Job Interview

Finally there has been progress on the job front. At long last I have had an email inviting me to an intervire for a training contract.

For what seems like an eternity, my attempts to begin a career in law have been doing little more than stagnating. Most of the time, my CV seems to disappear off into the ether, never to be heard of again. Occasionally I get a rejection (though of course no real constructive feedback to go with it). As you can imagine, this is pretty soul crushing. I do not believe in giving up and I will never surrender but I will confess I have been beginning to wonder if I would ever set some sort of meaningful career. With each day that passes, doubt in my employability increases and it's not a particularly nice feeling.

Yesterday evening an email hit my phone offering me an interview. Not only that, it is a firm for whom I would dearly like to work. Not only does it work in all the areas of law that I'm interested in (and suit my idea of achieving justice for people) but, from what I can tell, the corporate ethos will really suit me. Rather than employing trainees to flog then discard them; this firm seems to regard them as an investment to be nurtured and retained.

This is a first interview. I am up against a maximum of 30 others and have the prospect of more interviews and testing should this go well. I am under no illusions that I still have a long way to go BUT it is a big step forward. It is the first time I haven't been rejected. The fact that it's from a firm that I'm extremely enthusiastic about is better still.

I hope I get this jos. I really want it. Even if I don't, it isn't the end. It's reassurance that I am of interest to firms. Hopefully this will signal the beginning of the end of the mire that has been my professional life of late.

Wish me luck!

JR

Pastygate

Anyone who has seen a paper in the last couple of days will see that David Cameron is being hauled over the coals for saying he liked pastys then incorrectly recalling when he last had one.

Does anyone else think his is total bullshit? I can confidently say I like pastys, fish and chips, cider and yorkie bars. That doesn't mean I can remember in any detail when I last had any of them (apart from being fairly certain the cider was being consumed in a pub). If pushed by some idiot to come up with details of any of them, I would give my best guess. The fact that Mr Cameron got the details of his last pasty wrong is not a sign of dishonesty, it's just a sign that he's got better things to think about... Like running the country!

At least it's not as bad as the story, possibly apocryphal, of the very middle-class labour politician (I heard this first as Peter Mandleson although again, that might just have been the version doing the rounds at the time) trying to prove he was a man of the people by ordering fish and chips and then spoiling it by pointing at the mushy peas and asking for some of the guacamole!

Bottom line, nobody has perfext recall of every detail they ever encounter. Let's move off the trivia and on to the important stuff.

JR

Arming the Police

Yesterday five police officers were seriously injured in South London having been attacked by a pitbull-type dog (read viscous little fucker with as much in common with the big soppy lumps we love as a ferrari has with a ford focus... Not the dog's fault I know but still a shame). The situation was eventually resolved when armed officers shot it.

This is yet another incident where everybody would have been better off all response police officers were routinely armed. The situation could have been concluded swiftly without the need for aroind 10 police officers to attend and most importantly, without five coppers being hurt. As soon as the dog started posing a threat, it could have been despatched (I'm not an animal hater despite my last comment and my last post. The opposite is true. I can't not make a fuss of the dogs I know and have been known to carry treats in my pocket on the off chance I run into my neighbour's pooches).

Dogs aside, now is the time to arm front line response police officers. The ones that deal on a daily basis with the detritus that society has to offer.

Some argue that arming the police will simply escalate violence between police and criminals. I think not. Criminals already routinely arm themselves and with some pretty nasty weapons. The police are playing catchup. How can we, as a society, ask police officers to put themselves at risk without the proper tools to defend themselves. We're not talking about going on Dirty Harry esque shootups, we are talking about giving them the kit to get the upper hand on the bad guys. Not routinely arming the police is as short-sighted as asking a doctor to treat a heart attack with leeches.

Various politicians talk about routinely arming the police violating the doctrine of policing by consent. While I understand all these words individually, I'm not sure they make any sense whatsoever when put together. As a society, we consent to policing; if we didn't we would lobby our elected representatives and get the system changed. If we therefore consent to being policed, why wouldn't we consent to it being done properly? Or is it that each individual has to consent to every action of the police? I somehow doubt criminals are going to consent to being nicked.

At the moment, a large swathe of people really take the piss when it comes to the police. They insult them, they threaten complaints, legal action and are just generally nasty. Beyond this, many are blatantly up for a fight and try it on with a copper safe in the knowledge that there will be no real consequences. Yes, they may get thumped a couple of times and nicked but that's it and in the grand scheme of things that's not much when compared to the supposed bragging rights of an heroic battle with the law. Perhaps they would think twice about threatening police if they knew they could get a lot worse than a couple of slaps. I realise this argument comes perilously close to sounding like a "gangsta" seeking "respec'" because they carry a weapon but I do believe that is better that police officers appear just the right side of intimidating rather than neutered lapdogs.

It does seem odd that we are practically the only country not to arm our police despite the fact that we clearly have a problem with gun crime. It seems a fairly certain fact that Raoul Moat for one could have been stopped far more quickly if the first officers on scene had been able to return fire. Again it boils down to the appropriate tools for the job. as a pre-emptive strike against the argument that arming police may cause unnecessary deaths I will say this. Firstly; most other countries have routinely armed police yet stories of gratuitous police killings are rather thin on the ground. Secondly; despite the flak they get, I think the vast majority of police officers on the front line are deeply responsible individuals who have a genuine vocation and are committed and motivated to carry out their responsibilities. Exactly not the sort of people you would expect to gratuitously shoot people. If they were, they could easily drive cars into them/hit them over the head with batons and all measure of other unpleasant things. They don't. To suggest our police force consists of mindless thugs is patronising and insulting.

Of course this one step won't solve all societies ills. We still need a judiciary prepared to hand our serious sentences for serious crime, a means of bringing cases to trial that doesn't protect the offenders and an ethos within senior police ranks that is focused on policing rather than political appeasement but it's a start and it would give the coppers on the street dealing with danger on a daily basis another way of protecting themselves and the public.

JR

Animal Testing

Given it was the budget yesterday, I feel I should offer some sort of comment on that. However given that I'm neither an economist nor an accountant, I don't really feel qualified to comment beyond being quite glad the personal allowance has gone up and a bit disappointed alcohol tax has gone up. Instead, I am going to write about something else which has been in the news a fair bit recently; animal testing.

A few weeks ago, several transport companies announced that they would no longer bring animals into the UK for the purpose of testing. To me, this seems more than a little short-sighted.

During my scientific training, I participated in several activities which involved animals. As well as the dissection I'm sure everyone is familiar with, animal models were used to demonstrate certain phenomena. In addition to this, in my latter years, I was involved in research that used animal matter as it's bedrock.

Animal testing goes on in almost all institutions where biological or psychological research occurs and I think it is a good thing.

The most obvious use for vivisection to most people is drug testing. Before any compounds which may have therapeutic effects gets anywhere near humans, they are tested on animals to see if they work. To those that ask if it can be done either in test tubes or by way of computer modelling, the short answer is no. Certainly, the initial tests are usually done in vitro however even on it's largest scale, this only allows investigation of substances on individual cells. Useful but by no means conclusive. Science is yet to understand all the complexities of how cells work in larger structures such as organs and the interplay each organ has with the others. This makes computer modelling virtually impossible. The only way to gain a true idea of what a compound does in a large scale complex organism is to test it on one. Animal testing provides essential information as to the effects of potentially therapeutic compounds on systems not too different from our own. Some people may suggest that we skip the animal test and go straight from in vitro trials to human trials. This has been done; most notably by Edward Jenner with his smallpox vaccine. If people want to take that risk then I suppose it's up to them but would you send your children, partner, parents, friends, etc to be filled with a compound of largely unknown effects. I certainly wouldn't.

Another use for animals in science is disease modelling. Because of their shorter lifespans, it is possible to recreate diseases and follow their progress over a much shorter space of times. This allows theories to be developed and tested over months to years rather than decades. Such conditions have allowed medical science to progress very rapidly over a relatively short space of time. The explosion of knowledge on horrendous diseases such as cancer and alzheimers can be directly attributed to this. In short, this isn't progress for the sake of progress. This is progress for the good of the world and all the creatures in it.

