Bloody indeed

I have been asked to spread the word about the next in a series of books about The Troubled Years in Northern Ireland.

Ken Wharton, author of a 'Long Long War; Voices from the British Army in Northern Ireland, 1969-98' and 'Bullets Bombs and Cups of Tea; Further Voices of the British Army in Northern Ireland' and 'Bloody Belfast; An Oral History of the British Army's War Against the IRA' is now writing his 4th book.

Entitled '1972' it deals with the worst year of the troubles and is again - as an ex-squaddie it could only be so - an oral account of the troubles from the perspective of the British soldier. It will be pro-squaddie and will again seek to bring awareness of our role in NI to the public view. If you have any accounts of 1972 or know of anyone who toured in that year, please contact Ken at ken _wharton @hotmail.com

Anonymity is offered if you prefer not to have your name published.

Civvie mates share a few experiences; Squaddie mates share a lifetime of experiences no civvie could ever dream of.

There are bits of me in the latest book and I can confirm that Ken is meticulous in checking his sources. His books are a realistic mix of reference and history written in an easy to assimilate manner. As one reviewer says

"Ken's books have ensured that the near 40 years of sacrifice,duty and humour that supported generations of British Soldiers will never be forgotten. This was our lives - and for many, still is, every day. Ken has allowed our voices to be heard;and our Fallen friends to be remembered as they should be. Thanks, mate"

Memory freshers

I wrote a few days about my sometimes on sometimes off memory. I was browsing today with my Spotify playlist in the

background w

when this song came on. This was definitely a memory that had stuck.

Just before Christmas 1979 the Libyans set fire to the US Embassy in Tripoli, I was working for Occidental, a US oil company and based in London as the Office Services manager. About 2 am I received a call from my VP who was in America on a Conference. I was told that we were evacuating all the women and children from our Libyan operation and I had the the job of getting them from Tripoli to London ad then dispersing them to their chosen location anywhere but Libya. We had to cater for about 100 souls. The wonderful phrase "Throw money at it John" was uttered.

I hit the phone for the night staff at our travel contractor and told them what was wanted. By the time I had driven to the London office I had a aircraft chartered for the next three days and a block booking at a Gatwick airport hotel for a week. I decamped there with my head travel girl, a large bag of cash - pounds and dollars and no real idea of what was ahead. Our contractor met me there with a couple of his girls and the ticket blanks and endorsing machine.

Initially, the Libyans refused to accept the incoming flight but I was able to suggest what might change their minds. More throwing of money! We had a few spare seats and offered these to people at a US school and a church that did not have our resources. I arranged for a detective officer from the local force to hang about the room where the cashier would be paying out allowances to the incomers. Then off to meet the flight. I had arranged a full hospitality package and nurses on the flight. This, combined with the nearness of Christmas, had engendered a party spirit amongst the 'good ole girls' on the aircraft. More money throwing got us the services of every porter. They whisked us straight past Immigration and we never even saw the Customs Hall as luggage went straight from plane to coach.

We set up next morning to start fixing onward travel but the visitors had the wind under their tails and a majority wanted to hit London after the limited shopping experience of SPLAJ. No problem - we laid on a small fleet of cars and off they went clutching their envelopes with what was meant to be a month's subsistence allowances. Night-time was party time. One of the songs played again and again was the Okie song. It's country so didn't bother me. My crew worked like heroes. I drifted about 'managing' and sustained them with fresh squeezed orange - livened up with prime vodka.

We got down to just a couple of families - some wanted India and other exotic onward journeys. I went to the ticket office so see the end of things. The absolute last woman in was a very tall woman of about 27. I had noticed her much earlier as being very very attractive (I noted such things back then!) The booking girl asked her where she wanted to go? "Muskogee" Knock me down etc.. I insisted on doing that one my very own self. Flight, hotel, car and meeter and greeter telexes.

