COWARDLY LABOUR and CONFUSED CONSERVATIVES HIDE FROM FLUORIDATION DEBATE

YES -- NO -- DOH"


One of our most experienced campaigners recently wrote to the three major political party leaders and asked them for their position on fluoridation of water supplies. We now have replies from the LibDems and the Conservatives but perhaps predictably NOT from the New Labour in Government, they are probably far to busy trying to find some way of staying in power.

They may also be be unwilling to reply because they have been rumbled on a few too many issues already and know that they cannot win unless they lie and cheat. It was after all they who introduced the very snide legislation which not only gave power to the SHAs and their Lackeys in the PCTs to compel the water companies to add fluoride to drinking water, but which also enabled them to ignore all local dissent and objections, to force the water companies to add fluoride to our water supplies whether we liked it or not. This is enshrined in the Water Bill 2003.

We don't like it at all, all polls on this poison give highly negative pro-fluoride votes, the results of the falsely called "Consultation" process in Hampshire and Southampton carve this in stone and have even promoted a forced Judicial Review which could delay any further expansion of fluoride for a couple of years or more. People right across the UK have similar views. They don't want this poison, they don't see why they should be compelled to have it in what is laughingly often called a democracy. New Labour of course has a different view of Democracy to the rest of us. It believes in the Nanny State, and a very severe Nanny at that. One who likes to know who and where you are at all times, what you eat and drink, who your friends are ad infinitum. Worse still, they feel they have the right to make all our choices for us, whether this be smoking, drinking, hunting, live music etc etc. So we are constantly watched on ever increasing numbers of CCTV cameras. We must accept biometric passports, ID Cards and all the other mechanisms of the control freaks Police State. the latesf of which is the new one from the Prince of Darkness aka. Mandelson, whose Digital Copyright Bill seeks to undo all the already limited freedom and creativity the Internet has brought us and at the same time ensure that control or artistry and music and its proceeds remains in the hands of a few, right wing and extremely rich Bastards, but I digress. (Come on, dont be shy, tell us what your really think. Ed")

So in Executive Summary stylee, what do we mean by YES - NO- DOH ???

YES to Fluoridation.


Yes refers to the Labour Party who once in government without a mandate, policy or any proper debate, forced state sanctioned, er... I mean state enforced fluoridation through a mostly empty house. Led of course by the then Chief of Toadies and now Head of Demolition at the NHS Andy Burnham. Our campaigner wrote to them via her constituency MP, Hilary Benn. who we thought was likely to be the Mr Nice of the present crop of Labour neredowells. Sadly no response what so ever.

Maybe he could not comment and has had to wait till his masters decide whether they dare answer or not. Perhaps its still in his in tray or the Brown Wonders In tray (shurely shome mishtake. Ed!) due to the pressure of trying to come up with something which might sort out the current and likely to be lasting financial and political crisis or. most likely of all. Browns bunch are terrified of being drawn into a debate on the morality, legality and democracy of compulsory medication with fluoride in our water. A debate which they know they cannot win on scientific grounds ethical grounds and as countless polls on fluoridation have shown, Democratic grounds. They are certain to be terrified of losing power at a time when they are most desirous of increasing or at the very least maintaining it. New labours campaign colour used to be Red, but now its the same colour as the skid marks on its underwear.


NO to Fluoridation

Here in the Good News section we find the Liberal Democrats with a straightforward and clear message indicating zero tolerance of fluoride and compulsory medication....

"In general terms, Liberal Democrats believe that people and local communities should have the ability to make their own decisions as to whether or not they should take forms of medicine, which – according to the stated purpose – fluoridation would effectively constitute. Obviously, there is no such thing as absolute certainty when it comes to health safety – but in normal circumstances patients can weigh up the pros and cons or receiving potentially risky treatment and choose whether to undertake it. Mass fluoridation of water would leave people with no choice, and we believe that it should not be imposed by Whitehall diktat.

Thank you once again for writing to us; please do rest assured that all comments have been taken on board.

Thus the LibDems demonstrate how easy it is to give a straight answer if you really try. But of course if you are the type of politician or party member that desires membership of the Westminster club at any cost, there is little or no room for honesty. For most of them, power is the goal and even if you don't have any coherent policies you can always think some up once you get control. An equally honourable mention must also be made for the Greens who have consistently made no secret of their opposition to fluoridation and helped Scotland maintain its drinking water quality.

DOH! -- What is this fluoridation thingy all about anyway ?

