Naughty in the noughties costs the NHS £139million
have been jumping on the gravy trains that feed off children
labelled mentally ill and then drugged, says the international
psychiatric watchdog, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR).
Being ‘naughty in the noughties’ has cost the NHS in England
millions. Since 2000, over £139million has been shelled out on the
cosh’ to keep disruptive kids drugged up who have been labelled
with so-called ‘ADHD’ because they are naughty.
includes drugs similar to cocaine like Ritalin and Concerta.
In 2007, boisterous kids cost the NHS over £33.4million when nearly
700,000 prescriptions were handed out, an increase of 541% on the
£5.2million spent in 2000. If a child has 12 prescriptions a year,
this equates to over 58,000 children in England being drugged up to
fuel the gravy trains.
Psychiatrists and ‘ADHD’ support groups claim the increase is
due to the so-called condition becoming more recognised and more
easily diagnosed. Critics however point out the criteria for ‘ADHD’
are synonymous with normal childhood behaviour; a set of emotional
and behavioural characteristics that don’t have any relevance to a
CCHR has made numerous requests for evidence to support claims of a
‘chemical imbalance’ in the brain as is suggested for
children and adolescents labelled as ‘ADHD’ sufferers but
psychiatrists haven’t been able to provide it. This has lead to ‘ADHD’
being described not only as an ‘emperor’s new suit’, but as a
fraudulent diagnosis born out of psychiatric imagination.
Dr Joanna Moncrieff, a psychiatrist and a senior lecturer at
University College of London says:- “Although psychiatrists
commonly talk of psychiatric drugs correcting a ‘chemical
imbalance’, there is in fact no proof that such an imbalance exists... hence the notion of a drug ‘correcting’ such an imbalance is
Last year, Baroness Susan Greenfield called for an examination of
how ‘ADHD’ is diagnosed in the UK.
Brian Daniels, national spokesperson for CCHR in the UK, says that
while it cannot be denied that some children have problems learning
in school, that some can be argumentative, boisterous or even
disruptive, psychiatry’s fixation on labelling these difficulties as
a mental disorder is not only unscientific, but medical fraud.
“The idea that psychiatrists are experts in how to resolve
childhood behaviour is negated by an inability to ‘cure’ their
Well meaning parents, teachers and politicians have been
duped by psychiatric propaganda that children have a ‘chemical
imbalance’ and that a drug is the answer.
The reality of the situation is that psychiatry is a profit-driven
industry that would go out of business if it ever cured anyone who
actually had one of its manufactured ‘disorders’.”
CCHR is urging parents to seek the advice of non-psychiatric doctors
to find undiagnosed physical conditions manifesting as so-called
It is urging parents to find a doctor who can find
the cause of problems rather than following psychiatric advice and
drug the symptoms.
OFSTED STAFF WORK TO RULE IN PAY DISPUTE
of UNISON and PCS are working to rule in a dispute over pay. The
action consisting of a ban on overtime and working only contracted
hours for the weeks 19 May 2008 until 30 May 2008 will disrupt the tight
inspections schedule for children’s homes, nurseries, boarding
schools and child minding services. The move on hours is the latest
in a series of action by employees over the imposition of a divisive
new pay structure and below inflation 3-year pay deal.
UNISON National Officer for social care, Helga Pile, said:-
“The pay deal on the table for Ofsted staff is completely
unacceptable. Staff have been left with no choice but to take
action. In the current economic climate how can anyone be expected
to sign up to a three year pay freeze? Ofsted staff are also being
expected to bring in widespread reforms, which will add even more to
their heavy workload.
What Ofsted management need to realise is that by not coming back
with a fair offer they are putting the inspections service on the
line. Our members are dedicated to their jobs, they have never been
on strike before. However, they have been pushed to breaking point.
They are struggling to make ends meet. They should be able to expect
a decent pay rise and a fair pay structure.”
The work to rule comes after members of UNISON and PCS working in
Ofsted staged a one day strike on May 16. The impact will be quickly
felt as Ofsted’s own staff survey showed half of all staff working
over four hours a week extra above their contracted hours and 27%
over 8 hours a week extra.
GOVERNMENT SEEKING ELIMINATION OF FATHERS BY STEALTH?
IN the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Bill before parliament last week, the
government wants to remove the need for doctors to consider whether
a child born after IVF treatment will have "a father".
They propose replacing the need for a "father"
with only the
need for "supportive parenting".
With this proposal, we believe the government are turning the 'best
interests of the child' principle on it's head and putting the
needs and wishes of the IVF 'parents' before the interests of
the child. The Equal Parenting Alliance believes it is a fundamental
right of a child to have (and know the identity of) a father. After
all, whatever the gender of the IVF 'parent's, the child will
still only ever have 1 biological father and mother.
The government's proposal sends a clear message that fathers are
unnecessary and betrays their thinking that a father's presence in a
child's life is nothing more than a lifestyle choice to be made by
the mother. After more than a decade of policies and practices
that have denigrated fathers and assailed the family unit to the
point where our children are the unhappiest in the western world, it
can hardly be a surprise that the government hold this view.
Indeed, the deputy Labour Party Leader Harriet Harman wrote:-
"It cannot therefore be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to
family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is
necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion."
With this and similar views in the core of the Labour Party, it's no
surprise they are quietly trying to remove fathers from the picture
at every opportunity, however innocent and accidental it may appear.
We hope that MPs see sense and vote for this amendment to keep the
need for a father as a consideration during IVF treatment.