The Daily Mail Comments Section: A Study of one commenter – Jim

The Daily Mail is the most-read newspaper and news website in the United Kingdom. Paul Dacre’s newspaper has a remarkable power as kingmaker in British politics, and an extraordinary ability of influencing its readership.

The comments section gives an idea of the readership of the website, with both comments and like:dislike ratios hinting at what the current climate is.

A single user, Jim, has the following comments, all of which are popular amongst the DM readership:

Share

Are Patients ‘At Risk From Thousands Of EU Medics?’

On 24th September 2016, the Daily Mail headlined with the following:

This follows on from a number of previous articles published earlier in the year by the paper concerning doctors in the NHS who come from other EU countries.

Whilst the paper has never been overly fastidious with the truth, this arrangement of falsehoods and scare-mongering is not only irresponsible but immeasurably dangerous to the National Health Service.

As a doctor who works in the NHS, I fear to imagine how we would manage if my colleagues from Ireland, Italy, Greece, Poland or Spain left their jobs as consultants, clinical fellows, registrars or house officers. It would certainly expand the existing staffing voids to breaking-point. The straightforward issue of workforce numbers aside, we would also lose the countless continental talent who contribute so much to our hospitals and research.

I wonder if Sophie Borland, the Health Correspondent for the Daily Mail, could visit hospital for a few days and witness first-hand the contribution of the 10% registered doctors and 4% registered nurses from other EU countries working in the NHS.

But what of the central premise of the Daily Mail’s campaign, that EU doctors work in the UK without safety checks and constitute a risk to the public? The Daily Mail quoted the head of the UK’s General Medical Council, Niall Dickson:

“Some European doctors – because we haven’t checked their competency – may struggle when they practise here and that could put patients at risk. We are able to assess their language skills but we cannot check their competency to practise. That’s just a reality.”

The article curiously missed out the following from the GMC: “UK patients are more protected than they used to be and the European Commission deserves credit for bringing in the fitness to practise alert mechanism, which allows regulators across Europe to share concerns about the fitness of practise of health professionals, and for giving the UK and regulators in the rest of Europe the power to require health professionals to demonstrate their ability to speak the language of their patients before granting them entry to practice.”

The GMC goes on to say “it is important to remember that employers also have a responsibility to carry out thorough pre-employment checks and make sure that the doctor is qualified and competent to carry out the duties they are being given, including having the right language skills for their particular role.”

This states the obvious: that the obligation lies with the employer for ensuring a rigorous application and interview process and then monitoring a doctor’s practice, and this should be the same whether the doctor is from the UK, Europe or the rest of the world.

However, the obvious can be ignored when a vendetta is being waged, and so the Daily Mail not only overlooks this but contraindicates itself by publishing the GMC figures:

“GMC figures for 2011 to 2015 show that just 0.55 per cent of doctors who qualified in the UK were struck off, suspended or given a warning. This compares with 1.01 per cent from the EU and 1.1 per cent from elsewhere in the world”, In summary, there was more action against non-EU doctors than EU doctors (and still a small proportion).

In a riposte to the Mail, the European Commission states in its article at blogs.ec.europa.eu: “It is out of the question that EU rules would require the UK to let linguistically or medically incompetent doctors practise. In fact, the rules – recently further reinforced in agreement with the UK – expressly require Member States to prevent such people from being employed”

This headline brings two negative consequences – firstly, patients become needlessly worried about EU doctors, which may lead to delays in seeking appropriate and timely care. Secondly, an incorrect stigma is fostered against a large group of doctors and nurses. Since Britain voted to leave the European Union, there has already been a marked reduction in applications from EU healthcare staff to work in the NHS. If those who come here from Europe and work to save lives and cure illnesses feel that they are no longer welcome and leave, then patients will really be at risk.

My article was originally posted on the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nima-ghadiri/are-patients-at-risk-from_b_12224216.html?

