MSM Blood donations: The Governments Reply

Behold what many thought would never come to fruition... a reply, not from Dame Sally Davis alas, but from Rowena Jecock; Head of policy for blood safety and supply since 2009. Please Note that it has been reformatted and my real name ommitted, but the content of the reply has not been changed.

Dear Mr Magic

Thank you for your email of 6^th August to Dame Sally Davies, bringing to her attention the e-petition asking for the abolition of the exclusion of men who have had sex with men as blood donors.  Dame Sally has asked me to reply on her behalf.

I would like to agree with your point that the selection criteria for blood donors should be based on scientific fact and medical knowledge.  This is certainly the Government’s policy.  And as scientific and medical knowledge grows over time, the criteria need to be reviewed.

You may be aware that the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs has completed a review of the evidence base for donor exclusion and deferral in the UK which was started in 2009.  This includes a review of the criteria which relate to sexual behaviour.  The findings of the review are being considered by the relevant Health Ministers across the UK, and further information on any resulting changes to current blood donation policies will be made available in due course – in light of all the evidence.  We continually review the evidence base for policies already in place, and will continue to do so.

I would like to reassure you on one point.  You mention that there is currently a blood shortage, and that patients are going without operations and other treatments as a result.  I am pleased to say that this is not the case: the National Blood Service in England is very carefully managed to maintain supplies without wasting donations.  When stocks are running low in certain areas, NHSBT may advertise to attract more donors locally, but I am pleased to tell you that they have been able to maintain blood supplies to hospitals to meet their needs since the alert system was set up ten years ago.

Yours sincerely,

Rowena Jecock

Head of Policy, Blood Safety and Supply

And thus we come to an interesting conflict of facts, please observe:

http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west-london-news/local-harrow-news/2010/06/17/blood-shortage-could-kill-me-116451-26671959/

This is only one of several such articles which can be found relating to people having to wait for transfusions and transplants because of the aquisition of blood.

Also observe the date of this article... 2010, which to my calculations is not ten years ago, though I could be wrong as maths is not my strongest of subjects.

Secondly, she has brought to my attention a piece of knowledge that I had not previously known, that the review of the policy for excluding sexually active gay men (which has been around since 1977) was started in 2009. This is interesting as, to my knowledge, Dr Rewena Jecock was appointed head of policy for blood safety and supply on the 22nd of January 2009. This means that, unless it was started during the first 22 days in January, she was person that was incharge when this policy started to be questioned.

So, for anyone who would like to contact Dr Jecock and ask her personally why gay man are banned from giving blood or to congratulate her for challenging the ban in the first place, the E-mail address for her Secretary is Tina.Lee@dh.gsi.gov.uk

Happy Writing

Mr Magic

Enterprise zone's?

This blog entry is very short, my apologies in advance.

In a society based on production where manufacture is the primary industry, an area or space of involuntary labour, whether that be due to force or the lack of ability/oppotunity to sustain oneself without labouring, is referred to by the emotionally charged term "Labour Camp".

We live in a society that is not based on production but instead based on services, the intermediary industry providing mediums of sale and the services required for such sales (i.e insurance, fiscal products, clarical and secritarial services, sales assistants, etc). These sales can be of almost anything, even other services, such as education (we provide the teachers) or medicine (we provide the doctors).

The big question that I wish to pose is, what would be the equivalent of a "Labour Camp" in a service society?

What would we call an area or space of involuntary service, involuntary due to the lack of ability/oppotunity to sustain oneself without providing service?

hmmm...?

The arcane solution to all social issues: Remediation

"Remediation"

I am nearly certain that politicains of the past invented this word so that it could be used, at times like these, to sound very impressive and as if they have discovered some incrediable solution to all of the social issues around. What remediation actually means is very simple, "to remedy, cure or treat usually via educative means", In simpiler terms it means to give people schooling.

What this signify's is the beginnings of the stratification of the post-secondary education system. Those who naturally progress to A-Levels and then BA's are viewed as normality and those who do not are viewed as damaged and so require "remediation" so as to rehabilitate them onto the "correct" path of life, whether that be them completing the former qualifications later on in life, or whether that be accepting that they are less educated and therefore undeserving of gratification of a high salary and generally less beneficial to society.

