Note - MY world. Be aware it is that of a very dogmatic old man who is still thinking like he did back then but prepared to listen to today
Once again the winkle-pin has knocked aside the horny cap and dragged the animal into daylight. The case of Milly Dowler has
shone a fierce light into the ways that we try serious cases.
Mea culpa has been cried by the DPP and by the officer in charge of the investigation. These come at a time when
other shortcomings of the judicial system are still raw. On top of all this, we have the media stretching the rubber band of what they can and cannot report.
There were calls from the Dowler family for a return to capital punishment. I have read calls for a total Royal Commission into our entire legal system. I am reminded of my sociological-studying days of media hysteria. My first observation would be that none of the discussion has really been in relation to the system; rather that it was not faithfully followed. The police did not empathise with the family in advising them first that the case was going to trial, the DPP said that the performance of his department could have been better. The judge declined a request to have some evidence heard in camera. The Press may have overstepped the mark in demonising the murderer so that his trial for kidnapping had to be abandoned. One assumes that the Press have legal advice; seems none picked up on the claimed prejudicial reporting. If these faults had not occurred, we would merely be left to debate what a bad bastard the murderer was and be glad he is where the sun does not shine.
A review of our Justice System would need,I suppose, to start with PACE and run through to parole. Everywhere along the way we would run into matters that could themselves alone provide fodder for a Commission. I can imagine that the gathering of evidence and publication of the finished report would take up 10 years or so. First we would have to decide what was wrong with the existing arrangement. Then would come soliciting amendments and evaluation of these. Then the nitty gritty of drafting a replacement and the delay in getting through the procedures to formulate any new policy. And all this time we would be trying to administer justice in accordance with laws that we have today. The adage of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' comes to mind. What is required is a new procedure to ensure that all concerned know the requirements and make certain they are complied with. Industry has developed Zero Fault procedures in quality control; these could be the basis for such supervision.

The question of NHS organisation is likely to rumble on for some while. Quite a few commentators remark that there is a lack of understanding among the populace as to why any change is required. The first coconut shy at reform was so widely condemned and so little supported in
today's report that it is clear the government itself is
out of tune. I feel that there has been a lack of clarity in stating why reform was mooted. As I see it, the elephant in the room was cost. The changes that were made over the past x years and those more recently advanced can all be traced to funding. The non-nursing side was inflated as more and more controllers and administrators were taken on board. Budgets cannot be considered viable where a local problem will require action that could not be foreseen. The overruns cause headaches for any Chancellor.
.

A more useful examination would be to try and establish ground rules as to what the NHS will do and what it will not do. These will involve a tremendous soul searching. It is totally understandable for people to expect that the NHS will, as was promised, care for them from the cradle to the grave and that the very best care will always be afforded to them. This is the pathway to the bottomless pit. For example, we currently sustain children born after, I think, just 24 weeks in the womb. Those whose child died at 20 weeks will press for research and improvements to bring the 24 down to 20. Then there will be pressure for the safe delivery of the 18 week fetus. IVF is an expensive procedure. Some of the demand for it is from women who delayed conception in favour of a career and the need comes from their age or their having exhausted their stock of eggs. We seem to be able to get them
pregnant to the age of 60. Scotland has (as usual)
led the way with an upward limit of 38 years. There would seem space there to control costs. Some of the extreme end of life conditions have very significant costs despite the efforts of NICE; could we not set a definite point or a medical state where all that will be offered is palliative care? Those whose medical or mental problems have arisen from self abuse with drugs or alcohol should not qualify for anything other than first aid or, again, palliative care. We may remember the footballing legend given a liver who then
continued his alcohol abuse until he destroyed the replacement.
As I have said, there would be tremendous public outcry at the mere suggestion of such controls, But think - had these been in place at the time the NHS was introduced. we would have accepted them as being far better than the 3 old pence a week private insurances. There can be little point in having universal 5 star health provision if,for example,we have 2 star education, 1 star defence or 0 star full employment because all the money is going to state of the art medical facilities.