cookie

Male

[Kathryn Porter @KathrynPorter26]

This really worries me

A month ago in Wales I suffered a ruptured aneurysm in my abdomen. I lost over 2 units of blood

But the Welsh ambulance service refused to send an ambulance. I was still breathing so apparently didn't need one

I spent 7 hours lying on the ground in a car park. Every time I moved I threw up from the pain. The owners of the car park called 999 6x

One of the people there was a fireman. He couldn't believe that 999 treated each call as a separate incident and couldn't see the details or link to previous calls. He was frustrated because they could see I was seriously ill but you can't see internal bleeding and so there was no way to persuade 999 that it actually was an emergency

Eventually my husband arrived by taxi, journey of more than 3 hours from our home

He gave me my pain meds (the car park people were worried about liability and I was too ill to get them myself). This meant I was able to crawl into the car and he drove me to A&E

He got me into a wheelchair. We waited 75 minutes to see a doctor. I was shivering, heaped with blankets and threw up all over the floor

As soon as a doctor looked at me I was taken straight to resus. The next day I was transfered by blue light ambulance to another hospital, had a blood transfusion and spent 5 days on the high dependency unit

If my husband hadn't been able to come and look after me I have no idea how I would have survived. As it was I nearly didn't

I would not have been able to get myself to hospital nor would I have been able to log into some digital triage system

This scheme seems to assume if you're seriously ill you'll arrive by ambulance and if not you're well enough to navigate a digital portal

My experience suggests that's a dangerous assumption

A week later, back home in England I had another ruptured aneurysm. This time an ambulance came in 2 hours and again I was taken straight to resus

It wasn't the same because I had a recent diagnosis of a ruptured aneurysm so we could tell 999 I was almost certainly bleeding internally. But I was too ill to get myself down the stairs and out to the car. We still needed that ambulance and I still wouldn't have been able to fiddle around with an ipad

Proper triage REQUIRES an actual doctor to look at the patient. It takes a matter of minutes to differentiate between a life threatening emergency and not a life threatening emergency. That's not minutes to get a diagnosis but to know that the person is stable or not stable and if not that needs immediate attention

Seriously ill people can't do it themselves. It doesn't matter how smart or articulate they are normally. Or how tough. Expecting people to manage their own emergency care isn't what a modern health service should do

https://t.co/RMi7L44fUy

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@KathrynPorter26 @FUDdaily Yes can see why! You were very very lucky to survive those 2 unfortunate incidents. If a patient feints and then comes around and is breathing can take hours to get an Ambulance.

[Richard Williams @williams_rje]

@AlistairCarns had a distinguished military career. It is damning that Benn, Starmer, Hermer, Reeves and others would not listen to him on lawfare, the Northern Ireland Bill, on defence transformation or on financial resources; and all credit to this RM veteran for stepping into the breach and his resignation on principle.

His dynamite resignation, on the back of the Healey exit represents the necessary detonation of a political bomb under UK defence; highlighting how screwed up it all really is, how badly Starmer is lying to the country, and how totally irresponsible is this @UKLabour government.

Carns is very right on the big things, the MoD and the “centre” are not facing reality on the changing technologies of war, they are not getting the resources they need and they are not defending veterans from lawfare. On this latter and vital point, this is led and encouraged by the UK’s own Attorney General as chief back-stabber.

For this, Hermer should be the next to go. And by the way, don’t expect much from the Starmer-loyalist, ex-Para Jarvis….not every Politician has the guts to do what Carns and Healey have just done…

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@DaleVince The sinking ship is rudderless and heading for the rocks!

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@KarlTurnerMP @t0mmy1211 @Keir_Starmer Running out of room for manoevres! He should do the decent thing and resign pronto! He has let the MOD and his ministers down and now the Country. He should have been history months ago!

[Deborah Haynes @haynesdeborah]

Extraordinarily - and this seems to demonstrate a complete disregard of the seriousness of defence at the heart of government - John Healey was only told what the offer was for additional defence funding on Monday afternoon.

I am told Number 10 then tried to rush and publish the Defence Investment Plan on Thursday.

