For the tidal wave of new legislation passed by the government of Tony Blair, one Act in particular merits a special mention today. In 2000, the then Labour administration passed the Freedom of Information Act. Under the auspices of this Act, the BBC applied to have a report published which had been written a staggering 17 years ago. In a recent post, I suggested that we all need to start looking a little closer to home before we can start casting judgement on the legitimacy of democracy in countries like Egypt. The publication of this report today is nothing less than an indictment on the Public bodies who were charged with a duty of care at children's homes in North Wales during the 1970s, 80s and 90s.
That the authorities concerned attempted to suppress the publication of the Jillings Report is contemptible. Their reasons for doing so leave you feeling sick to your stomach. The report was shelved principally due to fears of compensation claims. To hell with the children who had been abused! For the record, I sincerely hope that the compensation amounts which will now be awarded will be all the more large both for those affected and to other Public bodies out there who fail to put the interests of the people first.
I have to stress that the report published today is but an edited version of the original but even that is better than nothing. At least elements of the truth are now in the public domain where they have always belonged. The abuse which took place was such that some of the children actually took their own lives. Given such damning revelations, I wonder what sort of people could feasibly continue to protect their own interests? Even when it was reported that children had been abused, the ensuing response was too little too late. Most disturbing of all, the interests of children were sacrificed to safeguard professional position. Five men who worked at Bryn Estyn were convicted of serious offences against children aged 10-16. The arrogance reached new limits because several staff refused to meet the investigating panel! Amazingly, it wasn't known how many statements were handed in to the Crown Prosecution Service. It was also not known how many of the alleged abusers (including police officers!) were named in the statements. An earlier report at another children's home was shelved over fears regarding the prejudice of a prosecution and, if you can believe it, insurance worries. A public judicial inquiry never happened despite the original report calling for one. Last but by no means least, North Wales Police chose not to conduct independent investigations into allegations against both former and serving police officers. When I read these conclusions it chilled me to the bone. North Wales Police did not accept that it was inappropriate for it to investigate itself. If there was a scale to measure arrogance, this would score a perfect 10!
It has to be pointed out that this hasn't been a small scale investigation. Evidence was gathered from 650 people mainly focused on 7 homes. The then Clwyd County Council commissioned the report. The six North Wales councils of today with their new names today recognised that the release of the report might bring distress to the families of those involved. If I were one of the families involved, I am sure I would be far more distressed by the fact that the report had been conveniently suppressed for so long. Councillor Malcolm King has revealed that the council's insurers were "leaning on" the county council to say as little as possible and that those who wished to speak out should be relieved of their office.
Needless to say, several prominent players have come out to express their regret now that the report has been forced out in to the open but I wonder where they were these last 17 years? It is an absolute scandal that those in positions of such power and responsibility should be allowed to operate in this manner.
To illustrate how far we have come as a society since those dark days, I draw your attention to the "Plebgate" affair which resulted in the resignation from the cabinet of Andrew Mitchell MP. I bet you can't guess who has been charged with the responsibility of impartially investigating the police officers involved? Correct - it is the police!
So the next time you see the terrible events in Egypt with the army effectively running their "democracy", just remind yourself that things aren't too rosy in our own back yard either! On a final note, I question the extent to which this report would have been pushed had it not been for the case of Jimmy Saville which ironically served as a catalyst for this and many other cases of a similar nature. I also can't help but wonder if there are any people still employed in their jobs who were either directly or indirectly involved in the abuse. If there are, I can only wonder what goes on in their heads. Attempts to sweep events such as these under the carpet reflect well on nobody involved and I hope that in the fullness of time justice is done if only for the sake of those who suffered. They were just kids and couldn't protect themselves. The scandal is that nobody else did!
I don't ask for people to share my posts but on this occasion I will make an exception because people need to know about this. Share this as much as you like because the more who get to know the facts the better. That at least is a step in the direction of democracy.
Monday, 8 July 2013
Sunday, 7 July 2013
The Best Ashes XI?
As the latest Ashes contest draws nearer, the BBC has started a debate by asking viewers and listeners to name their best Ashes XI. They don't lay down any boundaries so I assume they mean the best Ashes XI since that first contest in 1882.
