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

Gatwick: Passenger With Restricted Mobility Dies Leaving Flight | Same Difference


A passenger with restricted mobility has died at Gatwick Airport after leaving an aircraft. Gatwick said staff were helping to disembark three passengers with restricted mobility at the time, inclu…

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

The major problem here is that people, especially disabled people are being treated as objects in that ‘one fits all’, people are individuals with feelings, and have individual needs, but are not being treated with respect and dignity.

If there are staff shortages then have more flexibility, perhaps bringing executives down to cover for staff shortages,

‘Gatwick said staff were helping to disembark three passengers with restricted mobility at the time, including the man’s partner.’

“It is normal for one staff member to disembark three passengers who require assistance by taking them one at a time the short distance to the waiting buggy.”

Why is it normal for one staff member to disembark 3 passengers, surely it should be 3 staff for 3 passengers, for with only one staff who decides which passenger gets priority and why should there be a priority process. This is showing great disrespect to persons who are paying for a service and is, in effect discrimination, which should be illegal, but maybe our equality legislation is not what it should be, for people should be front and centre, but as is usual it is a process, a system which is front and centre.

This is far from right and now a death has occurred and if something is not done, then more could occur.

Source: Gatwick: Passenger With Restricted Mobility Dies Leaving Flight | Same Difference

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

There are historical and psychological reasons why the legal age for purchasing assault weapons does not make sense


The shooters in the Buffalo and Uvalde massacres were both 18, and legally purchased assault rifles. This is fueling calls to raise the age when someone can purchase this weapon from 18 to 21.

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

You could reasonably ask if ‘Are 18-year-olds mature enough to buy AR-15s’, but are even 21-year-olds, un fact anyone who isn’t under the arm of the military.

For does an individual really need a machine gun of any nature.

 

Source: There are historical and psychological reasons why the legal age for purchasing assault weapons does not make sense

Survivors of Uvalde shooting paint horrifying picture of terror and tragedy | Texas school shooting | The Guardian


Schoolchildren, teachers and family members offer graphic details of day gunman killed 19 children and two adults

 

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

This is a terrible tragedy, one of many that occur in America, but only in America is it put as a justification for their gun policy and even more so, for an increase in gun ownership.

Any other country would see this as an indication to reduce gun ownership, but some Americans are blinkered by their own Constitution, which was written in 1789, but has been amended 27 times to allow for passages of time and changes in Society and life in general. The last amendment was in 1992 and gun law amendments have not taken place since 1791 with the 2nd Amendment.

Guns have always been lethal weapons when in the hands of humans and have become even more lethal with the passage of time and become much more deadly, which is why many countries have put extensive limitations on gun ownership, but America will not do so due to the power of the Gun Lobby and the NRA, the National Rifle Association. Yes, Rifle, not the current armaments, which should only be in the hands of a well trained military run by a national Government, not in the hands of individuals and many non-government militias. That should be seen as anarchy, but not in America.

So in America this apparent legalised killing of innocents is allowed to continue, due to the inflexibility of the so very powerful NRA and the gun owning militants, who in any other country would be viewed as terrorists.

Now we have Trump, as he does, using this for his own agenda to gain re-election in 2024, sorry not re-election but a continuance of his Presidency for he still believes with his militant supporters that he never lost the 2020 election. How can one be so stupid, only trump and his supporters know.

In America, with regards to Guns, there is a very real abuse of power.

 

Source: Survivors of Uvalde shooting paint horrifying picture of terror and tragedy | Texas school shooting | The Guardian

Government says it’s too costly to give disabled people in fire risk blocks evacuation plans – The Big Issue


Campaigners say they are “devastated” after ministers rejected recommendations made following inquiry into the Grenfell fire

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

Everyone should be equal, but some are more equal than others as finance is a prime factor in creating equality when it shouldn’t be, as needs should be the main factor within any legislation to combat discrimination.

Disability discrimination was supposed to be dealt with through the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, amended by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and then replaced by the Equality Act 2010,

but written into these acts was the proviso, that  if adjustments were to be seen to be unreasonable then the adjustments did not need to be proceeded with and exorbitant costs were one of those provisos.

This could well be the reason for the rejected recommendations in the case of the Grenfell fire. But should costs be, really a reason to make safety not equal.

In building regulations these should be there to protect and when, especially, these regulations were not abided by, then, irrespective of costs all actions and recommendations should be carried through and make those who were at fault accountable.

