Lybia

Much has been happening in Lybia lately. Most of it, I haven't followed beyond the headlines and bylines. However one story has caught my eye and has made me think.

The story in question is one regarding the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi.

His release from a Scottish prison was, in my opinion, a shocking miscarriage of justice and an embarrassment to the country I am usually proud to call myself a national of. In addition, it provided a major PR boost to a vile dictator.

The recent conflict in Lybia has led to much speculation as to his whereabouts; until the other day. Current reports suggest he is gravely ill in his compound in Tripoli, his medication having been stolen by looters. If reports are to be believed, this is a man close to death.

His family have apparently requested help from Britain.

The question is; how should we respond?

I don't think it is in any way possible to offer this help. Firstly, entirely objectively, how many people in Lybia are in a similar situation? Many I'm willing to bet. How can we therefore justify helping one individual without making a credible attempt to help many? This course of action seems grossly unfair to all those who are suffering throughout the country.

Secondly, al-Megrahi's past crimes cannot be ignored. He has committed a dreadful atrocity against the human race. His actions caused over a hundred to die in terror and agony and has inflicted endless suffering on those they have left behind. Many wish vengeance on such a person. I can't disagree with them although I don't think withholding medical treatment is the way to do it. This shows a lack of humanity that is not befitting of our great civilisation. However, to give assistance will make a mockery of our country. What sort of message would it send to the world if we rendered aid to someone who had attacked us in such a terrible way and then, when released on compassionate grounds, become a high profile mascot for the regime that mounted the attack. To capitulate to this request would be to actively humiliate ourselves.

I hope al-Megrahi doesn't suffer unduly over the coming days but it is not for us to intervene in his case beyond doing our best to bring peace and stability to the country as a whole.

JR

Red Arrows

It was with great sadness over the weekend that I read of the Red Arrow crash and the death of Flt Lt Jon Egging. My thoughts and sympathy go out to his family and friends.

Beyond the tragedy of loss of human life I was reminded of Jeremy Clarkson's comments on the Air France Concorde crash. He describes mourning the loss of the aircraft as well as the people on board. I felt the same about the loss of a Red Arrow.

It was with dread that I read all Hawks were subsequently grounded. These times of austerity have had me expecting for years that the Red Arrows would have had their funding withdrawn.

It was therefore with great relief that I read today that the grounding has been lifted. The Red Arrows are back in the air.

Some may question the need for an ariel display team at any time never mind at the moment. To that I would answer that they are a tremendous source of national pride and terrific boost to national morale. Everyone I know gets a thrill when they see them... Even on TV. We can be truly proud of them and seeing them in action makes us proud to be British. Furthermore; what a brilliant way to promote Britain abroad.

What makes the Red Arrows even more impressive is that they are first and foremost operational pilots. Tours of duty last for three years and even to qualify for this, pilots must have flown a combat tour of duty. This shows that rather than being skimmed off during training and ring-fenced for the remainder of their careers, Red Arrow pilots represent all the pilots of the RAF. Who can't be proud and reassured to know that these people are defending our country? And why shouldn't we allow them to showcase their talent in ariel displays for our benefit.

May the Red Arrows continue flying for many years to come.

JR

The Archers

I love the internet. It has just proved to me that I am not the youngest person to
(voluntarily) listen to the archers.
I have listened to the archers, fairly consistently, for the last ten years or so. It started on the back of my father's enthusiasm for the show. It was a pleasant follow on to the half-six comedy show. Since then, I have become engrossed with the goings on of Ambridge.
Part of the charm, I think, is the fact it is so determinedly quaint. Usually the raciest it gets is a suggestively rustling hay bail! Naturally there have been some controversy. Right now we have a gay marriage, a single mother and (perhaps most shockingly of all) a crop of kids/young adults that seem relatively decent members of society - if you look through teenage angst and occasional naughtiness - rather than the chlamidyia laden, drug addled monsters the media would sometimes have us believe are roaming our streets.
The length is just about perfect too. Just long enough for a coffee and a slice of Jill's lemon drizzle cake (recipe tantalisingly unforthcoming) but no longer meaning a pleasant listening experience without feeling one has taken too long out one's day.
I like the cohesion amongst archers fans. I have long conversations with my father and girlfriend's mother about the latest developments. Other long conversations have been bourne out of mutual appreciation of the series.
One story that always amuses me is an anecdote in Andy McNab's book, "Bravo Two Zero" where he describes being in the SAS base in Saudi prior to going behind enemy lines in Iraq during the first gulf war. Amongst descriptions of weapons being cleaned and kit readied, he talks of hearing the strains of the theme tune amongst the general hubbub. The image of these ultra-hard soldiers avidly following countryside goings on amuses me every time.
As a final thought, I would like to remind you of a Billy Connolly routine where he suggests the Archers theme tune would be the ideal candidate for a new UK national anthem. I couldn't agree more. It's cheery, optimistic and represents so many aspects of quintessential Britishness... And there are no words to struggle to remember!
Now. All together now... Tum tee tum te tum te tum...
JR

Reflections on the Weekend

On my way back from a fantastic weekend with my girlfriend.
Over the past month or so, she and I have been doing a lot of "tourist" stuff. It started with me taking her up to Scotland and showing her some of my old haunts and exploring new places. Since then we have been doing a lot of sightseeing. Part of this is so we can actually say we've done something over our weekends, part of it is to convince her that London is a really cool place to live with no end of things to do and discover. So far we have been having an amazing time.
Anyhow, she is on placement at the moment and staying with her parents for it. Therefore this weekend I packed my bags and we went off to their place for some exploring. Like I said earlier, it was wonderful. We had a great time together and did some really cool stuff.
Unfortunately (it having been quite a while since I've done any attraction type stuff and not been on expenses), the cost of it all shocked me a wee bit. The things we went to all charged fairly significant entrance fees and that was with student discount. On both days I think we got value for money. We had great fun together. That was the point of the day. I like to think we learned a thing or two as well.
I don't have a problem with paying for attraction. I understand these things can't run for nothing and like I say, I think they generally represent value for money. What disappointed me was the determination of such places to get money out of customers at all costs. At one place, gift shops certainly equalled if not outnumbered the billed attractions (the attractions were in a number of buildings with a gift shop in each and a few more for good measure). Let's not even mention the coffee/ice cream/hot dog stands.
Again, I don't have a problem with gift shops per se but the sheer number left me feeling like the whole organisation was a cynical attempt to make money disguised as an attraction rather than attraction doing what was necessary to stay solvent. The sheer amount of saturation marketing served only to put me off buying anything. I feel acutely sorry for those that have kids since they lap up the worst of the over-priced plastic tat and have to be negotiated out of it every time. (As an aside: parents please PLEASE, if you're at something and your kids are making a racket, take them out of the situation for the benefit of everyone. Particularly if it's a guided tour. I know it can't be easy with a couple of wee ones especially when they're tired but don't inflict it on everyone else.)
Rant aside, like I say, it was a lovely weekend and the attractions did a fantastic job of catering to all audiences.
JR

Tales from on duty

As a follow up to my last post, I thought I would post up some events in my St. John Ambulance career which stick out in my memory. Most, if not all of them, aren't particularly clinically interesting but they have made a lasting impression on me for reasons I will try and explain. Obviously, no names will be given and details are deliberately vague to protect the anonymity of those involved.