Such debates are always huge fun with the only guarantee being that they are entirely subjective. My interest in the Ashes began in earnest in 1981 and I have studied its history fastidiously since. In common with most of the posts on the BBC website, I agree that the first name on the list has to be that of Bradman - there is nothing to add. He would bat at three and I would place Wally Hammond right behind him at four. In cricket strategy, it is said that you want your openers to take the shine off the new ball and make as many runs as they can without losing their wicket. Numbers three and four are reserved for your two best batsmen and few could argue with the names of Bradman and Hammond. As a former bowler, it would give me nightmares just even contemplating bowling at them knowing that they could gorge themselves on any bowling as it took their fancy. The two opening batsmen are a real challenge. For one thing, batsmen before the war had to ply their trade on uncovered wickets and so their techniques became highly adaptable to all conditions - favourable or not. On this basis, it would be difficult to consider any opener from the last fifty years or so unless their sheer weight of runs demanded it.
My first opening slot would go to Herbert Sutcliffe. Anyone who averages over 60 in tests from that era having faced some of the toughest, meanest bowlers ever seen has to be selected. Ideally, I would prefer a left handed batsman to partner him but the other candidates on my list are all right handed. In the end, I had to choose between Hobbs and Hutton. I give the nod to the Master because anyone who can score 99 centuries after their 40th birthday is impossible to ignore. It would be a fitting partnership because they often did open together and are generally regarded to be the best opening pair we have ever sent out.
Choosing my number five was always going to be hard due to the high number of high quality names I would have to ditch. In the end, I had to decide if I wanted an out and out batsmen or someone who could give me a little bit more. Resisting the temptation to be greedy, I have gone for an out and out batsman. I have reserved the right to go back to the Golden Age of cricket. I was therefore left with a straight choice between the English aesthete par excellence, C.B.Fry, or the mercurial Australian Victor Trumper. He died far too young from Bright's disease which we now call the nephrotic syndrome. Either way, his was a huge loss to cricket and all of his contemporaries cite him as being the outstanding batsman of their time.
For my number six, I need a genuine all-rounder who can take charge of a match either through his bowling or his batting or indeed his catching. Nobody else but Botham could tick all three boxes so he occupies the pivotal role in this side. I can't think of anyone else who has single handedly decided the outcome of as many Ashes test matches. For my wicketkeeper, I need the best glove man available. From all that I have read, the wearer of the gloves has to come from Kent but which one? Both Knott and Ames were more than able batsmen to augment their prowess with the gloves. But I want the best glove man so it has to Godfrey Evans.
Because I already have Botham to turn to for bowling duties with Hammond to provide more than adequate cover, I can afford the luxury of two pace bowlers and two spinners. For my first spinner, I go for Hedley Verity who sadly lost his life in his prime during the Second World War. Put simply, he removed Bradman more than any of his contemporaries and was instrumental in the success of Yorkshire during the 1930s. He is widely considered to be the finest slow left arm bowler to play for England. My next spinner is a choice between an off-spinner or a leggie. While it would be tempting to go for Warne, I have to plump for Laker who I feel was the most complete spinner of them all. Two to go.
My only dilemma here was to choose who to partner Sidney Barnes. With 189 test wickets at a cost of just 16 runs each at a rate of one every 7 overs, he just picks himself. The best pace bowler I have seen in the Ashes is Terry Alderman whose 42 wickets in a rubber in 1981 reflect the depth of his talent. His compatriot Lillee is difficult to ignore as indeed are the great duo of Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller. For all that I go for the man with the genuine Rolls Royce action which allowed him to remain at the peak for so much longer than other bowlers. Thus he conquered 300 test wickets before anyone else. Frederick Sewards Trueman is my last pick. I confess that my team is somewhat strong in its Yorkshiremen but it would be devil to beat.
