My mate Richard, Karan and myself went to see Jools Holland at the Centaur, Cheltenham Racecourse last night.
Jools Holland was brilliant, but unfortunately I was mugged in the bar.
It wasn’t by any of the people in the bar, indeed they too were being mugged.
By the BAR!

We all expect to pay premium prices as a captive audience.  But this was different.
The prices were complete extortion, but it was more complex than that, (more of that in a moment).

It was 6.45pm and the show was to start at 7:30pm; the doors had only been open a short while.  I should have got a warning bell when the chap in front of me was looking forlornly at a half full pint plastic [glass].  The barmaid was looking desperately for somebody to take responsibility for charging £3.20 for the orange squash.
She was clearly embarrassed and was apologising profusely.  In the end, and because nobody else was taking responsibility, she charged him £1.

It was my turn.  When I asked for a pint of lager, I was told that the barrel was off.  I said I’d wait.  I ordered a glass of Lime and Soda for Karan, (she was driving).  I then ordered a pint of cider for Richard.  The Cider was off because it was, “too frothy”.  (What? Frothy Cider!).  The barmaid asked if a Magners would do.  Ok, I know it’s a bit pricey but what the hell, we’re having a treat night out.

“Is the lager back on yet?”  “No sorry”, she said, “Do you want a bottle of Beck?”.
It was about this point that Karan asked the barmaid if she could top the glass up.  “Sorry, it comes in cans”.  I looked at the empty can on the back of the bar and realised that it was one of those tiny 150 ml cans you get on aircraft.

I turned my eyes to the Magners in Richards plastic glass and realised it was less than half full.  He hadn’t had a drink.  I looked at the bottle of Becks being offered and it was a tiny 250 ml bottle, the sort you get on offer at Tesco’s in packs of 36.

Bloody Nora!  I saw the prices.  Yes I had seen them before but had just accepted them as being a bit steep, but hadn’t reckoned on the tiny sizes being offered.
The 250 ml bottle of Magners was £3.80, the normal price you expect to pay for the normal 568 ml bottle in an up market wine bar, (£2.80 in our local).  That’s over £8.00 a pint!!!!!

Comparison of 330ml and 150ml cans

The Soda and Lime was £1.80,  £1.40 for the tiny can of soda and 40p for the dash of lime.  Even in top wine bars it’s usually 20-40p for the Lime and the Soda is free out of the Coke pump.  That works out at about £5.40 a pint for soda water!!!  That’s Tap Water with added gas.

I didn’t bother with the £3.40 bottle of Becks, the lager still wasn’t on and remained off as far as I was concerned.

And this is what I meant about more complex.  Let’s be clear that this is not a small venue, it is a racecourse and probably turns over in one day what most pubs turn over in a year.  So how come the Lager was off right at the start of a major concert.  How come the Cider was off at the start of a major concert.  Might I offer the opinion that at £3.40 a pint, it didn’t present the same level of extortion as the alternatives.

There was an article in the local paper about how punters at the recent races had been victims of pickpockets.  Maybe they just forgot that last round they paid for.  I won’t!

For your information:
Mini Mixer can                      150 ml/5 fl oz
Small Euro Bottle                 250 ml/8.8 fl oz
Standard Can (Coke type) 330 ml/11.6 fl oz
European Bottle                   330 ml/11.6 fl oz
Pint                                            563 ml/20 fl oz

Anybody who knows me will acknowledge that I am not a  football fan.
I will watch the occasional game if England are playing a crucial match.  I always look to see what Cheltenham has scored. But nobody could be less interested.

However, I do sympathise with Ireland for being put out of the World Cup because of a cheat.  Of the cheating there is no question.  The player acknowledges that he cheated.  His Manager acknowledges he cheated. The FIA acknowledges he cheated, and God knows how many people around the world know that he cheated.
Crucially, FIFA, football’s governing body know he cheated and they are the only ones that could do anything about it. But they refuse!
What does that tell you about them?  What does it say about football?  What does it tell children about cheating?

Any other sport, if cheating is revealed AFTER the event ends, it is dealt with.
Formula One, you get fined and penalised.
Athletics, you get your medal stripped and penalised.
Cricket, yes even cricket, where cheating was almost written into the rules until the abolition of the ‘Gentlemen-Players distinction’ in 1963.

But not football.
Pathetic!

A drug, Nexavar – also known as Sorafenib, can prolong the lives of patients with advanced liver cancer by up to six months. but has been rejected for use in the NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  Nexavar is routinely offered to cancer patients elsewhere in the world.