I'm going to start with a heart-warming case. I was treating a young boy. While I was treating him, my colleague was taking a history from his father. I immediately kicked into "kid" mode, smiling and making bad jokes (it generally helps distract the kid from any pain and keeps the situation calm. If parent/child sees you are relaxed, they are unlikely to panic making everyone's life easier. And I have a store of dreadful jokes to roll out!). While I was doing my usual routine of explaining what I was doing to the child, I overheard the father tell my colleague that the child was autistic. He then turned to me and told me not to be offended if I didn't get a response. I continued to treat him while giving a commentary on what I was doing and getting him to help me. What makes this case stick in my mind is that I did manage to develop a rapport with this kid. He was making eye contact and responding to my attempts at conversation. I know autism has a spectrum of severity but when his father was surprised at how much he was interacting I really felt like I had achieved something.

The second case I'm going to relate is a surprising one. I was treating a patient who had fallen off his bike at high speed, fracturing his collar bone  and dislocating his shoulder (his shoulder was down at about the level of his nipple). So far, so ouch! He needed the arm immobilised and shipped to hospital fairly smartish. What was surprising was that he refused all forms of pain relief even when I took three attempts to get one of the new issue paper slings on him. For a bit of background, first aiders can dish out gas and air and paracetamol. The former might have had a short term effect, the latter wouldn't have touched it. Therefore we called in a paramedic in case more powerful pain relief was required. The patient hadn't hit his head, nor was he showing signs of shock and freely admitted being in agony (in a calm, level manner) he just had an extraordinarily high pain threshold.

A happy case I dealt with recently was a young child who had been stung by a bee for the first time. The child's mother brought him to me because this was the first bee sting and she was concerned about anaphylaxis. Fortunately the child was as good as gold and went from being a bit subdued when in acute pain to bored of having to sit still. In the mean time, I had a long chat with the mother explaining a bit about anaphylaxis; describing what happened in the body and how it is likely to manifest its self. This was gratifying on two levels. Firstly, I was pleased to reassure the mother and ease her concern as well as giving her the confidence to recognise a serious reaction when it happened.. Secondly, as a human biology graduate, I find physiological processes fascinating and I was pleased not only to put my hours spent in the library to good use but to dust off the old subject knowledge in the first place.

A couple of sad ones next... for different reasons:

Firstly was a gentleman that came up to us on a small duty complaining of feeling dizzy. We ascertained that he was diabetic but since we can't take blood sugar readings or blood pressure we had to content ourselves by giving him fluids and a place to sit down. When we talked to him in more detail we found out that he had advanced and diffuse cancer and the diabetes was a side-effect of his medication. This situation is tragic for anyone to be in but it was somehow compounded by the fact that he was comparatively young. We spent quite a while talking to him as we observed him and he turned out to be a trained chef. Naturally, this led to him and me swapping recipe ideas before the conversation turned to malt. It seems such a shame for such a warm and vital man to be so gravely ill. I will never be able to follow him up but I hope for the very best for him.

Another sad one (for different reasons) was a girl I treated on my first Notting Hill Carnival. She was poured (well mopped) onto our treatment centre where I was allocated to treat her. I placed her on a stretcher near a drain to let her get it out of her system. To gain an idea of what she had consumed in terms of drink (or worse) and to distract her mates from the fact that she was freely and voluminously peeing herself I started chatting to them. It turns out they were celebrating their exam results. When I asked how their A levels went, they told me they had just finished their GCSEs. As a product of the Scottish education system I have no idea how old one is when one sits these exams but I'm guessing around 15 or 16. To make matters worse, her friends told me they had been accepting cocktails from a strange bloke in a pub. At this point I struggled to stop my jaw hitting the floor. It may have been paternalistic and condescending but I spend the next couple of minutes explaining that accepting drinks from strangers is a bad idea at the best of times and even worse at Notting Hill (when all bets are off) and even big, ugly Scotsmen like me are wary of accepting freebies. They were insistent that they had drunk before (I don't doubt it) but given they were uniformly very well dressed and very well spoken I am willing to bet that the drinking was done at house parties with the parents upstairs or neighbours keeping a fairly close eye on proceedings.

And finally...

It's always entertaining when we get silly requests. As hinted at in the previous post, it is not unusual to be asked for condoms. Neither is it unusual to be asked for transport when transport is really not appropriate.

The funniest thing that happened to me involved no patient contact. It was my first duty (Notting Hill again) and due to a problem with the supply chain, I didn't have any uniform shirts. One of the others in the division kindly lent me one of theirs. Unfortunately I didn't get it until the morning of the duty. As I was changing into the shirt the call, "Brass" went up to indicate approaching senior officers. Not wanting to be caught half-naked by said officers, I make an attempt to dash into the back of the treatment centre with it's tinted windows... straight into the commissioner! Fortunately, she saw the funny side and even complimented me on my uniform presentation later in the day!

These are a small portion of the people I have met and treated. I hope it shows that treatment doesn't have to be dramatic to be rewarding and reflects the gratitude I feel towards the people that tell me their story and allow me into their lives.

JR

St. John Ambulance

My last posts have been variations on a theme. To prove I am capable of more than rambling rants I thought now would be a good time to write something positive. Hence I am going to write about something which gives me great pleasure and I am genuinely proud to be a part of; St. John Ambulance.

I joined SJA a couple of years ago when I moved down to London. This was done for a variety of reasons; firstly, I have been first aid qualified since I was around 14. Initially it was the boy scout badge followed by a programme at school. At University I joined the lifesaving club which combined first aid with water rescue. It seemed an ideal way to combine my enjoyment of swimming with my love of doing something a bit different (yes Baywatch did play a part as the fact that a girl I fancied was joining). I spent five amazing years in the club and got the opportunity to participate in loads of things I never thought I would do from going at full speed in a power boat in Bournemouth to training in the North Sea... in September!

When I moved down to London I did look around for other clubs to join but a large part of me knew my time with lifesaving was at an end. I didn't want to run the risk of constantly comparing whichever club I joined to Uni and after years of doing it, pool swimming was becoming boring. By this time my pool lifeguard qualification was coming to an end. I knew from experience that the water rescue side of lifesaving would be very unlikely to change (whereas the first aid side got updated regularly) and water confidence combined with common sense are the most important factors when conducting a rescue. Therefore I decided to join an organisation solely focused on first aid (a qualification I wanted to maintain if nothing else, to ensure I would be covered by the insurance of my training organisation should I ever be required to deliver treatment). I passionately believe everyone should have at least a basic grasp of first aid since the skills are not hard to learn and ultimately a small intervention can save someone's life. It seems stupid for people not to learn this when they can make such a difference.