Animals have also aided our understanding of how things exist "normally". Our knowledge of genetics can be attributed in large part to the fruit fly. Again, it's rapid life-cycle can be used to test theories rapidly and the knowledge gained has been taken forward and used for greater good.

At this point it is worth noting, whatever the end use of the animals, it is not done lightly. Proposals for experiments are rigorously scrutinised by both academics and an ethics committee (even down to first year undergraduate practicals) and if a viable alternative can be found then it will be used. The people involved in this scrutiny take their role very seriously. One thing that animal testing is certainly not is cruelty for the sake of it although I will admit, some of the experiments must be pretty unpleasant.

The fact is that humans have always had what could be regarded as an exploitative relationship with animals. Since time immemorial we have eaten them and used their skins for warmth and shelter. We have used feathers for comfort, fats for light and bones for decoration. In short they have kept us alive. Using animals for the sake of research is little more than continuing the to use animals to keep us alive. As long as the research doesn't involve wanton and gratuitous cruelty and any suffering which may occur is kept to an absolute minimum then I think animal testing still has a place in research and will do for a long time.

JR

Linkedin

As part of my seemingly eternal quest to get a "proper job" (as my mother would call it) I have just created a linkedin profile for networking purposes. As far as I can tell it's kind of a half-way house between a professional facebook and an on-line business card.

I can't say I enjoyed the experience. First of all; I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that much information about me being freely available on line. Yes I write this and I'm on facebook and I have registered my details with some other organisations like recruitment consultants BUT the crucial difference is that there's always some form of security. Here it's anonymity, on others it's password protection and choosing who sees me. On Linkedin anyone can see me, my employment and my education histories. As well as the potential for identity theft, I'm just not a huge fan of having my shoulder looked over.

Secondly was the language used. They asked about school when they really meant university. School has detention, bells, P.E. lessons to try and avoid and maths lessons to daydream through. University is where one studies for a degree (amongst other things). The confusion of the two is frustrating (not to mention that it creates a rather ignorant assumption that university is the only logical path to follow on completion of secondary education... Another post for another time perhaps).

Thirdly, I didn't like having to pigeon-hole myself into one sector for the purposes of my profile. My most professional level of qualification is in law and this is what I would like to work in. However I have no objection to using my biology degree either and working in the science sector. Equally, I don't mind taking the transferable skills from both and working in another sector still. It's not that I lack ambition to be a lawyer, it's just that it's not the easiest sector to get in to and right now I would just dearly love a proper job. Obviously the money would be nice but beyond that I'm desperate to have some genuine responsibility and to use my brain.

Finally, it was deeply uncomfortable having to write about myself and do so in a serious manner. I generally have a fairly light-hearted approach to life and can see the funny side in almost any situation. Taking myself exceedingly seriously doesn't come easily. This probably isn't helped by the fact that I think people who do take themselves perpetually seriously are complete bore. I don't mean to say that I can't be serious when the situation requires it nor that I don't appreciate the value of it. It just felt really false and disingenuous in this context (despite it not being). Ultimately, I felt like Richard Briers in the first episode of The Good Life. Is it a natural thing to feel slightly fraudulent when trumpeting your (legitimate) achievements?

Hopefully my efforts will come to something and someone out there will like what they see. If you want to hire a bearably intelligent, hard-working law grad/scientist in the London/Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire area do get in touch!

JR

Man Chreche

Last night I went to Westfield shopping centre in Sheppard's Bush in a desperate attempt to obtain a mother's day present before the weekend.

I succeeded but boy was the experience stressful. Piped music was EVERYWHERE and at a sufficient volume to be obtrusive. Certainly normal, quiet conversation was impossible (as was rational thought). Harshly lit objects shone from all directions and orange people dispensed squirts of gooey, smelly stuff. There also seemed to be an highly prevalent native species who inhabited the area in great numbers and appeared to relish it. They had a distinctive cry. Schoolgirls I believe the technical term is.

This got me to thinking. It is possible to leave one's car securely and safely in the car park. A lot of shopping centres also have a creche where one can leave one's children in a safe environment where they can have fun. Why not have a similar environment for men?

