Sunday, 1 January 2017
By 10.30 we were told it was a stroke and it was serious. We jumped in the car and headed for Cardiff. It was only what I can describe as weird seeing mum. She looked a lot better than I thought she would, she was conversing with ease. We talked about family history, the relatives in America, the news (the honours list etc.), and various other matters. She was joking too. Every now and then she'd say something a bit silly, but I assumed it was the drugs that were being pumped into her. Having said all that, the paralysis down her left hand side was almost total and obvious to see.
The hospital staff said the course she was on could disperse the clot that had caused her stroke, but we wouldn't know for 24 hours. There was also a danger the thinning of the blood could cause complications. Other relatives came and went throughout the day, before we arrived and after we left too.
We left feeling positive. Mum's response to questions on how she felt was "tickedyboo" and given her lucidity I certainly hoped for the best.
I phoned the hospital this morning at 10.30 - 24 hours after the first course of drugs were given - to be told there was no visible deterioration, which was good news as far as it went. We'd know more later in the day when a CT scan was given and they could let next of kin visitors to the ward know more as the results came back.
Then this afternoon I got a call off Jayne to say her boy Ross had been in to see his nan. The staff told him that the first course of drugs hadn't worked and that the next few days were crucial to see if mum pulls through or has some sort of relapse or follow-up seizure.
I started by saying the last few days had been chaotic. In fact it's only been two days. But with the emotions, the downs, ups and downs again, the to-ing and fro-ing, it's seemed like much longer.
Now we're waiting and praying for good news.
Monday, 26 December 2016
And so on St Stephen's Day, aka Boxing Day, aka the second day of Christmas may I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas.
And like Tintin, let's all remember the "reason for the season" and honour the Holy Family.
Nadolig Llawen! Merry Christmas!
Sunday, 16 October 2016
|Owain Glyndwr: an English Soldier|
Wednesday, 5 October 2016
Saturday, 1 October 2016
Friday, 30 September 2016
Sunday, 25 September 2016
Sunday, 22 May 2016
Sunday, 20 March 2016
Saturday, 18 April 2015
Thursday, 16 April 2015
Bartholomew Q. Kibble-Smythe (the spider) has finally finished the trunking over the electric wires.
"Let there be light!" He proclaimed.
It struck me he's given to melodramatics. But a good sparky is worth his weight in gold.
That's £20 with Bart.
I asked him if he liked quoting Genesis and he mumbled something appreciative of Peter Gabriel (and "Collins should've kept to the drums") before scuttling away. Ever the primadonna.
Wednesday, 15 April 2015
Wednesday, 1 October 2014
In Hong Kong people protest not to have politicians impose their rulers, to limit their freedoms.
Here we'll soon be told who the politicians think are unacceptable, and who they'd like to see banned from speaking.
Should we see any similarities?
Should we kick out ancient freedoms on a whim? Should we overturn traditions for votes? Should we silence critics of a system even if we disapprove of them? Who decides who's unacceptable? The Conservatives? Labour? Or another party you may disagree with?
If you support terrorism it's already illegal. I don't see the need for knee-jerk laws.
Who will decide what is extreme? A few years ago fighting for 'gay marriage' would be viewed as extreme. Nowadays fighting against it might be viewed as such by those in power.
A few years ago the secret police spied and bugged CND activists. Who decides who is next and if the state has these new powers, who might they seek to silence?
It seems to me we have more than enough powers to deal with those who support terrorism. Racial and religious hatred is already illegal. Even "homophobia" is (via the -- fnarr fnarr -- back-door) illegal. So why any need for a questionable new law?
It seems more to do with winning over The Sun newspaper ahead of the general election than any serious measure to deal with a threat from a vocal minority of Muslims.
It may not be the start of any curtailment of our freedoms. But ask yourself these two questions:
1. Why take the risk?
2. Do you trust politicians to do what's right?