All that - and more - about the Tripoli Evacuation has passed through my mind as clear and as fresh as if it were just yesterday and not over 30 years back. All from something that lasted less than three minutes. Just as an experiment, I have thought back to the last 'big shop' of 12 days back. Yes - I remember we did it and had lunch out. More? Hardly anything. It is just so damned annoying but - overall - I am glad that I could do a Sam Tyler. There are a lot of things in my past life I would wish to forget or otherwise evade but it seems this is denied me. I still cannot talk to black Labrador dogs.

Ash every Wednesday

Why is so much ash being produced?

British glaciologist Dr Matthew Roberts, who is working at the Icelandic Met Office, says a great deal of ash is being produced because the eruption is taking place beneath the Eyjafjallajoekull icecap. He says: "It's the interaction of the molten rock, the magma, and the glacial ice which is causing the magma to cool very quickly and to be pulverised into tiny fragments of rock.

"And these updrafts of fine volcanic ash are being lifted into the sky by the enormous steam plumes that have been created by the vast quantities of ice that's been melted."

Why is the eruption so explosive?

Dr Rothery says various factors may have contributed to the explosive nature of the eruption. The amount of gas - made up of water, vapour, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide - in the magma now arriving in the volcano may have become greater than it was in the original batch of magma when it first started erupting in March, and the ice/water from the glacier is being turned into steam when it meets the magma.

The expansion of gas, which is mainly water vapour if it is from magma/ice interaction, drives the ash skywards, and then convection takes over. The plume is warmer than the surrounding air, and so is less dense despite the ash it contains. How high it rises depends on the initial impetus from the expanding gas, plus its heat content. When it reaches neutral buoyancy, it ceases to rise and is then at the mercy of the wind. The newer magma has proved to be higher in silica than that from the earlier stages of the eruption, which means it is more viscous and is more liable to fracture, forming ash. Coarse ash (more than 1mm) falls out, but fine ash (less than 0.1mm) stays airborne for a long time.

Why is the ash plume still rising?

The ash has been moving at a height of about 30,000ft due to water going into the vent.

According to Dr Rothery, as Thursday's eruption progressed, the best hope was that the interaction between melt water and the continually arriving magma would lessen. Ideally, solidified magma would isolate the vent from the ice and/or water, so that the eruption would become less explosive, and the plume height would decrease until it was no longer a threat.

However, currently the ash column is higher than it was on Friday. A possible explanation is that fractures caused by magma movement and small earthquakes keep allowing water into the vent, at a sufficient depth that steam expansion has no option but to drive the ash fragments skywards.

When will it stop?

Volcanologists say it is impossible to predict when the eruptions might cease, pointing out that eruptions in Iceland can continue for months.

So, not a lot of good news there then. The disruption could continue for a long time yet. We are already hearing much dissent at the pronouncements of the "experts" who place fly/no ply rules. Oh, and can anyone tell me why the bans run from such precise times? If the ban starts at 1pm and ends at 7pm, would you be happy to be on a 12.55am flight or 7.55pm arrival? The flights continue but it is only Sod's Law that sooner or later one of those jugs will go to the well just one time too many. If there were such a disaster, the no fly periods would have to be extended. Apart from the losses allegedly sustained by the airline companies there is the commercial problem of air transport being shut down.

What to do? I have floated this idea once before but here we go again. The foregoing extracts mention the aerosol effect arising from the pressure underground forcing the ash to a height where it drifts at heights determined to be hazardous for air traffic. Solution to me is to reduce the pressure. The first thought is a massive enlargement of the hole in the Earth's surface that the lava and particles are coming from. I note that America has dispatched a team of nuclear scientists to their major oil leak. I don't really think this is a preface to using some massive device; more ensuring that all possible lines of (innovative) thinking are applied. Well, I may be the equivalent of the Little Dutch Boy (careful with the link - do not go here) but who knows? We do have some incredible powerful explosives outside the nuclear armoury. We have laser-guided aiming and can launch missiles with a very long reach. Maybe we can do little with the actual blow hole - what about breaking up or diverting the flow of the ice and water that is part of the ash-production process? The Icelandic people are well used to living in a country of fire and ice and may well have a fairly relaxed attitude to what is happening over large areas of the world. I have run a moderate-intensity Google over what Iceland might be doing. Sight-seeing trips seems to be the answer. There was some TV coverage that suggested they blame a Goddess deep in the bowels of the Earth who turns over in bed every so often. If I not know already the absolute futility of debating an individual's religious beliefs with them I might have words to say about the restless female theory. Sure as hell, something needs to be done. We are in the 21st Century for God's sake. Even if the counter to the admonition to lie back and enjoy rape were not already out there, it is not a sentiment I would ever support. Come on someone - Have A Go. Please.

