Into the Bowells of the NHS... Part 1

On Tuesday the 28th of November, I embarked on a journey filled with anguish and pain and despair. This journey was of course metaphoric; it was more an 'experience' (maybe involuntary confinement would be a better way to describe it) and it led me into the inner bowells of the England's failing National Health Service; a topic that has sparked much controversy over the past few years.

Before I begin my tale of enlightenment, I must admit that I have never been hospitalised before in my life. I have never had the pleasure of spending time in a dreary hospital so imagine my surprise when the doctors told me I wouldn't be going home that night (or the night after). I did not know what to expect and was curious of my first hand experience with the notorious NHS.

So anyway, to the story...

It all began at school. What started out as nothing turned into laboured breathing and a dull pain spreading through my chest. It was endurable but left me extremely worried; What disease could inflict chest pains but no coughing? I thought of Pneumonia, Tuboculosis, AIDS (don't ask me why. I eventually associate every inexplicable disease to AIDS). I made sure all my friends knew just how much I was suffering.

"You're such a hypercondriac!" Robin complained, before hitting me on the back (to 'relieve' the pain apparently). "If it really hurts so much go to the Office. Atleast then you'd stop bothering me."

I admit, I am a hypercondriac at times. But because I know I'm a hypercondriac, any inexplicable pains are attributed to hypercondria. This pain was horribly real and ominously in the area of my chest. I couldn't take any chances with this.

I excused myself from my maths lesson and went to the Office. The secretaries there were totally unsympathetic and they didn't show the least bit concerned when they told me to wait and I was struggling to breathe. My dad ferried me to the Liverpool Royal Hospital (I was too old for Alder Hay, Liverpool childrens hospital and leading infant organ harvester). This is where my story really begins.

I was admitted into the the emergency unit and told to wait. There were three people waiting with me; Two men and a woman.

Both men were tracksuited and one looked like the father of the other. Occasionally the younger would cry and his father would reassure him (as if he'd just been diagnosed with cancer). The boy was treated like a ten year old and was told to leave his fathers side by the doctors (for reasons I will never know). The woman (I assume) was an alcoholic. Her speech was slurred, her reactions were slow and at times she would just stare blankly, even when the doctor talked to her. The doctor was unimpressed when she claimed she suffered a heart attack and he threatened to call security. Eventually the woman ambled off, possibly in a drunken stupor. I pitied them but I pitied myself more.

Already I'd encountered these two cases they both depressed me immensely. It didn't help that every now and then, crying relatives were ushered past me into a room (I never saw a single person leave).

Eventually, the doctor got to me and I was given a temporary bed where they could examine me. I waited for about three hours. I asked for a sandwich twice and the nurses promised me it would be delivered. I never saw a single sandwich that night.

When the doctor came, he delivered the devastating new that I was to stay the night, "under surveillence". I'd probably have registered less shock if you were to tell me God was real, the apocalyse is next week or that LFC had won the treble.

"I can't. I've got GCSE mocks!" I protested weakly. I knew it was in vain. Since I wasn't old enough to discharge myself, and my condition was serious enough to stay the night, the only people who had control of my situation were the doctors. They were to decide when I was to leave and when not. It was like prison (except with less luxuries).

As I was wheeled to my bed (I had waited three hours and I was put in a room with four free beds. I couldn't understand why I needed to wait so long for an empty room.) The idea of staying the night filled me with dread. I tried to console myself but it was no use. In fact, the only things that kept me going was the guilt my friends would be feeling at this moment, and that I would be able to write about my experiences as soon as I was discharged. Those alone gave me strength to endure the night.

Stay tuned for Part 2.

Scotland: Independant Country?

For some unknown reason, I decided to watch Braveheart sometime ago (there was nothing else on, I swear). Having endured Mel Gibson and his poor Scottish accent long enough I began wondering, if the Scots hate England so much, why be part of the UK?

And now recently, Gordon Brown (a scot) has told the Scottish Labour party independance isn't such a good idea, reiterating what Tony Blair has said about a vote of independance for Scotland and responding to criticism that he is responsible for "Scottish economic underperformance".

Not meaning to sound jingoistic, but if they're going to pin all their problems on England then they can bloody well piss off. What is the point of the United Kingdom if Scotland will just be vying for independance? They wouldn't even agree to a Great Britain football team! How unsupportive can you get?

The only reason Blair/Brown want Scotland to stay is the large share of Labour voters that keep the duo in power. They gave Scottish politicians the right to vote on matters that will not affect their constituencies, how is that fair? Blair gave Scotland its own Parliament and now he's feeling the consequences.

