NICE are NASTY (3)

My experience of losing Matthew was made easier by the health proffessionals and guidelines that are available through the Stillbirth And Neonatal Death Society (SANDS) a charity whos core aims are to

* Support anyone affected by the death of a baby;

*To work in partnership with health professionals to improve the quality of care and services offered to bereaved families; and

*To promote research and changes in practice that could help to reduce the loss of babies' lives

Many years ago these guidelines were not available and many parents never had the experience of holding their babies indeed some were not allowed to even see their babies it was a time when midwives sent mothers home with a cheery, "Never mind dear, you can have another one"as if you had lost something you had bought in a supermarket or, "See you in nine months"as if you'd made a mistake this time round.

Linda's baby boy, Jo, died in 1974 she says: "In June 1974, I gave birth to my first born son. I never saw him. Eighteen weeks into the pregnancy problems had started. I was told that I would miscarry, that unless I could hold on to my baby until twenty-eight weeks he had no chance of life. Nothing could be done, I was to carry on as normal. During the following weeks he grew, he moved, he kicked - but we only managed twenty-five weeks.
I went into labour, gave birth, he cried - more of a whimper really - but I heard him. They took him away. Hours later, they told me he had just died. I can remember exactly every word spoken, every action, every feeling, every detail of that day, right up to that point. Then nothing.
I never saw him, never held him. I have no memory of him, nor him of me, this side of birth. He lived and died alone.
I was told to forget, to get on with my life, to get pregnant again. That it was just one of those things. I was told it was best not to talk or even think about him. I learnt later that as he was a live birth he had been registered and buried. But it was thought best that I didn't know. I wasn't told about the funeral of my son.I had to forget. But you don't, do you?
Twenty-four years later various events happened in my life and memories of that baby became very prominent. I told myself that I was being stupid, it was long past. But the thoughts would not go away. The sadness, the aching, would not go away.
Eventually I was persuaded to see a psychologist, Anne, who was compassionate and wise. At last I was able to talk about my baby. It was allowed. It was not silly but quite normal, even necessary.
I found a copy of his birth certificate, there was a blank space where his name should have been. I found the cemetery, the entry in their records. Again, no name. I found the patch of grass that was his unmarked grave where he lay with three other babies. Now he was real, he had lived, he was mine.Anne asked if I wanted to give him a name, maybe write what I wanted to say to him. Yes, oh yes.
I needed to know what he may have looked like, so Anne arranged for me to visit the special care unit at the local hospital. I met another mother and her tiny daughter and the nurses who were caring for them. I listened, I watched and that perfect, beautiful little person held my finger. I found out how things have changed. All the people in that room were special. Individuals - whatever their size. No blank spaces. There was so much love and understanding in that ward. I came way convinced that no-one, but no-one, ever has the right to separate a mother from her baby. Now, at last, this is understood. But there must be so many women of my generation and older who are still trying to forget and not succeeding.

That night I cried, wept for my baby, my son I never held.

Anne says "At 36 weeks they said my baby was small and it would be better if she was born now.
After 36 hours of labour I was finally told my baby was dead and that I needed an emergency Caesarean Section. I remember everything, every detail, every word spoken, every action, every feeling. I thought I was going to die and I wanted to.
Then nothing. A blank space, a void where there should have been a new life starting.
I asked questions which were mostly avoided or went unanswered. I was not allowed to see or to hold her. I was told to forget, get on with my life, to get pregnant again. I was told my daughter had Hydrocephalus and Spina Bifida. When I asked about the funeral was told that she had been 'slipped' in with someone-else. When I tried to give her a name I was told there was no provision to name a stillborn child.

Catherine lost her daughter in April 1968 she says "No-one asked if we would like to see her, hold her or have a photograph. We were not allowed, in those days, to name her. We have no birth or death certificates and it was not thought that she deserved a proper funeral. When I was still in hospital, my husband was paying for her burial.Two weeks after my confinement I found a new job - no maternity leave then - and tried to get back to normal as was expected of me."

