Children need nourishing school dinners more than ever before, as many families struggle with the cost of living, a leading expert has warned. BBC News has been speaking to families and schools as they try to tackle the problem.
The Raza family...
*rolls eyes*
... - dad Ali, mum Simran and their eight-year-old daughter, Alishah - live in one of Bradford's back-to-back, two-up-two-down terraced houses. The heating is off upstairs to help manage rising bills and Ali tells me: "We're just managing, and not very well."
So, what do you do for a living, Ali?
Ali is a self-employed wholesaler. He mainly buys fruit and vegetables in bulk before selling them on - but there is a limit to what small local shops are prepared to pay, so as costs rise his profits decrease.
And have you considered that if this Del Boy of the Cabbages lifestyle won't support your family, you could maybe get a better paying job?
It means they can only afford to buy school lunch for Alishah once, or sometimes twice, a week. Each meal at her school, Dixons Marchbank Primary, costs £2.10.
Weekly child benefit is £21.80 per week. Where's the rest going?
As Simran prepares pasta and a salad for Alishah's evening meal, she says she wishes they could afford more frequent school lunches, as sometimes Alishah does not eat her packed lunch of cold leftovers.
She's not hungry then, is she?
Older people who spend time in hospital are being discharged suffering from long-lasting incontinence because NHS staff are too busy to take them to the toilet while they're on the ward, experts warn.
One reason, say specialists, is inappropriate use of urinary catheters – a tube inserted into the urinary tract which empties the contents of the bladder into a drainage bag. There are strict criteria for who should have one fitted, including those with existing urinary incontinence and patients unable to move due to having undergone a major operation or suffering spinal or pelvic injuries.
But research has revealed that on some wards the procedure has become almost standard practice.And why? Because it makes the staff's job easier...
Eco-zealots are said to be planning to 'swarm and block' roundabouts in a fresh wave of action targeting road users, expected to take place during rush hour tomorrow.You think you're causing chaos for motorists?
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/25/1139180002/twitter-loses-50-top-advertisers-elon-musk
Chevrolet, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Ford, Jeep, Kyndryl, Merck & Co. and Novartis AG all issued statements about halting Twitter ads or were reported and confirmed as doing so. The others ceased advertising on the platform for a "significant period of time following direct outreach, controversies, and warnings from media buyers."
Eli Lilly and Co. stopped showing ads on Twitter the day after an account impersonating the pharmaceutical company — complete with a purchased blue check mark — posted, "We are excited to announce insulin is free now."
Eli Lilly asked Twitter to take it down, but the tweet remained up for hours, because the platform's staff was stretched thin due to recent layoffs and resignations. The tweet garnered hundreds of retweets and thousands of likes, and Eli Lilly's stock soon took a dive.
My question … are the actual Woke going broke, or are they complicit in, whether through fear or greed, as James Melville suggests:
But unfortunately it tainted that and other good information (such as presented by Dr. Ryan Cole, Steve Kirsch and Dr. James Thorp) by covering it with a lot of garbage.
Then you can read the rebuttal I just got from Ryan Cole, MD and decide for yourself who is telling you the truth and who is lying to you.Something is overwhelmingly wrong with the “clot shot.” If he were half awake, his conjecture would not be reflecting the myopic view of the inside of his inexperienced anus.
Chrystia Freeland: The dangerous WEF devotee behind Trudeau’s Canadian project
The first thing to point out in a much needed rebuttal of a certain “doctor” is that there’s all out war for hearts and minds going on … and I do mean “all out” war.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/11/23/died-suddenly-is-typical-trash-from-stew-peters/
The second is that we … you, me … have information overload … if you glance at the amount we post at our site across the way (N.O.), it can get up to twenty or thirty items a day … and even that’s mostly linking or summaries.
The third is the cursory reader … the one who works full time and who holds a mix of “healthy” scepticism as a rule, plus a bullish mindset I call “Colonel Harrumph (retired)” who asserts, “I’ve read all the literature and nowhere does it say …” which really means “nowhere did I find coz I wasn’t looking with any degree of laser penetration, I just wanted to be able to debunk the conspiracy theorists, a priori.”.
This latter, this mindset, the absolute importance, in your public field, of your bona fides being wholly accepted because upon that lies your very livelihood … this causes anyone in Britain at least, called “doctor”, to be scrutinised to the nth degree by retired people like us who are very much distrustful in the wake of the covid and vaxx debacle, esp. of Ferguson, Whitty and the NHS.
Remember, I mentioned hearts and minds, rather than the “science itself being settled” … they can diverge.
And as a consequence of all the above factors combined, we get a fourth factor … the 80-20 syndrome.
This is where a person, quite disinclined to have his trust in what and whom he personally knows and trusts upturned, comes in, a priori, and commits confirmation bias simply through dislike, detestation of the messenger/ferreter, along with not being up to date, not being at the cutting edge for that last 20%.
How could he be up to date if he works fulltime in a different area to that which we work in … our field being investigation 24/7, 7/52. Yet he “bowls in” (my own emotive word construct) and opens with “typical trash from”.
Now, we do not quote Stew Peters as a rule for the same reason we do not touch Before it’s News, Epoch, multiple johnny-come-lately “conservative” sites which look and sound good, except that there is something iffy in the manner, the poor navigation, the 24/7 demand for money “to keep us afloat”, a host of reasons we’ve learnt bitterly over time. We’re still wiping egg off our faces.
We’re talking here of those “cashing in” or if not that, then at least infiltrating in order to steer debate, and using our own nomenclature and buzz phrases in order to control our output.
Which gets into a highly dangerous field … defamation. Rightly or wrongly, this “doctor” has defamed Stew Peters and his article goes into why. I was open to this “doctor” for a few reasons. One is that the Daily Sceptic has a good name on our side, he has an article in that publication, on the strength of his being a “doctor”.
Doctor of what though? I do not personally like that Naomi Wolf, a feminist author, calling herself doctor, which she is … a doctor in academia but not a medical doctor in the least … does not go out of her way to underscore that point, unlike Dr. Simone Gold, recently released from prison, who is very much a medical doctor.
But is she a doctor within this field of epidemiology?
And can someone working in labs equally see that something is untoward in the research, someone for example like Judy Mikovits whom the Woke Wikipedia has in first place on ggl search, “… an American former research scientist who is known for her discredited medical claims …”
… which in itself is highly suspect but to know why, you’d need to wade through the former sites of ours now taken down from above, now a plethora of sites, all involving digging and input from readers.
In short, this thing is a minefield, the fifth factor.
If you are 100% in this line of work … ferreting, aggregating, sifting, discarding, keeping, gradually building lists of the trustworthy, the iffy and the downright discredited, then you can perhaps nail 80% of it but still not get that last 20% … there are endless twists and turns.
For example, even if you establish this man’s medical qualification as being within this field of epidemia, he’s still of a certain name, from a certain continent and from a certain ethnic/religious group which OoL for one is neither openly touching nor condemning … it’s simply too dangerous for this site, for me, for our other people. You have eyes and a scrolling finger … do it, find out for yourself.
And the sixth factor (six factors being by no means complete and exhaustive, given the constant twists and turns) is the iceberg factor.
Meaning that what people say, write, do, in the open public space by no means says anything about the rest of the iceberg below. Which leads to a seventh factor … ancient enmities and a person needing to be of a certain caste, group, ethinicity, beluef system, to know thst bullsh is being perpetrated here.
Look at two things … firstly the good “doctor’s” title … from which discipline it is, from where, geographically, from where they themselves emanated … and then look at whom he attacks immediately in the heading.
If I say that I’d lay odds he’d also attack Andrew Torba, are you any closer to tumbling to it? A new testament scholar certainly would be … instantly. But try telling that to the secular, rationalist or Woke masses. And as I say, it’s too dangerous for me to continue.
My concluding request is … be very much aware of that iceberg and all the other factors. There is an expression about “knowing them by their fruits”, by those they hang around with. Nuff said.
