Welcome to MY world

I had never wanted to live a long life. As a soldier one got accustomed to losing contact with people over the age of about 40 as they retired and adopted the life-style of civilians. I had no thought of retirement or what I might do when that time came around. My trade meant that I had seen a fair number of dead persons – all ages and both sexes. Many had long and painfully drawn out ends as in the case of a traffic accident, a botched suicide or enemy action. Some recovered but were faced with pain and disability; mental and physical. I had no powerful religious belief and thought of their fate as – basically – the way the cookie crumbled.

The change of life-style consequent upon my retirement led me down the path of introspection. The Black Dog days of depression. What if ….. Will I …..... All questions that had never entered my head in my earlier adrenaline-junky, hard drinking and fast living times. Looking back, I suppose a major event was having to arrange for a dearly beloved dog to be put down when diagnosed with something that could not be cured and only partially alleviated by medication that presented problems of it's own. The Black Dog asked me whether anyone would need to offer me the same relief I was able to give my pet. If required, who could meet that need? This had both legal and practical connotations. I was not in the best of physical health anyway and was concerned about the depth of my depression. These factors led me to conclude that I should not leave too much to be done by others. The thought of being left merely as part of some machine plugged into a socket outlet like a condom vending machine gave me serious concern.

I started off with a simple Do Not Resuscitate order. Copies at my GP and on a med-alert dog tag. This seemed to go down OK with family and my GP. Then, along came the debates and publicity about an individual's right to seek their own end, Dignitas and all that. Doctor Death polishing off the oldies in his care. I researched the Advance Directive. There seemed to be quite a lot of debate on the validity of such documents.

These appeared to come, in the main, from the All Life Is Sacred crowd or from doctors who took the view that they did not enter the profession to kill people upon request. I could think of many things that would not make me think that all life was sacrosanct and had had sufficient exposure to legal minds to know that anything was possible when wrapped in a 'whereas' or 'not withstanding' binder. My authoritarion years had shown me how to give orders that would be obeyed and not be just a basis for debate or argument. I spent a few bob and downloaded something certified to be appropriate for the vagaries of Scotland and set about amending this to be fireproof and valid. My superb GP gave a lot of useful advice on buzz words and phrases his profession recognised. I

involved none others.

It seems that there are a number of people who retain doubts. I respect that where they have taken the time and trouble to resolve these but remain unconvinced. Others may think it is a 'tomorrow' task or do not know where to start. For them, I reproduce below a copy of what I now have in place. It is not a scary thing and, so far as I can establish, likely to be complied with if the situations arises. If you see anything uncovered – please comment.

My GP has copies along with the hospital where I am most likely to receive treatment. My lawyer has a copy together with an instruction to immediately seek judicial action if my directions are thwarted.

It's Sunday – consider it a public service! I feel much better now mine is in place.


ADVANCE DIRECTIVE

I, John Samuel Wood, residing at xxx born at xxx Essex on xxx August 1933, address this Advance Directive to my family, my GP and all other persons concerned.

This Advance Directive is made at a time when I am of sound mind, after careful consideration and without influence from any other person whether they stand to gain from my death or otherwise.

I DECLARE that if at any time:

1 I suffer from one or more of these conditions:

1.1 advanced disseminated malignant disease (e.g. cancer that has spread considerably);

1.2 severe immune deficiency (e.g. AIDS);

1.3 advanced degenerative disease of the nervous system (e.g. motor neurone disease);

1.4 severe and lasting brain damage due to injury, stroke, disease or other cause;

1.5 senile or pre-senile dementia (e.g. Alzheimers disease);

1.6 any other condition of comparable gravity.

2 I have become unable to participate effectively in decisions about my medical care; and

3 Two independent doctors (one a consultant) are of the opinion, having examined in full my circumstances and prognosis, that any of the following apply:

3.1 there is no reasonable likelihood of substantial recovery from illness involving severe pain and distress and from which it is likely I will die in the near future; or

3.2 I am in a state of unconsciousness or coma and it is unlikely that I will regain consciousness; or

3.3 I suffer from a mental illness resulting in me having a very limited awareness of my surrounding environment and an inability to perform basic tasks and from which it is unlikely that I will recover.

THEN AND IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES my directions are as follows:

1 That I am not to be subjected to any medical intervention or treatment aimed at prolonging or sustaining my life, such as those outlined in my Detailed Instructions below, even if this means that my life is at risk. This does not necessarily mean withdrawal of life enhancing medication as I would not want the withdrawal of any treatment which may reduce distress or provide pain relief or may adversely affect my quality of life.

2 That I consent to the control of physically distressing symptoms (including any caused by inability to eat, drink or simply receive nutrition) by appropriate and aggressive palliative care even if such care is likely to have the effect of shortening my life.

Detailed Instructions

The types of medical treatment which I would find unacceptable are:

Artificial resuscitation and/or artificial tube inserted through the stomach wall, up my nasal passage or by way of my throat.
Artificial nutrition or hydration.
If I suffer an incurable, irreversible illness, disease, or condition and my attending physician determines that my condition is terminal, I direct that life-sustaining measures that would serve only to prolong my dying be withheld or discontinued.

I cannot define in advance all illness or accidents that may involve this Directive. However, my intention in preparing this document is to make clear my intention and wish that it be implemented in the event of my entering into any such condition such as a permanent vegetative state or coma.

All and any medical terms to be read and construed as a layman would understand it without medical debate and discussion. Also, any consideration of what I have written should not include any religious input or concern.

At the time of establishing this Directive I have absolutely no intention of terminating my life. However, it has to be recognised that this may change if my quality of life deteriorates. It is my intent that should any of the outcomes I have described arise from my self-harming, the basic principles of non-intervention, other than pain relief, should be followed.

I consent to anything proposed to be done or omitted in compliance with the directions expressed above and I confirm that I shall not, nor shall my successors, raise any civil action against any healthcare professional for carrying out my wishes in accordance with the above directions. I accept the risk that I may be unable to express a change of mind at a time in the future when I am incapacitated.

This Advance Directive may be revoked at any time by me whether orally or in writing but otherwise shall be construed as representing my continuing wishes.

The name of my General Practitioner is: xxx

I have discussed this document with my General Practitioner xxxx before signing.

SIGNED by: John Samuel WOOD



Date:

Witness Statement

I testify that the maker of this Advance Directive signed it in my presence and made it clear to me that he understood what it meant. I do not know of any pressure being brought on him to make such an Advance Directive and I believe it was made by his own wish. So far as I am aware, I do not stand to gain from his death.


SIGNED by witness:
Date:
Witness name:
Witness address:


SIGNED by witness:
Date:
Witness name:

Witness address:

Russia is a major nuclear power and has long been engaged in a war with the Chechyna, This is not some internal terrorist action but war. The major power is not known for lack of commitment in enforcing discipline and did not have a lot of success. The rebels took over a school and many children died when the Russian military stormed it. There was an incident where the took hostages in a cinema and this was settled with robust but non-nuclear attack. Remember also the Cuban missile crisis where Russia had to make a humilating withdrawal. Russia has many Trident-type resources but these were neither used or even threatened.

America is another nucleur super power and not known for timidity or lack of robust and forthright action. They were soundly defeated in Vietnam. They were unable to prevent a few terrorists from destroying the WTC and seriously damaging the Pentagon. Internal strife destroyed a building and many people in Oklahoma. Here, just as in the Russian case, nuclear assetts were never considered.

Our own significant event was possibly the Underground bombings. Our Tridents and air-craft carriers were as nought in dissuading the terrorists or of any use in what followed a week later. We had a situation in Sierra Leone where troops were taken hostage. That was resolved by the use of well trained and resourced SAS-type troops. Shed loads of Tridents and armadas of ships and submarines were of no use at all.

The potential of Trident is set out in a Grauniad article. This also sets out the limits we would find on any 'independent' weapon system. We are being asked to mortgage a considerable chunk of scarce money for something we do not own. They are the reification of a fantasy: a fantasy that the United Kingdom is still a defining world power and that our enemies present an existential threat. As usual, the government is preparing for the last war,

The attitude of those who cling to the need for Trident UK is understandable. They argue from the position that we have to update and renew an existing weapons system. This precludes any going back to basics; why did we get it in the first place? It replaced an earlier missile system and, given the state of East/West relations then, I doubt if any real decision-making system was applied to it's predecessor anyway. I argue from the stand-point of 'why do anything?' I think I would have supported the Trident-type munition in the past but if it were put to me now – well, you have read this far and know my answer.