Chris lost her daughter in 1973 and started a local group in conjunction with two other mothers, She became chair of the then fledgling 'Stillbirth and Perinatal Death Society', which later became SANDS. "It was such a relief to meet other mothers and be able to talk and share experiences with them. Up till then I had never met anyone else who had been bereaved in this way, and although I knew the statistics, there had been many times when I had felt I was the only one in the whole world."
"Like many others of my generation, I have no memorials - no photos, locks of hair, foot or handprints. The nearest to a real memento is the wrist band which I was wearing when I came out of the hospital and of course her birth and death certificates. On days when I wonder if it was all a bad dream these would have helped to reassure me that she did exist."
"Sometimes it is difficult not to feel jealous of modern parents, but I try to remember that we campaigned all these years ago to make it the way it is in many areas today. Our group bought High Wycombe Hospital their first Polaroid camera, and I made two little gowns, one pink and one blue, so that babies did not have be photographed in a hospital one."

NICE are NASTY (2)

Early moments and the days

I had to make some choices! and that the choices I had to make about what I wanted to happen with Matthew in the early hours and days of his death were the most important choices I would make. I did not want any regrets of 'If only I had done it this way or that way' although it was so extremely difficult and hard to take in the reality of what had happened, I knew that the memories of this short time with my Matthew before I had to say goodbye were the most important to me, and I wanted no regrets to come back and haunt me for the rest of my life.

The choices I made are very personal to me and I needed time to think about it which I had very little of, I knew I needed to create memories not only in my mind but physical memories and I felt I wanted to share the memories with my family.
Fortunately for me I had the best team of midwives and nurses who were experienced in babyloss and were there to help and support me and help me get through the early days and most importantly advise me on the decisions I had to make.'Do I want a burial or cremation?''Do you want to hold him?''Do you want to bathe him and dress him?' 'Do you want photographs of him?'' Do you want footprints?''A lock of his hair?''Do you want him in your room with you?'
The questions are not the questions I was wanting to answer, the 'normal' thing to do when you have just given birth is to celebrate and take your live healthy baby home with you!
I chose to have Matthew in a moses basket in my room with me, when members of my family came to see me it was the most natural thing that they wanted to hold him and I know that sharing the memories of Matthew helped me get through and cope with my loss.
Practical issues and law
The practical things that had to be done in the early days like choosing to have a post mortem?, of course I wanted to know why my beautiful son had died, were the hardest to bear.
If your baby was stillborn after 24 weeks then registering your baby's name is a legal requirement. I felt that by registering Matthew at least his existence is officially acknowledged.
Arranging Matthew's funeral was made easier for me as my brother is a Baptist Minister he took alot of the arrangements with the funeral director away from me as far as I was concerned In the natural, logical order of things, parents are not expected to outlive their children. I should not be burying my son, I should not be burying him!


Holding Matthew was the most precious moments of my life,
*Most people only dream of angels, I got to hold one in my arms.

NICE are NASTY

This is my story

I already had 4 children when I was pregnant with my Matthew. My youngest daughter was 6 years old, so my new baby was a bit of a surprise to the husband(now ex)and me. The husband was furious that I could get "yourself pregnant"!! he didnt speak about my baby at all.
In March of 1991 when I was 5 months pg we moved in to my mummy's house,she had had a massive stroke in 1987 and needed 24 hour company. Then the ex started to acknowledge my baby (in company of course).
My mummy had a heart attack and was admitted to hospital on the 24th of May thank god she was ok. We arranged for her to come home on the 3rd of June, as it turned out I had an appointment at the same hosp that morning so I took my mummy's clothes with me and see her after my 36 week anti natal.
I knew there was something not right the evening before! but it was easier to keep thinking "its gonna be ok I got hospital appointment tomorrow" When it was my turn to see the midwife I was thinking "somethings wrong ..... I just know somethings wrong" when she listened for my babys heart my mind was screaming out "somethings wrong!" she didnt say a word to me, she went off and brought back heart monitor,she was feeling my baby to see "what position he is in" she listened again and again my mind was screaming out "somethings wrong!" she didnt say a word she went off again and came back with another monitor to "record his heartbeat".
I was strapped to this monitor and by then I was waiting for her to say "im sorry your baby has died" she didnt say a word!
she went off and came back with a form and another doctor to take me down and have a scan" as I laid there looking at my baby with no heartbeat I noticed the sonographer was much less chatty than usual and all the time my mind was screaming at her "tell me he has died! just say it!" she didnt say a word.
I was escorted up to anti-natal in silence and told to sit in a room, I waited for another midwife who I had never met before to "have a word with you" She came in the room and said "Your baby has died, and you need to go to the labour ward as soon as possible" I thought "there you ....you said it !!!!!"
I told her I had to go and see my mummy now, and they were waffling on about me having to go to the labour ward and I just kept replying "I have to see my mummy now"
I went to the ward where my mummy was and when I arrived a doctor was on the phone talking about this mad woman whos baby had died and she was on her way down to see her mum!!!!!!!!
When I told my mummy what had happened she cried like a child.
I phoned the ex and told him our baby had died and he said "you are joking!"
I said "who in their right mind would 'joke' about something so awful?"
I gave birth to my Matthew at 11am the next day after a long night of hearing 4 other babies being born.It was pure hell knowing after my final push my baby was not going to cry!
I held my son in my arms so close to me. He was the most beautiful baby and looked so peaceful and asleep. All he had to do was breath
discussing my babys funeral was the most painful conversation I have ever had.
I came home the next day and took a picture of my Matthew to show my mum she asked me if I called him Matthew I said "yes mummy, thats the name we chose for him 6 months ago"
I didnt tell mum about Matthews funeral because her health had deteriorated over the next few days and I didnt want her to be laying in the hospital bed thinking of me burying my baby
I stayed at home after my matthews funeral not wanting to go out and feeling an utter failure and more so for letting my children down.

