The passing of Nelson Mandela

I was saddened to hear about Nelson Mandela's death.  I thought everybody would be.  It seems I was wrong.  Younger colleagues and friends were asking what all the fuss was about.  They said that people seemed to forget that in his youth he was part of a violent political group.  That the ANC were terrorists and committed terrible acts.

These things may be true, but Nelson Mandela did not support these acts, he did not condone the actions taken in the name of his party.  He understood the anger behind them.  He could see why young men felt that way, but he did not agree on the path they had taken.  He only agreed with acts of sabotage which did not threaten human life, but showed the strength of feeling behind them.

He was imprisoned wrongfully for 27 years.  Just think about that for a moment.  27 years of your life is taken from you by a system that is run for and by a race of people who sincerely believe that your race is inferior.  He did not give into anger even then.  He took a correspondence course in law and passed, he befriended some of his white guards and he contemplated what he would do, should he ever be freed again.

It was during the time of his incaceration that a lot of the violent acts by the ANC were committed.  He was not there to be a moderating influence on the more extreme members.  When released, at last from prison, he immediately returned to political life and nobody was surprised that he won a landslide victory to become South Africa's first black leader.  During his time in office there were riots and people on both sides were seriously hurt.  Again and again Nelson Mandela called for peace, for moderation and for people to come together and make a new country.  Eventually he succeeded.

This was a man who saw a human being for what they were, not the colour of their skin, not their religion, not their sex, not their political beliefs, but as a fellow human.  As flawed and frail as the next one, but with the capacity to show great compassion and understanding and to help the next person along from them, if they were just given the chance.

That is why I would say to the younger generation they should remember Nelson Mandela.  He brought peace to South Africa and he constantly aimed for a truly equal society.  South Africa is still trying, but it was Nelson Mandela who gave it the chance and set its feet on the right path.

Messing with the kids

We have just had the news that our children have slipped further down the international educational league tables.  This despite the last government promising to do so much for them and pumping large sums of money into various clever 'wheezes' to allow parents to create their own schools and hire non-qualified 'teachers'.  I put that last word in inverted commas as I can't understand how someone who does not hold a teaching qualification can be a teacher?

Whilst at secondary school my daughter brought home her school report.  Nothing unusual in that.  Back in the day I did the same, in fear and trepidation in a sealed envelope. These days the children are allowed to write comments on their reports before their parents see them.  My daughter told me she had written on her report.  "What did you write?"  I asked, still trying to get over the shock that she had seen the report before myself, let alone make her own views on it known.  "I wrote 'grammar'", she replied, seeing my surprise she added "Well they weren't using to, too and two properly.  Or they're, there and their."  This I feel points at a rather crucial problem in the educational system.  If teachers can't set an example for their children, what hope do the children have?

Let's get back to a good grounding in grammar, maths and natural sciences.  These things DO matter, they are the building bricks on which the rest of their education is built.

Perhaps the most dis-heartening and depressing thing about this is that the first response to this report from our politicians is a bickering match about which bunch are responsible.  Couldn't they be a little more constructive?  Not all of us can afford to send our children to private schools where they can receive a well-rounded eductation from teachers who can use grammar correctly and understand the subjects they teach from the ground up.  This appears to be the fortunate position that most of our leaders appear to have benefitted from in their education.  It's a shame that they don't have the same ambition for our children!

Old advice, but still good advice.

I'm sure we have all heard the saying "You are what you eat."  This has never been truer, although the first time I heard that apt piece of advice it was from my Grandmother.

In her day it meant that if you ate lots of 'bad' food, cooked breakfasts in lard, too much cake or fish and chips and lots of wine and port you would end up over-weight and suffering from gout. These were easy enough to avoid if you were worried about your waist line.  You just ate sensibly, plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables and avoided the greasy stuff.  If only it were so easy today.
 
The next time you buy a packet of biscuits or cakes, check the ingredients. This is the ingredient list of a large commercial bakery (who shall remain nameless).  See if you can figure out which cake they are making!

"Sultanas, Wheat Flour, Sugar, Pork Fat, Reconstituted Egg, Vegetable Oil, Soya Flour, Reconstituted Egg White, Whey Powder, Demerara Sugar, Raising Agents (Disodium Diphosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate), Preservative (Potassium Sorbate), Thickener (Xanthan Gum), Milk Protein, Emulsifiers (Mono- and Diglycerides of Fatty Acids, Polyglycerol Esters of Fatty Acids)"

Can't guess?

