Wednesday, 25 January 2012
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?
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
Global Warming
Scientists have made an alarming discovery in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. There are plumes of methane bubbling up through the shallow sea and this potent greenhouse gas is being injected directly into the atmosphere. In an area of just ten thousand square miles, one hundred "fountains of methane" have been discovered and some of them are over a kilometre across. Why should we worry? Methane is a much more powerful green house gas than carbon dioxide and over a hundred year period it is twenty times more powerful in its effect. There are literally hundreds of millions of tons of methane stored on the Eat Siberian Arctic Shelf bed alone. This is stored as methane hydrate under high pressure and low temperatures at the bottom of the sea. Global warming in the Arctic has been a lot stronger than the rest of the planet. The warming causes these hydrates to release their methane.
In the Arctic region in general there are billions of tons of methane hydrates stored on the sea bed. If, even a small proportion of this gas is injected into the atmosphere it could cause catastrophic warming by means of a positive feedback mechanism. More warming causes more melting of the methane hydrates which causes more warming yet again.
We have all been warned that excessive man made emissions of carbon dioxide are warming the planet to possibly dangerous levels. Some earth scientists such as James Lovelock believe that we have set in train irreversible consequences regarding the dangerous warming of the planet. Let us hope he is proved wrong. We need to do something to prevent the injection of billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere at all costs. A climate change agreement and treaty is badly needed.
In the Arctic region in general there are billions of tons of methane hydrates stored on the sea bed. If, even a small proportion of this gas is injected into the atmosphere it could cause catastrophic warming by means of a positive feedback mechanism. More warming causes more melting of the methane hydrates which causes more warming yet again.
We have all been warned that excessive man made emissions of carbon dioxide are warming the planet to possibly dangerous levels. Some earth scientists such as James Lovelock believe that we have set in train irreversible consequences regarding the dangerous warming of the planet. Let us hope he is proved wrong. We need to do something to prevent the injection of billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere at all costs. A climate change agreement and treaty is badly needed.
BBC and Frozen Planet
The BBC has been criticised for "deceiving" its Frozen Planet audience. the documentary has lead its viewers to believe that its film of a female polar bear with her cubs, just after giving birth in there den, was filmed in the Arctic snows, when in fact it was filmed in a zoo in Amsterdam. For me this is an acceptable "deception" as the scene was included for illustration purposes. Why disturb a polar bear and her family in the wild? Provided all of the factual information is correct for me it is not a problem. I am sure that all wild life documentaries are to a certain extent stage managed, they have to be for continuity purposes.
Viewers of television programmes should beware though, as all programmes are to a certain extent stage managed even science programmes and the news.
There really is no such thing as "reality" television: it has been faked and the audience is being duped. You are better off not watching such rubbish.
Viewers of television programmes should beware though, as all programmes are to a certain extent stage managed even science programmes and the news.
There really is no such thing as "reality" television: it has been faked and the audience is being duped. You are better off not watching such rubbish.
Thursday, 24 November 2011
Egypt Again
The Egyptian people are urbane and civilised. They deserve to be masters of their own destiny and be allowed to elect their own government. This is not just a luxury: it is their right. It is their right to decide how their country will be run and to vote for a new constitution. They have had to experience much deprivation, unfair arrest and violence to get this far. Let us hope there will be a peaceful resolution to their predicament and that the army cedes power to a democratic government which is elected fairly. The country can then be led to social justice and prosperity.This will not just benefit Egypt but also every other nation in North Africa and eventually the Middle East.
Zero based budget for care of the elderly
There has been much furore in the press recently about the standard of care given to the very elderly and infirm in the UK. Much criticism levelled at care workers who do not spend enough time with the aged or the infirm. Some of this criticism may be justified as the "care industry" probably employs people who just do not care and it probably has its fair share of employees who simply are criminal. Most "care workers" are probably trying to do their best under difficult working conditions.
This morning I saw a "care worker " being interviewed on television; she was obviously sympathetic towards those who she looked after. But, she explained that she was paid £2.76 per hour for the time that she spent at the patient's home only, and she was not fully compensated for the travelling time and expense when moving from one patient to another. She also averred that she was given very little time to spend with each patient and that in fact the time allocated, in many cases, was insufficient to provide an adequate service.
I suggest that the pay is inadequate for the importance and pressure of the work.
A representative of the United Kingdom Homecare Association Ltd (UKHCA) was also interviewed . He intimated that the budget allocated by the local authorities was probably insufficient to meet all the demands of home care placed on UKHCA members.
The problems are caused not just by budgetary constraints but problems of morale. The carers are expected to perform work without sufficient time allocated to complete their job to the standard expected. No wonder there is low morale given the poor pay.