I managed to go back to the hospital to visit my mummy on the 23rd of June I had a big cuddle with her and I so wanted to cry in her arms and be comforted and for her to say "it will be ok" but she was still poorly and I didnt want to make a scene and upset her ............ my lovely mummy died the next day.


to be continued >>>>>>>>>>>>

Still Stealing Our Money!

Taxpayers will be forced to pay millions to bail out the gold-plated pension scheme for the parasite mps.

The announcement was made by Commons Leader harriet harm-man yesterday.

While taxpayers will put in an extra £800,000 a year, MPs themselves will be asked to find just an additional £60 a month for what is one of Britain’s most generous schemes
The timing of Miss harm-man’s proposals has prompted bewilderment, coming after days of controversy over MPs’ expenses claims.

Taxpayers already pay 26.8 per cent of an MP’s pensionable salary into their pension pot but that will rise to 28.7 per cent from today.
That means taxpayers will have to fork out an extra £800,000 a year to fund MPs’ final salary pensions – though Miss harm-man made no mention of that in a statement to Parliament.

Like many pension schemes, the MPs’ fund faces a £51million deficit, largely because its members are living longer.
To plug the gap, Miss Harm-man said the Government wanted MPs to hand over an extra 1.9 per cent of their salary, equivalent to around £60 a month.

The Treasury, meanwhile, would increase its annual contribution from £12.4million to £13.2million.
In 2002, MPs voted to increase their pension accrual rate to one fortieth of salary for every year worked.
The result is that after just 20 years’ service, an MP can retire with annual pension of half their £65,000 salary

WORDS FAIL ME!

Blair War Crimes Foundation

THE BLAIR WAR CRIMES FOUNDATION

It is necessary to make leaders hesitate before indulging in “the paramount war crime” to quote the judges of Nuremberg, of “unprovoked aggression against a defenceless country”. Unless leaders fear that they might be tried for their war crimes, we will live in an increasingly violent world, where The Geneva Conventions are treated as a joke, the UN is of no account, and death, destruction, torture, and repressive policing are commonplace. At the moment such leaders enjoy more and more trappings of power, and retire with vast sums of money, houses, medals and lucrative contracts. A group of UK Citizens have therefore set up an organisation, “The Blair War Crimes Foundation”, to initially bring one such leader to justice as an example.

John Pilger, David Halpin, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Ken Loach, Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Lindsey German, Ben Griffin, Dr Nawal Saadawi, Haifa Zangana, Dr Kamil Mahdi, Bruce Kent, and other citizens of Spain, Argentine, USA, and UK, support a Blair War Crimes Foundation to seek signatures for a petition to the United Nations General Assembly and the UK Attorney General, to uphold the UN Charter, the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and International Law, and to indict Tony Blair for war crimes.

The Letter

THE BLAIR WAR CRIMES FOUNDATION

To The President of The United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, and The Attorney General of the United Kingdom, and their successors in office.