Sutcliffe
Hobbs
Bradman
Hammond
Trumper
Botham
Evans
Verity
Laker
Barnes
Trueman
12th man Cowdrey
Such debates are always huge fun with the only guarantee being that they are entirely subjective. My interest in the Ashes began in earnest in 1981 and I have studied its history fastidiously since. In common with most of the posts on the BBC website, I agree that the first name on the list has to be that of Bradman - there is nothing to add. He would bat at three and I would place Wally Hammond right behind him at four. In cricket strategy, it is said that you want your openers to take the shine off the new ball and make as many runs as they can without losing their wicket. Numbers three and four are reserved for your two best batsmen and few could argue with the names of Bradman and Hammond. As a former bowler, it would give me nightmares just even contemplating bowling at them knowing that they could gorge themselves on any bowling as it took their fancy. The two opening batsmen are a real challenge. For one thing, batsmen before the war had to ply their trade on uncovered wickets and so their techniques became highly adaptable to all conditions - favourable or not. On this basis, it would be difficult to consider any opener from the last fifty years or so unless their sheer weight of runs demanded it.
My first opening slot would go to Herbert Sutcliffe. Anyone who averages over 60 in tests from that era having faced some of the toughest, meanest bowlers ever seen has to be selected. Ideally, I would prefer a left handed batsman to partner him but the other candidates on my list are all right handed. In the end, I had to choose between Hobbs and Hutton. I give the nod to the Master because anyone who can score 99 centuries after their 40th birthday is impossible to ignore. It would be a fitting partnership because they often did open together and are generally regarded to be the best opening pair we have ever sent out.
Choosing my number five was always going to be hard due to the high number of high quality names I would have to ditch. In the end, I had to decide if I wanted an out and out batsmen or someone who could give me a little bit more. Resisting the temptation to be greedy, I have gone for an out and out batsman. I have reserved the right to go back to the Golden Age of cricket. I was therefore left with a straight choice between the English aesthete par excellence, C.B.Fry, or the mercurial Australian Victor Trumper. He died far too young from Bright's disease which we now call the nephrotic syndrome. Either way, his was a huge loss to cricket and all of his contemporaries cite him as being the outstanding batsman of their time.
For my number six, I need a genuine all-rounder who can take charge of a match either through his bowling or his batting or indeed his catching. Nobody else but Botham could tick all three boxes so he occupies the pivotal role in this side. I can't think of anyone else who has single handedly decided the outcome of as many Ashes test matches. For my wicketkeeper, I need the best glove man available. From all that I have read, the wearer of the gloves has to come from Kent but which one? Both Knott and Ames were more than able batsmen to augment their prowess with the gloves. But I want the best glove man so it has to Godfrey Evans.
Because I already have Botham to turn to for bowling duties with Hammond to provide more than adequate cover, I can afford the luxury of two pace bowlers and two spinners. For my first spinner, I go for Hedley Verity who sadly lost his life in his prime during the Second World War. Put simply, he removed Bradman more than any of his contemporaries and was instrumental in the success of Yorkshire during the 1930s. He is widely considered to be the finest slow left arm bowler to play for England. My next spinner is a choice between an off-spinner or a leggie. While it would be tempting to go for Warne, I have to plump for Laker who I feel was the most complete spinner of them all. Two to go.
My only dilemma here was to choose who to partner Sidney Barnes. With 189 test wickets at a cost of just 16 runs each at a rate of one every 7 overs, he just picks himself. The best pace bowler I have seen in the Ashes is Terry Alderman whose 42 wickets in a rubber in 1981 reflect the depth of his talent. His compatriot Lillee is difficult to ignore as indeed are the great duo of Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller. For all that I go for the man with the genuine Rolls Royce action which allowed him to remain at the peak for so much longer than other bowlers. Thus he conquered 300 test wickets before anyone else. Frederick Sewards Trueman is my last pick. I confess that my team is somewhat strong in its Yorkshiremen but it would be devil to beat.
Sutcliffe
Hobbs
Bradman
Hammond
Trumper
Botham
Evans
Verity
Laker
Barnes
Trueman
12th man Cowdrey
Saturday, 6 July 2013
Living in the past
The men's final at Wimbledon tomorrow will be contested between Serbia's Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray of Great Britain (or Scotland depending on the strength of your feelings). It is hard not to explore the parallels of nearly a century ago.