There is a case for applying the techniques of scientific management to the work of carers and not just allocating work within a budgetary constraint. This just encourages bad management and the arbitrary allocation of work based on a whim and desire rather than facts from the ground. It also encourages a bureaucratic mentality of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. The aged and the infirm deserve better than this. They need to be looked after by well motivated staff who really care about them and who have the time and resources to do a proper job.
A quality standard should be set. There should then be a fair amount of time allocated for each caring task to be completed. The carer should be allowed a fair amount of time to move from one patient to another. A contingency time should be added to take account of difficulties.
Sufficient redundancy should be built into the system to allow for sickness or staff absence.
The staff should be paid a fair rate for the job and this fair rate should be independently assessed. Staff should be interviewed and selected by assessing their personality and attitude towards the aged and the infirm. From this the number of staff needed to provide a high quality service "manned" by dedicated staff ,who really care about the patients, should be calculated.
From this calculation, a budget should be built up from a zero base to include not just the direct staff costs but also the cost of administration. I suspect that this cost would be substantially higher than the budgets allocated from on high by the council and the government.
The public should be made aware of the real budget required to provide the high quality service which is expected.
A similar process of zero based budgeting should be applied to all our key services: health, the police, the army etc.
Once the budget is prepared it should be made public. The public will probably be shocked how much it costs to provide these services. But scientific management, if used effectively, could ensure optimum productivity based on facts and not just on the whim of accountants and bureaucrats wielding spreadsheets and making arbitrary decisions about "service delivery" .
The public could then make a decision of how services are delivered and at what quality level and how this is to be financed through the balance of taxation and borrowing. If we want very high levels of quality for health care, care for the elderly or policing etc. then we have to pay for it. We may have to do this at the expense of a new car or a new PC every year.
The very idea of setting a budget before the cost of job that needs to be done is calculated is anathema to good management. No wonder the care of the elderly and infirm is in such a mess. No amount of inspection or public relations statements will cure this problem. Only hard headed decision making based on the facts will go anywhere near to resolving such difficulties.
The public must make a hard choice. Are we prepared to pay the full cost for the services which we demand or do we want to pay less money for a reduced service? How is this to be financed - by charges, taxes or borrowing or a mix? Are we prepared to sacrifice the consumption of consumer goods for improved public service when budgets are stretched? It is our choice and we can only expect our politicians to follow our lead on this issue.
This morning I saw a "care worker " being interviewed on television; she was obviously sympathetic towards those who she looked after. But, she explained that she was paid £2.76 per hour for the time that she spent at the patient's home only, and she was not fully compensated for the travelling time and expense when moving from one patient to another. She also averred that she was given very little time to spend with each patient and that in fact the time allocated, in many cases, was insufficient to provide an adequate service.
I suggest that the pay is inadequate for the importance and pressure of the work.
A representative of the United Kingdom Homecare Association Ltd (UKHCA) was also interviewed . He intimated that the budget allocated by the local authorities was probably insufficient to meet all the demands of home care placed on UKHCA members.
The problems are caused not just by budgetary constraints but problems of morale. The carers are expected to perform work without sufficient time allocated to complete their job to the standard expected. No wonder there is low morale given the poor pay.
There is a case for applying the techniques of scientific management to the work of carers and not just allocating work within a budgetary constraint. This just encourages bad management and the arbitrary allocation of work based on a whim and desire rather than facts from the ground. It also encourages a bureaucratic mentality of inefficiency and ineffectiveness. The aged and the infirm deserve better than this. They need to be looked after by well motivated staff who really care about them and who have the time and resources to do a proper job.
A quality standard should be set. There should then be a fair amount of time allocated for each caring task to be completed. The carer should be allowed a fair amount of time to move from one patient to another. A contingency time should be added to take account of difficulties.
Sufficient redundancy should be built into the system to allow for sickness or staff absence.
The staff should be paid a fair rate for the job and this fair rate should be independently assessed. Staff should be interviewed and selected by assessing their personality and attitude towards the aged and the infirm. From this the number of staff needed to provide a high quality service "manned" by dedicated staff ,who really care about the patients, should be calculated.
From this calculation, a budget should be built up from a zero base to include not just the direct staff costs but also the cost of administration. I suspect that this cost would be substantially higher than the budgets allocated from on high by the council and the government.
The public should be made aware of the real budget required to provide the high quality service which is expected.
A similar process of zero based budgeting should be applied to all our key services: health, the police, the army etc.
Once the budget is prepared it should be made public. The public will probably be shocked how much it costs to provide these services. But scientific management, if used effectively, could ensure optimum productivity based on facts and not just on the whim of accountants and bureaucrats wielding spreadsheets and making arbitrary decisions about "service delivery" .
