Doha Climate Change Conference

Once again another climate change conference has concluded without there being any real progress. The world has not decided to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. In fact there is going to be an increase. In the foreseeable future there is no hope of us gaining control of our emissions and mitigating the probable dangerous effects of climate change.

http://us.oneworld.net/doha?gclid=CMzkg-vJj7QCFW3KtAod2ykAnQ

Consider this: since the industrial revolution the amount carbon dioxide  in the atmosphere has increased by  200 billion tons. It is a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Between the end of the last glacial period, about 18,000 years ago, and the the start of the industrial revolution nature exchanged 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide between the oceans and the atmosphere. Nature had added a considerable quantity of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere but with only  minimal intervention from  mankind.

It took a long time, but this addition of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere was sufficient to melt most  the ice covering the northern parts of  Europe and Asia and to raise sea levels by tens of metres. However, during the 18,000 years since the last glacial period the earth returned three or four times back into glacial conditions and come out of them again.

The inter glacial period looks as though it is now fully established. Or is it?

During the Younger Dryas, about 13,000 years ago, the earth suddenly went back into full ice age conditions for a period of about 1,300 years. When the earth returned again, to inter glacial conditions, the change only took 50 to 70 years.

Three possible causes of the return to ice age conditions 13,000 years ago have been posited: a huge influx of freshwater into the North Atlantic, a volcano which emitted billions of tons of dust into the atmosphere or a large meteorite hitting the earth.

Whatever the cause, nature alone was able to change the climate and weather very suddenly. Adding an extra 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will not be without consequence. But, the consequence might not be the gradual and uniform  increase in  temperatures as predicted at the climate change conferences. We could be faced with the possibility of changes to the global distribution of heat.

The northern regions of the planet could cool down whilst the tropics heat up even more. Global average temperatures would still continue to increase. A slight change to the global heat distribution of the planet could suddenly initiate temporary ice age conditions in the northern hemisphere.

The quick onset of ice age conditions could be more dangerous than rising sea levels. How deep are your water pipes buried?

We are just as much a part of nature as any other creature and one could claim that what is happening to the atmosphere is perfectly natural. We are, however, the only creatures who can foresee the consequences of our own actions. The trouble is the damage we have already done to our own interests may now be irreversible.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Faith Healing

There are reports in the media that faith healing is spreading in England within the evangelical community. There is no evidence that God exists and there is certainly no evidence that faith healing works. It is my view that it is completely irresponsible for priests within the evangelical community to encourage vulnerable and sick members of their churches not to take their medication. Anyone who has Cancer or Aids cannot be cured by faith alone.

I have known a number of people who have tried faith remedies with tragic results. My best advice is to put your trust in conventional medicine; it is your only hope to cure life threatening diseases or conditions.

Neil Armstrong

I can still remember the excitement when I saw the live pictures of Neil Armstrong stepping out onto the moon. It still amazes me how someone could have the courage to travel so far away from the home planet for so long. This type of exploration was completely different to any that had happened before. Not only did the have to carry their own food and water they had to carry their own oxygen. They had to take a little part of the whole earth with them in order to survive but even so they could not be supplied with the gravity conditions we enjoy on earth or the same perspective of the horizon. The Apollo 11 astronauts took enormous risks to achieve their mission and even succeeded despite computer based prompting to abandon the mission. This was human intelligence and spirit combining to operate at their best.

The moon landings and the first trip to orbit the moon, in Apollo 8, by Borman, Lovell and Anders  shows the United States of America at its best, for its ingenuity, technical ability and bravery. All this was typified by Collins, Armstrong and Aldrin and exemplified when Lovell lead the stricken Apollo 13 mission back home against all the odds.

No words of mine can pay full tribute to Neil Armstrong.

Curiosity

If I was able to award and Olympic gold medal, I would award it to Nasa for successfully landing the Curiosity probe on Mars. We still have no hard evidence that life has started anywhere else in the Universe other than  on Earth.

I believe that life must have started on other planets somewhere in our galaxy but the chance of that life evolving into "intelligent beings" is probably remote. Believing something to be true is different to knowing that something is true and I would love to see hard evidence. Curiosity cannot, however, prove that life has never existed on Mars. Proof positive would lead to some profound changes to how we see ourselves and our place in the Universe. I will still not expect to meet some visitors from an alien planet even if we prove that there is life elsewhere in our solar system.

Public Interest

I am a member of the public and I do not consider it to be in my interests to see pictures of Prince Harry performing his antics. Some newspapers claim that they have the right to publish these photographs because they have already been seen by everybody on a celebrity internet site. Well, I do not look at celebrity sites and I have no intention of doing so. When these pictures are limited to the internet viewers have to make a positive effort to see them, but when the person sitting opposite holds up their newspaper close to our face we have no choice but to look. The newspapers should consider this. We can all use our imagination about what happened so we do not need to have it pushed into our faces. It is debatable whether the antics of the Prince in Las Vegas should have been published at all. All this is done in the name of making money not in the public interest.

Please consider this: there is an outside but reasonable chance that Prince Harry will become the Head of State. Whether you are a republican or a monarchist do you want your Head of State  to become the subject of ridicule or public entertainment? The press should consider this too.