Someone will question why lookfor a saving on Trident when there are so many other areas where savings could be made. I agree. The main target for the alternatives is the NHS. As might be epected, I have a view on that also. The NHS if left unchallenged would use every penny of our GDP – and more. And want more on top of that. Where we now expect premature babies of 24 weeks at birth to survive, the mums and doctors will look to save the infant at 23 weeks. When that is achieved, they will seek even better results. Where women have for whatever reason gone childless past their fertility period, we spend much money allowing them to get with child at an advanced age. NHS and clients will want to ratchet that age upwards at even greater cost. There was an excellent fly on wall type programme from Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children. We saw kids being admitted in really desperate straits. Birth defects, illnesses and infections and all at death's door. The cameras were allowed to be present where the medical staff discussed these patients. They seemed not to consider anything as beyond solution; the most radical procedures were thought up and discussed. One would involve the child being in intensive care for a whole year. In a number of cases they had to tell the parents that the solution was more than a child could suffer or was so remote of success that it could not be supported by the medical team. They then went into the procedure of getting the child well enough to go home – not to live on but so that the parents could spend time with their offspring as it faded and died.

This examplified to me a problem with the NHS. Cost did not figure in any debate as to what might be done. The professionals did not have to establish costs and there was no one in control of the budget – if there even was a budget. That way disaster lies and that is an area where I see possible savings – after we have got rid of the managerial and administrative personnel who have swarmed in like sperm seeking a warm uterus. We have NICE that rules whether some life-prolonging or enhancing drug may be supplied so the idea of money entering into matters of, literally, life an death is not new.

In my prime I controlled a budget of just under £10 million. Some 20% was fixed charges such as rent and rates on a number of office premises. I was required to write a new budget every year starting from scratch and outline budgets were required for five years in advance. The company was engaged in engineering and we were not able to say what new work might come in during any budget pediod where office alterations were needed. Supplementary bids could be submitted for such unforeseen expenditure but I was expected to offer up savings from the approved budget. It took me two years of brain-storming with our in-house Treasurery people to learn how to do this but it worked and I was happy that I was in control of my Budget. I appreciate that the NHS budget is many millions times what I had but there are more NHS Controllers than just one beginner; what I had to learn and apply would surely work there.

In any case, what we look like needing to save is not an either or situation. We will need all the savings we can find. There is little point in increasing personal and corporate tax up front only to have it slither away at the back door.

As the former head of the International Atomic Energy Authority Mohamed ElBaradei put it: "It is very hard to preach the virtues of non-smoking when you have a cigarette dangling from your lips and you are about to buy a new pack"

That short extract from today's letter in the Times is possibly the most relevant in the whole missive from four senior Army officers who question the future of our Trident missile armaments. Their concern is

"It is to be welcomed that all the leading political parties are committed to conducting a comprehensive strategic defence review after the election. This clearly must follow a detailed evaluation of the threats that this country faces today and in the future.

However, it is of deep concern that the question of the Trident replacement programme is at present excluded from this process. With an estimated lifetime cost of more than £80 billion, replacing Trident will be one of the most expensive weapons programmes this country has seen. Going ahead will clearly have long-term consequences for the military and the defence equipment budget that need to be carefully examined."

The Editorial in the same issue of the paper includes "The irreversible alternative to continuing Trident would be for Britain to abandon its nuclear capability and expertise. Trident has become the fulcrum in the national debate of how to reduce the deficit. Wilder and wilder figures for its lifetime cost are being bandied around, with the state of public finances cited as a pretext for scrapping it. The truth is that Trident represents -- at most -- 5 per cent of current defence spending."

But the debate about Trident is not really about cost - any saving would most likely be transferred to another project - the Generals have a number of suggestions as to who and what should benefit - "It may well be that money spent on new nuclear weapons will be money that is not available to support our front line troops, or for crucial counter-terrorism work; money not available for buying helicopters, armoured vehicles, frigates or even for paying for more manpower"

The question should not be whether we should replace Trident but taken right to the basic - if we were offered Trident for the first time today, do we see a case for buying it? Even with the recent agreement between Russia and America to reduce their nuclear holdings, we still have enough capability to destroy the planet and all on it many times over. Why add to that? Any confrontation likely to involve nuclear armaments must surely involve either or both of these nations at some time and they pull far more rank than Britain in it's parlous financial state or ranking as a military power following neglect under Brown's ministry.

Why would we need one? - just think back over our recent escapades that have not involved either of the two major powers. Rescuing military hostages in some dark African Nation comes to mind. We solved that with the good old military boot Mk I - Trident'ing there would have laid waste to the whole job lot including our guys and would have drawn universal condemnation.

The other thing is that it is not 'ours' A Commons Defence committee asked "How could the software stop a Trident launch? General restrictions. Preventing the use in all circumstance except tests, or preventing the missiles from being fired Westward, towards the US from the normal patrol areas, should be possible." There were other scenario but the final conclusion says it all really - "The only way that Britain can guarantee that the Trident software has not been modified would be to produce it all ourselves. But we do not currently have the expertise to do this" The nonsense of having inadequate equipment was illustrated in the procurement of the SF helicopters.

We saw how this coding can be used in the Falklands when Mrs Thatcher hand-bagged the French into divulging the software for missiles they had sold to Argentina.

So it seems that any discussion of Trident replacement and up-dating will start from the standpoint of can we afford it. The precedent of having it has been set and it will be hard to overturn that fact. Already, within hours of the letter appearing we have the imputations that it is all part of some inter-service plot to hold onto budgets and this will just muddy the waters. Personally speaking, I would not lose any sleep worrying about us doing without it. British Army stores sheds used to have all sorts of items 'just in case'. They rationalised this situation. Someone needs to apply the 'just in case' test to Trident.

I read this in an article that was written out of the saga of The Ash Clouds.

"My girlfriend and I recently set out to circumnavigate the globe without the aid of any aircraft. Along the way, we took the Trans-Siberian Railway across the wilds of Russia from Moscow to Vladivostok, and drove a car through the empty doomlands of the Australian outback. These journeys take less than half a day if you go by plane. Each lasts nearly a week when you stick to the ground. But taking to the air means simply boarding, enduring the flight and getting off at another airport. Going our way meant sharing bread and cheese with kindly Russians in a shared train cabin, and drinking beers with Australian jackaroos (we'd call them cowboys) at a lonely desert roadhouse. These are warm, vivid memories that will stay with us forever.

Think of the trans-Atlantic flights you may have taken. Do you remember anything about them? (Turbulence, bad in-flight movies and screaming children don't count.) Because flying is an empty, soulless way to traverse the planet, the best flights are in fact the ones you forget immediately after hitting the tarmac.

Now, imagine floating across the Atlantic on a ship. Do you think you might enjoy those days of transit — the joys of a starry night in the middle of the ocean, or a round of drinks with new friends as you look out across the stern railing at the glimmering water — and hold them in your memories well after your vessel made landfall?"

I was lucky to undertake a number of sea-borne journeys such as Seth refers to. In the Army of the early 1950s the majority of troops' movement was by troop-ship. These were, in the main, retired cruise liners that had had most of the luxury fitments stripped out and replaced by utilitarian equipment designed to carry the most bodies. Families and ranks above staff-sergeant travelled cabin class but the majority were on what were known as standees - wire bunks stacked four on top of each other. I generally ended up appointed as ship's police officer and was able to sleep in an almost proper bed - albeit in the cells at the bow of the ship. As we moved through the tropics, the standee dwellers moved to the open decks.

The admixture of young wives travelling to join husbands and female soldiers combined with warm nights and starry skies meant that one had to be careful when choosing an open deck space. Romances bloomed but it was mainly sex that made the world go by. There was then a heavy drinking culture and this was catered for through most of the time by numerous bars. With the easy adaptability of Tommy Atkins, life passed very pleasantly. I was a member of the ship's Gardening Club - there was not a leaf of greenery anywhere but our meetings debated replacement of trees damaged by wind-spray and urine, what sort of bedding plants that young blond WRAC sergeant might use and what our display would be at the Chelsea Flower Show. The style of these debates might be judged from the fact that the Chairman, a RN CPO, never even got off the ship at his destination in Singapore but was diagnosed as a chronic alcoholic and returned to UK for treatment. We had a lecture from the ship's cook who - for over an hour - told us how to make very fine potato chips. As a typical Scouser, he held his audience enthralled!