The public could then make a decision of how services are delivered and at what quality level and how this is to be financed through the balance of taxation and borrowing. If we want very high levels of quality for health care, care for the elderly or policing etc. then we have to pay for it. We may have to do this at the expense of a new car or a new PC every year.
The very idea of setting a budget before the cost of job that needs to be done is calculated is anathema to good management. No wonder the care of the elderly and infirm is in such a mess. No amount of inspection or public relations statements will cure this problem. Only hard headed decision making based on the facts will go anywhere near to resolving such difficulties.
The public must make a hard choice. Are we prepared to pay the full cost for the services which we demand or do we want to pay less money for a reduced service? How is this to be financed - by charges, taxes or borrowing or a mix? Are we prepared to sacrifice the consumption of consumer goods for improved public service when budgets are stretched? It is our choice and we can only expect our politicians to follow our lead on this issue.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Who would be a rugby player?
Once again sporting personalities are making the headlines for reasons other than match prowess or success. The behaviour of England's rugby players has come under press scrutiny and criticism for other than playing reasons. But, is there really a need for us to know about the silly antics of rugby players when they are not on the training ground? Most of the time their antics are no worse than what happens on a Friday night when young men have had too much to drink. Just because they are on a grandiose rugby trip at the World Cup, do we expect that the behaviour should be any different? So lets look at what the England players have been doing a little more closely.
They go out to a pub the night after winning a key match and have a few beers to let off steam before their next match which is a week away. It seems that doing this is not really a problem as they did not misbehave in any other way. The difference on the night in question is that one of the party is married to a member of the royal family. This means that the press were after a story. Supposedly, he is seen embracing or being friendly with an ex-girl friend and the story grew from there. A tabloid newspaper acquires a tape of the drinkers from the bar's CCTV system. Pictures from this tape are emblazoned over the front pages of the tabloid press. None of these pictures were very clear but they were blown out of all proportion. Nothing in the pictures indicated that any wrong doing was going on. These pictures should not have been published as they were an egregious and irresponsible invasion of privacy. The innuendo sparked by their publication was clear and it ended up damaging his reputation and probably and needlessly upset his wife and the lady who was present in the the pub. All that upset and angst to improve the circulation figures of a newspaper.
Rugby players are high spirited and not all of them are or should be expected to be tee-totallers. They do plenty of damage to themselves on the training ground or playing real matches much more damage than a few drinks; but then they are playing for their country so that is different. They represent their country but they are not national possessions. No doubt members of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra go out for a few beers and glasses of wine when they are on tour but the world never gets to know about it and for good reason - we do not need to know. Why get sanctimonious about rugby players?
If a group of rugby players are rude or act lewdly to a hotel chamber maid then it is a different matter to going out boozing in a local pub. That is wrong as no-one deserves to be treated like that. The players concerned owned up and apologised formally to the chamber maid, this should have been the end of the story and the world did not need to know about it.
Fining a rugby player because he is wearing the wrong sort of gum shield which offends the commercial sensibilities of the sponsors is beyond the pale. The gum shields are made to fit the player and protect him from serious injuries. The organisers of the world cup should be protecting players from this kind of commercial bullying as it is the players and their supporters who are generating the income for both the sponsors and the organisers. Without the players and supporters the commercial sponsors would not be able to generate any income at all. Can it be any wonder that players chose to go out and get drunk when they are under that sort of pressure.
Of course, the England players are now being heavily criticised for being knocked out of the World Cup at the quarter finals. They did not play very well against France. France are one of the top teams and can beat anyone when they play well but the press have not noticed this fact.
The team did not play badly because of the silly antics: they were simply not good enough. One bad performance and you go back home and this is the simple rule in a knockout competition.
Unfortunately for England, the television and press ratings war results in the team being portrayed as heroes when performances are going well even though they have not won anything. They are then portrayed as devils when things go wrong and the silly antics are pushed further into the foreground. This type of media exposure probably has more of an effect on team morale than having a few drinks. When media pundits portray the team, unjustifiably, as favourites to win, the public and player expectation becomes too high and complacency leads to defeat. It is better to be in the position of Wales, they keep out of the eye of the press and pundits and do their drinking in quite bars well away from view. They might even pull off a surprise using this approach and get to the final. Their touring activities remain on the back pages where they belong.
If the England team are guilty of anything then it is naivety. Naivety that the press and media will not leave them alone and that some members of the public and press expect them to be paragons of virtue.