To dream, perchance to sleep

Yes - I know that is not what the Great Dane said but it the sort of further complication that comes with increasing age.

I can now add insomnia. I've carried out all the suggested things they group as remedies but with no change. I've identified the cause and it is there that I find myself stymied.

I can sit about elsewhere in the house and drop off to sleep without too much bother. But as soon as I get into bed and put the lights and radio off, my brain goes into hyper-drive. It just races away; I will have four of five chains of thought going on at the same time. All lucid and clear and quite independent of each other. There will be a run through multiplication tables, bits of vocabulary in any one of three or four languages, planning for events some three or four months in the future or re-running actions taken years ago
Most annoying - especially when my brain seems to be degrading in many other aspects.

I have in the past gone to bed when the adrenaline was still high but back then I could somehow get the brain to switch off. Now, my addiction to adrenaline gets very little sustenance so it really should be a doddle to calm things down.

This may come across as a further instalment in my carping on about old age. Not my intention. There may be someone who can suggest what I can do to get back into the arms of Morpheus. Sleeping pills - both OTC and on prescription have not made any real difference and I have the same fears as did Hamlet as to where that sleep might lead.

Waiting for the off

'They think it is all over' is a phrase that has made its way from the football ground into common parlance. Just as well - I would have needed to find another phrase as a base for my blog.

The 100% LD vote for acceptance of the coalition terms was impressive. Either a fair number of them were able to swallow the firm policies and commitments of the hustings or have gone with the flow and work on the basis that a fish starts to rot at the head. It is, however, there and I am sure Dave remembers enough of Etonian prefectorial tactics to remind young Clegg that it did happen when the carping starts.

We might even think we are faced with another mini-election when the referendum into voting hits the streets. There will be the Pros and Cons of the newly established Government and the street-power brigades. Given the size of the Conservative vote in pure numerical terms rather than constituencies, the AV thing will not pass. Will the LD hard-core who only supported amalgamation in the hopes of change then accept the idea is a dead parrot? Will they then claim that AV was not PR and return to the fray? I heard a fine comment on the radio yesterday when someone commented that the whole AV/PR thing was as if Chelsea had been told that the next two teams in the Premiership had more points when added together than they did and therefore, those two were the winners.

Hague stepping out of his shadow and becoming de facto Foreign Secretary was something I had hoped for. Hard luck on the translators when he speaks in Europe! I would have wished to have seen him push for leader; he was too powerful in disposition to have remained as mere deputy. I have to admit that I do not favour deputy anythings - I gained many brownie points as a department head when I eliminated all of the deputy what-nots in a Budget review. They are merely stand-in for the Boss one upwards; if No. 1 is doing the job properly his people know what has to be done and do not need some surrogate leader.

Fox at Defence seems hopeful. His past seems to have been one of opposition to Brown's financial strangle-hold on expenditure even when it was quite clear that life and limb were being directly put at risk by this parsimony. He wrote a very good article in The Times regarding what he saw as a new form of terrorism - control of energy sources as a weapon. His contributions to the Tory centre-right blog show that he can listen as well as speak, Mind you, he has nothing to fear when it comes to contrasting his future performance with that of the total buffoon Aintworth. A dyslexic mute could do better than the cheap Prescott-copy appointed by Brown purely, I am convinced, because of his total inability to understand anything put to him by his staff and senior military figures.

