Vietnamese orphan celebrates 50 years in Oxfordshire
A family is marking the 50th year since a personal tragedy led to them adopting a baby from Vietnam.RAF officer Mike Pritchard and his wife Jacquie - from Chalgrove in Oxfordshire - lost their baby son Steven to cot death while they were in Singapore in 1974.In a tragic twist, Mrs Pritchard had been to hospital that same day for a sterilisation operation. During the grief that followed they decided to do something positive. Knowing that the war in Vietnam had created many orphans, they made enquiries about adoption."A photograph was sent to us saying 'this is the baby you can have'," said Mrs Pritchard.
Mr Pritchard flew to Saigon to collect the boy, who they named Matthew. "I held Matthew for the first time. His little eyes, I said 'you're the one for us'. Great, rubber stamped, done," explained Mr Pritchard. But there was a snag. The paperwork would take six weeks, so Mr Pritchard had to fly back to Singapore without Matthew and wait. Shortly afterwards, the couple heard news that a transport plane carrying orphan babies to America for safety had crashed with great loss of life. They feared Matthew might have been on board.
Mr Pritchard flew back to Saigon and learned that Matthew was safe. But he had been flown on a different plane to Sydney, Australia. It was then that Mr Pritchard saw another opportunity. "I said 'look I know I'll get out of here somehow. Do you want me to take some babies?" he said. "I was asked, would I also take a 10-year-old blind boy?"I said yes of course! We headed for Hong Kong. All my babies in front of me in cardboard boxes. "A lot of people say I was very brave to do that. I just think I did what I needed to do."
The babies were eventually flown to Britain where they were collected by their new parents. "Once I knew that these babies were safe with their adoptive families I thought 'this is where you step back'," said Mr Pritchard. Back in Singapore, the couple waited for the plane that brought Matthew to them. "We saw this woman walking along carrying this baby, she popped him in my arms and it was amazing," said Mrs Pritchard.Brothers Philip and Matthew grew up together, attending boarding school and university in England.
Matthew remembers that as a child he attracted some attention. "Looking back, I can understand people's curiosity. I'm Vietnamese and I've got British parents. But I just felt like a normal child that was loved and brought up", he said. "The aspect of being rescued from a war zone never really crossed my mind. I feel very British. But I'm also very proud of my heritage and culture."Matthews parents reflect with mixed emotions on the events of 1974. "The tragedy of Steven dying. He didn't die in vain," said Mr Pritchard. "Good always comes out of bad."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Why a single photo of a Magnum ice cream has Aussies up in arms
A disappointed Aussie has questioned if his favourite ice cream has shrunk in size after he bought a Magnum from his local petrol station. The man placed his hand beside the ice cream to give Aussies a size reference. 'Is this a special servo size or is this just how big a magnum ice cream is now?' he captioned a photo of the sweet treat on Reddit. 'Haven't had a Magnum ice cream in ages. I swear these were three times bigger when I was a kid. It's about as big as a couple fingers now.' Aussies were quick to weigh in to the Magnum size debate. 'What used to be the mini became the regular a long time ago,' one person claimed. 'Absolutely not worth the purchase given the quality also dropped massively from when they were first released.' 'Oh old school magnum ego were the go-to ice cream,' a second agreed. 'The chocolate is much thinner now. I bought two at the footy the other night for $7 each and they were very underwhelming,' a third said. 'Wait, seriously? I stopped getting them years ago after one of the price hikes, but now they only sell the minis and call them regular ones? What a rort,' a fourth added. 'Kept the same overpriced tags and shrank,' another commenter agreed. It came as another upset Aussie claimed they only received 317g of peas in a 500g bag of McCain frozen baby peas they purchased at Woolworths. 'I've heard of shrinkflation, but really?' they captioned a photo of the peas on a scale. 'Guess I'm keeping receipts for longer from now on.' Aussies were divided over whether Woolworths or McCains, the manufacturer of the frozen peas, were at fault over the weight discrepancy. 'Don't Woolworths buy these products to sell to us? Maybe they should do a better job ensuring the quality of what they offer including that consumers are getting what they are paying for,' one person wrote. 'Somebody procures these things. There should be quality control at both levels, I'd be complaining to both.' But another defended Woolworths, writing: 'What do you expect, someone to weigh every single item that is on the shelf?!' 'It's on Woolies to ensure it's delivered within temperature and not tampered with and it's on Woolies to report customer complaints to the supplier/relevant food authorities,' a third person argued.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
