I may be a bit of a Curmudgeon*

I may be a bit of a Curmudgeon* when it comes to all things royal - but here's the thing. When it comes to all things historic, I am a sucker, even if they bear the 'royal' tag. And I really like birth, marriage and death certificates because of what they can tell us. Really interesting things, like whether parents were married before or after a certain person was born/conceived. Or - as in the case with some of my more disreputable ancestors - whether the certain person's parents were married to other people completely at the time.

Sometimes these certificates show that a person one might have known for years under a certain name was ever actually registered with that name at all. I had to sign all sorts of extra forms when dealing with my late mother's affairs because she hated her given name and used a different one, an 'aka' as the solicitor put it [also known as] Whilst I sighed at the extra this would add to the eventual legal bill I also made a mental note to tell my children that this process would have to be gone through when tidying up my legal affairs as I too am not known by the name by which I was registered.

My naughty great great grandfather had two women claim to be his widow on their death certificates [or rather the informants of their death claimed the women were his widow] although neither of them in fact were. His legal wife - whom he had left around thirty years earlier, eloping with her niece - died before him but still claimed to be his widow, a story she had probably told to her friends and neighbours to cover his absence. ['Yes he popped out for some bread and died on the way back'] The niece with whom he eloped - and who became my great great grandmother - outlived him and claimed to be his widow but wasn't because they never married. [It would have been illegal in both state and church law at the time due to the relationship between the two women] And both women used his incorrect given name, as the name he was known by not being the name with which he was registered.

And trying to trace the history of someone through tracing occupations of birth and marriage certificates or census returns is also fraught with pitfalls. Many fathers want to 'big themselves up' on their daughters' marriage certificates and have described themselves as farmers instead of agricultural labourers and shopkeepers instead of shopworkers. We never did find the Public House to which one of my great grandfathers claimed to have been the licensee although I did find one which employed him as a general servant and occasional barman. I am told that certain occupations on census returns denote that women of so called certain employments are really no better than they should be. Suffice to say, not in my family laddie and move on smartly to other things!

So although I really am not that interested in the new addition to the Royal Family I did think I would have a quick look at his birth certificate, courtesy of the Daily Telegraph [above]. Should have known better. Because I have come all over extra Curmudgeonly* [I am loving that word and think I will make it my word of the week]

So here are my moans. Does 'His Royal Highness Prince' really constitute part of the baby's name? Can anyone add it to their offspring's list of names? Is 'Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom' really an occupation?  - or does that just show one's perceived status rather than occupation? 

As used as I am to perusing such certificates, the one above really does tell me something new. It tells me that although all little babies are born in roughly the same way and have the same basic needs, they will not all be viewed equally right from the very start. They will never be addressed equally if one starts out on his very first piece of paperwork as 'His Royal Highness Prince'. They can never be equal if one has parents whose occupations are unachievable by his peers parents.

Baby George does not have a surname, as shown by his father on this piece of paper. Other children in history who have not had a father's surname on their birth certificates have not usually had the sobriquet 'Prince' attached to their name. Often their parent[s] went to great lengths to hide that missing surname and children suffered inequality all their lives.

So lets have a bit more equality, shall we. If we don't start off equal even in the paper work, we are a long way from being equal in real life aren't we? And all the excitement about the Cambridges being a modern, forward thinking family will be shown to be spin, won't it?

*Noun

1.

curmudgeon - a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn ideas

Now does that sound like me?      Elizannie xx

One's Future King* [or Queen] / Fairy Godmother wishes

I wish that every new baby arriving in this world was to be as happily welcomed as the new baby arriving very soon in the Lindo wing of St Mary's Hospital, Paddington.

I wish that all new parents could afford to spend over £6000 a night to ensure that their baby's arrival was happy and trouble free.

I wish that everybody realised that the doctors and nurses who will be ensuring that the new body has a smooth entry into his/her family were trained by our wonderful NHS.

I wish that when I put the radio on there will be talk about something else other than the imminent arrival of the new royal baby but that seems to be the triumph of hope over experience. After all there is nothing going on in the UK today: 

I wish that the PM is not apparently guilty of using an advisor who also advises tobacco companies and private health companies. [The PM was pretty arrogant when questioned by Andrew Marr yesterday on the latter's TV show, so the former must be cleaner than clean.]

I wish that people are not committing suicide because ATOS is turning down their incapacity benefit claims and/or they are losing their homes due to the bedroom tax. 

