Doctors’ horror as 30-inch sex toy gets stuck inside man

A sex toy, measuring 30 inches, had to be removed from a British man’s anus after he drunkenly attempted to pleasure himself with it and instead perforated his bowel.

Doctors confirmed the man “lost control” of the toy and ended up with it lodged inside himself.

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) reported the bizarre case and issued a warning over the practice. Doctors said the sex toy, measuring three quarters of a meter, was “unusually large”.

Read more

© i.Con

The BMJ report said: “This case is the first of its kind and exclusive, due to the enormous size.”

The patient, who is not being named, presented himself to the A&E department at a hospital in Lincolnshire suffering from severe pain.

Dr Saad Ikram was among a team of medics who dealt with the case.

He said the patient had a “smooth shadow” in the right side of his abdomen during an X-ray.

Read more

© Université Poitiers

Medics at the hospital were stunned over the sheer size of the object the man had attempted to pleasure himself with.

The massive sex toy was removed, along with 20cm of the man’s large intestine. Nine days later the man was released from hospital.

The patient had to be hooked up to feeding tubes while in hospital and had a stomach bag fitted.

The BMJ’s Case Reports has prompted experts to warn people about “highly dangerous” sex acts. The injury presented by the patient, although extreme, is common.

What is known to medics as “colorectal foreign bodies” are often retrieved from inside people at hospitals in Britain.

Cases include hoover extensions, broomsticks, glass bottles, cans, aerosol sprays, candles and bulbs.

Dr Michael Brady, medical director at Terrence Higgins Trust, previously issued warnings about the insertion of foreign objects inside the body.

He said: “Sex toys and other objects can be a safe and enjoyable part of a healthy sex life but it’s important to use common sense when choosing an object.

“Anything with sharp edges or made of glass can shatter and tear the internal lining, which can cause injury and infections, as well as giving viruses an easier route into the body.

“Anything that is inserted into the body should be smooth, non-fragile and easily retrievable.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

RT UK News

‘Iraqis ill-treatment by British troops wasn’t done accidentally, came from orders from high up’

The UK court ruling on Iraqis ill-treatment shows UK & US governments are not above the law, but there shouldn’t just be civil penalties, there should be war crime trials for Blair and Bush, says Brian Becker, ANSWER coalition.

Four Iraqi men won damages against Britain’s Defence Ministry over their ill-treatment by soldiers during the Iraq War.

The High Court’s ruling could pave the way for 600 more claims against Britain over human rights abuses.

RT: Lawyers say these four test-cases could pave the way for hundreds more claims. Could this open up a can of worms for the British Ministry of Defence?

Brian Becker: Indeed, it could. I think it is an extremely important case. It’s really not hundreds; there are hundreds of claims. 200+ have already been settled for monetary compensation by the British government. When you think about it, what the British were doing in Basra and elsewhere, when they were rounding up, mass arresting and then torturing Iraqis on suspicion they might be in some ways involved either with the Ba’athist army or parts of the armed resistance or civil resistance – that was replicated tens of thousands of times in the case of the American presence which was far greater throughout Iraq.

Read more

© Phil Noble

I have friends who are now anti-war veterans from the US army and the marines. All they did was go around, bust down doors, arrest the men in the family, put hoods over their head, subject them to extreme sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, stress positions. They turned against the war because they themselves recognized that as torturers they resembled terrorists. And they didn’t want to go there for that. This has got big implications, not just for the UK, but I would say, especially in the US where there has been no accountability for these grievous crimes against humanity. The UK government, the US government, said we are above the law; we don’t have to comply with the Geneva Conventions. This ruling says – yes, you do.

RT: The High Court ruled the Ministry of Defence breached the Geneva Conventions and the 1998 Human Rights Act through unlawful detentions. Who do you think should bear responsibility for that?

