UK - Daily Echo In my View
In my view..
An end to fluoridation
KEN Clarke, our Justice Secretary stales that we In England have the world's largest Legal Aid costs, and that his department is looking for ways to cut £100 million from its budget. The most straightforward way to avoid future Legal Aid and compensation costs will be achieved simply by stopping the fluoridation of areas that already receive fluoride and at the same time, with the impending demise of Strategic Health Authorities, repeal the 2005
Nos 920 and 921 Statutory Instruments that are currently attached to the 2003 Water Act, thus disabling the transfer of these Statutory Instruments Into Local Councillors' hands.
One must ask oneself that as fluoride is so beneficial to dental health and children's teeth in particular, why is it our Government makes taxpayers' money so freely available to be used to fight and pay for all claims against a water company? £400,000 plus of our taxpayers' money has just been spent on two judicial reviews brought by one local individual. Is It just that the financial pot bottomless to protect the Interests of those who wish to cheaply dump fluoride into our water supplies?
A representative of our local Strategic Health Authority once stated that phone surveys give a better indication of opinion than a written response to a consultation. Why was it then that the responses to the two main questions were unreported? These are that only 12 per cent of those surveyed strongly , supported the fluoridation of Southampton's Water and that 27 per cent, yes, 27 per cent strongly opposed this fluoridation. I feel the I answer to my question is clear for all to see.
Currently our council is having a fight with local unions - both are being controlled by outside forces, so that they do not give an Inch to either side, where that inch can then be used nationally by others much in the same way where fluoride can be introduced into any public water supply. This being controlled approach was taken by the SHA Board when they an voted as one in favour of fluoridating Southampton's water supply. Even the Chairman
had to impress someone else higher up the tree, when he stated that he would have voted In favour of fluoridation had there been a split vote. You see, someone else is always 'pulling the strings'. So much for a different subject, up steps one brave MP Mr Mark Pritchard and his supporters, who recently put forward a motion to direct the Government to introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. The motion was discussed by the House of Commons and approved, much against the wishes of all the 'string pullers'.
Are there any MPs who could do the same to ban Statutory ' instruments 2005 Nos. 920 and 921? If you are out there, please make yourselves known.
Simply because these two , Statutory Instruments have to go!
An end to fluoridation
KEN Clarke, our Justice Secretary stales that we In England have the world's largest Legal Aid costs, and that his department is looking for ways to cut £100 million from its budget. The most straightforward way to avoid future Legal Aid and compensation costs will be achieved simply by stopping the fluoridation of areas that already receive fluoride and at the same time, with the impending demise of Strategic Health Authorities, repeal the 2005
Nos 920 and 921 Statutory Instruments that are currently attached to the 2003 Water Act, thus disabling the transfer of these Statutory Instruments Into Local Councillors' hands.
One must ask oneself that as fluoride is so beneficial to dental health and children's teeth in particular, why is it our Government makes taxpayers' money so freely available to be used to fight and pay for all claims against a water company? £400,000 plus of our taxpayers' money has just been spent on two judicial reviews brought by one local individual. Is It just that the financial pot bottomless to protect the Interests of those who wish to cheaply dump fluoride into our water supplies?
A representative of our local Strategic Health Authority once stated that phone surveys give a better indication of opinion than a written response to a consultation. Why was it then that the responses to the two main questions were unreported? These are that only 12 per cent of those surveyed strongly , supported the fluoridation of Southampton's Water and that 27 per cent, yes, 27 per cent strongly opposed this fluoridation. I feel the I answer to my question is clear for all to see.
Currently our council is having a fight with local unions - both are being controlled by outside forces, so that they do not give an Inch to either side, where that inch can then be used nationally by others much in the same way where fluoride can be introduced into any public water supply. This being controlled approach was taken by the SHA Board when they an voted as one in favour of fluoridating Southampton's water supply. Even the Chairman
had to impress someone else higher up the tree, when he stated that he would have voted In favour of fluoridation had there been a split vote. You see, someone else is always 'pulling the strings'. So much for a different subject, up steps one brave MP Mr Mark Pritchard and his supporters, who recently put forward a motion to direct the Government to introduce a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. The motion was discussed by the House of Commons and approved, much against the wishes of all the 'string pullers'.
Are there any MPs who could do the same to ban Statutory ' instruments 2005 Nos. 920 and 921? If you are out there, please make yourselves known.
Simply because these two , Statutory Instruments have to go!
posted by Bill at
9:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home