Reasons for Scottish independance:

1. Hatred of the English
2. The English love a joke at Scotlands expense
3. Not in support of GB football team
4. Celtic and Rangers (the dreaded Old Firm)
5. Braveheart
6. Scottish Nationalist Party
7. The country is full of sheep
8. It's a wet and cold place (despite what the "Visit Scotland" advert says)

Strong arguments I think you will find.

How does Scotland actually benefit England? Other than provide Labour with valuable voters? If Scotland wants to become a minor European country than so be it. Give the Scottish a chance to run their own country; Blair gave them a government so why not?

There are two outcomes if independance is given:

Country fails
Scotland is no longer supported by England and fails miserably at the running of their country. Trade and economy become stagnant and basically the whole country goes to pot. Every Englishman laughs. Scottish become butt of all jokes.

Country succeeds
Scotland becomes prosperous and does an Ireland (3rd richest country in the world after independance). Every Englishman becomes incredibly jealous and anti-Scottish sentement rises. But the Scottish have the last laugh as England is left in a dire state (NHS, rising crime etc.)

But to be honest nothing's going to change. All I know is that Braveheart is an awful movie and that Scottish football is dire. If the country can't sort out its football how can it sort out its politics?

Junkies sent to prison paid for not getting drugs

In what seems to be a momentary lapse of sanity, The British government has decided to to settle out of court by giving drug addicts forced to go 'Cold Turkey' in prison payouts of around £750,000 because of a breach of human rights. Apparently, this will cost the taxpayer less if it weren't drawn out in court.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but did they not forfeit their human rights once they broke the law and took drugs? They can't possibly expect us to treat them humanely if they're in prison. If prison was such a wonderful place; free food, accomodation, drug addiction treatment, library (or so I am told) then we'd be queuing to go there.

The problem is we are spending too much taxpayers money turning our prisons into luxury hotels. Prisoners shouldn't expect to be pampered, they should be reminded that what they did was morally wrong and should therefore be punished. If refusing them of the drugs they so crave (which is what got them in jail in the first pace) is painful for the individual then so be it; you can't say they didn't warn them when they took the drugs in the first place.

These recent events make us question the whole legal system really. Why should they have had the right to take to court something so trivial? Why does it cost so much to tackle the case in court? It seems like the only people benefiting from the human rights acts are criminals and their legal teams.

If you ask me, I should be the one getting the compensation. Valuable money has been spent on these degenerate junkies and I haven't benefited one bit from it (other than the increase in drug related crime and the chavs roaming our streets; which are both associated with drugs and have directly affected me at one point or another). Compensation for all that taxpayer money that has been wasted on losers who take drugs, and the rehab clinics to treat them.

It's time we re-thought the whole human rights act. It seems the only people that benefit from it are the guilty, while the money of the innocent is being spent.

Mid-Term Elections: A British Perspective

I'll be frank, I could find nothing satirical about the Mid-Term elections to write about. But being such a huge topic at the moment, it seemed impossible to ignore (what with the landmark victory for the Democrats, new era for America etc.). But also, being British, I know huge amounts about the negative aspects of American politics and very little about the positive aspects of it.

Therefore imagine my shock when something seemingly good for American politics actually occurs.

I use the word seemingly because there are a number of things that don't seem quite right. It makes no sense that Bush should still be President after the elections. He lost didn't he? So why aren't the Democrats in power? It doesn't seem logical. And if the Democrats own both the House and the Senate, does that mean Bush and his cronies face an army of liberals when making policies?


Then there's foreign policy. What will this do to Anglo-American relations? Will we see less arse-licking from Blair? I vaguely remember someone saying something about the Democrats changing the Iraq policy. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing; on one hand it might mean the beginning of the end of American occupation, on the other hand it could mean England are left to deal with the shit-storm of unrest by themselves.

The Democrats aren't exactly a bundle of joy either. The thought of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and John "Couldn't Beat Bush" Kerry in positions of power do not fill me with much enthusiasm. They are all extremely boring people, atleast with Bush he'd give the world something to laugh at (and take the heat from America), while John Kerry is a boring twat with the personality of stale cheese.

So to summarise... the nasty evil right-wing Republican bastards have been replaced with the kickass super awesome right-wing Democrats... Somehow I don't envisage much change in the future.

It kinda reminds me of British politics really.

Which is the one on the right?

Poppy: Red or White?

Apparently a question that has been raging for years. A religious think-tank has recently claimed that that red poppies sold to commemorate those who died in WWI are "less religious" to the white poppies being sold and that people should be able to choose between white and red ones. This has added fuel to the fire of the debate over wearing religion items (veils/crosses etc.).

The director of Ekklesia, Jonathan Bartley, said people should be able to choose between red or white ones.

He added red poppies implied redemption through war, but Christianity seeks redemption through non-violence. White ones were created to symbolise peace.

