FactCheck: reader comments

But we've had some lengthy and erudite contributions - on Pancreatic cancer, Brian Haw's protest, and alleged anti-Lib Dem bias. Here they all are...

Brian Haw protest

"Sorry, but you slipped up on your analysis of Gordon Brown's speech in respect of Brian Haw's protest in Parliament Square. You wrote "The move was directed at the persistent anti-war protester, Brian Haw, but due to clumsy drafting, his long-standing protest was not covered by the measure".

This statement refers to the action 'Haw, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor'. In this action, while the Divisional Court agreed with Brian Haw's submission that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act did not apply to his protest as it had begun before the Act came into force, this judgment was overturned on appeal.

See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/532.html for the judgment of the Court of Appeal. In particular paragraphs 22 and 23:

"It is, in our judgment, inconceivable that Parliament would have repealed section 14 with respect to demonstrations which had already started, if it did not intend to apply the provisions of 132 to 138 of the Act to such demonstrations.

The only sensible conclusion to reach in these circumstances is that Parliament intended that those sections of the Act should apply to a demonstration in the designated area, whether it started before or after they came into force. Any other conclusion would be wholly irrational and could fairly be described as manifestly absurd."

The conclusion in paragraph 32 is "On the true construction of sections 132 to 138 of the Act Parliament intended to include demonstrations, whenever they started. It follows that we allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the Divisional Court."

Brian Haw in fact applied for permission to continue his demonstration. He was granted it, under conditions. This is not surprising: the law does not allow the police to refuse permission for a demonstration outright, only to impose conditions, a fact not generally acknowledged by those who oppose it.

When reporting this legislation you also failed to note that it has been widely reported that as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown intends to repeal it. Surely this is a highly relevant fact in the circumstances."

-- David Boothroyd

Pancreatic cancer

"Is, as Andrew Lansley suggests, Britain the slowest country in Europe to use new cancer drugs?"

Andrew Lansley at the Tory Conference called for improved survival rates for cancer in Britain and faster access to drugs. The article in the Telegraph says that we are waiting for NICE assessment of drugs for pancreatic cancer.

In this instance I would say that NICE have fast-tracked our drugs but they are either drugs that have failed in trials or we are still waiting for final trial results and licencing ( as is the case for capecitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer ie combination gemcitabine and capecitabine) and it is those processes that are causing delays not NICE.

We do need faster access to treatments if they have proved to be effective in trials and safe for use as shown by licencing. In this case the trial finished in Jan 2005 and it may take until 2009 for licencing to be completed. If the final results are positive we do need to find a faster way of getting from trial to standard treatment.

Other articles elsewhere state that Mr Lansley does also call for "a new cancer strategy promoting prevention, awareness of symptoms, early diagnosis and rapid treatment". Your verdict says this is already covered in the current National cancer Plan. Whilst that is the case improvements do need to be made.

For pancreatic cancer, the cancer with poorest survival rates internationally with only 2% surviving 5 years compared with 80% for breast cancer, the greatest immediate improvements in survival will come through earlier and faster diagnosis and access to surgery.

Currently only about 2 per cent of pancreatic cancer patients are included in the waiting times figures as so few are referred under 2 week wait. Those who are included have palliative stenting counted as first treatment so we have no figures on how long it takes to get from diagnosis to surgery.

It can take a long time to get a confirmed diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and we need to streamline and speed up the service with one-stop diagnostic clinics. Currently only about 5-10% of patients are diagnosed early enough for surgery which gives best survival chances and we must increase that figure to the best achievable internationally of about 15-20%.

The national cancer plan "improving outcomes guidance" was supposed to deliver that improvement. However this needs decisions made centrally about funding rather than delegation to local PCTs and SHAs.

Patients have better outcomes if surgery is undertaken in regional expert centres covering populations of more than 2 million. These centres are being appointed but funds have not followed the patients or been invested to allow these centres to cope with doubling and tripling of patient numbers.

One of our top national surgical and research centres is in Liverpool and lies in one of the areas with lowest investment in cancer services. Their patients frequently take more than 4 weeks to get to surgery from decision to treat. There are not enough EUS lists or histopathologists or beds for the surgical patients. These services also have to deal with life threatening emergency surgery for pancreatitis patients who are also competing for beds.

It is crazy leaving those decisions on funding to local trusts and PCTs. If we know what is best for patients they should have it irrespective of location. I don't have time to lobby every PCT in the country to ensure pancreatic cancer patients have the services they deserve.

We also need funding of national audit of the patient pathway from first symptom to death to see where the delays are occurring.

For pancreatic cancer we need much more research on symptoms before we can promote awareness as although we know what symptoms occur there is no clear information as symptoms differ depending on the location of the tumour and need to be differentiated from those of more common conditions such as IBS.

We need to differentiate pancreatic cancer from pancreatitis, we need to know more about the link with late onset diabetes, we need to know the risk factors etc. We need biomarkers and screening methods. We need more effective treatment options. This all needs much more research not just faster access to treatment.

Sue Ballard Pancreatic Cancer UK

Lib Dem bias?

Hi,

Your two recent fact checks, regarding statements made by the Liberal Democrats seem remarkably biased against the party.

The statement about dentists, while it omitted to specifically mention NHS, the fact that this statement was made in the context of Labour's management of dentistry means that it could only really be interpreted to refer to NHS dentists, yet you call them out on this and give them a 4, meaning very little basis in fact, which is clearly false.

And while the tax info might be based on old figures, which is misleading, to give it a 4.5, meaning almost no basis in fact, seems very harsh.

In the past when looking at the policies of the other parties, you seem to give them much more of the benefit of the doubt - very rarely have I seen a score over 3, even when confronted by the most egregious errors in statements.

Cheers Jonathan

Finally, thanks to those who pointed out that the Lib Dems did push the Tories into third place in the Sedgefield by-election.

We never said they didn't, but we've amended the copy on that story slightly to make it clear that we were talking about Ealing Southall, where no pushing into third place occurred.

There you go - no anti-Lib Dem bias here!

Share this article

Send this article to a friend »

• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Reddit
• Facebook
• StumbleUpon

What are these?