No backyard required: I tried growing vegetables on a 20th-floor balcony – here's what I learned
Gardening is good for our physical and psychological health, and there's great pleasure in plucking ripe tomatoes, salad leaves or fresh herbs to add to a meal. Growing your own food has environmental benefits too, especially if you use a compost heap, worm farm or bokashi bin to divert kitchen scraps from landfill. But can you garden without a backyard? To meet Australia's housing challenge, more city dwellers will live in apartments and townhouses, and gardening in small spaces like balconies and courtyards can be challenging. I found this out last summer when I planted tomatoes in pots on our west-facing balcony. By Christmas, the plants were vigorous and tall, providing a calming wall of green outside my 20th-floor window. But sweltering January days put paid to my hopes of a bountiful crop. Despite plenty of water, the plants couldn't cope with drying winds and the belting afternoon sun, its rays magnified through glass balustrades. Horticulturalist Charlotte Harrison from Sustainable Gardening Australia thinks I might have had better luck if I'd planted tomatoes later in the season. 'Gardening at height is more extreme than gardening at ground level,' she says. 'There's heaps of extra heat radiating from the concrete of the building plus extra light reflected from glass.' As a rule of thumb, Harrison reckons high-rise balconies can be one climate zone warmer than is normal for the local area. On our Melbourne balcony, she says, I'd do better to consult a Sydney planting chart when deciding what to grow and when. 'Think about the microclimate of the space you're gardening in,' advises Harrison. 'Consider how these conditions might be replicated in nature and what might grow there naturally.' An east-facing space is generally more conducive to growing vegetables in summer than a west-facing one. Plants enjoy early light, when the sun is gentler, and shade in the afternoon as the temperature rises. Winds are stronger higher up a building, so our balcony could be compared to a seaside cliff in the Mediterranean, better suited to hardy plants like olives and rosemary than to tomatoes. If conditions are too harsh for fruit or vegetables, then succulents and other desert plants can help to green a space instead. Creating shade on a balcony can be tricky. Body corporate rules may restrict what can be fixed to the building, but anything not securely anchored could blow away and injure someone below. One option is planter boxes with attached shade hoods. Harrison recommends choosing one that is light in colour to reflect heat and that has a wicking bed so plants can draw on a reservoir of water. Make sure you're not overloading your balcony or deck – a planter box full of soil can double in weight when watered. When growing in pots, bigger is generally better, says Harrison, because soil in small pots dries out quickly, even when well mulched. Most plants need as much space for roots below as their branches and leaves take up above, so it's better to grow four plants together in one large pot to share soil and resources than separately in four little ones. Before planting, put large pots on low stands with heavy duty castors so they can be easily moved to follow (or avoid) the sun as it shifts with the seasons. And don't forget drip trays to conserve water and avoid annoying downstairs neighbours. Think carefully about plant selection based on your conditions. Compact varieties of tomatoes, chillies or lemons will be less prone to wind and sun damage than taller traditional varieties. Root vegetables are good for windy settings because soil protects them from the elements. Too much sun is one challenge for gardening in small spaces, too little is another. There's no point in trying flowering vegetables in spots lacking direct sunlight. For a shady position, leafy greens are a better option, or perhaps you can grow upwards to reach the light. A zucchini plant, for example, is a vine and can be trained to grow up a trellis or a stake. 'Growing vertically can really increase growing space,' says Harrison. But the horticulturalist is wary of vertical gardens. They look good, but often need dedicated watering systems and involve plants in small pots that need constant replacement. 'For most home gardeners, having a trellis makes far more sense,' she says. Gardening is a source of great pleasure and makes the concrete jungle a bit greener. A community garden can be a great way to get your fingers in the dirt and meet your neighbours. But don't let limited space deter you from gardening at home too. Harrison's advice: 'Dream big, but start small.'