Courtesy of Mr Nasser, Anthony Eden and the blocked and closed Suez Canal I had an eight week cruise to Korea. We went the long way around Capetown with visits to Mauritius, Ceylon, Singapore and Hong Kong. Shore leave was given at all these stops whilst the ship was re-stocked with food, fuel and water. We were the first troop-ship into Capetown since the 39-45 war and arrived on Christmas Eve. I set up a uniformed Military Police patrol to work with the local police and about two hours later was leaving the ship to check how they were getting on. As I went down the main gangway, a police vehicle was drawing up to the stairway used by crew. They then carried two of my patrolmen onto the ship on stretchers. Paraletic drunk. The hospitality had been building up since 1945 I suppose!

We had had a special warning about apartheid but the main contingent on board was of a Liverpool-recruited regiment and it didn't seem to stick. Two of them engaged with two of the local black prostitutes in an alleyway but were disturbed by a SA police patrol. The girls ran off but one created a diversion by biting most of one nipple off her client. Later the same evening, four of the guys were found playing poker with three local black men in the middle of the roundabout at the dock entrance.

The criminality was mainly high jinks and boredom. As we approached Mauritius the fresh water ran out and arrangements were made for a big refill. This was not a great success; the island was in the middle of a drought and their own supplies were limited. Even more so after a couple of The Lads had rolled a large rock down a steep hillside and smashed the main pipe from a diminished reservoir to the pumping station. My best efforts failed to get them released and we had to leave them behind in the local lock-up.

I had about four long sea trips courtesy of HM the Queen and all had their high spots. Later in my life I was employed by a US Oil company and was entitled to first class air travel with access to the special lounges, free booze and big seats which was nice but I think my water-borne trips were better. Must have been, I met my wife on that long journey and it has stuck for over 50 years since I was King Neptune and she was my Queen at the Crossing the Line Ceremony.

For those with eyes like mine - the illustration is detailed here.
"The SAS is at the centre of a furious row following allegations that private money was used to equip the regiment's soldiers with body armour for Afghanistan. The Sunday Telegraph has been told that a £400,000 "contingency fund", financed by private donors, was used to purchase body armour for members of 21 SAS, one of the service's two territorial regiments, prior to their deployment to Helmand in 2008. Cash from the fund was also used to pay for operational welfare equipment, personal kit and to pay-off the mortgages of two members of 23 SAS killed in southern Afghanistan in an earlier deployment. The disclosure has been seized upon by opposition MPs and former Army commanders of proof that the Armed Forces have not been properly funded while Labour has been in power. Tory MPs described the revelation as an "outrage and a disgrace" and it has prompted calls for an investigation into private funding of the Army. Details of the row came just days after the war in Afghanistan was highlighted as an election issue when Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, said that troops in Helmand were under-equipped. The 21 SAS fund was created prior to the regiment's deployment to Afghanistan in 2008 and was supposed to be used to help families of soldiers who were either killed or wounded on operations. But after the regiment was mobilised in the spring of 2008, commanders feared the unit did not have access to enough equipment or body armour to properly prepare the SAS troops for their six month tour. The Sunday Telegraph understands that those individuals who contributed to the fund were asked and agreed to allow some of the money to be used to buy body armour, training and operational welfare equipment, such as computers and satellite telephones. The fund had also been used to "pay for operational welfare equipment, personal kit and to pay-off the mortgages of two members of 23 SAS killed in southern Afghanistan in an earlier deployment."

Earlier this year we had "The first woman soldier killed in Afghanistan and three SAS colleagues "would be alive today" if the Government had provided the proper equipment and training, relatives claimed last night." There is a small part of this story that resonates with me "the commander of the four soldiers had requested a replacement for their Snatch Land Rover but was refused due to equipment shortages. Soldiers also had to "acquire surreptitiously" mine detectors because they had not been issued enough." The SAS have an estimable record of not letting the Army Rules & Regulations get in the way of a mission - here they would seem to have got a result in IED detection equipment but not in a more appropriate vehicle. Major Sebastian Morley, the SAS squadron commander in Helmand, resigned accusing the government of being "cavalier at best, criminal at worst" for ill-equipping troops."

I have not seen any reports of the Regular SAS, 22 Regt, having to buy their own equipment. Frankly, if they deemed it essential they would have obtained it - from Aintworth's cupboard where he keeps his fur-lined hand-cuffs if needs be. It leaves this old soldier asking why the apparently different treatment. The TA role of SAS was not so warlike as the Regular battalion; The three regiments have different roles: the TA regiments specialise in Close Target Reconnaissance, while 22 SAS performs a wider range of tasks also including Counter Revolutionary Warfare, Counter Terrorism and acting as a Quick Reaction Force.

My concern here is that this all took place some while back and the facts have been available to anyone even remotely interested. So - what did the critics now so keen to advance with patriotic banners flying, do at the time to get a full explanation aired and any snafu sorted? Nothing - there was no political mileage in a populations where more than three quarters of the population is against the war anyway. So, the pumped up plumage of here and now is just so much cynical opportunism.

There is another matter that is being disregarded by those who seek our support in the coming hustings. The medical facilities in Afghanistan do wonders but they operate mostly as triage getting the seriously wounded stabilised so that they can be got to the specialist facilities in UK. Earlier this year, a Defence Committee found that "The Ministry of Defence is insufficiently prepared for a significant increase in military casualties, according to a cross-party committee of MPs.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) called for better contingency planning for the treatment of seriously injured soldiers should its facility at Selly Oak become full."

This complacency at facilities is continuing. The air bridge from war to UK is ruled out by the ban on flights due to the eruption of ash. This extends to Germany where the main US facility outside America is situated. It has been impossible to get anything from the MOD as to alternative arrangements other than the anodyne one size fits all answer "would be treated in coalition facilities" Just what these might be has not ben detailed. Is it such a secret? Or is the MOD response just a polite way of saying 'fuck knows'?

If I were related to a soldier serving in that waste of time situation that is our 'effort' in Afghanistan I would have a 24/7 worry as to his safety and welfare. Propaganda has said that Selly Oak was "Just Wonderful Darling" desp[ite that committee finding but not knowing just how my loved one might access it is an intolerable and unnecessary burden. Plenty of constructive ground there for political pressure in debates - bets it will arise? Pontoons and 5 card tricks only.

"Personal privacy: This government is too keen to catch us on camera. The citizen has the right to be able to walk the street without constantly being photographed"

'Well up to a point Lord Copper' as Private Eye might say in a mischievous manner. I cannot see the distinction between walking about with the increasing but still remote chance of being photographed and coming under scrutiny from the human eyeball Mk 1. Do those who object to mechanical scrutiny base their objections on others seeing what they do or is it the fact that their conduct - wayward or correct - is committed to some form of recording capable of being reviewed by others for some time into the future?

I have been drawn back to this long-standing personal (minor) quandary by the actions of a pair of neighbours. One has three cameras covering the rear yard and access way to his business. The access way actually belongs to a local builder and Mr 3 cameras has a right of access. The builder has installed two cameras to cover his yard and stores shed. He objects that the cameras can look into his home and has installed a eye-sore of a screen to block such 'intrusion'. They are at each other's throats. I was visited at home by the builder who wanted to enlist my support in his case against what he described as 'spy' cameras. The trader somehow learned of this and I now get the sad eye treatment every time I enter his premises.

The cameras that may point towards the home are at such an angle they will 'see' little more than the surface of the windows. They are about 60 metres away and without any zoom or telephoto lenses and, in my estimation, the screening is superfluous. My visitor took little notice when I pointed this out; his concern seemed purely that he was being watched. I then moved on to my usual Stage II argument - we are all being watched all of the time. In our homes by our family, in our workspace by colleagues and on the street by anyone else who chances to be within range. My main kitchen window overlooks the alleyway in question and I could set up there with a chair and note-book and pencil. In all three locations there will be some who go out of their way to attract the attention of others. If one can understand and accept this, why does the introduction of a camera, still, movie or tv, add to any threat or insult? I took the guy into my kitchen and showed him how my vertical louvres can be adjusted to screen those moments when my wife and I decide to get amorous over the kitchen sink.
No - that was not a solution he was prepared to consider. He was adamant that the 'sin' was in the presence of the cameras.