Cable is a man who would have attracted my vote were I one of his constituents. He has depth and the ability to use humour to mask criticism. His comment on Brown transmuting from Stalin to Mr Bean was a classic.

I think my main concern right now is the gap between extreme LD members and the nutter-fringe of the Tory party. We have descended even further to yaa boo politics and there is too much to be done to spare time for sandal-jokes or lord of the manor jibes.

My other concern is for events here in Scotland. I sometimes surprise even myself at how much more I have become interested in this subject. Dan Alexander was Chief of Staff for Clegg and seems to have come out of his shell a bit as a member of the negotiating team. He clearly has a good brain. His Wiki entry reads well - I hope he can find acceptance with the moguls of Alba. I came here when the new governance was fairly young. I realised that they would have to learn to crawl before they could walk but I think it may be time to consult an expert on juvenile development?

My wishes and curses will have absolutely no impact - that is what politics is all about. Generating a false sense of involvement. But at least they have my best wishes and may even provide the occasional target for further such drivel from me.

There are no seven ages

Back in 1998, after my official retirement, I was retained by my former employer as a consultant. Just three days a week. Quite a nice bit of extra pocket money really. However, after a couple of years I recognised that I valued my complete independence more. I wanted to do a final round up in America before I got too aged and less adventurous, I had got used to turning left on entering the aircraft door and it seemed reasonable to use a fair portion of the pocket money on one last no expense spared expedition ranging around my well loved Arizona.

It was whilst this was in play that I decided I needed some focus. Something to do rather than just potter. I set about writing my recollections of a life I had enjoyed up to that time. To give this structure, I based it upon Shakespeare's idea of the seven ages of man. I researched local papers for events that I vaguely remembered and visited old locations from my junior infants school where I had been crowned King of Cleanliness right through UK venues of my military service and out to the just terminated consultancy.

I was satisfied with my efforts. However, I now recognise that the seven ages format was not the right one. Each decade of my life has had its sorrows and joys. Bewildered baby, struggling schoolboy, troubled teenager, student husband. Then the perils of parenthood, the doubts and miseries that went with middle age through to what I now describe as the sadness of senility.

When young, time was a commodity I had plenty of and it was spent without great thought - impulse reigned. Now I look back at those times and on what I got from those times and it seems I have little from what was a precious hoard. My appetite for life has waned just as my physical deterioration has advanced. My faithful old dog went up to Rainbow Valley some three years ago and there has been no incentive to stay mobile and able to wander about in the high and lonely places. She is irreplaceable and I am too frail and crotchety to start another puppy. I look forward to a rapidly shrinking future; look forward not in pleasant anticipation but as a reality I shall not evade. I seem to spend the majority of my time looking back at the comfort of reliving the past.

Now, even my memory is in a state of mutiny. Memory loss is inevitable and mine is diminishing. As I understand it, this happens to us all and even commences at the age of 40. This might sound quite harmless - even pleasant where there are sad or unpleasant memories and harmless in itself. I do not find it so, It is stressing, annoying and worrying. Whilst I can recall events from the distant past with quite good clarity and detail I find it hard to form new memories. It is as if I am trying to force new folders into an already full filing cabinet. I am told that when I delete a file on this computer, it does not go to document Valhalla and just the first few bits are overwritten and left blank to make way for new data. I can look past the blanks and get a ghost image of the old data; stuff I thought I had deleted years back as immaterial and inconsequential. The first time a girl opened her mouth to me as we kissed, the make of car I hired to visit the Palace for my investiture, the name of the barman in the Sergeants' Mess in Kuala Lumpur - it is all there in its uselessness. But when it comes to stuff I need to retain - bugger, it has gone walk-about. We live close to the town of Kelso. A few weeks back I wanted to suggest to my wife that we go there and have a change of shopping venue. I got to "Shall we go to..to..to" and stuck firm. I knew I wanted the name of a place but it was totally missing. Some ten minutes later - seemingly with no conscious effort - the word Kelso popped into my brain.
It has happened the same way since - I now have to cross-reference Kelso with an auto-correct feature where I think of it as Kosovo. Would that I had some way to de-frag my memory core. I start a sentence with the words all queued up ready and then lose track halfway through my recitation. And I was a man who knew by heart every word of Eskimo Nell and most of Dangerous Dan McGrew.

