A certain doctor in the United Kingdom, Mahesh Patwardhan, has been found guilty of molesting his patients. This gynaecologist had his patients strip when this was not needed for any medical purpose. This was done solely for his sexual gratification. He derived erotic glee from seeing a tattoo on a bottom. He conducted some unnecessary breast examinations. Dr Patwardhan was also previously convicted of fraud. He billed insurers for consultations and procedures that were never performed. It is staggering that a man who was already so wealthy would be foolish and greedy enough to jeopardise his whole career for sums such as GBP 195.
This man has been awarded 8 years imprisonment and struck of the medical register. He is 53 years of age. This doctor betrayed the public trust. The Hippocratic Oath states that physicians must not seduce their patients. He did not seduce them but the same principle was breached. He acted in a manner that was about satisfying his sexual desires and not to provide medical care. The reason for the prohibition on any romantic liaison with a patient is patients must not fear that a doctor might make a move on them. A patient would also believe that any instruction to disrobe could be for the titilation of the physician and not for any medical rationale.
This doctor has treated tens of thousands of people in a career spanning almost 30 years. He has done far, far more good than harm.
These women who were patients of this doctor feel ill-used. Their privacy has been invaded. He has seen them in a nude state when he did not need to. He touched them intimately when there was no reason for him to do so. They presumably feel humiliated and aggrieved. It is hard for me as a male to empathise with this sense of invasion. If a female doctor whom I found unattractive were to do this to me I would not mind much. Indeed if a homosexual doctor tricked me into undressing in order to give him a similar thrill again it would irk me only a little. Perhaps I underreact to this chap’s unethical conduct.
How would I feel if this man had carried out similar indecent acts against my wife/girlfriend or sister? I would naturally sympathise with that woman. To some degree I would share her sense of injustice.
It is hard to see how this man can avoid spending some time in prison. 8 years is too long. He did not rape any of his patients. He will be released after about 4 years. He is not a danger to the public. Were he walking down the street at night no woman or man has any reason to fear him. This chap is not a public menace and that is what prison is for. There is no need to protect society from him.
His being struck off is more objectionable. He spent years studying. His education cost the state hundreds of thousands. He can do a huge amount of good. We can ill afford to squander his abilities, training and skill.here is
The public should be informed what this man has done. Then patients would be able to make up their own minds whether or not to see him. Patients could have the option of only being treated by him in the presence of a chaperone or chaperon. Perhaps he could be be barred from treating women. There is no reason to suspect he has any immoral intentions towards children. I would be perfectly content to see this doctor if I had fly, angina, piles or a whole host of medical conditions. Is there no possibility he can be forgiven? Some will say there can be no half-in medical status. No one questions his professional competence. It is his ethics that are found wanting. He should not have been struck off. He can yet heal the sick and pay his debt to society that way.
London’s population is touching 8 000 000 and growing fast. With prisons due to be converted into housing it is evident that the city is facing a capacity problem. More residents means a greater need for public transport. Only so many buses can go down a street at a time. More buses can become double decker. Double decker trains are also an option but this would require redoing bridges and tunnels.
In the centre of London more tunnels cannot be built for the Underground. This is because buildings are in danger of being undermined. Moreover, tunnelling is very costly.
The solution is sky trains. These would be railways that bridge gaps from one rooftop too the next. Many excellent and fast lifts would transport commuters from rooftop stations to street level. In old parts of the city this would spoil the skyline. In modern areas this would be unobjectionable such as in the City of London. The Docklands Light Railway already uses elevated trains.
I was at an Inn of Court. Ot was at the crrect spot in London. I was not at one of the large sqaures. It was down one of those lanes. The place was a little nclosed and bushes lay there.
I want into an impresiv ebudilng. Not many people were about. Ot was daytime but gloomy.
Then I went up to the roof. There was an outdoor gum and sports field. Soon I was engaged in ecercise. I participated. It was staisfying but not utterly exhilarating.
I wonder why this came up. Maybe I have thoyght whethe ror not I should apply for membership. Perhaos that is a foolish present to request. Many members of my family were there whcih was extra curious. The oddness of there being a sports complex at an inn did not strike me then. there really is Lincoln;s Inn Fields but that is another matter.
His name is Mr Urs. He is called Nicholas Urs. To his friends he Nick Urs.
A surname for a sergeant? Sergeant.
A surname for a major? Major.
Jeremy Corbyn has been leader of the Labour Party for under a year. Labour performed poorly but not disastrously in the 2015 Parliamentary election. Labour polled 32% of the vote. This was a marked improvement from its 28% showing in the 2010 Westminster election. Unfortunately for Labour the party lost seats in 2015 despites its increased share of the vote. This was partly due to a twin assault by UKIP and the SNP. The SNP took dozens of seats from Labour in Caledonia. UKIP took plenty of votes but no seats from Labour. This enabled the Tories to hang on to some 2010 gains.
Comrade Corbyn has always been a rank outsider in his party. He never approached the front bench. He was a thorn in the side of every Labour leader. His loony left ideas kept his party out of office for 18 years. He was the most rebellious leader ever. He cannot now expect loyalty. He called for annual leadership elections under Blair. Now he has got them. Even if he survives as leader he will probably face another coup next year.
Corbyn has reduced Labour’s support to 27% in the opinion polls. This is down to Labour’s level of popularity in the 1983 election. A year into his leadership he should be close to his most popular. The Conservatives have still not stopped bickering about the Brexit Campaign. Austerity has no end in sight. The junior doctors’ strike is about to recommence. Labour should be making the running.