Educational stratification can also be called intellectual segregation, where the highly intelligent are kept separate from those who are not. The issue with this stems not only from an ethical standpoint, that people should be defined by their intended actions rather than their genetic intelligence, but also from a scientific one. Intelligence is a subjective term and whilst I may have an IQ of 134, my knowledge of immunology is compariably lower than that of a biological scientist who's IQ maybe considerably lower. That same biologist may end up finding cures for very many diseases and save thousands of peole's lives, whereby it is highly unlikely that I will find the cure for any biological disease. How is it right to say that I am better than that person then, simply because I have a greater intelligence? How can it even be claimed that I have a greater intelligence? Surely it is more intelligent to dedicate you life to finding cure's for diseases and in so doing furthering the medical ability of humanity, than it is to large segments of your time writing a "blog".

So what really is going on?

At the momemt, remediation is being considered for those who, the government believe, have a high chance of committing crimes. This does not mean to say that they need to have committed crimes in order to be sentenced to involutary remediation, only that they are at high risk. Remediation already exists with the criminal justice system for those who have been found guilty of criminality.
In my previous two post's I mentioned two possible aim's of the government, one was the gentrification of area's of the UK and the other was the possibility that the government maybe trying to criminalise having low economic means. If the latter is enforced then the involuntary remediation of all of those with low economic means may follow. Remedial educational facilities tend to be separate to general educational facilities, thus the result would be the separation of the lower class from general educational facilities occupied by the middle and upper classes. Whilst I am definiately no Marxist, this is certainly beginning to look reminiscient of the theorie's of the aforementioned.

Separated from general educational facilities, driven out of their homes due to gentrification and criminalised because they are poor... These are not simply measures to limit riots or to increase the economic stability of the UK, they are the same segregational techniques employed in central europe in the 1930's, however I believe that the aim is slightly different here than there and is one that has never actually be acheived.

Proletaricide. A word you will probably never have come across before. It means the destruction of the lower class within a society and is normally precidented with an attempt of simple ethnocide, which is the attempten destruction of their culture.

In easier to understand terms, Tony Blair's 'war on terror' was an attempted ethnocide of the culture of terrorists and when this failed it lead to the attempted destruction of the people of that culture (i.e. the terrorists). In the same way I fear that when David Camerons attempts at ethnocide of the culture of the lower class fails, he will resort to attempting to destroy the people of that culture.

Mr Magic

Is my family classified as a "Gang"?

As David Cameron, Theresa May and Iain Duncan Smith declare war on "Gangs" it would appear that they may inadvertantly be declaring war on something far far bigger than they could contemplate. Is my family classified as a "Gang"? in short, the answer is yes.

According to the definition of what constitutes as a "Gang," my Family unit is, in fact, a prime example, as is also a group of electrical plugs, a navigation systen made up of lighters and my personal favourite, an economic tool used within the printing industry. The term is so vague that it can be made applicable to any group of people, regardless of age or reason for meeting. In fact it is so vage it can be applied to any group of anyTHING.

Whilst this might seem a pedantic point, I raise it because of how often this word is now being banded about in statements claiming to explain why the riots happened and how we can stop them in the future. For example Iain Duncan smith said recently on the BBC the "gang problem that we have in the UK" and that the way to resolve this is to "crackdown on all gangs, everywhere, at the same time, for all the time." He even stated that the gangs manipulated the criminality of the riots.

Now if you simply replace the word "gang" with the word "group," you can see just how empty and meaningless statements like this are. What is clear from these statements is that he was refering to "criminal gangs (groups)," which only increases the ridiculous nature of these statements as the founding purpose of the police was to stop people breaking the law, "everywhere and at the same time, for all the time." We have in fact been doing this for the last 300 years.

