Peers Turn in Show of Self Interest for Legally Assisted Dying Debate

THE fact that more than 130 peers had registered their intention to participate in the debate over Lord Falconer’s bill on legally assisted dying made headline news.

This may at first seem impressive, but given the average age of those elevated to the House of Lords this is hardly surprising – they will have a vested interest I would have thought.

This is a complex and sensitive topic, and after a lengthy debate, the bill passed its second reading recently and will now be examined before passing to committee stage.

However, the Prime Minister David Cameron has said he is not convinced by the arguments for legalising assisted dying.

Without Government backing, it is unlikely to be debated in the Commons, so will not become law.

Many maintain that this bill would mean “less suffering, not more deaths”.

Hardly a week goes by without someone who feels that they have no quality of life challenging current legislation in an attempt to exert some choice over the time and method of their own death.

It seems extraordinary that on a daily basis we all make choices, some legal, some not, over how we wish to live, yet the most important choice of all is denied us.

Dying is an emotive issue, whether or not we are reaching the end of our own lives, or witnessing the painful demise of a loved one.

There is of course the argument that changes to legislation would facilitate a breeding ground for the vultures ready to swoop in on the rich pickings of the recently departed.

Much of the debate centred on the safeguards that must be in place to protect the vulnerable from abuse, and that the final decision must always be made by the patient.

All that I ask is that when my time comes, whenever it is, that my death is swift and pain-free, that I’ve been able to say goodbye to loved ones, put my affairs in order, and sip that final glass of champagne.

Not too much to ask I hope. We all have different hopes and aspirations, and I would not want to deny someone else that choice.

School dinners show kids table manners

With the announcement this week from Education, Secretary Michael Gove, of his "intention" to roll out free school meals to all primary school children, I can see that he is certainly keen to ensure that he keeps on rocking the battered education boat.

I stress the word "intention" as with funding levels across the board still very tight, it might be an admirable aspiration but it is unlikely, at an annual predicted cost of £900 million, to come to fruition.

I am also aware that like many other announcements, the timing is very select, with schools now on the verge of breaking up for the summer, and teachers across the country breathing a huge sigh of relief at the thought of some respite from what is an increasingly demanding job.

In my very biased view, I think that the provision of free school meals would be a great idea, for a number of reasons. As a 'free school meal' child myself, which no matter how hard you try to avoid it, still carries something of a stigma, I can see only benefits from going down this route.

Administratively it would alleviate mountains of unnecessary paperwork; and the time, money and effort spent on the plethora of nanny politicking leaflets and initiatives demanding that we all eat our 'five a day'. It would ensure that all young children do at least get to eat one decent meal a day; and I can only begin to imagine the respite for harassed mums across the nation as they enjoy those extra few minutes in bed without the chore of producing packed lunches. It would also put an end to the nonsense of inspecting the contents of lunch boxes to make sure there are no hidden, unhealthy treats.

This is a great opportunity to start to turn around the eating habits and overall health of our youngsters; provided that someone can get round the 'I won't eat meat, I hate fish, I've got an allergy' brigade. Most schools no longer have their own school kitchens, so will the lunchtime provision be reduced to a 'healthy' salad sandwich made from gluten free bread, using a spread of some kind because the merest smear of butter would be far too dangerous?

There are many other hurdles to be overcome. You can be sure that schools will have to offer a choice (why?), which will result in a lot of waste. Provided the H&S lot are kept well out of it, my suggestion would be for each school to keep pigs, chickens and other small animals that can be fed on the scraps. This could also provide the opportunity to revive the long lost skill of cooking, while they learn that chicken does not come in nice neat vacuum packs, and that sausages do come from pigs. I can even envisage the kids themselves cooking their own lunch, now there's a revolutionary idea.

My own memories of school meals are not happy ones. I was required to sit there for the whole lunchtime pushing cold custard, semolina or tapioca around the bowl, and to this day I can't stand leeks. However, it did teach me a very important lifelong skill, to be able to sit at a table and, in any social situation, eat whatever is put in front of me without any fuss.

If I thought for one moment this was possible, even though I don't have children, I'd be willing to help foot the bill. I'd like to be proved wrong, but it'll never happen, and more's the pity.

The Decline of Trust to Protect our Vulnerable

In the wake of Rolf Harris's conviction for sexual abuse, it has been interesting to note how quickly the raft of celebrities and politicians who were happy to endorse him during the height of his fame, have been swift in their condemnation, as they rapidly attempt to distance themselves from him, writes Somerset County councillor Linda Vijeh.

We have seen comments from the likes of Esther Rantzen, Ronnie Corbett and Cilla Black, where not so long ago many of his showbiz colleagues would seek to bask in the reflected glory of association with someone who, at the time, was deemed to have become a national treasure.

What has surfaced during the trial is that Rolf has long been known to have had a dark side; reportedly coming to light on occasions such as those in which his latest artwork might have been unveiled. His response to criticism of his work revealed a less than genial side to his nature.

Inevitably, in the wake of his demise, the topic of much discussion is the fate of his paintings. They seem to have disappeared from public view overnight, as those who once lauded his dubious artistic talents now wish to hide their embarrassment at having fallen into the trap of paying through the nose for something with little merit. There have been calls for his paintings to be destroyed, but I would argue that they will quickly gain cult status, and will become quite valuable. Better therefore to auction them off, and the proceeds to go to his victims, or to support those organisations that support victims of abuse.

The real worry here is the extent to which such devious, manipulative behaviour is carried out so openly, with a level of arrogance borne out of the knowledge of the protection provided by his cosy celebrity coterie.

Closer to home, let's not kid ourselves; it may not make international headlines but this subversive, controlling behaviour is more common than we'd like to believe.

It is unfortunately a common ploy for those wishing to exert influence in an unhealthy way to position themselves within their communities, to become virtually untouchable. It is incumbent upon all of us to be aware of the motives behind those who seek to ingratiate themselves with us and our families, and for us to be more careful of the company we keep, or entrust our children to. Sadly, the lesson for all of us is that in future it will be that much more difficult to be able to blindly trust those who seek to do good, for we will all be looking for the ulterior motive.

Scholarships Should Be Available to All

I could not help but be interested in all the recent hoo ha about the issue of public schools, such as Wellington College, and whether or not they should offer scholarships to kids from underprivileged backgrounds; or if in doing so this is seen to continue to buy into the 'elitist' theory that surrounds such institutions.
Speaking from experience, I disagree with the nay-sayers entirely.
At the tender age of 11, I was plucked from a London council flat, where I lived with my single-parent mother and my younger brother and sister, and was sent, as a scholarship boarder, to Westonbirt School in Gloucestershire. Put forward by the inspiration of my primary school teacher, Mrs. Elizabeth Sharpe, it proved to be the turning point that was to shape my future life. I seem to recall that her ‘going away’ present to me was a very posh blue scalloped manicure case, whilst my grandfather gave me a Conway Stewart fountain pen, which I still have.
Being away from home for the first time, and missing my mum, to whom I was very close, I cried incessantly, and even ran away twice. Eventually, having written to the Minster for Education at the time, I left to continue my education at Ealing Grammar School for Girls. Having said all that, and despite the abject misery I felt at the time I still believe that the experience I gained at public school provided the best five terms education of my life, for a number of reasons, not necessarily academic.
Although those of us who were 'scholarship girls', knew who we were, I never felt a 'lesser person' for it, just different. The disadvantages I faced were much more of a practical nature. My mother did not drive and as her sole income was from doing piecework at home, she could certainly not afford to run a car, so she only ever managed to come to visit me once a term at the most. This meant, however, that the families of friends would often invite me home with them for long weekends, or for days out. This was not always with very successful results; many years later, when as a Hotel & Restaurant Inspector I re-visited The Manor House Hotel at Castle Combe, I could not help but recall the 'cider' incident. 
I started out as a working class kid with a broad London accent, and after elocution lessons ended up speaking with a plumb in my mouth; very useful later in life when the ability to articulate one's views can enable one to mix with all sorts, from whatever background. I also learnt to swear like a trooper too, perhaps not a skill that one should necessarily be proud of!
Probably the most important aspect of the experience was what it taught me about life skills; being able to sit at a table with others and to eat anything put in front of me, that respect is earned and not a virtue bestowed on those with titles, to take responsibility for my own actions, to have the confidence to go anywhere and do anything without fear, and sadly, a lifelong hatred of all sporting activity, borne out of miserable, cold, wet, mornings spent playing lacrosse!
It is these skills, not necessarily linked to academic achievement that we used to learn within our own family environment, before it became so disjointed, and from a time when our schools had the capacity to consider these intangible elements that go to make up the people that we become later in life.

More importantly though, without the opportunity to attend public school, I would never have met the girl who remains my best friend, almost 50 years on. It is at this stage early in life that we make the connections and form the lasting bonds that can see us through thick and thin, no matter what. Whilst public school may not be suitable everyone, I believe it would be morally wrong to deny anyone this opportunity.

Ironically, having penned this piece, I was contacted by the current head of Westonbirt, Natasha Dangerfield, inviting me to go back for a visit, which has brought back some interesting memories… I was in Holford House, and my house number was H51. I remember thick 60 denier stockings, waiting anxiously to see if I had a letter from home, the basement we called Hades, where we had secret feasts, and pushing leeks around the plate under the beady eye of a teacher!
The head tells me that the school still supports girls from all walks of life, regardless of privilege or position, in a warm and welcoming environment, enabling them to be able to walk through the doors at 18 and manage all the challenges of life with confidence.

I am testament to that.

Savile, Coulson and The Art of Seduction

I am frequently asked to carry out speaking engagements and do enjoy the challenge of exploring new topics that might be of interest to my diverse audience.

It was while carrying out research for my latest talk, ‘Politics and the Art of Seduction’, that the link between two of this week’s most disturbing incidents became apparent. I refer to the news of the horrendous, but not unexpected, scale of Jimmy Savile’s predatory behaviour, in addition to the conviction of Andy Coulson over the ‘conspiracy to hack voicemail’.

On the surface one might think that the two incidents are not linked, but given the scope and extent of the behaviour of these two men, their dirty deeds could not have been carried out without some degree of complicity and collusion on the part of those connected to them.

In both cases, and others like them, the key is the extent to which they were, over a period of some time, able to seduce colleagues and those in positions of influence, taking the term literally, by persuading them ‘to abandon, or betray, a commitment’. This was clearly entirely intentional.

With the anniversary of D-Day still fresh in our minds, there are some who may be offended by the analogy with Hitler, but it was he who, in its most extreme form, was able to seduce an entire population into believing his warped view of the world.

Both Savile and Coulson were able to achieve this, albeit in a different context, and thankfully, on a lesser scale.

The key here is the fact that both men were able to obtain such a high degree of influence and power over others, despite the warning signs that were all there; that they were able to put themselves into situations where the plausibility of their argument, and the extent of the trust they were able to enjoy, caused others to put aside the normal checks and balances that would have gone a long way towards sparing their victims.

In the case of Savile, who preyed on vulnerable adults and children, without discrimination it would seem, over a period of 50 years, what is being revealed now is that others had been aware of his inappropriate behaviour and had expressed misgivings; only to have their voices drowned out by those who wanted to curry favour with a national celebrity. It is the extent to which we have allowed ourselves to become blinded by the glitter and glitz of close contact with those who enjoy celebrity status, to bask in their glory, that we put all social mores aside. It is all the more worrying when those in a position of power, who should know better, and have a responsibility to protect the rest of us, are sufficiently naïve to fall for the ploy.

The art of seduction is well established in undermining and replacing established loyalties, and to substitute them for a different rule of conduct. In medieval times, this would have led to treason, but in modern Western societies we follow a looser moral path.

In the case of Coulson, despite warnings to the contrary, the PM was prepared to give him a ‘second chance’. There are many arguments for giving someone a second chance, but it is when we take such risks at such a high level, without due regard for the normal cautionary measures which must be in place to provide the necessary protection, that we open ourselves up to the most dangerous level of seduction. There can surely be no excuse for the failure, in both the Savile and Coulson cases, to carry out the very vetting procedures that were put in place to prevent what has occurred.

Loyalty plays a central part in our lives, and having been seduced, we assume that those to whom we are loyal will be loyal to us. There could not be a clearer example of this than the current focus on Jihadists, and their blind loyalty to a cause, with complete disregard for the consequences. 

As individuals we all have the potential to allow ourselves to be seduced into believing in the most dangerous predators, and persuaded to take decisions that deep down we know with have a negative outcome. How many times do women give their spouses or partners a second chance, willing and wanting to believe that they will not hit or abuse them again, only to regret it later. 

Incidents like the Savile and Coulson cases will only serve to make us all much less gullible and trusting. We will all be the poorer for it, but there can be no other option in the face of such betrayal of the moral values we strive so hard to uphold.

Suarez - Biting Off more Than He Can Chew?

It is interesting that while the football community await the outcome of FIFA’s probe into the alleged biting incident at the World Cup game between Uruguay’s Luis Suarez and Italian defender Giorgio Chiellini, the media are out in force, along with a plethora of psychologists, debating the issue.

I am no stranger to biting myself, having only recently been bitten by someone who felt that this was their only defence when cornered and challenged, and took to the ‘fight’ rather ‘flight’ mode of retaliation.

I am no stranger to biting myself’ I have bitten someone, on two separate occasions.

The first time I must have been about 10 or 11 years old and bit a boy at school on the arm. I don’t remember doing, but what I do remember to this day is the sense of humiliation, as I was called up onto the stage during school assembly and shamed in front of everyone. In the case of my favourite teacher, I felt that I had badly let her down.

The second incident occurred some years later when, as a teenager, I accepted a lift home from a lad I’d met at a disco, only to have him stop the car and attempt to take a kiss too far. I bit into his arm and hung on until I drew blood. He soon lived to regret his behaviour, and I made my escape.

These were isolated incidents, and not something I’m planning to repeat, but what it demonstrates is that biting is usually an impulsive action, unplanned and a spontaneous response to a person’s emotional state.

Using one’s teeth as a weapon, either of aggression or in defense, reverts us back to the most primitive human state, before we learnt to make our own warheads. It also takes us back to our early years as unruly toddlers, when unable to express ourselves in other ways, biting does at least gain the attention of those on the receiving end.

During international sporting events, emotions of those participating, and observing, can run riot, and we have seen many examples over the years of when the adrenalin, and the pressure to perform, is running at such an astronomical level that all rational behaviour flies out of the window, resulting in unpredictable outcomes.

However, we have high, perhaps unrealistic expectations, of our sporting heroes as role models for those that idolise them, and increasingly expect them to behave in a way that is out of all proportion; they are after all human, just like the rest of us.

Biting by adults is unusual, although many of us will remember the time when Mike Tyson bit off Evander Holyfield's ear and spat it out, during the world heavyweight title fight in 1997; resulting in Tyson’s disqualification.

In the case of Luis, where this is the third incident in which he has been involved, it is most likely to have been carried out because of an intense sense of frustration. However, that, and the fact that it would appear that Giorgio is not going to press charges, does not excuse the behaviour. It is classed as common assault.

He may have found that in this case he has indeed bitten off more than he can chew. In the meantime, whilst I don't wish to trivialise the incident, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that the act of biting someone soon finds its way into our vocabulary, as ‘doing a Suarez’. 

Sugar, Not Such a Sweet Treat After All

he headlines have been full of warnings on the dangers of eating of sugar; all set to shift drugs and alcohol off their perch as leaders in the addiction stakes.

Apparently the average Briton consumes 238 teaspoons of sugar each week. Hardly surprising given that the drink of choice for most is a can of fizzy drink.

I cannot deny feeling smug that my preferred beverage is wine, preferably dry, and that according to statistics I consume less than 3 spoonfuls of sugar a day when indulging in a glass or two.

What I mind about is that the food police seem to be out in force as sugar has become the latest target in the firing line of their increasing attempts to control our lives. This effort to avoid the obesity crisis hitting the NHS smacks too much of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I suppose it had to come sooner or later, as we’ve long since had the war on wine, red meat, salt, fat, butter; anything enjoyable really. I’m certain there must be a whole army of do-gooders, lurking in the background, ready to pounce, courtesy of tax payers’ money, finding new dangers to highlight in order to keep themselves in cosy jobs, and using their usual big stick approach.

Obesity is certainly an increasing problem, as my own expanding waistline shows, but I suggest that sugar is being unfairly targeted as the culprit of the crime.

As a substance sugar has been around for a long time, but we’ve not always been fat.

First discovered by crusaders in the 11^th century, sugar indeed changed our eating habits, as we began to enjoy, and yearn for, the feel good factor. In the past, before commercial manufacturers got involved, sugar consumption was confined to the odd treat in the form of a freshly baked cake for tea, a scone with homemade jam or a stick of rock at the seaside; many’s the time I recall a visit to the local corner sweet shop, pocket money in hand, to buy a bar of chocolate, a sherbet dip or a few jelly babies. Those days are long since gone, as we have allowed ourselves to be manipulated into thinking that more is better.

With the demise of independent retailers we have little alternative but to buy the super-sized bars and multi-packs on offer, of everything from doughnuts to Dairy Milk; often manufactured with cheap ingredients, with only shareholder profits in mind.

It is, however, our own fault. Over a long period of time, and with increasingly stressful lives, we have allowed ourselves to ruled by life on the run (I’m just as guilty here), and are paying the price for it. We barely have time to think about what we’re eating in our haste to move onto the next activity or, in my case, meeting.

The nanny state approach towards changing our eating habits has failed, largely because the real issue is our reliance on cheap factory produced foods. I try not to eat ready meals, but resort to them on occasion, and am horrified to find that meals such as shepherd’s pie, macaroni cheese or chicken curry, have sugar in them. Sugar has no place in these foods. It is this that needs to change, as at present we are being conned into consuming ‘hidden sugars’.

I am also concerned about the call for increased use of artificial sweeteners as a substitute for sugar. It is when we start messing around with our food that we store up trouble for the future.