I suppose I will just have to wait until someone designs an application for my trusty iPhone that will act as a stage prompt. Until then, I make use of the camera to back-up the faulty memory and the voice application to remind me just what I was going to do in the kitchen having walked the 50 or so yards from my study.

When I was a lad

Two of England's teaching unions are at odds over the future of national curriculum tests for 11-year-olds. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) is continuing to threaten industrial action if the tests – known as SATS – are not scrapped but the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers (NASWUT) issued findings from a poll warning that abolishing the papers would be "reckless".

The NASUWT poll questioned 2,000 teachers about the impact of ending SATS tests for 14-year-olds. Schools Secretary Ed Balls scrapped these in October 2008 saying they were not needed to hold secondary schools to account. The survey found that abolishing the tests had increased teacher workloads and distracted them from teaching and learning. In some cases, the move has led to teachers working at least ten extra hours per class, the NASUWT found. Many teachers are now having to administer internal tests and mark them themselves, as well as carry out their own teacher assessments of pupils.

There are calls for the union to continue its campaign, co-ordinate action with other unions and parents, and to give advice on alternative forms of assessment. It also contains a clause calling for industrial action, including strike action, to disrupt the administration of the tests.

The NUT, and the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) want to see SATS replaced by teacher assessment and argues the tests are bad for children, teachers and education, and cause unnecessary stress. They claim that the tests create a “pressure cooker effect” in primary schools which places children under stress as well as a focus on performance targets. Teachers are allegedly leaving the profession “because they are becoming box tickers and exam crammers, not educators”. They also want to see school league tables abolished.

Comparing the two points of view, there seems to be no common ground. I lack the necessary qualification to decide which opinion is correct - but I know someone who does:

"PRESIDENT ATKINSONS' OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF SAT I John Furedy, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Like Richard Atkinson, I am an experimental psychologist (though a far less distinguished one) rather than a differential psychologist who has specialized in psychological test theory. However, I recall enough from my undergraduate courses to recognize that the validity of a test is assessed not by speculating that it "can have a devastating impact on self-esteem and aspirations of young students" ("Use of SAT I 'Compromises Education System' Says UC President", Observer, April 2001), but by determining to what extent performance on the test is correlated with some defined criterion performance (here, academic success in a prestigeous university).
Nor is this correlation with criterion performance expected to be perfect, so that there may well be factors other than sheer cognitive ability in analogical reasoning (factors such as socio-economic class, home environment, and, of course, motivation - recall that living organisms and not computers are being tested) that contribute to test performance. In terms of this normal, scientific criterion of validity, the SAT I, to my knowledge, is a useful instrument, and specialists in psychological test construction have, over the years, improved its validity, though not to any level of perfect prediction. So from the perspective of psychological test theory, I see no rational grounds for Atkinson's recommendation to abandon the SAT I.

Atkinson also advances a more general, educational argument for dropping the SAT I. He avers that it "compromises the education system", and, besides the SAT II (which, he feels, is a better measure than the SAT I - to my knowledge he advances no systematic evidence for this comparative empirical claim about two psychological tests), he suggests that selectors should rely on "grade point average, activity records, and other more 'holistic' measures of students' achievement".

I cannot help noting that the latter two aspects appear to be more related to how well a student can get along with others, rather than to what extent s/he has been able to master various academic disciplines.

Moreover, the North American high school system lacks state-wide standard examinations as exist, for example, in Australia. Grade points, then, are at least partly determined by how much individual teachers like individual students, and hence, in more crude terms, may simply indicate sucking-up, rather than academic, ability. In my view, it is the use of these more subjective and "holistic" measures of student achievement (together with race- and sex-based quotas intended to produce 'diversity') that really "compromise the education system"."

