Boris Kangaroo Court Misses the Point.

 I'm sorry for those that didn't get to say goodbye to relatives in hospital during the pandemic. I sympathise with people that could not attend funerals as well.

But to compare those emotive scenarios with the Boris Partygate scandal is factually incorrect.

During the Pandemic, essential workers were allowed to continue working. In our office of three people we kept working all the way through. We were allowed, by law to continue working. In fact we also had close contact with the other 5 workers in the warehouse. So that's eight of us in close contact all the way through. Acceptable by law.

Had someone in the office left during the pandemic and we cared enough to turn up with wine and nibbles on the day, then that was also allowed. We were not inviting anyone outside our working environment into our office space.

And so it is with Boris. As much as you want to compare apples with eggs, the fact is that Boris was at work, with co-workers. They were I hope classified as essential workers, so were entitled to be working together. Those were the rules on the day and the addition of wine and nibbles does not alter that fact.

Boris is not making up rules for himself, those were the rules on the day: essential workers were allowed to work together all the way through the pandemic. They could be on the premises working just as much as being on the premises to chug wine and eat cheesy crackers.

Now, we get on to Kier Starmer: I believe he was having a beer in a constituency office during the pandemic. An office that was not his normal place of work. He successfully argued that he was allowed to work in that office and have a beer during a break for food. 

If that's the case, then Boris is more than entitled to enjoy a glass of wine in work with his co-workers.

It's not piss-taking, it's not taking the Mick, it wasn't illegal, it wasn't immoral either. It was legal, moral and correct, but of course the left's morality police will be wheeling out tales of missed funerals, relatives dying unattended in hospital. All irrelevant. 

If the left want a hill to plant their flag on, what about the thousands of DNR notices placed on vulnerable people in the hands of the care sector? You know, the attempts by the NHS to avoid treating people they deemed not worthy because they were old, infirm, disabled or had learning difficulties.

Any word on that from the left? No? 

The Discredited "Liverpool Care Pathway" is Still Killing People.

I've already blogged about how many people were given secret DNR notices on their medical record during the pandemic, something else that I knew was still being used has hit the news.

In this report an 88-year old lady was put on an "end of life pathway" after suffering a stroke, despite being otherwise healthy. So healthy, it took over 25 days for her carers to terminate her life by starving her to death.

For the unaware, the "Liverpool Care Pathway" (LCP) was introduced as a way to end the suffering of a patient that was already close to the end of their life. For many reasons, continuing to feed a person in the late stages of cancer for instance, could only prolong their suffering. The LCP was introduced as a "humane" way of allowing those people to slip away. They would already be on large doses of painkillers, so withdrawing food and fluid would not add much if anything to their suffering.

But it was found the LCP was being applied to ill but otherwise healthy patients who were inconveniently staying alive, or possibly labour-intensive, as a way to shorten the burden to the organisation. It was found that patients that would have recovered from their illness were being put on the pathway and it was the pathway, not the illness that then ended their life.

In these cases, the LCP was rightly deemed inhumane. Not only for the person being effectively starved to death, but also for the families, having to watch their loved one go through up to and sometimes over a month without food or fluid.

It was supposedly removed as a "treatment" back in 2014. However, in the NHS and the Social Care Sector, the LCP appears to be alive and well, it's just not called the Liverpool Care Pathway. Patients are still being prematurely denied food and fluid for a number of reasons, in an effort to end their life early.

I will leave it up to the reader as to why that may be, but I have my suspicions. But the one reason that it isn't, is to humanely end the life of an otherwise end-of--life terminal patient. 

It was recognised as a scandal back in 2014 and it's still a scandal. The Liverpool Care Pathway must be banned. It's unlawful to starve an otherwise healthy person to death and the medical setting should not offer protection from prosecution. 

It's only because of the protection afforded by the medical or care setting and the unwillingness of the Police to investigate that prevents a manslaughter by gross negligence charge being brought.