BB: I think we know from the US that the orders to violate the Geneva Conventions – in fact, to exempt the country from the Geneva Conventions – came from the very top of the US political establishment. It came from George W. Bush. I believe, it also came from the Ministry of Defence top officials in the UK with the wink and nod or complicit agreement of the Tony Blair government. Who is really being charged? Who should be charged? I would say it is the top officials of these wars. These wars in and of themselves constituted not only a war of aggression, which is a crime against peace, the greatest crime, according to the Nuremberg trials, but there were also crimes against humanity, and they were done systematically, it was not accidental, it was not done incidentally by soldiers in the field. This came from orders from high up.

RT: Could the risk of prosecution discourage the British military from getting involved in future overseas conflicts? And could it make it harder for soldiers to do their jobs?

BB: The soldier’s job should not be to violate people’s rights. It should not be to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. If those are the soldier’s jobs, then yes, the UK should never again do it. Will the UK government be held accountable? Will it be a deterrent? It is the only way for accountability to work, for deterrence to work as they show that there will be punishment, that there will be accountability for grievous crimes against humanity. Here we have in the US and in the UN and with the UK government a system set up whereby all of the targeted entities by those countries, they come to The Hague, they go to the International Criminal Court. But the perpetrators of the aggression, of the occupation, of the torture, of the violation of the Geneva Conventions, those who have really done this, they exempt themselves, they immunize themselves from prosecution. There shouldn’t just be civil penalties. There should be war crime trials for Tony Blair and those in the UK government and military, and likewise for Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld…

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

RT UK News

'Internet is Free Again' angers social media after net-neutrality repeal

A day after the repeal of net-neutrality rules, which classified the internet as a utility, Wall Street Journal was quick to tout the ruling as ‘freedom.’ In response, social media took the phrase and turned it into a backlash.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3-2 to repeal the net-neutrality rules.

“By effectively deeming the internet a utility, former chairman Tom Wheeler turned the FCC into a political gatekeeper,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote in an article entitled ‘The Internet Is Free Again on Friday.’

“The rules prohibited broadband providers from blocking, throttling and favoring content, which Mr Wheeler ostensibly intended to help large content providers like Google and Netflix gain leverage against cable companies.”

The phrase #InternetIsFreeAgain quickly prompted a swift backlash on social media, which was critical of the ruling and Wall Street’s glee.

One poster compared the ruling to Columbus telling Native Americans “they were free again after he stole their land.”

Another showed a map of the states with red states indicating those who think the internet is free again.

The FCC voted on Thursday to eliminate net-neutrality protection. Net neutrality means internet service providers must treat all data on the web equally, regardless of the content, website, platform, application or method of communication.

The Commission argued that net neutrality was preventing websites from investing trillions of dollars in network services. However, critics fear with net-neutrality regulations gone internet service providers will charge extra to prioritize traffic, effectively creating a ‘slow lane’ for smaller websites.

Other social media posters took cues from the blockbuster movie Blazing Saddles.

Walt Disney cartoon Tom and Jerry.

And a quote from novelist George Orwell’s 1984 to illustrate how they thought the American people had been misled in the vote.

The same day that the FCC voted on the repeal, President Donald Trump took the opportunity at the White House to demonstrate how many federal regulations he has cut since being in office.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

RT US News

May gets faint praise and warnings from Brussels as path cleared for phase two of Brexit talks

EU leaders applauded Theresa May as they confirmed progress has finally been made to allow Brexit talks to move forward. But the praise in Brussels was mixed with veiled warnings about the storms that lie ahead.

Some questions still hang over the EU’s most burning issues, namely citizens’ rights, the Irish border and Britain’s outstanding payments, but Brussels has seen enough to give the green light for the second phase of negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from the bloc.

Read more

FILE PHOTO Demonstrators head towards Parliament Square during the anti-Brexit 'People's March for Europe', in central London, Britain September 9, 2017 © Tolga Akmen

The president of the European council, Donald Tusk, tweeted: “EU leaders agree to move on to the second phase of #Brexit talks. Congratulations PM @theresa_may.”

May replied via Twitter, thanking Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker: “Today is an important step on the road to delivering a smooth and orderly Brexit and forging our deep and special future partnership.”