Share

Professor Stephen Hawking “Our attitude towards wealth played a crucial role in Brexit. We need a rethink”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/29/stephen-hawking-brexit-wealth-resources

2560

Money was a key factor in the outcome of the EU referendum. We will now have to learn to collaborate and to share

Does money matter? Does wealth make us rich any more? These might seem like odd questions for a physicist to try to answer, but Britain’s referendum decision is a reminder that everything is connected and that if we wish to understand the fundamental nature of the universe, we’d be very foolish to ignore the role that wealth does and doesn’t play in our society.

I argued during the referendum campaign that it would be a mistake for Britain to leave the European Union. I’m sad about the result, but if I’ve learned one lesson in my life it is to make the best of the hand you are dealt. Now we must learn to live outside the EU, but in order to manage that successfully we need to understand why British people made the choice that they did. I believe that wealth, the way we understand it and the way we share it, played a crucial role in their decision. As the prime minister, Theresa May, said in her first week in office: “We need to reform the economy to allow more people to share in the country’s prosperity.”

We all know that money is important. One of the reasons I believed it would be wrong to leave the EU was related to grants. British science needs all the money it can get, and one important source of such funding has for many years been the European commission. Without these grants, much important work would not and could not have happened. There is already some evidence of British scientists beingfrozen out of European projects, and we need the government to tackle this issue as soon possible.

Money is also important because it is liberating for individuals. I have spoken in the past about my concern that government spending cuts in the UK will diminish support for disabled students, support that helped me during my career. In my case, of course, money has helped not only make my career possible but has also literally kept me alive.

On one occasion while in Switzerland early on in my career, I developed pneumonia, and my college at Cambridge, Gonville and Caius, arranged to have me flown back to the UK for treatment. Without their money I might not have survived to do all the thinking that I’ve managed since then. Cash can set individuals free, just as poverty can certainly trap them and limit their potential, to their own detriment and that of the human race.

Paying for my care as a severely disabled man, and my work, is crucial; the acquisition of possessions is not.

So I would be the last person to decry the significance of money. However, although wealth has played an important practical role in my life, I have of course had a different relationship with it to most people. Paying for my care as a severely disabled man, and my work, is crucial; the acquisition of possessions is not. I don’t know what I would do with a racehorse, or indeed a Ferrari, even if I could afford one. So I have come to see money as a facilitator, as a means to an end – whether it is for ideas, or health, or security – but never as an end in itself.

Interestingly this attitude, for a long time seen as the predictable eccentricity of a Cambridge academic, is now more widely shared. People are starting to question the value of pure wealth. Is knowledge or experience more important than money? Can possessions stand in the way of fulfilment? Can we truly own anything, or are we just transient custodians?

These questions are leading to a shift in behaviour which, in turn, is inspiring some groundbreaking new enterprises and ideas. These are termed “cathedral projects”, the modern equivalent of the grand church buildings, constructed as part of humanity’s attempt to bridge heaven and Earth. These ideas are started by one generation with the hope a future generation will take up these challenges.

I hope and believe that people will embrace more of this cathedral thinking for the future, as they have done in the past, because we are in perilous times. Our planet and the human race face multiple challenges. These challenges are global and serious – climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans. Such pressing issues will require us to collaborate, all of us, with a shared vision and cooperative endeavour to ensure that humanity can survive. We will need to adapt, rethink, refocus and change some of our fundamental assumptions about what we mean by wealth, by possessions, by mine and yours. Just like children, we will have to learn to share.

If we fail then the forces that contributed to Brexit, the envy and isolationism not just in the UK but around the world that spring from not sharing, of cultures driven by a narrow definition of wealth and a failure to divide it more fairly, both within nations and across national borders, will strengthen. If that were to happen, I would not be optimistic about the long-term outlook for our species.

But we can and will succeed. Humans are endlessly resourceful, optimistic and adaptable. We must broaden our definition of wealth to include knowledge, natural resources, and human capacity, and at the same time learn to share each of those more fairly. If we do this, then there is no limit to what humans can achieve together.