Serbia was then a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and a few radical diehards yearned for a separate Serbian state. One of them succeeded - eventually. The assassination which triggered the First World War was carried out by a young Serbian nationalist. The ensuing loss of life was catastrophic. Next year, we shall be bombarded with reminders of the anniversary of the war to end all wars. Hopeful words as it turns out. On 5th June 2006, Serbia was eventually granted independence in its own right, fully 92 years after that first shot in 1914 which was the catalyst for so much death and suffering.
Next year, the Scots decide on their future within the Union. By coincidence, next year will mark the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. This was one of the biggest Scottish victories in the ongoing fight for Scottish independence. Have no doubt, Alex Salmond will use this for all it is worth as he embarks on his campaign to persuade his electorate to ditch Westminster and the Union.
Back to the tennis. The Wimbledon crown seems at last to be warming to Murray. P.G. Wodehouse famously observed that "it is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine". Although this might seem a little churlish with reference to Murray, I don't think being popular is at the forefront of his thoughts anyway. It is the latter which will serve him well tomorrow as he seeks to take on one of the finest players to have ever picked up a racket. It will be very hot and this, I suspect, will suit neither player. Many predict the match will go to five sets although I am not so sure. Whoever wins will win in four sets. They have both just had to negotiate particularly arduous semi finals and I question how much they have left in the tank. Murray has the recent experience of winning his Olympic Gold medal here but his opponent has the experience of winning Wimbledon here. Both men are at the top of their game and there is little to separate them. For temperament, I go for Djokovic. For sheer bloody-mindedness I can't see beyond Murray laying to rest the ghost of Fred Perry at long last. Whatever the outcome, it is sure to be a cracker. From the standpoint of a neutral, it is always good to see a new champion so Murray would be a popular winner - and very definitely British..
Serbia was then a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and a few radical diehards yearned for a separate Serbian state. One of them succeeded - eventually. The assassination which triggered the First World War was carried out by a young Serbian nationalist. The ensuing loss of life was catastrophic. Next year, we shall be bombarded with reminders of the anniversary of the war to end all wars. Hopeful words as it turns out. On 5th June 2006, Serbia was eventually granted independence in its own right, fully 92 years after that first shot in 1914 which was the catalyst for so much death and suffering.
Next year, the Scots decide on their future within the Union. By coincidence, next year will mark the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. This was one of the biggest Scottish victories in the ongoing fight for Scottish independence. Have no doubt, Alex Salmond will use this for all it is worth as he embarks on his campaign to persuade his electorate to ditch Westminster and the Union.
Back to the tennis. The Wimbledon crown seems at last to be warming to Murray. P.G. Wodehouse famously observed that "it is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine". Although this might seem a little churlish with reference to Murray, I don't think being popular is at the forefront of his thoughts anyway. It is the latter which will serve him well tomorrow as he seeks to take on one of the finest players to have ever picked up a racket. It will be very hot and this, I suspect, will suit neither player. Many predict the match will go to five sets although I am not so sure. Whoever wins will win in four sets. They have both just had to negotiate particularly arduous semi finals and I question how much they have left in the tank. Murray has the recent experience of winning his Olympic Gold medal here but his opponent has the experience of winning Wimbledon here. Both men are at the top of their game and there is little to separate them. For temperament, I go for Djokovic. For sheer bloody-mindedness I can't see beyond Murray laying to rest the ghost of Fred Perry at long last. Whatever the outcome, it is sure to be a cracker. From the standpoint of a neutral, it is always good to see a new champion so Murray would be a popular winner - and very definitely British..
Thursday, 4 July 2013
Meet the new boss!
The recent political events in Egypt have been a sobering reminder that democracy is far more an aspiration than a reality. Here in the west, it is tempting to mock a country where the head of state is ultimately decided by the army. To do so would be extremely naive.
The removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power by the army was the result of two mutually exclusive facts. First of all, Egypt is run by a very powerful military whose power transcends every facet of their society. This is only noteworthy by its scarcity in many other countries. The second fact is that it was not the all powerful army who made the first move in this coup d'état. As is invariably the case in such situations, it was the people who effected this change by voicing their disapproval so publicly for so long. There always comes a point when something has to give. The only reasonable conclusion from the events of yesterday is that the army remain in charge as they have done for so long in Egypt. In addition, it may be argued that in common with Turkey, the Egyptians would rather have a secular state rather than an Islamic one. There is nothing particularly unusual in this since the Arab world is a good mix of the two.
