Little media coverage of 7/7 attacks over weekend, why is this?

Yesterday was July the 7th 8 years on from one from a horrific day for London and the day in which 52 innocent people lost their lives in the London bombings on our public transport network. Yet if I’m not mistaken I saw very little coverage or any commemorative programmes on TV or even much in the papers why was this ? In the first year and a few after there was huge coverage church attending candle lit vigils and much more yet this year 2013 there was very little at all ? After the Woolwich attack as I’m still not convinced it was terrorism as such in the traditional understanding of such a act I get the sense the ruling class are holding back on pushing 7/7 after the division and heightened racial attacks after Woolwich on mosques and on Muslims in general. Perhaps they fear that stoking up the flame again will see this situation burn out of control ? It is an interesting thing. I for myself never will forget that day in a hot early July we’d just won the right to host the Olympics in London the day before and the day after was one of the darkest days in London’s history if not in Britain’s too. I remember the news reports it was scary and those innocent victims will never be forgotten. In the edition of the socialist the week after the bombings the socialist party wrote The photographs of the victims, the details of where they live, their cultural, ethnic and religious background – including Muslims – demonstrates that it was not the 'rulers' but the 'ruled', ordinary working-class people, who were blown to smithereens, or who had their lives blighted by terrible injuries, by the perpetrators of this obscene terrorist act. Those who carried this out deserve unequivocal and unqualified condemnation. But so do those who have created the conditions for the growth of terrorism. Cynically using the sense of grief and determination to face down the bombers, Blair has rushed in to argue that the 'Iraq war had nothing to do with the events of 7/7'. Ken Livingstone and eminent 'Islamic scholars' in The Independent all agree with Blair's arguments. However, this was not the view of the government's own Joint Intelligence Committee, which stated before the Iraq war that the terrorist threat "to western interests… would be heightened by military action against Iraq". So we mustn’t forget the London bombings and all victims of terrorism but also we must not give in to divide and rule be it on ethnic, religious or any other lines the ruling class likes to try and divide us for their own ends. Say no to occupation of western troops in foreign engagements for every nations and its people to have full and proper self determination to liberate themselves from oppression much like the Egyptian and Tunisian mass’s showed how to during the Arab spring.

All is still not well in Iraq

No western troops remaiand are rarely reported on in British media at least but the after math of the us and British lead invasion in 2003 has not left Iraq better off quite the contrary actually. Recent bomb attacks have highlighted how torn and divided Iraq still is today with the western invasion solving nothing but killing many in the process. There has been a surge in sectarian attacks in recent months on targets like mosques, restaurants and local markets. The suicide bombing came after three other attacks in the north of Iraq killed a further nine people. The violence has rekindled fears the country is being dragged towards a wider conflict between the Shia majority and the Sunni minority. Sunnis have accused the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of discriminating against them - a claim the government denies. Last month was the bloodiest in Iraq since June 2008, with 1,045 civilians and security officials killed. A recent article from the CWI on the 10 year anniversary republished below explains the situation and how we’re no further on for Iraqi workers as a whole and the west’s invasion solved nothing only to protect its own interests. Niall Mulholland, from the Socialist, weekly newspaper of the Socialist Party (CWI England and Wales) “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace”, Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (ca 56-117 ca), Roman historian Ten years ago, under the banner, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’, the US-led ‘coalition of the willing’ attacked Iraq. Despite huge public opposition, including tens of millions-strong global anti-war demonstrations on 15-16 February 2003, the “shock and awe” bombing campaign began on 20 March, followed by a land invasion a few hours later. The enormous military force descended on a people who had suffered 35 years of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, the 1991 Gulf War and 13 years of cruel United Nations (UN) sanctions, which destroyed the Iraqi economy, reduced millions to poverty and cost between half a million to one million Iraqi lives. WMD fiction The 2003 war was ‘justified’ by a torrent of propaganda and lies emanating from Washington and Downing Street, which was repeated by a compliant, right-wing media. President Bush accused the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, of attempting to enrich uranium to develop “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD). US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN on 6 February 2003 that Iraq was acquiring biological weapons capability. Tony Blair, the Labour prime minister, claimed that Iraqi WMD could be ready for use “within 45 minutes”. Saddam was also accused of aiding al-Qa’ida. These were all lies. Soon after the invasion no evidence of Saddam’s WMD could be found by the occupying forces or links between the former Saddam regime and ‘terrorism’. In fact, it was the occupation that caused such resentment that it brought al-Qa’ida’s sectarian terror to Iraq. Yet on the eve of the war’s tenth anniversary, the former prime minister told the BBC: “So when you say ‘do you think of the loss of life since 2003?’ of course I do. You would have to be inhumane not to, but think of what would have happened if he had been left there.” Blair’s trite comments do not even begin to address the enormous human cost of the war. From 2003 to 2011, 150,000 to 400,000 Iraqis are believed to have died violently, according to several studies. The respected medical journal, The Lancet, estimated a much higher figure of over 600,000 people dying violently between 2003 and 2006, alone. Added to this are countless thousands of Iraqis still missing and thousands of US, British and other coalition military personnel deaths and serious injuries. The harvest of death in Iraq left two million widows as primary family breadwinners and 4.5 million orphans (600,000 of who live in the streets). The war created four million refugees. One million fled to Syria. A further 1.3 million are internally displaced persons in Iraq. Only one in eight of these have returned home since 2008. The Bush/Blair Iraq adventure also came at considerable economic cost to the US economy. According to Joseph Stiglitz, the former World Bank chief economist, it took $3 trillion from the US economy. While the funds are always there to fight foreign wars on behalf of big business profits and interests, American and British workers find their living standards falling dramatically. Blair’s justifications continue Interviews with Blair fail to put to him the real reasons for the invasion. Instead the war of imperialist aggression is dressed up as ‘humanitarian interventionism’ and attempts by Blair and Bush to export Western-style liberal democracy to the Middle East. The ruling classes internationally were divided over Iraq. World and regional powers were fearful of the consequence of invasion and the USA gaining at their expense. The Bush neo-cons, however, pushed for war. American and British imperialism, which previously backed Saddam, did not go to war to stop oppression or to introduce democratic rights and improve living standards. For decades, Saddam’s sadistic regime murdered and terrorised Iraqis while enjoying Western backing. After the overthrow of another Western favoured regional despot, the Shah of Iran, Saddam was encouraged by the West to invade its neighbour. Millions perished or suffered terrible injuries in the resulting eight-year war. Saddam fell foul of Western imperialism‘s interests when he invaded neighbouring Kuwait in 1991. The potential for Saddam to control vital oil supplies terrified western powers and they quickly assembled a massive military force. The first Gulf War saw a US-led coalition quickly retake the oil-rich statelet but stop short at Iraqi borders. Little concern was shown for the opposition to Saddam in 1991 when the Western military force stood back as an uprising by Shi’ites and Kurds was brutally put down by the dictator. Cynically exploiting the heinous ‘9/11’ al-Qa’ida terror attacks, the White House and Downing Street eagerly seized the opportunity to directly intervene militarily to overthrow Saddam and to impose a pro-Western, pliant regime. Seizing control of Iraq’s abundant oil reserves, estimated to be 9% of the world total, was a key objective for US imperialism, as well as its vital geo-strategic interests in the Middle East. Perhaps it was to stop naked imperialist ambitions of these kind becoming public knowledge that led the Cabinet Office to insist the much-delayed Chilcot inquiry report will be published without crucial evidence that would reveal what Blair and Bush discussed in the run-up to the invasion? Backing dictators Blair and Bush have not faced trial for their Iraqi war crimes. The International Criminal Court (ICC), like the UN, is dominated by the interests of the powerful nation states. Only former despots and warlords from the Balkans and Africa, who have conflicted with imperialism, have been brought before the ICC at the Hague. With all other justifications for his war shredded, Blair asks: “If we hadn’t removed Saddam from power just think, for example, what would be happening if these Arab revolutions were continuing now and Saddam, who’s probably 20 times as bad as Assad in Syria, was trying to suppress an uprising in Iraq?” There is no doubt that Saddam was a brutal tyrant, whose regime murdered many people, including communists and trade unionists. But the former prime minister has no problem with dictators, per se. ‘Tony Blair Associates’ advise the Kazakhstan despot, Nazarbayev, the butcher of striking oil workers. And Blair’s ‘liberated’ Iraq is today run by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who even the right-wing Economist accuses of “dictatorial tendencies”. The 2003 invasion greatly increased Arabs’ sense of humiliation and injustice at the hands of imperialism. This was an important factor fuelling the 2011 revolutions against Western-backed dictators in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as widespread anger at the lack of democratic rights, mass joblessness and poverty in these societies. The ‘Arab Spring’ does not at all justify Blair’s neo-colonial adventure but actually validates the position of the Socialist in the run-up to the Iraq war; that removing the tyrant Saddam was the task of the Iraqi working people by a united mass struggle. The toppling of close Western allies, Ben Ali and Mosni Mubarak, who were supposedly ‘impregnable’ dictators like Saddam, in late 2010 and early 2011, showed this was also a possible course of action for the Iraqi masses. ‘Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’? John Prescott, Labour Deputy Prime Minister in 2003, now Lord Prescott, recently admitted to the BBC that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 “cannot be justified”. He said he had backed the invasion because he believed George Bush had a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush and Blair did claim the defeat of Saddam would act as an impetus for a new ‘road map’ for peace in Israel and Palestine. But as the Socialist warned in 2003, the oppression of Palestinians would continue unabated after the Iraq invasion. For its own imperialist geo-strategic interests, the US continues to support Israel, its closest ally in the region, while genuine Palestinian self-determination and statehood is further away than ever. In an interview with BBC’s Newsnight, Blair agreed that ‘daily life in Iraq today is not what he hoped it would be’ when he opted to invade ten years ago. Blair claimed there have been “significant improvements” but that “it is not nearly what it should be”. This is an understatement, to say the least! The Socialist resolutely opposed imperialist intervention in 2003, and correctly predicted it would bring oppression and chaos - opening up the gates to sectarian conflagration - and that imperialism would be bogged down in a long conflict. The occupiers’ policy of ‘de-Ba’athification’ of Saddam’s largely Sunnis-based regime, and the disbandment of the Iraqi army, resulted in sectarian purges of Sunnis. This ignited fierce Sunni-based resistance. Brutal colonial occupation, including the systematic torture and abuse of civilians in notorious jails like Abu Ghraib, the siege of Fallujah city and the massacre of resistance fighters and many civilians at cities like Haditha and Balad, ensured growing mass opposition to the US-led occupation, which was not just confined to Sunnis. Anti-war sentiment grew in the US, Britain and internationally. Despite their awesome military machine and war chest, the Coalition was unable to crush the resistance and resorted to divide and rule tactics. They backed Shia against Sunni, causing an orgy of bloodletting. Consequences According to investigations by the Guardian and the BBC’s Arabic language service, in 2004 the Bush administration turned to the “Salvador option” - named after the US’s role in running right-wing death squads in El Salvador in the 1980s. Shia militias were armed and financed by the US. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died and millions were displaced as a result. The Sunnis were the main losers in the sectarian civil war. A US-imposed ‘constitution’ institutionalised sectarian and ethnic divisions. Elections in 2005 led to Shia-based parties winning a majority in parliament and the prime minister’s office. A corrupt ruling class, and reactionary, sectarian-based political parties struggle over Iraq’s natural resources while the mass of people live in poverty. Although Iraq has $100 billion (£66 billion) a year in oil revenues little of this trickles down to the people. It is the eighth most corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International. The capital, Baghdad, which is home to a fifth of the country’s 33 million population, is still a city at war, divided up by oppressive military checkpoints and barriers, and vulnerable to indiscriminate, sectarian outrages. Baghdad and central Iraq suffer daily bombings, assassinations and kidnappings. Bush and Blair’s legacy includes a fivefold increase in birth defects and fourfold increase in cancer rates in and around Fullujah, as a consequence of the Coalition forces’ use of radioactive depleted uranium munitions. Western politicians like to contrast Baghdad to the relative peace in the oil-rich Kurdish region and majority-Shia provinces. But this is illusory. The Shia in the south are relatively safer because one community dominates overwhelmingly. Unemployment is high, however, and most Shias still live in dreadful poverty. Kurds Tensions between Kurds, Arabs and other minorities simmer in the semi-independent Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). Much to the chagrin of the central Baghdad government, the Kurdish regime has made 50 oil and gas deals with foreign companies and exports oil directly to Turkey. After decades of brutal oppression, many Kurds hope they can move towards real self-determination. But the KRG is surrounded by states that have a long history of oppressing Kurds. The reactionary Kurdish leaders are in ‘alliances’ with the US and Turkey, one of the worst perpetrators of Kurdish oppression. An indication of the growing conflict over oil and territory between KRG and the central Iraqi regime is seen by clashes between Kurdish peshmerga fighters and Iraqi troops. The removal of Saddam has not made the world a “safer place”, as Bush/Blair promised. In fact, the world became much more violent and volatile. Saddam did not have “weapons of mass destruction” but after the 2003 invasion “rogue state” regimes, such as North Korea, concluded that only way to stop a US-led attack against them was to acquire them. Despite imperialism’s setbacks in Iraq, the US and Britain continue to wage conflicts around the world to further their vital interests. Trying to create distance from Blair’s war, Ed Miliband said the Iraq war was a mistake but he continues to support British troops in Afghanistan and does not call for an end to US drone strikes. The 2003 war and occupation have had long-term consequences for the region. Putting Western forces in Iraq was meant to further isolate and encircle Iran. However, Tehran found it had influence over the Shia-dominated Iraq government and the regional ‘Shia Arc’ was strengthened. Partly to counter Iran, reactionary Gulf states and Western imperialism are meddling in Syria, exploiting the Sunni-based opposition to Assad. The Syrian conflict is spreading to Lebanon and Iraq, where a ‘Sunni Spring’ has seen mass opposition demonstrations in Sunni areas. Revolution The majority of Iraqis do not want to be dragged back to the horrors of civil war. But to stop more conflicts, to end imperialist interference and to kick out the corrupt, reactionary ruling elites, working people need an alternative. Iraq had a powerful Left until it was crushed by a CIA-backed coup in the 1960s and, later, by the Saddam regime. The most important lesson from that tragedy and from the horrors of the last decade is the need for working people to have an independent, class-based party to fight for their interests. Such a party would demand the nationalisation of the oil riches, under democratic public ownership, to benefit the masses. As the 2011 revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia showed, mass struggles will develop against tyrants, and despite the movements’ limitations, can throw them from power. But to succeed in making fundamental system change, working people need a socialist programme, in each country, regionally and internationally. Before the first Gulf War and years of sanctions, the literacy rate in Iraq was more than 90%, 92% of Iraqis had safe water and 93% enjoyed free health care. In 2011 after years of imperialist occupation, 78% adults are literate and 50% of Iraqis lived in slum conditions (17% in 2000). Over 1 million Iraqis are ‘internally displaced. Nearly half of the capital’s 400,000 ‘internal refugees’ (displaced victims of sectarian terror) live in squalor in squatter settlements. A quarter of Iraqi families live below the poverty line, according to the World Bank. Less than 40% of adults have jobs. Millions lack electricity, clean water and other essential services.

The Burston Strike School longest strike in British history

Last weekend saw the anniversary of the The Burston School Strike which till this day was still the longest strike in British history. The Burston Strike School was at the centre of the longest running strike in British history, between 1914 and 1939. Now a museum, it is in the village of Burston in Norfolk, England. The strike began when teachers at the village's Church of England school, Annie Higdon and her husband, Tom Higdon, were sacked after a dispute with the area's school management committee and schoolchildren went on strike in their support. The Higdons set up an alternative school which was attended by 66 of their 72 former pupils. Beginning in a marquee on the village green, the school moved to local carpenter's premises and later to a purpose-built school financed by donations from the labour movement. Burston Strike School carried on teaching local children until shortly after Tom's death in 1939. This famous strike is comemerated every year to show the endeavor and determination of the labour movement to succeed when the chips are down. The initiative shown by these workers to set up an alternative school to continue to teach the local children is a testament to working people’s ability to organize society. What this strike and what happened out of it tells me that working people are more than capable of running society despite what we are told and if up against it workers have the ability to organize among each other to the benefit of society. The rubbish we are told that workers need boss’s to run society is nonsense this strike here alone shows that workers are intelligent enough to know how to run society and would in my opinion run it far better for the many not just the few than the current system we live under. The background to the dispute was about honest working class people in the teaching profession wanting to make the system better and coming up against the establishment every time. Using old laws and their influence in the community the parish made things very hard for the Higdons Tom Higdon was born on 21 August 1869 at East Pennard, Somerset, and the son of a farm labourer. Annie Katherine Schollick (Kitty) was born on 13 December 1864 in Poolton-cum-Seacombe in Cheshire. They married on 4 July 1896, living first in London before moving to Wood Dalling in Norfolk in 1902. This coincided with publication of an Education Bill in Parliament which offered education to working class children, though in practice it was intended to ensure that they learned their place in society and respected their social betters. In Norfolk, as in most parts of the country, this meant that the boys were to be made farm labourers and the girls domestic servants. Kitty was appointed headmistress at Dalling County School with Tom an assistant teacher. Identifying themselves with the local farm labourers, the Higdons ran up against almost immediate resentment from the school managers, who were mostly farmers. They objected to the cold, insanitary conditions of the school and especially protested at the farmers taking children away to work on the land whenever they were needed. Eventually, after a complete breakdown of relationships, the Norfolk Education Committee gave the Higdons a choice: accept dismissal or transfer to another school. They took up the latter offer and moved to the Burston School in 1911. Arriving at Burston, the Higdons found conditions were no different. The newly arrived rector, the Reverend Charles Tucker Eland, was appointed chairman of the School Managing Body. Eland intended to recover the powers the Church had lost to the parish councils. He demanded deference and recognition of his right to lead the community. His situation, with an annual salary of £581 and a large comfortable rectory contrasted starkly with the farm labourers and their families, living on average wages of £35 a year in squalid cottages. Their employers, themselves mostly tenants of brewery-owned land, naturally allied with the rector. In 1913, Tom Higdon successfully stood for election to the parish council, topping the poll with Eland not just being unelected, but coming bottom. However, although the rector and the farm owners had been defeated in the parish council election, they still had control of the school's Managing Body and were determined to use this power to victimise the Higdons. Since their arrival in Burston, the Higdons had complained about conditions in the school, particularly the dampness, inadequate heating and lighting, lack of ventilation and general unhygienic conditions. Looking for a pretext for action, the managers accused Kitty of lighting a fire without their permission - to dry the clothes of children who had walked three miles to school in the rain. She was also accused of gross discourtesy when reprimanded for this act. In addition, Kitty was accused of beating two Barnardo girls. Despite her pacifist principles, the manager found there was "good ground for the complaints of the Barnardo foster mother" and they demanded the Higdons be transferred. Tom and Kitty also demanded an inquiry which was made by the Education Committee. The inquiry made no mention of the charge of "fire-lighting contrary to instructions" nor Kitty's repeated complaints about conditions at the school. The beating accusation was declared to be not proven. The final accusation of discourtesy to managers was accepted and the Higdons were given three months' notice. The Higdons' dismissal took effect on 1 April 1914. As the authorities were taking over, the sound of children marching and singing could be heard. 66 of the school's 72 children had gone on strike, marching around the village waving flags. None of them returned to the school, but instead had lessons on the village green. The school was well equipped, maintained a full timetable and observed registrations with the full support of parents. The authorities were in no mood to tolerate this defiance and 18 parents were summonsed to court and fined for failing to ensure their children's attendance at school. Collections outside the court paid the fines, and since the parents were sending their children to the school of their choice, the authorities were soon forced to back down. Word of the strike quickly spread and it became a central issue for trade unionists and school reformers throughout the country. There were regular visitors of supporters and speakers. With the onset of winter, the school moved in empty workshops. The authorities kept up their intimidation with farmers sacking farm labourers (which also meant eviction from their tied cottages). This could not be maintained, because a shortage of labour during World War I meant that they had to be re-employed. Striking families who rented land from the Rector for growing food were evicted and their crops and property destroyed. The village's Methodist preacher, who held services on the village green on Sundays for families of the Strike School children, was censured by his church. At the end of the first year of the strike, with the lease on the old workshops due to expire, an appeal was made for funds to build a new school. By 1917, a National Appeal had reached £1250 with donations from miners' and railway workers' unions, Trades Councils, Independent Labour Party branches and Co-operative Societies. The new school was opened on 13 May 1917, with the leader of the 1914 demonstration, Violet Potter declaring, "With joy and thankfulness I declare this school open to be forever a School of Freedom". The Burston Strike School continued until 1939. Tom Higdon died on 17 August 1939. Kitty, in her seventies, was unable to carry on alone, and the last eleven pupils transferred to the Council School. Kitty died on 24 April 1946. Both are buried in Burston churchyard. Every year we celebrate this strike and the efforts of the labour movement to step in and support workers in struggle. We will need more efforts like this to stand up to the boss’s in the coming period I feel. With more strikes likely a new layer of leaders is needed ones who won’t sell out or run from a fight instead get in and fight for their members and their communities. With extracts taken from wickepedia entry on the strike.

Remembering the dead on workers memorial day

As every year we stop to remember those who have died and lost loved ones in accidents at work and those brave workers who do some extremely dangerous jobs for their employers.


The day is also intended to serve as a rallying cry to “remember the dead, but fight like hell for the living”.
Toll. The TUC says in the UK over 20,000 people die prematurely every year as a result of injuries or accidents caused by their work. This year it has called on unions and safety campaigners to make 28 April a day of action to defend health and safety from attacks by the press, politicians and employers. The union body is concerned that the UK's workplace safety record could be about to get worse as a direct result of government policies. Not only do funding cuts - both to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and to local authorities - mean there will be fewer official safety inspections, the government has also said that workplaces like shops, offices, schools, docks and farms no longer need to be routinely visited. TUC adds that 'health and safety bashers' should be reminded what safety law is really all about - not pointless regulation but necessary protection to stop employers taking risks with workplace safety and which prevents people from being killed, injured or made ill as a result of their work. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: 'Sensible employers who are happy to work closely with unions improving safety and occupational health at work don't see safety regulation as an intrusive burden. But rogue employers, who are happy to cut corners and take risks with their employees' safety, do. It's these reckless employers that we need to target and the government's rhetoric will only encourage yet more of them to think they can get away with unsafe workplaces - without fear of ever getting a visit from the HSE or their local council.' UK events have been organised in over 50 towns and cities from Aberdeen to Penzance.
With the rights calls for slashing red tape in other words cutting health and safety measures will only make the workplace more and more dangerous for workers young and old.
Coupled with the fact that workers are being asked to work long and longer while the contradiction that there is record young people unemployed is ridiculous. Those older workers can be putting themselves in unnecessary danger by carrying on working past the age they’d normally retire due to not being able to afford to retire.

Its time we fought back and fought back for all workers young or old.

In the week the NHS is 63 years old fight must be stepped up to save it

SO on the 5th of July, tommorrow one of the greatest institutions celebrates its 63rd birthday.

But this is no time for sentiments as this fantastic organisation is under threat from this tory government . The planned health care reforms plan to open up the NHS to further privatisation building on what the last labour government started with their PFI schemes.

The NHS which is famous the world over and well known for its excellent free at the point of use health care.

Its staff work endlessly for long hours and poor pay in alot of situations.

The battle to save the NHS must be stepped up combining NHS workers in the public sector general strike in the autumn. There will be march's to save teh NHS but i think industrial action is needed now to save it.

I like many others value what a great service the NHS gives. Tories and the rich do not appreciate what a great job the staff of it do. This is down to the fact few of them use it. Most of the rich use private health care as they can afford it.

I worry that the ideas the tories have which was to end the National Health service within 5 years of them coming to power which is what one tory was quoted as saying before the election last year. I fear we will end up with a american style health care where if you need a operation or to see a doctor you must pay before you get seen.

This is not the sort of country i wantto live in where how much you can afford determines if you can and cant be seen and what standard of treatment you can get.

The NHS should always be free for all. It can be funded properly if the tax evaded by rich corperations is properly collected.

The NHS should be under worker control with no privatisation at all. It should be there to provide first class health care for all not to provide a service or a product which people buy into.

So i urge you all now who value this great instittution set up for the benifit of the many not just the few to stand up and defend your NHS.

In its 60 years of existence the NHS has undergone reform after reform by government after government. It is time we say keep your grubby hands off our NHS and properly fund it and keep out private money.

This was a organisation made by the people for the people, lets keep it this way!