OK, I'll tell you.  It's your average common or garden fruit cake.  Now why is pork fat in there?  I've made an awful lot of fruit cakes in my time and I've never used pork fat.  All my cakes came out just fine, I've even won competitions with them.

And Disodium Diophosphate?  Got any in your kitchen cupboard?  I don't think so.  It's used in leather treatments to stabilist the hides and remove iron stains.  Ooooh yummy!  Sounds delicious, and so natural and good for you!

However it now appears that things are getting worse.  I know, you're wondering how?  Now we have people eating a burger made from meat that has never walked, mooed or given milk.  Aritificially created meat.  How humane they say.  It's good for the environment because cows produce an awful lot of methane and require vast acres of pasture which has to be created by chopping down forests around the world.  

Fortunately at the moment it costs an awful lot of money to produce meat this way, so Findus and McDonalds won't be using it in their products, but if it gets cheap enough you can bet your bottom dollar that the food 'industry' will start to use it.

If the enviromental impact of raising cattle and other meat producing animals is so high I have another suggestion.  How about educating people into eating one non-meat meal a week?  It would be better for them, better for the environment and currently no-body produces vegetables in a laboratory.  Although give them time and they probably will.  Good Grief!

Let's get rid of the monarchy

It's a common cry.  Repeated by various politicians over the years.  It costs us money they say.  The Queen and her family just 'inherited' all that land and those castles, it's not fair.  These people never actually say where they think the castles and land would be more fairly distributed, but they like to give the impression that they would know what to do with them, oh yes!  And it would be so much 'fairer' for everyone if they were in charge and did so.

The Queen costs every tax payer in the country approx £0.62 pence.  For this we have a vastly experienced stateswoman representing our country and its interests abroad and at home.  She is involved in countless charitable works, as is her consort Prince Phillip. Even better, whenever Her Majesty appears as our representative she does so with no hidden political agenda.

Imagine the alternative.  Cameron/Clegg/Blair or Milliband representing our country abroad?  They would also require all the paraphenalia incumbent to such a position so they would not cost a great deal less than Her Majesty.  Any such person would have been elected whilst standing for a party and it's political agenda, and whatever they would say on coming to office they would carry this with them.  

They would also never be able to compete with the Queen on experience.  I have tried, very hard to think of an occasion over the last 60 years when our Queen has made a faux pas at an important event.  When she has allowed her own feelings to show about whomever she is required to meet at an important diplomatic function.  I can't think of one.  Admittedly there have been one or two 'bloopers' from Prince Phillip, but over the years I think the British public have come to rather expect and secretly enjoy those.

Numerous Prime Ministers have come and gone in those 60 years.  Quite a few of them have been unashamed republicans, all of them have come to admit to an admiration for the woman in the position they claim to abhor.  Indeed, we have a whole nation of fervent Royalists who just "love your Queen and her grandkids".  Yes, our friends in America who went to such lengths to be free from a monarchy but strangely just can't enough of ours.  Australia has had several votes on whether to remain in the Commonwealth or whether to leave.  To date they have always chosen to remain in the family of countries presided over by the Queen.

For the last 60 years our Queen has fulfilled her promise to 'devote her life, whether it be short or long to the service of my people'.  She has done so with a quiet dignity and assurance that none have matched.  On state occasions the Royal household put on a display of perfection and precision admired and envied throughout the world, and all for £0.62 pence per taxpayer.  Worth every penny.

The environment minister, his forgotten biology lessons and GM crops.

On the BBC news website last week it was reported that Mr Owen Paterson, the Environment minister had said he thought that the UK should 'lead the way' with introducing GM crops to the UK and Europe.

Mr Paterson should really talk to his cabinet colleague, Mr Gove.  Why?  Because Mr Paterson appears to have forgotten all of his 'I' level,  GCSE or 'O' level Biology, but more of the importance of seed distribution later.

Fortunately for the UK and our European partners it is no longer necessary to debate the wisdom or otherwise of using GM crops.  Our kind colonial cousins in the United States have been running one for us over the last 10 years or so, and the results are readily available for anyone to see.

Have US farmers benefited from this new seed technology?  Have they seen an increase in profits as their yields rise and costs fall?  No.  What they have seen is a promise unfulfilled.  The big companies who produce these seeds have come up with a cunning plan that even Baldrick from Blackadder would proud of, the plants that grow from the seed they produce, grow, flower and produce seeds of their own but these seeds are infertile.  The farmers cannot, as farmers for centuries have done, keep part of their crop back for planting next year.  They must return to the companies who produce the seed, and who hold the patent for it.