This weekend we have been treated to headlines from the popular press that there are rumours that a singer and a professional footballer have been having an affair. Once again you cannot avoid seeing these headlines. We have no way of knowing whether these rumours are true of not. We do not need to know about or read about such rubbish. Publication of such rumours is not in the public interest.

Once again the press is causing anguish to the family and friends of famous people when there is no need for it. Let's hope that the Leveson enquiry shows some teeth to prevent the publication of nonsense and rumour which has no bearing upon legitimate public concern.

Higg's boson

So now we have it the last piece of the jigsaw to confirm the standard model of how our universe operates. Whilst many physicists are celebrating, I cannot understand what they are getting worked up about. Does the final piece of the jigsaw only complete an imaginary picture? We have leptons, quarks, fermions and bosons. The Higg's boson is the sub-atomic particle that confers mass to particles such as protons. So now we know where mass and matter come from. But what conferred the Higg's boson its mass? We do not have an answer.

I have difficulty with the big bang theory and I do not believe that this is the final answer to how the universe was created. How could it be possible that  all the matter and energy that we now observe could have originated from a single point some 13.6 billion years ago. How do we know what happened at that time we have no means of observing what happened? We can only infer how the process started and continued afterwards. Of course this is no argument for the existence of a God.

There is also the conjecture about inflation where the vacuum of space was supposed to have expand for some brief seconds faster than the speed of light. How do we know that this actually happened?

I can understand and believe Newton's Laws of motion as they can be proved by direct observation.

I can also completely accept Darwin's Theory of evolution because the theory can be proven from observation and examination of the fossil record.

Newton and Darwin's theories have direct and powerful meaning.

I had difficulty understanding Einstein's General and Special theories of relativity but have to accept their validity because they have been proven by observation albeit by  indirect means using light and radio telescopes.

Like most other people I simply cannot understand quantum theory. How can an electron be in two places at once? All this is counter-intuitive. I can, however, accept Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, where the observer can somehow affect the observed at an atomic level and to such an extent that we cannot identify the exact location of an electron. Quantum mechanics has been used to good effect at an atomic level so there must be some truth in the theory.

The validity of the standard model relies upon very indirect methods of observation and statistical models to prove the existence of sub-atomic particles such as the Neutrino and the Higg's boson. But how do we know that the results of collisions in the Large Hadron Collider really represent conditions at the beginning of the big bang?

In some respects the big bang theory is no more believable, for me, than the steady state theory; so come back Fred Hoyle all is forgiven.

Buzzards and Defra

There have been reports in the press that DEFRA, a coalition government department, has been working with landowners, who organise pheasants shoots, to find a means of controlling the UK Buzzard population. One of the proposals is to capture and relocate live Buzzards and then destroy their nests. I would like to ask the question: why do pheasant shooting landowners want to do this? After years of persecution the Buzzard is just starting to re-colonise large areas of the UK from which they were completely eliminated by game keepers. I am now able to see Buzzards regularly in Kent. These magnificent birds have made a comeback because of legal protection.

The Buzzards is an  indigenous  species to the UK. The pheasant is not. Why should the pheasant be protected in this way? If we really want to protect the interests of the pheasant why do we not leave them alone to try to survive in their new environment without human interference. Twenty million pheasants are reared each year on private estates but under industrial farming conditions. They are then  released  for them to be shot for sport. Many of these birds escape into "the wild" and some of the weaker ones are taken by Buzzards. The pheasants' welfare is not taken into account; so what is wrong with a small proportion of these birds being caught by the increasing number of raptors. The activity of Buzzards hardly puts the commercial interest of landowners in jeopardy and to cull them to "protect" an alien bird species which will be shot anyway is simply immoral. Equally, a decision to cull Buzzards would be crass beyond belief. The RSPB has over one million members who could quite easily determine the result of a close fought election. Estate owners would be wise to recognise this as a change to conservation laws might affect more than a pheasant shoot. Members of the general population no longer "tug their forelocks" at the sight of a gamekeeper. Haven't the estate owners recognised this yet?

Why not live and let live. Let the Estates rear their pheasants but under strict animal welfare conditions and leave the Buzzards alone. This seems to be a fair trade off.

Financial Crisis

The Economies of the west are living dangerously. We are facing economic collapse not just in Greece and Spain but in Britain, France, Germany and even the United States. We are still suffering from the economic storms of 2008. Our governments do not know what to do. They are unable to stimulate our economies. They have allowed the bosses of Financial Markets to run economic policy for the last thirty years and this has been a disaster. Quite naturally these bosses think only of themselves not even their shareholders which  they are meant to serve. They cannot be expected to think of the common good.

We are now at the stage where the world could once again be plunged into a great depression similar to that of the late 1920's and early 1930's. The causes of the Great Depression of the 20th century were very similar to the present one: too much uncontrolled credit.

Quite rightly the governments of Europe and the United States are trying to reduce government budget deficits but our governments have done very little to ensure that private and corporate debt is reduced. To some extent private and corporate debt is a bigger problem than government debt, as it is very much larger. For instance the private and corporate debt of the UK is three times our gross domestic product. Only Japan, in the "western world" has a higher per capita private debt. The UK economy is in serious trouble if any nation in the western world goes bankrupt as our exposure is so great. The UK Financial Sector has made so many bad loans.