But amid the praise and unusually warm Christmas wishes, EU leaders also crushed any hopes that the process will now be smoother.

Juncker congratulated May, saying the applause she got were deserved- especially after the PM suffered yet another humiliating defeat over Brexit in Parliament on Tuesday- but he stopped short of being overly enthusiastic.

“Some of us thought, including me, that she did make a big effort and this has to be recognised,” he said. “The second phase will be significantly harder than the first and the first was very difficult.”

Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern went further, saying it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the contradiction in plans for border controls over the Irish border.

“There cannot be any border controls between Northern and southern Ireland, there cannot be border controls between Northern Ireland and the UK, but there can between UK and the EU,” he said.

Read more

© Francois Lenoir

“So our primary school students can see that there is a riddle to be solved.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel also stressed it is too early to hail a victory.

“We made clear that Theresa May has made an offer that should allow us to say that we have seen sufficient progress,” she told reporters.

“Nevertheless, there are still a lot of problems to solve. And time is of the essence.”

Italian prime minister, Paolo Gentiloni, also outlined his own reservations.

He “welcomed with great courtesy [May’s] kindness in making herself available” for the summit dinner,but added: “We know that phase two will not be more simple than phase one.”

Discussions on a transition period could start as early as next week, after May surprisingly accepted putting trade talks on the back-burner until March, at the EU’s request.

May has now been given three months to draft plans for post-Brexit trade, after which it is hoped concrete talks will be held on a future EU-UK relationship.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

RT UK News

Russia flags reciprocal ban on US monitors at next year’s elections

Russia may bar US monitors from its presidential election next year, in response to Washington’s decision not to allow Russian monitors at the US presidential poll last year, a senior Russian diplomat has warned.

Some time ago we sent an official note to our American colleagues notifying them that, after considering their refusal to accept monitors from Russian diplomatic offices in the United States at the presidential elections that took place in November last year, we are going to act out of the principle of reciprocity,” deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov was quoted as saying on Friday by TASS.

Read more

© CEC Russia

The diplomat added that he personally would not see it as a problem if US citizens arrive at Russian elections as part of such international monitoring missions. “This will be decided as we discuss the international elections monitoring, on equal conditions with other issues,” he said.

Earlier on Friday, Russia’s upper house speaker Valentina Matviyenko told reporters that she expected the number of Russian and international monitors at the March 18 elections to be higher than ever.

I consider wide participation of monitors, both our own and foreign, to be very important to assure that the appraisals of the election campaign were objective, and its results were legitimate. I am confident that the quantity of monitors will break all records, because the interest in these elections is great,” Matviyenko told reporters.

Also on Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the US embassy staff was “constantly meddling” with Russian elections and noted that such actions violated the international convention on diplomatic relations.

Read more

Voters at a polling station in Moscow on the single election day © Vladimir Astapkovich

They are constantly intervening in our elections. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly given concrete examples of the US embassy doing this, including cases in which US diplomats participated in rallies of [Russian] opposition parties, including the unregistered ones,” Lavrov said in an address to the upper house of parliament.

Diplomats must assess the situation in the country that they work in and report their assessments to their country’s capital, but participation in political life, by blatantly issuing instructions to gatherings of opposition activists, is against the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,” the minister told senators.

The press secretary of the US Embassy in Moscow, Maria Olson, called Lavrov’s accusations “false” and warned that they could undermine the efforts to put Russia-US relations on a more stable footing.

The statements were made shortly after the upper house of parliament had confirmed March 18 as the date for the 2018 Russian presidential election.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

RT Russian Politics News

Cold War codswollop: Cash-strapped UK Defense Chief deploys Russian deep-sea cable scare story

Russia’s Navy could cut the underwater cables that keep the world connected, says the head of Britain’s armed forces, in what appears to be a desperate plea for funding using the good old Russian bogeyman.

