Elizabeth and her children have been reduced to poverty by her ex. The law must treat such cases like domestic violence
Elizabeth doesn’t dare tell social services, but there have been nights when she and her three kids couldn’t eat. “No heating, no gas. We’ve lived like paupers,” she told me. “He doesn’t pay any maintenance even though legally he’s meant to, so sometimes I can’t pay my nursery bill. That means that even though I’ve left him, my job’s at risk – I can’t take a child into work.”
Her ex-partner has also sent emails to letting agents impugning her ability to afford the rent, meaning she’s had to stump up six months in advance to keep hold of a tenancy. Elizabeth (not her real name) didn’t have that money – she’s had to borrow from friends. Despite paying her rent on time, subsequent damning emails from her ex to letting agents have, she believes, led to her and the children being evicted twice.
Jeremy Corbyn raises case of Albert Thompson, denied treatment because he lacked proof of residency
Theresa May has promised to look into the case of a London man asked to pay £54,000 for cancer treatment despite having lived in the UK for 44 years, after Jeremy Corbyn raised it at prime minister’s questions.
The Labour leader began a series of PMQs questions on the NHS by asking May about Albert Thompson, whose case was uncovered by the Guardian. Thompson is not receiving the radiotherapy treatment he needs for prostate cancer after he was unable to provide evidence of residency.
Tribunal rules that leaseholders in Croydon block are responsible for making building safe
Leaseholders in an apartment block covered in Grenfell-style cladding have been ordered to pay £500,000 to make their building safe after a tribunal ruled that they, rather than the management company, were obliged to cover the costs.
The ruling, which could be challenged, means leaseholders of the 95-apartment Citiscape complex in Croydon, south London, may face a £2m bill, which some have said would force them into financial ruin.
The principles that define a good life protect me from despair, despite this diagnosis and the grisly operation I now face
It came, as these things often do, like a gunshot on a quiet street: shocking and disorienting. In early December, my urine turned brown. The following day I felt feverish and found it hard to pee. I soon realised I had a urinary tract infection. It was unpleasant, but seemed to be no big deal. Now I know that it might have saved my life.
The doctor told me this infection was unusual in a man of my age, and hinted at an underlying condition. So I had a blood test, which revealed that my prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were off the scale. An MRI scan and a mortifying biopsy confirmed my suspicions. Prostate cancer: all the smart young men have it this season.
The U2 singer, 57, said he was left furious after the allegations surfaced in November last year. He admitted the One organisation failed to protect some employees at its Johannesburg office and said: “I need to take some responsibility for that.”
The One campaign, created in 2004 to fight extreme poverty and preventable diseases, launched an investigation after a group of former employees from its Johannesburg office tweeted allegations of management misconduct, claiming that some staff in Africa were “treated worse than dogs”.
The group told an internal inquiry into events between 2011 and 2015 that they were repeatedly ridiculed and belittled, and that a supervisor ordered them to do domestic work at her home at weekends. Another alleged she was demoted for refusing to become intimate with a foreign government official, after her manager made “sexist and suggestive comments” about her to him.
The allegations were revealed in a letter to members from Gayle Smith, who became One’s chief executive in March 2017. She said One had filed a serious incident report to the Charity Commission this month.
The inquiry found that a former official subjected junior employees to “verbal or email statements such as calling individuals ‘worthless’, ‘stupid’ and an ‘idiot’, at times doing so in front of third parties,” One said.
Smith said the campaign had not been able to corroborate the “appalling claims” that the female employee had been demoted for not becoming intimate with the foreign official, but added: “We do not discount any allegation – we investigate them and will continue to do so should others arise.”
Bono told the Mail on Sunday: “We are all deeply sorry. I hate bullying, can’t stand it. The poorest people in the poorest places being bullied by their circumstance is the reason we set up One. So to discover last November that there were serious and multiple allegations of bullying in our office in Johannesburg left me and the One board reeling and furious.”
The emphasis, at least in the House of Lords, where the bill started, very soon switched from remedies for infertility to the new concept of eliminating some heritable diseases. IVF could be used to select embryos in the laboratory that did not carry the disease and implant one or two of those in the mother’s uterus. At the time, it was also speculated that one day it might be possible to eliminate a faulty gene from a live embryo after a pregnancy had been established, rather than at the pre-implantation stage.