My concern, however, is not in the semantic intelligence of politicians more than in their proposed policies and the current discussions about giving police more powers to diffuse "gangs (groups) of youths (children)" especially as the specific people that they are talking about stem from low economic backgrounds. To put this as bluntly as possible, if this policey is enforced it will criminalise friendship groups being formed by teenagers in public. Whilst this will not be too damning for those who have private spaces to form friends, those who do not have such spaces (those who come from a backgrounds where their "private space" is either shared or simple non-existant due to a lack of economic means) will be hindered in their social development and possibly alienated because of this social deficit.

In the previous post I mentioned the possibility that the eviction of people from public housing initiative's maybe an attempt to gentrify areas. This Alienation technique could also be seen as method to induce gentrification, however I am now concerned that it maybe to do with something far more grave. Again, whilst I am not suggesting that this is what the government are planning, the steps they are currently taking indicate that the following maybe their desired goal.

What I am now refering to is the criminalisation of having low economic means. This is an inversion of the model of economic gain that we are used to. Under the previous Governments, It was the employers responsibility to pay their employee's a decent wage. If they did not do this then they were viewed as the criminal and the employee was viewed as the victim. Under this model, it would appear that, it is the employee's responsibility to ensure that they are recieving a decent wage and if they are not then they are viewed as a criminal because they either need to rely on benefits, or exist in an empoverished state which decreases the social and economic value of the area they reside. They are viewed as lazy and those earning a higher wage (this group, most likely, including their employer) are viewed as the victims because their tax money is being spent on either supporting these "lazy" people, or because their tax money is being spent on attempting to improve the areas where these "lazy" people reside instead of their own. This is not a sustainable economic model in a society claiming to be ethical as it de-humanizes those who are the most vunerable. It should also be recognised as the clear violation of basic human rights and morality that it is. We should feel priviledged to have the economic means to be charitable to others, rather than be resentful of giving the little that is asked of us.

Mr Magic

The dangers of sensationalist MP's

After the recent remarks made by Iain Duncan Smith to BBC Radio 4, it would appear that the UK Government are genuinely considering removing all benefits from those convicted of having been involved with the recent UK riots. Whilst for many this would seem an appropriate addition to any custodial sentence, the current considerations are being held to include the removal of benefits from those convicted but not sentenced to a custodial punishment.

These benefits include social housing and social maintainence/welfare pay which, if removed, could lead to many being homeless and without the financial means to support themselves. Whilst many people are supporting the removal of benefits on the basis that the Tax money saved could be spent on reconstructing the damaged areas, I condem the decision to even hold the discussion.

For a Government to be threatening people with homelessness, as a punishment, is barbaric. We already have a legal system which has appropriate sentencing powers and that has proportionate punishments for this crime. Such sensationalist punishments, as this, are completely unnecessary and will only go toward further debasing of our value system.

The removal of legitimate means of support from people already pre-disposed to theft will only lead to an increase in theft, and the increase of any singular form of crime within an area, has been proved throughout history to lead to an increase in all forms of crime within that area. Unless, of course, something far far more sinister is underfoot...

Whilst I am not currently suggesting that this is being used for the following means, I hold no reservations that if it is, the UK ethical compass is vastly further off point than anyone could have previousely forseen. What I am refering to is the possibility of an attempt at a form of social engineering referred to as Gentrification.

Gentrification is the attempt to improve the affluence of an area by removal of its working and lower class residents. Simply put, the plan to evict people from public housing, if they have been charged with being involved with the riots, is strictly a punishment that applys only to those in public housing initiatives. For private home owners/renters (in other words those with enough capital to afford private residence) this punishment is negated as the Government holds no jurisdiction, in terms of the ability to evict, over private land. Furthermore, eviction is the most direct form of Gentrification as it literally is a way to repell people from an area. What compounds this further is that one of the areas included is London,  The capital of The UK, where millions of people work and live. Gentrification on that scale would be comparable to an exodus and raises questions as to where this mass of people would end up residing. The historical answer to that question is rather grim as it reveals ghettoisation and settelments as being the most popular resolution and at this point we are now no longer discussing Gentrification, but Segregation. Not Segregation based on race or religion, but based on economic capital and wealth.