I settled on St. John for several reasons. Firstly, I liked the fact that defibrillator training came as standard rather than the exception. Having delivered seminars on treatment of cardiac arrest as part of my degree, I knew what a difference this bit of equipment made. I also liked the fact that it was possible to reach a higher level of skill than I had previously attained. Currently I have done my advanced first aid with supplemental gas therapy. I also liked the fact that they have a fleet of vehicles which are constantly in use. Although I have yet to attain my ambulance qualification, it remains an ambition and when I do, I think it would be extremely satisfying to provide backup to the London Ambulance Service both routinely and in exceptional circumstances. Finally, I wanted the opportunity to use my first aid skills. Up until that point the majority of stuff I had done was give out plasters and ice packs. While I in no way wish suffering, pain and life threatening illnesses on people, I realise that it will inevitably happen and should it do so, I can offer extremely competent intervention that will increase the chances of a positive outcome. Since joining I have had the opportunity to do this. I can still count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have had to call on my more advanced skills but the fact remains that I have had to do it and risen to the challenge when needed. Most of the time however, I spend the majority of time on duty directing people to the loo/tube (I'm wearing a high-visibility jacket... of course I know!) Ultimately my membership is fuelled by a desire to have the knowledge and training to help those around me in need.

Now that I'm in, I can honestly say that I love it. I have been very lucky with the division I have joined. The demographic in there is as varied as you care to imagine; from pensioners to teenagers and everyone in between. It is headed up by a brilliant woman who made it perfectly clear when I first phoned her that, in her view, the division was there to support members and not the other way round. She does a wonderful job of making stuff happen. Upon joining I was immediately made to feel at home. There was never any hint of being the "new boy", I was just part of the team. This attitude has continued on duty and means that within a fairly short space of time I have progressed from an exclusively treatment role to a more strategic role on larger duties. Although I like interacting with people and delivering treatment (that's why I joined after all), doing this presents a host of new challenges and has been extremely rewarding. In addition to this, the list of cool events I get to go to (for free) is extensive. They range from Notting Hill Carnival to Proms in the Park via the Royal Opera House and London Marathon.

Admittedly it's not all high-profile stuff. I spend more than my fair share of time standing at the corners of football pitches getting cold (and to add insult to injury, I don't even like football). Lots of the duties also involve obscenely early mornings or extremely late nights. Sometimes both. I wont pretend that this aspect is always great fun but this is where the other members come in. Shared adversity creates a bond, whether it is with people one has just met all converging on a treatment centre or established members of one's own division. The time can be used to get to know new people or relive past mishaps and silliness with old friends. Afterwards we can then look back from the warmth of the pub and have a bit of a laugh about it.

People who are not members have asked me if I mind giving up my free time to do this. As a girl in my division said, it's not a huge deal because it's spending time with your mates as well. I couldn't agree more. I count several people in the division as among my closest friends. One of them has gone from being a complete stranger when I joined to my flatmate and one of my best mates. I can't think of anyone in division who I wouldn't happily go for a beer with. Friends have been made outside division as well. They are people I would not normally have met but I am extremely glad I have. I jokingly say that St. John saves me a fortune since going on duty means I spend time with friends without defaulting to the pub/cafe/cinema.

Friendships aside, being out on duty has afforded me to see a lot of things that, in my normal life, I wouldn't get anywhere close to. Some have been sad, some have been funny, some have been scary and some have been heart warming. Tales of these are for another post. I have also had the opportunity to meet some wonderful people; not just other members but patients, their families, members of the professional emergency services and random members of the public.

Taking the rose-tinted glasses off for a moment the organisation is not perfect. Fundamentally it is a volunteering organisation and as such is run largely by volunteers. This combined with it's size means that things can happen infuriatingly slowly. Most of the time this is largely administrative so does not affect our operational ability but it's frustrating none the less. There is also the prevailing attitude in training that because people are prepared to give up their time, they should automatically be allowed to. As a result I have seen one or two people pass assessments where they probably shouldn't. THESE CASES ARE EXTREMELY RARE. The beauty of first aid is that, unless one does something manifestly stupid, it's very hard to make a situation worse. That said, I think the organisation needs to tighten up it's assessments to ensure the highest level of skill in all it's members. If that means extra training for some then so be it. Similarly, others that persistently are unable to achieve the required level of skill should be encouraged into other roles within the organisation. These roles do not prevent being operationally active on duty, they just don't require first aid to be able to do them.

Another problem the organisation has is one of perception both amongst the public and other services. This largely is a result of people being unsure about our precise role and skill level. To clear this up let me give you a rough guide. Most first aiders will spend most of their time giving out plasters. Like it or not, that's the bulk of our work. For serious injuries, we can minimise discomfort. We are trained to stabilise and splint broken limbs but rarely do so as these will usually require hospital treatment (and hence usually ambulance transport). Therefore ambulance crews in attendance will rightly remove our splints and dressings to assess the injury themselves. Most of the duties we do are in urban areas so sod's law dictates that the ambulance will rock up just as we have finished splinting. It's heartbreaking to see one's intricate handiwork fall victim to a pair of tuffcuts so unless we know an ambulance is going to be quite some time, we usually confine ourselves to reassuring the patient, minimizing pain and spontaneous movement and getting a decent history. In emergency situations where life is at threat we are trained to make sure the person doesn't die while more advanced help makes it's way to us.We are not mobile GPs (so if something has been bothering you for the last week, chances are it won't kill you in the taxi to A&E/on your way to your local surgery) and we are not Boots (sorry but despite the fact we look sexy in our clumpy boots and yellow jackets we don't keep condoms on station).

More confusion arises with our ambulance crews. They are trained to a higher level than first aiders in the organisation. The best way to describe it is that they are roughly of the same skill level as London Ambulance Service technicians. This difference is of little consequence to the people we treat but heightened awareness would be useful amongst professional ambulance services not least because, in London at least, we routinely back up the London Ambulance Service. Most Friday and Saturday nights will see St. John vehicles deployed alongside LAS. Our involvement is therefore not limited to providing ambulance cover for our own events and major incidents/national emergencies. While deployed like this, our vehicles and crews are under direct LAS control. However, it seems there can be confusion with the people on the front line. I have read in paramedic blogs that I follow of solo responders requesting an ambulance and being confused when a SJA vehicle turns up. Rightly, they are wary of transferring their patient at this point since they bare sole responsibility for the patient's welfare until they reach hospital. However, hopefully they would be less so if they were more fully aware of what we can offer (including a lift back to your car if your advanced skills are required) and as a result, pressure on LAS would be relieved slightly. (Let's leave aside the political aspect of using volunteers and charity resources to provide backup to a service which should be wholly government funded.)

That said, I have nothing but praise for the LAS personnel I have encountered on duty. They have been uniformly polite, professional and courteous towards us, taking time to listen to our handover while they assess the patient. At times our involvement has ended there however it is not unusual for whoever is attending to allow us to continue to observe while they are assessing and treating all the while explaining what they are doing. Some will even suggest we stay "hands on" delegating parts of the treatment that fall within our skill level. All this is greatly appreciated. Part of our training is knowing our own limits however most members are curious what happens next. In addition, understanding of a subject aids memory so we appreciate you explaining what you're doing. Even if our involvement with the patient ends with the handover we appreciate you treating us with respect and courtesy. Given the nature of volunteering, individual volunteers won't treat all that many patients over the course of any given time period and even fewer serious ones. Therefore when we do encounter something serious we are (understandably) more than a little apprehensive. The professionals taking us seriously and thanking us for our efforts is a welcome confidence boost. That said, if I'm doing CPR, get the bloody ALS kit 'coz my arms are getting tired!