• Stephen Hawking recently launched www.unlimited.world

Share

Professor A C Grayling’s letter to all 650 MPs urging Parliament not to support a motion to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, 1 July 2016

Many students at New College of the Humanities urged Professor A C Grayling, Master of the College, to express his views in light of the EU referendum result. Professor Grayling, who is a champion of the UK remaining in the EU, has written a letter asking Parliament not to support a motion to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The letter, which is copied in full below, was physically delivered by two NCH students to all 650 MPs at Parliament this morning, 1 July 2016.

29 June 2016

At the urging of many of my students – who come both from the United Kingdom and the European Union – and my own conscience, I write to you to express a respectful but strongly held view that, for the reasons set out below, Parliament should not support a motion to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. It is within your democratic remit and duty as a Member of our Parliament to vote on whether to initiate that procedure. By voting not to do so, you will keep the UK in the EU.

The non-binding referendum, its circumstances, and its slim majority achieved in those circumstances, is not an adequate ground for the UK to leave the EU.

The relevant factors and reasons are as follows.

In order for the UK to begin the process of leaving the EU, Parliament has to vote in favour of invoking Article 50. It is possible that complex constitutional issues might have to be settled in advance of such a vote, for example repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. This is a matter that legal expertise is required to settle. But the key matter in the end is a vote on whether to initiate the Article 50 procedure.

Parliament as presently constituted has a substantial majority in favour of remaining in the EU. Given the following factors:

  • that the referendum was advisory only and non-binding,
  • that the majority for ‘Brexit’ was small (3.8%),
  • that there are major questions about the circumstances of the respective Remain and especially Leave campaigns regarding probity of information, claims and promises made to voters,
  • that a serious risk of break-up of the UK impends upon a ‘Brexit,’
  • that the economic consequences of a ‘Brexit’ are not in the UK’s favour,
  • that a ‘Brexit’ would damage our neighbours and partners in Europe,
  • and that the future of the young of our country is focally implicated in the decision,

For all these reasons and more, there is a powerful case for Parliament to use its discretion to determine that it is not in the UK’s interests to leave the EU.

No doubt this will cause anxiety among those MPs who think that a simple majority in a referendum confers a moral, even though not legal, obligation to treat the referendum outcome as prescriptive and binding. This is far from being so, for the following reasons.

First, in most jurisdictions major constitutional change requires a supermajority or two-thirds majority to effect them (as e.g. in the USA and Germany), whether in a legislature or in referendums. In Switzerland, which alone among developed nations employs frequent referendums in its ‘semi-direct’ democracy, major decisions require a double majority of the electorate and the cantons.

For a very major change such as exiting the EU, it is not acceptable to have matters decided by a small simple majority. So great a change requires a significant degree of genuine consensus, at the minimum such as a 60% majority would reflect.

Second, a referendum is in essence a decision by crowd acclamation. You will of course well understand that there is an excellent reason why most advanced and mature polities do not have systems of ‘direct democracy’ but instead have systems of representative democracy, in which legislators are not delegates sent by their constituents but agents tasked and empowered to investigate, debate and decide on behalf of their constituents. This reason is that rule by crowd acclamation is a very poor method of government.

Consider: suppose that every item of proposed legislation were decided by referendums, which would therefore occur very frequently. Bills on health and safety in manufacturing industry, on reform of higher education, on the use of chemicals in water treatment plants, on regulation of air traffic over the nation’s airports – bills proposed by government and drafted in detail by civil servants – would be presented to the public, who would then vote. Would that work?

Very obviously, not. The expertise, patience and time that most of the public could bring to the task would be extremely limited; the lack of expertise, especially, would be a serious, perhaps disastrous, handicap. And very soon turnouts in referendums would plummet to single figures, rendering their democratic value nugatory.