To try and aid recovery the Treasuries of all of our economies have practised quantitative easing  which is equivalent to printing money. The UK has printed 325 billion pounds. The European Central Bank has printed 1 trillion Euros , yes that is a million million Euros, 1 followed by 12 noughts. The US has also printed billions of dollars.

What has happened to this money? Well , it has been given to the very same Financial Institutions who got us into this problem in the first place.

In the aftermath of the Great Depression, in the last century, recovery in the USA was initiated by printing money as well. The difference was that  the money was directed at public works which generated employment and growth in the economy. The Banks which helped caused the the financial crash were not treated so generously.

Quantitative easing will eventually create inflation because of the extra liquidity which has been generated. But if this money is not put to good use it will not stimulate our economies and we could be left with increasing unemployment, stagnation and rising prices.

To give so much money to Financial Institutions was a mistake. Some of that money should have been invested in private and public enterprise.When will a government be courageous enough to rectify this error.

To rely on financial cuts alone will not solve our problems. Of course we must save money and improve the productivity of all our nations. Billions and billions of Dollars, Pounds and Euros are there to be saved.  But some of this saving needs to be re-invested in a programme to generate work in both the private and public sector. Money should be directed to projects which will create jobs. On the private sector side, I can think of a number of projects- broadband technology, aerospace and the revitalisation of the high street to name but a few.   On the public sector side we should invest in public transport infrastructure which will be genuinely directed to reducing the numbers of cars and lorries on our roads.  Why not to build the thousands of houses that are needed? This would apply to the UK only: Spain has got plenty of empty ones! We should also make it a national objective to make sure that every child leaves school being able to read and write properly, with, at least, a grasp of a foreign language and the ability to perform mental arithmetic.

All of our governments have the power to direct programmes aimed at reducing waste in the public and private sectors to free up investment to create jobs. Our Treasuries have become bookkeepers who are only concentrating on saving money. They should become real managers of the economy to ensure that the wealth of our nations is invested in productive activity. We need Treasurers with the imagination and courage to lead us out of a potential economic depression and deploy some of the saved money to reduce unemployment.

When there was no money at all, what did the community do when there was an economic problem such as a drought?  No doubt the whole community got together to build an irrigation system which was for the common good. The farmers then promised the people who worked on the irrigation project a share of the increased food production. There was the political will to get something done. This is how humanity had learnt to survive and prosper for many millenia before actual money was invented. Money is just a means of exchange which lubricates economic activity and for thousands of years humanity survived without it.  We now need a similar political will to revive our economies despite straitened times: there is no lack of money it is just in the wrong place. We need to release that money from the grip of the Financial Institutions and get it working for us again. Where is the political will to ensure that the Banks release working capital to the general economy? We the public allow them legally to operate as limited liability companies and we the public grant them the licences to operate as Banks. The public has the right to insist that all Banks consider the public good in their articles of association.

I propose a Four stage solution.

An immediate injection of cash flow to prevent Greece, Spain, Italy from going bust.

All western governments to invest some of their saved and printed money in private and public works to stimulate their economies and reduce unemployment to very low levels.

Immediate regulation of the Financial Services sector to prevent the problems of uncontrolled lending ever happening again.

A long term policy, to  reduce substantially our reliance on borrowing to finance public spending.

We need another Franklyn D. Roosevelt to inspire us. Unfortunately no one is stepping forward. I fear that only a really severe crisis will prompt action. Where is the new deal going to come from?

The Catholic Education Service

It has been reported that the Catholic Education Service has been urging pupils in state funded Catholic Secondary schools to sign a petition against gay marriage. I cannot understand why they are pursuing this policy even from the point of view of their own self interest. Why antagonise a secular society which has been happy to fund faith education. These funds could easily be withdrawn. Further restrictions could be imposed upon what schools can and cannot teach if public opinion becomes unfavourable to the concept of faith schools.

I am opposed to idea of faith schools, as I do not believe that any religion should proselytise its ideas using state funds. If parents want their children to receive a "faith" education they should send their children to a private school not funded by the state. Even so, such such schools should be obliged to educate their children to an approved educational standard and curriculum.

I am opposed to any form of unbalanced political activity or discussion taking place in a school. Political campaigning for any cause should be banned within the confines of a school.

In my view religious institutions should be allowed to campaign for their views to be heard by the general population. Indeed it should be their right. This right should be exercised responsibly, however, so religious bodies should be careful not to interfere in the political process by encouraging young people to sign petitions against gay marriage or abortions etc.

Why is the Roman Catholic church so opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage? Is it because they are holding onto irrational beliefs for which there is no evidence?
 
The state does not intend to impose gay marriages on religious institutions. Roman Catholics, who are heterosexuals, will still be allowed to marry as per usual in their church. The same applies to Muslims. Some very religious people do not recognise the state's involvement in marriage but they are free to live together as partners without state sanction.