To cap it all, one of the England players, from Samoa, gets fined by the Rugby Union (RU) for jumping off a Ferry whilst on his way back with his team mates from an island visit to, of all places, a vineyard. No doubt they were tasting lemonade. The New Zealand police saw fit only to give him a warning but because of the publicity he was charged GBP3,000 by the RU for the privilege of jumping off a ferry and having a swim. Damn it, he is from Samoa and probably swims as well as he plays rugby. Do we really need to know that he dived off a ferry? Lets hope England does not frighten him off to return home to play rugby. On the very same day that the the swim made front page news, religious violence had broken out again in Cairo and this is the type of news that we really need to know about.
Lets hope we can get our sense of humour and proportion back and leave the rugby, football and sports reporting to just the back pages. Then one of our British teams might have a fair crack at winning one of the sporting prizes.
They go out to a pub the night after winning a key match and have a few beers to let off steam before their next match which is a week away. It seems that doing this is not really a problem as they did not misbehave in any other way. The difference on the night in question is that one of the party is married to a member of the royal family. This means that the press were after a story. Supposedly, he is seen embracing or being friendly with an ex-girl friend and the story grew from there. A tabloid newspaper acquires a tape of the drinkers from the bar's CCTV system. Pictures from this tape are emblazoned over the front pages of the tabloid press. None of these pictures were very clear but they were blown out of all proportion. Nothing in the pictures indicated that any wrong doing was going on. These pictures should not have been published as they were an egregious and irresponsible invasion of privacy. The innuendo sparked by their publication was clear and it ended up damaging his reputation and probably and needlessly upset his wife and the lady who was present in the the pub. All that upset and angst to improve the circulation figures of a newspaper.
Rugby players are high spirited and not all of them are or should be expected to be tee-totallers. They do plenty of damage to themselves on the training ground or playing real matches much more damage than a few drinks; but then they are playing for their country so that is different. They represent their country but they are not national possessions. No doubt members of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra go out for a few beers and glasses of wine when they are on tour but the world never gets to know about it and for good reason - we do not need to know. Why get sanctimonious about rugby players?
If a group of rugby players are rude or act lewdly to a hotel chamber maid then it is a different matter to going out boozing in a local pub. That is wrong as no-one deserves to be treated like that. The players concerned owned up and apologised formally to the chamber maid, this should have been the end of the story and the world did not need to know about it.
Fining a rugby player because he is wearing the wrong sort of gum shield which offends the commercial sensibilities of the sponsors is beyond the pale. The gum shields are made to fit the player and protect him from serious injuries. The organisers of the world cup should be protecting players from this kind of commercial bullying as it is the players and their supporters who are generating the income for both the sponsors and the organisers. Without the players and supporters the commercial sponsors would not be able to generate any income at all. Can it be any wonder that players chose to go out and get drunk when they are under that sort of pressure.
Of course, the England players are now being heavily criticised for being knocked out of the World Cup at the quarter finals. They did not play very well against France. France are one of the top teams and can beat anyone when they play well but the press have not noticed this fact.
The team did not play badly because of the silly antics: they were simply not good enough. One bad performance and you go back home and this is the simple rule in a knockout competition.
Unfortunately for England, the television and press ratings war results in the team being portrayed as heroes when performances are going well even though they have not won anything. They are then portrayed as devils when things go wrong and the silly antics are pushed further into the foreground. This type of media exposure probably has more of an effect on team morale than having a few drinks. When media pundits portray the team, unjustifiably, as favourites to win, the public and player expectation becomes too high and complacency leads to defeat. It is better to be in the position of Wales, they keep out of the eye of the press and pundits and do their drinking in quite bars well away from view. They might even pull off a surprise using this approach and get to the final. Their touring activities remain on the back pages where they belong.
If the England team are guilty of anything then it is naivety. Naivety that the press and media will not leave them alone and that some members of the public and press expect them to be paragons of virtue.
To cap it all, one of the England players, from Samoa, gets fined by the Rugby Union (RU) for jumping off a Ferry whilst on his way back with his team mates from an island visit to, of all places, a vineyard. No doubt they were tasting lemonade. The New Zealand police saw fit only to give him a warning but because of the publicity he was charged GBP3,000 by the RU for the privilege of jumping off a ferry and having a swim. Damn it, he is from Samoa and probably swims as well as he plays rugby. Do we really need to know that he dived off a ferry? Lets hope England does not frighten him off to return home to play rugby. On the very same day that the the swim made front page news, religious violence had broken out again in Cairo and this is the type of news that we really need to know about.
Lets hope we can get our sense of humour and proportion back and leave the rugby, football and sports reporting to just the back pages. Then one of our British teams might have a fair crack at winning one of the sporting prizes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
