Saravanakumar Sellappan Care Failure

To: Comms@mayday.nhs.uk



Dear Sir/Madam,



Horrified to read this story today:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8607413.stm



“'Nothing was done'

Mr Jafferjee also called into question the standard of care the dying man received at Mayday Hospital in Croydon, south London, where he was given a "plainly cursory" examination.

He said: "The sheer pain Mr Sellappan had been suffering when entering was the pain of a fractured skull and the underlying brain injury.

"He was given a leaflet about head injuries. Because the hospital had run out of leaflets for adults, he was given a child's leaflet."

He continued: "The doctor simply told him just to go home and look after himself. He started to cry because he was obviously in pain and nothing was being done."

He said the next morning a friend found him unconscious in bed and took him to another hospital, where he died despite an operation. “



I wonder if you would reassure me by detailing the various steps you have taken or will be taking to prevent such a catastrophic failure from happening again?



Yours sincerely,



Illinois Cook

BBC communication

Sent: 03 April 2010 21:02:30

Dear Mr Cook,

Thank you for your comments regarding this line that we regularly use in our reports: “The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.”

On the most basic level, we use the word “disputed” because it is a simple statement of fact – Israel does actually dispute the contention of illegality. The Israeli government’s argument is outlined here http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Israeli+Settlements+and+International+Law.htm

While the international is clear on the issue, this opinion comes from an interpretation of treaties and conventions. No court has actually sat and ruled definitively that Israeli settlements are illegal. The International Court of Justice ruling on the West Bank barrier would certainly support the contention that settlements are illegal and that the West Bank is occupied territory as defined by the Geneva convention, but this was an advisory ruling and does not carry the force or weight of law.

So we believe that is fair and reasonable to characterise the issue in the way we have.

The arguments around this issue are considered in detail in this report, commissioned by the BBC Governors:

http://www.bbcgovernorsarchive.co.uk/docs/reviews/lubell_law_report.pdf

Thanks and best regards,



Middle East desk
BBC News website



http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml


Thanks for your reply.

You first offer that you are simply stating a fact which prevails. In other stories, however, the BBC does not state that a different view is held.

Eg. in this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8600285.stm

You do not state that armed reprisals are illegal under international law yet they are, or that Israel disputes it. Similarly the munitions used by the Israeli armed forces, torture in Israeli jails etc. You do not use that phrase or similar at the end of those stories, only in the settlement stories.

Using the phrase as you do seems to give the state of Israel an undue level of credibility for it's claim that that the settlements are legal. The international community is clear that they are not, and that the other policies / tactics mentioned above are not. The Israeli state website you offered me is mere propaganda by the guilty party, and in no way stands up to scrutiny. Of course it cannot stand up since it declares the illegal to be legal. Such theory is not therefore enough to justify including the statement "though Israel disputes this" at the end of your settlement stories.

'Revisionist historians' and fascist/Nazi sympathisers dispute that the Holocaust took place, and yet you would not feel it justifiable to indicate their views at the end of Holocaust-related materials, I'm sure.

You then contradict yourself by outlining the case that there is no such thing as international law.

You state that the relevant rulings are advisory and do not carry the force of law. If this is the case, why do you state that the settlements are "illegal under international law" in the first part of the phrase that I am objecting to? Clearly the international community is clear, the UN which has supreme responsibility is clear, and the BBC have quoted it after every settlement story I can remember, so the BBC is obviously also clear that international law exists and the settlements are illegal under it.

Finally the report commissioned by BBC governors which you imply is your guidance on the matter has been discussed by Arab Media Watch I note:

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/Articles/BBCWatch/tabid/133/newsid476/2580/Comparative-BBC-analysis-AMW-independent-panel-Loughborough--Lubell-reports/Default.aspx

They are happy with Lubell's advice that the settlements be described as " illegal settlements ", and recommend that their illegal nature be stressed. The report is also very clear, in that it's last word on the settlements is:

"

The vast majority of opinion holds that the establishment of the settlements is indeed a

violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. This is the view expressed not only by leading

commentators (including Israelis), but also by other states (including allies of Israel), the UN

Security Council, and the International Court of Justice. The Security Council has clearly

stated:

“[…]that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new

immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva

Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also

constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in

the Middle East”


There is no mention of any need to describe the way the state of Israel reacts to the claim that the settlements are illegal. Why then does the BBC insist on using this phrase / summing up technique in this circumstance? This one alone? When something is illegal it is criminal, and there is no reason to oppose the opinion of a tiny criminal minority against the judgement not merely of the injured party but of the vast majority of the rest of the world and the relevant bodies, ie the only bodies whose job it is to judge the matter.

I repeat my demand that the BBC stops saying: "though Israel disputes this" at the end of stories relating to the settlements. I would be very happy if the sentence merely read " The settlements are illegal under international law."

Yours sincerely,

Illinois Cook



Hi BBC,

No reply to my email below so far.

The BBC is still using the phrase:

"Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. "

eg. here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8634754.stm

I take it that since you are unable or unwilling to further defend its use, you are putting measures in place to ensure it will not be used from now on?

Yours sincerely,

Illinois Cook



Sent: 11 May 2010 10:16:00

Dear Mr Cook,

Thank you for your further email on the issue of the illegality of the settlements.

The reason we feel it is correct to say the “settlements are illegal” is, to quote Lubell’s advice, “the vast majority of opinion holds that the establishment of the settlements is indeed a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention”.

We are not judging the credibility of Israel’s argument, but recognising that there is an argument.

Clearly, you remain unsatisfied with our response, it is open to you to address your complaint to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit: ecu@bbc.co.uk or Room 5170, White City, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TS.



