Search blog.co.uk

David Cunningham: Gordon Brown's Constituency - NHS Fife Break Health and Safety Legislation To Maximise Systematic Abuse

by mfasp @ 27/04/2007 - 15:48:20

Site: Passed on at his invitation.

Senior NHS Management in Gordon Brown's Constituency of Fife have for the last 3 1/2 years maximised the systematic abuse on a severely Autistic boy by playing politics with his health while breaking Health & Safety Legislation.

Nearly 3 1/2 years ago a severely disabled, vulnerable Autistic boy was identified by his Psychiatrist Dr Rosemary Logan as in desperate need of support for his "health and Well Being". The Clinical Advisory Panel (CAP) in Fife approved the health package as being desperate and indeed not to deliver it was agreed by all in CAP as breeching Health and Safety Legislation.

But what followed next highlighted just how bad things are in Gordon Brown's Constituency.

Dr Francis Elliot stated that while the service was going to have a significant impact on quote "the Autistic boy's health and well being" it was not within NHS Fife's competency remit to deliver the service because it was not what she called (Dr Elliot is now Director of health services Fife) "Direct Health Services". So she with the full support of Mr Brechin Senior Finance Manager and Professor James McGoldrick Chairman NHS Fife refused to release the funding to the service providers used by the parents. Instead CAP said it would only be paid when Fife Council delivered it. The reality was that Fife Council did not have the competence or the service to deliver so the the parents and family were forced to pay for the Service. The parents had no choice to pay for the service because for them not to would in the words of CAP and the Psychiatrist severely damage the child's health.

Please pass this round.

GORDON BROWN'S CONSTITUENCY OF NHS FIFE ARE PLAYING POLITICS WITH DISABLED , VULNERABLE PEOPLE WITH AUTISM WHILE FORCING FAMILIES AND FRIENDS TO BUY IN HEALTH SERVICES BECAUSE OF THE CHANCELLOR'S AND JACK MCCONNELL'S POLICIES THAT ALMOST GUARANTEE THE SYSTEMATIC ABUSE OF PEOPLE WITH AUTISM. WHILE NHS FIFE HAVE STARTED TO PAY SOME OF THE FUNDING IN THE LAST 2 OR 3 MONTHS THEY STILL REFUSE TO PAY IT TO THE PARENTS WHO ARE STILL EMPLOYING AND PAYING FOR THE SERVICE. THEY ARE ALSO REFUSING TO PAY THE PARENTS FOR THE 3 PLUS YEARS THAT THE PARENTS WERE LEFT TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE, EVIL OR WHAT!

WHEN WILL GORDON BROWN'S LABOUR PARTY START DELIVERING THE BILLION'S OF POUNDS REQUIRED. FOR TOO LONG THIS UNCARING IMMORAL PARTY HAS DELIBERATELY TARGETED AND SYSTEMATICALLY ABUSED PEOPLE WITH AUTISM.

THE ABUSE HAS GOT TO STOP.

FROM AN ARTICLE IN THE LOCAL PAPERS GORDON BROWN'S LAST VISIT TO AN AUTISTIC CENTRE IN HIS CONSTITUENCY RESULTED IN HIM SAYING THAT "THE USE OF REDUNDANT NCB COAL BUILDINGS WERE AN EXCELLENT USE IN A SOCIALLY DEPRIVED AREA". HE TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT THAT THE REASON THE DISABLED AND VULNERABLE ARE FORCED TO USE OLD RUN DOWN BUILDINGS WAS BECAUSE THE LABOUR PARTY HAD SLASHED YEAR ON YEAR THE AVERAGE ANNUAL SPEND ON A PERSON WITH AUTISM.

Dave Cunningham who's severely Autistic son has and still is being Systematically abused by Gordon Brown's Labour Party.
25 Apr 2007


 
 

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

Dopey Dwarf [Visitor]

11/07/07 @ 16:53

Dear MFasp

I have been trying to email you on info@spectrum-fairness.org.uk. My message keeps being returned to me. Please can you advise your email address and perhaps you need to amend it at the top of the page too incase people want to contact you by email?

Sorry to add a comment onto one of your stories but I wasnt quite sure how else to contact you

Thanks DD

mfaspmfasp [Member]
11/07/07 @ 21:03

Acknowledged. I've just edited the site intro. The old email address continued to work for so long, that I lost the expectation that it would cease to work at some unannounced moment. Thank you for that info.

It menas posting in the comment section, anywhere you like, is certainly the right way to communicate. What should you want an email address for? - running through the comments-war on Adders there seems to be a concern to keep everything in the open, on both sides. I agree that way is healthier.

Or are you writing about a different subject?