My vision involves a place of quiet where men can sit and relax. Perhaps a telly playing a topical sports match or good film. A plentiful supply of good books and newspapers. Possibly a dog here or there. Somewhere for chaps to relax and think. Somewhere they can have a beer and as much or as little company as they feel like.

Unfortunately this concept already exists. It's called the pub! Next time I need to go shopping, you'll find me there.

JR

Sandwiches

My rant today is on the subject of pre-made sandwiches. Specifically, why the hell don't they contain what they say on the packet.

Allow me to clarify; although I like to flatter myself by thinking I have a reasonably sophisticated palette; I still think simplicity has it's place. Especially in sandwiches. If I buy, for example, a cheese and ham sandwich I expect bread, butter, cheese, ham and perhaps some mustard. What I do not expect, want or appreciate paying for is lettuce, tomato, cucumber or other miscellaneous crap. Nor do I appreciate the spectacularly inelegant process of picking it out. Note to sandwich makers of the world; if I want that stuff in my sandwich, I will buy one with the word, "salad" in the title.

What's even worse is the covert crap. You know? When you buy a sandwich that looks like it's got the ingredients on the packet then suddenly, three bites in, you get a mouthfull of unwanted gunk. One would think this phenomenon would be confined to the cheaper sandwiches, wishing to pad out a minimal amount of good stuff with cheap fillings however it seems the more expensive the sandwich, the worse the offender.

Another offender is mayonnaise. As someone with an egg allergy, this is a health rather than a taste issue. Why, why, why is mayo included almost ubiquitously? Some ingredients warrant it; fair enough. In those cases, include it in the title. For the rest. Leave it out. Why, to take the previous example of a fairly normal sandwich, do makers see fit to use a mustard mayonnaise. I don't want bloody mustard mayo... I just want mustard! Is that really so difficult for your intellect to comprehend? And if so, should you really be in the business of preparing food?

It seems insane that in these days of almost infinite choice (the menu in Starbucks anyone?) that in an area as important as a sandwich, we are deprived of it. Is the average person really incapable of deciding whether they want salad or mayo with their meal? If so, how come their little brains don't explode when they're interrogated about their desire for flavoured syrup to go in the coffee they're ordering to go with the meal?

Madness!

JR

Offices

This is a bit of a tired old cliché of a rant but offices are rather strange places aren't they? The idea of grouping a bunch of people together who would otherwise be total strangers is a bit odd. The fact that this goes on relentlessly for around 8 - 10 hours a day, around five days a week and the people there would almost certainly rather be elsewhere (yes some jobs can be fun and rewarding but I'm willing to bet most people would rather be doing something else) and you have what amounts to a recipe for disaster.

I was never much of a fan of The Office the tv show. I'm still not but now I have worked in quite a few offices I can just about appreciate why some people would find it funny.

Here are a few observations I have made:

Just because I sit beside a piece of equipment does not make me a qualified maintenance engineer. Bleating!,"the fax machine's broken" then looking at me expectantly will not achieve anything. Most things have automated instructions on how to repair basic faults. Follow them.

Equally, just because I sit next to it doesn't put a clause in my contract making me responsible for ordering consumables. Tell the office manager that the toner is low.

On the subject of faults etc you can assume with some degree of certainty you're not the first person to notice it. Don't bother telling me, I'm pretty much guaranteed to know. Equally, telling me (or helpfully reminding me) each time you try to use a piece of equipment that you know is broken will not get it fixed any quicker. Nor will it make Postman Pat drive any faster with the new toner. Save your breath and my sanity. Also, before telling me about a fault, take a few picoseconds to look at the machine. There might be a note on it informing everyone that the fault is know, reported and (if you're very lucky) steps are being taken to rectify it.

When operating normally, the fact that I sit next to it doesn't mean I know how to use it. I try and turn most electrical items on with flowers and a massage, don't bother asking me for instruction and guidance. Do what everyone else does; push buttons and hope for the best.