Worse yet, these large companies have promised the farmers that they are producing seeds for crops that are 'herbicide resistant'.  The theory being that because the plants can withstand the common herbicides used in farming they can be sprayed more regularly, killing more weeds which cannot therefore compete with the crop for nutrients and light.  Never mind where the herbicide that the plant absorbs so easily ends up (in your food), but this is a great advantage to the farmer who should get more crop for less chemical.  Or so runs the theory.

Mr Paterson is not alone in forgetting his basic biology lessons.  Apparently the clever scientists working at these large companies have also forgotten some of theirs.  They don't appear to remember that clever chap called Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution.  About 95% of the weeds are killed by the chemicals, which are (conveniently) produced by the same companies who produce the GM seeds.  The 5% which survive however, go on to reproduce.  They have survived one lot of chemical, and are more resistant than before.  Very soon nature catches up with science.

Worst of all some scientists (who do appear to have remembered their basic biology lessons) working in Cambridge have produced a high yielding crop by the traditional methods of cross pollinating and selective breeding.  These crops have, in initial tests out-performed the GM crops produced by the big companies busy producing solutions to a problem most farmers were unaware they had, and their seed is fertile and can be sown for next year's crop.

Mr Paterson tried to reassure the British public that GM crops were 'safe' and wouldn't spread to where they weren't required.  This is so reassuring.  There was I worrying that bees would visit the flower of a GM plant, and then visit a non-GM plant, thereby producing a seed which is half GM and half natural.  I was further worried that the wind or birds would help to distribute this seed randomly about the countryside.  Luckily Mr Paterson appears to have all this covered, because he says this can't happen.  He must have attended some biology lessons I missed.

Madness in the NHS

We all know we have to save money to run the NHS for everyone who can't afford private health insurance.  Basically that's everyone who isn't in the 'stinking rich and running the country' bracket. We all know that, and we all agree that everyone should have access to free health care. 

In my experience I would say that NHS staff are mostly very hard working people, doing their best in difficult circumstances. It is the system they are working in that causes problems and inefficiencies.

My husband recently had to visit his doctor with some rather worrying looking marks on the backs of his hands.  His doctor couldn't say what they were, so referred him to our local hospital to see a specialist.  So far, so familiar.

When the specialist examined the marks on the back of his hands she said they needed treatment with a certain kind of cream, and started writing out a note.  "Is that my prescription?" he asked her.  At this point she raised her eyes and gave him the sort of look that a weary professional who has to follow rules that don't make any sense gives.  "No" she said "this is a request for a prescription, you have to take this to your doctor so they can write out the prescription." 

Now, this person is more highly qualified than our local GP in the condition that my husband has. She has studied at medical school for as many if not more years than our local GP.  She has, until recently been able to issue prescriptions to the patients that she sees so that they can get the medicines that they need and start the treatment to make them well again immediately.  Not now gently reader!

Now, because the funding system has been arranged this way, it means that it makes better economical sense for the prescription to be provided by the GP.  The GP then gets some of the NHS money to provide the prescription and the medicines and the hospital doesn't have to carry such a wide variety of drugs. It's better for the 'system' and the bureaucrats running it, but not the patient.

In this modern, digital age surely the specialist could tick a couple of boxes and 'credit' the sugery my husband is registered with the money that they currently claim by making the patient perform the service of courier with his own prescription?

My husband who is still a fit and able person fortunately, now has to find the time to drive to the doctor's surgery to hand in the request for a prescription.  Because it is a request and not a prescription he then has to wait 2/3 days for his GP to write the requested prescription.  He has to drive back to the surgery once this is ready and either get the precription filled in the surgery or at a nearby pharmacy if the surgery is out of stock.

Can someone please explain how this is an improvement for the patient? I can understand that accountants may find it a lot simpler, and that it makes their work so much easier but I didn't think that was the point of the NHS.  I always thought the it was the job of the NHS to make sick people well again as quickly and efficiently as possible.  Or did I get that wrong?

Welcome to the new blog on the block.  The blog that will (hopefully) make politicians and leaders in all walks of public life stop for just a minute and think "Oh, yes, that would make more sense to do it that way."

I'm sure we've all been there, waiting in a massive queue whilst some poor over-worked girl at a counter somewhere has to input endless figures into a machine in front of her, only for her to lift her head at the end of it all and say "Sorry, the computer says No!"

I would welcome your examples of madness run wild, so please add comments to these articles as they appear. I can't be the only person out there thinking, in true Charlie Brown fashion "Good grief!"