If I wish to engage in conduct I would prefer remains secret, it is up to me to arrange where and when I do this. There are many areas not covered by cctv. If I am not engaged in any unlawful, objectionable or illicit conduct, why the heck worry about who sees me and how? And I speak as one who has viewed many hours of recorded conduct of the most offensive content and knows just how depraved some can behave. We accept that we must be reasonably clothed. Must drive in regulated ways and speeds. Must use acceptable speech and words in public. We comply or face the consequences.

The world now is a dodgy and dangerous place and it behoves us all to be on our guard against those who bear us ill-will - individually or collectively. I have an application on my iPhone that constantly videos the view through my car windscreen in 10 minutes segments. This since Farmer Giles pulled in front of me off his land. He was reasonableness personified but could have contended I was at fault in some way. This is - to me - as appropriate a safeguard as the cameras that oversee the centre of my home village - banks and retail premises included as well as the dark little corners where drunks go to do what drunks do.

I've solved the situation anyway with a Gordian Knot answer. Once they had wakened me from my retired slumbers, I reverted to the old Solve It state. Both sets of cameras and the erector of the screen were reported by me to the Enforcement department of the local planners.

The screen was deemed totally inappropriate and marked for immediate removal. All of the cameras were ruled in contravention of planning law and have to be removed or submitted for approval with the Gypsy warning that they are not likely to get the OK even without any objections from neighbours. Beauty of this is that neither camera seeker can support their own case and attack the others at the same time.

This old dog just wants to be left alone and doesn't care who might be watching him do anything - not that he is any longer capable of anything exciting anyway!

A Twitter writer (@HMForces) asks:

"Does anyone in the whole of Britain think the following story is fair?
Single mother soldier expecting a large payout from Army over discrimination claim. A single mother soldier is expecting to win a large payout from the Army after a tribunal ruled that it had failed to take enough notice of her childcare needs.
Tilern DeBique said she was forced to leave the forces because she was expected to be available for duty at all times. However, a tribunal ruled she was within her rights to miss training when she could not find anyone to look after her daughter"
She is expected to receive a payment of at least £100,000 for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and aggravated damages and the ruling could yet have significant implications for the armed forces."

Well, I can see the point that is being made. The Mum should have asked the appropriate questions before she signed on the dotted line. However, she may well have thought the Army was an Equal Opportunities employer and her situation is one that any civilian employer has to face and resolve. The treatment that DeBique expected is normal and one we have allowed to creep in under a number of disguises.

I left the Army at a time when pregnancy was dealt with by discharge. (For women that is - men facing pregnancy were given postings way away from the potentially disruptive individual!) Within ten years or so, I was heading a department of some 60 staff. Because of what the department served - switchboards, reception, catering, cleaning and reception - about 50 of these employees were female. Roughly half were post-menopausal so I had 25/30 'delicate' women to work with. Their absences - short and long-term - had to be covered; there was no way a switchboard position could be vacant or a executive lunch uncooked. Apart from the difficulties set by women going on maternity leave, I had a couple with medical difficulties - irritable bowel syndrome for two that led to sudden onset of inability to turn in for work. When Mum eventually decided that she might return to work, I had to consider - and arrange - for her to job share with another and to work hours that suited what she saw as 'her circumstances' These always seemed to consist of late arrivals and early departures with occasional working-time visits to the First Aid room for a bit of a lie down.

The greatest opponent I faced in any attempt to get some consideration for the employer from these employees was the Head of HR. This, that and the other seemed to all be 'covered by legislation' or 'decided at an employment tribunal'. It was even considered grossly incorrect for me to ask at the employment interview stage if a female applicant was in a 'relationship' - ('married' was totally banned as signifying aged and prejudicial attitudes to life-style).

My only real victory for sanity was when a freshly-returned Mum calmly told me that her working arrangements were no great matter as she was already again pregnant and would be seeking more feet-up holiday. Seems she had thought that breast-feeding was a contraceptive. After breaking off to go and bang my head against the HR door, I managed to put together a case that she was frustrating her contract and we gave her a small bag of gold to go away and breed to her hearts content. Even that course of action was deemed marginally illegal.

Mind you - if you truly want to see what a significant portion of the (soldiers') world thinks - have a look at their forum for full and frank discussion.

I have been watching the BBC2 tv programme filmed at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children(GOSH). The latest episode was last night and centred on the excellence of the facilities, the world-wide pressure upon these and the staff and the ethical connotations of much of the treatment given; much of which is merely palliative in scope and outlook.

Now an NHS Hospital Trust, Great Ormond Street Hospital is world-renowned for its pioneering work in children's medicine. Due to its ground-breaking work over many years, it is amongst the most famous hospitals in the United Kingdom."

In 2002 GOSH commenced a redevelopment program which is budgeted at £343 million and the next phase of which is scheduled to be complete by 2012. The redevelopment is needed to expand capacity, deliver treatment in a more comfortable and modern way, and to reduce unnecessary inpatient admissions.

Seeing the reports in proximity to the Manifesto that have been issued gave a clear picture of the problems in accepting what the two parties have said. The development budget looks fearsome but must pale into insignificance when set against the running costs of the facility. The cameras had a no-holds barred access to staff and case meetings such that we were privy to discussions that even parents of sick children may not have witnessed prior to the report being screened.

What came across was that the professionals seem not to accept that any case is beyond a solution. If there is no existing standard treatment, they will get together and devise one from scratch. One gets the sense that one is in a research laboratory rather than a treatment centre. Instead of animals awaiting rescue by PETA one is faced wit desperately ill infants and distraught parents.

The professionals - consultants through to floor nursing staff - show tremendous concern over the ethics of what they do or what they will try to do. Last night's showing included a child born with no means of getting air into it's lungs. There is no known remedy but they sat together and sketched out on a note-pad how they could set about creating a false trachea. Outlook - if successful - included a year's stay in an Intensive Care Unit for a child that would never be able to speak and at significant risk of acquiring a fatal infection.

There was much discussion as to the ethics of pursuing the theoretical solution before it was accepted that there should be no treatment and the parents were told this. Harrowing.

Another topic was care of premature babies. The report revealed that there are times when a very high percentage of available beds are taken up by children born grossly premature after merely 23 or 24 weeks of pregnancy. Further disclosure was that there was little that could be done for these infants and the hospital was just getting them strong enough to be sent home to die there. I questioned the humanity where it might be necessary to deny admission to, say, a three or four year old child with desperate needs requiring a high level of surgical intervention and follow-up high dependency nursing. What ethics would run there - would they evict the best preemie so as to find space for junior?

This caused me to recall a conversation I had had with my maternal grandmother some 65 plus years ago. She had been a Matron during the 1914-1918 War. At about 9 years old I had overheard part of an adult conversation and I questioned her whether it was true that children born very sick were just left to pass away in the delivery theatre or at a home-birth with nothing done for them. She confirmed this and explained why it was not reasonable to extend a life that sure to be difficult, maybe short and painful, in a family with siblings and low income. Even as an impressionable kid, I understood her point and that situation stayed with me from that time. In many respects, I hold it today.

So, why the connect with manifesto? Dave says we will have a future where decision making is devolved to we, the people. Grumpy Brown offers us a future with priority funding to provide excellence in the NHS. Anyone with a particle of humanity in their genes would want everything done for kids such as the preemies or the no-airway child. The realities of the ethical association would have money thrown at them. I hold that the sad situation with NHS budgets is the elasticity of demand. Give them a billion. They will use much of that to extend, say, the range of our life span from premature through to very aged. Treatment deemed to be too expensive would be undertaken and the demand would be to extend what can be done. However much we allow, they will over-spend and call for more like some maniacal Oliver Twist. If they are denied, we would hear the calls for better from all sides of the political spectrum.

The thought that I might be told to take a child home and watch them die is heart wrenching - and I am a hard, cynical person. That abandonment by the hospital would be deemed as unsatisfactory - indeed, I am amazed we have not heard of a claim from someone involved in that decision making or in communicating it to parents. Another area for extending the gap between planned and actual columns on budget reports.

