As ever a new year starts with the British establishment underlining what makes this country what it is, jammed full of sycophancy and a self serving bureaucracy. The New Years honours list is for the greater part, a corrupted twice annual event, when the British establishment rewards third rate managers, for clinging on to their jobs at our expense regardless of their performance.
Their was a time when before civil servants got bloody good salaries and inflation proof pensions (the like of which aren't available in the commercial world), when honours such as CBE's MBE's etc were awarded to recognise a lifelong dedication for little reward.
Unquestionably many of those working in the voluntary sector deserve their Honours, but it seems there is an almost lunatic preference given to public sector workers for just doing their jobs. I suggest you take time out and study the list of those honoured and what they do for a living, more than half appear to be working for the state.
To my mind most of these awards are not worth a light, for the simple reason that those in receipt have just being doing what they get paid for, these awards will have some validity when ordinary people, like shop workers, self employed, staff in hotels and pubs, cleaners, truck drivers, store-men, sales reps, etc. get knighthoods and the like.
So if you've bagged one of these awards, and happen to work for the government or the state sector the chances are that it was just your turn.
Still if the queen takes a butchers at this blog and likes what she sees I could do with a knighthood but no peerage since that would indicate a bung to one our esteemed political parties.
If like me, you haven't been considered for an honour it probably means that you earn your living without getting you snout in taxpayers trough, something to be proud of.
You are right Tony. But I think the honours system (including Queens Awards to Industry who fail to make product recalls of defectively manufactured lifesaving equipment installed at hospitals !! If you know what I mean ....)is responsible for protecting a lot of people from the Law.
ReplyDeleteIn other words it assists a widespread breach of the principle that be you ever so high the law must be above you.
Bearing in mind your sensitivities about identifying people I will give an example sticking to the evidential facts.
In January 1972 Matron Mary McGill, a New Zealand retired nurse volunteer, was reported drwoned in the boating lake of the Sue Ryder HQ Care Home Suffolk.
This was also the family home of Sue Ryder (ex wartime SOE and MI6) and her husband Leonard Cheshire VC. two persons now in line to be beatified by the Catholic Church as saints.
Cheshire was an Order of Merit etc etc.
Mary McGill (an ex New Zealand hospital matron) was critical of care standards.
Obviously the living saint founders did not like this. And there was much tension especially as Mary gave notice and was due to leave with plans to raise a care inquiry under Section 37 of the National Assistance act 1948.
Later in 1972 shadow DHSS minister Barbara Castle raised a Commons question calling for a care inquiry into the running of the charity homes to take into account the care concerns of the late Matron McGill.
later again in 72 Barbara called for full public inquiry because of the secret whitewash nature of the civil service inquiry (one phone call to West Suffolk Social services)
The problem (and I do have all the evidence necessary for this and it has been made public record via my submission to European Court of Human Rights) was this.
The law of care homes then allowed for two categories "Care" (Boarding house) and "Nursing" (with requirement to deploy qualified nurses.
The charity only registered as care homes (boarding house) (Yes I have Sue Ryder's solicitor letter confirming this Tony)
But yet inquest evidence shows that the home was taking in serious nursing support and even hospice cases. A boarding house with delusions of being a cottage hospital.
Social services with their rare spot checks would only inspect against the criteria set by the registration (boarding house)
What Matron McGill was faced with was horrendous. She had always been an admirer of the charity till she volunteered a year of service to it. She used her own money to buy pocket money items for inmates. She worked 19 hours per day weekdays and resident on call at weekends ... 143 duty hours per week.
No honours for the New Zealand Quaker nurse Mary McGill. For a time Sue Ryder and Cheshire (and there is evidence that they eavesdropped McGill's phone calls and on occasions cut them off from the home switchboard) would only communicate with Matron McGill by memo in the same building. They wanted to close their ears to what this nurse was telling them.
There was a patient there. An elderly member of the Georgian Royal family. A Muslim. Once a tranquillising regime was found for this troubled old man ... McGill was astonished to witness a service conducted over his tranquillised form converting him to Catholicism.
A local GP was Dr Nini Ettlinger (widow of the academy artist Josef Herman) and she wrote two medical opinion letters for consideration by the care inquiry being sought by Barbara Castle. I have submitted these opinions into public record via ECHR.
"The homes are not so much a case of loving patents but of loving Sue Ryder loving patients" "People are extraordinarily blinded by the smokescreen of charity" "More residents will be driven to despair in this charitable setting"
The minister Sir Keith Joseph refused the call for a public inquiry.
That month in 72 he faced another call for public care inquiry touching on West Suffolk. This was the Beeches priovate care home at Ixworth used by Hackney Social Services. From december 1971 to April 1972 in three separate incidents three mentally handicapped children in Hackney care had died at that home. The last was Tara Naiker in April 72 from hypothermia !! (aged 8 who suffered cerebral palsy)
Sir Keith (perhaps not wanting to set a precedent for Barbara to claim a public inquiry against the Sue Ryder Home) also refused Michael O Halloran MP request for a public inquiry into the three child deaths.
A quarter of a century later Hacknmey Social services announced a retrospective inquiry into residential social workers going back to the 70s. So I wrote and asked for the three child deaths to be included in the brief. The correspondence was lost ! Then eventually the inquiry, by Head of Cambridge Social Services, was told that the three child deaths would not be germaine to his inquiry.
Let us just look at who the founders of the boarding house (masquerading as nursing home) charity were.
Airey Neave and henry Sporborg. Sacre bleu friends of Sir Keith Joseph and the pair of rascals who selected and steered Maggie Thatcher to power.
In 1992 an east Anglian journalist discovered some new evidence in the McGill case. He was recruited from the press into the Home Office ....
In 1976 in Thanet Panorama had run an expose of poor care standards in Thanet's private care home Section 37 registered (IE same category of boarding house as the Sue Ryder Home)
Let us have a care inquiry here then eh ? Things like Broadstairs DHSS deliberately underpaying the care home industry in Thanet ?
No no no. A Section 37 care inquiry might set a precedent to re-open care inquiry in a worst case ... namely the charity. At least in Thanet they were not taking hospice cases into boarding houses !
The point is that the pollution spreads. deny justice to Mary McGill. Deny justice to three child deaths. Deny proper care and funding inquiry to a large number of care homes.
Why ? Merely to protect the bogus repution of someone who has featured often in the honours system ?
If you check out the thesis of Dr Laurence Clark on web (Leeds University) 80% of Leonard Cheshire Homes unfit for purpose etc.
RIP Mary McGill. New Zealand's finest.
Sureky we have grown past the stage of being impressed by spin created icons?
Tony, you have to at least write in the Queen's English to be considered for one of her honours.
ReplyDeleteGetting a thesaurus or using grammar check before posting may help.
Grammer thesauras what the hells that
ReplyDeleteI think that they basically run out of people to award and so they 'make do' because they have to pick some people don't they?
ReplyDeleteIt means that people get awards who really don't deserve them, but they can't think of anyone better to give them to.
All you need is two numpties to nominate you! Seriously..
ReplyDeleteRemember the cop who it turned out nominated himself?
It's a sham.