In conclusion; if you are thinking about volunteering I would urge you to consider SJA. If you are considering SJA, I would urge you to join. The opportunities available to you on joining are amazing, not just to do fun things but also to make a difference to people (and I genuinely believe we do even if it is just in the form of reassurance). It doesn't require much of your free time and as I've said, it really won't seem like you are giving anything up at all.

JR

I have a guilty secret. I have been known to read the Daily Mail. I get most of my "news" reporting from other sources but the Mail is always good for a bit of a snigger.

Not so today. I would suggest you read this article.

I read a few years ago that sociologists think that generations are getting smaller. By that I mean, the age range that covers the term "generation" is narrowing. I must say I agree and this article really does confirm it.

As a bit of background, my mid- to late- teens was very similar to that of the show, "The Inbetweeners". I went to parties, worked for exams, relaxed with mates, went to the pub (not always successfully), tried to get a girlfriend. Some parties did get a little debauched. Some of my peers dabbled in drugs (this isn't me being coy, genuinely most of my mates and I had no interest in anything stronger than whisky). I occasionally had to slur to my parents that I had, "only had a couple" and the smell of fag smoke was because I had walked a girl who smokes home.

I am now in my mid-20s. I still go to the pub with my mates. I still enjoy house parties. I now go out to clubs more because I have real ID (not the kind that was made on your mate's, dad's laser printer). However subtle differences are becoming apparent. I have started appreciating well ironed shirts and nicely polished shoes. I have stopped regarding closing time/passing out as the time to stop drinking. I enjoy (and have hosted) dinner parties. Now 90% of my alcohol consumption is because I like the taste of what I'm drinking rather than for the effects of alcohol (but who doesn't go on a bender now and again). I can say no to a fly-fag. In short; I am growing up.

This is what I genuinely believed until recently. Now I think the whole culture of being young has changed. What shocked me about reading the above article was how unsurprised I was. A large part of this opinion has been formed due to my flatmate's girlfriend. She is 19 and, as far as I can tell, a fair representation of a normal 19 year old. In short, while I compared my late teens to "The Inbetweeners", her life seems to be more like "Skins". Casual sex is the norm. She talks of one friend/aquaintence who caused most of her friend circle to become infected with chlamydia. This was shrugged off as being a bit of a pest. It was clear that sex was clearly an act very separate from relationships and (in my opinion) had precious little to do with intimacy either. It is just something one does. From some of the stories told, even liking the person is largely optional never mind attraction.

Then there is the booze. I have been out with my flatmate and his girlfriend to some of her haunts. Once again, I like a drink, often followed by a second (my girlfriend jokes that I have never bought a half unless it's been part of a whole) but again the sheer level of consumption is shocking. An image that will stay with me for a long time is that of a girl who looked closer to 10 than 20 even with the aid of makeup, killer heels and mini-dress. She was on the dance floor drinking wine... through a straw... from the bottle. Even at the most outrageous parties I was at (including the one in the new house of a friend's dad who had recently divorced his mum. We were given a couple of crates of beer by his mum and told to, "have a good time". Would have loved to see the dad's face afterwards) we usually used a glass as an intermediary for everything other than beer.

My mother has referred to me as her Young Fogey for years. I admit my love of ale, single malt, tweed and fountain pens combined with my suspicion of technology may be a little antiquated for most 25 year olds but I don't think I am that different from most of my generation. It worries me that the younger generation are doing this to themselves. It worries me what the generation who are still young kids are going to do when they reach this stage in their development. The prospect of having kids terrifies me, not because of the idea of responsibility and commitment but because of what I might be bringing a child into.

Hopefully some form of equilibrium will be restored soon. Until then I hope that the long term potential damage caused by this behaviour will be minimal.

JR

Self-Defence

Yesterday I highlighted what I think are inadequacies in the law of self-defence and questioned the value of vigilante action by people caught up in the current disturbances. Today I would like to examine both concepts further, the former roughly in context of the latter.

This has been prompted by reports today of several local communities taking to the streets to protect what they value. Residents of Northcote Road in Clapham formed a human cordon preventing anyone wearing a hoodie entering their streets. Residents of Dalston did much the same. Sikhs in East London came together to protect their temple. To all of them I would say well done for protecting what you hold dear. I hope there are no negative consequences in the future.

There are inherent risks to this type of behaviour. People are leaving themselves open to criminal prosecution. They may do this without realising this or intending to. An example of these unintended consequences would be chasing off would-be looters. Strictly speaking, the offence of assault does not have to involve physical contact, merely perception that harm will be visited on the individual. Therefore, a group of large men chasing a couple of teenage kids could well fall within that definition. It may or may not be likely that such charges would proceed further than the raised eyebrow of a police officer and there is a decent chance self-defence could be argued if they did. Even so, it is a big risk to take.

How did this situation develop? Robert Peel when first founding a police service made it clear that police officers were to be ordinary citizens upholding the law within the law rather than a special group immune from it's effects. This remains true today. Police officers can still only use reasonable force, it just so happens that their job is defending people and property and therefore they are in a position to use it more. Conversely, everybody has the right to perform an arrest. Obviously things are not that simple. Police rightly have the right to undertake activities that would otherwise be considered criminal. Such examples include exemptions from certain traffic laws under specific circumstances, carrying items which would otherwise be prohibited and a wider scope to arrest and detain people. The first two, obviously, are necessary for them to carry out their role effectively. The latter exists as a function of the role of police in society (private citizens may perform an arrest when a crime is being committed, police can arrest individuals in order to prevent a crime or to allow it's effective investigation. As I doubt most individuals have the time, skills and infrastructure to conduct a criminal investigation this seems fair enough).

The question is, how far can ordinary citizens go in the course of their everyday lives and in exceptional circumstances such as the last few days?

At this point I will stress that although I have studied law this is NOT a definitive legal guide. What I am writing is my opinion and perception of the situation as it stands. If you have the misfortune to find yourself in trouble for defending yourself and your property, get a lawyer and do what they say!

As I said previously, human cordons and chasing off "hoodies" would probably fall quite nicely under the banner of self-defence. Even if a large group of non-hoodies did the chasing I would think that this would still seem reasonable although already we are straying into contentious territory. Likewise wrestling someone to the ground and sitting on them until the police arrived if they were attacking someone else or looting would probably be OK. Although a lot of force is being used, by pinning them, you are ensuring your safety and that of others by putting them in a position where they are unable to lash out. What about doing the same to a hoodie approaching a cordon of you and your neighbours? In the absence of other circumstances this would probably be unacceptable as no specific offence has been committed (arguably public order offences have been but let's gloss over that since they can be quite hard to prove and are probably better left as a tool to allow coppers to nick people who are being obnoxious twats rather than be used as reasons for citizens arrest) even if there was little doubt as to their intention. However if they sauntered through the cordon and started squaring up to a shop window, your case for self-defence get's much stronger. The law allows for pre-emptive strikes so long as intention is clear and criminality imminent. Complicated isn't it?

And the above are by no means set in stone. There is still the human element of those involved in the legal process. A vicious prosecutor will attack and might break your self-defence case. Similarly the jury or the magistrate may or may not like you/what you were doing. Of course they are told to be impartial but that's a hard state to achieve. Do you want to run the risk?