The programme has the side-effect of illustrating just how meaningless any manifesto is when examined beyond the glossy covers and slick professional presentations. There are significant portions where they fail to fully detail - even before they get to the deliberately misleading sections.

One of those I follow in Twitter is @iaindale. Being a political sophisticate, I did not immediately comprehend the thrust of today's newly escaped Tory manifesto. Direct democracy - who he? Luckily, my old chum Wiki was able to assist - this with especial reference to the Tory concept -

"Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, is a form of democracy and a theory of civics in which sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect or dismiss officials, and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election. Deliberative democracy incorporates elements of both direct democracy and representative democracy.

Many countries that are representative democracies allow for three forms of political action that provide limited direct democracy: initiative, referendum (plebiscite) and recall. Referenda can include the ability to hold a binding referendum on whether a given law should be rejected. This effectively grants the populace which holds suffrage a veto on government legislation. Initiatives, usually put forward by the populace, force the consideration of laws or amendments (usually by a subsequent referendum), without the consent of the elected officials, or even in opposition to the will of said officials. Recalls give people the right to remove elected officials from office before the end of their term, although this is very rare in modern democracies."

Ever helpful, there is another link that talks of the wider idea of democracy.

I am somewhat confused. The links both suggest some form of fluid governance driven by The People. It strikes me that we now have so many differing 'people' in this country that one will never have a consensus. What I - an Englishman now vaguely Scots of some 76 years of prejudice untouched by political correctness - want as compared to Mrs. Abdul Ghul who has just lately learned sufficient English to qualify for a vote must be space-type distances apart.

"A veto on Government legislation" is just so new and way out that it would take very many years for us, the electorate, to learn how to go about this and just as long for any central power to find ways of verifying a supposed desire as genuine and all-inclusive. As an example, it seems that some 60% said 'Not In My Name' but - none the less - we entered into a desperate alliance on little more than the whim of a poodle and a man who heard voices from God. How long would it have taken to check that it was 60% and not 49.999% recurring, how many said GO if the trigger time were proven at just 25 minutes or some such checking exercise. It would be pointless setting aside some matters for exclusive decision by a mendacious Government. The duty of Parliament is Defence of the Realm; ample room there for weasel-words.

Referendum? The anti-antics of Brown show this is a Tory concept but even here the path has many tin tacks. Anyone 'clever' enough to be an Oxbridge candidate can form questions with the skill of our best thriller writers so as to slant responses the way they want. And, what is a referendum without full analysis and easily comprehensible explanations of what is being reviewed? More time. More expense. More confusion and opportunity to obfuscate and mislead.

Putting those elected on trial? The sad history of recent pig-trough politics shows how well that might work.

No - sorry Iain. I admit that I am not sufficiently interested to make much effort for a line by line examination review of the Manifesto. Your classification of it as 'Power to the People' with "with a real feel of direct democracy" says it all to me I'm afraid.

To revise that film quote as "What has the future ever done for me?" sums up the impression that today's release has done for me. My ballot paper will still end up with the protest "None of the Above" endorsement.

There is a very sad situation that has undergone some examination in Twitter following upon a Daily Mail report that seems to have missed the MSM.

In short, a Mr Roy Amor at his place of work makes a private remark to a colleague that was based upon the friend being black. The conversation was overheard by another who reported the incident as being racial in origin. The employer suspended the joker and, shortly after, he shot himself. It is - to me - important to know that the man of colour did not take offence at what was said to him. The whistle blower knew this. Following the death, the employer said that Mr Amor had been suspended over the joke and added ‘It’s an enormous tragedy and we are all in mourning. I knew Roy personally and he was an excellent technician' The dead man, aged 61, had worked for the company for over 30 years and had been married for 38 years.

There are many questions that this incident should raise. This from another blog allows me to list some without getting myself into too much of a temper.

The man was making a light hearted "quip", are we really living in a climate of fear where we have watch everything we say now ?
The black man in question was a friend of Mr Amor's and took it as it was meant: a joke.
We still have Freedom Of Speech in this country (apparently).
It was not the business of the complainant.
Why did Opcare suspend him ? I mean isn't suspension a bit severe ? After all it's not like a long investigation, all they needed to do was talk to anyone who had been there at the time and clear it up in under 10 minutes. If they were really bothered they could have just given Mr Amor a verbal warning there and then. Instead they make a mountain out of a molehill and get Roy Amor into a "state" where he takes his own life."

There remain some very entrenched views about suicide. I suppose the campaigning and actions of the Samaritains is a major factor in starting to bring these ideas into the light of the 21st Century. I suppose I need to write that I was, for a very very short time, one of these telephone listeners but left over the issue of suicide. They have very strict rules that their people may not directly intervene without consent but carry on until the call is ended normally or the line just goes dead. My policeman's response was to think about identifying the call and getting the emergency services there as soon as possible.

Suicide is not selfish. It is not self-indulgent, It is not a sign of a permanent mental affliction. It is not an act of revenge or malice. I suspect we are seeing and reading more about this way of escape. We have the Dignitas-style debates re assisted suicide and there are those arising from experience of armed conflict. My answer to the selfish/self-indulgent school is that they are possibly experiencing guilt that they were not able to prevent or assist the death of a loved one. Surely, had they been involved in that inner debate they would have recognised that the deceased had been at the end of their tether. The attitude of many health and social work professionals is that people at risk of suicide are going to do it; they're going to find some way; it's random and unpredictable and there's not much you can do about it. That is not true insofar as my limited exposure ran. There were occasions when would-be suicides were shown that there was another way they could view and handle their difficulties or they were guided into direct personal care and treatment.

The situation I see with Roy Amos was that he had led a nice sheltered life in a supportive and loving relationship at home and what was, to him, fulfilling and satisfying employment. He was 61. I certainly had taken my foot off the pedal at that age and was in neutral; coasting downhill into retirement. The actions of his employer had put everything into doubt and under threat. His relationship with his boss was close and the sudden suspension would have destroyed any trust he may have had in that area. How does one face telling a spouse that one is on the scrap heap and all thought of a roseate retirement are foreby?

This sad case never attracted a significant degree of publicity in this country. Certainly, nowhere near Baby P or the mother who killed and set fire to herself and her disabled daughter for starters as comparisons. Roy would be unlikely to be up to speed on things such as verbal and written warnings and we do not know if his employer had any written policy on disciplinary proceedures. I do see them as the villains in this case - the complaint should have been deferred whilst a quick investigation was made. This would doubtless have avoided the drastic step of being sent home away from his place opf work.

I cannot hold any great degree of animus towards the one who reported this. We live in strange times and there are many strange people about as a result. All that can be hoped is that whoever it was now realises that bullying is not just something that kids do in school playgrounds.

I today read in The Times something that made me very sad.

"The lure of Afghanistan is too much to resist for Captain Doug Beattie, the decorated veteran, who plans to return to Helmand as a reservist less than two years after quitting the Army.

The officer and author told The Times he believed that the success or failure of the campaign would be decided in the next 12 months and that he wanted to play a part, much to the displeasure of his wife. She had hoped her husband would give up his frontline aspirations once he retired.

"Afghanistan gets under your skin, the people get under your skin," said Captain Beattie, 44, who served in Helmand province with the Royal Irish Regiment in 2006 and again in 2008. On the second tour, he and four other British soldiers were sent with only 95 Afghan troops on a deadly and ultimately doomed mission to secure the town of Marja, the focus of a big offensive earlier this year involving thousands of US and Afghan forces."

Don't stop reading this right now but make a note to read an abstract from his book 'An ordinary Soldier' to get a flavour of the man.

I felt that I knew quite a bit about Beattie. He was the RSM to Lt Colonel Tim Collins when that officer made his 'Henry V at Agincourt' speech prior to advancing to battle in Iraq. Only once in my own military career did my role and task approach that of an Infantry RSM and I had immediate doubts about the Irishman's oratory.The RSM later detailed his thoughts in his book but these were rejected by his former CO.