Then a handbrake was applied by Mr Healey and his military chiefs. The (now ex) defence secretary made clear that racing to release the blueprint without a settlement that had been accepted by him and his team would be a risk for defence and for its soldiers, sailors and aviators.

You can only imagine the tone of the exchange that must have taken place - and I know that people were in the MOD until very late last night.

But John Healey firmly believes the settlement was inadequate and, if left unchallenged, would not enable the UK to keep the country safe or meet its international commitments - such as help defend Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire with Russia.

A key detail is that Mr Healey believes defence spending must be increased to 3% of GDP by 2030, up from 2.3% now. This would guarantee tens of billions of additional pounds for defence.

But - despite the stakes and the position of the defence secretary - the Prime Minister and Chancellor agreed just to inch it up to 2.68% of GDP within that time frame, after hitting a new target of 2.6% next year (which is already being inflated by lumping in the 0.1% that is spent on the intelligence agencies).

Utterly incredible.

What must our allies and our adversaries be thinking, let alone everyone in the UK armed forces and, frankly, everyone in our country?

We all rely on a secure UK to live, work, go to school, enjoy holidays, access healthcare, spend time with friends and families.

This is not a divine right. It happens because we have security - something that might not be apparent until or unless it is compromised...

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@haynesdeborah Who would have thought the Government teeters on the brink of collapse over Defence spending in less than 2 years and when it has never been a General election issue!

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@afneil They need to stop arguing and implement the DIP! I doubt it will happen though with lame duck PM at the helm!

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

When the United States launched strikes on Iran, Britain's response was one of the most embarrassing performances by a Western government in living memory. John Healy refused six times to say whether Britain supported the action. Keir Starmer hedged, equivocated, and retreated into legal language while every comparable ally, Canada, Australia, Ukraine, stated their position clearly and without apology. It took Iranian missiles hitting a British base in Cyprus and a second day of bombardment before Starmer would even grant the US permission to use British overseas bases. That is not caution. That is paralysis.

The official explanation is international law. Lord Hermer's legal opinion concluded the strikes had no clear basis in law. That explanation does not hold. The same legal framework did not stop Canada or Australia. It did not stop successive British governments acting alongside the United States in circumstances where legality was equally contested. And it does not explain why Starmer refused to even characterise the Iranian threat, despite sitting on classified intelligence his own security services describe as a tier-one national security concern.

The real explanation is not legal. It is political. And it has been building for over twenty-five years.

Britain is no longer a country whose government can make foreign policy decisions in isolation from domestic demography. In city after city, London, Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford, Leicester, there are large and concentrated populations whose political loyalties, when it comes to conflicts in the Middle East, do not align with the British national interest. Elections have been won and lost on bloc votes organised around overseas conflicts. MPs sit in Parliament who owe their seats to communities for whom the Iran question is not abstract foreign policy but a matter of immediate and passionate concern. Starmer knows this. The calculation is not difficult to reverse-engineer.

When Iranian clerics declared jihad following Khamenei's death and protests spread from Pakistan to Iraq, the question for any British Prime Minister was not only what happens in the Gulf. It was what happens in Tower Hamlets, in Sparkbrook, in Burnley. The threat of domestic unrest and political blowback within his own electoral coalition shaped the response the public saw. The legal opinion was the excuse. The demographic arithmetic was the reason.

This did not happen by accident. It is the consequence of a border policy pursued by governments from Blair to Starmer that prioritised electoral calculation over national cohesion. Mass immigration without integration, without enforceable conditions, without honest public debate, has produced something no one in government will say plainly: a country that has lost the political freedom to act decisively when its interests require it. MI5 has confirmed twenty Iran-backed plots on British soil in two years. The parliamentary intelligence committee is expected to classify Iran as a threat on par with Russia and China. And yet the government cannot proscribe the IRGC, cannot state clearly whose side it is on, and cannot grant an ally access to a military base without waiting for missiles to land first.

