THE LAWYERS HAVE ARRIVED.
Back in March we warned that the lawyers were about to get involved in the fluoridation controversy. Now they are here, and the Government's duplicity is under scrutiny, with a Judicial Review of the law on public consultation.
When Southampton resident Geraldine Milner was awarded State legal aid to challenge the autocratic rejection of public opinion against fluoridation in the City of Southampton, pro-fluoride advocates in the UK were brought up sharply against reality. The first legal challenge of any aspect of water fluoridation to come before a Judge since Lord Jauncy effectively banished fluoridation from Scotland twenty six years ago has shocked the pro-fluoride Establishment to its foundations.
Fluoride pushers across the country are worried. The plan to fluoridate the English North-West has stopped dead in its tracks. Even in long-fluoridated areas of the country the Water Companies are nervously waiting to see what the Judge has to say about the Government's undercover attempt to remove the hazards of uncertain public opinion from public health policy-making.
It will be several months yet before we get the verdict, but behind the scenes there are signs that the Department of Health may be preparing a face-saving exit strategy. Only a few days ago the North West Strategic Health Authority announced that it is concerned that the costs of the proposed northern scheme are likely to be rather more than it had expected - £200 million. Ouch!
But quite why this is regarded as such a shocking revelation is difficult to understand We informed the NWSHA that it would cost precisely that amount two years ago, and we got it directly from the Water Company!
Our commentary on the issues that will form the basis of the Judicial Review are published here today - you will be surprised at just what has been going on behind the scenes!
Back in March we warned that the lawyers were about to get involved in the fluoridation controversy. Now they are here, and the Government's duplicity is under scrutiny, with a Judicial Review of the law on public consultation.
When Southampton resident Geraldine Milner was awarded State legal aid to challenge the autocratic rejection of public opinion against fluoridation in the City of Southampton, pro-fluoride advocates in the UK were brought up sharply against reality. The first legal challenge of any aspect of water fluoridation to come before a Judge since Lord Jauncy effectively banished fluoridation from Scotland twenty six years ago has shocked the pro-fluoride Establishment to its foundations.
Fluoride pushers across the country are worried. The plan to fluoridate the English North-West has stopped dead in its tracks. Even in long-fluoridated areas of the country the Water Companies are nervously waiting to see what the Judge has to say about the Government's undercover attempt to remove the hazards of uncertain public opinion from public health policy-making.
It will be several months yet before we get the verdict, but behind the scenes there are signs that the Department of Health may be preparing a face-saving exit strategy. Only a few days ago the North West Strategic Health Authority announced that it is concerned that the costs of the proposed northern scheme are likely to be rather more than it had expected - £200 million. Ouch!
But quite why this is regarded as such a shocking revelation is difficult to understand We informed the NWSHA that it would cost precisely that amount two years ago, and we got it directly from the Water Company!
Our commentary on the issues that will form the basis of the Judicial Review are published here today - you will be surprised at just what has been going on behind the scenes!
Inadmissible evidence.
The impending Judicial Review will examine whether Parliament's wish that public agreement to water fluoridation must be the deciding factor was ignored when the Consultation Regulations were drawn up.
But the evidence given to Parliament during the fluoridation debates was itself scientifically illiterate, and may have improperly influenced the Members and the provision of the secondary legislation on consultation.
So should the Judicial Review now also examine the 'cogency' of the evidence given to Parliament and used repeatedly by the Health Authority, and the Health sector's irrational rejection of reliable scientific evidence of the serious medical risks of water fluoridation?
Doug Cross, 19th September 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment