Gender Selective Abortions

The Daily Telegraph revealed over the weekend that some doctors have routinely been flouting the law on abortion and offering terminations based on the sex of the child. One recording shows a woman giving her baby's gender as a reason for wanting the termination followed by the consulting doctor deliberately falsifying records. Some of the individuals involved also hold influential teching posts and are heavily involved with training doctors of the future.

Firstly, it is sad that even today people wish to terminate pregnancies based on gender. Everybody who has kids or indeed wants them has a utopian dream of their ideal family. However as my biology teachers at school drilled into me, "Fertilisation is a random process involving an element of chance." The plan rarely goes off smoothly. That said, those people I know with kids that didn't comply with what they had planned universally admit they wouldn't change them for the world. I'm not making a case against abortion, I think it's a valuable procedure which has saved many lives of horrendous suffering. However I believe it should be used sparingly and not as a means simply of being a bit more choosy about your kids.

What's more worrying still is the level of arrogance displayed by the doctors involved. They clearly think their opinion and decisions are above the law. Sadly, this attitude doesn't particularly surprise me. There is a latent level of arrogance in a lot of doctors I have encountered that their opinion is somehow universally correct by virtue of their job. To some it up in a handy soundbit, "I know best because I'm a doctor". This isn't limited to medical matters (although I've seen patient's wishes casually mocked and belittled because they disagree with medical opinion) but extends into other areas of life too.

This worries me. It shows a lack of respect not only for the law but for humanity generally that they feel their opinion is somehow more important than a set of standards set out by society. Unfortunately, there is a 'them and us' mentality displayed by a lot of doctors exemplified by the phrase, "They don't know what it's like to do the job". Perhaps not but that doesn't give them carte blanche to act as they please.

I once heard a medical student describe being a doctor as, "a knowledge" rather than a job. Perhaps it is but if so, so is every other profession. It still betrays the belief that they are somehow deserving of special treatment by society. Sorry to burst the bubble here but no; it is a job done by humans who are equally as fallible as anyone else.

That is not to say I think every doctor is a sociopathic egotists riding a wave of their own self-importance. There are many brilliant doctors out there. They all share similar traits; humility in excess, an understanding that patients are people and the keen awareness that they are there for the patient's benefit and that alone.

I hope not just the book but the whole library gets thrown at the individuals who have been carrying out sex selection abortions. They deserve nothing less given the horrific way they have violated social and moral ideals we as a society hold dear. Hopefully some severe sentencing and public embarrassment will make others think twice before playing god.

JR

Gordon Ramsay at Royal Hospital Road

Yesterday was my birthday. By way of a present and a celebration, my girlfriend took me to Gordon Ramsay's flagship restaurant on Royal Hospital Road.

It was incredible. Easily one of the best meal I have ever had.

I have longed to go there for years. To me it represents the pinnacle of modern British cooking. The best it can get... And then a bit better.

It didn't disappoint. It surpassed even my wildest dreams.

The food was unparalleled. Flavours, textures, aromas, appearances and even temperatures were subtly and expertly combined to yield mind-blowing results. Everything was done with a forensic attention to detail from the initial amuse buche to to final mouthful. The only word I can think of to describe it is perfect and even that doesn't really do it justice.

The staff were amazing too. All of them were charm personified. There is an old joke about the more expensive a restaurant is, the more rude the waiting staff are. This couldn't be further from the truth. All were extremely good company providing good conversation and gentle banter to supplement the service. All were also clearly passionate about the food too; explaining the dishes perfectly (we were also very amused by one of the waiters who slipped from a French accent to his native Glaswegian when he got excited and passionate. It was nice to hear a voice from home!).

I must admit, I was nervous when my girlfriend told me where we were going. I thought the whole experience might be a bit stuffy and intimidating given the reputation of where we were going. Fortunately, I needn't have worried. The staff put us at our ease at once and ensured we had a wonderful night throughout. It can be summed up in one incident as the table was being set for dessert; my girlfriend and I were holding hands (as you do) and made to get out of the way. The waiter responded before we had managed to move, "Don't worry, a romantic moment is a romantic moment; the cutlery can move!"

What sealed the night as one of the best ever was the attention to detail. My girlfriend mentioned once, in passing, that it was my birthday. At the end of the meal the maitre d' came out bearing a fresh sorbet with a candle in. Once we had finished, he gave us a personal tour of the kitchen and introduced us to Claire Smyth (who I have admired for years). Getting in there and seeing the brigade in action was incredible. According to my girlfriend, my eyes looked like they were about to fall out of there sockets. Unfortunately an upshot of this was that the well chosen, eloquent words of praise and gratitude I had prepared on the way in completely deserted me and I barely managed to grunt out a sentence. It is one of the very rare occasions in my life where I have been totally and utterly speechless.
Think what you will of Gordon Ramsay (or his media persona at least), the man can't half run a restaurant. Royal Hospital Road has been bestowed with many accolades (not least three Michelin stars) and, in my opinion, richly deserves all of them and more. Last night was a truly sensational and magical experience. I'm still struggling slightly to comprehend it. If you get the chance to go, go. Go without hesitation. If you have something to celebrate; there's your excuse. If not, the one of the best dining experiences in the world should be cause enough for celebration.

JR

Trial by Jury

So Harry Redknapp has been acquitted and already the jokes have started about the jury consisting of Tottenham Hotspur fans. I make no comment on the case; I wasn't there but it does raise a few interesting points about the jury system.

Currently, when an individual in Great Britain is accused of a serious criminal offence, they are entitled to have their case heard by a jury of their peers. These individuals will be the judges of fact in the case and will ultimately conclude if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The trial will be presided over by a Judge who will ensure that it is held in a legally correct manner and explain any technical points of law to the jury. It is then up to the barristers on either side to argue that their version of events and interpretation of the facts is the correct one. So far so good.

Who is eligible to sit on these pannels? It is technically the civic duty of all British citizens to serve on a jury. Names are selected at random from the electoral register. Obviously some people are exempt; legal professionals and those associated either with the defendant or victim are the obvious example but there are others.

This still leaves a vast reserve of others to hear cases but this leaves another potential problem. I used the phrase, "trial by peers" earlier. How are peers defined? If I were to define my peers (especially ones I would want making decisions over my criminality and potentially liberty) I would describe the individuals as being educated to degree level from a good university, employed in a respectable profession, aged over about 25 and an avid reader of the Telegraph. Wear trainers out of the gymn? Thanks but no thanks! Vegetarian? On your bike! Cliff Richard fan? Are you even allowed out in public?

These examples are comedic (I hope) but illustrate that one's own definition of one's peers may differ greatly from an outsider's perspective. In reality, although both legal teams have the ability to challenge individual jurors, there is not a lot of choice on offer.

Now what about those that are selected? Straw polls of those I know suggest that the vast majority of them emphatically do not want to serve on a jury. The reasons vary. For those that are self-employed or paid by the hour, the time spent away from work will inevitably hit them hard financially (usually despite compensation available from the court service). Those that operate on commission don't fare too much better. Slightly less tangible are those whose promotion and salary increases are performance related. If one isn't working, how can one perform? Of course there are provisions in employment law to prevent discrimination on this ground but I would wager it would be a hard case to prove. Then there are those who, for personal or professional reasons, would find jury service a difficult and unpleasant task. The Courts do have discretion to discharge individuals but if you're unlucky they could still play the civic duty card. This may be the case but it hardly makes for a positive attitude in the Court room.

This is not the only problem that can be encountered. In my limited experience of criminal courts, I have seen several jurors who do not have sufficient grasp of the English language to understand the proceedings. Others just may not be able to understand the proceedings. Yet more may bring personal prejudices and biases into the court room despite instructions to remain impartial. On top of this, there is always the risk of one very dominant juror who carries the rest along in their wake.

While examples of all of these are unlikely to occur in every jury, the presence of even one could well seriously compromise the integrity of the jury.

In addition, humans are generally subjective beings. This translates to the odds of an innocent verdict being greatly increased if the jury likes the defendant (or dislikes the victim). John Mortimer's character Rumpole used to be adamant that the key to securing an acquittal was to ensure the client stood up straight, wore a tie and kept their hands out their pockets. While this method is far from foolproof, it will go a long way to getting the jury on side as will speaking clearly and politely, being cooperative, making eye contact with jurors and not chewing.

Playing on a jury's doubts will also work in the defendant's favour. Emphasising that they have to be ABSOLUTELY sure that the defendant is guilty should set the cat among the pigeons.

The point I am trying to make from the above examples is that the trial system as it stands is very complex, confusing and frankly intimidating; especially as most jurors will have had minimal exposure to the Court system before. This combined with the potential reluctance of some jurors to be there and the lack of comprehension from others vastly reduces the likelihood of a fair trial.

Does this system serve the interests of justice? Broadly, probably. It's a damn site better than a lot of other systems out there. It's strength is that it introduces an element of consensus to the decision that would be more difficult to achieve if the decisions were made exclusively by judges.

I do think there is room for improvement however. Rather than dragging people off the street who do not want to be there or who cannot understand what is going on, encourage citizens to volunteer for the role. Ultimately, I think it would be a positive step to have a bank of jurors who have opted into the system, are keen and interested to hear cases and are prepared to be utterly objective (perhaps even given training for the purpose). This could be done either on a strictly voluntary basis or on a professional basis or indeed both depending on the circumstances of the individual.

In my opinion, such a system would cause decisions to be made exclusively on the facts of the case and for those facts to be thoroughly and objectively scrutinised. The decision would still be made by lay people however they would be used to the Court environment and the intricacies involved and therefore far more likely to come to a just conclusion.

I admit, there are a few potential pitfalls. I can imagine the ranks swelling with law students trying to gain legal experience and studying the Counsel rather than the case. Even excluding this, another demographic that would logically suggest its self would be the recently retired looking for something new. Again, this would mean that there was a rather fixed sort of background to those hearing cases which may not be in any way similar to that of the client. I would argue that this shouldn't be too much of a problem so long as those hearing cases were prepared and trained to be totally objective.

Hopefully this little ramble has been interesting. In conclusion, I am certainly not saying the current system of trial by jury is broken beyond the pale; I am simply suggesting what I think is an improvement to make it even better.

JR

Common Sense

Common sense is an interesting beast isn't it? It's amazing to see how and when it is used... and by whom.

Let me illustrate this with a little story.

My girlfriend has been away for the last three months. She gets back on Friday so I thought it would be polite to tidy my room a bit in anticipation of her return. Having cleared the crap off the carpet I decided it needed a good going over with the hoover.

My first inclination that all was not well came when I found that the hoover wasn't residing in my flatmate's room... the one with mild O.C.D. tendencies. My other flatmate grunted something about it being, "A bit buggered" but what does that mean?

Unabashed I set it up and promptly began work on the carped. Except... you guessed it... nothing was being sucked up. Buggered indeed.

Now at this point it would be appropriate to say that I do not have the gift of any notable technical ability or knowledge. Nor do I have a natural gift for fixing things. In fact, Jeremy Clarkson's refrain, "Can I hit it with a hammer?" appeals.

However, given how soon my girlfriend is returning I had no option but to have a go at fixing it.

Given I could hear the motor working I deduced (stay with me) that electrically, the device was fine. Furthermore, given the purpose of the machine, that the most likely source of the problem was a full bag. It was then that I hit my first stumbling block. Through the translucent bodywork I could see the CSA (crap storage area - my own term) contained material but was far from full. I therefore came to the conclusion that there must be a blockage in the piping somewhere.

Still with me? I know it's getting quite technical.

Before taking everything apart (perhaps with a hammer) I decided to try and work out approximately where the blockage was; in the main bit or in the hose. I took the hose off, switched the hoover on and pit my hand over the hole in the main body. Upon feeling suction I came to the conclusion that the blockage was most likely to be in the hose.

So far so good. Better than that in fact. The hose is only semi-rigid for a good 50% of it's length making it far easier to manipulate and dislodge any occlusions. However an exquisitely complex test had to be done first; I shone a torch in the end and had a look to see if I could see a blockage. I could.

Unfortunately, said blockage was in the rigid part of the hose and well beyond my reach or that of any implements available to me. Then came my true stroke of genius. I noted that the rigid section of hose was telescopic so, ingeniously, I slid one section over the other rendering the blockage easily reachable (with one of the other flatmate's tools). Promptly, the blockage was removed and the apparatus reassembled.