In 2006, Muammar Gaddafi predicted that Europe's fifty million Muslims would deliver Islam victory on the continent within a few decades, without swords, without conquest. He framed it as a prophecy. It reads now more like an operational assessment. Britain has not been conquered. It has been rendered impotent, by its own political choices, now visible in the body language of a Prime Minister who cannot say the obvious thing because too many of his voters do not want to hear it.

That is the real answer to why Britain hesitated. Not Hermer. Not international law. Not principle. A governing party held hostage to the consequences of a demographic transformation it helped engineer and now dare not upset.

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@JChimirie66677 @pc_gsm @JanCeesVogelaar Holland too Jim!

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@mich58779 @RobynFarley4 @JChimirie66677 @BillAckman Majority!

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@JChimirie66677 Boom again Jim!👏

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@pritipatel True!

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@dtwaite1 @PolitlcsUK @DPJHodges 😂Mind you he jumped tonight! Country before Party!

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

Agenda 2030 Or The Defence Of The Realm. Starmer Has Made His Choice. John Healey Has Resigned Over It.

This morning Britain woke up without a Defence Secretary. By lunchtime it knew why.

The numbers tell the story precisely. The Ministry of Defence faces a £28 billion funding shortfall over four years. Healey wanted £18 billion. He was offered £13.5 billion of which defence chiefs regarded only £10 billion as real money. The remaining £3.5 billion was, in the words of the Telegraph, invented through magical accounting tricks. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, took the unusual step of writing directly to Starmer to warn that the money was not enough. The head of the British armed forces writing directly to the Prime Minister is not a routine communication. It is a signal of desperation.

Starmer told NATO last week that it is our intelligence assessment that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030. Those are his words. His government's assessment. Shared with our allies. Four years away. And his Treasury offered the man responsible for defending against that threat an accounting trick and a two page summary instead of a funded plan. Why. Because the money was needed elsewhere.

In 2015 every United Nations member state including Britain signed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Its 17 goals and 169 targets commit signatory nations to facilitating migration, eliminating inequality, achieving net zero and embedding inclusive institutions. No British parliament voted on it. No British public was consulted. It was adopted at a UN summit and has been implemented ever since through regulatory frameworks, public sector guidance and institutional capture rather than democratic mandate. It is not a conspiracy. It is a publicly available document on the UN website. And its priorities, net zero, welfare, migration, DEI, are precisely the budgets this government has protected while offering the defence of the realm an accounting trick.

Ed Miliband refused to cut his net zero budget to fund defence. The Labour Party refused to cut welfare spending that would have freed up billions. The £10 billion in asylum accommodation contracts continues. The DEI infrastructure embedded across British policing, the NHS, the civil service and the education system continues to be funded. Every one of these is a commitment that takes precedence over the defence of the realm in this government's spending decisions.

The hierarchy of priorities is now visible. A government that has spent two years embedding progressive transformation across British institutions, protecting the net zero agenda from cuts and managing mass migration has discovered that it cannot simultaneously do all of that and defend the country. When the moment of decision arrived the progressive agenda was protected and the armed forces were handed a two page summary and told to make do.

Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General, warned in April that Britain was underprepared, underinsured and under attack. He said there was a corrosive complacency in Britain's political leadership. The army has been reduced to its smallest size in 200 years. Seven warships have been axed. The Defence Investment Plan was due last autumn, delayed through winter, missed its spring deadline and has now produced the resignation of the Defence Secretary on the day it was finally meant to be published.

Healey's letter says without a plan that meets the moment he is being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces, increase the risk to personnel on operations and could make the country less safe. He had no other option but to resign.

In the most dangerous security environment since the Cold War a Labour government has chosen the globalist agenda over the defence of the realm. That choice has now cost it its Defence Secretary. The question is what it will cost the country.

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@JChimirie66677 @ian_cundy @alimacno PM dead man walking tonight Jim! Possibly the whole Government will collapse now.

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@AlistairCarns @boot15_vu Well done AL showed your true colours tonight, Country before Party! DIP stick Starmer can’t see that!

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@JohnCleese Best place for her John!😂

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@PolitlcsUK Starmer will be binned soon!

[cookie @wingnut5358]

@timothy_stanley I suppose we have to fight the Russians or whoever else with pitchforks then!