FLUORIDE... HERE'S THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS.

JUDICIAL REVIEW DUE THIS AUTUMN..... OR IS IT?

The judicial review of fluoridation of water supplies in Southampton is expected to be heard in the autumn. That's according to health minister, ...

Its important to remember that in all polls on fluoridation its been rejected by a large majoority of the Population but Southamption only proved that there is little point in having a consultation when the SHAs can blithely do as they want and ignore all wishes and the proceed with a decision to fluoridate. This unscrupulous bit of double cross is enshrined in the so called fluoridation consultation legislation. If proof were needed the Southamption decision to fluoridate went ahead despite even a contrary statement from Gordon Brown and echoed by Health Minister that it should not be imposed upon people if they did not want it.

Sadly in the run up to the recent General Election, the then Shadow Minister Andrew Lansley agreed that fluoridadtion should not be imposed on people but seemed strangely unaware that the Water Act 2003 supported fluoridation irrespective of any overwhelming opposition. And, despite being asked since to clarify the Tory and coilition position, the legislation. has neith been amended or rescinded, leaving open the doors to fluoridation in future when the fuss has died down. This is a common methodology used by governments of all persuasions in the past.

Only complete abandonmend of illegal and antidemoncratic imposition of fluoridated water supples will satisfy anti-fluoride campaigners, many of whom have flatly refused to pay for water they consider poisoned or contaminated by toxic waste. In view of the double talke and hipocrisy of the pro fluoride lobby in the government and industry, this is both an understandable and reasonable position. Water companies should not be forced to contaminate what should be clean and potable drinking water, the majority of which will only enters the sewage system and then our streams and rivers. They have no contract with the general public to do such a thing have actively rejected it and refused to vote for those politicians of any party who chose to advocate such disgraceful, unscientific and and undemocratic action.

Of course this is the kind of blind and pig-headed attitude which we should all be well acquainted with. by now. Labour always seemed to ignore even the best expert advice, even from its own appointed advisors as in the York Report which could not recommend a further expansion of water fluoridation pending serious research. The government even re-wrote the summary to excuse their lies and ignored all protest from the York Committee. The same happend to Professor Nutt over their recommended changes in drug legislislation. and although this was perpetrated by the last Labour Government, the fact that the new Coilition Government is still refusing to examine the latest evidence and leave the 2003 Water Act on the books does not fill us with much confidence that they will be eventually much different from the previous mob. The credibility of the Coilition is therefore already under question.

one of our campaigners, Ann Willis alerts me to a piece in the Guardian on the 17th June

headed "CURB NHS SPENDING PLEDGE TO SAVE OTHER SERVICES, SAYS BURNHAM"

Andy Burnham, (pro-fluoridationist MP) is calling for money to be cut from the NHS budget, so that cash is available to spend on Social Services etc.

(My comment: I wonder if he wants a cut in the money which is spent on funding fluoridation schemes!)

Ann

Brian Jackson Comments. .......

Its interesting to note that Yesterdays Man, Burnham the origianl proposer and lobbyist for fluoridation, after Gordon Browns statement of alleged opposition to compulsory fluoridation himself came out against compulsion, presumably not because he really agreed with Brown but simply because he wished to appear to be behind brown in the run up to the election. This is typical of Burnham and many other career politicians.

Since the Blair intake the party has been stuffed with these lightweight chancers and opportunists who always turns up when there is an opportunity to be seen to be doing their masters work. For this reason if for no other, his decision to join the Labour Party leadership competition should be treated with the suspicion and derision which it truly deserves. If such people float to the top in the Labour Party, Labour will increasingly be seen for the disgraceful sham it now really is and there should be little surprise if it should fade to black in future electoral competitions as the electorate find them both unrepresentative and truly untrustworthy. Just as we have learned to distrust MPs over expenses claims we are also learning to be suspicious of their stated policies when their only real agenda is one of power seeking, just look at the uproar about the threat of electoral reform and coilition. It may be the MPs loss but it will certainly be democracy's gain.

Compulsory fluoridation, ID Cards, Databases etc are all merely symptoms of the paranoid Nanny State which does not trust the electorate and thinks they are elected to rule and dominate. They must now learn the real lesson of the last couple of years that their real task is to represent the electorate and carry out the wishes of the democratic majority without recourse to manipulaton of statistics, expenses or anything else. As a first major step in this direction, the New Coilition Government should take a firm hold of the Water Act 2003 and fluoridation and stick em both where the Sun dont shine.