Now the thorny issue of using things other than your hands. The police have special dispensation in law to carry batons, CS gas and, on occasion, firearms. Even then, this only exists when on duty. Private citizens do not have this right. Weapons such as guns, knives, swords and pretty much anything designed to cause injury of death to people are expressly illegal. Items which could be dangerous are also banned although one is permitted to have them if they are part of one's trade. Don't let that put you off going round B&Q this Saturday but don't delay putting whatever you buy into the garage/shed. There is a final important caveat and that is one of intent. If you carry an item with the intention of using it to cause injury then, regardless of what it is, it becomes an offensive weapon. Obviously the list of items that can be weaponised is endless but it is the intent that counts. Therefore, if something happens to come to hand in the heat of the moment, it will not be classed as a weapon however the same item would be in different circumstances. A good example of this would be sleeping with items by your bed. A brick is obviously a weapon as there is no other (obvious) reason to have a brick beside your bed. What about a heavy torch used to hit an intruder? On one hand, you could keep it there in case you had a power cut (and many people do) and you just so happened to reach out and grab it in panic. However, if the torch is just to hit people, it's a weapon.

This is all convoluted and confusing and bluntly, leads to innocent people getting criminal records for behaviour that can barely be classed as criminal. If I was being awkward I would suggest that people are being prosecuted for defending their right to a private and family life as defined in the Human Rights Act (see previous post). For this reason, I think the law needs clarifying. I do not think a universal right to bear arms is the way forward. If nothing else, it will complicate issues around crimes involving weapons and potentially make life worse for the law-abiding citizen. Currently, if the police see someone with a gun, knife or other specific weapon it is illegal and they can act accordingly. Changing this would confuse matters to a dangerous degree.

What about improvised weapons? Stories are being released of people defending their property with baseball bats, snooker cues and table legs. Here things get more complicated. I don't support the population as a whole arming themselves. However, the law should view sympathetically those that do in extremis. Put simply, in situations like the last few days, people protecting their community should be allowed to use more than their bare hands and be entitled to the protection of the law rather than the discretion of police officers on scene.

As I said yesterday, a step forward would be to change the word, "reasonable" to the word, "necessary" in relation to force in the context of self defence. I think it would also be helpful to update the concept of self-defence (this is a bit of an academic point but bear with me). Currently it is a defence meaning in essence you still broke the law but you're being let off because you did it for the right reasons. I think this criminalises natural human instinct and is overall unhelpful. Instead make it a basic right thus creating a presumption of innocence for the person using force rather than a presumption of guilt.

The downside of this is that I can see the criminal subspecies that have been perpetrating the recent rioting crying self-defence at every possible opportunity and using it like the human rights act to cover all manner of sins. For this reason I would suggest that the police should be allowed to exercise common sense in their approach to dealing with violent crime (they know who the repeat offenders are) and a common sense based approach by the Courts possibly linked to greater disclosure of past criminal offences at trial.

What does everyone else think?

JR

London Riots

There has been rioting in London for the past three nights. Last night was the worst. Disorder was rife in the world's finest city. Few areas were left untouched. I was lucky. I was in one of the affected areas before everything kicked off. I got out.

As well as violence and arson looting has reached epidemic proportions.

Who the fuck do these bastards think they are? What gives them the right to destroy the livelihoods of innocent people? Why do they think it is their entitlement to help themselves to whatever they see fit?

I live next to a prison. I hope that very soon the perpetrators of this outrageous behaviour will become my neighbours.

The opposition benches and some media commentators have already started making excuses for this citing poverty, deprivation and cuts. Bollocks! Not all those in poverty are rioting and looting. Not all those rioting and looting are in poverty. The people committing these crimes are united by one thing and one thing only. They are arrogant, narcissistic, selfish, stupid and contemptible excuses for humanity who think it acceptable to ignore the laws of this great nation when it suits them.

The powers that be need to take action and they need to take it now.

The police  need to be given the equipment they need to disperse these crowds. This includes, but is not limited to, water cannon, baton rounds, effective protective equipment and more effective personal defence equipment. They then need to be left to get on with their job. The bureaucratic governmental interference with police work must stop. Absolve police of lengthy form filling and arbitrary targets... let them get on with being coppers. Unfortunately, people who choose to appropriate and propagate unrest and violence on such a scale may be hurt when the police step in to stop it. Live with it. If they don't want to get hurt, they don't have to get involved.

In the longer term, police pay must be increased, their pensions safeguarded and their powers and abilities respected. Again, they need to be left to do their jobs and satisfactorily rewarded for it. We also need more police officers. It is that simple. Last night, the Met was unable to keep up with all the trouble having to race between scenes and hastily prioritise events. They did this with the assistance of other forces but, from what I can tell from the press, London was not always in their control. This is not a criticism of the police. I think they did a fantastic job under extraordinary circumstances. Their courage and bravery should be commended.

The courage of the ambulance services and the fire services should be noted and commended at this point. They have continued to do their duty treating people caught up in the violence and trying to minimise the damage caused by this. They have done this in addition to their normal workload and often coming under fire from the mobs whilst doing so. This takes bravery, professionalism and courage and I am grateful we have such services to rely on.

The Human Rights Act should also be repealed. We in Britain are a civilised nation. Legislation setting out how to treat others decently is as insulting as it is patronizing. Currently, the act is abused by wrongdoers - both criminal and civil - to try (and sometimes succeed) to get off with their misdeeds because they don't like the consequences of their actions and so their human rights must have been violated. This charade must stop. The Act should be repealed and in the mean time, the judiciary encouraged to take a more purposive (and pragmatic) approach to applying it.

Finally, people need to be given the right to defend themselves and their property. People may argue with the latter. Yes human safety will always take priority over material objects however the value of property should not be under-estimated. I have many things which I will vigorously defend should the need arise. Most don't have massive physical value but enormous sentimental value. This value is intangible but is still deserving of respect (the world would be a pretty bleak place if things were considered only on their monetary value). This is one of the main reasons why, "reasonable force" is utterly insufficient when applied to self-defence. Changes in the law recently suggests that Courts should put themselves in the position of the defendant to assess reasonableness in such cases. This is a step forward but in my opinion still pretty thin. In my opinion, the word "reasonable" should be substituted for the word "necessary" giving ordinary, decent people the full and unwavering protection of the law when protecting themselves and what is rightfully theirs.

That said, much as I am furious with the animals perpetrating this behaviour, I don't think vigilante action is the way forward. Taking on the rioters in direct conflict is simply lowering ourselves to their level. In addition, the disturbances caused by this would have to be dealt with by police. This could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and lead to anarchy. Nobody would benefit from this. Better stay inside during the evenings and allow the police to get on with the excellent work they do. By doing this, we can allow them to assume that anyone out on the streets at night has a nefarious motive. If we want to make a statement I would urge participating in the cleaning operations going on around London. By doing this we can show the rioters that we are better than them, we are above their pathetic behaviour and we will not have the environment we live in spoiled by them.

Finally, may I refer you to the excellent blog Police Inspector Blog. It is written by a serving police officer and provides commentary from a police perspective on issues affecting us all.

I hope that tonight doesn't provide an encore for the trouble we have seen but I fear it might. In any event, I hope this dies down promptly and civilisation can be restored. In the mean time, I wish all police, fire and ambulance crews the best of luck in the days to come. I hope we shall see no further injuries amongst your ranks.

