The Beef and Chicken sections are now complete.

A Cookbook for Food Lovers

Having now written up the first two sections of the cookbook, I thought I would share the contents here should anybody be curious to know which dishes will be covered. I admit  that I’m not a big beef eater, so there are naturally more chicken-based recipes, and as you will also see I am an ardent lover of curries too. I can also assure you that all of these recipes have been thoroughly road-tested, and will not disappoint once cooked and served up, and the theme here is about quality and not quantity, therefore each of these dishes easily speak for themselves.

On a personal level I’m very excited about this cookbook, and will stress that it’s been a genuine labour of love both cooking and adapting them ahead of my putting everything in one convenient point of reference.

Content-wise, my current estimations indicate there will be a total of 245+ recipes when the book is finished next spring/summer, and rest assured, there will plenty of dishes to  sink your teeth into when it’s finally published (if you’ll excuse the pun) and as each section is completed I will list their contents here first.

Beef


Beef Recipes


(1) Beef Bourguignon

(2) Beef Goulash

(3) Beef and Potato Curry

(4) Chilli-Con-Carne

(5) Curried Meatballs

(6) Curried Mince Beef with Peas

(7) Homemade Beefburgers

(8) Italian Meatballs

(9) Lasagne

(10) Shepherd’s Pie

(11) Spaghetti Bolognese

Chicken


Chicken Recipes


(1) Baked Cardamom Chicken Curry

(2) Bengali Chicken

(3) Braised Chicken Curry

(4) Burmese Chicken Curry

(5) Caribbean Chicken Curry

(6) Chettinad Chicken Curry

(7) Chicken and Basil Fried Rice

(8) Chicken with Black Bean Sauce

(9) Chicken and Cardamom Curry

(10) Chicken and Green Bean Curry

(11) Chicken Kukupaka

(12) Chicken Stew

(13) Chicken Vindaloo

(14) Coconut and Soy Chicken

(15) Coriander Chicken

(16) Crispy Chicken and Tomatoes

(17) Delhi Hunter Chicken Curry

(18) Goan Chicken Moelho

(19) Jerk Chicken

(20) Kerala Chicken Curry

(21) Malay Chicken Curry

(22) Nagore Chicken Curry

(23) Nonya Chicken Curry

(24) Rizala Chicken

(25) Singapore Style Chicken Curry

(26) Special Chow Mein

(27) Sri-Lankan Curried Chicken

(28) Thai Fried Rice

(29) Thai Green Curry

(30) Trinidadian Curried Chicken

(31) Vietnamese Chicken Curry

(32) Yellow Curried Chicken

R (Watts) v Bedford Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health

English Medical Law

R (Watts) v Bedford Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health
‘Arthritic Hands’ by Tim Benson

Finally decided within the European Court Of Justice (COJ), this protracted and game-changing case determines well the principle of unreasonableness, whether individually or in this instance, as exercised through the actions (or inactions) of the National Health System (NHS) of Great Britain.

When diagnosed as having severe osteoarthritis in both hips, an elderly lady was duly assigned a slot in a typically lengthy waiting list, on the provision that her operation would at least begin inside a twelve-month period, and that no other adjustments could be made under the existing policy framework.

Clearly distressed and left in constant pain, the patient took it upon herself to request a permission form that could enable her to seek medical treatment in another EU Member State at cost to herself, before claiming back those costs under the umbrella of art.49 of the EC.

When authorisation for her application was refused on the grounds that the inherently free infrastructure of the NHS prevented such claims as a matter of course, the applicant went ahead and secured an operation in France regardless of the setback.

During the period between the successful operation and her application for authorisation, the patient’s condition worsened to the degree that her consultant elevated her need for surgery, an action that reduced the waiting time from twelve months to three to four months. Unfortunately, this still rendered her unable the receive the care (and ultimately adequate pain relief) she needed, and so her paid surgery went ahead two months before any provisional opening was made available to her in the UK.

When pursuing the right to seek judicial review in order to recoup her costs under her individual EU rights, the High Court dismissed her claim under constitutional grounds, while her subsequent appeal against such immediate objection escalated matters to the Appeal Court, who themselves referred it to the COJ.

There, after much scrutiny and comparison with similar EU cases, the Court held that any refund issued in respect of treatment sought in another Member State did not contravene s.152(5) of the EC, which provides that:

“Community action in the field of public health shall fully respect the responsibilities of the member states for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.”

And furthermore, any excuse offered with regard to waiting times and the limitations of such healthcare provision failed to satisfy the individual rights offered under art.49 of the EC, while also holding that:

“[T]he special nature of certain services does not remove them from the ambit of the fundamental principle of free movement.”

Birth of the Human Rights Act 1998

Insight | February 2017

Birth of the Human Rights Act 1998
Image: ‘Against Forgetting’ by Marcia Bushnell

The Human Rights Act was brought into being as a consequence of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was first formulated by the Council of Europe in 1950.

Founded upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (as used by the United Nations), ten countries first rallied for its formation, including Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Convention took effect in September 1953, with the primary directive of protecting specific fundamental rights among Member States of the Council of Europe, while the core values of the UK constitution enjoyed presumptions of liberty, representative government and the rule of law.

Before the ECHR became intrinsic to domestic law, Ministers often found themselves abusing discretionary powers, which amounted to a constitution largely beyond reproach, relying instead upon collective political norms for enforcement. This protracted period of neglect gave rise to an increase in administrative jurisdiction, and during the 1980s the courts began to adopt a more concrete conception of the rule of law, preferring instead to propagate such values as ‘freedom of expression’ ‘equality’ and ‘freedom from destitution’. However, presumptions followed that common law infringement upon these values would deem statute intervention unlawful, and it soon became conventional thinking; particularly in the well known R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind, where the domestic courts held that as the ECHR was not part of English law, the government was able to restrict media coverage of Irish extremist groups, despite clear encroachment upon the right to freedom of expression, and a sadly failed appeal by the journalists fiercely defending that right.

In fact, it wasn’t until 1998 that the British constitution accepted that using convention as a means of entrusting civil liberties could no longer be tolerated, and so on 9 November 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted by Royal assent. From 2 October 2000 onward, all rights and freedoms previously safeguard by the ECHR were now directly enforceable though UK common law, and the sovereignty of Parliament was agreed.

This upheaval in institutional law was particularly significant, in that for the first time English judicial authority was awarded greater scope for case interpretation, where historically such matters were determined through ministerial debate. This was however, a change that was not without its detractors, nor ignorant of an entrenched inclination to overlook common law in lieu of political fervour.