I didn't even know that white poppies existed and even if I did, I would still choose the red poppy. Not because of any religious implications but because the red poppies grew on Flanders fields and inspired Rememberance Day.


John Bartley clearly does not know what he's talking about. Red was the colour of the poppies on Flanders field, it has nothing to do with redemption whatsoever. The poppy has never been religious symbol (this is the first time I've heard of anyone considering it as one). It seems like Mr. Bartley has completely plucked this idea out of the air.

We would be missing the point if we read anything into the colour. The poppy has always been a reminder of the war so what does the colour matter? Mr. Bartley seems to be forgetting that the poppy is to help those that fought in the war and not some religious item to flaunt. The white poppy promotes peace but raises no money for those that fought in the war so why should people be wearing it for a day that remembers the soldiers that fought in the war?

If the colour of the poppy is why we wear it then we have definitely lost our way. From what I understand of the white poppy, it was created as an anti-war symbol to divert money from the veterans; which is totally inappropriate and immoral, especially since it will be for Rememberance Day. The white poppy is totally ridiculous and it would be a mockery to the veterans if it were sold.

Less globally, my school had a Rememberance Day assembly. Like the white poppy, it was incredibly stupid. Had any veterans turned up to watch they would be seething with rage at the disrespect my school showed with its lack of effort. No one sang or bothered to look as if they cared. Not that my school doesn't like war veterans; they just hate assemblies.

Human-Cow Embryos

Scientists from Newcastle (of all places) have recently applied for permission to develop stem cell research and fuse human DNA with Cow eggs. Since there's so much controversy over stem cells as it is, was it really such a good idea to bring up plans to create living things (if only for a few days) that are half-human half-cow?

At first, the idea horrified me. It all made sense once I had soaked in the facts and reassured myself that the world will not be taken over by armies of mutant humanoid-bovine freaks enslaving the human populance.


But what if the research were to fall into the hands of some crazy scientics who were to develop the cells further? Before you know it we'll have modern day minotaurs floating in sealed glass containers filled with luminous green liquids. They'll have the strength of an oxe, the intelligence of a chimp (we are being realistic here) and horns to gorge us with (and win head-butting competitions).

We'll think we have them under our control then before you know it they'll have burst out of their transparent cages, killed their makers and escape, leaving a path of distruction in their wake.


Then we'll have a Frankensteinesque situation on our hands. The new creations won't understand why we have brought them into society and once they find out our purpose for them was simply to harvest their stem cells to cure our incurable diseases, they'll be extremely pissed and start smashing things. Be warned, these things are known to happen (in movies) so if the situation does occur, you heard it here first.

If you think the idea of cow-men a bit too unrealistic, you must agree there is a possibility of unknown diseases developing. Since we are harvesting the bovine-human stem cells and eventually implanting them into humans is it not possible that people with the cells begin developing bovine traits? If you don't believe me click here.

And what about Bovine Flu? I heard it has the potential to be ten times as deadly as avian bird flu with the added edge of mad cow disease and/or foot and mouth disease. Since bird flu caused such mass hysteria why not bovine flu? It does exist doesn't it?

If you want evidence of the devastating effects of hydrid diseases you should watch Mission Impossible III.

But perhaps, as far-fetched as it sounds, the cells will function just as normal as any other stem cells do and won't create monsters capable of taking over the world. Since the cells are in such short supply, I think we can risk developing hybrid supercows for now.

Social Degeneration: Chavs

Definition of Chav: Burberry-wearing, bling-loving, Lacoste-tracksuited degenerate tossers. (If you're American, think a wigga obsessed with Burberry and fake tan)

It was only a few years ago when Chavs did not roam the earth and we were free to walk down dark back-alleys, hold our heads up high and not be intimidated by gangs of youths with nothing better to do than chain-smoke, vandalise and procreate in the streets before binge-drinking and passing out on the curb. Then when morning breaks, society will pick their disgusting forms out of the gutter and fix them up again for another night filled with violence and vices.

So it is definitely fair to say these low-lifes are the scum of the earth, and deserve to be forced to work camps to repay society for the damage caused by their random acts of violence and vandalism. However, what seems like an incredibly simple solution (lock them up and make pay back their debt to us) has been horribly dealt with by the government. So much so that the Chav population is actually rising.

But have no fear. Our saviour, David Cameron has reacted to protest at rising young offenders:

Young offenders should be shown "a lot more love" in an effort to encourage good behaviour, Conservative leader David Cameron has said.

He called for a more understanding approach as to why youths committed crimes in the first place. They must have counselling, education and training, he told the Youth Justice Board's annual convention in Cardiff.

The Tory leader suggested that children should receive "tough love" and, in turn, have "high standards" asked of them.

This was not the same as "sentimental, childish love which sees no wrong in anyone", he added.