 

Source: Government says it’s too costly to give disabled people in fire risk blocks evacuation plans – The Big Issue

National Service would benefit young people today – Yorkshire Post Letters | Yorkshire Post


I believe it probably would benefit youngsters today as many have been brought up in a period when much is available, but only if you have the money available.

Crime has mushroomed, but although it has it is only done by a small percentage of the population, as is the so-called, indiscipline youth, but on viewing the media it would appear it is by the majority, but bad news creates much more public appeal than good news. Not that many would agree with this, but how often is bad news so prominent in the media while good news is not.

So would National Service be a good idea, on refection I think not, for many reasons

  • all youth would need to be included, and not as it was with the previous national Service, when Black and Asian youths were generally not included and it was only males, now it would have to include all ethnicities and both males and females. This would leave a great gap in the areas of who would be available for other employments in the UK.
  • at the time of National Service in the 50s the percentage of youths going into higher education, taking ‘A’ levels or the equivalent and proceeding to universities was small
  • many occupations, such as care, depend on the youths to provide the numbers of carers required and there is still an insufficiency.
  • then to crime, well in Sweden it has increased
  • but could we afford to pay the numbers of persons that would be conscripted into National Service, as for years we have had a policy of reducing the costs related to serving in the UK armed forces
  • surely a better education system would be a better idea, a system of providing learning to enhance and create opportunities for a good working life. and provide a basis on how to live. But currently we concentrate on giving an education to gain qualifications which for many will have no basis or help to living life outside education. When have you used trigonometry, algebra and much more forced fed to pupils by process of rote

Rather than fallback to areas which may have been believed to be good some years ago, more forward thinking is required to engage people to be more enlightened, to be more considerate of others, that everyone has rights and be able to lead a reasonable life. That violence is not the answer, but respect for each other is and not only for persons who are known to you, but everyone irrespective of race, gender, sexuality, age, disability, etc.

Abusing is not the answer, which many believe is what armed force is, but be a good listener, be understanding, always show respect, be a good citizen.

Source: National Service would benefit young people today – Yorkshire Post Letters | Yorkshire Post

Should patients own their health records? | The BMJ


It’s my body and my health so why can’t I be the legal owner of my medical record? This important question was debated during a series of webinars run by The BMJ on patient access to medical records.1 Most of those involved agreed that we should be able to access all data that’s held on us, including our full medical records, but the ownership question was more contentious.

Many webinar participants saw record ownership as key to rebalancing healthcare in a more person centred direction, empowering patients to take more control of their health and data. They argued that ownership would deliver benefits in terms of the ability to control access, to check and correct errors, to record health goals and concerns, and to monitor usage through an electronic audit trail.

Others asserted that most people don’t want the responsibility of holding, managing, and maintaining their records, as long as they can access them when they need to. Some felt that defining ownership of electronic data are impossible anyway and must not be used as a ploy to derail patient access to their records, which is more important.

Patients in the UK have had a right to view, but …

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

Yes, I want to see my health records not at a specific time, but as and when I wish to, so I have requested access with my GP practice, to be told access is not currently available due to safeguarding reasons. What the specific safeguarding reasons are I have not been told and no likely date when access will be granted, this I feel is an unreasonable situation, so ownership is a prime concern to me.

Is it my safeguarding or the practice.

Surely there is an infringement of my Human Rights and if it is not, it should be.

 

Source: Should patients own their health records? | The BMJ

Alberta family struggles to find resources for autistic grandson | CTV News


Rita Fahlman loves being a grandma but says it hasn’t been easy as she fights for help to support her autistic grandson who has complex needs.

Here we have Canada, but it is also just as bad in the UK, perhaps even more so for some.

Is there anywhere in this world where persons with disabilities, expressly learning (Intellectual) disability and autism are looked after sufficiently, I fear not and in some countries not only is there no services, but persons with these disabilities are even seriously discriminated against to the point of even causing deaths.

Why is this for no one asks to be born this way, but they should expect to be able to live life, at least, reasonably without fear. It is the responsibility of everyone to do all they can to ensure discrimination is countered wherever it occurs and every ruling body should legislate to ensure full equality is available for everyone.

Abuse of any nature should never be tolerated and those who do abuse should be always dealt with accordingly. Remember there are many forms of abuse and not having sufficient required and appropriate legislation should be included as a form of abuse. Abuse is done to anyone be they be a child or an adult and anyone can be an abuser, be it a family member, friend, stranger, professional, etc.

By not having sufficient, appropriate  and required legislation is restricting their Human Rights and could be, in effect allowing abuse to occur.

Source: Alberta family struggles to find resources for autistic grandson | CTV News