A Strange Experience.

One part of my life that I haven't mentioned up until now is my work for a private ambulance service. This is essentially St. John Ambulance style work but paid. I'm trying to do a fair bit at the moment to get by while looking for a "proper job". After that it will be good to be able to get a bit of additional pocket money, especially if any unforeseen (or foreseen for that matter) expenses crop up.

I was working yesterday in a club that runs on Sunday afternoons. It was quite a surreal experience all round. Usually when I'm in a club, I'm the one partying (this venue being no exception) so first-off it was a bit strange to see the place sober and smelling fresh. To be honest, being in a club sober isn't as bad as I was expecting. I quite like cheesy music anyway and it was nice to emerge richer rather than poorer. As I was wearing a t-shirt with the word, "Medic" all over it I had a laugh with a lot of the patrons who came up and started shooting the shit. The bouncers were nice lads too and were great at keeping an eye on me when things began to look a bit interesting at a couple of points.

One thing that did surprise me was just how loud these places are. I never really noticed before; probably due to the combined effects of alcohol and the fact that it's usually about midnight before I go anywhere near a club. I always carry ear defenders as part of my personal kit, many of my colleagues do the same since you never know when it can get noisy (Notting Hill Carnival and music festivals are the obvious ones but I have been known to use them at football matches and fireworks events too). I'm glad I do now since the volume in this place was ear-splitting. (Why? I appreciate a certain volume creates a party atmosphere but then it's just noise for the sake of noise.) I am now genuinely worried about the effects of previous clubbing experiences on my ears.

In addition to the volume, the prevailing atmosphere in the place was one of a market. I know people don't go clubbing to dance (or for sensibly priced drinks for that matter)... I certainly didn't. The vast majority of people there are there to get drunk, do silly things with their mates and hopefully meet someone to share various levels of intimacy with. So far so good. The scale of the meat market here however was genuinely shocking. To start with, undressed seemed to be the prevailing dress code (fair enough, call it advertising) but what really surprised and disappointed me was things that went on in the club. Firstly there was a period where girls only were allowed on stage (displaying the goods?). To add to this, throughout the event, images of the revellers were projected into large screens along with captions. Fairly frequently, the image would be one of a girl with the caption, "Get your tits out". Many did. Some quickly and without hesitation. Some more slowly and with a bit of mental preparation. Some with the aid of their "mates".

My first reaction to this was, "Brilliant! Boobs!" I am a straight bloke in his 20s after all. I think my girlfriend is gorgeous and I'm very happy with her but I can't help enjoying seeing the female form (for a good description of how us blokes feel, watch Jack Davenport's rant in "Coupling"). However that reaction changed to one of mild disgust after a few seconds. From a legal point of view, would this action not be classed as indecent exposure? It's not uncommon for lads doing the same (getting pissed and pulling their trousers down) to end up on the sex-offenders register. Political points about the CPS focusing their efforts on fundamentally decent people rather than hardened criminals aside, this seems a bit unfair. In addition to this, the "mates" dragging down bras and tops are potentially committing sexual assault.

Legal bit aside what about the social consequences of this? I would not be impressed if my girlfriend did this either while we were together or before. I know anatomically boobs are modified sweat glands surrounded in fat and wrapped in skin however they have very sexual connotations. I like my girlfriend's boobs. They're pretty. What I also like is the intimacy created by being the only person other than her that can see them. Demonstrating to a girl that your a decent guy worth sharing her body with inevitably brings you closer and creates a bond and I think makes the physical stuff more fun. Knowing that everybody and their cousin has seen your girlfriend with her kit off would surely destroy this.

On a wider scale; what sort of messages are these girls sending out. This has been the subject of much debate and controversy in the media. There is a vocal group of commentators saying that ladies should be able to wear what they want and act how they please and anything else is just repressive. This is one point of view but unfortunately nobody lives in a bubble and the actions of individuals has consequences for the environment around them.

Clothing and actions send out messages (why else do we dress smartly for job interviews) and in this case, skimpy clothes and baring breasts sends out a message of sexual availability. As a guy, navigating the minefield that is women in a club is daunting. Many times I have been rebuffed by girls wearing virtually nothing and overtly coveting attention. This is fair enough. I know I'm not blessed with the looks of Sean Connery (although neither am I cursed with the looks of Alex Salmond). Most girls are sweet about it, yet more are polite. Some however (and in my experience usually the ones dressed and acting the most provocatively) are outraged that I have had the temerity and the gall to chat them up. Go figure... I can't. Before I sound like more of a dinosaur than I am, I will say the obvious in that it's a girl's absolute right to reject unwanted advances (as it is a guy's right to do the same). I am simply highlighting that if people choose to seek the attention of others, then they can't be surprised when they receive it.

Most of the time this attention will be harmless flirtation but it worries me that girls, by acting this way, may be exposing themselves not only to rowdy crowds in a club but to great personal risk. Again to clarify, I am not for a second saying that, "she was asking for it" is in any way appropriate as a response to accusations of sexual violence against women. Neither am I saying that men are incapable of restraining their sexual urges. We are. However, to me, it makes sense that coveting the attention of lots of people with overtly sexual displays may well, as an unintended consequence, attract the attention of the wrong sort of person as well. Debates about the rights and wrongs of this statement could rage for eternity and beyond. It is simply my perception of the current situation. Ultimately, it is said because I believe nobody should have to go through the trauma of sexual crimes and a moments consideration of ones actions could prevent this.

I know this post is controversial. I am also aware that I have put a lot of caveats in what I say: not something I am used to and certainly not something my friends would recognise in me. It is done in recognition of the sensitive nature of the topic, my acute awareness of the complexities and an acknowledgement that these are my opinions and I certainly don't claim to be an authority on any of the subjects discussed nor do I claim to have all the answers. I will end on more of a certain note. Girls, for everyone's sake, think about the length of the skirt (they can't be comfortable anyway) and "keep your tits in", unless your my girlfriend... and we're alone... in which case, "get 'em out luv!"

JR

And Finally...

Pubs throughout the world are filled with men who enjoy beer, food, smoking, seducing women (or trying to) and cricket. Until recently, Shane Warne was one of those men. Utterly normal as a bloke apart from his famed cricketing ability.

Not so now. Mr Warne has metamorphosed since starting a relationship with Elizabeth Hurley. He is now an emaciated shadow of his former self. It's a sad day.

When I first found out he was going out with Ms Hurley, my spirits lifted. I'm not a huge fan of celebrity gossip but it was reassuring such a seemingly ordinary lad can win the affections of Liz Hurley... THE Liz Hurley. One of the most beautiful women to grace this planet. I'm sure it gave every straight bloke in the world a confidence boost to know that the pretty girl you have your eye on might just be in your league. It's akin to waking up one day and finding out your flatmate is going out with Pippa Middleton (I will overlook the fact that a contemporary at Uni. recently got married to her sister... apparently he has quite an important granny).