There is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural being which is influencing the observable universe. Where is the proof? So how can there be a God's law which dictates that homosexuality is divinely illegal or immoral?  It is simply irrational to believe that there can be any other law than that which human beings create for themselves. Secular society has deemed homosexuality to be legal and moral; the Church should accept this.

Stemming from the irrational belief that there is a supernatural being, is the opinion and that the Church is some how in touch with this being who endows absolute powers to the human priesthood. This priesthood is then allowed to dictate what we believe and  what we do not believe and how we should behave. It is dangerous to believe that the church has the absolute right to intervene in political affairs. The concept of divine right is complete irrational nonsense.

The dangers of  irrational thinking should not be allowed to penetrate state schools. Therefore, the opinions of creative design should not be taught in science lessons. Children and young people should only be taught facts for which which there is indisputable evidence. Children should be taught to distinguish between a fact for which there is evidence and an opinion for which there is not any evidence. The church cannot prove that there is a supernatural being so their claims are opinions only. Likewise, the church has not provided any evidence to suggest that people who are homosexuals or who do not want to get married in church or do not believe in the supernatural are sick.

 Whilst we should be concerned about human rights and the freedom to worship we should be concerned about the dangers that organisations such as "Core Issues" represent. Their ideas that homosexuals are sick and can be cured are irrational. In my view their cures represent  another form of witchcraft or sorcery. Any young person who is homosexual would do well to steer very clear of the ideas and quackery of this institution. The opinions of organisations such as "Core Issues"  should be vigorously and critically examined at school so that pupils can determine their veracity for themselves.

Contraception

The UK National Health Service is putting forward the idea that young women or teenagers, as young as thirteen years of age, should be allowed to obtain the contraceptive pill from trained pharmacists without recourse to a consultation with a doctor. Whilst the numbers of teenagers below the age of thirteen who might want to use this service is probably very small some important ethical issues are raised.

Some aspects of birth control involve medical prescriptions and procedures such as monthly contraceptive pills, the "morning after pill" and abortion. These medical interventions are for the most part being made on people who are not physically ill. Pregnancy, without physical complications, is not an illness. Most women who become pregnant are healthy individuals. I am of the opinion that we should be more careful when we give medical treatment to people who are not physically sick.

There is a legal age of consent which is sixteen. Surely, parents have some rights in this matter and would want to know if their daughters are engaging in under age sex and why.

There is the risk of sexually transmitted disease if anyone indulges in unprotected sex especially if one or both of the partners is promiscuous.

The very young women who are are indulging in under age sex may not be the best organised and might still get pregnant in spite of contraceptive pill usage. We need to see strong evidence that these proposals will in fact reduce unwanted teenage pregnancies.

What safeguards are in place to prevent "braver" young women visiting pharmacists to obtain contraceptive pills for their more timid friends? There is the possibility that young women could obtain this form of medication without any adult knowing.

It is my view that the handing out "off the shelf" solutions does not tackle the problems of unwanted pregnancies or other sexually related problems. Before any form of medication is dispensed to people who are physically in good health then there should at least be a consultation with a medical doctor who can discuss all of the physical and mental implications with the "patient". Where young people who are under the age of sixteen are involved every effort should be made to get the parents involved too.

We also need to do more to educate young people about the consequences of under-age sex and what to do if they are determined to indulge. Young men should also be encouraged to take their sexual activities seriously and use condoms when they have sex: not just to protect themselves but their partners as well.

I am not opposed to contraception or abortion but I think that we should exercise exceptional care especially where young women below the age of sixteen are concerned.

Just reaching out for a strip of pills to try to solve a complex problem is not acceptable for me. In my view our young people deserve something better.

NHS and the discharge of patients

At last the National Health Service is doing something about the abhorrent practice of discharging patients at night and have issued the following press statement by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh Medical Director of the NHS.
 

"While some patients may of course choose to be discharged during these hours, the examples highlighted of elderly patients being left to make their way home by themselves in the middle of the night are obviously unacceptable, and need to be addressed urgently... As health professionals we all agree that patients should be treated with compassion, so it is simply not acceptable to send people home from hospital late at night when they may have no family members nearby to support them".

This situation should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. You do not need a degree in nursing or a doctorate in medical science to realise that  discharging patients outside of normal working hours is unacceptable regardless of their age or whether family or friends are available to help them or not. This practice should be stopped immediately and there is no need for a review. The hospital staff should know better. It is obvious that this practice has to stop and there is no need for a consultation period. I fear that the practice will be allowed to continue and 75 year old men will be still  discharged, at inconvenient hours, into the care of their 70 year old wives. You can see this happening by reading between the lines of the PR statement.

Once again, of course, we are treated to a PR statement in flowery language which does nothing to tackle the problem that some people working in the NHS do not care about the patients. No matter how much money we spend there will be no improvement in care whilst the attitude remains that patients can be discharged from hospitals as if they are vegetables being dispatched to a supermarket warehouse.

It is time for patients to be treated with all the dignity that human beings can be afforded. The tone of the PR release does not fill me full of confidence that the problem of inadequate care throughout the health service will be addressed quickly. It sounds as if inadequate care is not regarded as a problem but more of a "challenge" to be hidden away on a checklist.

Hospital and NHS reorganisations will fail if management are unable to realise that patient care should be the top priority and not the bottom one.It is clearly time for a change of attitude and some down to earth thinking rather than management theory and PR speak.
 

Gay advertising "battles"

Today Transport for London banned an advertisement by Core Issues, a christian group, to promote on buses the following: "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!".  Transport for London had previously accepted advertisements from Stonewall promoting: ''Some people are gay. Get over it''. The Core Issues advertisement is clearly meant to be a spoof which is satirising the Stonewall claims. The Mayor for London averred that the Core Issues advertisement was claiming that homosexuality was an illness which can be cured. It was also his opinion that this type of advertisement is offensive.

Try as I may,  I cannot see that the Core Issues' advertisement implies that gay people are sick. Their statement is as meaningless as the Stonewall one. The word gay is a colloquialism and it does not necessarily mean "homosexual" it can also mean "light hearted". "Get over it"  is just a catch phrase. Two diametrically opposed campaigning groups are using meaningless language to promote their point of view and  to criticise one another. Is this the silly season for public relations?

I could not care less whether someone is homosexual or not or whether they are proud of it or not. I am a heterosexual: I am what I am . I am not proud of it; why should I be? No one is going to convince me otherwise no matter what language they use. And I have no need to get over it, whatever that means.


What I do care about is the freedom of speech, the freedom to practise one's religion and the right to be a heterosexual or homosexual without fear or favour. I also believe in the right to be an agnostic or atheist without fear or favour.

Core Issues are not trying to interfere in the political process by their use of this advert. They are not proposing repressive laws either. They should be allowed to publish this advert. They are just as entitled to publish  "tripe" as Stonewall is.

Sperm Identity

There is talk in Britain of denying sperm donors their anonymity. The whole idea of sperm donation is that it should be anonymous. I suspect that not many men will want to donate sperm only to find that eighteen years or so later someone, who they have never been in contact with, is going to knock on their door claiming to be their son or daughter. Imagine the disruption especially if you are settled down with children that you do know. What would your wife or partner think, as well?

There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in Britian who have not been brought up by their real father and it is probably best if they do not know.

Let sleeping dogs lie, if you want a constant supply of sperm donors.

Transport woes

Yesterday I travelled by train from Kent to London Waterloo during the mid morning. The school children were on holiday and our four coach train was full to the brim. South Eastern trains had decided not to increase the capacity on the line even though there were as many passengers as their would be in the rush hour. Perhaps, I am maligning South East trains when I say that they had decided not to increase capacity whilst the children are on holiday. Probably, they had not thought to do this and probably they do not care.

At London Waterloo I caught an underground train to the West End; this train was also full to the brim as there had been a problem on the line. Not only was it full to the brim but it was also uncomfortably hot even though the outside temperature was only 14 degrees celcius. What will happen when the Olympic Games are running? All the school children will be on holiday and there will be hundreds of thousands of extra tourists taking to the railways and other forms of public transport. The system will not be able to cope and I have visions of tourists fainting on the overcrowded and hot underground trains. The Public transport system in London is no longer fit for purpose. I shall be avoiding any travel to London whilst the Olympics take place.

Another problem that I noticed on my journey was the failure of any young person to make way for someone who was elderly, infirm or pregnant. It was and is everyman and woman for themselves. No-one could care less as they stare into their "smartphones"  whilst oblivious to their fellow passengers around them.This lack of politeness and humanity is not limited to British people. My tube train was filled with people from all over Europe so anyone who is old, infirm or pregnant should be quite used to the fact that no-one is going to give up their seat for the less able when they pay a visit to London: Olympics or not.


 

Petrol Panic

There is only a possibility that fuel delivery drivers will go on strike in the UK. A week's notice has to be given before a strike takes place. Despite all this there is panic buying at the fuel stations with some garages running out of petrol whilst yesterday fuel purchases rose by 170%. Who knows what will happen if the fuel delivery drivers really decide to go on strike? Why does there have to be panic buying when the situation has hardly changed?

The attitudes of some people never cease to amaze me especially when taking advice from the government. When govern ministers offer sensible advice about not drinking too much every one ignores it.

When the government tries to recommend that we fully adopt the metric system like most other civilised countries we have protests. Perhaps avoirdupois sausages taste better than metric ones. So we ignore the recommendations.

When a government minister suggests something daft, rather than stupid, like filling up your tank even though it is unnecessary many people comply without question. What has happened to commonsense? Perhaps it's the early hot and sunny  weather? Why waste petrol and time to fill up unnecessarily? This form of behaviour just gets in the way of people who have to fill up out of necessity like policemen and doctors.

Hopefully all this madness will quietly die down and  there will not be a strike. I hate to think what will happen if there is a disruption to fuel supplies - fuel rage at the pumps? Luckily, commonsense usually prevails, even when there is an industrial dispute too.

Resistance to Antibiotics

The Director General of the world health Organistion has warned us that the resistance of disease causing micro-organism to antibiotics is increasing at an alarming rate. There is a risk that every antibiotic which has been developed will be rendered useless. If true, this might have enormous implications for the health of everyone in the world. It is possible that diseases such as Tuberculosis will  be rendered incurable.  A contributing factor to microbial resistance is the use of antibiotics in farming on an industrial scale and the inappropriate use of antibiotics by the medical profession.

This problem has implications for all of us. Antibiotics have made a major contribution to world health. They have also made a major contribution to the growth in the human population. We have come to rely upon antibiotics and our survival without them may now be imperilled.

Is it possible, now, that the growth in our population will be curtailed by the spread of untreatable diseases?

Urgent work is required to find new methods of controlling infectious disesase; perhaps by the use of Bacteriophages?

Our vulnerability to infectious diseases and our increasing inablity to control them points out that we are not immune to the the processes of nature. Despite all our hubris and cleverness, we are not completely able to protect ourselves from natural or man made catastrophes. We need to intervene in nature with the utmost care, intelligence and understanding, otherwise we could easily damage ourselves or even wipe ourselves out.

Syria and Chemical Weapons

The UN is now concerned that Syria has chemical weapons. This is another disturbing development for peace in the region. If true, this is another considerable threat to peace in the region. Syria has been involved in so many wars. It is, of course, a major threat to Israel which is obliged to defend its citizens; so it is no wonder that Israel is determined to maintain a nuclear deterrent.

Syria is also becoming a destabilised state so what would happen if chemical weapons were to fall into the hands of terrorists?

It is time for the UN Security council to insist that all nations in the Middle East divest themselves of all types of weapons of mass destruction to prevent another calamity from happening.

Afghanistan,War and Military Occupation

Afghanistan is another international tragedy which will be difficult if not impossible for western powers to resolve. I agree with the new policy to withdraw our troops by 2014 and to start reducing their deployment in 2013. Evens so, we have a duty to try and prevent chaos during the period of withdrawal. There was very little justification  for invasion in the first place. It is better to prevent terrorism by policing operations and the use of intelligence; intelligence in all the meanings of the word.

It is difficult to completely control the actions of a nation's servicemen even when those servicemen completely share common values. Atrocities have been committed by soldiers on duty even though their political masters have have ordered them to act with restraint. This is one of the unfortunate consequences of both war and occupation.

If it is difficult to completely control soldiers who share the same values as you , what chance  do you have to control or influence a nation which does not share most of your opinions?

It is my view that war and occupation of another state can rarely be justified on either moral or pragmatic grounds. In recent history, I can only support one war and that was the Second World War. Diplomacy had failed to prevent, Hitler, a crazed maniac from subverting liberal secular democracy to impose a tyranny based on semi-religious beliefs.  However, war could not prevent him and his henchmen committing some of the biggest crimes in history.

The occupation of Western Germany by American, British and French forces was accepted, in peace, by the German people for a number of reasons: fear of the Soviet Union, shared values with the USA, Britain and France and perhaps a sense of guilt. It should be remembered that most of the German people did not support Hitler or his policies and he never received majority support in any election.

The Soviet Union was un-able to occupy the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe without resentment or in some cases violent opposition. Even though Russia shared European values with the states that it occupied it ultimately failed to impose its will.

The Second World war had undesirable and unforeseen consequences. The USA was almost forced into developing nuclear weapons because of the fear that Germany would acquire them first. Hitler, without doubt, would have used them without restraint against any nation that opposed him and there would have been a worse holocaust. The cost of using these weapons, against Japanese civilians, was then assessed against the benefit of shortening the war and saving military lives. A diabolical inhuman calculation was, therefore, imposed upon the most liberal of politicians. This was the unfortunate result of the opposition to tyranny.

There are now dangers of another war breaking out in the Middle East. Israel has been allowed by the Western Powers to obtain Nuclear weapons. Israel is allowed to defend itself. The Israeli nation has an absolute right to exist. Every nation should consider what happened in the Second World war especially Middle Eastern neighbours. This does not mean that Israel should not act with restraint.  Its policy of occupying Palestinian territory will eventually be seen by history to be a diplomatic mistake. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was an error which should not have been allowed to happen. It looks as though Iran too wants to arm itself with Nuclear weapons to protect itself from perceived threats from its neighbours. This is the dangerous consequence of allowing Israel to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction. Can we expect Israel to act with restraint when the leaders of Iran have stated that they want to eliminate its nation completely?  Would the USA, France or Britain act with restraint if confronted with a similar situation?  I don't think so; there would be a pre-emptive non-nuclear strike. Their citizens would expect nothing less. There will, therefore, probably be another war  in the Middle East. It looks as though diplomacy will fail because of fear and hatred.

Nuclear proliferation has been one of the biggest threats to world peace and all this has been a result of un-preventable tyranny, war and occupation. Nuclear weapons must be removed from the diplomatic equation otherwise at some time in the future a maniac like Hitler will use them. The dangers of Nuclear war do not recede because of increased "deterrence" they only accumulate. Every nation needs to rid itself of these weapons as a matter of priority. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will ever happen. Human Beings, underneath it all, are just animals that are unable to control the dangers of their own ingenuity.

