Reporting Scotland don’t own up that their April ‘SNP threaten rural babies with MMR’ story was wrong

A screenshot of a social media post

Description automatically generated
Editor: Get a baby pic in there! Or Jeanne Freeman looking worried?

In April 2019 we heard 7 times on BBC Breakfast, 3 times on Reporting Scotland, endlessly on GMS and in depth on the website:

Doctors are raising concerns that changes to GP contracts will lead to a drop, in immunisation rates among adults and children in rural areas. MMR and flu injections traditionally given at local doctors’ surgeries are to become the responsibility of clinics set up by health boards.

It turned out that only one pony-tailed doctor was making the claim. In late September 2019, they didn’t tell us that the MMR vaccination rate in Scotland is 97% and dangerously low at 87% in England:

https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Child-Health/Publications/2019-09-24/2019-09-24-Childhood-Immunisation-Summary.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/18/take-up-mmr-vaccine-falls-fourth-year-in-a-row-england-measles#targetText=Data%20from%20NHS%20Digital%20revealed,by%20the%20World%20Health%20Organization.

Today we hear from the Herald:

RURAL GPs should continue to offer vaccinations direct to patients in their practices, the Health Secretary has said. Jeanne Freeman said there was nothing in the new Scottish GP contract to stop family doctors continuing to provide routine vaccines themselves if they want.

No word from BBC Scotland.

Published by johnrobertson834

Retired Professor of Media Politics Not-for-profit independent political analysis

9 thoughts on “Reporting Scotland don’t own up that their April ‘SNP threaten rural babies with MMR’ story was wrong

  1. Sorry for immediately going off topic!

    I’m not sure I quite understand the lack of interest in this court case, the money goes direct to the legal firm, who are known, so the mystery group bringing it forward doesn’t really matter. The SNP are not going to bring this to court by themselves, they will keep trying the political route (politically it’s not a good look to ‘lose’ a case,,,), so the best thing is that it’s the ‘people’ that are seen to be taking action,,, except that they’re not, because,,, there’s no appetite? I just find it strange is all. But there is now some urgency because apparently there is a nasty little bill going through the House of Lords to prevent any referendums in the future – I’m assuming a court case won’t matter once this goes through, because it will be law that we don’t have the constitutional right to have a choice – though I guess that could be taken up in a human rights court,,, not that the uk will recognise any human rights rulings soon.

    This is what the crowdfunder site says:

    If This gains royal assent before we file our case, the following would apply to any future referendum.

    1. It would require a vote in the house of lords and the house of commons.

    2. The number of MPs or Lords who vote in favour of a referendum MUST equal 2/3rds or more IN BOTH HOUSES. A virtual impossibility.

    3. IF a referendum then happens, at least 55% of the REGISTERED electorate must vote in it for it to be valid.

    4. and here’s the kicker. A rule which has not reared its head since Scotland was denied a parliament in 1979. Back then, it was called the “40% rule” which meant that 40% of the entire registered electorate had to vote in favour of a parliament for it to happen (around 65% of those who voted). We got a majority, but because of this rule, we were denied our parliament.

    The modern equivalent of the rule is what is in this bill, namely 60% of those who vote in the referendum would have to vote YES for independence. Yes! 60% of those who vote in indyref2 would need to vote yes.

    Our case is now imperative. There’s no more time! We have less than 4 days to raise our target, or the case falls. We have to hit our target!

    ——–

    Another off topic subject, I didn’t make the glasgow march (I was really not well with a flu like ailment) but was really impressed with the numbers that turned out on such a dreich windy day! I was also informed by an attendee that had only been on the Edinburgh march before that the Glasgow one was much better 🙂 , more music and livelier people. He didn’t know about the manky jaiket crowd that always turn up, and was curious as to why they were there and why there was ‘only a dozen’. Really uplifting to know there was such a good turnout.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. P.s. Wee Ginger Dug says the referendums bill is a private member’s bill and ‘highly unlikely’ to be passed as law. I have no way to judge what is likely and what is not here, but I generally think that if it’s the will of the state, then the people usually have little choice,,, but I’m inclined to think it could all be hot air, stable doors and bolting horses come to mind.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It can be talked out so our MPs will need to be there when it comes to the Commons. It should not be difficult with 48 supporting independence

        Like

  2. Hi John, a bit more detail, mostly from the crowdfunder website, thanks for this:

    The current crowdjustice crowdfunder:

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/the-scottish-people-vs-the-uk/

    Says:

    “It is our intention to lodge an action by ordinary members of Scotlands general population against the UK Government when they refuse or ignore a formal request from the First Minister of Scotland for an order under Section 30 of the Scotland Act to devolve the powers necessary to hold a second independence referendum.”