I sinserely hope that these discussions lead to the decision that removal of benefits is not a fitting punishment for non-custodial riot related crimes.

Mr Magic

MSM Blood donations

The following was a letter written to Dame Sally Davies, who is the Chief Medical Officer for the Departemnt of Health in British Government. As soon as I receive a reply, that too will be posted up for all who are interested to read.

Dear Dame Sally Davies

 

My name is Mr Magic and I am writing to bring to your attention the following petition that has been started on the governments new E-Petition site.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/301

The petition asks that the current ban on MSM blood (blood donated by men who have had intercourse with other men) be lifted on the basis that the foundations of the ban are not rooted in current scientific fact, but in out-of-date prejudices about gay men and HIV.

Whilst it is true that there is HIV amongst some of the gay community, it is also equally true that there is HIV amongst some of the heterosexual population. A blanket ban on the ability to donate blood, over an entire community of people who are only united by their sexual orientation, based solely on the fear of one disease that is not caused or intensified by the actions of this community, seems to me, and I hope it seems to you, to be an incredible injustice. Not an injustice to the people who wish to donate, but an injustice to the people who are in desperate need of operations and treatments who, due to the current blood shortage, cannot receive them.

Please also note, this is not and nor should it ever become, a political issue. The basis for the beginnings of this ban were valid, HIV is a terrible virus and AIDS is still an incurable disease, however the context has now changed and it is time that the ban was lifted as the simple fact is that the majority of gay men do not carry HIV and never will.

The second point in this email is based around time, simply put there is currently a blood shortage in the UK and by the time 100,000 signatures have been put on the petition, many people in dire need of operations will have run out of time. In order to increase the efficiency of lifting this ban I along with the (at time of writing) 1,811 other people who have put their names on this petition request that you personally ask for this ban to be put under immediate review, with the intent to removing it completely.

I stress again that this is not a political issue, nor is it directly an issue of gay rights. It is solely a medical issue. The initial basis for this ban, within the context of the time it was first laid down, was to avoid the spread of a deadly disease and now that the context has changed due to our medical knowledge, about the disease, increasing dramatically, so too should the measures that we put in place to stop it spreading.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email and I eagerly await your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Magic

So what exactly can you "loot" from a closed Nando's?

For my international friends who maybe unaware of the significance of recent events in britian on the political landscape of the region, or indeed unaware of the events in question please allow me to summerise before continuing. On friday the 5th of August 2011 A group of protesters met outside Tottenham police station to raise awareness and vent anger over the recent police shooting of Mark Duggan, a undisputed gang member. The protest turned violent due to an alleged incident between a teenage girl and an officer. This public disorder sparked a wave of riots which spread over the whole of london and the rest of the UK.

The rioting lasted for a total of four days before being quelled by a massive police effort. The riots lead to the recalling of parliment during recess and an emergency calling of the governments COBRA committee. The media coverage of the riots was extensive and highlighted many contributing factors to the violent outbreak such as the use of social networking by gangs in order to organise themselves and a possible "neglected british underclass". Many commentators on the riots also noted that the extensive media coverage could also have been a contributing factor that encouraged continued violence due to its apparent reveling of and in, the information it was recieving.

However, there are some anomalies in the news stories that need to be addressed. Firstly there is the issue of looting. Now, there is no dispute that looting was taking place however the anomaly lay's in whether looting was taking place prior too of after it was first mentioned in the media. The first reported looting was of a Nando's restaurant in Ealing Common, my question is very simple, as there are no police or media images of people running around with bags of frozen chicken or Peri-Peri sauce... what were people looting from the restaurant? Several Nando's restaurants were "looted" during the unrest, which lead to the creation of the Nando's Defence League (NDL) by fans of the popular restaurant chain. T-shirts were designed with a NDL logo on it and several hundred have sold around the UK and Internationally. Whilst I fully agree that it would be too far a stretch, for any sane person, to believe that the famous restaurant chain deliberately desired their restaurants to be attacked for the sake of a few T-shirt sales, I do think that we need to be keeping a very close eye on their insurance policy as if they are covered for loss of sales and the restoration of the buildings then it could be argued that, for the same of economic stability in light of the recent generally declining stock markets, they could have conceivably encouranged attacks upon their own buisness.