This preamble is intended to show my respect and admiration for Beattie as a soldier. In the Times he is quoted "Then after six months of heavy fighting you just want to leave the place (Afghanistan) alive with your men. When someone says to you do you want to go back? your natural response is 'I'm never going back to that place. And I have said that many times. But a couple of monmths later, when things calm down, it's in your blood. You can see the good you've done when you were there and you start to consider "Well, could I have done more? Could I help more? Am I needed? And that's why I am going back"

In that abstract along is the core of my sadness. I recognise what he is saying. I got through being in Northern Ireland by using the mantra 'your Mother did not raise you to die in Ireland' and it maybe a time or two saved me from doing something the reckless side of unwise. Yet - you know - I would return this instant to the very bloody days of 70-72 were I able. Because I have in the past recognised this as irrational I spent some time examining myself and think I have an answer.

A major part of a soldier's basic and ongoing training is conditioning. Most of the population deeply resists killing another human.

Modern military training allegedly overrides this instinct, by: using man-shaped targets instead of bulls-eye targets, practicing and drilling how soldiers would actually fight, dispersing responsibility for the killing throughout the group and displacing responsibility for the killing onto an authority figure, i.e. the commanding officer and the military hierarchy. (See the Milgram experiment)

This initial preparation of men who will be required to pull some form of trigger and to kill another human being does not always take deep route in the psyche of man. It may be dissipated following actual battle-field conditions. This lays the soldier open to another known physical and mental condition. 'Survivor Guilt' is recognised as a constituent of PTSD. This syndrome is a mental condition that occurs when a person perceives himself or herself to have done wrong by surviving a traumatic event. It may be found among survivors of combat, natural disasters, epidemics, among the friends and family of those who have committed suicide, and in non-mortal situations among those whose colleagues are laid off. It gets those whose bravery is beyond doubt -
World War II Medal of Honour recipient, and actor, Audie Murphy is said to have suffered survivor's guilt during the years after his return to the United States after the injury that put him out of the Army. He is said to have slept with a gun under his pillow for nearly 25 years, and talked frequently about those that had died in his unit, even though there was nothing he could have done to prevent their deaths.

That is what makes me sad. Beattie is beyond doubt a brave man and has nothing to prove to us. He was most definitely a survivor of incidents where men under his command were killed in sudden and traumatic circumstances. I do suspect that he has that guilt and will continue to carry it even when he gets back to Afghanistan - it may even make him more liable to do something that will increase his personal risk.

y feelings about Afghanistan are clear - there is nothing there that is worth one more single drop of English - or, indeed any foreign - blood. There is much more the gallant RSM could do here in this country.

The tremendous hoo haa re the National Insurance seems to have gone over my head. Whilst I am/was not a Business Leader of the status recruited by Boy Dave I did have a quite hefty departmental budget that included costs for over 5o people. The Company was swallowed up by a larger company and, as usual, reductions in head count were called for. I escaped that by taking out a complete layer of job titles - no more 'assistant' whatever. After about a year, things improved and I thought I'd try and flesh out my team. This was fully supported - with the condition that my payroll budget would not be allowed to increase!

I cannot see that increasing cost of an employee by hiking up the NI contribution is a great problem. I would determine a hire or not on the basis that if any new worker cost me £X in NI costs but brought in or saved £X+a bit, that would make sense.

The fact that the increases would impact upon employers who could not make this calculation is accepted. No use in increasing payroll costs of NHS or the Armed Forces whilst demanding serious savings. OK - exempt them from the increase. Clicking noise from Alexis Meercat.

I seem to have it that the saving of no NI increase is about £12 billion. Not to be sniffed at. We could get better savings. The two serious players in destruction of the world by atomic weapons have just signed a down-scaling and, so long as they both play together nicely, there may be further reductions. Still enough to blow us all to Kingdom come several times over and the MAD concept will still apply - you launch and before they hit we will launch and we both end up charred and glowing in the dark.

So, why the heck does some tin pot almost 3rd world country like the UK need to spend billions in the hundreds buying Tridents like 5P fireworks? And then there will be calls for the launch pad submarines - more billions. Who is going to get around to attacking us without drawing attention from one or other of the superior nuclear powers? I remember that at the time of the Falklands, Maggie forced the French to give us the abort codes for the missiles they had sold to the Argies. I would not be surprised if there were some such remote disabling facility in the US technology associated with Trident anyway.

The people who say there is a case for Trident have a vested interest. Work for dockyard mateys. Command of so many sailors that they have to be Admirals at least. Defenders of the Realm bigging it up. No one in their right mind would want such a useless toy as Trident. If the penny pinchers could not justify total abandonment, get just a couple so that the MAD process could still be achieved. Sick thinking I reckon.

Firefox claims that it will publish this straight to twitter - let's see

"A top US special forces commander visited a family in rural Afghanistan yesterday to plead for forgiveness after finally admitting that his troops killed five innocent people in a botched raid, which, Afghan officials said, the soldiers then tried to cover up." Along with the Boss were "almost 30 Afghan officers led by Major-General Abdul Khaliq, the 203 Corps commander" The end result was a foregone conclusion for those familar with the Afghan ethos "When people come to your gate and ask forgiveness, according to Afghan law, it's difficult to reject them," Haji Sharabuddin said later. "I am happy they came" But the family insists that it still wants justice.

Full marks to the Times for being one of the groups pressing for a truthful answer to what happened that night. We now know what happened. To my mind, equally important is knowing who did these things. The Americans very markedly did not identify the identity of the Special Forces and have always skirted around this point. Turns out that there was an Afghan contingent at the forgiveness meeting with a very senior officer there as well. His presence could hardly have been as a religious adviser or some such; to be involved at all would go against the male macho of his upbringing.

Unless - unless- it was his men who did the killing and - if the story about bullets being dug out of the dead are true - perpetrated the maltreatment of the dead. If this question of positive identification is not resolved, all of the Forces engaged in the conflict stand accused of murder and defilement.

There is a very interesting video - in Dutch - that shows a operation by Special Forces in Iraq. It is quite clear that amongst the raiding party were local forces and they played an important part in the search and handling procedures in the compound but were working under the direction of Europeans. We cannot rule out UK involvement - ""Britain's special forces — the SAS and Special Boat Service (SBS) — already come under General McChrystal's overall control as Commander of Isaf. The SAS and SBS operate in Isaf's Regional Command South, which is commanded by a Briton, Major General Nick Carter." - but I would assume that the crow-eating Admiral would have insisted Brit officers be there to share his shame and discomfort. That leaves Afghans as the prime forces in what happened. There is at least one other such incident that shows what happens when US and Afghan forces act in concert on such raids. It seems that any movement towards a compound will attract a firm response. Night time is when the Taliban enforce their intimidation activity and the occupants will use firearms without much 'think first and shoot later' considerations. One would like to think that any Afghans involved in the raid would be aware of this and clearlt identify themselves in advance. If they were not fired upon, their Rules of Engagement as insisted upon by General McCrystal, would bar their going in with guns blazing. So, the incident veers towards totally irresponsible behaviour rather than a mere mistake in the heat of a (non-existent) battle.

The effect of such conduct must never be under-estimated. I am just reading the latest update on Bloody Sunday; Afghans are just as capable of creating Instant Historically True Facts as those of the Green Latrine.

Well done the Times and their colleagues but this is not yet over. There must be full disclosure of who did exactly what. Who planned the operation, who on the ground supervised it and who did the shooting and, if it occurred, carried out the removal of used rounds from bodies of the deceased. Until such time as we and the locals know this, all of our Forces will be seen as legitimate targets for retribution. And that is neither just, fair or acceptable.

"At his appearance before the Home Affairs Committee in March, (MP) Mr Jones ordered an inquiry into the veterans' payments, specifically naming the solicitors Howe & Co – part of Lumley's campaign team – as a firm which should face questions.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has set up a free advice centre in the Nepalese capital, Kathmandu, and "unscrupulous middlemen" were charging fees which were needless, the minister said.

Mr Jones was later forced to issue an "unreserved apology" to Lumley and the inquiry carried out at the behest of the minister by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) has now cleared Howe & Co. In a letter to the firm, the LSC said it had "found no evidence" of malpractice and "we trust that this satisfactory [sic] concludes the matter."

Gordon Brown was also involved in the controversy, offering his own personal apology to Lumley in a telephone call. The Independent has learnt that this was directly linked to a meeting the Prime Minister had held with three members of the Gurkha campaign – Joanna Lumley, Peter Carroll and Martin Howe, from the solicitors' firm – at Downing Street in May 2009.