The Guardian
10 hours ago
- The Guardian
Psychiatrist body holds firm on 25% pay bid but NSW Health says shortages are ‘more nuanced'
Closing submissions have been heard in the long-running dispute between psychiatrists – who are pushing for a 25% pay increase – and the New South Wales department of health, bringing to a close a landmark legal action brought by the psychiatrists, who argue psychiatric care in NSW is facing 'collapse' because of poor pay and conditions. Over two days this week, the Industrial Relations Commission court in Sydney heard closing submissions from lawyers, before the full bench retired to consider their decision. At the heart of the dispute is the proposition from the psychiatrists, represented by the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation (Asmof), that NSW staff specialist psychiatrists are significantly underpaid compared with their interstate counterparts. This, they argued, has led to an exodus of qualified psychiatrists to other jurisdictions or the private sector, leading to drastic and dangerous understaffing of psychiatric units and overwork and moral injury of staff. Asmof is arguing for a special levy to increase their pay by 25% to stem the flow of specialist doctors leaving the state's public system. In January, 206 psychiatrists in NSW threatened to resign; 62 have resigned, while others await the commission's decision. In closing submissions Thomas Dixon, the barrister for Asmof, pointed the commission to evidence it had heard about the 'proliferation' of mental health patient presentations in the public health system in recent years, at the same time there has been a reduction in the number of public psychiatric specialists. Dixon said that in the five years from July 2019, the number of staff psychiatric specialist vacancies in NSW increased from 35 full-time equivalent (FTE) roles to 131, a near 400% increase. 'Why is this occurring?' he asked the full bench. 'The reasons are many, including pay … stress, overwork and concern for patient outcomes. All of these factors were caused or exacerbated by staff shortages. 'Staff shortages are having a negative impact on the quality of patient care and integrity of the health system.' Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email According to Asmof, psychiatrists are paid significantly more in states other than NSW. Salaries were up to 51% higher in Western Australia, 44% higher in the Northern Territory, 38% higher in South Australia, 28% in Queensland and 25% in Tasmania. They are 2% higher in Victoria, but Asmof said that in Victoria, as most psychiatrists do not work full-time, they are paid an hourly rate which amounts to 31% more than in NSW. Dixon reminded the court of evidence it had heard that giving a pay rise to psychiatrists would actually end up costing the government less than its current policy, which was to fill gaps in staffing with locums or visiting medical officers (VMOs). Dixon said that a full-time staff psychiatrist cost the same as a VMO working at 0.6FTE. Ian Neil SC, the barrister representing the secretary of health and the NSW department of health, argued that there was no evidence that increasing the pay of psychiatrists with a special levy would have any impact on the attraction and retention of staff, except for stopping those who had threatened resignation pending the outcome of the arbitration, which he urged the court not to consider. 'Asmof loaded up the gun and pointed it at our heads,' Neil said of the mass resignation threat. 'That ought not to be taken into account.' Neil told the court that increasing the pay for psychiatrists by 25% in an interim 12-month order was problematic in that it meant the commission would have to keep that pay uplift in other award negotiations going forward, and that it would not address the issue that Asmof hoped it would remedy. 'Wage fixing is not an appropriate mechanism to address the problem of attraction and retention, of itself,' he said. 'The problem of workplace shortages … are a much more nuanced problem that requires a nuanced response.' Neil was pushed by the justices to give an account of what the health secretary contended the solution was for the problem of attraction and retention, if not a pay increase, to which he said: 'There is no simple answer to that question because it's not a simple issue. It would be a simple issue if funds were infinite, it would be a simple issue if the source of trained staff specialist psychiatrists were infinite, but none of those propositions are true or realistic.' The full bench has adjourned to consider its judgment.