Handing out anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) to young people or putting them in custody was "reacting" to crime, not "reducing" it, Mr Cameron said, and many institutions had become "social dustbins".

Oh I see... We should go around loving and embracing the Chavs! It seems ridiculous to pour taxpayers money into more counselling and education for a bunch of degenerates who clearly do not appreciate our help, and would rather be drinking cheap cider and vomitting on the pavement. It'd be a bigger money-waster than the NHS Blackhole.

But then again, I'm just a kid, what would I know about issues like politics and stuff? Dave Cameron clearly understands these things better than I do because he's such a "hip" and "cool" Tory.

If you ask me, the problem would be easily solved if there was a revamp in the youth justice system. If Chavs really think a ASBO was like a knighthood then the only solution is to scrap a system that doesn't work and replace it with a system that does. What I suggest is that anyone found passed out wearing Burberry should be rounded up and sent to a Brat Camp/juvenile delinquency center to work until they show some sense and willing to contribute to society (instead of dropping out of school and living off the dole). And if that doesn't work, use them as an alternative fuel to burn.

But at the moment, the situation will only worsen before it gets any better. Hopefully there will be a day when people can walk down the street without fear of being mugged by a twerp in a hoodie at knife point or happy-slapped on a double-decker bus. Until then, I shall think twice about walking walking alone in the dark.

Saddam: Death Sentence Unfair?

Another day, another tyrant brought to justice by the Americans. Only this morning, the BBC announced that Saddam Hussien was guilty for crimes against humanity and was sentenced to death by hanging. Although he was a dictator and killed hundreds of his people (but the Americans have killed more), the whole trial was a fiasco and he was convicted for totally the wrong reasons.

First the Americans, in fear of communism, "assisted" the Ba'ath Party who overthrew the Quassim's party in a military coup. Saddam Hussien had been part of an assasination attempt on Prime Minister Quassim, backed by (who else but) the Americans. If anything it should be the Americans that should be punished for putting the Iraqi people under Saddam and the Ba'ath Party's regime.

In 2003, after 9/11 America wanted a foothold in the Middle East so accused Saddam of links with Al-Quaeda (although we later found out Saddam was too snobbish to collaborate with them) and accused the country of developing weapons of mass destruction. The mission, suitably codenamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (ironic considering it was the Americans that took it away) was to bring down Saddam Hussein and strip him of the massive stash of biological and chemical weapons he possessed.

So after lots of bombing of innocent people, lots of deaths of British/American soldiers the Americans find Saddam hiding out in a cave and drag him out to face true American justice.

The US then set up a court with no credibility whatsoever (anyone found sympathetic towards Saddam was taken off the court). Saddam himself claimed he had been tortured but this was denied by the Americans who claimed there was no evidence (but of course).

And that brings us to today. Saddam has been convicted, conveniently just before the mid-term elections. Huzzah and hurrah to the Republicans who brought him to justice!

Double Standard: Tyrant convicted of crimes against humanity sentenced to hanging, a crime against humanity.

Saddam did commit many atrocities in his time but he did not recieve a fair trail. The Americans went into Iraq and arrested him on trumped up charges (to this day no weapons of mass distruction were ever discovered. Except for a few bags of fertiliser), put infront of a kangaroo court and convicted solely for the Republican election campaign.

But Iraq is now in turmoil without Saddam, the only one who can control them. Democracy has really triumphed over there, with looting, violence, no law and order. The Americans cared too much about Iraq's precious oil to be bothered to set up a system to keep the peace.

If I remember correctly, the Americans dismantled the police in Iraq and also the military. So no law and order but lots of angry Iraqis with access to military weapons? Great idea Bush.

But as the Americans will say. Justice has been done. They've got their precious oil and a boost in the mid-term elections, no one will care when they bugger off and leave Iraq in the state it's in now. So who will pick up the pieces?

NHS...It's a Conspiracy!

I was reading 'The Times' last night and was not even mildly shocked when I found out how screwed the National Health Service has become thanks to Blair and his shitty policies. Of course, I knew all along that our free health service was shite when I had to wait a year and a half just to be put on the waiting list for braces and I still haven't had them fitted yet. That just about sums up the NHS blackhole, it's either that or I was subject to institutional racism, the bastards.

How on earth could Labour fuck up so badly as to lose billions every year? Either Labour are filled with incompetants or it's all a fucking conspiracy and the money is going into swiss banks to line the pockets of Mr. Blair.

The only solution is health insurance. We've got no choice but to scrap the stupid notion of giving everyone "free healthcare" and loosen the burden on taxpayers by forcing them to take on health insurance, at least this way they don't have to pay for the healthcare of fat lazy sods who can't be bothered to work. Just look how great it is in America.

This all seems a bit right wing for a socialist like me but this country is so fucked up it needs to be said.