Dopey Dwarf [Visitor]

11/07/07 @ 21:22

Im not wanting to contribute to any of the stories on here. Just wanted to ask you a question about your Site.
Thankyou will email.
DD

Dopey Dwarf [Visitor]

11/07/07 @ 21:26

Oh sorry, I cant email - you havent included an email address in your introduction? Should I ask it here then, it isnt a complaint or a discussion item and it doesnt relate to any of the current stories here - it's really just a query.
DD

Dopey Dwarf [Visitor]

12/07/07 @ 20:45

As a person who has a specific interest in the Law, I would be very grateful if you could signpost me to your source for the Act you quote above : " Section 203(c) Communications Decency Act"

I have been unable to locate this Act in UK Law resources and, from my research, it appears that this Act doesnt not exisit in the UK.

Is this US legislation? I would be very grateful if you could let me know.

Thank you very much for your time.
DD

Margot [Visitor]

14/11/07 @ 06:18

Yes, it's a U.S. law. Here's the Wikipedia link with a special section for Section 230: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

mfaspmfasp [Member]
13/07/07 @ 20:32

For the record, your email address shows in the system when you post a comment, and I emailed you Wednesday night. Did you have a problem with responding?

Anyway: the law info was given by Blogspot, the company hosting a blog by Paul McGee who at the time was a supporter of Aspies For Freedom and very hostile to SF, not wanting to believe what others said they had suffered from AFF. He wrote the comments about "big brother is watching you" that are strewn around SF. It was excellent to get info from his blog host, at the time of SF's site crisis, to turn to SF's own defence.

McGee has shut up since sharing the experience of coming into conflict with AFF's dictator-leaders in his own turn. I'm content to leave him to quiet reflection that everything SF was warning about AFF was right after all.

Dopey Dwarf [Visitor]

14/07/07 @ 08:15

Oh Im so sorry, the message went into spam and I didnt see it. So did this Blogspot cite their source to you because, as I said, I am having great difficulty in locating that particular Act?

DD

mfaspmfasp [Member]
15/07/07 @ 09:58

When Gmail began and many voices were raving over it, it sounded to me like the spam filter might be too strong to trust. I flatly rejected having a Gmail address when a computer-savvy friend pushed me to get one. It is a violation of the user when an arrogant spam filter is in place taking all the decisions, it can easily ruin your life by rejecting an important genuine messaage. It's absurd for anyone to tolerate that. AOL has even been fighting a domain war with Lycos and Tiscali to frustrate folks from using them, that consisted of rejecting as spam utterly every email sent from them.

Yahoo's system is the best I have seen. It is a bit too strong, it sends quite a few genuine messages into your "bulk" folder, but the key point is - you can still read them and get them back out of there. You can even report them as "not spam". The bulk folder fills up with spam that is still there for you to read until you choose to empty it. That is a vital democratic right. I always deem it important to devote several minutes to going through my spam and looking at every mail there is any doubt about before deleting anything.

Laws, generally in life, are cited with their own long titles acting as their reference. There aren't holy experts in Oxford from where you cite a law's existence, when have you ever seen a law referred to in an official notice followed by "from this-and-that source we hold this law exists" ? Blogspot has been my source on this one so is responsible to all blog users for the law's existence, it is healthy from users' point of view to have a blog company standing thus accountable. Why should I count you as an expert source on a law's non-existence just because you say you can't find a lot of write-ups on it?

Dopey Dwarf [Visitor]

15/07/07 @ 10:28

" Why should I count you as an expert source on a law's non-existence just because you say you can't find a lot of write-ups on it?"

I am not any kind of "expert source" nor have I claimed to be. It isn't that I cant find "a lot of write-ups" on it - I cant find a single reference to it anywhere within reputable legal resources(and I do not mean on Google or Wikipedia etc)

I think you have misinterpreted my query. I am not being critical of you at all. Do you have a contact at Blogspot I could then, perhaps ask my question directly to them.

You have quoted your source to me, thank you. There was no "catch" in my original query I assure you. I just happen to be one of those very sad people who finds legal issues extremely interesting.

Thank you for your time.

DD

mfaspmfasp [Member]
15/07/07 @ 17:14

Seems very justified to have read you as tyring to prove the law doesn't exist. That's how it sounded.

Define "reputable legal resources". I'm sceptical there are any, when it's common knowledge solicitors and their regulators are corrupt, and the validity of the state itself and the constitution is all wholly undermined by the insistent inaction of Justice Departments/Home Office against the Law Society's claim that solicitors are allowed to change their advice after an event and hold their clients responsible not to have accepted their earlier advice when it was given! Because and as long as this is the case, I put it to you that no such thing as a reputable legal source exists.

Dopey Dwarf [Visitor]

15/07/07 @ 19:40

Oh dear! You are very sceptical arent you. Sorry to have bothered you with what I thought was a very simple question.

Actually, just for the record, I don't think this Law does actually exist (well not in UK anyway).

I am quite amazed by the ferocity of your reply to be honest .. but, never mind, I only came here to ask one simple questopn and you have answered it.
Thanks again

DD

mfaspmfasp [Member]
16/07/07 @ 19:05

The ferocity is simply against lawyers. I would expect most folks in the world to agree with that.

and whichever country's jurisdiction was being cited suits me as long as it applies to all blogs on the one web.

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).

Footer

The content of this website belongs to a private person, blog.co.uk is not responsible for the content of this website.