The second anomaly that needs to be addressed is the sheer quantity of petrol bombs and other arsonist tools deployed on friday and saturday nights. It is rather inconceivable that enough petrol bombs were made from the time the protest went violent, to sustain a four day long pillaging. This means one very simple thing, that either there was a supply that had already been made that was waiting to be deployed or there was a seperation between those using the bombs and those supplying them so that both processes could run parellel to each other. Either scenario seems to indicate prior knowledge of the major unrest, one by having a reserve of arsonist resources and the other by having an established system ready to suppy the rioters. Any prior knowledge that these riots were going to take place, by anyone, indicates that someone, somewhere has made a profit out of them. Again I would urge people to keep a very close eye on the stock value of whatever construction company is given the contract to rebuild shops and city centre's and to scrutinise that companies role and connections with other sectors especially the media and retail.

The following is a little story wriiten by a friend of mine, whilst it is ficticious and designed to be contraversial, it's content is not an impossibility (though you would need to be an extreme conspiracy theorist to believe it to be fact).

What can you loot from a closed Nanbo's?

the following story is fictional.
About a week ago everyone was still concerned about the hacking and news of the world, as well as distrust in the police (as they were suspected of aiding the hacking), then a few days ago the stock markets take one of the biggest hits since 2008. the situation for several small companies was looking very very bleak. however somewhere, someone very clever has an idea to guarantee the continuence of his favourite restaurant... nanbo's. if a police officer were to shoot a gang member, from a violent gang who would have no fear in trying to fight the police... then if they were to claim that these people were rioting... well then any loss or damage done to the buisness could be wriiten off as an insurance claim. it might sound crazy but it would be a guaranteed income during times of economic unrest and therefore a very safe investment. they could even claim for loss of trading and so guarantee projected profits! but to do this they would need to affect the whole chain, not just the area where the shooting took place. so they call a friend from a well known media group who were about to launch a new newspaper (because they had to stop the one the had been making coz of alot of very bad press about some illegal activities that some of their employees had been doing to gather info) and asked if they could help and they said yes, provided the trouble stated on a saturday so they could use it as a grand opening story for their new sunday paper. the friend said that if you claimed that people were looting then the idea might catch on with other groups and that he would advertise every nanbo's that gets attacked to try and get the "looters" to follow the chain. they still needed the police on their side though, so the friend rang up a high status contact within the police and explained that it would be a brilliant way to reinforce trust once again in the police and would take alot of heat off of them about the whole hacking incident. and so that friday the boy gets shot, and on that friday things start kicking off alot quicker than anyone suspected... the person, the reporter and the officer are happy with their work... then it grows bigger and bigger and bigger. far bigger than they expected, far bigger than they could control. the shop next to the reporters house gets burnt down and so he has to evacuate... he can't finish writing the story so the launch of the paper is delayed. not only are nanbo's being attacked but also several other shops and landmarks, this was not what the person wanted... and the police are supported... but out of pity, not respect. then another company gets thinking, "our stocks are down as well at the mo... guaranteed income would be very tasty", so they direct the looters to a giant warehouse and distribution centre which they set on fire and burn down, tadaa insurance claim and guaranteed income once more... next morning their stocks, and nanbo's stocks, stablise. PM gets called back from holiday and the police get reinforced with an extra 10,000 people. riots and looting stop... things may have got a liitle out of hand but everyone got what they wanted in the end. no-one's talking about the hacking, public confidence is restored in the police... and nanbo's is still up and running, after their two week refurb and redesign paid for out of the insurance money :-)
and in a dark room the reporter called up his friends at joogle and L-phone and says "i did what you asked, i gave jack-berry a bad name and their stock price is now plummetting... now hold up your side of the agreement...give me the code's so i can see people's text messages!"...
makes you wonder... what can you loot from a closed nanbo's?