Shockingly, when switched on, the machine then proceeded to perform it's intended function; admittedly not brilliantly but it never has. Total time spent... oh around 2 minutes at most although I'm confident that if I put my mind to it, I could expand that to about half a day, three cups of tea and some dramatically sucked teeth.

I am aware that I have spent the last however long banging on about fixing the hoover. My point is this. Having talked you through my thought process I'm sure you will agree my deductive process wouldn't have troubled Sherlock Holmes excessively. In fact, it's unlikely to trouble an averagely bright seven year old excessively. How come then, the hoover has been "broken" for an indeterminate time despite the fact that there are two other bearably intelligent chaps in the house. I don't think it's entirely laziness; see previous comment about O.C.D. so what other conclusion am I left with? They're too busy? Distracted? Lacking equipment? No on all counts. Surely I can't be the only one out of the three of us who followed a relatively logical process to arrive at a conclusion upon which I acted?

Common sense; it's a bit of a lottery.

Happy hoovering!

JR

Benefits

There has been talk in the papers recently of state benefits being capped. It's now time for me to stick my oar in.

I think it's an excellent idea. To my mind the point of benefits is to keep people out of poverty; to sustain them in a reasonable manner of living while they sort themselves out or to compensate individuals who are no longer able to work. They should not be an alternative to having a proper job.

A cap to me seems like it would create a good incentive to find gainful employment. It's the state saying, "we won't let you starve but if you want luxuries then earn them". A sensible cap might be the equivalent of being on minimum wage. After all, if the state thinks that is sufficient to live on, then why should it be paying more? It would certainly put an end to the situation many find themselves in, where it is more lucrative to survive on benefits than it is to work. The daughter of a friend of mine is hitting 30 and only just beginning to catch up in earnings with those that have never worked.

A further extension of this would be to replace money with either tangible items or vouchers that are specifically redeemable. This can already be partially seen with the motability benefit where the state will essentially buy, insure and maintain a car for those with severely impaired mobility. If they want to get a better car, they can supplement the purchase out of their own pocket. The system seems rather neat and certainly ensures the funds go on the purposes intended. A further extension of this could be food vouchers, redeemable in local outlets. Furthermore, make the value variable in respect of the items purchased; in short a food voucher of whatever value could be used to purchase three times more fresh meat and veg than processed, chemical ridden crap. It sounds a bit Soviet style I admit but at a stroke, it could be possible to nationally improve diet with the associated health benefits and reduce the dependency culture which is developing. What's not to like.

Of course I realise it is not that simple. There will be exceptions to every rule. An obvious example of this are disabled people who either may not be able to work or may not be able to afford the support they need on their salaries. State aid may well outstrip the nominal cap I suggested. For this I have a truly radical idea; give officials who know the case discretion to provide what they think is necessary.

How are we going to fund all this? Good question. Hopefully the money saved by implementing a cap would go some way to covering higher costs for others. Encouraging people into employment may well also generate more tax revenue which can go to covering the cost. These are mere guesses, I have no idea if this would be the case nor do I know how to start calculating it. Either way, it must be possible to reform the system as it stands for the better.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the current debate and it's long-term implications.

JR

Pens

An article in the Independent has caused me to think about pens.

I write with a fountain pen and have done, fairly consistently, since I started secondary school and was expected to use ink as a matter of course. Until now, I haven't really thought about why. I always assumed it was partly received from my father who also writes with them, partly due to my slightly wilfully eccentric personality (I was never any good at football hence I didn't fit in brilliantly at school. As a result, I've always enjoyed being a bit different).

There is more to it than that though. Firstly, a fountain pen makes my spidery handwriting look elegant. It's still virtually illegible but that's another matter!

Secondly, a good pen does improve my handwriting. Although not strictly limited to fountain pens, the point stands. Looking back over old notes, I can instantly tell which were written with a good pen and which weren't. Generally speaking though, a fountain pen yields better results still. I think possibly it's because the nib is so visibly delicate it prevents me from pressing too hard.

Initially I used cartridges of ink but over the last 8 years or so I have switched to bottled ink. I must admit, I enjoy the novelty and ceremony of filling my pen from a bottle.