Why is Labour so unpopular? Partly it is due to Corbyn. He has galvanised the party by attracting many far left activists. These are the sort of people who resigned in droves around 2003 due to the liberation of Iraq. Though Jeremy Corbyn appeals to the extreme left he has no appeal to the centre. He repels floating voters. His sartorial sense does not help him. People cannot imagine him standing at the door to Number Ten Downing Street. He has constantly proven himself totally unworthy to be Prime Minister. He said he would not authorise the police to shoot dead a terrorist gunman. He would not launch nuclear weapons. He proposed getting rid of them. He has no credibility. To some extent his unpopularity is caused by Labour moderates carping against him. His partly is bitterly divided. There is such acrimony that Labour MPs have chosen to wash their dirty linen in public.
Many foul and threatening messages have been sent to anti Corbynistas. This febrile and vicious atmosphere is deeply unattractive to voters.
Corbyn has been a calamitous Leader of the Opposition. The government has not been properly scrutinised. People are so busy scrutinising the parlous situation of the main opposition party. Corbyn has little time to fulfill his role in critically analysing the government. He is fighting to save his leadership. He is so out of touch with reality that he believes his leadership is viable despite the great majority of his own parliamentarians publicly denouncing him as unelectable. He is a massive vote loser.
J Corbyn is liked by much of Labour’s rank and file. It is probable that he will be re-elected. This is why only Owen Smith and Angela Eagle were willing to challenge him. The big beasts did not risk confronting him. If Corbyn is returned by the ordinary members – as is likely – what then? The Tories will then rule almost unopposed. A few Labour MPs will defect to the Liberal Democrats. Millions of moderate voters will plump for the Lib Dems. Labour can thank their lucky stars that the Lib Dems are left by the ineffectual Tim Farron. If the Lib Dems had a credible leader then Labour would be doing even worse. The Lib Dems may yet dump Farron and replace him with someone more convincing – such as restoring Nick Clegg. The Lib Dems have very few Members of Parliament to choose from.
The number of constituences is being reduced. Corbyn has said sitting Labour MPs will have to seek re selection for the new parliamentary elections. Some MPs retire anyway. Some moderates will be disgusted and demoralised. They will resign anyway. Some moderates who try to fight on will be de-selected by Trotskyite activists. Labour has wrecked itself and gone back the barmy leftism of the 1980s.
The Kremlin has reacted with predictable indignation to the ban on certain Russian athletes attending the Rio de Janeiro Olympics. The evidence about doping by some Russian athletes is so utterly overwhelming that not even the Russian Government denies it. One Russian official questioned whether an Olympic medal was worth much since some Russian athletes will not be permitted to take part. If that is the case then Russian should boycott the Games. The USA and several other countries boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980. Somehow that did not make winning an Olympic medal become worthless.
Some Russian governmental officials have claimed that the doping scandal is an anti-Russian plot. This is absurd. It is the old trick of accusing others of one’s own worst vices. The only plot has been the doping plot. Elements within the Russian state systematically cheated in international sporting competitions over at least several years and yet Moscow tries to present itself as the victim. It is the international community that has been victimised by unsporting and illegal practices. Sportswomen and sportsmen have had their health damaged by taking performance enhancing drugs. Many will die early because they were pressurised into taking these banned substances.
The Russian couple who courageously exposed this outrage have fled for their lives. They are accused of being traitors. It is the total opposite. Those who have doped athletes have betrayed their country. By engaging in such immoral practices people have damaged Russia’s reputation as well as poisoned their athletes. All Russian medals – even the honestly won medals – are called into question. Some Russian athletes are totally clean and their accomplishments will be in doubt because all Russians are suspected of taking forbidden substances.
Two whistleblowers have suffered the usual fate of dissidents in Russia. They were murdered and their killers have never been caught. It bears all the hallmarks of an FSB wet operation. These people who brought the scandal to the world’s attention are morally upstanding. The showed the Olympic spirit. They stood up for the highest standards of sportsmanship. They did the right thing even when it was extremely difficult and very dangerous. These martyrs of sport should be honoured by a minute’s silence at the opening of the Olympic Games.
Some people claim that all countries engage in the same practices. This is not true.
In the 2012 London Olympics about 30 athletes were caught doping out of 10 000 or so participants. Of 190 countries that participated in the London Olympics which one had the most doped athletes? Russia. Other countries with doped athletes included Belarus and Kazakhstan. American athletes were also caught doping. This is hardly evidence of an anti Russian plot. Some Ukrainians were also proved to have taken illegal substances. Moscow often accused Western countries of being too friendly to the Ukraine. These tests were run under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee. There is a clue in the word ‘international’. The IOC is not the tool of any single country or group of countries. All countries including Russia are entitled to take part.
The United Kingdom has striven to be firm against its athletes who have behaved in an unethical fashion. The British Olympic Committee issued a lifetime ban against Chambers and others who had taken performance improving substances. A British court overturned this for being too harsh. Nevertheless the athletes who doped missed a few years of competitions during their youth. The United States has also been resolute against doping. The USA vigorously pursued allegations against its sporting hero Lance Armstrong. He was eventually obliged to admit his cheating. Note it was the US authorities and not the IOC that caught him.
The notion that there is a conspiracy to discredit Russia is for the birds. It is the Russian Government that has tarnished its reputation by engaging in such shameful and unlawful practices. If the Russian Government was unaware of what was going on then the government must be extremely stupid. There is not much in Russia that the FSB does not know about. It would take gross incompetence for the FSB to not be conscious of such a large scale illegal programme.