The saddest reply was from Andrew Landsley the Conservative Shadow Health Secretary on behalf of David Cameron. At first sight the reply looks promising. It uses the some of the right words such as consultation and explains the 2003 act as follows. "the water Act 2003 allow an SHA to direct a water company to fluoridate the water supply in an area, where it is in the interest of public health. The SHA must first consult with the local community and businesses in the affected area, to ensure that there is sufficient support. Apparently Mr Landsley does not appear to understand that according to the legislation which he quotes, even if there is a 101% local opposition to water fluoridation, the SHA can still ask the water company to add fluoride and worst of all, the water company MUST COMPLY.

The so called consultation is therefore a complete waste of time and money and merely a cynical cosmetic exercise designed to add a veneer of democracy to what is otherwise little more than an East European style diktat. At a time when the NHS is about to be tightly squeezed to save money for its core services, it should not be contemplating spending hundreds of millions on water fluoridation, in the North West alone which does not even do what it says on the tin and creates the very problems which it has been in the past, alleged.

Even worse is the threat posed by additional costs not apparently covered in the figures posted so far. Fluoride is an extremely dangerous and potentially deadly chemical. For health and safety reasons, the traditional dirt track roads which lead to most of our outlying drinking water plants will need to be strenthenged, widened and surfaced to prevent accidents and spillages. And even more worrying is the prospect of tankers full of this crap, trundling through our towns, villages and country lanes. In the USA in some areas the tankers are accompanied by armed police escorts to prevent hijacks for terrorist purposes. Heaven knows how much all this will cost and apparently this will have to come out of the NHS budget as its not covered in the general fluoridation fund. Oh well, they can always close another A and E Unit or a Childrens Ward here or there.

If Mr Landsleys view represents a true picture of the Conservative Party grasp of some of the technicalities of the costs, and legalisms associated then all of us, and not just the NHS is safe in their hands. Friends of the Earth can therefore not recommend either of the two main parties as candidates and if they really want to lead the UK through the dangerous environmental and financial minefield which stretches well into the next decade they will really need to swat up on a few things and get their collective and individual acts together. Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic didn't do it and now painting those chairs wont do it either. Its time for politicians to begine to grasp the scope and technicalities whether they be scientific, medical, financial or social and look for genuine consensus to tackle the problems we face.

The MPs expenses scandal has shown us that the MPs and candidates are nowhere near as clever as they thought they were, and also that the electorate are not as daft as they thought we were. The attempts to dumb us all down has not yet succeeded and to ensure that it doesn't in the future we need politicians who are prepared to use some commons sense. and allow science to dictate to policy and not allow highly trained and qualified to be overruled by incompetent power hungry hypocritical numpties.

House of Commons paper
8th March 2010

Our Ref: NC/100210_02/HvK
Dear Miss Johnson,

Many thanks for your letter to Nick Clegg MP. Nick has asked me to reply to you on his behalf. I am sorry for the delay in responding and I hope you will understand that, due to the sheer volume of correspondence which Nick receives, it can take some time for us to reply.

In general terms, Liberal Democrats believe that people and local communities should have the ability to make their own decisions as to whether or not they should take forms of medicine, which – according to the stated purpose – fluoridation would effectively constitute. Obviously, there is no such thing as absolute certainty when it comes to health safety – but in normal circumstances patients can weigh up the pros and cons or receiving potentially risky treatment and choose whether to undertake it. Mass fluoridation of water would leave people with no choice, and we believe that it should not be imposed by Whitehall diktat.

Thank you once again for writing to us; please do rest assured that all comments have been taken on board

Yours sincerely

Douglas Dowell
Office of Nick Clegg MP


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House of Commons paper
2nd March


Dear Miss Johnson

David Cameron’s office recently passed me a copy of your letter regarding water fluoridation

In 2003 parliament voted to allow water fluoridation to take place if a water authority has been asked to do so by the local Strategic Health Authority (SHA). The amendments made to the water Act 2003 allow an SHA to direct a water company to fluoridate the water supply in an area, where it is in the interest of public health. The SHA must first consult with the local community and businesses in the affected area, to ensure that there is sufficient support.

I understand that there is some concern about fluoridation of the water supply. I have no objection to Strategic health Authorities initiating water fluoridation if that is what their local communities are calling for, but I do not see why the Government should seek to press them to do so. I believe the strategic Health Authorities should consult their local communities about these issues, if and when it is deemed appropriate.

Thank you for taking the time to write

Yours Sincerely

Andrew Lansley CBE MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Health
Email lansley@parliament.uk
Website www.andrewlansley.co.uk