Britain is cutting its defense spending against the will of the forces themselves, of the public and of politicians. But Russia has been boosting its navy recently, which has proved useful for a classic piece of Cold War codswollop.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach has joined the ranks of Russophobes, taking the role of chief doom-monger, raving about a Russian plot to cut underwater communication cables. Interestingly, his warnings come with the recommendation that Britain start working harder to keep up with any modernization in Russia’s forces. In other words, spend more money on shiny new ships.

In his annual lecture to the Royal United Services Institute in Whitehall, the chief of defence staff said: “In response to the threat posed by the modernization of the Russian navy, both nuclear and conventional submarines and ships, we, along with our Atlantic allies, have prioritized missions and tasks to protect the sea lines of communication.”

Read more

Boris Johnson has been warned to stay away from honey traps in Russia © Reuters/ Djordje Kojadinovic

The massive network of underwater internet cables that criss-crosses the ocean floor, carrying 95 percent of communications and over $ 10 trillion in daily transactions, is vulnerable to attack, Peach warned.

Why he is convinced Moscow would target the wires is entirely unclear. Sinking economies and damaging trade is hardly in anyone’s interest. Russia has trade links as open as anywhere else.

Imagine a scenario where those cables are cut or disrupted which would immediately – and potentially catastrophically – affect both our economy and other ways of living,” said Peach.

The Air Chief Marshal didn’t connect the dots that perhaps Russia would also face more than a little disruption being as it is, part of the modern, globalized, connected world. Military operation ‘Cut Nose Off To Spite Face’ (not a real operation) would be as likely to affect the world’s largest nation as any other.

In paranoid Peach’s imagination, written in his Policy Exchange report, the attack could be carried out using submarines or something as simple as a fishing trawler.
So, the Russians are investing in their Navy to carry out a super-duper underwater attack, which can be done with a fishing trawler.

Research suggests most other nations also own a certain number of fishing trawlers, so again it’s unclear why Russia has been singled out.

The underwater wires in question stretch around the US, Canada, Europe and even the horn of Africa, where actual offline pirates operate.

Read more

HMS Queen Elizabeth to officially become a British Navy warship but deployment not expected until 2021 © Reuters/ Peter Nicholls

There are other nations which would benefit from such sabotage. North Korea, anyone? Are the underwater lines of communication stretching around Asia? Absolutely.

Russia could disrupt trillions of dollars in financial transactions, seriously damaging the UK economy if they touch these cables, Conservative MP Rishi Sunak warned earlier this month. Again, seemingly oblivious to the existence of a Russian economy, which is more than a little integrated with Britain’s, among others.

The hysteria around Russia at the moment also has British ministers convinced that Moscow meddled in the Brexit referendum, yet reviews and investigations have found 73p was spent on ads and 400 Twitter accounts were made, out of a total of more than 970million.

With this warning about undersea cables, perhaps NATO chiefs could start investing in systems which aren’t vulnerable to an old trawler, rather than invent plots from the Kremlin in order to secure more cash from the state.

Beyond the rhetoric, if Britain is happy to allow diminishing troop numbers, a £30bn spending gap for the defense budget, and the axing of amphibious naval assault ships, it can’t be that worried.. can it?

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

RT UK News

Ohio officers accused of excessive force after tasering men in domestic dispute call-out (VIDEO)

Two law-enforcement officers in Ohio are being accused of police brutality after footage emerged of them tasering suspects during a domestic dispute call. One of the victims suffered a collapsed lung as a result of the incident.

The video, captured on a bodycam, shows two officers responding to a domestic dispute in Cincinnati. The call was made by Angela Brown, who said her two sons – who are half-brothers – refused to get out of her house.

The situation is initially somewhat calm. However, Brown can be heard saying: “Here they at – disrespecting me and everything,” referring to 24-year-old Richard Coleman and 25-year-old James Crawley.

When Coleman gets up to speak to the officers and explain the situation, he is immediately met with a command to “sit down.” A small scuffle breaks out between the brothers when one jumps up in anger at the fact that the police were called. It doesn’t take long for one officer to point his taser at Crawley.