NICE, (The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), or should that be “National Institute for Cost Effectiveness” because they have more to do with cost effectiveness than clinical excellence!  NICE, said that at about £3,000 a month, the cost of Nexavar was, “simply too high”.

Cancer Research UK’s chief clinician Peter Johnson said the decision was “enormously frustrating” because there was no doubt about the drug’s effectiveness.  Acknowledging that it is expensive, (define expensive),  he said: “There’s no alternative treatment and there are no other places for people to go”.  However, he pointed out that whilst the only issue is cost, the number of patients affected are probably only six or seven hundred patients a year.”

The decision was similarly condemned by Alison Rogers, chief executive of the British Liver Trust,  and Mike Hobday, head of campaigns at Macmillan Cancer Support.  Mike Hobday said, “It is a scandal that the only licensed drug proven to significantly prolong the lives of people with this devastating disease has been rejected, leaving them with no treatment options…”

Andrew Dillon, chief executive of NICE  said, “The price being asked by [the manufacturer] Bayer is simply too high to justify using NHS money which could be spent on better value cancer treatments”.
Like what? Prat! There ARE none!

And the group’s clinical and public health director, Peter Littlejohns, added the drug was considered “just too expensive” by its advisory committees.
Wrong! Look at your own remit.  It has a cap on affordability of £30k per patient for a quality year of life, but given that it only extends life by 6 months, then the cost per patient is half the £35k cost, £17.5k.

Dillon is reported as saying that he loves his job and says, “This is the best job I have ever had.”   Bollocks! You like the £130,000 salary you get!  He has been described as ‘… quiet, calm and understated, with all the apparent passion of a paperclip’.
Well Mr Dillon, you need to get a bit of passion, because you have condemed a few hundred people a year to an earlier grave and a poorer quality of life than possible and necessary.  For £130,000 a year!  You are not worth the blood that runs in your veins.

Here’s a thought; It costs 30,000,000 per year to keep NICE open.  There are about 46 employees.  How the hell does it spend the money?

So, how could you spend the money that extending my life is not worth?
You could pay a top footballer, say, Frank Lampard, to kick a ball of wind around for 35 minutes. (£630,000 per month).  No, let’s not go down that route, it’s too easy a target.
Let’s get real!

You could pay for a years supply of Methadone for just two drug addicts.  After all, there’s only 147,500 of them at £14,924,067 a year in the UK.  Source: Department of Health.
Actually, the effectiveness both medically and financially is questionable, but we have NICE to make those sorts of decisions don’t we?

You could lock up a drug dealer for his crimes for 12 months at a mere £31,106 a year.  Source: Scottish Prison Services (couldn’t find the UK figures).

You could remove 176 unwanted tattoos from people who have been a bit silly.   There were 187,086 in 2006 at a cost to the NHS of between £37,000,000 to £300,000,000 in 2006. (The NHS doesn’t know the exact figure but offers these as a guide). Source: House of Lords debates

You could employ Andrew Dillon, CEO of NICE for 3 months.  He gets £126,000 a year.  Source: Cabinet Office via The Guardian.

I have just seen an article in 5 News, (news?), asking if people can tell which one’s which in ‘JEdward.

Easy!

John is the really annoying little shit whilst Edward is simply his identical twin.

Fife Social Services have told Kerry Robertson, 17, and Mark McDougall, 25, that Kerry is not bright enough to raise their child and that they will have to give him up.
Read the full story…

I have read a couple of reports of this story and the nearest description of this ladies level of intelligence is that she has “mild learning difficulties”.  So what, who is it that has set the level of IQ that is required to be a parent?  Seemingly some prick of a social worker at Fife Social Services.  Will this mean that all pregnant mothers will be required to undergo an IQ test before conceiving?  Of course not.  So why Kerry Robinson?

Well it’s not the first time that Fife Social Services have stepped into her life. They stepped in just 48hours before she was to get married to tell he she couldn’t because she wasn’t intelligent enough to undersatnd what marraige was about.
Read More… (Warning, this link leads to extreme language).

Actually, that’s not the first time either, Fife Social Services placed her in care of her Grandmother just after she was born and has been instrumental in her upbringing throughout her life.