Now I beg: really do consider the implications of the foregoing thought. Referendums are snapshots of sentiment at a given point in time. Government by referendum is government by crowd acclamation: not democracy, but ochlocracy. That is exactly why we have representative democracy. If referendums would be a poor way to decide on health and safety, air traffic control, or education, they are an exceedingly poor way to decide a matter as momentous as membership of the EU. This is and should be a matter for Parliament, taking all factors into account.

Moreover: the circumstances of the campaigns and the consequences of the vote itself must be considered. There was a great deal of misinformation, distortion, and false promises, much of it quickly revealed in the immediate aftermath of the vote, and resiled upon even by those who had made those claims and promises. Tabloid urgings for Brexit were followed, in the very same tabloids, immediately after the vote by information on its consequences which shocked readers. We have seen much reported about the post-vote regrets of people who had voted for ‘Brexit,’ – including some high-profile individuals who before the vote had been urging it in their newspapers.

These factors add up to this: that there are grave doubts about whether the basis on which votes were cast, especially among many who voted for ‘Brexit,’ are good grounds for Members of Parliament to resign their competence and duty to consider whether the UK should leave the EU. On the contrary: these considerations make it all the more imperative that Parliament should exercise its sovereign responsibility in the matter.

There is a formal online petition requesting a second referendum. If this petition is genuine and not the result of fraudulent computer hacking, it is the most extraordinary phenomenon: as I write these words it stands, only a few days after the vote itself, at over four million signatures. However if Parliament were to exercise its responsibility in voting down a proposal to trigger the Article 50 procedure, no second referendum would be necessary.

Some have suggested that a following general election, in which each MP made clear his or her standpoint on Remain or Leave, would provide a definitive conclusion to Parliament’s decision on the matter. However this is not constitutionally necessary: Parliament is sovereign: an election would merely prolong uncertainty.

One of the most important reasons why Parliament must take a bold sovereign stand on the outcome of this small-majority advisory referendum, is the interests of the young. We know that the Remain and Leave votes divided along the fault lines of age, educational level, and geography. There is every reason to urge that the wishes and interests of the young – the younger, more aspirational creators of the country’s future – should be given most weight. Parliament should protect those interests and respect those wishes. Some say that any among the young who could vote but did not, have only themselves to blame. This argument will not do. Those young people might have legitimately thought that their elders would not be so foolish as to betray the future by a ‘Brexit’ vote. But punishing them with a ‘Brexit’ is not the right response. The sober judgment of Parliament should be on their side.

You might think that Parliament’s discretion not to trigger the Article 50 procedure would leave matters hanging in the air, with continued uncertainty and the instability and political upheaval that it would bring.

Not so.

In debating and voting on whether to trigger the Article 50 procedure, it can be made clear that Parliament has noted

  • the outcome of the advisory referendum,
  • the small size of the majority of actual votes cast (thus, not the majority of the electorate),
  • the circumstances of the campaigns,
  • the consequences both already actual and in prospect, for the future interest, unity and prosperity of the UK,
  • and the impact on our neighbours in Europe:

and that it is exercising its democratic duty to take a view and to vote accordingly. If the vote is to not trigger the ‘Brexit’ procedure, our partners in Europe can be informed and normality can be restored.

The EU is flawed and has problems. But as a powerful member of one of the three great blocs in the world, the UK can do much to help it get better, and to work within it to help all its members realize the great ideals of peace, prosperity and co-operation for which the EU exists.

Let us not absent ourselves from this beautiful endeavour. Let us not injure it by refusing to be part of it, thereby also damaging ourselves and the hopes of our young.

Please – you have both the ability and the duty to use your own discretion in this matter. I very respectfully urge you to use the first and obey the second. The future truly depends on it.

Yours sincerely,

Professor A. C. Grayling

Master of the College

Source: https://www.nchlondon.ac.uk/2016/07/01/professor-c-graylings-letter-650-mps-urging-parliament-not-support-motion-trigger-article-50-lisbon-treaty-1-july-2016/

Share