Finally; a good pen is (in my opinion) a thing of beauty. It gives me genuine pleasure to write with. Writing is something we all do most days and is usually a functional process. Writing with a nice pen makes an otherwise mundane activity a pleasure and generally makes my day a little bit better. I have this philosophy for a lot of things. It's one of the reasons I still use a brush and hard soap to shave (that and the soap smells nicer than most canned stuff). Making otherwise mundane tasks slightly more pleasurable puts a smile on my face.

I admit, I also like it when people compliment me on my pens (it happens more than you think). It's a similar feeling to being complimented on my tie or cufflinks. I would hope that, in a professional context, my choice of pen would show that I'm someone who appreciates detail and doing things well but I fear this might be me over-thinking things.

Currently I have three fountain pens and one good rollerball pen. My first "proper" fountain pen was a Sheaffer prelude. I was given that when I was about 12. It's light yet robust and easy to work with. There were only two drawbacks; the nib was a bit thick for my handwriting and there were indentations on the grip which were supposed to assist in holding it correctly but in my case could make it uncomfortable to hold for long periods. I now mainly use it for annotating documents and taking notes. Sheaffer does a good line in vividly colourful inks so annotations stand out and it's immediately clear what is meant for more general viewing. The inks are also quite thin meaning that the original text is usually fairly clearly visible underneath.

My main pen is a Cross townsend medallist. It was a gift when I was about 15. This is a wonderfully heavy and well balanced pen which, for me, makes it easy to control and means I always know where it is on the page. It gives a lovely clean line and isn't prone to blotting. The weight means it can also comfortably write on surfaces that would otherwise be far from ideal (useful when you suffer from eczema and the creams can leave a thin film on the paper). The grip fits perfectly into my hand and is comfortable to use even over long periods.

More recently (a few months ago) my dad gave me a refurbished Parker 51. He collects them and is adamant that they are some of the best nibs produced. While I'm not sure I agree wholeheartedly with this, it is fantastic. It's the lightest of all my pens and is the one I have defaulted to carrying around with me. The lightness makes it ideal for scribbling down quick notes and the ink flows smoothly even if the top is left off for a while. It also doesn't look particularly expensive so I'm more comfortable using it overtly in public. I also rather like the fact that it can only be filled from a bottle (the others can be used with bottles or cartridges). Strictly from a cosmetic point of view, I'm not a huge fan of the internal nib but I can forgive it that!

I also have a Mont Blanc Meisterstük ballpen. This was a gift when I was at uni and I was spending a lot of time in Lab. Even a few drops of fluid can render a page written in fountain pen illegible so a ball pen is the only sensible option. It is also a joy to write with and, despite being the heaviest of the lot, is comfortable to write with over a long period.

Recetly my girlfriend has picked up my enthusiasm for fountain pens so for her birthday last year I got her one. This one was a Waterman (no idea what the model was) purchased because it was very light yet well built and robust. It has a brilliant nib which feels smooth on the paper and lets the ink flow freely. Crucially, it's also pink!

Hopefully this ramble about pens hasn't been too geeky. If you write with one, I would be interested to hear if you share my views and any other you may have on them. If you don't, well pardon my nerdiness!

JR

Skyfall

The first publicity photo for the new Bond film Skyfall has been released today. For the second time in the history of the series, Bond has a beard!

As I might have mentioned before, I'm a tremendous Bond fan. I have been a lifelong fan of the films and got into the books during my teens. Oddly enough I'm rather looking forward to the release of Skyfall in November. In the mean time, I will be devouring the publicity material.
Bond films have been around since the early '60s when Dr. No was made. Since then, the films have remained enormously popular and this one promises to be more of the same. Part of the reason I think the films are so successful is the basic structure. Most people are fundamentally resilient to change therefore the format and structure of a Bond film offers comfort and security. That said, the details within each film offers almost limitless variability.

Flemming himself set great store by detail in all aspects of his life but especially when it came to Bond. This has continued into the film and is the source of huge (if nerdy) debate both before and just after the release of a new film. Which watch will he wear? What car will he drive? Who will the villain be? Who will play the Bond girl?

So far we have been teased with a few of these details (along with a promise from producer Barbara Broccoli that Daniel Craig will be getting his kit off). More will doubtlessly follow in the buildup.

Please forgive my commentery on the developments as they occur. The kid in a sweetshop feeling is increasing!

R. JR (sorry, couldn't help it)