Also, just because I sit next to a fax machine doesn't mean that I read all the incoming faxes. In fact, given how unlikely it is that any are for me, it's extremely unlikely I will read any of them. I don't know if there's anything there for you. Have a look yourself. Please don't ask on the off chance. I haven't looked today, I didn't look yesterday and I won't look tomorrow... Notice a pattern emerging? Especially don't ask me when I am doing something else; usually my work or my lunch. You can tell if I'm doing work because I'm either writing on official looking paper or fiddling with the computer. You can tell if I'm having lunch by the two pieces of bread with meat and/or cheese between them that are in my hand. Especially do not disturb on the latter. My mother will tell you that distracting me from food can be extremely dangerous!

Speaking of work; I have to do it too. Sometimes it requires me to think about it. While sometimes it's nice to have a chat, other times I need to concentrate. Before you start talking at thin air, take a second to have a look. If I'm wearing my, "I'm concentrating" face then odds are I don't really want to be disturbed... Despite the fact I'm sitting next to the photocopier. If you still need to talk to be (and yes I still know that it's broken and it's still not my problem and no I haven't seen what you're looking for) then please, PLEASE get my attention first, don't just start talking. I often listen to music as I work (the earphones are a clue) so if you just start talking, I probably won't hear you.

That's all for now. My spleen is suitably vented.

JR

Whisky

It probably won't come as a surprise to hear that I love whisky. I got into it when I was in my late teens. Initially it was an attempt to appear sophisticated and avoid knocking back pints of the piss-water that passed for lager in my local. It didn't take long for me to realise that I quite liked it as well.

First and foremost I love the taste of whisky. Years of tutored tastings at the whisky society at uni have given me a deep appreciation of the finer points of single malt (whisky from only one distillery e.g. Glenlivet). Discovering new ones and revisiting old favourites is a great pleasure. However sometimes drinking something that tastes of whisky hits the spot quite nicely.

This doublethink has resulted in me really enjoying blended whisky (whisky from several distilleries mixed e.g. Famous Grouse). Many malt connoisseurs would be horrified at the idea of knocking back blends but I think it has it's place (well several). Firstly in a hip-flask. Given it's almost impossible to inhale the aromas when drinking from a flask whisky will taste like whisky and not much else. The finer subtleties of individual malts will largely be lost (well to my palette at least). Similarly, after a meal of strong flavours it is almost impossible to appreciate most malts. Finally at the end of a long, hard day when you just need a scotch. In all these cases, blends serve the intended purpose perfectly. Plus it's a LOT cheaper than laying into most single malts. As a rule I also use blends when I'm making whisky cocktails or adding mixers too.

That said, my lasting passion is for single malts. I love the ritual of opening a bottle and pouring a dram, the golden colour of the liquid and the tongue-twister names. Most of all I love the massive variety that can be obtained from one product from a, relatively, small area. Trite as it sounds, the variety available means the saying, "If you don't like whisky, you haven't tried the right one yet." rings rather true. My mother was converted last year on a trip to Arran after a lifetime of loathing whisky. My flatmate didn't like whisky (well Jack Daniels). A dram of Springbank 10 year old created a swift, and evangelical, convert.

To give you an idea of the variety available; Laphroaig (pronounced Lafraig) tastes very peaty, smoky and salty. This hails from Isla. Further north from the Island of Sky comes Talisker which is altogether smoother, sweeter and smokier (I onced described it as like drinking a good cigar to my cost... Every time I poured myself one subsequently, the fire alarm went off!). Both malts come from islands off the west of Scotland but are massively different in character. Compare them to ones from the east of the mainland and you will get even more differences.

Of course it's not just the taste I love. As a nostalgic old romantic at heart I love the idea of the heather-strewn glens with distilleries in them; the idea of a dram by a roaring fire with friends or a wee nip from a hip flask on a cold afternoon. All very picture postcard I know but not all that hard to come by. My favourite whisky of all time, Edradour, is nestled in a small glen just north of Pitlochry at the start of the highlands. As the smallest legal distillery in the world (it's output in a year is slightly less than Glenfiddich's daily output) it is truly picturesque. Horses and carts wouldn't look out of place. The imagery somehow makes the drink all the more enjoyable - not that it isn't in the first place! Even the biggest distilleries are far from soulless industrial complexes. Most are located in the countryside away from built-up areas (a hangover from the days where they had to hide from excisemen) and still manage to look beautiful whilst performing a function.