During the meeting, the Prime Minister requested and obtained a promise from them not to be vocal on the issue, while in return he would ensure that changes they had demanded to the Bill allowing Gurkhas to settle in the UK would pass into law.

The Independent has also seen documents which show that a senior MoD official, Margaret Gilmour, was aware of allegations that the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemens Organisation (Gaeso) had charged for advice on settlement three years ago.

In an email dated 4 September 2007, she wrote to Howe & Co to say that the matter had been raised with Gaeso whose "response was that they had every right to charge for their services and they saw nothing wrong in taking on such cases if people came to them."

However, in a statement yesterday the MoD said that Gaeso had denied charging fees at a public meeting where Ms Gilmour was present. "In 2007 MoD officials asked Gaeso to respond to a number of accusations. However, these accusations were strongly denied by the organisation during a public meeting and the MoD recognises that Gaeso is a legitimate ex-service organisation," the statement said.

A spokesman added that officials had visited Nepal over a number of years "to use trustworthy sources for information on immigration".

I have lived and worked with Gurkha troops and fully recognise all the attributes that have been written and said about them. They are incredibly loyal to their officers who are themselves - in general terms - amongst the best that our Army produces. That said, they do live and serve in what may be considered as directly related to the life style of their Nation. They take little from the customs of any country where they may be living or serving on a short-term basis.

The publicity as to the plight in which the older Guirkha may find themselves is widespread thanks to the actions of Saint Jo. And quite right too - she demonstrates the values inherited from her Gurkha-leading father.

Because of this, I can understand the point the link makes that it could be that the Government (they one we had just past and not any incoming change) is making it difficult for aged Gurkhas to come here and settle. They may already have younger relatives here; I know of a number who have done well both in assimilating our ways of life and in busines. But that is the point - they have changed and are not the full shilling of the people they were. We rightly abhor the policies of zoos that bring animals to this country and then exhibit them in truly inappropriate and miserable conditions. Bringing older Gurkhas here is - IMHO of course - exhibiting exactly the same lack of understanding and compassion.

If the problem is merely that their pension is inappropriate - then by all means solve that. They have earned more than our money. The British Army used to make considerable effort in the recruiting process in Nepal and could show more of that ability in better access to medical and social care. In Nepal. Not here where these old men would have to contest with all the other incomers and indigenous who demand special treatment and attention.

A "pervasive and resilient culture of pessimism" about the Afghan war back home in Britain is severely undermining troops on the front line, a senior army officer serving in Helmand has warned.

The negativity is hindering an “objective analysis of the campaign” and falsely painting an alarmist and defeatist picture, he says. The sight of crowds turning out to see the return of soldiers’ bodies at Wootton Bassett has become a feature of the Afghan conflict.

There is frustration in the military that there is a lack of appreciation back home about what UK forces are achieving about what UK forces are achieving at great personal risk and in extremely tough circumstances, Lieutenant Colonel Matt Bazeley told The Independent.

I would be happy to count myself in amongst those with an alarmist and defeatist attitude. It is not yet an offence to apply reason and consideration to a situation and that is what I seek to do in the face of the permanently sunny, bright and uplifting Good News dished out by the Services media specialists. It is Good News Week - By Order. I accepted over 22 years of it whilst serving and was often in a position during that time to know exactly what had happened and how that was presented by the spin-masters.

The Army marshals it's chosen supporters " Young soldiers serving in some of the most dangerous parts of Helmand talk often of the reactions to the war back home. No 1 Company the Coldstream Guards have had five soldiers killed – including the latest member of the British forces to die, Guardsman Michael Sweeney, last week – and 35 injured, while operating in Babaji.

Guardsman Ross Caddy, 18, said: “I think we are doing some good. The Afghans are taking over security more, it’s their country. I don’t think anyone likes to see a foreign army in their country. But I don’t think people back home really know what’s going on here.”

Drummer Lance Mawson, 20, from Leicester and also of No 1 Company, said: “It’s been a very tough tour and pretty hard to see guys you know and work with becoming casualties. We like to think we are doing the right thing and this is worth it. It would be pretty bad if we lose the support of people back home, all you can do is hope that doesn’t happen.”

Lt Col Bazeley said there was ample evidence of public support for the soldiers: “It is humbling to see the quite extraordinary level of support we receive from the British people, but there is clearly less enthusiasm to sustain a demanding and costly military campaign.

Soldiers do as they are told - or else. My interruptions are never aimed at the rank and file - how could they be? They do as they are told and are conditioned even to accept that they will be required to lay down their lives and fill out that blank cheque that went towards the now abandoned Covenant. But, it is conditioning that makes them do it.

Imagine oneself freshly reporting at a training depot still damp-eyed at separation from girl-friend/wife and kids and family for just a few weeks and the first thing one is told is "You have a very good chance of being killed or severely disabled in the next eight months" Do you think many would stay for a second night in barracks?

Listen to what the Officer tells us "Support is subtly different from sympathy and I sense on occasions the two are conflated in the Public Mind. We do not want sympathy; sympathy is for losers and we are not losing. We are soldiers, we know the risks, we know what we are doing and why we are here... We face the challenge with informed and considered determination but we want to be drawing on a National strength and resolve to underpin our efforts and not just our morale"

Well - if they were not conditioned at the depot, they are being fired up in Afghanistan. Look at all the appeals to the pride - the warrior class. Scorn for losers. Facing challenges. A fine combination of Churchillian oratory and the In Which We Serve school of 1939-45 war films. Henry V at Agincourt could not have done better. Reference is made to the threat from terrorism. "Failure in Afghanistan will leave a security black hole from which extremeism on a large scale will emerge" is forecast. So, what if we achieve a win in Afghanistan (whatever a win constitutes) who can say that the forward march of militant Islam will not spring out from some other Islamic homeland? Any mention that much of the progress gained by the blood of our troops may well be abandoned by a deceitful UK or US government seeking peace at any price or that the forces we leave in charge are not overthrown within a few months. There is the example of the claimed resolution in Iraq which is already being blown apart. The Northern Ireland solution was to be the end of wanton death there.

A postcript - "A British soldier on foot patrol in Southern Afghanistan was killed by an explosion yesterday, the Ministry of Defence said. The soldier, from 3 Bn The Rifles, was killed after the blast in the Kajaki area of Helmand" RIP and a parade will follow. What a wasted life.

There is a thing going around inviting people to tell Boy Dave what they think he should do about the question of what appears to be the personal opinion of one of his Shadow Ministers regarding homosexuals and boarding houses. I copy it here so all know what it invites - no link for reasons I hope will become clear.

Allowing certain business-owners to discriminate based on sexual orientations opens the door to discrimination based on religion, race, country of origin and anything else.

It seems it stems from a situation some while back when the owner of a B & B denied accommodation to a couple of homosexuals. He based his objections upon an abhorrence of their life style. The same set of circumstances were repeated

A gay couple were turned away from a Berkshire guest house by the owner who said it was "against her convictions" for two men to share a bed. Michael Black and John Morgan, from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, had booked a double room at the Swiss B&B, Terry's Lane, in Cookham, for Friday night. When they arrived Susanne Wilkinson refused to let them stay.

She admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples. The couple have now reported the matter to Thames Valley Police.

Under the Equality Act 2006 it is illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation."

So, here we have a woman who objects on the basis of her religious beliefs. For the purposes of these scribblings, let us assume that this is a totally genuine reason and not used as a cover for plain old outright homophobia. What is, therefore, being sought is support for the position that she must be denied her Christian values and beliefs. Is that in itself not just some other form of discrimination? Mrs Wilkinson herself has been reported as saying “We are Christians and we believe our rights don’t have to be subordinated. We have religious freedom and we are not judging that but we are not prepared to have that sort of activity under our roof,” he said. “These people are very organised and we have already been inundated with abusive calls and emails. It is really sad that people act like that.”

The local police say that similar matters are normally dealt with a civil matters. Could it be, I wonder, that she was targeted by those keen to advance their own homosexual beliefs?

I have no publishable opinions regarding homosexuals - that comes under my personal attitude of reverse apartheid where I keep myself away from things I cannot bar coming to me. However, I just wonder why we ever got into such a wide application of legislation banning discrimination.

The Human Rights Act of 1998 gave protection at Article 9 under "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion"

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

That seems quite clear to me. I accept that me sticking to 'my rights' may conflict with you enjoying 'your rights' but such situations arise in everyday transactions and events. That is possibly why 'such matters' are normally the subject of civil court remedy where the judgement of a independent and learned third party will prevail. So, why did we give homosexuals absolution from being judged on what is otherwise the law of the land? I do not know. Certainly, there has been considerable publicity seeking acceptance of them and their beliefs. But why should that belief over-ride religious beliefs truly held? We have recently had the opinion of the Leader of the Church of England regarding paedophilia in another religion and it would be reasonable to assume that that same attitude would apply to what the accepted Book of Rules/Bible says regarding homosexual conduct.

Of course, now that the matter has been brought into the three ring circus of pre-election madness, all reasonable comment will be lost in a stream of point-scoring. It stems from an overheard remark so presumably the author was not intending it for a public statement as to how he might act if put into a position of power. And, what if he did? He cannot issue edicts. The requirement for Bills being made law requires action by Government as a whole. The Labour concerns at the freedom of action the guy might have maybe reflects the way they are accustomed to operate? Perhaps. What seems to be being advocated is that none should act in accordance with their beliefs and conscience but become slave to the exact compliance with the law.

If there be any who have got this far and wish to see more opinions firmly stated, I would recommend they have a read of these comments on a Holy Joe site.

The ongoing war waged by the desk-bound MOD has taken on a new campaign. They invited a bunch of religious leaders from Afghanistan to UK for a guided tour. And a Press and photo-opportunity as well of course.

The Independent newspaper has reported that Muslim clerics in the British Army may be deployed to Afghanistan in a 'hearts & minds' mission to highlight the part played by Islam in UK society.

Just remember that bit - "the part played by Islam here in UK"

The Indy article goes on "The ulama's (someone in the Press office showing off their foreign tour?) views would strengthen the hand of General Richards and others in the military who want to project the role played by Muslims in the Army, expand the number of imams and deploy them on missions abroad"

Just what is this need to project the role of serving Muslims? Seems there are currently around 350 Muslims serving in the Armed Forces. How many of them are fit and trained to deploy we do not know but, be generous, and say 300 across all three services; not much of a role playing force is it?

We know the strength of family ties and the knowledge of law advantageous to their own ends their community possesses. Has any Whitehall Warrior contemplated how to deal with the Daily Hate headline "Sent to die abroad because of my religion"? I'm not totally up to date with discrimination but I bet there are some in the Islamistan areas of UK who could see things their way.

There is more. 'The Director of Helmand hajj said,"The Taliban are spreading lies that NATO is trying to destroy our religion in Afghanistan. We can take back the message that in Britain the Muslim people are free to practice their religion"' Free to practice their religion? Well - of course they are but the Talib are not daft. There is ample evidence that the true course of Islam in UK is not totally free of justified criticism - even leaving aside the rants of the BNP which should read well back home in downtown Kabul. If we extend the ground to the NATO countries we have the wearing of the burqa and the fun and games in Holland. 'That' cartoon will be dredged up again. The March of Muslims through Wootton Basset. The welcome home where the local other-religionists spoke of murder by our forces.

Amongst the delegation was one Shah Wali described as a former 'senior prosecutor and authority on Sharia law' Ah - there is always one isn't there? That brings me to the quid pro that these estimable holy men will want. In Afghanistan nothing comes for free. Except for some where death comes in a glaze of light. By introducing new members of the Chaplain's department (turban branch) and deploying them to a theatre of war we will give them a fair degree of status - what CO would want to have his attached beardie making notes for the commander's annual assessment? In addition, someone here amongst the proponents of Sharia but feeling depresed can quickly get onto one of Wali's friends and say their religion is being threatened and Sharia dishonoured. It will be like having a branch of the union Unite right in the front line.

There is a place for propaganda - which I regard as just another branch of hearts and minds anyway. Hitler's acolytes showed just how opinion may be distorted by the skilful use of words and doubtless, a fair number of our Media and PR branch had Oxbridge educations. My complaint is that this type of proselytizing guff is regurgitated into the public domain and might even be swallowed by some as a good thing. We have an election coming and voters will be examining the conduct of the trough-searching candidates. To use this sort of initiative as a basis for being optimistic is degrading their information and is dishonest. The fact that a senior officer of General Richards' is being used as a front man only increases the deception.

It is, surely, very simple. We have tried using force of arms and skill. It achieved little at the time and nothing likely to be permanent. We suggested bribery of the other side's forces. That idea seems to have died the death; rest assured we would have had it for breakfast, lunch and dinner news had one single jundi come across (and stayed after getting his bribe). We speak of democracy and empowering the people. In that direction, check out Karzey's idea of free and fair elections. That idea has done down the waste pipe. We are left with the Blair Solution as demonstrated Northern Ireland. Find out what the other side want and give it to them in return for us being allowed to rush for the Exit door in peace. It got the Yanks out of Iraq and it has to be what we do in Afghanistan - unless we can find the courage of our convictions like the Canadians have done.

We can act unilaterally - America moves us about like a load of chess-pieces. Sort out things in our own area by whatever means and then set off for the docks. If Obama complains - that is if he even notices what an erstwhile ally is up to - tell him the area he drafted us into is OK and he can deal with the rest. If he fails to get the point then, tell him we must re-deploy to get ready for Falklands v.2.0.1 where the actions of his bitch have encouraged a load of gaucho to ride again.

I am not really a BNP sort of person but the way the current Government, and the totally useless Opposition, have allowed the status of UK to be destroyed internally and externally is a disgrace. I am for my Queen and Country in prime spot and the BNP's stated policies are very attractive to this ancient old man who has seen better times and locations.

Another member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has resigned, adding another chapter to the beleaguered group's problematic relationship with government. Eric Carlin, former chairman of the English Drug Education Forum, said he was disillusioned with the way the decision to ban mephedrone was taken due to media and political pressure. In his resignation letter to Home Secretary Alan Johnson, Mr Carlin wrote: "We had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people's behaviour. Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure. As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."

The Council has had a very chequered history. The boss was sacked and most of the others have already resigned; either to show support of their erstewhile Boss or with disapproval at what the Government has been doing. I say Government but the speed with which events have happened suggests that it has been the actions solely of the Home Secretary.

I do not know how the Council was selected or the detailed background of any member but I am surprised that at least one of them should resign on the grounds of little or no discussion. One assumes they submit reports where they recommend what needs to be done in respect of drug control and that would, surely, be their path to initiate discussion.

From my own experience of investigating drug use and distribution, I would say that there is little to discuss anyway. We already have a well entrenched drug culture and consumption of drugs - of whatever classification - is a regular part of the recreational side of many people's lifestyle. Warning them of the dangers does nothing - they say that they can control their own usage such that they do not become dependent. Punishment holds no threat they recognise.

The latest banning will have easily predictable results. The sources of supply will be seized by dealers who will sell at a profit. The buyers will have to find ways - generally illegal or morally decadent - to fund their purchases. Can anyone point to a single instance where banning a potentially risky substance has actually reduced the harm to both the users and society at large? The knee-jerk reaction of classification will also mean that there will be no research into exactly what the drug does. This thwarts any attempt to reasonable warn users what risks they run and how we might treat those who become dependent.

Drugs expert Professor David Nutt argues the case for a legal, though regulated, supply of drugs like mephedrone, ecstasy and cannabis, to reducing the undoubted harms of drug taking. There is a sort of precedent in the use of methadone as an alternative to heroin.

More than 30 years of methadone prescribing (for the much vaunted purpose of reducing drug related crime and drug addiction) have resulted in the quantities of drugs being consumed, the number of drug users and the incidence of crime rising year upon year.

In any other situation, such disastrous statistics would over-whelmingly expose and condemn such ‘treatment’ as an abject failure - but this has not happened. Methadone is a dangerous and addictive Class ‘A’ drug which is being prescribed to hundreds of thousands of drug users as a substitute for heroin and which is then dispensed to those users at taxpayer expense on a daily basis - usually for life – likely a life shortened by the methadone.

What we do with drug controls is producing a far from ideal result. It might well be that it is a problem without solution and the most human reaction would be to warn in very clear terms and then treat those who ignore that
message - or bury the dead.