As our media cast judgement on the injustice of running a democracy in such a fashion, I suggest they turn their collective gaze a little closer to home. Our own system is hardly the best advertisement for democracy. According to the last election, the Tories won 36.1% of the vote, Labour 29.0% and the Liberals 23.0%. Because the Tories and Labour have fought tooth and nail for so long to resist Liberal calls for a system of proportional representation, the number of Parliamentary seats allocated to each party bears no resemblance to their respective shares of the national vote. In addition, most of the cabinet consists of people whose personal wealth is such that their Government pay is but pocket money. Closer scrutiny would reveal that many acceded to Parliamentary seats unopposed in seats where a braying mule would have had a better than average chance of winning the vote.
Although not in the least bit surprising, it came to light today that the Public Sector union Unite has been choosing the Labour candidate for the forthcoming Falkirk by-election. Given that this was the union which awarded Ed Milliband the Party leadership, nobody needs to be overly shocked that they are pulling the party strings behind the scenes. The difference between the army in Egypt and Unite in this country is that the Egyptian army makes no bones about its role or its power. People might no like they way they do business, but nobody is in any doubt. Unite, by contrast, is underhand and Machiaevellian and seeks power by electing a leader who will best serve their purpose. The argument follows that a huge proportion of the 29.0% who voted Labour last time will do so again because that is what they have always done. This may well be the case but at least today the real picture has become rather more transparent. It undoubtedly leaves Ed Milliband with a major headache and he will need to engage in a charm offensive of Hollywood proportions to try and consign today's revelations to the sidelines. There is little chance the coalition will be any mood to let that happen.
Although it is always sad to learn that people have lost their lives protesting for what they believe in, the people of Egypt are to be greatly admired. Revolution is not always the answer but sometimes you have to have the courage of your convictions. There is no danger of anyone taking to the streets in this country despite so many people professing their dissatisfaction with the coalition and its Public Sector cuts. The reason is simple. There is a massive difference between having a bit of a whinge and wondering if you'll be able to eat again this week. I suggest that the people of Egypt demonstrated in the way they did not through choice but through necessity.
In August 1971, the Who released what is generally considered to be their best studio album, Who's Next. For Pete Townshend the band's song writer and composer, it was the result of a failed project called Lifehouse in which he had hoped to bring a new musical experience to the stage. For various reasons, it was not meant to be. The resulting album though was an absolute gem with nine exquisite songs. For many, the stand out song was "Won't get fooled again". As the song draws to its theatrical end, Roger Daltrey spits out the famous lyric "Meet the new boss - Same as the old boss!". It has particular resonance for the people of Egypt and "democracies" everywhere. What yesterday's events have shown us is that democracy is absolutely fine provided it meets with the approval of the people who have the final say. Just as communism is an ideal which the North Koreans continue to struggle with, democracy is likewise but is sometimes a little prettier to look at.
The removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power by the army was the result of two mutually exclusive facts. First of all, Egypt is run by a very powerful military whose power transcends every facet of their society. This is only noteworthy by its scarcity in many other countries. The second fact is that it was not the all powerful army who made the first move in this coup d'état. As is invariably the case in such situations, it was the people who effected this change by voicing their disapproval so publicly for so long. There always comes a point when something has to give. The only reasonable conclusion from the events of yesterday is that the army remain in charge as they have done for so long in Egypt. In addition, it may be argued that in common with Turkey, the Egyptians would rather have a secular state rather than an Islamic one. There is nothing particularly unusual in this since the Arab world is a good mix of the two.
As our media cast judgement on the injustice of running a democracy in such a fashion, I suggest they turn their collective gaze a little closer to home. Our own system is hardly the best advertisement for democracy. According to the last election, the Tories won 36.1% of the vote, Labour 29.0% and the Liberals 23.0%. Because the Tories and Labour have fought tooth and nail for so long to resist Liberal calls for a system of proportional representation, the number of Parliamentary seats allocated to each party bears no resemblance to their respective shares of the national vote. In addition, most of the cabinet consists of people whose personal wealth is such that their Government pay is but pocket money. Closer scrutiny would reveal that many acceded to Parliamentary seats unopposed in seats where a braying mule would have had a better than average chance of winning the vote.
Although not in the least bit surprising, it came to light today that the Public Sector union Unite has been choosing the Labour candidate for the forthcoming Falkirk by-election. Given that this was the union which awarded Ed Milliband the Party leadership, nobody needs to be overly shocked that they are pulling the party strings behind the scenes. The difference between the army in Egypt and Unite in this country is that the Egyptian army makes no bones about its role or its power. People might no like they way they do business, but nobody is in any doubt. Unite, by contrast, is underhand and Machiaevellian and seeks power by electing a leader who will best serve their purpose. The argument follows that a huge proportion of the 29.0% who voted Labour last time will do so again because that is what they have always done. This may well be the case but at least today the real picture has become rather more transparent. It undoubtedly leaves Ed Milliband with a major headache and he will need to engage in a charm offensive of Hollywood proportions to try and consign today's revelations to the sidelines. There is little chance the coalition will be any mood to let that happen.
Although it is always sad to learn that people have lost their lives protesting for what they believe in, the people of Egypt are to be greatly admired. Revolution is not always the answer but sometimes you have to have the courage of your convictions. There is no danger of anyone taking to the streets in this country despite so many people professing their dissatisfaction with the coalition and its Public Sector cuts. The reason is simple. There is a massive difference between having a bit of a whinge and wondering if you'll be able to eat again this week. I suggest that the people of Egypt demonstrated in the way they did not through choice but through necessity.
In August 1971, the Who released what is generally considered to be their best studio album, Who's Next. For Pete Townshend the band's song writer and composer, it was the result of a failed project called Lifehouse in which he had hoped to bring a new musical experience to the stage. For various reasons, it was not meant to be. The resulting album though was an absolute gem with nine exquisite songs. For many, the stand out song was "Won't get fooled again". As the song draws to its theatrical end, Roger Daltrey spits out the famous lyric "Meet the new boss - Same as the old boss!". It has particular resonance for the people of Egypt and "democracies" everywhere. What yesterday's events have shown us is that democracy is absolutely fine provided it meets with the approval of the people who have the final say. Just as communism is an ideal which the North Koreans continue to struggle with, democracy is likewise but is sometimes a little prettier to look at.
Wednesday, 3 July 2013
The fuel cell par excellence
If, like me, you happen to live in the country, make an effort to stop and take in the verdant landscape on your way to work tomorrow. Ask yourself how something so utterly beautiful can become so pitifully lifeless within a few short months. The answer lies within each cell of each of those tens of thousands of leaves. In truth, the plant cell is the model to which its animal cousin aspires. As far as fuel efficiency goes, a plant cell is about as close to 100% as is theoretically measurable. How? This is down to the humble chloroplast which gives plants their distinctive green colour. Each cell contains a chloroplast which is rich in chlorophyll. It is the latter which contains an energy unit so efficient that scientists would sell their soul to even get close to replicating it.
As the last leaves fell off the trees in North America in 2011, a lady called Lyn Margulis passed away at the age of 73. Of all the science which I have thus far read, without question, the endosymbiont theory proposed by this remarkable lady is the most profound, thought provoking development to which I have been exposed. Put simply, she put forward the theory that millions of years ago, single celled bacteria became incorporated in to the existing cells of what we now call animals and plants. Just as every plant cell contains an energy powerhouse called a choroplast, every animal cell contains something called a mitochondrion. The mitochondrion is truly the workhorse of our cells and produces the vast amounts of energy upon which we rely as a species. She proposed this theory when she noticed that the DNA in a chloroplast and a mitochondrion is different to the DNA found in the respective nuclei of animal and plant cells. So what I hear you say. Well, the amazing discovery was that both contained the circular DNA known to be common to bacterial cells. Bacteria, of course, are one of the most primitive life forms on the planet (if you don't include the 650 or so Members of Parliament). Just like the MPs, the bacteria have become highly skilled at surviving against seemingly impossible odds and are able to thrive in highly challenging conditions. Bacteria are to be found at the bottom of the deepest ocean, on Antarctica, in Volcanoes and in every extreme of temperature or chemicals known to man. With water and sunlight, plants are equally versatile. While Watson and Crick hit the big one with their elucidation of the structure of DNA in 1953, I believe that the theory put forward by Lyn Margulis was even more important because she has shown us the way, at least in thoery, to survive.
Such is the unrivalled efficiency of a plant cell, the tree can afford to shed all its leaves and subsist on its stored energy for half the year having created so much in the previous half. Broadly speaking, this is the challenge facing the energy scientists as the world population continues to grow apace like a bacterial colony. Solar panels, wind turbines and the rest are all very well but they continue to be poor imitators of the billions of plant cells which they seek to emulate.
As the last leaves fell off the trees in North America in 2011, a lady called Lyn Margulis passed away at the age of 73. Of all the science which I have thus far read, without question, the endosymbiont theory proposed by this remarkable lady is the most profound, thought provoking development to which I have been exposed. Put simply, she put forward the theory that millions of years ago, single celled bacteria became incorporated in to the existing cells of what we now call animals and plants. Just as every plant cell contains an energy powerhouse called a choroplast, every animal cell contains something called a mitochondrion. The mitochondrion is truly the workhorse of our cells and produces the vast amounts of energy upon which we rely as a species. She proposed this theory when she noticed that the DNA in a chloroplast and a mitochondrion is different to the DNA found in the respective nuclei of animal and plant cells. So what I hear you say. Well, the amazing discovery was that both contained the circular DNA known to be common to bacterial cells. Bacteria, of course, are one of the most primitive life forms on the planet (if you don't include the 650 or so Members of Parliament). Just like the MPs, the bacteria have become highly skilled at surviving against seemingly impossible odds and are able to thrive in highly challenging conditions. Bacteria are to be found at the bottom of the deepest ocean, on Antarctica, in Volcanoes and in every extreme of temperature or chemicals known to man. With water and sunlight, plants are equally versatile. While Watson and Crick hit the big one with their elucidation of the structure of DNA in 1953, I believe that the theory put forward by Lyn Margulis was even more important because she has shown us the way, at least in thoery, to survive.
Such is the unrivalled efficiency of a plant cell, the tree can afford to shed all its leaves and subsist on its stored energy for half the year having created so much in the previous half. Broadly speaking, this is the challenge facing the energy scientists as the world population continues to grow apace like a bacterial colony. Solar panels, wind turbines and the rest are all very well but they continue to be poor imitators of the billions of plant cells which they seek to emulate.
Living your dream
On the inside, we often dream about being able to make our dreams come to life. In a way, it is simply harmless fantasy and a bit of escapism from the drudgery of our everyday lives.
What would you do if you won a huge sum on the lottery? We often encounter this hypothetical question because it ignites debate and allows us to consider what we would do if put in that unlikely position.
For a great insight into how one person took on such an opportunity, I urge you to access the BBC iplayer and watch last night's BBC4 programme detailing the extraordinary world of King Ludwig II of Bavaria. You will not be disappointed and the smouldering embers of your imagination will be reignited. You may never win the lottery but you will be able to escape this world for an hour..
What would you do if you won a huge sum on the lottery? We often encounter this hypothetical question because it ignites debate and allows us to consider what we would do if put in that unlikely position.
For a great insight into how one person took on such an opportunity, I urge you to access the BBC iplayer and watch last night's BBC4 programme detailing the extraordinary world of King Ludwig II of Bavaria. You will not be disappointed and the smouldering embers of your imagination will be reignited. You may never win the lottery but you will be able to escape this world for an hour..
Monday, 1 July 2013
Can I have some more please?
The toxic subject of MP's pay yet again reared its ugly head again today. At a time when just about everybody is feeling the pinch as never before, I am truly astonished to learn that despite the intention of the Prime Minister to scupper any pay rise for the current crop of 650 MPs, the majority of them will vote against him on the grounds that £66,000 (not including expenses of course) is not enough pay for the job they do. I suspect that but for the unrivalled levels of apathy in our country today, these "public servants" would be hung drawn and quartered and publicly flogged.