Homesexuality and Marriage

I have no strong feelings about whether the law should be changed to allow civil marriages between homosexuals. There is already the possibility of a civil partnership which is akin to marriage. I got married in a registry office because I believe that the church, or another other religion, should not be allowed to influence what constitutes a legal marriage. If the UK parliament is allowed a free vote on the matter, then I am confident that members will make the decision, whether the law should be changed or not, based on some sort of evidence. Church leaders seem to be incapable of weighing up any moral or intellectual dilemma based on evidence so their judgement cannot be trusted.

One prominent cardinal of the Roman Catholic church claimed that "gay" marriage would lead to some sort of moral dissolution and that "gay" marriage was against natural law. Where is the evidence that marriage is in any way governed by natural laws?  There is no evidence.

Where is the evidence that homosexuality harms our society? There is no evidence. So, why is the church so opposed to  homosexuals having the same rights as anyone else? I have the feeling that the church's opposition to homosexuality is based on blind and irrational prejudice.


Religious leaders are of course entitled to express their opinion, but if ever they were allowed to influence secular law making on the basis of their prejudice or irrational thoughts then all of us would be heading for trouble. The sort of intolerance that they are displaying disqualifies them from interfering in law making. I would hate to think what would happen if the church were to be given real power once again. Would it mean that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, atheists or homosexuals would be prevented from expressing their opinion or be disqualified from public office or worse?

My views are not an attack on religion or the beliefs of anyone. I agree that the church should be free not to marry homosexuals,  if they so chose. But in exchange for this the church should accept that we live in a secular society and should not try to interfere with the decisions of a democratically elected parliament which represents society in general.

A liberal, democratic and secular society is the best way of ensuring the freedom of everyone to practise their religion, no matter which one. It is also the best way of protecting the rights of those that do not adhere to the proscriptions of the religious. Above all, it is the best way of protecting our human rights and combating persecution.

Racism and adoption

For me racism is the worst form of prejudice.We are all individuals which belong to the same species or sub-species, so individuality should not be recognised by racial profiles. No one should be categorised into a race despite the temptation to do so. All of us have different coloured eyes, skin or different shaped heads despite the fact that the genetic make up of each one of us is so close that we are almost clones of one another. Racial prejudice is the result of either malice or ignorance or both. The ignorance can be fought with education . To eliminate the malice will be more difficult.

We should make a start, to eliminate racialism, by treating every individual the same despite their skin colour. Of course,we should take cultural background into account in out dealings with one another. But, we should also recognise that if a "white skinned" child is adopted at birth by a Japanese family, living in Japan, then that child will end up being culturally Japanese despite its physical appearance. Following on from this dark skinned parents should not be not prevented from adopting light skinned children. Culture is not inherited via the genes, it is acquired because nature has genetically given us the ability as a child, or even an adult, to acquire any culture and learn any language. Culture and genetic inheritance should not be linked in any other way. There are many parent less children in the UK, and there are far too many for adoption to be impeded by "racial" and cultural profiling. A white skinned child is far better being brought up by loving parents of any skin colour rather than an institution. The same principle applies to all other children and their potential adoptive parents. Skin colour should not enter the equation.

It is disingenuous for scientists to make claims that any individual can be superior or inferior intellectually or otherwise on the basis of skin colour as this flies in the face of all the evidence. Any scientist that proposes this should know better. There is no real basis for "racial" profiling to be included in any decision making about how we treat one another.

It is time to eliminate racial prejudice wherever it exists and allow everyone to live up to their full potential rather than holding them back on the basis of skin colour.

Severe Weather - not really

For some reason the British cannot get it into their heads that the cold spell that we have been experiencing recently is not severe weather. In my past career I have spent a lot of time visiting countries that are a lot colder; where even minus 20 degrees Celsius is not regarded as severe and everything keeps running. In the south east of England and the rest of southern Britain day time temperatures rarely stay below freezing, but as soon as there is even a minor cold spell travel chaos results. Last year I was working in Hamburg during the winter and it was far colder than in the south of the UK and there was deeper snow. The Airport and roads were kept open and the trains still ran on time. What was particularly impressive was the way they kept the overground trains running when they they were using exactly the same electric third rail system as south eastern trains UK. If the German railway engineers can keep their system running then why can't the British?
This year during the cold spell we have been treated to television pictures of our European neighbours struggling to keep their public services running as if their struggles and failures are an excuse for our own. The trouble is the services, in Europe, only start to fall apart when there is exceptionally deep snow and temperatures fall below minus 20 degrees C in the day time; otherwise they can keep them going. The television also reports deaths on the street of the Ukraine but this only happens when temperatures really plummet. If Britain were to experience temperatures of minus 38 degrees C, there would be a complete catastrophe with hundreds of thousands dying as every home froze up. The rescue services would be unable to respond because their vehicles could not start and all the roads would be blocked.
During this "severe cold spell" the Met Office has given us at least a week's warning of cold but dry weather but then followed by at most ten centimetres of snow. During that period we have had ample time to put salt on all of the roads and the pavements. This salt would not have been washed away and we would have been ready for the cold snap. Equally the railways could have been better prepared. This did not happen. What happened during this time? There was nothing happening. The worst plan of all was for Heathrow airport to admit complete defeat by cancelling a third of their flights before a single snow flake fell. All the snow fell during the night when flights are banned anyway. The weather forecasts were correct, why could Heathrow airport not keep the snow ploughs running during the night? We all know the answer. There is defeatist management. There is a desperate air of decadence and a lack of management vitality. The attitude is to issue an upbeat press release rather than do something.
No doubt the government could instruct the private and public services to improve their act but why should they have to? We are not a state that should be run by diktat so private and public service suppliers should live up to their responsibilities which their counterparts, in often poorer, European states seem to manage when the thermometer strikes just zero.