I wish Pensioners are not having to work longer because rules have been changed or their pension providers have gone into liquidation or [little dig here] Companies are reneging on their promises. 

I wish the National Health Service is not in the most dangerous state it has ever been in due to this government seeming to want to privatise it all as soon as possible [the term 'asset stripping' seems appropriate here]

I wish that the so many injustices in the UK at the moment could be righted with a wave of the Fairy Godmother's [above] wand. We could have all our libraries, post offices, coast guard stations back just as a start!

I wish that all the babies born in the next few days will have the same opportunities in life and especially of education as the one due to be born in St Mary's. Surely in the 21st century one tiny baby should not be 'worth' more just because its distant ancestors' armies managed to outkill another's army?

I wish that Thomas Jefferson's phrase 'All men [and women!] are created equal' applied in the 21st century across the globe. [Without George Orwell's 'rider' in Animal Farm that 'Some are more equal than others']

I wish peace and happiness, love and light to all new babies and their families wherever and whenever they are born.

*With apologies to the Book Once and Future King by T.H.White

The photograph is - as I am sure everyone recognises! - from the film Wizard of Oz. Billie Burke, the Fairy Godmother.

Bread and Roses

Youtube of Judy Collins singing 'Bread and Roses'. It can be bought from amazon.co.ukhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Bread-And-Roses-LP-
I have blogged about this beautiful song before, albeit under another guise, but we all need reminding of  good things - especially when they are under attack from the evil forces of our coalition government and right wing propaganda from various media sources. Elizannie may have been away from the computer for a few weeks but she is still ranting and raving!
Benefit recipients and Pensioners are and have been getting - as usual - an awful lot of flak for apparently sucking the economy dry. It would apparently please very many of the nation's citizens if those receiving such largesse if it were to be cut down to just sufficient to maintain life [bread]. Luxuries [roses] must not be included. The following song expresses so well why we all need Bread and Roses to survive. [More explanation of phrase below]
Bread and RosesAs we go marching, marchingIn the beauty of the dayA million darkened kitchensA thousand mill lofts greyAre touched with all the radianceThat a sudden sun disclosesFor the people hear us singingBread and roses, bread and roses

As we go marching, marchingWe battle too for menFor they are women's childrenAnd we mother them againOur lives shall not be sweetenedFrom birth until life closesHearts starve as well as bodiesGive us bread, but give us roses

As we go marching, marchingWe bring the greater daysFor the rising of the womenMeans the rising of the raceNo more the drudge and idlerTen that toil where one reposesBut the sharing of life's gloriesBread and roses, bread and roses
Edited from the earlier Clarice post:

The poem Bread and Roses was originally written by James Oppenheim (1882-1932), an American poet and writer, coming to prominience as a motif for the 1912 textile workers' strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts and as such is associated with the womens' movement as those involved with the strike were mainly women. One employer lowered wages when the working week was shortened by law, and the industrial action eventually spread to twenty thousand workers at nearly every mill within a week. The strike, despite predictions of other American trade unions that the workforce of a true downtrodden minority - that of ethnically diverse and mostly women workers - could not be organized, was successful. Sadly over time the union collapsed and workers rights once more were eroded.
The 'Bread and Roses' in the refrain stand for the way that workers lives are made up of more than just the struggle for work and the struggle for beauty has to take place too - other wise work has no inner meaning. To progress is not just for material gain but for emotional and spiritual beauty in our lives!
The term 'Bread and Roses' has since been associated with political strife and was the title of the 2000 Ken Loach film about the right to form a union of Mexican labourers in Los Angeles.

There is another beautiful song with the same title and message, written by Martin Whelan and sung here by my old mate Roy Bailey, who has very slightly altered the lyrics in one place:

Bread and Roses
If we don’t have our dreams
What do we live for?
If we don’t have our dreams
What did James Connolly die for?

Look up the sky is burning
With blood that workers shed
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.
Bread and roses
Roses and bread
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.

He was born to organise
That’s what Jack Jones lived for
For being a union man
That’s what Joe Hill was killed for.

Look up the sky is burning
With blood that workers shed
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.
Bread and roses
Roses and bread
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.

With dreams in solid steel
That’s what Mandela lived for.
For dreaming of what might be
That’s what Allende died for.

Look up the sky is burning
With blood that workers shed
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.
Bread and roses
Roses and bread
We’ll carry on the battle
For roses and bread.