I don't doubt that they work hard but even after tax, £66,000 ought to be more than enough to serve the public. There was a time when politics was dominated by the landed gentry whose personal wealth was such that they probably did do this job for a pittance - relatively speaking. Imagine my mirth today then when the charmer par excellence, Nick Clegg, stuck his neck out and announced that he would oppose a pay rise. With an estimated personal wealth knocking on the door of £2million, this gesture assumes less than generous proportions. The point here is that our Parliament is now riddled with career politicians whose personal fortunes are so far in excess of their MP salary as to render it largely cosmetic.
It has been pointed out that compared to other leading figures in the Public Sector, the salary of an average MP is actually quite low. As the Chief Executive of the Birmingham Children's Hospital, the wife of the outgoing Sir David Nicholson earns a basic wage over double that of an MP. I read today that several BBC executives have received sums well in excess of £66,000 just as severance for leaving. As I struggle to make some sense of all this, I begin to wonder whether it is the rest of the country which has gone mad or is it me?
It seems as though the divide between the haves and the have-nots is growing at an alarming rate with the haves staunchly inhabiting the higher eschelons of the Public Sector. Public servants now come at a price - and what a price! Has the time come to seriously weigh up their worth against their pay? I often wonder how many of them would choose their current jobs if they had to sort out their own money purchase pension? Rather less I suspect.
The recent proliferation of food banks has generated a good deal of social comment with the majority viewing their growth as an indictment of our times. The counter argument says that they are the result of communities working together to support the least fortunate. The problem is that the dependence on the Welfare State has predominated for such a long time that many have grown to depend upon it. Frankly, you can't blame them. On a similar note, the current strain on the NHS is also a reflection of long term dependence. Famously, it was created in the aftermath of the Second World War with the promise that it would be free at the point of access to everyone. If I opened a food shop tomorrow and advertised it as being free at the point of access to everyone, I very much doubt if my produce would see out the day!
I'd love to see what Dickens would think....
I don't doubt that they work hard but even after tax, £66,000 ought to be more than enough to serve the public. There was a time when politics was dominated by the landed gentry whose personal wealth was such that they probably did do this job for a pittance - relatively speaking. Imagine my mirth today then when the charmer par excellence, Nick Clegg, stuck his neck out and announced that he would oppose a pay rise. With an estimated personal wealth knocking on the door of £2million, this gesture assumes less than generous proportions. The point here is that our Parliament is now riddled with career politicians whose personal fortunes are so far in excess of their MP salary as to render it largely cosmetic.
It has been pointed out that compared to other leading figures in the Public Sector, the salary of an average MP is actually quite low. As the Chief Executive of the Birmingham Children's Hospital, the wife of the outgoing Sir David Nicholson earns a basic wage over double that of an MP. I read today that several BBC executives have received sums well in excess of £66,000 just as severance for leaving. As I struggle to make some sense of all this, I begin to wonder whether it is the rest of the country which has gone mad or is it me?
It seems as though the divide between the haves and the have-nots is growing at an alarming rate with the haves staunchly inhabiting the higher eschelons of the Public Sector. Public servants now come at a price - and what a price! Has the time come to seriously weigh up their worth against their pay? I often wonder how many of them would choose their current jobs if they had to sort out their own money purchase pension? Rather less I suspect.
The recent proliferation of food banks has generated a good deal of social comment with the majority viewing their growth as an indictment of our times. The counter argument says that they are the result of communities working together to support the least fortunate. The problem is that the dependence on the Welfare State has predominated for such a long time that many have grown to depend upon it. Frankly, you can't blame them. On a similar note, the current strain on the NHS is also a reflection of long term dependence. Famously, it was created in the aftermath of the Second World War with the promise that it would be free at the point of access to everyone. If I opened a food shop tomorrow and advertised it as being free at the point of access to everyone, I very much doubt if my produce would see out the day!
I'd love to see what Dickens would think....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)