That seems clear enough. It also fits my own experience of examinations. In 1944, I sat what was then known as the 11+ examination. In advance of the examination, parents had the opportunity to nominate the school to which their child should go. The chance of these choices being recognised were determined by the exam. results that were achieved. I may need to remind some that the years immediately prior to 1944 had been ones where the country was subjected to warfare with bombs, doodle-bugs and rockets all adding to the tensions of education. Homework was disrupted. School friends were killed or would appear wounded and shocked. My father ran his own company and employed about 15 workmen so I suppose we might have been regarded as middle class. Even now I can recall the pressure upon me to do well at the 11+ which was described as being the foundation of my continuing education and, thus, my whole future. Our teachers were strict; frequent physical punishment was the norm and it was clear that poor achievement in the exam would be regarded as failure - personally for us, them and the school. So, some 'stress' and 'pressure cooking' there then.

In the event, I did well. I never had any problems with examinations and was to face many until I ceased full time education at 17. Not that I was clever - it was just that I could remember things. (a+b)² was never a problem; the answer sprang into my mind with no real effort at calculation. I went to my parent's grammar school choice but had no personal wish to be there. I rebelled and was withdrawn to spend 18 months amongst the 11+ failures at a Secondary Modern until sitting a 13+ exam which was intended for late developers. This got me to the Technical College I had always wanted to attend from about the age of 9. In all honesty, I cannot see that any teacher assessment would have dealt with that situation. Goody Two Shoes would still have been recommended for the 'posh' school. It was not that my parents did not know what I wanted; every weekend we passed the desired school en-route to my grandmother's house and I always aid "That is where I will go one day"

So, on the basis of personal experience, I have to doubt the NUT version as to the evils of SAT. The way that education seems to be structured in recent years suggests a far easier approach. Children ending up 'on the scrap-heap' is almost routine. After all, doesn't the Government have grandiose schemes to cater for those with low achievement? But I also note that the education system is releasing students who have low reading and mathematical skills and who have been protected from opposition or competition to the extent that team games were frowned upon.

So, whence cometh this Union opposition? I can only deduce that the measure of a teacher's skill, dedication and ability remains their finished product - the rounded student. The head of the school will be looked at in the light of the overall results from his staff. All damned good reasons to avoid the black and white - pass or fail - of any written testing which external agencies may use to evaluate the value of school staff. No questioning why Jack got 6% final mark when Jill at the adjacent school on the same curriculum got 45%. It is open to me in an assessment to say that Jack is a fine lad but needs time to mature or was impaired by frequent absence for undiagnosed illnesses. In other words, get him shipped off my responsibility. T'was not my fault he got such dire results when tested. We would not accept a situation where it was open to a car owner to personally certify that his vehicle was fit to pass a MOT and needed no other testing.

The Conservatives have announced a "hit list" of 75 primary and secondary schools and promised that those running those schools would be removed within the first 100 days of a Conservative government. Such schools are to be reopened the following year as academies. Ah, now there is a word that Unions know about - 'removed'. Off to Do The Boys Hall for them.

Which Union attitude will prevail remains to be seen. I cannot imagine any real Government input. They are undergoing their own SAT test and all parties look to fail in public estimation when they manage to stop dancing around like a load of coochie dancers.