For me a good whisky is the ideal drink. It perfectly fits moments of celebration, commiseration, contemplation, relaxation and conviviality. It can be enjoyed on one's own or with friends; during every season and at virtually any time of day.

If all this has got you interested in trying some whisky or you want to buy a bottle of decent malt as a present for someone then I can't recommend Highland Park 12 year old highly enough. It is a lovely rich, sweet and slightly smoky whisky with a deep, golden colour. It's wonderfully complex if you want to nose, taste and get all the subtleties. Equally, it tastes of incredible whisky. It also has the distinction of being the most northerly whisky distillery in the world (based on Orkney). At the time of writing, it retails for around £30 a bottle but can usually be found on special offer if you're prepared to shop around a bit. As far as I'm aware, it is also available fairly widly throughout the rest of the world.

If you want something a bit lighter, sweeter or something harder to come by, I would recommend Arran 10 year old from (surprisingly) the isle of Arran. This distillery has been open less than 20 years making it positively embryonic in whisky terms. That said, it produces wonderful whiskies. At one tasting the 10 year old was described as a, "breakfast whisky" because it was light enough to be drunk with breakfast (or any time before or after). For this, you should expect to pay around £35 a bottle and isn't discounted as frequently.

Finally, if price is a big consideration consider Lidl's own brand single malt. I have no idea which region it comes from (Speyside I think) but it's delicious; light, smooth and fruity. It is around £20 a bottle. I'm usually a bit suspicious of own-brand malts but this was recommended by a former colleague who also loves whisky. We both agree it's delicious and a good bargain.

I will end this by paraphrasing a saying I read in a book about cigars but is equally applicable to whisky: Good whisky should always be drunk by way of celebration and what better thing to celebrate than drinking a good whisky!

JR

Horsegate

Firstly; why does everything with a whiff of a scandal about it have to have the suffix, "gate"? Is there something I'm missing or is it just a lazy way for journalists to communicate that something is other than squeaky clean? Worryingly, it's being used in papers which really should know better (albeit with inverted commas to imply a raised eyebrow but stil...)

For those of you that have been living in a cave for the last wee while (or have better things to do than follow the developing scandal in the Murdoch empire) Rebbekah Brooks - former editor of news (/screws) of the world and general bigwig (sorry) of News International was loaned a retired Metropolitan Police horse for two years.

According to the press, this indicates that the Met and News International were in each other's pockets.

Hmmmm... Really? Of course, she may have heard about the adoption scheme from one of the Met bigwigs that she undoubtedly had contact with by virtue of her job but is there any evidence to suggest she did anything other than go through official channels to obtain the horse? Even if she did use contacts to queue jump a bit, it would hardly be the first time this has happened in life. If she started name-dropping senior officers to avoid legitimate action by the police then that would be a big deal however I also believe that most coppers on the ground don't really care if your kids go to the same school as the superintendent's.

It's a shame that this scheme has been tarred with the tabloid brush. I think it's an excellent idea. While I'm sure the Met treat their horses impeccably, they do have to go into some pretty nasty situations. Not just that, but they get attacked in said situations - not just the officers on horseback but the horses too. I generally subscribe to Ian Flemming's view on horses (dangerous at both ends and uncomfortable in the middle) but it would be impossible to deny that they are beautiful animals. Why anyone would want to attack one, regardless of the circumstances, is beyond me. Therefore why shouldn't they, when they retire, move on to pastures new and be spoiled a bit by civilians? I don't think anyone can argue that they haven't earned it. And if one happens to be a tabloid editor so what? As long as there's a plentiful supply of sugar lumps and straw for the horse that's all that really matters.

While I'm all for journalists revealing genuine impropriety, this seems like scandal for the sake of scandal and as a result a bit pointless. Perhaps it's due to a lack of real news but I very much doubt it. It seems far more likely to be a result of the quirk of human nature that makes most people enjoy feeling superior to others.

I hope she hasn't had the audacity to give a police dog a scratch behind the ears. We'll never hear the end of it!

JR