Now he has become a polished metrosexual. Eyebrow shaping... really? From being the guy in the pub that starts a brawl just for the hell of it, he now looks like the guy that legs it into a trendy vodka bar when things start flying (Shane, if you're reading and this isn't the case, my local serves some excellent ale and a decent curry. Let's have a beer... or two...). In short he looks well and truly under the thumb

I suppose any other outcome was a bit much to hope for. If I'm honest with myself, I will admit to being under the thumb as would most of my mates in relationships. It's not a position we cherish but most of the time, it's easier to go along with whatever she wants. We might even be allowed to go to the pub if we're really good. My disappointment comes from the fact that Mr Warne was so nearly a dream come true. Not only did he have a beautiful girlfriend, but he could have continued to be and exemplary typical bloke.

I'm going on a night out with my St. John Ambulance division tonight. Naturally my girlfriend will be there too. I will raise a glass to all us lads under the thumb fighting the confusion of being quietly grateful for a beautiful girlfriend whilst being quietly confused as to just what happened to the bloke we used to be... if I'm allowed to of course!

Secondly

There is a new website that has just been released allowing people to create and sign petitions on government. If enough signatures are collated (100, 000), the issue must be debated by MPs.

I think this is an excellent idea. I know MPs hold constituency surgeries with a view to feeding ideas back to the party and Parliament however I am ashamed to say I have no idea when my local MP holds theirs. I am willing to bet many others are in my situation. Furthermore, anyone who has seen Yes Minister of The Thick of It will know that MPs are rarely fully in control of their actions. Admittedly both programmes have been exaggerated for comedic effect but the point stands that many currents run through the Palace of Westminster and the power of individual MPs are limited. These petitions will at best force the hands of our elected representatives and make them take notice of what we, the electorate, want. At worst they will provide insight into the issues voters care about which will hopefully be used to shape policy.

I have looked at this website. Some of the petitions are very sensible (both ones I agree with and ones I disagree with), others are obviously jokes but nevertheless the opportunity for practical democracy has been created. Unfortunately, a number of topics seem to appear repeatedly. This could lead to some serious issues not passing the signature threshold for debate and undermine the process. Hopefully this is an initial glitch and will be rectified over time. Another alternative would be to reduce the voting threshold to account for this.

Take a look at the site. See what people are creating petitions about. Add your thoughts to the fold.

Hopefully this opportunity will provide fruitful and we can all benefit from it.

JR

Firstly

Three things to talk about today. Two are quite serious, the third a bit more light hearted so I will deal with them in separate posts.

Firstly. According to news reports a man has been shot by Police in North London. In the same incident, a police officer was apparently wounded by a bullet. Reports in all the papers I've read suggest that the dead man is a known gang member. Accounts vary as to the number of shots fired but the consensus so far is that the police officer was shot first prompting their armed colleagues to return fire killing the assailant.

The killing of someone in such circumstances is tragic and we should be grateful that the situation was resolved without further injuries. I very much hope the injured police officer will recover quickly and not be left with any long-term physical or psychological scars.

I am extremely grateful to the police officers of this country who keep the people I care about and me at considerable personal risk. The bravery and commitment of unarmed officers who rush to situations like this is humbling. Praise at the highest level should also be given to the armed officers at the scene. They keep themselves in peak physical condition and train extensively to allow them to operate at their absolute optimum capabilities despite the fact that they fire their weapons so rarely.

What I find shocking is that as soon as an armed officer fires their weapon, they are instantly suspended while the incident is investigated. I am not advocating anybody be given carte blanche to open fire on the streets of Great Britain with no consequences however this practice seems ludicrous. When I started studying law I was introduced to an interesting concept: innocent until proven guilty. The policy of immediate suspension suggests presumed guilt. The stress these officers must face is unimaginable and they have my utmost respect not only for the job they do but for having the courage to do their jobs in the face of such potentially devastating personal consequences.

No doubt there will be outcry from some in the media asking why he wasn't shot in an extremity and disarmed. As far as I am aware this is impossible. Though films portray the hero pulling off incredible shots, I fear reality differs greatly. People taught to shoot in a combat situation are taught to aim at the central mass of the target. This is for the simple reason that they are more likely to hit that than anywhere else especially when under stress. This reduces the risk of stray bullets flying and injuring more people than necessary. Furthermore, being shot in the central mass is more likely to disable the target instantly reducing the risk for all those around. Similar reasons apply to the use of hollow-point bullets. The bullet will cause a lot of damage to the target giving them greater "stopping power" whilst being unlikely to pass through the target and cause injury to those around. In short, "shooting to kill" is an inevitable consequence of police carrying weapons. If someone survives shooting with only wounds then they are lucky but this situation cannot be engineered, especially when the lives of many others are at risk.

The facts above are unpleasant. People will die as a result. Unfortunately, this is a necessary consequence of people arming themselves on the streets of this country. Ultimately, surely it is better the police use force if necessary to protect innocent citizens from those intending to do harm. Yes, mistakes have been made however I believe the police usually make the correct decision and never take it lightly. In short, I am glad we have the police force we do and grateful for the protection they provide.

JR

Prisons

Recent articles in the press have focused a lot on prisons. Firstly, the mother of Charlie Gilmour (son of Pink Floyd guitarist caught swinging from the cenotaph and attacking a Royal Convoy) has been outspoken in the criticism of his sentence. Secondly, the former labour MP Jim Devine has just been released (looking much better for it) prompting an article by Jonathan Aitken on adjusting to post-prison life. Looking further into the past, there was the controversy caused by Ken Clarke when discussing sentencing reforms.

Prisons are something I have always been curious about. Part of me has always wondered if I would survive being locked up (that said, I don't intend to find out). Ever since I can remember, I have had strong views on the subject of punishment and how it should be used. Consequently, when the opportunity for I prison tour arose as part of my legal studies I took it. Let me say from the off; they are not nice places. The cells would be cramped for one person, they house two. There is no privacy. Curtains meant for the purpose have almost invariably been torn down in failed suicide attempts. Doors always being shut means it smells. Inmates are locked up for most of the day (up to 23 hours) with meals being eaten inside the cells. Concrete and bare surfaces dominate. The atmosphere is electric. Although I never once felt directly at risk during the visit I got the impression I was in a tinder box awaiting a spark. Anybody who compares prison to a hotel is very much mistaken.

That said, there are some aspects of prison life that do leave themselves open to question. The food allowance per inmate is greater than the food allowance for soldiers on the front line. They have free access to a fully-stocked gymn with fitness instructors. Television is provided as a matter of routine with it only being removed in special circumstances (whether there is anything worth watching is a subject for lengthier discussion). Working or undertaking learning in the prison environment - as far as I can tell - is optional however inmates are allocated allowances based on behaviour ranging from £5 per week to up to £50 per week which can either be saved, used in the prison tuck shop or spent on items such as games consoles. Staff are also forced to bend over backwards for inmates who know how to play the system. This seems a shame since the attitude of the staff I spoke to was exemplary. Their view was that the loss of liberty was the punishment and they were there to keep things running smoothly and ensure everyone was safe. The respect they showed for inmates was genuine and not dictated by a government directive and, in my view, is an extremely healthy part of the system. By treating people as people and not commodities, they will hopefully engender some self-respect and the desire to change.