Pre-election blues

I think I might just last until the electioneering ends before I blow up in a cloud of red in anger.
It is not so much the claims and counter-claims as to why I should choose one or the other party. I understand it is a sort of beauty competition but there we would see just what we were voting for. In politics, we have to accept the broad outlines of a manifesto that lacks detail.
For example, we are told that there will be cuts in public spending but just what and where these are likely to fall is not detailed. This suggests to me that the party's policy makers either do not know or have done their homework and put figures to action. If they do not know, that is highly irresponsible behaviour. If they know - why cannot we be told; chapter and verse? A prime example is the NHS that is said to be facing cut-backs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the NHS service that I receive but there are many other Trusts with poor admin and fiscal control histories. How do I know that these will be targeted or whether the cuts will be brutal across the board reductions?
It is not as if I can question the smiling assassins who come to my door. They may well tell me what their aims are but I know full well that when/if they get into power they are the whips bitches and are told exactly what to do when a vote comes.
That is, of course, if I can trust my elected member anyway. The revelations of how their minds work when it comes to integrity and honour as shown in the expenses saga are still fresh in my mind.
What really burns me though is the way they seem to regard us as idiots. They shift and swivel almost hourly in declaring what their prime intentions are. There is just no way they would have the time to deal with all these matters. If there has to be a coalition government, the time spent posturing and bargaining has to be factored in. We are told - in broad brush terms only - what they will do but no idea of priority or timetable is given.
There is also the Curate's Egg aspect. I may like some of the manifesto and totally resist another. If I knew what sort of priority the party gave to each 'promise' I might be able to evaluate the likes against the dislikes.
In the end it all comes down to like and dislike - I like/dislike them all in about the same measure. The same applies to trust/distrust. This quandary would not be resolved by any change in the voting system. I want to vote for a party that I know will do what - exactly defined please. To give someone the keys to my safe and not know what they will do once inside is nonsense but that is what I am expected to do with my vote.
Of course, in right down to it truth, what government we have will have little effect upon me. They will decide what to do and do it. If my tax goes up - what are my alternatives? If they make an abortion of the NHS that I really depend upon - what are my remedies? I suppose my alternative will be to do nothing and stay home on election day.

Corruption

I suppose it was to be expected when our Government pressured Karzai to deal with the widespread corruption in his jurisdiction that he would respond by arresting and dealing with a British subject. Major Bill Shaw MBE, formerly of the RMP and now the Commercial Director of a security company has been sentenced to two years imprisonment to be served in a local jail with a most unsavoury reputation. The various reports of his trial and the charges laid are similar and suggest they all stem from one local news feed.

This leaves a number of questions unanswered. We do not know what part our Man in Afghanistan may have played in supporting the defence of the officer or gaining any amelioration of the conditions of his detention. It seems that much of the evidence was in the local language - not understandable to the accused - and he was defended by someone with a European name who may also have no understanding of what went on. It may be significant that the local who was alleged to have received money from the manager was not found by the police - he has ample funds to stay out of their interview rooms. One would have thought that the absence of this crucial witness would be a bar to any prosecution; hearsay reports of his actions should have been well countered by the officer and his translator.

Our Embassy will have taken things on board - I suppose this will be the usual one visit from a junior clerk every six weeks. Nothing too aggressive there then; our PM is able to insult little old ladies but our Foreign Secretary is too busy fighting for his political life to tear a strip off the Afghan ministry in London.

There is a petition for the release of the officer but that seems to be the sum total of any response. He has the right of appeal but I would not hold out much hope of that avenue. What is needed is much greater exposure of the whole case and the attention of a very high profile defence lawyer. This should really be manna from heaven for the Get Out Of Afghanistan Now In Any Way Possible brigade - of which I am proud to be a member. We have all sorts of top class correspondents and TV reporters out there and they should crowd out the courthouse. If this is an injustice, it must be exposed.

I write if this is an injustice. The reports make much of the fact that the officer served as a major in the Royal Military Police after 28 years service and is the holder of the MBE. I can only say that I have dealt with RMP officers with a similar profile who have fallen by the wayside. He had experience on the civil network in that part of the world and should have been aware that things are rarely what they seem. Meeting someone whose bona-fides he did not know to hand over a large sum in cash in respect of a dodgy seizure was on the edge of careless and the con was not particularly sophisticated.

I am minded of the words of an old copper when one of his colleagues had gone down the steps. "If you are a copper, there's always something on offer" Awareness of this is an essential part of being a policeman.

Last Orders |Please

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:

In the name of the ancient God Neptune

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.

Dr Strangelove gets redundency papers

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.

Under a starry sky

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.

Crocodiles cry for soldiers

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.

Watch out - Big Bruv is here

"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!

Please Sir, we want some more - Pt II

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.

Please Sir, we want some more

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.

Sounds good. But then, so does adultary

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.