Climate Change Again

I regret to say this but the message about man made climate change is not getting through. I recently had a conversation with a gentleman in a restaurant who simply did not believe that mankind could have any effect on the environment let alone an adverse one. He believed that nature was much more powerful than mankind that that the rise in the temperatures and increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air was all caused by nature. Of course he was correct that the rest of nature is and always will be more powerful than mankind. We are after all part of a whole. He could not accept my argument that the present composition of the atmosphere was substantially altered in pre-cambrian times when cyano-bacteria produced substantial quantities of oxygen which lead the way to the rapid increase in oxygen breathing animals and plants on the the earth. He also did not believe that the during the carboniferous period the earth's atmosphere was also altered by substantial plant growth to produce an atmosphere which had a concentration of oxygen much higher than today. It was, as if, he believed there was a disconnection between the activities of plants and animals and the geological conditions of the planet. He also felt that there was a complete disconnection between mankind and other forms of animals and plants and that none of our activities could affect nature. When I put forward the view that the rest of nature had taken millions of years to affect the composition of the atmosphere but that man himself had suddenly, and in the course of a couple of hundred years, increased the level of carbon dioxide to dangerous levels he was non-plussed. He would not concede that we were upsetting the equilibrium of the atmosphere such that we are about to arrive at a tipping point and set in motion dangerous climate change. The message had not got through despite all of the publicity and documentaries on television about climate change. Amongst most of my friends, there is still doubt or mild scepticism about man made climate change and the message has not got through to them. These attitudes are probably dangerous and the future health of the human species will be put into jeopardy if there is not a change of opinion. There are plenty of documentaries on television which are explaining the science but of course they have to compete with the X-Factor. My colleague in the restaurant was right as nature is more powerful than us but we are not supernatural beings which are immune to the influence of nature. If we trigger off dangerous "natural" climate change will will suffer along with many other species. Nature does not care about us and will be immune to our suffering. Life will prevail on the planet for many millions of years longer but it us up to us, as well as nature, to decide whether we shall be part of that survival or not. The choice is ours: is it X-factor or science?

Doctors recommendations

These days the medical profession can hardly keep out of the news. A lot of this news is bad for the general population.

Doctors have changed their advice for middle aged people to take aspirin every day to reduce their chances of a heart attack. They now believe that the doubtful benefit of a reduced chance of a heart attack is more than offset by the dangers of internal bleeding in the stomach and brain. I never believed this advice and ignored it. All medical advice should be given based on sound evidence. It should also be given in light of the individual circumstances of the patient. No-one should be advised to take medication unless there is clear evidence that it will work and that the side effects are not dangerous. There is a lesson to be learnt here.

Some hospitals in Hertfordshire , England, have said that they will not perform operations on patients who smoke or who are grossly overweight. I was of the view that the medical profession is morally obliged to treat anyone who is ill despite their personal circumstances. We could be on the slippery slope here, with doctors refusing to treat people who injure themselves during risky pastimes. They might even refuse to treat children who fall out of trees. The whole of society contributes to the education and employment of doctors so, surely, every one is entitled to medical treatment in an emergency. There should be no room for this sort of arrogance from some elements of the medical profession.

The situation regarding breast implants or breast augmentation is egregious. I do not doubt the need for breast implants for women who have had breasts removed because of cancer. Some women are genuinely psychologically disturbed by the appearance of their breasts and should be treated with an implant. Unfortunately, most women who have had breast implants have done so for purely cosmetic or vanity reasons. This latter category have been misadvised and should not have been operated on in the first place. It is my view that doctors should not perform unnecessary operations as it is simply a waste of resources combined with the risk to the "patient". From some of my conversations with friends, there seems to be very little sympathy for women who paid for breast operations for cosmetic reasons. These women deserve to be treated, however, and should have their bodies restored to an acceptable and healthy condition. They should not be left untreated if they cannot afford restorative treatment. The cosmetic surgery industry and their insurance companies should pay for this and where this is not possible the NHS should pay.

In conclusion, no one under any circumstances should be denied health care. Some people now are suffering from internal bleeding as they have foolishly followed the advice and taken aspirin on a long term basis. Some people cannot avoid being grossly overweight despite the blandishments of the authorities to eat less and exercise more. Some alcoholics and smokers are simply addicted and find their addiction extremely hard to control. Should they be denied health care? The worst case is the breast implant problem, as many of these operations were performed purely for profit and without concern for the mental and physical health of the clients. You are entitled to health care even if you have been foolish. You are even more entitled to sound advice regarding the dangers of all forms of cosmetic surgery. Where a cosmetic treatment is unnecessary the medical profession should be obliged not to treat you.