    Well, it turns out that Johnson has every intention of refusing the section 30 order. All the section 30 order does is transfer temporary and limited constitutional powers to the Scottish government for the duration of a referendum. Constitutional powers are very much reserved – or so Westminster tells us. Things aren’t quite that clear cut in the patchwork UK.

    It doesn’t actually matter who the group are that have initiated this crowdfunder – all funds, if enough are raised (you only ‘pledge’ an amount), go direct to the legal firm. From their site:

    “All funding from this fundraiser will be sent directly to Balfour+Manson LLP, Solicitors, the legal firm retained to initiate this action.”

    Who would be representing us? They say:

    “Elaine Motion of Balfour+Manson LLP has been chosen to act as instructing solicitor. Alongside Elaine, she will be instructing Mr Aidan O’neill to Act as Advocate.

    If these names seem familiar, it is because they should be.

    They have an acute recent experience of arguing matters with respect to the current constitutional situation, on top of their years of experience in law in general. Elaine Motion was instructing solicitor in the revoking Article 50 case (Wightman), Prorogation of Parliament Case (Cherry) and the recent Benn act case (Dale Vince) when she instructed Aidan O’Neill QC in all three cases to act as an advocate. As far as legal experience in the constitutional arena goes, they are the best Scotland has to offer.”

    Note that those 3 cases were won. I’m sure you were all glued to the live Supreme Court procedings – well, I was – Lord Pannick was, of course, the star of the show, but Aiden O’Neill was quite the dramatic counterpoint. I learned that not only is he a QC in Scots Law, but also in English Law – an irritatingly intelligent and accomplished person.

    They will take this case to the Court of Session – keeping it in Scotland unless it goes to appeal.

    This is what the latest news on crowdfunder site says regarding a private member’s bill going through the House of Lords, the ‘Referendum Criteria Bill’:

    If This gains royal assent before we file our case, the following would apply to any future referendum.
    1. It would require a vote in the house of lords and the house of commons.
    2. The number of MPs or Lords who vote in favour of a referendum MUST equal 2/3rds or more IN BOTH HOUSES. A virtual impossibility.
    3. IF a referendum then happens, at least 55% of the REGISTERED electorate must vote in it for it to be valid.
    4. and here’s the kicker. A rule which has not reared its head since Scotland was denied a parliament in 1979. Back then, it was called the “40% rule” which meant that 40% of the entire registered electorate had to vote in favour of a parliament for it to happen (around 65% of those who voted). We got a majority, but because of this rule, we were denied our parliament.
    The modern equivalent of the rule is what is in this bill, namely 60% of those who vote in the referendum would have to vote YES for independence. Yes! 60% of those who vote in indyref2 would need to vote yes.
    Our case is now imperative. There’s no more time! We have less than 4 days to raise our target, or the case falls. We have to hit our target!”

    Just the fact the bill has been put forward, however likely or not that it ever makes it to law, is another demonstration on how Westminster plans to keep delaying and throwing obstacles in our path. They have already made the changes that were needed as a mandate to hold an independence referendum – the withdrawal bill has passed through parliament and brexit is happening on the 31st – so there really is no excuse for refusal.

    I personally think that we should take control of this, not leave it up to others, or wait – hopefully to win this case; we SHOULD have the right of self-determination after all. But if the courts fluff it, and decide we don’t have the right, well, we know where we stand then without all the speculation, because human rights laws, international laws, and our own laws, DO give us the right to self-determination, and we should have a referendum – but we know then that there is no point in appealing to a hostile nation to ‘allow’ us the right, and we can choose another method of polling.

    We are all getting fed up waiting for this referendum and to really get started into campaigning, so this should tell us once and for all if waiting on the current chosen route is a waste of time or not. This should force the SNP into taking the next step. It is time-critical though, and doesn’t look like the needed amount – £40 000 for initiating procedings – is going to be achieved.

    Did I see an Ashcroft poll that had 52% at Yes? That’s enough for me for a majority.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

MacAlba

A Son of Scotland

Talking-Up Scotland II

700 years later but still worth remembering: 'It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours, that we are fighting, but for freedom.'

Talking-up Scotland

Counter- propaganda and Citizen Journalism since 2014

SCOT goes POP!

700 years later but still worth remembering: 'It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours, that we are fighting, but for freedom.'

michaelgreenwell.wordpress.com/

So long as men worship the Caesars and Napoleons, Caesars and Napoleons will duly arise and make them miserable. - Aldous Huxley

Bella Caledonia

700 years later but still worth remembering: 'It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours, that we are fighting, but for freedom.'

Wings Over Scotland

sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul

openDemocracy RSS

700 years later but still worth remembering: 'It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours, that we are fighting, but for freedom.'

caltonjock

Scottish and Uk Politics

%d bloggers like this: