Legal Aid Reforms

The other day it was announced that the government was making vast changes to the system of Legal Aid in England and Wales. For anyone not familiar with the concept, legal aid is the system whereby people can have their legal costs covered by the state in certain types of case. The reforms, aimed at saving considerable amounts of taxpayer's money, affect many areas of law including; personal injury, immigration, divorce and certain contractual disputes.

Broadly speaking I think this is a good thing. At the end of the day, legal fees are usually high. It is a lot to ask of the over-burdened British taxpayer to fork out for someone else's legal costs when they could well ill-afford their own should they need legal advice.

Already in the legal world, there is a big drive towards alternative means of dispute resolution such as mediation and arbitration. This move could well provide a bit of a catalyst to to develop this further and save expensive court proceedings for the most complex of cases. One idea I had was to create as special court exclusively for those prepared to represent themselves for matters such as personal injury or contractual disputes. The idea would be that both parties would be self-represented (currently the system can provide for one party to be represented by a lawyer while the other isn't. This, in my opinion, is a recipe for injustice). The case would be presented directly to a judge who would listen to the facts, consider the legal the legal issues and then offer judgement. In cases of exceptional complexity, they could have authority to authorise legal aid in order that the case be heard in a higher court with legal representation.

Of course these cases would have to be carefully screened to avoid cranks, time-wasters and ensure 'the floodgates of litigation' remain closed. To me, this would ensure cases are judged on their facts and merit rather than some spurious technicality dreamed up by a smart-arsed lawyer. It would also, hopefully, speed up straight forward cases which, none the less, require judicial resolution.

Another option I did think about suggesting was legal aid offering a fixed fee rather than paying hourly rates for lawyers. My initial thoughts were that this would discourage lawyers from prevaricating and complicating the issue thus making the process quicker and cheaper. This is a valid argument however, if all cases of the same type attracted the same fees, I can foresee some less scrupulous and more business minded lawyers avoiding the complex cases in favour of taking on more simple cases which can be processed in higher volume but for the same money thus making a greater profit. A graduated fee scheme (as is the case in some aspects of criminal law) but this is potentially complex and administratively difficult.

Before what I'm saying gets completely misinterpreted, I'm not advocating everyone self-represents. Quite the opposite in fact. In my opinion, the creation of a court geared towards litigants in person would create a system that would provide greater services for those in greater need while keeping simple cases simple.

It is also worth noting that there are already several options available to control and mitigate the cost of legal representation. Aside from costs insurance, some law firms will consider taking the case for a fixed fee. This can be agreed at the start of proceedings. Another alternative is the conditional fee arrangement where no fee is charged if the case is lost but an additional 'success fee' is charged if the case is won. This usually comes out of any damages awarded. An obvious problem with this is that not all cases can be defined as won or lost. Divorce cases are an obvious example (and potentially, if both sides are going for a set outcome defined as success, fees could escalate as neither party would be willing to settle). Less obvious is what happens if  the case settles (although in practice, an agreement as to costs is usually reached regarding costs as part of any settlement).

Rather sportingly, the bar council, who regulate barristers in England and Wales, has provided some fairly detailed guidance on self-representation and the intricacies of various bits of the law. The overall message is "Don't but if you have to here's how to do it" in relation to self-representation. Then again, given the complexity that court proceedings usually involve, that's fair enough. Higher court proceedings require legal representation and guidance in order to navigate the process successfully. However the guide also offers advice on how to obtain free legal advice an make the most of any legal advice paid for.

There are a couple of areas where the reforms don't go quite far enough. The first is criminal law. Legal aid is generally available to many who find themselves in trouble with the police. This is exactly as it should be. But what about repeat offenders? Those that continually commit the same offence or the same type of offence? I'm not talking about one or two examples but those with tens of convictions after their name, all for the same offence or the same type of offence. Similarly those that continually get arrested for breaching explicit conditions of their sentence or bail. In both cases (for various reasons I won't go into unless you want me to) this isn't really the best use of public money.

My second reform is one I have suggested previously; the multi-skilling of lawyers. Currently, if you were to be involved in legal proceedings which end up in court, you are likely to be paying for at elase two lawyers. One is a solicitor who will take your initial instructions and manage the procedural elements of your case. The second is a barrister who will present your case in court. Depending on the complexity, you may well need advice from senior solicitors or a team of barristers representing you in court. The costs will spiral ever higher as all will be charging an hourly rate. My description of each is a bit vague and there are subtleties to both. There is also some cross over happening already. Some solicitors can appear in court and some barristers take direct instruction. Why not bit the bullet and train future lawyers to do both thus vastly reducing fees. Inevitably some will prefer certain aspects to others which would in turn lead to some specialists however their skills could be reserved for the most complex of cases.

So those are my thoughts on legal aid reform. I would be interested to hear anybody else's whether they live in Britain or they have some experience of the legal systems of other countries.

JR

Zippos Circus

Last week I went to the circus for the first time in nearly 20 years. The first time I went was for a school friend's birthday and I must confess, I've almost entirely forgotten the experience. It's not that I didn't enjoy it, it just didn't make a huge impression on me. As you can imagine, this trip was therefore inspired by my girlfriend suggesting we go. All I can say is... WHAT. A. SHOW!

Despite my initial ambivalence, I loved it.

The atmosphere was set perfectly by a suitably ostentatious big top surrounded by various caravans and containers. Inside was dimly lit with the smell of sawdust and popcorn (an oddly pleasant combination) pervading everywhere. Despite the size of the tent, the inside was surprisingly small thus giving the whole place an intimate atmosphere.

As I said, the whole show was fantastic. The performers engaged in suitably impressive feats of strength, gymnastic ability, horsemanship and daring. This was topped off by a ringmaster who was the perfect, slightly camp, exuberant showman.

Rather than spoiling the element of surprise, I will only mention acts that were particularly notable. The first that deserve a mention are the clowns. In my opinion, they really stole the show. Their act started with a perfectly choreographed parody of Gangnam style complete with aviator sunglasses and red noses. Throughout the show they carried on with their hi jinks, antics, horseplay and practical jokes (often involving audience participation). What impressed me was their ability to use almost exclusively physical comedy to get belly laughs.

Also worthy of note were the motorcyclists who, after pulling some impressive stunts in the ring, proceeded to cram into as a small spherical cage and round various parts of the circumference at high speed with only inches between them. Heart-stopping stuff!

The other acts were brilliant too however, as I said, I don't want to spoil the surprise if you go. Worth a special mention however are the Corps de Ballet, a group of stunningly beautiful young ladies who were employed to assist with the acts while gyrating hypnotically and generally looking beautiful and glamorous. One especially was a spiritual (or anatomical) relation to Pippa Middleton! I thought my admiration was discreet but apparently not!

Moving on swiftly, if you find Zippos Circus in a town near you, go. It was brilliant fun and left me with a smile on my face for days.

JR

Margaret Thatcher; Rest in Peace

Baroness Thatcher, the first (and only) woman to be prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the Iron Lady of British politics, reformer, leader, warrior or (as she was Christened in Scotland) Maggie has died The greatest, and longest serving, post-war British Prime Minister died of a stroke having suffered years of failing health.

She will be greatly missed.

Margaret Thatcher rose to power in 1979 when Britain was in dire straits. During her time in office she bravely fought Britain's enemies both overseas and within the borders. She restored Britain's place on the world stage while implementing changes at home that restored the self-respect of a nation and lifted it from it's crippled position. However, in my opinion, one of her greatest achievements was to be a politician who worked on belief and conviction. Throughout her time in office Thatcher was not afraid to make difficult choices. Often she went for the option she believed to be right rather than that which was thought to be popular. History shows she was regularly correct to have done so although there was no way of knowing so at the time.

This achievement should be particularly admired these days where many MPs on both sides of the floor seem to be scrambling and scrabbling for the centre ground not because it reflects their beliefs but because they think it's what the public wants to hear. This lack of courage in their convictions only serves to stifle growth and prosperity in Great Britain. Yet they need only look to recent history for guidance.

This aspect of her leadership has been almost universally acclaimed in the tributes that have thus far been paid to her and rightly so. Colleagues and critics alike agree that she did not take big decisions lightly nor did she have casual disregard for those affected by them. This humanity is often missed in coverage of her. When this is done consciously it only serves to show how infantile individuals are in relation to her.

Lady Thatcher, rest in peace.

JR

Getting Old

It's official, I'm getting old. This phrase is used a lot as a joke. Talk of 'senior moments' abounds when someone forgets something obvious. But is it a joke? I frequently quip that I'm a grumpy old man in training. My mum calls me her young fogey.

How does this manifest itself? Why have I started noticing it?

Two things combine as an initial indicator. Firstly was in my time as a medic at "party" events. Seeing girls dolled up no longer provokes a feeling of joy at seeing female flesh exposed and instead makes me think that they look cold or contemplate the danger they are potentially putting themselves in (this is a different post so let the comment lie). I have now stated genuinely believing that less is more in times of displaying skin. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing girls naked but there's a time and a place and in the middle of a club is not either.

The second factor is my "primary survey" (to use a first aid term) when meeting a girl. Like almost everybody else, when I meet a new member of the opposite sex, I do tend to size them up for attractiveness. When I was younger, this tended to extend as far as boobs and pulses and not a lot else. Over the months and years that have followed, I have come to appreciate other features such as bum, hair, cheek bones, smile, eyes and many other features. As well as this, the notional attractive age of girls has increased. I've never had a problem going out with girls that are older than me but the answer to the question 'how old is too old?' is getting progressively higher. Most tellingly, as well as surveying for attractive qualities, my primary survey now includes a quick glance at the left hand to check for rings on awkward fingers. This is a bit of a weird one even for me. Of course I have friends that are married or engaged but certainly not an abnormally high number. However somehow this check seems right (possibly because many girls I know who are married/engaged are terribly attractive).

Less flippantly is the fact that I've started taking the world of work far more seriously. There are no  heavy nights the day before a working day and I do try and get reasonable amounts of sleep. Previously these things were jokes or, at the very worst, inconveniences that shouldn't be taken seriously. Now I take pride in a job well done.

My final point has consequences beyond the obvious. A few months ago, I noted I had developed a bit of a paunch. I joke that my trousers and suits have shrunk somewhat but I have unequivocally put on weight. Part of this I'm sure is just my figure maturing a bit to become less of a lanky young boy. Quite a bit of it is fat. There are consequences to this beyond the mrs calling me "Pie". It has genuinely shattered my sense of youthful invincibility. All young people think the world won't touch them. For me, part of this was being able to eat and drink what I want without a second thought. This has apparently ceased to be. As a result I have done things I never thought I would see myself doing like cutting out fizzy drinks and switching from crisps to soup with my sandwiches. So far this has had little effect but I live in hope.

I have called this growing old. Perhaps it is in fact simply growing up. It's not the worst thing that has ever happened to me but it needs to be carefully managed. I could become even more of an insufferable fuddy-duddy than I am at the moment.

JR

Wind Turbines

The British countryside is infected with an horrendous disease. A scourge that is gradually destroying it. It's not ash dieback disease nor is it foot and mouth or any other livestock plague. Worse than that, the problem in question is entirely of our own doing. What I am referring to is the recent rash of wind turbines.

I noticed on a recent trip to Scotland that these monstrosities are cropping up everywhere are blighting the landscape with their presence. What upsets me that, in addition to being horrendously ugly (not to mention utterly ineffectual), they are symptomatic of the aggressive environmentalism that started on the left and seems to have metastasised into trendy thinking. Toyota Prius thinking would be a good name for it. The kind of people that are so determined to be seen as "green" that they spend vast amounts of money on useless baubles that do more damage to the environment during manufacture than their use prevents (the Prius is flown fast distances during it's construction and uses many materials that are extremely difficult and energy intensive to procure). This doesn't matter though as they believe they are saving the planet. They are the kind of people that condemned Prof. David Bellamy as a heretic for daring to criticise the "evidence" of climate change using robust scientific thinking rather than blind faith.

A real irony to all of this (beyond the fact that they don't work in high winds) is that, by recklessly erecting wind turbines everywhere, the greenies are destroying the beauty of the world that they are seeking to protect. Can anybody honestly say that the sight of wind turbines on an otherwise scenic landscape is anything other than an utter eyesore. Worse is the fact that they seem to be built only on the skyline where they are most visible.

Some would argue that they are no worse than electricity pylons but I would disagree. Pylons are at least hidden in the valleys and low ground rather than occupying the most prominent positions on the hillside.

I found this heartbreaking when going through Scotland because our landscape is one of our best features. Not everybody likes haggis, whisky and shortbread nor are ruined castles everybody's cup of tea. I've even heard rumour that not all girls are impressed by men in kilts but I think that must be a lie. Our landscape however can and is enjoyed by all. Sporting types can run, climb canoe and cycle on it while artistic sorts can paint it, photograph it or wax lyrical about it. You can go for a stroll or a hard core climb. However you intend to enjoy it, you will be hard-pushed not to have your breath taken away by it's spectacular beauty. So why spoil it with turbines?

The answer I'm sure is because it makes us look like we're doing something. If I was being paranoid I would suggest that it was a ploy by the leftist fun police to be used as yet another means of controlling our lives. A means of enhancing their narcissistic joy by ruining ours. The sad irony is, if they wanted to make wind power a viable source of energy for the UK, they would be far better placing the turbines offshore with the dual benefit of more, constant wind and the space to place many, many more turbines. This does mean that the turbines would be out of sight and, sadly for these people, out of sight is very much out of mind. Not something that they can easily cope with.

I will end this with a plea: if anyone of influence is reading this please, PLEASE stop destroying our beautiful countryside.

JR

NHS Reforms

I was planning a post about national service for the near future however current affairs have overtaken me slightly. In the post I was planing on making a case for mandatory national service for school leavers for the dual purpose of developing social awareness and responsibility in young people while providing them with transferable skills. I was then going to say that this need not necessarily be military (although that should certainly be an option); instead it should be of some social benefit and should not necessarily be independent of the individual's career ambitions.

Fortunately the government seem to have beaten me to it (a bit) with proposed NHS reforms that they revealed today. At the moment I am agreeing with less and less of what the government does, despite being broadly Tory. I don't fully agree with the reforms as they have been suggested but they've taken a big step in the right direction.

As a bit of background, these reforms are being proposed as a consequence of widespread mistreatment of patients in a British NHS trust some years ago. Not only did this occur, but it was actively covered up.

One of the main reforms is the creation of a legal duty to disclose mistakes to patients and their families. To my mind, common human decency would dictate that this should happen as routine however those in the NHS seem to think differently. Perhaps they are above admitting they are wrong or don't believe they are capable of it. Seemingly patients dying are exclusively a mistake made by God rather than clinicians.

As a follow on, it has been suggested that a new criminal offence be created of concealing mistakes. Again, this makes perfect sense. In the real world, aiding and abetting is a crime in it's own right. Covering up a catastrophic mistake that has life-altering or life-ending consequences, in my mind, ranks alongside this. It would also strip over-inflated senior medics of their ability to bully junior staff into silence. We just need rigorous enforcement and an anonymous means of reporting errors.

One part of the report is a bit half-cocked is the suggestion that all potential nurses should have to spend a year as a healthcare assistant (a nurse in old money - somebody who has basic care such as hygiene and feeding as their top priority) before they can begin their training. To me this doesn't go far enough. It started as a good idea but I think it should also be extended to aspiring doctors too.

If this seems a bit extreme then let me expand the idea a little. Having started my tertiary education in medical school and spent most of my subsequent adult life surrounded by medics and latterly doctors I have spoken to lots of people who are allegedly at the cutting edge of healthcare. It's surprising how many have gone into it for reasons other than healing the sick. There are many other reasons why they have embarked on this career.High on the list of alternative reasons is the pushy parent who channels their offspring into medical school as a result of their own ambition and prejudice. The worst offenders in this category tend to be parents who are also doctors and seem incapable of understanding that their kids perhaps want to pursue other careers. Following on it's heels are the status seekers and the fragile egos who believe a medical career is a way of assuaging their massive inferiority complexes. I have encountered more of these that I ever want to. Time spent in their company generally serves to make one feel dirty, cheap and generally unpleasant. It's incredible how drunk people can become on their own (perceived) importance. Equal last are those that go into it for the intellectual challenge and those that just see the salaries. In a way I respect the honest of both of these categories but I still don't think their place is with people at their lowest. I believe that a year or so spent doing all the dirty, smelly, unpleasant jobs will quickly separate those with a genuine vocation from the above examples. In addition, it will give some additional maturity to those embarking on med-school and give them a chance to make a bit of money to fund the increasingly expensive business of tertiary education. I'm really struggling to think of any down-sides.

Hopefully, despite their shortcomings, these reforms will come into force soon. It would certainly give me considerably more faith in the health service than I have at the moment.

JR

Moonshine Whisky.

I have written before about my love of whisky; not just drinking it but the nostalgic imagery that surrounds and swaddles it. Hills, heathers and kilts. Fortunately for me (and the tourist trade) even the biggest and most modern distilleries can still accurately be described as quaint and picturesque.

As a whisky enthusiast I am often asked what my favourite whisky is. This is not an easy question as my favourite whisky depends rather a lot on the situation. For my hip flask then whatever is on special offer will do just fine. A cold winter night however will be better suited to a nice, peaty malt from Islay. However on a sunny summer afternoon I might instead opt for a lighter Speyside malt.

Amongst all of this is one constant. A lasting favourite is Edradour. This dram will satisfy me pretty much regardless of time of mood. As well as the dubious honour of being one of my favourite whiskies, Edradour is also the smallest legal distillery in Scotland. In terms of output, Edradour produces in a year what bigger distilleries produce in a week. Not just that. The distillery is little more than a collection of small farm buildings hiding in a glen at then end of an anonymous-looking farm track. Recently they have added a conference centre added to their repertoire but it is genuinely invisible from most parts of the distillery. Combine this with the stunning views it commands over the Highlands and you have a true hidden gem.

From the last few paragraphs you can probably tell that I've tasted my fair share of whiskies however there is one that has, so far, evaded my palette and one I would dearly love to try... moonshine whisky. Moonshine is whisky that has been produced illegally (in Britain, it is illegal to distil alcoholic spirits. This is to ensure that the tax man gets his cut). I love the idea of drinking whisky distilled on a small scale over and open fire in a glen somewhere; hidden from everywhere. Ideally it should then be aged in a barrel in the back of a shed or barn well away from prying eyes. Forgotten about for years while magic happens.

I am well aware of the potential for things to go horribly wrong. Almost inevitably, the products of hobbyists is unlikely to be of a similar standard to those produced by the professionals. If nothing else, any tweaks that are made will take years to mature before the effect can be judged (legally whisky can only be whisky after three years in an oak barrel. For it to be any good, it needs about eight). It takes literally generations to fine-tune a whisky.

Objective assessment aside, I still love the idea of the charm and mystery of trying a moonshine malt in somewhere secluded and combining my passion for drinking whisky with the distiller's passion for making (and presumably drinking) it.

I'm not going to lie, as well as the product of passion angle, sampling moonshine also appeals to my rebellious streak. The whisky that evaporates during the maturation process is known as the angel's share. I don't begrudge the angels a drop, especially since they smile on the distilleries and help produce one of the most magnificent drinks in the world. I do however grudge the tax man the enormous cut he takes of the whisky maker's profits. I understand the need for taxation and, on balance, am rather proud of being a taxpayer. However I object to this throttling of an industry I hold in great regard and and the placement of a product I love and want to share beyond the means of many.

Moonshine gets round this (albeit slightly illegally). The process of making whisky under the radar claims a little bit of our national drink back for Scottish nationals. As well as providing a hearty drink, it caters to the innately subversive nature of most Scots and for that it should be respected.

Now, anyone know of anywhere I can begin looking for an illicit still?

JR

Paddy Ashdown and the Cockle Shell Heroes

Last night I went to see Paddy Ashdown give a talk on his latest book, "A Brilliant Little Operation" - the subject of which was a group of Royal Marine commandos. Their exploits were made famous by the film, "The Cockleshell Heroes".

The story, if you're not familiar with it, relates to a team of World War 2 commandos who canoed behind enemy lines into occupied France (down the river Garonne) in order to destroy the ships that were supplying the German war machine. The raid was as daring as it was audacious - even the commanding officer admitted that it would be impossible to repeat. (I'm aware I'm using lots of parenthetical clauses here but bear with me...). After sustaining huge losses (only two survived from an original group of 12) several of the German ships were damaged. Although they were repaired, the actions of this group of men caused the Germans to direct significant portions of their resources to defending the port of Bordeaux making the war effort on other fronts more achievable.

Subsequently the technique of canoeing behind enemy lines had been used and used frequently but these men were the first. The trailblazers. Their exploits were largely unsung during the war for operational security reasons and after the war, the details were poorly publicised. Ashdown is aiming to rectify this by writing about the operation and the characters involved and it was on this piece that he was talking.

For those of you that haven't heard of Paddy Ashdown, now would be a good time to mention that he is a politician and has spent many years serving in both houses of the British Government. It is therefore a fair assumption that he will be a seasoned public speaker. Despite this, it is worth mentioning that his presentation was excellent. The man talks very well and covers a lot of detailed information quickly and fluently. He is passionate about the subject and this shines through as he takes us through the operation.

More pertinently, Ashdown is also a former officer in the Special Boat Service - an elite Royal Navy unit that owes some of it's heritage and tactics to Goldie Hasler and his men. During the talk, he includes anecdotes and stories from his own military service and operations he has been on which required similar techniques and equipment. This personal touch adds depth to the story and his descriptions of the difficulty involved in canoe based operations. These serve to highlight the truly remarkable achievements of this team.

A particularly poignant moment came when Ashdown read from the last letters of the troops that didn't make it home. Despite the fact he has inevitably read them many times before, he was still visibly moved as were the audience.

The talk concluded with a question and answer session although it was truncated due to time constraints. Ashdown showed a tremendous depth of subject knowledge and enthusiasm for talking about it. This wasn't just an ex-politician cashing in on his public persona in order to sell a few books. This was someone with a genuine passion for the subject and a connection to the history he studied and the gift of being able to communicate.

JR

Home Brew

I'm now a brewer. I say that with more than a small amount of pride. This is because I love beer, I have done for years; arguably since before I actually liked beer. For those of you that don't have a clue what I mean; teenage lads in Britain drink pints (or at least try to). From about the age of 14 onwards, one tries to sneak into the pub or snaffle a can/bottle of your dad's beer and have a pint. It's something of a right of passage, a mark of manhood. However, if you ask most beer drinkers to be genuinely honest, they will admit that beer is an acquired taste. Give them a few pints and they will probably open up and say that they initially found beer horrible and their first pint was an absolute mission to finish (but they did for form's sake). I can certainly attest to the fact that, in my case, I had to work hard to get my taste for beer.

Once I got the taste however, I was off. Fortunately I got past the cat's piss lager stage fairly quickly. A Stella-induced hangover (and a couple of incidents of the world falling over after a few pints) served to put me off a bit. More pertinently, I had heard that girls liked sophisticated guys and as a teenage boy I was forever coming up with schemes to get girls. I became that guy who ordered Guinness in the pub in the mistaken belief that different was synonymous with sophisticated. It didn't stop me being as much of an oaf after a few though so I guess the scheme wasn't all that clever. I still retain a lasting affection for Guinness though and it opened my eyes to a novel concept; beer with flavour.

When I got to Uni my taste broadened to include my true passion when it comes to beer; real ale. I love the rich flavours, the regional varieties, the amusing names and the fact that it was cheaper than any of the decent lagers at the union bar. The hand pumps and the elaborate labels that real ale comes out of in the pub also attracted me to them. It was just so much more mysterious and exciting than a pint of piss.

For the last eight or so years I have sampled many, many ales from all over the country (and some rather good ones brewed in the British style on foreign shores). I will admit my knowledge of it hasn't expanded too much. Generally when asked how I like my beer, I would answer, "plentiful". I know which beers I liked and which ones I didn't like although I never really expanded my vocabulary and knowledge sufficiently to describe why it was that I liked them or properly explore the flavours in my mind.

However I love playing with flavours and in the kitchen and have always fancied having a go at making my own beer. Not to mention the fact that doing so would save a pile of cash and deny the treasury their bounty for my passion. This opportunity was made available to me when I got a home brewing kit for my birthday recently.

Despite being fundamentally impatient in nature I decided to do this properly. Firstly I did a lot of research about beer; the making of it, the ingredients and ways that flavour can be altered and developed. Admittedly some of this was due to the fact that there was a gap between being told I was getting the kit and actually receiving it. Researching was a way of building anticipation and excitement. Being a scientist at heart I have also started keeping a detailed journal to record my research and keep notes about the process ensuring that I can control the variables to the best of my ability and, ultimately, tweak the final product.

After all the research and anticipation, my first brew is now complete. I have to say, I'm rather pleased with it. It tastes of beer! Albeit not the best pint I've ever had but far from the worst either. It also has a rather pleasing fizz, the technique for which was picked up from a fascinating conversation I had at the local home-brew shop. Unfortunately I can't take all the credit for it. The kit in question included a pre-made mixture of malt that water and yeast was added to. My visions of delicately combining ingredients to produce a beer that is unique to me hasn't come to fruition yet. Admittedly there are some advantages; the whole process is far quicker than starting from scratch. Also, raw ingredients are actually quite hard to come by so this is the only viable large-scale option.

Some further research has revealed ways of tweaking these home-brew kits to make them more personal and enhance the flavours. In the future, I'm looking forward to nailing a recipe and process that will create the ultimate beer for me. In the mean time, I'm off for a pint!

JR

Journalists v Bloggers

What's the difference between a blogger and a journalist/critic (and no this isn't the beginning to one of the world's most tedious jokes)? This question is one that has featured in my life a couple of times in the last week. First I read an article in the paper by a journalist and critic trying to distinguish between the two. A few days later a whole chapter of the book I'm reading was dedicated to differentiating between food bloggers and restaurant critics. So what is the difference?

Well the most obvious difference is that journalists (and for the time being, read "journalists" as critics two since they are fairly similar for the purposes of this debate) get paid for their work and bloggers don't. Except that's not quite true. It is possible to make money from blogs. Equally lots of journalists, especially those starting out, work for free. Another way to define it could be that journalists generally work for organisations whereas bloggers don't. However freelance journalists knock out this argument. Although they sell their stories to bigger organisations, they work for themselves.

Now let's get a bit more subtle. First let's remove publishing medium from the equation since blogs exist exclusively on the internet. An obvious difference, to me at least, is that journalists have to abide by a code of conduct and professional ethics and have probably had training in this. Bloggers don't. Beyond the laws of the country governing things like defamation, what I write is essentially unregulated (let's forget what's going on in the British press for the time being). This doesn't mean that bloggers disregard truth and reliable information. I know that when I write something I claim to be true I like to be able to back it up (even if I don't explicitly do so) and try to highlight any opinions expressed as such. I'm sure many other bloggers do as well, my point is that we do this voluntarily rather than have it forced upon us.

Another distinguishing feature of journalists (broadly speaking) is their use of language. Words are their business and they need to be able to use them well. That's not to say that bloggers can't use English but there is inevitably a difference between those who write all day for a living and those that do it in their spare time. It's similar to a keen amateur cook taking on a professional chef. The regularity with which the respective skills are used comes into play on both counts. In my job, I can get by on a vocabulary of at most a couple of hundred words. This means my linguistic dexterity is not taxed as much or as often as someone who writes for a living.

So for a quick recap, we have established that journalist are paid for their work, are governed by a professional code of ethics and have an ability with language sufficient to make what they write worth paying to read.

Now let's have a look at the sub-division of journalism; critics. Surely it's more accessible because it's just venturing opinions and everyone has opinions don't they? Well yes. But, as always, it's not quite that simple. The newspaper article I read argues that critics are marked out by their high level of subject knowledge and extensive experience of their chosen area. A good example of this came from a passage in Giles Coren's book 'How to Eat Out'. As a reasonable person on a tolerable income I eat out about once a month. When I do, it's generally pub grub or a low level restaurant. Mr Coren (restaurant critic for the Times) however will eat out around twice a day most days. Who therefore has greater experience of eating out? Similarly a car critic will get to try a new car every week or two. Now compare that to me; in 10 years of driving I can pretty much list every car I've ever driven. This means that any opinion I express is perfectly valid as my opinion and may well be interesting and informative depending on what you're looking for but that of a professional critic is likely to be more helpful when deciding where to eat, what kind of car to get, what to go and see at the cinema, etc.

The level of experience is a bit of a double edge sword. On one hand, the professional critic will be so used to their subject matter that they can concentrate on important (though not necessarily obvious) details that others may fail to spot. On the other, it may lead to them treating with blaze indifference things that would blow anybody else's socks off. In all this we must also bear in mind that opinions, regardless of how well informed, are still essentially subjective and you may not agree with the reviewer.

Typically I have polarized the issue between two extremes. Simplistically, a journalist is someone who is paid to report and/or form opinions. They do this full time with regulated levels of behaviour and attitudes and in conjunction with a degree of base knowledge and experience that is probably not as readily available to the average man on the street. Bloggers generally write in their spare time based on more limited personal experience.

Is one worth more than the other? On the face of it, yes since people are prepared to pay for the work of journalists (excluding free content on line). Journalists are certainly the people you go to if you want representations of fact that can be backed up or opinions that are based on extensive experience however, if you want to interrogate a subject further and you're prepared to expend a bit of effort thinking critically about the source, then I would argue blogs have a place too.

JR

Fountain Pen Ink

Warning: This is an extremely geeky post (as the title suggests) so if you're not into pens, this might be of limited interest.

Having written before about my love of fountain pens, you will know that I appreciate the novelty of filling a pen from a bottle rather than clipping in an ink cartridge. This injects a new level of choice and complexity into the writing process; namely which ink to use.

My standard day-to-day ink (the stuff that lives in my drawer at work) is Parker Quink black. I use this  black ink for work so my writing can be photocopied if needs be and so I can use my fountain pen in almost any circumstance (some official paper work can only be filled out in black ink). I also happen to think that black ink on white or off-white paper looks neater and clearer than blue ink. Parker ink has a nice rich colour and is fairly viscous making it well suited for most pens and papers. It also makes my writing feel smooth and free-flowing. Another advantage to Quink is it's near universal availability. It is sold in almost every high street stationers so in the (unlikely) event unexpectedly running out, it is easy to get hold of more. Finally, it's cheap. Although I mainly use this ink for work, sadly they have not yet offered to pay for it (instead they supply dreadful disposable biros). Since I'm not paid a salary that would make most professional footballers blush, I don't want to have to spend more than necessary on office consumables.

My other bottle of black ink is a cross one. Originally it was bought to go with my Cross pen (sucker I know) but I genuinely think it's high-quality ink hence the bottles being replaced when empty. This ink is thicker still giving a beautifully smooth feeling on the paper and a nice, rich appearance. Looking back at old Uni notes, this ink doesn't particularly fade either which is always a plus.

I also have a couple of bottles of Sheaffer ink; one red and one green to be precise. I bought the red one to go with my Sheaffer pen for the purpose of annotating documents. It doesn't get used regularly now because a) I rarely have cause to annotate documents these days and b) because I always think writing with red ink shows a bit of a teacher complex (unless, of course, you're a teacher)! The green ink was mainly bought for my girlfriend who has recently taken up calligraphy. I have used it a couple of times but as I don't really like the colour, I don't think I'll be using it a lot. With both colours, the ink seems a bit on the thin side making the nib feel scratchy on the page. It also means that the colour lacks the intensity I like - it all seems a bit watered down. I'm not sure if this is to allow the colours to show through and not appear a uniform, sludgy, black or if it is a feature of Sheaffer ink. A bottle of black Sheaffer ink I had many years ago was similar I seem to remember so perhaps it's the latter.

This post was prompted by the fact I received a new pen as a gift recently. Due to it's sentimental and monetary value, it is going nowhere near my workplace lest it get stolen or damaged. Because of this, I thought I would indulge my eccentric side and get an unusual, quirky colour. There is quite a tradition of this. Captain Mansfield Cumming (founder of MI6) used emerald green ink, a tradition that is carried on by all subsequent heads of MI6. This transposed into fiction where James Bond's boss M also used green ink. That said, there is some evidence to suggest that this choice was more than mere eccentricity; the colour used also denoted seniority.

However choosing a colour wasn't that straight forward. First of all, it can't bee too girly so that's pinks, purples and most of the lighter shades out. The same are excluded by the fact that it can't be too garish. Although most of what I write is for my own personal consumption, I do intend to use it for personal correspondence so I don't want it to appear too childish. Therefore out go the lighter, brighter shades. Finally, I don't want it to clash with the paper I habitually use; either the white stuff of the deep  cream stuff. I did toy with the idea of another bottle of green ink but I don't want to look like I'm playing copycat to M/C. Nor do I want to be seen as a member of the infamous, "Green ink brigade". As a final nail in the coffin; green ink is fairly available in horrible disposable biros and I wanted to go for something unique.

Eventually I settled on a bottle of Diamini ink (chosen for the price, range of colours and the rave reviews it received on line; not to mention the rather splendid bottles). The colour I went for is Oxblood or reddish brown to those who don't speak spectrum. It looks like something that will go with  everything I write on and with. Having received it, I am gratified to say that the ink has a fantastically rich and intense colour and flows beautifully. So far I have only tried it in my Parker 51 but the results are stunning. The ink is nice and thick so the nib feels lubricated on the paper and the line is solid and unbroken.

So there you go, a whirlwind tour of the intricacies of ink (and yes I did write this out long-hand with the new stuff to try it out!)

JR

The Nut Tree

It was my birthday last week. To celebrate the occasion, my girlfriend took me to The Nut Tree: a one Michelin star gastro-pub just outside of Oxford. Now when I say just outside Oxford, I mean only around six miles out of the town centre. Unfortunately there was no direct route and the roads to get us there were mainly small and winding country roads. Owing to a slightly optimistic estimate of when I would finish work, we found ourselves a bit pushed for time resulting in a bit of a mad dash - me flogging an underpowered hatchback, my girlfriend calling out instructions like a rally co-driver. Fortunately our sat-nav got us there in decent time; overheard conversations from others suggest that their companions weren't as lucky.

The drive was worth it with interest. As promised on the website, the exterior was utterly picturesque; thatched roof, duck pond (with a duck house that MPs would be proud of) and a well-tended garden. Round the back was a huge car park with a fish pond and some exterior seating.

Walking up to the door, we received a warm welcome from the lady of the establishment. For a bit of background; a few years ago a young, local, couple bought the pub having dreamed of owning it for years. This is one of the many details that I like; there's a romance to it and it gave the whole atmosphere an air of warmth.

The inside was beautiful: log fires burned gently giving the whole place a cosy feeling (and a beautiful smell). The ceiling had lovely exposed beams and the bar was well stocked with a homely and welcoming look. Best of all there were a couple of large Chesterfield sofas and huge button-leather armchairs accompanying them. It was like a large living room. Despite the fact that we arrived a few minutes after our stated booking time (even with my best attempt at a Stig impression) we weren't rushed to a table. Instead we were eased into the big armchairs and given time to peruse the menu at our leisure with a drink.

Before I re-tell the evening further, it is worth taking a second to commend The Nut Tree on it's sense of balance. I have written before about my scepticism about the concept of gastro-pubs. Usually they tend to be either attempted restaurants with an overly prominent bars or pubs with an overly ambitious chef. This place is neither. While the majority of floor space is given over to eating, there was plenty space for those who fancied just coming in for a drink. In fact, a group of local builders appeared to be doing just that; testament to the fact that everybody was welcome. This was let down slightly (but only slightly) by the fact that the only food available was the fine-dining menu. There was nothing to cater for the hunger generated by a couple of post-work pints. However I can forgive it that. There was also a well stocked cigar humidor which I thought was a nice touch.

The main dining room is a modern extension to the original building. It managed to retain the feeling of the tap room while also being light and airy. I particularly liked the well-thumbed cookery books adorning the window sills.

Our starters came nice and quickly. I had raw a large slab of Scottish smoked salmon with a horseradish cream and caviare. It was delicious. The salmon had a wonderful flavour and an amazing texture, the horseradish was lovely and creamy with just the right of heat and acidity and it all went beautifully well together in the mouth. If I'm being brutal, I can't really see the point in the caviare; it didn't add much to the dish beyond a layer of decadence (and for that it can be commended; well it was my birthday). 

My main course was pigeon with foie gras, curly kale and mashed potatoes. The pigeon was beautifully cooked with a fabulous flavour and an even better texture complimented by the meltingly-soft foie gras which added a further layer of richness and intensity of flavour. The sauce which accompanied it was more than delicious too and the mashed potatoes were light, fluffy and tasty. Overall the dish was fantastic but it was let down a bit by the curly Kale which created an unappetising green sludge on the plate. It didn't ruin the dish but it was a pointless addition in my opinion.

Predictably, I opted for the cheese board which had an impressive array of cheeses from around the country. I liked the way they were arranged from lowest to highest strength and included goat's cheeses as well as cow's cheese. There were also plenty of biscuits to go with it so I wasn't left feeling short-changed with a pile of cheese on my plate. As always there was a lump of quince jelly on the plate along with lumps of random fruit. I really don't see the point in this; it distracts from the flavour of cheese but it's usually separate from the cheese so can be left separate easily enough.

Despite my minor moans in the previous paragraph, I would say the whole experience was wonderful. I have already commented on the atmosphere. This was aided by the staff who were professional and efficient. As I have already said, the female half of the management was charming and outgoing making us feel totally welcome. The food too was magnificent; tasty and beautifully cooked. Presentation-wise it looked elegant on the plate without being fussy. There were also decent portion sizes which is a must in my case.

Over all it was a lovely evening. The only thing needed to make it unquestionably perfect was a big soppy labrador meandering around and making friends with people. It was just that sort of pub.

JR

Leave Prince Harry Alone

Prince Harry has a new girlfriend. We know this because he was pictured hugging her while they were both on a skiing holiday (and who can really blame him). Apparently photographs of a member of the Royal Family hugging while in salopets are quite highly prized.

Rather predictably this has provoked a tsunami of speculation from the media about the possibility of another Royal Wedding. It seems the poor man only has to shake hands with a girl to give the press an exuse to start speculating where the pair will be going on honeymoon.

Well I say leave him in peace. Let's overlook the fact that he is a Cavalry Officer and therefore seducing beautiful women is virtually in his job description. Instead let's concentrate on the fact that he is a young man embarking on a relationship. A relationship which was doubtless put under stress by his recent tour of Afghanistan even without the relentless press attention. Do we really want to increase the strain and pressure further by pushing the couple for news about their plans before they know themselves? It seems more than a little unfair.

Rather than look at this from the perspective of salivating over a bit of juicy Royal gossip, let's personalise this a bit. We've all been there after all; in a new relationship which is just becoming "official". The likelyhood is our friends know and we are just starting to tell our families and then it starts. You're at a family gathering and an aunt makes an "hilarious" remark about needing to buy a new hat. It starts there and gently escalates with subtle probings to try and ascertain a scoop. I for one find this stressful. It's complicated enough trying to puzzle out the maelstrom of emotions that occur at the start of a new relationship without having to discuss it publicly and in great depth - and this is just with family and friends. It must be infinitely worse to have these conversations played out in the pages of the press. Whatsmore that kind of stress can't make it easier to form a bond with the other person so ironically the act of speculating about the next Royal wedding is probably contributing to making the whole bunfight less likely.

Still, I suppose all this is marginally better than the alternative; commentators and columnists taking the opportunity to make bitchy comments about the girl in question. The Dutchess of Cambridge has suffered just such a fate recently and through no real fault of her own.

 Now Prince Harry seems to have a fairly set "type" and that "type" could be easily described as beautiful, leggy blondes. I'm certain that there is more to the individual girls than that description but it is certainly a unifying theme. Unfortunately that also makes them an easy target for the jealous, bitchy sniping - and let's be honest, it is unlikely any of the commentators will know the young lady personally therefore all comments will be based solely on her looks and the negative ones are likely to be rooted in jealousy.

So instead of pointlessly obsessing over details we shall never know, let's leave the couple to it. You never know, this could lead to a new wedding dress to admire (and a new bridesmaid's dress to ogle!)

JR

British Justice - Trial by Jury

In my previous post Trial by Jury I discussed the merits of the Jury system in British Justice. This issue has come into focus again this week with the discharge of the Jury in the trial of Vicky Price, former wife of Chris Hune, after they asked questions that the Judge believed showed a fundamental misunderstanding of their role.

Can you really blame them? The criminal justice system is notoriously complicated. Often this complication can be used by legal practitioners to muddy the waters for the jury in the hope of getting an acquittal. Even the role of the jury requiries a bit of mental gymnastics.

I said in my previous post and I will reassert here, the system needs to change to reflect the world as we live today. For this to happen, I believe recruiting a pool of semi-professional jurours who would be willing to give the case due consideration and who fully understand their role in the proceedings is the best way forward. I think it would increase the odds on a fair trial for the defendant and be a more efficient use of taxpayer's money by avoiding the need for costly re-trials such as the one Ms Pryce is due to face.

JR

R.I.P. Richard Briers

The actor Richard Briers died today. He will be a sadly missed by British viewers both on stage and on screen.

I haven't had the good fortune to see the late Mr Briers on stage but his radio and TV works have been among my favourites. His portrayal of the naive Simon Sparrow in Doctor in the House unfailingly had me chortling; partly in memory of my own med-school days, partly out of the wonderfully twisted scrapes the character got in. Similarly Brothers in Law adapted for radio was a hoot. However it was as Tom Good in the Good Life that I was first introduced to Richard Briers and that remains one of my favourite roles of his. Even at an early age, his impeccable comic timing and charming yet roguish twinkle shone through the screen.

Recently I encountered Richard Briars a few years on in his career as Hector MacDonald in Monarch of the Glen. Rather poignantly I watched the episode with his character's funeral last night.

Every character I associate with Briers has one common thread. They are all thoroughly nice guys. While I'm sure, as an actor, he was more than capable of portraying a range of characters I still think the "affableness" shines through and is a reflection of his true character. It's not a big leap of the imagination. 

Briers will be sorely missed by generations of fans. I will be one of them. I was genuinely sad to hear of his passing. I am also grateful for what he has contributed to British Culture. 

JR

Fire and Stone

It was Valentines Day the other night so in time-honoured fashion the girlfriend and I went out for a meal. I wonder where this tradition started? A project for another time perhaps. Either way, we donned our finery and trooped out to a local branch of Fire and Stone.

For those of you not familiar with this particular eatery, it is essentially a pizza place. However rather than doing your standard-fare toppings with a little bit of imagination or varying qualities of ingredients, Fire and Stone lends a bit of an international twist. The pizza base is a pretty standard pizza base but the toppings are themed to reflect the cuisine of various countries. By way of example, the London is topped with bacon, sausage and the other components of a fry-up. I have to say, I found this change hugely refreshing and quite fun.

Let me start at the beginning (as good a place as any). We arrived and had a charming and friendly welcome. Even though it was Valentines day and therefore stuffed to the gunnels we weren't made to feel like we were on a profit-making conveyor belt. This was reinforced by the fact that we were automatically moved to a table further from the door (and before you say this was a ploy, I sneaked a peak at the seating plan and sure enough - our names were next to the windy table). The friendliness continued throughout the meal. All the staff were charming and convivial without appearing brusque or, even worse, over-familiar. Given how packed the place was, service was remarkably quick too.

Our starters were an unremarkable combination of calamari and flatbreads with dips. I say unremarkable because, as I said, this place is a pizza place; everything else is just there for effect. That said, they were nice enough and certainly worth ordering. The portion sizes were decent too. Enough that it took the edge off our hunger pangs, not so much that we were put off the thought of the main course.

For the main course my girlfriend had the Cairo; the vegetarian option. If I'm honest, I don't really know what was on top of it (beyond pine nuts which were diligently picked off) but it looked nice enough. I opted for the Marrakesh topped with spicy lamb, peppers, olives, mint and tzatziki. The flavour was wonderful and blended nicely without being too ostentatious which, I admit I was worried about. With these esoteric toppings, it would be easy for the chefs to show off a bit and go over the top thus ruining what are supposed to be fairly simple dishes. I went for the new, crispier base too which hit the spot perfectly. Often I find pizza bases a bit doughy and stodgy so by the time I'm almost finished the pizza I can't bear another bite. This, in turn, always makes me feel a bit cheated (unless it's a takeaway in which case, cold pizza for breakfast is a bit of a treat and a reminder of my student days). However the Fire and Stone base was a perfect balance of being filling without being stuffing. It was also rigid enough to support a slice without half of it ending up on my shirt - a vital feature if, like me, you just don't have the patience to eat pizza with cutlery. My one complaint about the main course was that the tzatziki was artfully dropped on top. While this looked pretty, it meant that one either got a lot or none. There was no middle ground. I would like it if, next time, it was spread more evenly across the top.

By the time the dessert menu came we were both too stuffed to order anything further. This was a bit of a shame because there were a few things that looked excellent. Usually I'm not particularly one for desserts. This is partially due to an egg allergy that puts a lot of them off limits and partially due to the fact that I don't really have a sweet tooth however many of these caught my fancy. Perhaps next time.

One other thing that is worthy of comment was the house wine. Usually when I'm out I opt for a glass of house red. Decent beer is rarely a given and I don't often drink wine at home so it's a nice opportunity for a change. Since my wine knowledge and palette isn't particularly sophisticated I usually opt for a glass (or occasionally bottle) of the house hooch and hope for the best. Some of them are good, others are bad. The house red in Fire and Stone is excellent. It was surprisingly complex and subtle but still quite light. I thought it went as well with my seafood starter as it did with my spiced red-meat main. It's flavour was assertive enough to make it's presence known without destroying the other flavours in the food.

So on that note I would say Fire and Stone is certainly worth a trip. There are a few round London and in the South East. The combination of good food, well cooked and with a slightly eccentric twist is a great combination.

JR

Victoria's Secret

Victoria's Secret models have been getting a bit of a hard time in the press over the last few days. The main reason for this is that they are, apparently, not positive female role models for young girls. Parading around in one's underwear for a living apparently is not a good example to give.

My first instinct was to agree with Dr Brooke Magnati (formerly blogger and London call girl Belle De Jour) when she argued in the Telegraph that there wasn't an obligation, formal or implied, for women in the public eye to be good role models. One of my grandfather's aphorisms sprang to mind, "You will never be a total failure. You can always serve as a bad example."

However this doesn't quite tally with how I feel. I agree, there's no obligation to be a good role model but, looking beyond that, what is a good role model? Could Victoria's Secret models in fact be rather good role models? As a working definition, let's call a role model an individual that sets an example which you would wish to follow or you would advise someone you care about to follow. It's simplistic but it will do. The most important part of it is that allows an individual to project their own morals and beliefs on to a situation.

One of the arguments against Victoria's Secret models is that women should be judged on more than their looks and using pretty girls to promote a brand is just shallow. Taking the second part of that statement first; they have a point. Using pretty girls to flog a product (even one designed for women) is a bit shallow. I'm sure there's lots of complex sociology and psychology behind the next statement but to put it simply; adverts don't just sell products, they sell an idea associated with the products therefore people who buy Victoria's Secret knickers are buying the idea that the product will make them more like the model, not just a pair of knickers. It's that simple and it's fairly immobile as a concept. As such, the use of beautiful women to promote the brand is unlikely to change any time soon. It's not nice but there's not an awful lot we can do about it.

Now to the first bit of the statement. Girls shouldn't be judged solely on their bodies. Fair enough. That's an admirable enough sentiment. However, here's a small point. Has anyone actually asked the models how they feel about their occupation? Or have commentators condescendingly assumed that because they wear knickers for a living they must be feeble, air-headed, bimbos who are totally incapable of looking after themselves and need us to watch out for them? Does their choice of occupation imply they are incapable of any kind of thought?

What if the models, if asked, tell us that they are happy, content, fulfilled and satisfied with their life and their job? They tell us that they enjoy what they do and they make a reasonable to good living out of it? That wouldn't be such a bad thing would it? In fact, I would argue that it would make them rather envious of them. How many of us can say that we are totally satisfied and fulfilled with our jobs (let's call it the lottery test; if you won the lottery, would you continue in your current role?) And if these girls can say that about their occupation then who are we to tell them that they're wrong?

Even if they can't say, hand on heart, that all of the above apply to their occupation dare we ask them if it's worth the pay-off? Again, with everyone else, we put up with a certain amount of unpleasantness in our occupations in return for a bigger pay-off (usually, let's be honest, the salary) so why shouldn't the models be allowed to weigh up the options and come to their own conclusion?

All that said, if I had a daughter I'm not sure I would be entirely comfortable with them following this line of work. I know times have changed but I still think underwear is called UNDERwear for a reason. Then there's the inevitable sleaze aspect; the outfits are by nature revealing and are frequently leered at.

That last point I want to tackle is the frequent assertion that the industry is unfair because it is only open to beautiful women. Again, this is indisputably true. The industry has specific requirements it desires in their employees and these are only fulfilled by pretty girls. But this fact is true of many industries; musicians are generally recruited from talented musicians, sports "heroes" are generally good athletes and mathematicians are generally recruited from those that are good at maths. I have taken those examples as they are all generally innate rather than taught as is beauty. Discriminating against someone because of the way they are born in uniformly unfair and this includes preventing beautiful women from choosing to make a living from their looks. If they go into it by choice and with there eyes open, where's the problem... beyond perhaps jealousy.

JR

Parents

Is it a normal reaction to regress to some form of pseudo-adolescence in the presence of one's parents? And if so, what are the reasons behind it?

I ask this question because of what happened this weekend. As you probably worked out, my parents came down to visit and, I am ashamed to say, I did regress to some sort of glorified teenager. Normally, I am fairly mild-mannered and mature. I hold down a decent job and live a relatively dull existence with my girlfriend. In other words, I am a fairly unremarkable young adult. Not perfect, just normal.

However, for some reason this weekend in particular, I regressed. I became stroppy, truculent and argumentative. What makes things worse is that I don't get to see my parents very often. They live in Scotland while I live in the South of England. I suppose that relates a bit to it. There is always a bit of pressure to perform; the feeling that each moment has to be an occasion. It probably also doesn't help that normal social rules don't apply to nuclear family units. They have seen you at your best and worst and can usually see through any constructed social persona. As a result, standard etiquette disappears and the social lubrication it provides evaporates.

I know I'm not the only one that does this. I have seen it especially in girlfriends (current and past). Suddenly I see a side to them that is totally different to the one I know and at times it can be a bit shocking. Perhaps it's the fact that parents usually continue to see their children as their vulnerable offspring for eternity and just can't give up the urge to nurture them. A great example of this happened when I was about 16. For some reason I was going into my dad's workplace. He was a drama teacher and it so happened that he had a class at the time (pupils of around my age). I stayed around for the lesson a) because they were always quite good fun and b) because it created a useful number for practical exercises. Inevitably the, "Who are you?" questions flowed. When I revealed that I was in fact the teacher's son they all started at me in utter astonishment. It turns out they all thought I was the cherubic eight year old staring out from the photograph frame on his desk, his wee boy that he often talked about. It's not that he didn't like me as a 16 year old, quite the opposite, we got and get on famously. It was just that that is how he saw me in his mind's eye.

I suppose it's a bit of a misunderstanding at heart. Parent's want to help out and to feel useful. We (and I think I can speak for a lot of people) want to show we're independent. That they have raised us well and given us the skills to look after ourselves. That's why offers to do the washing up or ironing are politely (usually) rejected. It probably also stems from the fact that parents do have our best interests at heart and don't always approve of the way we do things. Fair enough; if I had a kid with my relaxed attitude to pressure it would almost certainly do my head in but it doesn't always make for the freest of communication. Often one side will feel got-at and resented or ignored. It's a learning curve.

All this pseudo-psychology is still only a thin way to try and rationalise how I acted. As I said, I feel bad. I feel bad because they came all this way to see me. I feel bad because I know my dad has multiple serious illnesses and, if I'm being brutally honest, I don't have all that much longer left with him. Finally I feel bad because my parents are two of the most generous individuals anybody could wish to meet. They have given me more than anyone should rightfully receive and done so without hesitation or complaint. I am truly grateful for this and hope that I can live up to similar standards over the course of my life. I just wish I showed it more in front of them.

Despite this rant, they say they had a wonderful time over the weekend and, for what it's worth, I genuinely believe them. It certainly wasn't all bad, it's just at the moment I am focused on the areas for improvement.

I hope everyone else had a good weekend.

JR

Right to Work in Britain.

Today the Court of Appeal ruled that a scheme by the British government's scheme which forced individuals into unpaid work was illegal. For a bit of background, this scheme was devised to help the long-term unemployed gain some work experience. It therefore organised unpaid placements for those that had been out of work for defined periods (9 months for those aged between 18 and 24 or 12 months for those aged over 25). So far so noble. The problems start in the fact that the placements were not optional. Moreover, individuals faced having their benefits docked if they did not take up the placements. The final straw is the fact that placements were assigned on an arbitrary basis and took no account of an individual's skills or interests.

The cases resulting in the Appeal Court ruling illustrate this nicely. One of the parties was a recent geology graduate who was forced to work in Poundland. The other was an unemployed HGV driver who was forced to work in a similarly unrelated position. Reports for the media suggest that, in both cases, the cost to the employer of having these individuals working for them was nil. Naturally the process was compared to slavery and indeed the court decided that the fact that the individuals were not getting paid for their efforts made the process illegal.

The idea of the a government forcing individuals into slave labour is a pretty terrifying one. However that does not mean they should not be proactive in getting the long-term unemployed back to work. Part of this is of course trying to facilitate them gaining workplace experience and providing incentive to do so. However a particularly troubling aspect of the above cases is the fact that both seemed to totally ignore the specialist skills of the individuals involved. In the case of the graduate, she was working for free at a local museum and had ambitions to work in museums as a career. In the case of the lorry driver, well he's a lorry driver.

The case of the graduate student in particular touched a nerve with me because I am in a not too dissimilar position. A major barrier to employment these days can be summed up in one word, "experience". Everybody wants it yet nobody seems prepared to offer it. I have filled out countless application forms knowing I stand only the slimmest chance of even getting an interview. Despite the fact I more than fulfil the academic requirements and have great examples of the transferable competencies, I lack experience. Such feedback that I do get often cites this as the reason my application did not proceed further.

So how is one supposed to get it. The obvious answer is to work for free. That way, the risk to the employer is minimised and the employee gets to put it on their CV. Of course the most obvious problem with this is the financial one. We all need to eat, put a roof over our heads and clothe ourselves. How are we supposed to do this if we don't have any money coming in? This dichotomy has forced me at least (and probably many others) to take a job that isn't really brilliantly suited to me. The most obvious example of this is the fact that I am vastly overqualified for it; my colleagues were startled when I let slip my academic qualifications. However I will be the first to admit that academic ability isn't everything. Slightly less obviously, the job just isn't suited to my skills, nor particularly to my personality. I can do it and I can do it well but there's more to building a career than that. At the moment I am just relieved to be working however I am very aware that it is not a recipe for long-term happiness.

It frustrates me that, in order to gain experience in a field they are passionate about, an individual is forced on to benefits. The benefit system is there to support those in dire necessity, not provide a springboard into industry-relevant experience. I don't particularly blame the young lady for doing it but it is awful that she has been forced into that position in the first place.

What really angers me is the blinkered ignorance displayed by those who administer the system. Why was her voluntary work not recognised for what it was? Similarly, why was she shoehorned into a job stacking shelves for a large company. Surely a better solution would be to further encourage the voluntary experience. I do however admit that this could be hard to administer nation wide but that still doesn't explain why a large, profitable business what given the benefit of the free labour (and this labour was free). Why not use the pool of available workers to support charities and small businesses. I'm not an economist but I'm willing to bet that there are many businesses that could gain real strength and momentum by having a few more pairs of hands at a lower price. Similarly charities could benefit from an influx of able people who were needing to work. In both these cases it is likely to gain the individuals more skills than if they simply performed menial tasks and offer the opportunity to allow pre-existing skills to be utilised.

In a previous post I attacked government and the civil service for generating and implementing policies that do little other than generate paperwork. I'm going to backtrack a little bit here. I agree that jobseekers allowance should be reduced for those that do not appear to be actively job seeking (or perhaps increased in line with the amount of effort being put into finding a job) however the system cannot be as blind as it is at the moment. Yes, I agree there should be a certain period where individuals are allowed to focus full time on searching for a job however after that constructive effort should be rewarded. This does not mean presenting an individual with a  metaphorical gauntlet in the form of an arbitrarily generated role; it means supporting them if they are actually doing something that will assist in their search for a job be that voluntary work, further training or assisting in finding an unpaid placement that will be of some constructive benefit. Of  course this will be individually specific and will require a lot of project support however I believe that if this system, or one like it, was introduced it would lead to a happier workforce who would in turn work harder and be more productive giving a net benefit to everybody.

Before I round this off, let's have a quick look at the companies. Assuming my scheme does come into fruition (although what I'm about to say is doubly applicable if is doesn't and bit high street chains still get the benefit of jobseekers), should the "employers" get the benefit of this service for free? I don't think so. Giving the service for free still seems exploitative to me. Instead, their obligation to pay national minimum wage should be waived in favour of them paying reasonable expenses incurred during the course of service (essentially travel costs and lunch which is an allowance given to volunteers in organisations such as St. John Ambulance). In an ideal world, remuneration could be graduated to reflect the skill level of the position thus providing motivation to undergo skills training. Of course the obvious pitfall of the latter idea would be that small companies would forgo employing skilled staff knowing they could get jobseekers at significantly below the market rate... Hey, I didn't say my idea was perfect, there are kinks that need ironed out but we must be able to do better than we are at the moment.

In conclusion, the jobseekers system should be there to help those who are genuinely looking for a job. The government should be supporting their efforts rather than hindering them and demoralising the individuals involved.

JR

Sir Humphry Strikes Again: Government Bureaucracy

This week Parliament in Britain has been debating and voting on whether to allow marriage amongst homosexuals. If you have been following the news, you could be forgiven for thinking that nothing else has been going on. However a few other things have been filtering through into the news. For the most part, these are showing that despite "modernisation" the wheels of government still turn in a way that would be recognised by fans of "Yes Minister". More specifically, new legislation that is being proposed and authorised as we speak appears to be generating a lot of work (and presumably budget) for Civil Servants but with little or no tangible public benefit.

The first story seems innocuous enough. It is a proposal to make microchipping dogs a legal requirement. Cue pictures of cute puppies in the press to emphasise the point. The stated purposes of this legislation is to make finding the homes of stray dogs easier and enable monitoring of dangerous dogs.

On the face of it, this seems like an excellent idea. It will provide ready access to information about a dog's owner thus allowing them to be contacted easily. However, the majority of dogs are already microchipped. It is something a lot of responsible dog owners do on a voluntary basis. I'm willing to bet the proportion would go up further in response to a publicity campaign and possibly the offer of part or full funding from animal charities (something they are offering to do in light of the legislation). So in that case do we really need common sense passed into legislation?

There is the other strand of keeping tabs on dangerous dogs but do you really think that owners of dangerous dogs are going to be motivated by the thought of a fine to get the dogs chipped? I very much doubt it. The legislation will be roundly ignored. If you need evidence, what about the existing provisions of the dangerous dogs act. It doesn't seem to have stamped out the ownership of dangerous dogs, if anything it has just made people who breed them more creative with their breeding programme to ensure the dogs aren't covered by the act. So what will make this legislation work? Is the government proposing a system of regular dog inspections where dogs are checked for chips? If so who will do it; police, councils or civilian dog wardens? Who will pay for the training and infrastructure necessary for delivering this screening? How much will it cost come to that? And won't it be edging on infringing the right to a private life? As far as I can see, it is going the way of fines for dog-fouling. Good idea but a struggle to enforce.

Never the less, this idea is going ahead and in doing so is generating huge amounts of work for the civil servants involved in drafting the legislation and devising strategies to implement it. If I was being paranoid I would suggest that it's another attempt by the state to keep tabs on us but I really don't think it is (we don't all own dogs after all). I think it is just a cynical attempt to generate bureaucratic process to keep Whitehall bods busy.

This isn't an isolated incident. Currently there is a shortage of council housing in Britain. This has resulted in a scheme whereby people in receipt of housing benefit will lose a proportion of it in direct proportion to spare bedrooms in their property. The logic goes that some people are rattling around in big houses with spare bedrooms while others are living in accommodation which can be classed as over crowded. This scheme is supposed to provide an incentive for people to move into smaller houses thus vacating bigger ones for larger families. All noble so far until you learn that this docking is implemented across the board and without exception. This means (and here I will borrow examples used on the radio) that a parent who is separated from the other parent of their children will not be entitled to a spare room to allow their children to stay. Similarly, disabled people who have had their properties adapted could face losing benefit for staying in them despite the fact that a) any future property would require adaptation at considerable expense and b) the extra space may be necessary for the storage of specialist equipment or as a bedroom for their spouse who was also their carer (spouses can only share rooms you see). The guidelines also insist that children under 10 must share a room. On the face of it, this seems fair enough but it is worth bearing in mind that government data shows children are reaching puberty progressively earlier now compared to 20 or so years ago. Now, it is not uncommon for children to show the first signs of puberty before they even turn 10. Is it really fair to insist that they share a bedroom with their sibling, especially if the sibling is the opposite sex. Also, what of step-siblings?

Of course things aren't that simple. An official on the radio this morning agreed that the above examples were issues and claimed these had been taken into account. This wasn't done by putting provisions in the original legislation but by giving local councils a budget in order to compensate those who would have their benefits docked. Let me go over that again. Government removes a portion of housing benefit from an individual then allocates money to local councils to reimburse them in extenuating circumstances. Logical right? Naturally this payment isn't automatic. Individuals have to apply in their own time to reclaim the money. So paper work is generated by the transfer of funds to the council and then in the application for funds by the individual (who has a disability in need of extensive care in the first place).

Another example of generating massive amounts of work for civil servants and this is without questioning what will happen to the resources allocated if they are not collected. It was not clear if these funds were to be ring-fenced for the exclusive purpose of compensating those who had unjustly lost out on benefits or if excess would revert to the council funds. I don't want to appear cynical but either way it appears that it's in the interest of civil servants to ensure as little of this money is collected as possible.

Before I sound too jaded and cynical I will tell you of something good that came out of Paliament recently. MPs have voted against the fish quota system imposed by the EU. The system was originally implemented to try and preserve fish stocks by preventing over-fishing. It has turned out to be an utter failure. Instead of preventing over-fishing, quotas have forced professional fishermen to throw large amounts of fish back into the sea because they had either exceeded their quota or were specifically forbidden from catching a certain species of fish. Obviously, once the fish had been caught it ended up fairly dead fairly quickly and so did little more than feed the seagulls when thrown back. This policy is a prime example of some of the ill conceived planning endemic within the EU and shows it in it's true light; namely putting higher emphasis on compromise and appeasement rather than actual, useful objectives. Hopefully now our MPs have voted this stupid, wasteful and frankly disgusting waste of resources will come to and end while simultaneously giving our fishing industry a boost.

The last example aside, this worries me. I used to watch "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" and feel vaguely comforted that people like Sir Humphrey were in charge: sound chaps with their heads screwed on who were very able to resist the latest vote-winning flight of fancy of their political masters. Now I'm not so sure. Resistance to change was all well and good when things were prosperous. Now though, things aren't. Everybody is having to make substantial savings. The most noticeable of these are in the public sector where front-line public services such as the police and ambulance service are subject to major cuts. In the military as well, people who have willingly risked their lives for our safety are losing their jobs and it's being done in a way that will deprive them of their pension entitlements too. This is wrong. It could be argued that creating a nebulous bureaucracy creates jobs by creating a need for more civil servants. This, to a point, is true but in this climate it seems like a total waste. My impression, backed up by the above examples, is that vital public services are being pared back to the bone in order to generate the capital for more frivolous spending. Perhaps it's because those that are losing out don't have the right to strike (or will incur massive public derision if they do) or perhaps it's because the bureaucratic stuff generates a lot of easily measurable outcomes which can then be twisted to show how well whatever procedure is being conducted that these changes are occurring. Either way it seems like a crying shame that this is happening and it seems to be doing so without much opposition.

Or perhaps I'm just being paranoid!

JR

Smoking

Smoking is an emotive subject. It tends to raise strong emotions in nearly everybody and can provoke near-hysterical argument in otherwise rational people. As with everything that has confirmed and irrefutable health consequences, people seem to think that they have a right to lecture others. The moral high ground has been seized and is being ferociously defended.

Smoking in the workplace and in enclosed public spaces has been banned in Britain for the last five or so years. Despite the fact that I am not a smoker, I am dead against this ban. My opposition is not so much defending the rite to smoke as defending the right to make one's own choices. I really, REALLY do not like being dictated to by some condescending busybodies who think it their god-given right to interfere in the lives of others. It is now established fact that smoking leads to all manner of unpleasant health issues however if people want to smoke (and make no mistake, this ban was enacted to try and deter people from smoking) then bloody well let them. I have a great deal of admiration for the late Sir John Mortimer for many reasons but one I particularly like was his decision to take up smoking at the time of the ban as a protest.

The most obvious counter-argument to this is the health consequences. Smoking causes disease, disease gets treated by the NHS therefore smoking costs the NHS money. Perhaps. But here's an uncomfortable truth. We are all going to get ill and die at some point. These days, the illness is likely to be eked out by modern medicine. This will happen regardless of an individual's past smoking (or other health) behaviours. So let's not pretend that by not smoking we will all happily live illness-free forever.

What irks me most is the totality of the ban and it's not just conceptually that I have a problem with it. It has been widely reported in the press that the rate of pub closure has increased since the smoking ban too. Now again, you could argue this is a good thing since pub-based activities are rarely healthy. However they are fun, sociable and generally agreeable. The pub also provides a social hub for communities and it would be a shame if these were lost.

The gold standard would be a selective ban. A vehicle by which enclosed public spaces and workplaces have the legal right to ban smoking without the legal duty to do so. Therefore one pub could decide to be smoker-friendly while the one down the road decides that it's no-smoking. Hey presto; two businesses supported for the price of one. Private member's clubs could re-instate their smoking rooms (and give staff the option of whether to serve in them or not) and workplaces could be free to make their own decisions based on common sense.

There is more to this than the choice to smoke. It's an absolute pain battling through the almost inevitable scrum of smokers round the pub door and being kippered in the process only to find ones self in a pub that smells of stale human; arguably more unpleasant. The feeling of having one's every behaviour legislated is also claustrophobic and oppressive.

I do have one argument against smoking in the workplace and, on the face of it, it may seem quite petty but hear me out. Smokers get an easier ride in the workplace. To go for a cigarette in my office takes the guts of 10 minutes (by the time you get to the designated smoking area, smoke your cigarette, get back to your desk, log back in and finally start concentrating again). Assuming someone smokes three cigarettes over the course of a working day (a figure picked out of mid-air but hopefully a fair representation); that's half an hour a day or two and a half hours a week. Now imagine if a non-smoker decided to down tools for short periods outside of agreed breaks. I think the management would have something to say. Yet smokers essentially get 10 hours a month free because of a habit. That doesn't sit easily with me. As an additional extra kick, there is also the unintentional networking. Smokers form a cosy fraternity. I have seen this in many workplaces; bosses are particularly close to employees they have a fag break with and the associated (totally informal) chat. Obviously I'm emphasising this point for effect. I'm not that paranoid but it is still something to consider.

Despite the last paragraph, my conclusion is still that the ban should be reverse. Let individuals and institutions make their own choices based on their own values. Stop treating an entire population like slightly dim children.

JR

Great Night Shame About the Food

Reading about eating out written by a restaurant critic ('How to Eat Out' by Giles Coren) was always going to be a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there was some useful consumer advice. On the other, it has made me hyper-aware of the foibles and failings of the food industry which, now encountered, will not be forgotten easily.

My first experience of eating out since I read this book (and consequently started thinking about the experience of eating out rather than just blithely accepting it) was last Friday at Loch Fyne - the Oxford branch. This meal was to celebrate Burns Night and their special offer set menu was what attracted us in the first place.

Things started well. Despite the on line booking system saying it was full, I called the branch and turned on the charm. Gratifyingly the manager accommodated us with out so much as sucking his teeth (perhaps he is one of my readers!). While on the phone he told me that the night wasn't just about food; there was going to be a piper too. With that in mind, I asked that the timing of the booking be changed to take this in. Again, not a problem. Top marks so far.

When we got to the restaurant, it had quite an interesting layout. The entrance foyer lead on to a mezzanine level containing the bar and a few tables. This in turn lead to a lower-level dining room and open-plan kitchen. We were shown to our table straight away. Unfortunately it was just by the door. Even if my girlfriend wasn't hypersensitive to the cold, I would have gotten irritated by the door constantly swinging open and closed so I employed my newly learned "How to get a decent table without being a twat" skills. Immediately we were moved further back without a fuss; admittedly we were still on the mezzanine level but that was my fault for not pushing harder.

The whole place was decked out in more tartan than an Edinburgh gift shop; tartan napkins in the glasses and tartan ribbons adorning the candle holders (and the staff... with varying degrees of consent). Overall this created a slightly kitch effect but fun none the less. Another nice touch was the inclusion of a nip of whisky in the set menu as an alternative to a glass of wine. Better still, it was a decent malt (Talisker) - better than a bargain basement blend.

Now on to the food. For starters I had haggis, neeps and tatties (well what else) and for the most part, it was delicious. The mash was smooth and creamy without feeling like it had come from a packet and the haggis was beautifully cooked. The whole thing was served in a rich red wine and juniper sauce. My one technical complaint was that the were perhaps a little watery. A much bigger complaint was the portion size. Yes it was sold as a starter but three small quinnells was barely enough to get on the fork never mind get the taste in my mouth.

My girlfriend had the traditional cullen and skink soup (creamy smoked haddock and potato for the uninitiated) which looked delicious and rustic. Sadly I didn't get to taste any as she scoffed the lot herself. I suppose that's an accolade in its self.

The main courses were where things began to really fall down. As we were somewhere which specialised in seafood, I opted for the hake with mussels and squid. The hake was beautiful - moist, succulent and perfectly cooked. Certainly a good ingredient speaking for its self.. The mash too was lovely. Unfortunately the same could not be said for the seafood. Both the mussels and the squid were cold. As well as this, the squid had been cover-cooked making the whole lot slimy and a bit rubbery. I am not generally known for leaving stuff on my plate but after a few valiant tries, even I couldn't face any more of it.

My girlfriend was also disappointed. She opted for the vegetarian option; pasta with vegetables. I could describe it further but it's a waste of everybody's time to do so. Apparently it managed to be simultaneously bland and have too much pepper. Giver my experience with the main course, I took her word for it.

Things picked up a bit with dessert. The cheese board had a nice selection of soft and hard cheeses. Better still, for once there were enough oatcakes to allow all the cheese to be eaten. There wasn't a particularly Scottish theme which is a bit of a shame given the wonderful cheeses Scotland produces but it can't be condemned for that. My girlfriend had the sticky toffee pudding which was proclaimed excellent. No more really need be said.

Before I move off the food and drink entirely, it is also worth noting that Loch Fyne had taken the trouble to stock Belhaven Robert Burns Ale. Belhaven ales are a bit hit and miss with me (and unfortunately I tend not to like the ones I want to like most) but this one is absolutely excellent but quite hard to come by. It was a nice touch that they sourced and served it on the night.

The night wasn't just about the food though. It was about general celebration. As I mentioned, the restaurant had hired a piper - a huge ex-Scots Guardsman to be precise - who was excellent company as we were waiting for our dessert. Unfortunately he hadn't started playing by the time we had received and eaten our desserts leaving us nursing our drinks and trying to kill time while we waited for him. At this point we were suffering the, "Is there anything else we can get you?" tactic. Being in a fairly belligerent mood I replied in the negative and we continued sipping our drinks (we had been seated for around 45 minutes at this point so we can hardly be accused of table-hogging. Eventually the manager came over and told us that he had booked out the table for a few minutes time and asked us if we would mind moving to the bar for the remainder of the evening. To be honest I wouldn't have minded moving on the back of an honest request (rather than veiled hints and innuendo) but he offered a couple of drinks on the house by way of compensation so it would have been churlish to refuse!

When his moment came the piper was excellent combining the old favourites with some more unusual tunes. He then addressed the haggis (twice to prevent those of us upstairs from missing out - another nice touch) and gave a brief immortal memory. Impressively, he managed to deliver this without being too dry or pompous and even got a couple of jokes in that were suitable for the pre-watershed audience. Excellent patter as they would say in Glasgow.

So all in all, my conclusion is the same as the title. Great night; lovely setting, great atmosphere and a generally jovial mood. It's just a pity the food wasn't just a wee bit better to make the whole thing perfect.

JR