Let’s dream that dream of dreams
Of life without sorrow.
And maybe our dreams
Will build a new tomorrow.

Another 'twist' on the phrase Bread and Roses is sometimes said as 'Bread and Circuses' but actually means the opposite! It means that 'Circuses' are being offered as diversions to deflect the masses from the austerity of the times. Sound familiar? Next time the Government is offering something that sounds too good to be true, think of bread and circuses and this definition:

a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary 

PS Elizannie has been away for a few weeks due to a mixture of family worries, family fun and holidays. Thanks as ever to the NHS for sorting out - and continuing to sort out - the family worries and to the family and friends for supplying the family fun and holidays!

Do You Value Your Vote?

As so often when I am looking for a subject to write about, suitable items seem to multiply and push themselves forward in my mind. Yesterday during some family history researching I found a male ancestor was able to vote in 1873. This led me to check the qualifications for voting at that time. They were not - as I had thought - ownership of property, but that a man was a householder and could be renting a property, thanks to the provisions of the 1867 Reform Act. This led of course to an investigation of exactly when and to whom voting rights were extended and a good, quick explanation can be found here. This link also shows how men and women campaigned - many dying - in their attempt to gain universal suffrage. We often glibly talk about the Chartists [the picture shown above is taken from one of their campaign banners] yet how many of us know the six points of the charter?:

• Votes for all men
• Equal electoral districts
• Abolition that Members of Parliament be property owners
• Payment for MPs
• Annual general elections
• Secret ballots. 

All men over 21 and women over 30 achieved the vote in the Act of 1918, and I suppose most school children who have studied the First World War would know this and quote that the Suffragettes who had laid aside their campaigning at the start of the war to help the war effort were thus rewarded - especially as so many had worked hard in munitions factories, nursing, in men's jobs to free them for war service etc etc. [I would like to point out that my feisty, trade unionist Grandmother - the original Elizannie - who had worked in a munitions factory all through WW1, whilst my Grandfather was at the front, did not get the vote at this point as she was under 30. Women had to wait for total equality to men until 1928 when their age for the right to vote was lowered to 21 also in the Equal Franchise Act.

So why am I writing today? Well perhaps you have noticed in the media that it is 100 years ago today that Emily Wilding Davison was fatally injured by the King's horse at the Epsom Derby in her campaign to obtain Votes for Women. There have been over that one hundred years many discussions about her motive for stepping out onto the race track and some can be found here. 

Emily belonged to the Women's Social and Political Union, WSPU, commonly called the Suffragettes. Their aim to extend suffrage - the vote - to women seemed hopeless at their start, madness during the campaign yet was successful in the end. It must be emphasised that Emily belonged to what is perhaps the more 'militant arm' and not all members and supporters believed that breaking windows and chaining themselves to railings etc was the way to get the vote. The WSPU has also been criticised for only worrying about  middle-class women and their higher class 'sisters'. However, as all women eventually received the vote, all women have a lot for which to thank them.

The composer Dame Ethel Smyth was a member of the WSPU and wrote this anthem for them when in 1911:


When we look at this very brief history of the campaign for universal suffrage, please let it inspire you all to vote in the next election that comes your way. Even if you 'spoil' your ballot paper to show your distaste of politicians, please take the time to go to the polling station and draw your voting slip. Remember that people, especially women, have died to get you the privilege to vote. Remember them by using that privilege and valuing your vote. Please.

So this 'Bedroom Tax' saves money?

Sometimes I think that I am remarkably thick. I obviously don't understand economics. You see this 'Bedroom Tax' that the Coalition Government introduced was said to be the way to saving lots of money. I couldn't understand that at the time, but then my degree is not in economics. I have only run household accounts and back when rocks were soft I worked in accountancy as a pa, preparing accounts to draft account levels. Oh and did the accounts for a few charities and organisations. But I am not a government guru or anything like that. Obviously.


So when I read this in the Guardian this morning:

More than 25,000 people applied for DHP [Discretionary Housing Payments] to help cover April rent, compared with 5,700 in same month last year

I felt a renewed faith in my own Economics theories.

But what can never be 'measured' in any scale, graph or pie chart is the untold misery that Welfare cuts like the 'Bedroom Tax' bring - not just to individuals involved but to their extended families and friends.

I have a young relative who is one of those that has had been put into considerable hardship by more than one of the cruel moves - intended to save 'taxpayers money' by the government. Jo was a taxpayer for many years, with a good job gained after years of qualifications studied for and passed. In a relationship with one child. But then life tripped Jo up, almost literally. The relationship broke down and the partner disappeared to another country, out of the reach of the CSA. No matter, Jo's job could support Jo and one child - just. No need to move, living in a three bedroomed social housing Jo could pay all the bills and send child to the good local school and then hopefully to university.

Then came the 'trip up'. Jo had an accident at work, who informed Jo that there was no case for a compensation claim after the period of statuary sick pay had expired. Consultants at the hospital forbade Jo to attempt to resume the job that had caused the injury. As some days Jo could not get out of bed there was no other course but to claim disability benefit.

Eighteen months ago Jo asked the council for a move into a smaller property as the three bedroom house was not only too big but too costly to heat. The council could not find anything smaller so Jo and son had to continue living in a house that they would love to leave due to the expenses and realised as soon as the 'Bedroom Tax' was  mooted Jo knew would not be able to afford.

Fortunately at the last minute Jo managed to do a 'private' exchange, but with all savings gone Jo's OAP parents had to helped out financially and physically with the removal. However Jo's son now has to pay fares to school, and has been refused a bus pass because Jo CHOSE to move and there is a school near to there new home - even though he is taking his 'O' levels in a couple of months. 

What makes it even harder is whilst all this has been happening Jo has been appealing an ATOS ruling at the moment who have deemed Jo fit to work despite all the medical advice and records. 

Jo is not an unusual case. Google and lots of such histories can be found, one heartbreaking example is Diary of a Benefit Scrounger   People in Jo's situation must honestly feel that society are against them - and why shouldn't they.

I know I have said this before, but to me, frighteningly, this apology for a government seems intent on returning to 19thC values. That is, the ideals of 'deserving poor' and the 'Protestant Work Ethic'. However this Government's deserving poor don't seem to exist to them at all and the Protestant Work Ethic seems only to work in one way - the poor should work but get shafted by the Patriarchial Society until they drop dead with cold, exhausation or hunger. But never mind, there will be another one [unemployed] along in a minute whom we can exploit. And if I sound cyncial and bigoted, maybe it is because I am.

I do like to have a bit of humour in my writing. Today my humour has gone walk about and is hopefully is helping those marching in London in support of the NHS. I am there in spirit but Other Half has been on another demo and I have been dispensing Grandmotherly duties.

Useful Links:

Shelter: Bedroom tax from April 2013

Facebook: B.A.C.T Bedroom and Council Tax Advice and Support.

ATOS Victims Group: http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/

Photo above courtesy of birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com

Be Nice to Pensioners

Other Half and I were watching Ten O'Clock Live [new series just started on Wednesdays, channel 4 at - guess what - 10pm] a couple of days ago. It is one of those programmes of which I am never sure whether I like it or not! Certain of the presenters [Lauren Laverne, David Mitchell, Charlie Brooker, Jimmy Carr] are amusing/informative/cleverly satirical - others are cringe making imo!

The guests are of course another story. Some weeks I have yawned through the 'discussions' [in inverted commas because they often degenerate into shouting matches, as this week], other weeks I have become really engaged and sorry when it finishes.

This week's 'discussion' looked promising: Janet Street-Porter, always interesting and combative; Shiv Malik, co-author of Jilted Generation, suggested an interesting 'new' [in inverted commas as the book was published in 2010] point of view and Peter Stringfellow [two out of three ain't bad] - chaired by David Mitchell.


The discussion started with the premise that State Pensioners should share in the austerity cuts that the rest of the country are undergoing, especially the young. A couple of things wrong with that. Austerity cuts are not affecting rich of any age group [as Peter Stringfellow pointed out ad nauseum he may be old but he is rich. Disgustingly rich. Or just disgustingly anything] In fact the rich could be said to be benefiting from this 'austerity Government' as the tax cuts have favoured them. Cynical, moi?


Would our two Pensioners on the show give up their Fuel Allowance? Peter would - after all he probably spends more than £100 regularly on an evening meal with his mates. Janet wouldn't because she has paid for it heavily in taxes over her working life. Peter was cheered by the younger-than-him audience, Janet wasn't. But who was more representative of the 'average' pensioner? Well obviously not Peter Stringfellow. And probably not Janet Street-Porter. They both have income levels considerably above mine [just over £107 pw state pension] But then they pay tax as they are in the taxable income bracket and I'm not. And that's what so many commentators seem to forget. If a pensioner is 'rich', s/he will be paying tax and therefore paying back any "pensioners' perks" that younger commentators are griping about.