I remember being astonished by how little this had to do with infertility, which was, after all, in the title of the bill, and what the committee I chaired had been set up to consider.
It came about almost entirely because of the enthusiasm of a then newly appointed crossbencher, Lord Walton of Detchant, who was a neurologist especially concerned with the condition of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a heritable disease for which there was no cure. The bill became law as much because of his persuasiveness in the matter of genetic modification as because of the help it would afford to those suffering from infertility.
But the procedures that John Walton foresaw took very much longer to come into practice than he had expected and we are now again considering the issues that arise from genetic modification in humans, though this time not only embryonic humans.
The Royal Society survey is an extremely careful investigation of the views of three panels of “ordinary” people, based in London, Norwich and Edinburgh, concerned, respectively, with genetic modification of humans, plants and animals other than human.
The survey was carried out over a considerable period and with a great deal of internal communication. It is not surprising, therefore, that people changed their minds, or modified their opinions, during the course of the inquiry. But one thing that emerges most clearly from the report is the common thirst for more knowledge. Again and again, participants complained that they were inhibited from expressing an opinion about new developments in the field by their ignorance of which therapies were currently being used and which were in the pipeline.
The motivating force behind the survey was the thought that the new possibilities of curing disease by genetic modification could be of benefit to large numbers of people, many of whom suffered from conditions hitherto untreatable. It is therefore essential that these new possibilities should be widely understood and that there should be no room for suspicion that research is being carried out behind closed doors or that there is help available to which no one has access.
Among the London group, those concerned with the application of the new techniques to humans, a surprising number held the view that the benefit of the techniques lay in the matter of equality: everyone, whatever their disease or disability, would have a chance to benefit from the new therapies. But this would depend on the cost of genetic treatment, which might well be prohibitive for a cash-strapped NHS. Nearly everyone agreed that the new techniques should not be used frivolously, that is, they should be used for the treatment of serious diseases, especially heritable diseases, not for aesthetic reasons, such as the production of “designer babies”.
This moral imperative immediately introduces the idea that the use of genetic modification requires regulation and this is something that was acknowledged by almost all the participants in the survey, whether they were concerned with crops, animals or humans.
Many of those surveyed expressed the hope that such regulation should be global; however, that seems to me pure fantasy. Think of the difficulties in establishing global agreement on the management of pollution. In this case, we must simply try to regulate for ourselves and hope that, if we can get it right, others will follow.
There was one concern of the report with which I had little sympathy and that was the matter of consent. A number of people expressed anxiety that, if a child were genetically modified so that that child, and their children, would no longer suffer from an inherited disease, they would have had this done to them, as well as to future generations, without their consent.
Obviously that is true. And obviously in many cases it is desirable that consent be assured before action is taken that involves someone else. But if you are being rescued from an intolerable situation, surely your consent can be taken for granted. If, in order to prevent my being burned to death in a house fire you fling me over your shoulder and run – you don’t need to stop to ask my consent. So, if you can act so as to spare a child, and future generations of children, the sufferings of disability, surely you do not need their consent to take the necessary actions. Sometimes, I feel that people engaged in these discussions underestimate the awfulness of having a profoundly disabled child.
And this leads to my next point: there were those whose response to the inquiry was to suggest that it was wrong to try to find ways to remove or alleviate the sufferings of those who have genetically determined disabilities. To suggest that one might hope to eliminate disability was the same as to hope to eliminate disabled people. And this was discrimination.
But this argument, though I have frequently encountered it, often put forward with passion, seems to me very weak. To say of someone that his life would be better if he were not disabled is not the same as to say that it would be better if he did not exist. But, on the whole, there was little of this in the findings of the survey. It has been a useful and enlightening exercise.
For parents who have been enjoying the freedom of living child-free, now comes research to spoil it all
The bedrooms have been redecorated in grown-up colours, the 25-year-old soft toys chucked out, the washing machine is blissfully underused and, thanks to the apparent current raging addictions of baby boomers, a holiday or two – cruising in the Med, the Antarctic, anywhere that avoids dry land – have been booked. And then they’re back.
According to a recent study by the London School of Economics (LSE), adult children who return to the family home after a period away – often at university – cause a significant decline in their parents’ quality of life and wellbeing.