I believe prison has three goals: punishment, public protection and rehabilitation. They seem obvious but it's worth stating anyway. The problem arises in the way that these are administered. To start with, I think short sentences are counter-productive. I have no access to official statistics but I know from anecdotal experience of working in a criminal defence law firm that individuals can be imprisoned repeatedly for short periods. These sentences are usually for similar offences and upon release, similar behaviour usually starts again. I believe that short sentences are not sufficiently harsh to act as a deterrent (more an occupational hazard to quote the title sequences of "Porridge") to the offender or others. Furthermore, short sentences do not give sufficient time for an individual to make use of rehabilitation services within the prison.

As mentioned previously. Prison should be a punishment. It should also be there to protect the law-abiding public from criminals. I think longer sentences would have the dual role of reducing re-offending and deterring would-be criminals from such acts. People, I think, would be less likely to commit crime if faced with the loss of a substantial chunk of their life. To this end, I also think that life should mean life in the most serious of cases. Anything less undermines the severity of the punishment. In the same vein I would question the use of open prisons for anything other than offenders in the last few months of a long sentence as a means of integration into the outside world.

The implementation of sentences also needs reform. Concurrent terms in my view are pointless. This is where multiple offences have been committed by one individual. Sentences for each offence are given however the Judge orders they run concurrently. To my mind, this is not only pointless but unjust as it will make no material difference to the offender who will simply serve the longest one. Although the academic distinction is there, I doubt many people would spend much time considering it. In a similar vein, I think the routine early release of offenders makes a mockery of the Justice system. Why would people take a Judge seriously when they openly say one thing yet implicitly mean another? This contradiction seems short-sighted. Early release has the power to be an excellent tool as the ultimate reward for those that show consistently exemplary behaviour and energetic commitment to rehabilitation. It should be a privilege, not a right.

Rehabilitation seems to me to be an important step in the prison process and in the prevention of re-offending. It should be a process of education and growth. One of the obvious starting points would be to assist new inmates in breaking substance abuse habits be it drugs, alcohol or smoking. Sadly, I suspect lack of resources come into play here as they do with most healthcare initiatives. Some might suggest prisoners should go cold-turkey however the process of substance withdrawal is so excruciating that this can only rightly be regarded as torture. What's more, placing people in this desperate situation will only fuel the trade in contraband. Contact, where appropriate, with victims should also be encouraged to promote understanding of the consequences of the crimes committed.

Education in the traditional sense is also essential. As well as an opportunity to beat destructive addictions, prison should be an opportunity for individuals to gain the skills necessary to function in and contribute to society. This starts with basic literacy and numeracy and extend to vocational training. To complement this, ties need to be formed with outside agencies so that those leaving prison with skills have the opportunity to put them to use outside and experience direct benefit from them. Local councils employing prison trained mechanics would be an obvious example but there are many others. The advantages to the individual are obvious; not only are there the fiscal benefits of being employable on the outside, I would guess that there would be psychological benefits as well. I also think the state would benefit as, by investing in training and rehabilitation, they would hopefully reduce re-offending and therefore the cost not only of housing prisoners but also of the prior judicial process. Naturally, the rewards of participating in rehabilitation during a sentence should not be confined to the period after sentencing but should have positive consequences for the inmate during the sentence. Strategies like this exist already but unfortunately they are expensive, short-sentences mean that individuals who could benefit are not in a position to do so to any great degree and the links with the outside world are not as strong as they could be.

As an aside, I read of one prison recently that has opened a restaurant run by prisoners in their grounds. This seems like an ideal solution as it confers a skill, a sense of purpose and (by working during the sentence) the possibility of a decent reference on release. It will be interesting to see if this scheme does affect re-offending in those that have had the opportunity to partake in it. Other ideas for such enterprises could be very interesting and, if successful, potentially offset the costs of the enterprise its self.

I know a lot of these ideas are not particularly new, nor revolutionary. They are also based on my opinions based on a limited experience of working in a firm specialising in this area of law and my own observations however I do not think they are without merit.

Will try and write something amusing soon.

JR

Cyclists!

Not a particularly new topic for discussion here. Many have written on the subject; probably with more intelligence and more humour that I will but here's my opinion anyway. To start with, let me say that I believe (for the sake of my faith in humanity as much as anything else) that it is a minority of cyclists giving the rest a bad name. Their antics such as ignoring red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling in the middle of the road or two or three abreast, cycling up the inside of larger vehicles and ignoring one-way signs range from infuriating to dangerous to themselves and those around them.

Recently, I was crossing a pelican crossing with the green man showing when a cyclist ran into me at full tilt. To compound matters, he then gave me an ear-full of verbal abuse for having the temerity to block his passage. Now in this case, he ran into a big, ugly Scotsman. As a result he went flying off his bike at whatever speed he was doing and got grated along the road for a few feet; I got a bruise on my leg and a couple of scratches on my hand. It's safe to say he came off worse (karma perhaps?). However, if he ran into my mother who is a lot smaller than me, I'm willing to be she would be the loser in that encounter but would escape with minor to moderate injuries. If he ran into someone more frail than either of us, the results could easily be fatal. If a car had been involved, there would almost certainly have been criminal action. As a cyclist was involved, he got up and cycled away.

What shocks me is the type of people that commit this behaviour. I have friends that will freely admit to running red lights when they would otherwise class themselves as having unimpeachable integrity; they wouldn't dream of lighting up in an indoor space and tell shopkeepers if they have been given too much change. I have lost a lot of respect for them. Some of the justifications given for breaking the law defy belief (again from supposedly intelligent individuals). Examples are, "It takes ages to build up momentum on a bike." Surely that is a known consequence of their chosen form of transport? To my mind, that logic is as flawed as those that refuse to pay for petrol because it's quite pricey (or demanding that employers shouldn't expect cyclists to work as many hours because their commute takes longer than it otherwise would). Such things should be taken into consideration when making a choice as to which form of transport to use.

In my mind, there is a fairly straightforward answer. Introduce mandatory identification of bicycles with associated competency testing and mandatory insurance: essentially number plates and cycling proficiency tests. To start with, the licencing of motor vehicles means we already have the infrastructure to produce number plates and monitor ownership. Doing this would hopefully end the effective immunity cyclists have from the law at the moment by allowing offenders to be instantly and easily identified. This in turn should allow police officers to enforce the laws regarding cycling and citizens to report any abuses they see with a fair hope of identifying the culprit. Punitive measures aside, hopefully it would cause the cyclists breaking the law to realise their actions have consequences.

As well as promoting legal use of the roads and allowing the smoother flow of traffic (less sudden breaking because a cyclist has just flown up on the inside) these measures would reduce the number of accidents both caused by the careless cycling and caused by emergency vehicles racing to get to the scene of said accidents (rare but they do happen despite the excellent training given by ambulance services). Would this in turn not have a positive effect on the country as a whole: fewer people grieving the loss of a loved-one, fewer days work lost to the economy due to injuries, NHS savings from not having to piece an unfortunate cyclist back together, savings by the state as fewer people need long term care due to disabilities caused by cycling injuries. These are a few advantages that I see. There are probably many more, some obvious, some less so. The conclusion remains the same. Regulation of cycling seems the only sensible option in this day and age. It would increase the number of people cycling sensibly with a raft of other benefits.

Hopefully someone will see this and either be in a position to make it happen or provide an explanation of why it wouldn't work (and saying it could result in fewer people cycling is not a reason. If that means fewer morons endangering themselves and others then that is a worthwhile end in its self).

JR