It escalates from there, and Crawley is tasered less than two minutes into the video. Coleman is also tasered at least four times soon afterwards. One brother pleads for the officer to listen to what he has to say. They refuse, and one shouts “Get on the ground…I’m gonna put you on the f**king ground!”

A third officer eventually arrives at the scene, and the cops physically force both brothers to the ground. One officer can be seen pulling Crawley’s hair. “We’re not doing nothing!” one of the brothers shouts.

Read more

North Charleston police officer Michael Slager (R) is seen shooting 50-year-old Walter Scott in the back as he runs away, in this still image from video in North Charleston, South Carolina  © Reuters

Coleman suffered from a collapsed lung following the incident. He was recovering from back-fusion surgery at the time. Both brothers received their first criminal convictions as a result of the event, according to Cincinnati.com.

However, at no point in the video were they informed that they were under arrest, nor were they read their Miranda rights. This is particularly notable because Cincinnati Police Department policy states that tasers are only to be used on those who are “actively resisting arrest.”

The brothers were charged with resisting arrest and trespassing. Crawley faces an additional felony charge of assaulting a police officer, and could receive between two and eight years in prison and/or a fine of up to $ 20,000.

The footage has prompted an extraordinary intervention by the Hamilton County prosecutor, who has instigated an external city investigation into the use of force, according to Cincinnati.com. An internal investigation by the department is also reportedly taking place.

Read more

© United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

It’s not the first time that police in the US have come under fire for their heavy-handed use of tasers. RT spoke to Jordan Norris, who last year was repeatedly tasered by police after being detained on drug charges, despite being strapped to a chair and therefore not posing any threat.

“I’ve recovered physically, but mentally I’m just…it’s hard to think about still,” he said. “They just repeatedly did it over and over… the way they were laughing and pretty much having fun with it, I was afraid that they were going to try and kill me.”

Norris sued Cheatham County following the incident. A settlement was reached in September.

“The question that the law asks is whether or not the use of force had a legitimate law enforcement purpose…in this situation where he’s already fully restrained, he’s being tased anyway, I didn’t see any legitimate law enforcement reason for that force to be used. And if they’re using painful force against this young man without any reason, I can’t really think of a better word than ‘torture’ to describe that,” Norris’ attorney, Benjamin Raybin, told RT.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International has long expressed concerns regarding the use of tasers by US police, writing a statement to the US Justice Department in 2007 and urging stricter limits on police taser use in 2012. 

More than 1,000 people in the US have died after being stunned by police tasers, a Reuters investigation revealed in August. Nine out of 10 of those who died were unarmed. Nearly all of the deaths occurred since 2000.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

RT US News

Net neutrality repeal: 'Good day for the internet' or 'step in the wrong direction'?

It is sad to see US net neutrality repealed as only internet service providers will benefit, says Katy Anderson, Net Neutrality campaigner. The rules are a way for the government to control the content, argues Chris Kitze.

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on Thursday to eliminate net neutrality protection.

Net neutrality means internet service providers must treat all data on the web equally, regardless of the content, website, platform, application or method of communication.
The FCC says net neutrality is preventing websites from investing trillions of dollars in network services. However, it is feared that with net neutrality regulations gone internet service providers will charge extra to prioritize traffic, effectively creating a ‘slow lane’ for smaller websites.

RT discussed the possible consequences of the decision in regards to the freedom of the internet with Chris Kitze, founder of “Unseen,” a company providing secure communications, and Katy Anderson, the director for the Net Neutrality campaign.

RT: Could you give us your insight on what this ruling on net neutrality will mean, in practice, for ordinary internet users?