Best regards,

Middle East Desk
BBC News website

Transport For LIES

Thanks so much TFL for misleading the passengers of your expensive and crap service over the weekend, in this case over the closure of the Victoria line south of Warren Street. I seem to remember these dot matrix boards were introduced after a weekend closure of Walthamstow, so that was time well spent. This for a service that is shut down for a quarter of every day as a matter of course. By the way this is an enlargement, the actual signs have tiny text and large expanses of unlit dots.

The only mention via signage of the line closure in the station was written on a whiteboard next to the up escalator, so any passengers leaving the station had, in case they had not been affected by the delay, the chance of being fully informed of something that had had, by now, no impact on their journey .

Perhaps there was something on the magnet board summarising all the lines just before getting to the down escalator, but unfortunately I was rather too focused on not falling 50 feet down serrated metal steps to notice that. I had also for some reason already noticed the dot matrix board, and foolishly trusted it, even with the experience of them lying about which platform's train would be leaving first. Thanks to the jobsworth tube driver on Saturday there was no mention of the closure until just before we pulled into Warren Street. Naturally the rail station above barely ever acknowledges the fact that it is on top of a tube station, so no chance of any info there.

There seems to be a history of useless info boards at Walthamstow Central. This is from a previous moronic and no doubt expensive attempt:

Soon after these latest lying boards were put up, some right-minded person had the sense to switch the trusty old "first train" indicator board back on, it having been sneakily turned off in the hope of the public growing to love the new dot matrix boards, with their lies and tiny text . I'm sure they received a healthy beating from the underground overlords.

DWP - Dumb, We Proud!

BBC Story 27th July 2009‏
From: Illinois Cook (illinoisc@hotmail.com)
Sent: 27 July 2009 11:43:34
To: ministers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk; Esmee Russell (esmee.russell@ace.org.uk); Maria Dillon (maria.dillon@acth.org.uk)


Dear Sir/Madam,


In the following story:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8169859.stm


A spokesman from your department is quoted as countering the EC’s figures about poverty amoung UK elderly.


Firstly a claim is made by your department that ‘even the poorest UK pensioners were better off than those living in other countries’.


Since the EC figures show that the poorest UK pensioners are living in poverty, the poorest of these are undoubtedly living in dire straits. Add to this the obvious difficulties in the definitions involved, and this claim is clearly at best nonsense and at worst misleading.


The second claim, from a DWP ‘spokesman’ is quoted as follows:


"In 1997 our pensioners' income was well below the European average. Today their income is nearly 10% higher than the EU average."



Again, since the EC figures show that a high percentage of our pensioners are living in poverty, and poverty is measured after incomes, this does not contradict the EC figures at all.


Indeed, if as I suspect the percentages given in the previous quote are average figures, then it seems the DWP doesn’t care about the poorest UK pensioners at all.


It would seem that although we have gone from having incomes well below the European average, to incomes higher than the average, 1 in five of our pensioners are skipping meals to save money, and the level of old age poverty in the UK is 50% higher than most leading European economies, as is mentioned elsewhere in the BBC report.


Would you agree with me that the DWP response is therefore a highly embarrassing one, and one which brings your department into disrepute?


Yours sincerely,


Illinois Cook

The Weekly Gripe

The Weekly Gripe is a place that echoes many of the posts here, the consumer-flavoured ones anyway.

By the way, anyone on Delicious or Digg?

Iran story in a teacup

1) Many people in Iran are no doubt fed up with the government - just like in Broken Britain.
2) The regime in Iran may well be a harsh one for it's internal critics. Police beat people up at demonstrations in both countries.
3) The CIA may be part-financing regime change in Iran, just like it did in so many other countries. The fact that the West has invaded two neighbouring countries and ruined them, and is interfering in every country in the region, as well as Iran's own nuclear programme, probably also applies negative pressure on the state of Iran.
4) The 'green revolution' has the same chance of success as any other revolution.
5) Ahmadinejad is just another leader, an elected leader, of a country. What he has said about Israel is correct, including "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". This would be the minimum requirement for a just outcome after the many crimes Israel has committed. This does not mean they want to commit genocide.
6) There are 20,000 Jews living in peace in Iran, they have a member of parliament.
7) Ahmadinejad apparently said The Holocaust is a myth. He meant that The Holocaust is being used a myth by supporters of Israel, which is very well explained and supported in Norman Finkelstein's book: "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History". U of California P, ISBN 0-520-24598-9. 2nd updated edition, U of Cal. P. June 2008, ISBN 0520249895,

And judging by the title is probably explained in:

"The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering", Verso, ISBN 1-85984-488-X.

I think it would be better reporting if the headlines used against Iran's regime today were directed at the racist state of Israel, who are waging a war against a poor section of their own country, and using them as slave labour, after expelling them from their homes and land 60 years ago (see Ilan Pappe: "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", London and New York: Oneworld, 2006. ISBN 1851684670), and are still getting away with it, and are somehow succeeding in getting media coverage which portrays THEM as the peacemakers.

Buses (in London?)

Surveys by MORON and GALL indicate the recent trend, scientifically stated as follows: 'Cretins standing at the front of the bus, and not moving right down into the carriage unless under strong verbal encouragement from fellow passengers, even then it's all you can do to climb over them to get to the stairs,[on doubledeckers..]' is, you guessed it, on the increase.

They benefit, and this is my guess at the Cretin worldview, from not having to get close to other sitters, not having to ask people to move bags/coats/coatflaps, not having to move past other cretins, but also if the bus driver cannot denude the very front of the bus he will not stop to pick up more passengers, the cretin journey may be shorter in elapsed time

This never used to happen. I don't need to point out that while this disaster is happening on the downstairs of the bus, where there is some space at the back, there are usually PLENTY OF SEATS UPSTAIRS.

You're amazing. We want you to stay away.