guardian


Change will allow teachers around the world with equivalent qualifications and experience to apply for jobs

==============================================

So we are changing the rules to allow more teachers to come to the UK so they can teach in UK schools, but it is nothing new that was is and was a shortage of teachers for its been known for years. However, we lets is get to a crisis and still wait, until it gets to a major crisis and then action is taken noy for them to come immediately but next year, so crisis continues to increase.

But teaching is not the only profession in a supply of workers crisis, includes the NHS, agriculture, lorry drivers, hospitality, care workers and many more, but the rules are not changed for every profession.

Money in many of these is an additional problem and has been for years, but successive previous Governments have done nothing except ignore the situation, causing many more problems.

The gap between those who have and those that don’t is forever increasing, but these |Governments are only concerned with those who have and in many instances have very much more than any others, as many in these Governments are in the category of those who have very much more.

For the UK to thrive everyone needs to be recognised and more given to those who have not, even if it means taking off those who have.

Source: Rules to be relaxed for foreign teachers to work in shools in England | Teacher training | The Guardian

Texas Judge Halts Transgender Child Abuse Investigations | The Daily Wire


Safeguarding children needs expert knowledge and a blanket policy, maybe, based on some form of prejudicial opinions on religious or some other basis, is not to be accepted.

Each case needs to be viewed on its own merits taking into account the family and, at least, the child concerned.

Everyone, including children have human rights.

State meddling should never be recommended and never be the ‘norm’.

Source: Texas Judge Halts Transgender Child Abuse Investigations | The Daily Wire

Streeting ‘manoeuvre’ backfires as he apologises to Shadow Cab for BACKING rail strikes on Question Time – SKWAWKBOX


Diseased nature of Labour regime under Starmer and the right couldn’t be clearer U-turn: Wes Streeting has apologised to colleagues in the Labour party for backing rail strikers – to th…

=================================================

Streeting as come out of the ‘closet’ and shown his true colours as a person who can’t be trusted. Now does that mean he can’t be a new leader, for, these days, who does trust a politician of any party and this was well before the example of Boris Johnson, he just strengthens the view of mistrust.

Also as he appears to be a supporter of private health care, so, if Labour do get to be in power will the NHS be safe in his hands.

 

Source: Streeting ‘manoeuvre’ backfires as he apologises to Shadow Cab for BACKING rail strikes on Question Time – SKWAWKBOX

Minister promises “increased transparency” to build trust in GP patient data scheme | The BMJ


The government has said it is at a loss to explain why there was such opposition to its GP patient data scheme last year but has vowed to win back support with revised plans that are due to be announced soon.

MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee quizzed government ministers about NHS data sharing as part of an evidence session held on 8 June for their inquiry into digital data and right to privacy.

The GP Data for Planning and Research (GPDPR) programme was launched in spring 2021, but around 1.5 million people opted out of the scheme over concerns about security and access to data, …

============================================

This is, mainly down to trust and with past experience who really trusts Governments and any public body, yes, they promise, but how often are these promises broken and at time is there any real intension to keep a promise, is it just something to say at the time.

Politicians are generally regarded as untrustworthy and in many instances with just reason.

In many instances it is like an apology for apologies are uttered and tossed out many times these days and no one knows if the apology is truly given or is it just something to say.

Trust has to be earned and trust can be long standing and then lost by one mistake or very poor action and then take much time for trust to be regained, if ever.

Sincerity is a must, but many are very insincere, as power is used as a tool to gain the upper hand, so, less use of power and more of sincerity and trust.

 

Source: Minister promises “increased transparency” to build trust in GP patient data scheme | The BMJ

GPs criticise “appalling” decision to extend Capita’s primary care contract | The BMJ


NHS England and Improvement (NHSEI) has extended Capita’s Primary Care Support England (PSCE) contract for an additional three years, in a move worth £94m.1The announcement, made by the outsourcing company, means Capita will continue to provide digital, logistical, and support services for all of NHS England’s primary care practitioners (GPs, dentists, opticians, and pharmacists) until 31 August 2025.In the announcement, Capita said it has made a number of improvements since it took over the contract in 2015, including “standardising primary care processes nationally and launching the PCSE Online platform.” Additionally, it said it has “developed strong relationships with NHSEI and other stakeholders to enhance the PCSE service.”

Capita’s public service chief executive Al Murray said the contract …

============================================

I am not at all surprised that GPs are applaud that Capita have retained this contract, as the process of awarding contracts needs to be drastically and urgently looked at.

I assume this was done through some form of the ‘tender’ process, which is mainly a paper exercise, where prior knowledge is not considered. in reality all information should be considered. However, it is a somewhat open process as all decisions made can be challenged by the organisations being considered, so if there needs to be evidence on how decisions are being made, to include non-evidenced opinions can’t be allowed.

What needs to be practiced more is accountability and transparency, so that past history can be included where there is factual evidence available. But, in many instances there is no real factual evidence just an assessors opinion from non-proved incidents. So, when poor practice is brought to notice, these all need to be investigated and the evidence forthcoming used as evidence in the tender process.

But, in my experience very few incidents of poor practice are investigated or when they are not fully investigated. While not proved are the holding organisation, especially public bodies, such as the DWP, part of the poor practice as much public opinion believes, especially in benefit assessments.

This leads to distrust of all organisations involved and when distrust arises it is extremely difficult to overcome, so in all instances there needs to be openness, honesty and above all transparency, a lot of which is not evident in this and many other systems and processes.

 

 

Source: GPs criticise “appalling” decision to extend Capita’s primary care contract | The BMJ