RE ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR
We, the citizens of the United Kingdom and other countries listed, wish to uphold The United Nations Charter, The 1998 Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, The Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Rule of International Law, especially in respect of:-

1: 1949 Geneva Convention IV: Article 146
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention.

2: 1907 Hague Convention IV: Article 3
A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all the acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

We therefore call on you to indict Anthony Charles Lynton Blair in his capacity as recent Prime Minister of the UK, so long as he is able to answer for his actions and however long it takes, in respect of our sample complaints relating to the 2003 Iraq War waged by the UK as ally to the United States of America.

We are concerned that without justice and respect for the rule of law, the future for us and our progeny in a lawless world is bleak, as revealed by recent US declarations about the use of torture and the events of December 2008 in Gaza show.

The following are our sample complaints relating to the Iraq War 2003-2009:

1: Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, 4 million refugees, countless maimings and traumas.

2: Employing radioactive ammunition causing long-term destruction of the planetary habitat.

3: Causing the breakdown of civil administration, with consequent lawlessness, especially looting, kidnapping, and violence, and consequent breakdown of womens’ rights, of religious freedom, and child and adult education.

4: Failing to maintain the medical needs of the populace.

5: Despoliation of the cultural heritage of the country.

6: Supporting an ally that employs ‘waterboarding’ and other tortures.

7: Seizing the assets of Iraq.

8: Using inhumane restraints on prisoners, including dogs, hoods, and cable ties.

9: Using Aggressive Patrolling indiscriminately, traumatising women and children and wrecking homes and property.

10: Marking bodies of prisoners with numbers, writing, faeces and other degrading treatment.

11: The use of cluster bombs and other indiscriminate weapons including white phosphorous on “shake and bake” missions.

12: Supporting indiscriminate rocket attacks from F16 fighter planes on women and children in Fallujah in Nov 2004

13: Supporting the shooting up of ambulances and medical personnel in Fallujah in Nov 2004

14: Supporting the expulsion of the entire population of Fallujah save for young men of military age, for a reprisal attack on that city in Nov 2004.

Copy to the Secretary General of The United Nations, Ban Ki-moon

Petition on line at http://www.petitiononline.com/BWCF/petition.html

gORDON bROWN is set to unveil a new drive to name and shame yobs hit with anti-social behaviour orders.
As part of a renewed focus on law and order, the (unelected) Prime Minister is to warn unruly youths that their Asbos will be publicised via leafleting and the internet.
bROWN said, "The public have a right to know what is happening in their areas, and the public have a right to receive information that they want on local individuals who have blighted their communities with anti-social behaviour.
So this week I will set out plans to publicise the names and details of those people subject to anti-social behaviour orders and other orders, using photographs, public leaflets and online. The consequences for committing anti-social behaviour should be clear."
mR bROWN said he was renewing the Government's focus on crime in the weeks ahead as he promised to "make life better for the mainstream majority"

Two things bother me deeply about this article,
Firstly the public are waking up and realising that gORDON'S and call me dAVE'S claw hammer wielding 'useful idiots' of UAF are diplomatically immune from ASBO's
Secondly what exactly does "Mainstream Majority" mean?

Give Nick Griffin MEP a fair-hearing on Question Time

Published by Patrick Harrington on Oct 24, 2009

Category: Civil Rights

Region: United Kingdom

Target: The Director General of the BBC

Web site: http://civilliberty.org.uk

Background (Preamble):

Nick Griffin appeared on the BBC1 programme Question Time on 22 October, 2009.

The BBC had been attacked by Labour Government Ministers for inviting the MEP and Leader of the British National Party (BNP) onto the show. Welsh Secretary Peter Hain wrote in the Guardian: "The BBC will be showcasing the BNP on a panel alongside the mainstream parties as an equally legitimate, respectable, democratic political party, when it is nothing of the kind." Hain had called for a meeting to discuss his support for "No Platform" with the BBC but it remains unclear at present whether one took place.

The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, told David Dimbleby, the host on the show on 15th of October: "You may like to consider your invitation to next week’s Question Time.”

He added: “There isn't a constitutional obligation to appear on 'Question Time'. That gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve.”

The BBC has given reasons for its decisions but these have not been as widely reported as the attacks.

Ric Bailey the BBC's chief political adviser and former executive editor of 'Question Time' from 2000 to 2006 summed it up thus:

"For the BBC, it's quite straightforward. "Due impartiality" means we have to take account of the political context when we're making editorial judgements, day in day out. There isn't one single formula which applies in all circumstances. So how do we decide what are appropriate levels of airtime for the different political parties? Our starting point for that judgement - though not the only factor - is how real people vote in real elections."

"Measuring impartiality is less about mathematics and more about good judgement - but let's just look at the maths for a moment. In the recent European election, the BNP won more than 6% of the vote across Britain - approaching a million people. In some regions it was close to 10%. Like the Greens, they now have two MEPs - far fewer than UKIP - but they also have over 50 local councillors - fewer than the Greens, many more than UKIP.

"Ever since UKIP and the Greens won representation at a national level, they have appeared from time to time on 'Question Time'. Inviting the BNP onto the panel would be a continuation of the approach which recognises that the level of electoral support is a relevant factor in making these judgements.

"The BBC could not apply different standards to different parties because of their particular policies. That would be a breach of our charter, challengeable in the courts.

"But it's not fear of the lawyers or lobbying from the BNP themselves which would prompt an invitation to Nick Griffin. Impartiality is at the core of the BBC's journalism and this is a normal part of the process of constantly asking ourselves how we should be defining that impartiality in a changing political environment."

On the 'Question Time' programme which Johnson appeared other panel members disagreed with his view that Griffin and the BNP should be censored. Norman Baker, the Lib Dem MP, said that they should be "challenged in argument".

Damian Green MP, for the Tory Party, said Nick Griffin should be allowed to have his say on Question Time. He said that mainstream politicians should "confront them in argument". Nigel Farage of UKIP stated “The BBC have not put him on Question Time, the voters have.” Joan Bakewell, the other panelist, expressed no clear view. Johnson was clearly isolated.

Seen in this light, the comments of Labour Ministers can only be an attempt to bully the BBC to act in a partisan way. It's no surprise that the Labour Government want to tell the BBC who to invite, or not to invite and even how to report. That's nothing new. Nor is it a surprise that the Labour Party want to do down their BNP rivals. In many electoral wards the BNP represent their main opposition. Voters have turned to them in desperation at the abandonment of the white working class by an out-of-touch Political Class.

Censorship and abusing one's position to suppress the electoral chances of another political party which may take votes from you is merely political expedience disguised as moral indignation.

Alongside the establishment campaign to bully the Beeb runs implied threats of violence from their far-left street proxies. Fresh from their clashes with the Police and their mirror-image (the English Defence League) in Manchester the misnamed 'Unite Against Fascism' (UAF) have also lined-up to oppose the BBC decision. Writing in the Times, Fiona Hamilton reported UAF's stated intentions for the 22nd of October.

"Unite Against Fascism, which regularly demonstrates against the BNP, has said that it will try to blockade Television Centre to prevent Mr Griffin gaining access next Thursday."

"Unite Against Fascism told The Times that if thousands of protesters turned up there were plans to blockade the BBC building. A rally is also planned for the night before the event in Central London."

Notice the language being used here. The word is "blockade" not "protest" or "picket".

Definitions of "blockade" include:

• obstruct: hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of;
• barricade: render unsuitable for passage; "block the way";
• obstruct access to

The stated aim of UAF was to prevent Nick Griffin MEP from entering the building.

In the event Nick Griffin was able to enter the Studio accompanied by over 40 of his own security guards (many of whom are martial arts trained). Only 500-700 counter-demonstrators appeared and they blocked the wrong entrance.

In response to the criticisms from Labour ministers that the format of the programme would not allow "scrutiny" of Mr Griffin the BBC threw the normal format out of the window. Instead they stacked the studio audience with people hostile to the BNP and allowed the panel to gang-up on him. The hatred shown to him was disturbing to watch. He was treated very unfairly and scarcely allowed to answer without interruption. He was continually booed and jeered. Only one question was asked which did not concern the BNP and that was designed to allow further attacks on Mr Griffin. The real issues of the day, the Post strike, MPs arrogance on expenses, bonuses for the bankers etc were not even raised. This was not Question Time - it was a pantomime in which Nick Griffin, MEP, was cast as the villain.

Give Nick Griffin MEP a fair-hearing on Question Time