Full Version Wake Up Call Episode 1 – No Decision About Me Without Me – Full Version from Health Emergency on Vimeo.

Dr John Lister blows away the slick marketing of the government’s plans for the NHS. His witty speech reveals their true intent – to fragment and privatise the health service.

Peppered with jokes and cartoons from the likes of Steve Bell, the film is an easily understood and amusing explanation of how the NHS, as we now know it, will be demolished, if these plans succeed.

John Lister shows us why the plans, at urgent risk of slipping through in a fog of jargon and promotional spin, will be disastrous for NHS patients and staff.

If you care about your health service and want to know what is in store for it, then watch this video and pass the link on to friends, family and colleagues NOW!

Produced for Keep Our NHS Public www.keepournhspublic.com and for Health Emergency www.healthemergency.org.uk

EPISODE 2

Wake Up Call Episode 2 “A Betrayal of Trust” from Health Emergency on Vimeo.

A film by Anne-Marie Sweeney produced for Keep Our NHS Public and Health Emergency

Sugar Coating the Bitter Bill.

Louise Irvine is a GP in the deprived area of New Cross. She shows how trusted GPs are being used to sugar coat the denationalisation of the NHS, proposed in the government’s Health and Social Care Bill.

Dr Irvine explains with care and compassion, how this bitterly unacceptable bill will harm patient care and break up ‘the NHS family’.

Simply and without jargon, she makes clear why local GPs will actually have less control over their patients’ treatment if it is not scrapped.

Dr Irvine reveals the serious implications that this will have on patient trust.

If you want to know just why so many people in the NHS are in opposition to Lansley’s Bill, then take 15 minutes to watch this video. Find out why the bill will be hugely costly to the NHS budget and will seriously damage our health.

We’re working to create a more open and less intrusive society. We want to restore Britain’s traditions of freedom and fairness, and free our society of unnecessary laws and regulations – both for individuals and businesses.

So if there are any laws or regulations you’d like us to do away with, then first, check if there are any similar ideas here already and then add your comments to it and rate it to move it up the list. If it’s not here, then add it!  And remember – we want you to suggest ideas for removing laws and regulations, rather than ideas for creating them.

Head over to the government’s website and keep voting. The Digital Economy bill has the most participation right now. You can also vote to Repeal Penalty Notices of Disorder for Section 5 Public Order Act. There’s some great ideas in there and anyone can participate.

Political activists who have no association with terrorism could now find themselves monitored by authorities mandated to discover information about their friends, family, neighbours, political beliefs, use of the internet and even psychological traits.

Police and security agencies have agreed to monitor “agents” who adhere to ideologies potentially involving violence. The documents define targets for the surveillance as people involved in “extreme right/left, Islamist, nationalist, anti-globalisation” groups.

Europol, a EU law enforcement agency, has been asked to produce a list of people involved in either promoting such groups, or in trying to recruit members.

The problem with these measures is that anyone can be identified as someone with ideologies potentially involving violence. It is far too broad a category.

The UK government has also been criticised over Prevent, a programme aimed at stopping Muslims being lured into violent extremism. The initiative was branded a mass surveillance project after it was found it was being used to gather intelligence on innocent people who were not suspected of involvement in terrorism.

Essentially, Prevent received a lot of bad press, as it should have, and the British government is now doing the same thing just under an EU directive.

Under the new, approved, EU scheme, states have acquired a 70-question list on “agents of radicalisation” under their watch. Much of the information presumes a high-degree of intrusive monitoring, obtainable only via covert surveillance techniques, such as phone tapping.

It is assumed, for example, that law enforcement agencies will obtain information about a person’s “feelings” about a group that could be “considered as the enemy”. One section asks for information about “oral comments” made by targets, while others ask about religious knowledge, behaviour, and socio-economic status.

Under “relevant psychological traits”, law enforcement agencies are asked to collate and share information on “psychological disorders, charismatic personality, weak personality, etc”. Another question asks: “Is there a prior relationship between the agents? Schoolmates, friends, relatives, shared time in prison, etc.”

Really? They’re going to ask about your feelings? If they do that, I would be added to the list because my answers would put me on a list of people who want to destroy the government.

This system, like so many others, will be set forth as a means to prevent terrorism and it will be abused. It’s been done in the past and it will continue to be done. British citizens need to continue to point out how these schemes only alienate communities, just as they did with Prevent. It can be stopped and, hopefully, governments will stop trying to implement such ridiculous programs.

Last week the Director of Big Brother Watch, Alex Deane, was invited onto the BBC Breakfast sofa to debate the advantages/disadvantages of CCTV cameras.

You can watch all Big Brother Watch videos here.

The National DNA Database is already the largest of its kind in the world. It is used by the police as a tool to solve crimes but has been criticised by some who argue that innocent people should not have their profile kept on it.

Watch the video to hear some different views about whether we should all be added to the database from Anna Fairclough at Liberty and Clare Wilson at New Scientist magazine.

Created to support Big Picture on Genes, Genomes and Health, a free educational resource from the Wellcome Trust.

The following is a real anti-terrorism advert played during popular UK radio show talksport, which effectively says somebody who likes their privacy and prefers not to be in debt to banks by using cash is a terrorist. The image is also a real poster advert around London. Nice all seeing eyes there.

They say the long-delayed £224 project will make England’s 11million young people safer by providing a single register that can be used by all child protection professionals.

But there are concerns that the sensitive data could fall into the wrong hands, after an official review concluded that it could never be completely secure.

The program was delayed after officials admitted that the database could never be fully secured. Then, ContactPoint had some glitches over the summer and new loopholes were found, making the system vulnerable to attacks.

Children were being listed in the database under their real and adopted names, making it easier to track them down and eliminating the “shielding” that was supposed to take place to protect them. The database itself proved to be helpful to anyone who would hack the system to find out where the children lived, leaving many children at risk again.

It is also feared that police or council workers will use it to search for evidence of crime or pry into family arrangements, rather than safeguarding children.

Tim Loughton, the shadow children’s minister, said: “We are determined to protect vulnerable children from abuse, but ContactPoint would put them risk.

“Every IT system the Government touches turns into a disaster – we cannot afford to let them mismanage the personal details of 11 million children. It would be irresponsible to implement something that is such a danger to our children.”

David Laws, the Lib Dems’ children’s spokesman, added: “When it comes to child protection, professionals need to be talking to one another and not relying on simply putting data into a massive database.

“The Government has shown it can’t be trusted with sensitive data. Parents have every right to demand that their children’s personal details are not put at risk.”

The computerised database contains a record for each of the 11m under-18s living in England, containing their name, address, gender, date of birth and a unique identifying number.

It also holds information on their parents, their nursery or school, their GP and whether they have a social worker, health visitor or probation officer assigned to them. If the young person consents, it will also give details of sexual health or drug abuse counsellors.

After politicians claimed the pilot program a success, at least 390,000 people will have access to the database. These include, social workers, teachers, police officers and health care workers. They will use the database to track children in a variety of different ways.

A nurse said: “A child came into A&E [who] lied about his address as he had run away from home. I went onto ContactPoint and was able to find his correct contact details.”

Noting is noted about why the child ran away from home or why he was in the emergency room. Instead, the nurse “helped” by contacting his parents and letting him know where he was. This isn’t helpful. This is detrimental. A nurse should not be determining this information. If she knew the child had run away from home, she should have contacted the police and the right child advocate authority. Common sense should have told her this. Instead, the nurse has already relied on a database to solve the problem.