And during pensioners working lives we paid our taxes and national insurance dues and were promised that we would be looked after in our old age. If £107 pw, a bus pass, £100* per year winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions, free eye tests, discount on poll tax and a free TV licence once we reach 75 years old for a 'standard pensioner' [i.e. one not on any additional benefits] is really 'looking after'. Not a lot really but I am not complaining - just saying that we are already on the austere side of the austerity, so asking us to take additional cuts seems a little unfair.

Obviously pensioners should not get any rises in their 'pay'. We should have saved a lot more during our working lives. Forget the promises made to us by governments that we would be safe in our old age because we were paying those taxes and other dues that ensured we would be fine. Those of us that bought houses would also be able to sit back in the luxury of our later years, in the glow of home ownership. Of course that was before mortgage rates spiralled and lots of us lost our houses because we couldn't keep up the new repayments or cannot retire because there is just a chance that if we keep on working [if of course the jobs are still there] we may almost have cleared the debt by the time we die.

And some of us were clever enough to take out private pensions. So we would be OK. Until the private pensions went down the toilet with all our money and that apparently was our fault too for not taking the right advice or something. Nothing to do with the urging of whichever government thought we were doing the right thing at the time. And what about those with wonderful company schemes into which a good percentage of their wages were put ever pay day. No need to save when one's money was being so carefully looked after. But what's this I read in the newspaper? The company has gone into administration and with it my money which was in the pension fund. If I am already a pensioner and that part of my pension has disappeared how am I going to cut down on my already depleted budget? Perhaps the government will help? Apparently not.....


Take away the bus passes. Well this will obviously hurt the pensioners who use the buses. It will also hurt the bus companies who are paid by local councils who pay for each trip a pensioner takes using the free pass. For those living in rural areas like mine this could lead to the loss of some bus services. Social isolation could cause more problems for some pensioners and the need for more intervention from the social services. But hey, those rich greedy pensioners will not be getting away with a perk, will they!!


Oh, and the winter fuel allowances. Well, that is obviously a good thing to cut. Because those fuel allowances won't now be spent on heating homes and putting up the profits of fuel companies, most of which are foreign owned and making so much profit that their share holders are very happy. What a shame those fuel companies are not state owned so that any profits could be ploughed back into capital investment, giving work to the unemployed and possibly keeping profits down. Oh they were once were? So when the pensioners were working - paying taxes - something which they already owned [nationalised industries] were sold off? And now they are to be "rewarded" by not having nearly enough income to pay the high charges the new fuel company owners see fit to charge?


And the TV licences. Again not a problem. Most pensioners in the forthcoming Brave New World will be out in the fields working all day to make up their income and in bed as soon as it gets dark to keep warm as the only way to survive the austerity cuts the younger generation seems to think they deserve.



I hope I don't sound bitter. I am a really sweet old lady. I smell of lavendar water, suck peppermints and sit in a shawl knitting and talking to myself because I am so deaf I can't hear that I am thinking out loud. Oh no - that was my Grandmother who was so glad that her grandchildren were not going to live the sort of lives that she and her forebears had, hard lives with their old age only made comfortable by the generosity of their children. I am just an older woman who wants her grandchildren to inherit a world that cares for its elders, respects the promises it has made and lives to the values of the  slogan popularised by Marx:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need[s]

However, many take this suggestion back to an earlier source, the Bible, with this quotation from the Acts of the Apostles, 4:32:

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

Two good suggestions to follow. A bit better than Dirty Dave's 'We are all in it together'. The first two quotes were by those who really meant and believed what they said.


This Bank Holiday - be nice to a pensioner. It could be me!



*£200 if only one pensioner in a household, £300 if the pensioner attains the age of 80.

Photograph above is of Williton, W.Somerset Workhouse, now developed into private dwellings. Please don't relegate us back to the Workhouse league......

Measles and Me

Part of the reason for having a blog is to enable me to write 'pieces' to which I can then direct others. I suppose one could say it is my soap box, or sounding board. This is the first time I have ever written something without having a definite target audience in mind. Perhaps no-one will read it and my questions and comments will go unanswered. But this blog springs from a genuine desire to sort out the whole measles vaccination controversy, and perhaps to explain why some parents have always been very wary of needles.

