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

Workspeak

Workspeak is a new word I've coined to describe the lexicon of an Office. As you've probably guessed, I have a new job. However, unlike any job I've had in the past, this one is in a properly corporate environment. Attached to this come certain benefits; decent personnel management, well maintained building and adequate parking. Also attached to this is a completely new vocabulary and one that is entirely like any I've encountered before. In homage to Orwell, I have called it workspeak; defined as words that bear little if any relation to their dictionary definition.

Avid readers of my blog might think this observation a bit rich. After all I did train as a lawyer; infamous for their Latin epithets. But that's the point. Latin is a recognised language and while using it in conversation may be a little anachronistic it is still a valid use of the language (and rather charming if you ask me). Before Law I studied medicine for a while; again an environment known for it's inner language. However again most of the words are rooted in either Latin or Greek. The same can be said of yet another subject I studied, Biology.

Where workspeak differs is that it takes words commonly recognised in the English language and distorts them beyond all normal recognition. Allow me to give you some examples:

"Solutions". When I was a scientist, a solution was something dissolved in something else. Therefore something could be described as, "a solution" or "in solution". Simple. In the wider world a solution can also be a procedure used to obtain a successful outcome to a problem. Now let's move to workspeak. Solutions are oft talked about and little defined. The term seems to be an aggrandised way of describing services on offer.

"Going forward". Not strictly a word but they are inevitably used together. Under normal circumstances one would take it to mean a description of motion. Not so in workspeak. Here it is used as a suffix to any form of sentence that involves some form of plan as in, "We will do X, Y and Z followed by A going forward." Eh? What exactly does that mean? What exactly is wrong with making definite statements. Unless I'm very much mistaken, time travel isn't yet possible so why do these statements need to be qualified by a statement intimating which way time travels.

Finally "action". In workspeak the word "action" is a verb. "Can you please action... ?" Again, what the hell is this supposed to mean? Is the English language really so limited that we are unable to describe our requests without spurious rubbish?

I am surrounded by similar corruptions of the English language on a daily basis. Sometimes it is genuinely difficult to decipher what is being said couched as it is in workspeak. Other times it is simply a challenge not to start laughing at how utterly ridiculous people sound. I have tried speaking plainly. It does work but speaking one's mind does make one sound rather confrontational. You want something? Apparently asking for it is a bit blunt (despite the fact that everyone is there to work and it's generally a bit of a team effort). Instead the request has to be dressed up in pointless jargon ensuring it doesn't sound like a request. Why? What exactly is the point?

To stay sane I use a few techniques. First is "bullshit bingo". I got the idea from the programme, "Sirens". One draws up a list of pointless non-words and ticks them off as they occur in conversation. Getting a full house doesn't get any prizes but there's a sense of satisfaction, not to mention amusement. As well as this I satirise mercilessly. Every time I participate in communication with my colleagues I heap in as much workspeak as physically possible. I action my workspeak vocabulary to achieve communication solutions, going forward... as it were!

JR