Read more

Net neutrality advocates rally in front of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ahead of Thursday's vote in Washington, US, December 13, 2017 © Yuri Gripas

Chris Kitze: Let’s look at what happened before they had these net neutrality rules – they had no rules. And the internet did just fine. And then they imposed these rules under President Obama, and now they are getting rid of these rules. Why did they want to impose these rules? If you look at the people who benefited from having everything equally carried – if you are Netflix and you are literally consuming one-third of the internet bandwidth, and you want to be charged the same as some small website to deliver their content, of course, it makes sense. That is why those are the people who are in favor of net neutrality. What they did is they dressed it up and tried to put it in the class warfare, the kind of communist things that you hear about from a lot of people who are in favor of a lot of regulations. And what happened is that they just swept it away. It is actually a very good day for the internet, I think.

RT: The FCC is controlled by Republicans. Why is scrapping net neutrality so important for the Republican Party? What are they gaining by it?

CK: I don’t look at it politically. I don’t get politically motivated. I just believe in freedom. And the problem with net neutrality is that it is a way for the government to come in and regulate and control the content that is going through the pipes. That to me is the real issue…If you look at Google and Facebook, they are controlling the access to a lot of content, [if] you look at Netflix – all these different large Silicon Valley companies have controlled the dialog, they are the once who are behind this net neutrality. And this is in effect, something from Donald Trump going against these big companies, who by the way, did everything they could to keep him from being elected.

‘Step in the wrong direction’

RT: Is this the end of the open internet as we know it, essentially equality for all web-users?

Read more

Supporters of Net Neutrality protest the FCC's recent decision to repeal the program in Los Angeles, California, November 28, 2017.  © Kyle Grillot

Katy Anderson: We’ll see. The vote is definitely a step in the wrong direction as it repeals the 2015 order that put in force these net neutrality protections. It is sad to see, but I hope, we’ll see Congress in the US repeal it. We already had five Republicans come forward as well as a slew of Democrats. Hopefully, it is something that we will see overturned over the next coming months.

RT: What does it mean for the average American?

KA: Over the past 20 years we’ve seen the internet where all content was treated equally. It doesn’t matter what news website you want to see, it doesn’t matter what video content you want to see – the internet service provider treats it exactly the same, and they can’t charge a content producer more money to actually get in front of consumers… What we will see is that internet search providers can charge more for some companies to get in front of consumers faster or completely block other companies that don’t pay. For consumers what that can mean that prices could go up as their favorite service providers are forced to pay more or that their favorite websites could get blocked.

RT: Who will benefit from the absence of net neutrality?

KA: Internet service providers. The people that control the networks right now are the ones that are going to benefit. They will be able to charge more and just have more control. And those billions of dollars industry will have even more control of what you and I see and do online.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

RT US News

‘Youthquake’ named word of year by Oxford Dictionaries… but has anyone actually heard of it?

‘Youthquake’ has been made word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries, which claims its use increased four-fold this year. But the choice was deemed “insane” by a baffled public, with claims the word has “never been heard of before.”

Defined as “a significant cultural, political, or social change arising from the actions or influence of young people,” the term ‘youthquake’ was first coined in the 1960s by Vogue editor Diana Vreeland, who used it to describe a breakthrough in the world of art and fashion.

Now, the word of the year is supposed to be a term that has attracted a “great deal of interest during the year to date.” But the public has been quick to point out how the word has scarcely been heard of.

One user resorted to memes to describe the absurdity of the choice:

Another highlighted how the word has barely been heard of, and yet it is being hailed as Oxford’s new 2017 entry.

One branded the coinage “fake news” – the expression that was made word of the year by Collins Dictionary in 2016.

One of the likely reasons for Oxford Dictionaries’ choice is the influence young people had in winning so many votes for Jeremy Corbyn during the general election in June. But given today’s state of affairs in Britain, it would seem far-fetched to claim a substantial change has happened – let alone because of young people.

This was echoed by another Twitter user, who mocked:

While talking on the BBC’s Today program, Oxford Dictionaries consultant Susie Dent couldn’t actually provide an example of how the term would crop up in everyday speech.

The perplexity was echoed on Twitter, where people went out of their way to construct a sentence with ‘youthquake’.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

RT UK News

Page 3 of 1944
Show Buttons
Hide Buttons