First of all my family history. My elder sister died of polio in the 1949 outbreak. A cousin was hospitalised with it and suffers the effects to this day. I tell you this to put into context any ideas the reader may have that I am from a family 'medicine refusers', on the contrary we have many good reasons to thank the NHS for saving our lives! 

In 1956 I suffered a bad attack of measles, and in around those childhood years I also caught mumps and had four attacks of scarlet fever. Measles wasn't considered a particularly untoward childhood illness, we all knew that in much earlier times children had died of it, but when I contracted Scarlet Fever on the first occasion there was much more commotion. The Sanitary Inspector visited the house and it was only because the household conditions were judged to be adequate that I wasn't transferred to the nearby fever hospital or my belongings burnt [this was c1955] Mr Sanitary Inspector visited on my second attack of the illness but on the subsequent occasions I think he just spoke to my mother on the 'phone. Thanks to anti biotics and an operation to remove my tonsils Scarlet Fever vacated our house. However not before the anti biotics first prescribed tried their best to kill me with an extreme reaction.  Again we all knew that in earlier times Scarlet Fever was a killer.

The thing was in the 1950s and 1960s most children had measles. Sometimes more than once. Terribly some did die, although often there was an accompanying 'other cause'. I honestly can't remember any adults getting it because they, in their turn, had had these diseases in their childhood. More children had died in their day, before the introduction of anti-biotics.

My first child was born in 1971 and by now the Measles [single] vaccination had been introduced. There was no suggestion that there would be any contra indications to its use. My child had very severe eczema, which had necessitated hospital admission. The measles vaccination 'took' and caused a severe reaction. Child was OK eventually, but I vowed not to have any future children vaccinated against Measles.

Second child was born in 1975, by which time questions were being asked about the safety of the whooping cough vaccine. Yes that's right 1975. Even more so the medical profession were advising anyone with a family history of bad reaction to any vaccine, asthma and eczema not to have the vaccine. No 2 child had asthma. So Second Child didn't have the whooping cough vaccine, nor the measles. A lot of other parents were making the same decision. This child caught measles at the age of four and was not as ill as No 1 had been after the vaccine.

Last child arrived in 1987. By now the triple vaccine was in place: MMR = Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Many parents were concerned, some were asking if the vaccine could be given as three separate doses. Not on the NHS but the facility was there sometimes in the private sector. Children with a history [or family history ] of convulsions or epilepsy could be vaccinated in hospitals in single doses, depending on the policy of the area health authority. As usual I declined to have Last Child vaccinated. When this child was about two and a half I got a 'phone call from my GP suggesting I re-think and take up the vaccine. Last Child had been going through a series of bad ear infections and mumps was in the area. I decided to go ahead with the MMR 'jab' solely to get the mumps protection. When I arrived at the surgery the GP was surprised, he said he didn't need us anymore as his quota had been fulfilled...... Never the less Last child had the jab and had a bad reaction, with rash.....

In either 1992 or 1993 there was a campaign for booster jabs for measles for all school children. These jabs could only be administered through schools, and when I asked my GP if he could do it  he explained that was not possible. In the end we had a homeopathic 'vaccination' and made ourselves very unpopular at the school [where Other Half was a governor] because they couldn't return a 100% score.

Now I know from reading up on the web that the type of vaccines has changed over the years, that booster shots are now recommended and that the pre-school 'booster' contains measles vaccine. Things have changed. But what hasn't changed is the way that information is disseminated to parents on these changes or on the vaccines and possible side effects. Are they getting enough of the 'right' information at the 'right' time? and what support is offered to children  with ongoing health problems which may have been caused by a vaccine? If it is not believed a vaccine can caused a problem, how will it be investigated?

The outbreak of measles in Wales is being mostly blamed on the research published in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield which suggested a link between the MMR vaccination and autism [a claim by which Mr Wakefield still stands] although he believes that the single measles vaccine is safe. The Daily Mail, who publicised this claim in 1998, is also taking a share of the blame. But I would suggest that parents who were worried by the claims in the late 1990s should not now also be pillioried for not having their children vaccinated.

It is dreadful news that a young man of 25 has apparently died of the disease in Swansea. Yet this young man would have been a baby long before Andrew Wakefield's research came to light and when questions were already being asked about the safety of the MMR vaccine [see above] Like any so called 'childhood disease', measles is far more dangerous when contracted by an adult.

The S.Wales outbreak follows outbreaks in other parts of the UK last year and could be followed by more later this year. I wish everyone well. I would not know what to do if I had a young child now.