Intelligent or not, she appears to be saying the right things if her reported quotes are anything to go by.
Kerry said, “I have been out of my mind with worry about my unborn baby being taken away…”. “Although Ben isn’t born yet, I already love my baby and know I will be a good mum…”.  “Mark and I talk to him inside me every day and tell him we love him…”.  “We’ve already bought him clothes and my cousin, who recently had a baby, has handed down a beautiful crib for him…”.  “…but social workers aren’t even giving me a chance to be a mum. It’s as if social workers are trying to rule my life and I just couldn’t take the pressure from them any more”.

And about the aborted wedding?
She said: “I am still so upset about everything. I know what marriage is. It is when two folks want to spend the rest of their lives together. I love Mark and I want to get married to him”.

And Mark?
“We are constantly lying awake at night worrying what the next day will bring…”.  “Not only am I extremely angry and upset about the way we’ve been treated, I have become worried for Kerry’s and our unborn baby’s health. I defy anyone to put up with what we’ve had to put up with”.

Look, I don’t know the full story, and the reporting may well be biased, but there’s something nasty in the woodshed, and I think it might be some Fife social worker’s bullshit!

It was simply the world weary, dismissive tone of voice of the news presenter that triggered of my thoughts.  I don’t suppose for one moment that it was intentional, but more likely that he, like all of us, is so used to the regularity of reports of dead or injured military that the news has become dispassionate in its delivery and detached in its appreciation by the listener.

To be very clear, I am not making any case for or against the rights or the wrongs of war, nor for or against any particular campaign.  That is a wholly separate and wider subject.  What I am talking about is that the public perception of the deaths and injuries has become so debased as to be almost dismissive.  The casualties have quite literally become numbers; statistics to be used for the argument for or against a particular viewpoint.

Over many many years, we, the general public have been told of the sadness of the loss of soldiers and the bravery of those who have died.  The casualties too have been equally acknowledged, but never the images of the injuries or the photos of the dead are shown.  And quite right too, we don’t want to see that every day do we?  Sadly however, that and the frequency of its happening has meant that  our perception of the injuries and the deaths is driven by other things.  Films and their dramatisation and glorification have put into minds an unreal perception of what combat is really like.  The way soldiers die, the way they survive despite horrendous injury.  Many of our film heroes are up and fighting before you can say “I’ll be back”.  I’m not even saying that there should not be films of that nature, merely saying that it distorts our acumen.

It’s Remembrance Sunday on the 8th of November, and I think that is a good time to really try to imagine the reality of it all.  The excruciating pain, the panic and terror of the injured; the pain, the horror, the heartbreak of relatives, the loss of a father, a brother, a sister or mother, a cousin an aunt or an uncle.  Think also of those who do return, limbs missing, sight or hearing destroyed, minds damaged forever.  Remember that they are human beings and that they feel pain beyond imagination.  Understand why Grandad’s or Father’s eyes fill with tears at the memory of friends that have died and at the sights they have seen.

I was going to publish these images on the blog, but chose not to.  I do not mind being controversial, but I feel I must not cross my own boundries for the sake of drama.  However, I will link to a page that will truely shock you.

WARNING! THE FOLLOWING LINK LEADS TO VERY GRAPHICAL IMAGES OF WAR INJURIES. IF YOU ARE EASILY UPSET, OR IN ANY WAY MAY BE OFFENDED, THEN DO NOT CLICK THE LINK!

The Reality Page

Sacked for telling the truth by a Government that does not want to hear it.

So home secretary wrote: “I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as chair of the ACMD…”

The italics say it all.

Scepticism as an attitude is much preferable than gullibility.  Unfortunately, it is the trend these days to condemn those that push scepticism too far.  By ‘too far’ I am referring to actually seeking the facts and potentially thereby, the truth.

Deforestation in the Amazon (Click to enlarge)

A sceptical attitude towards ‘man-made global warming’ is likely to result in the sceptic being banished from any establishment he voices his doubts to and banished from the company to whom those doubt were proffered.  There is a high likelihood that he will be labelled a ‘denialist’, nasty in that it conjures up the image of a fanatic denying the holocaust.  Grossly unfair that the two should be so linked, not least because the holocaust actually happened.  The destruction of the earth by man-made global warming hasn’t happened yet.

So now, at the risk of being accused of heresy, I think it is about time that we (mankind) need to clarify a few points.  Let’s get this out of the way now; I’m not denying that climate change is happening.  Indeed, there would be something seriously wrong if it wasn’t.  It is changing constantly and has done for millions of years, hotter and colder, different atmospheres made up of changing gases and chemicals, at differing rates of change, some very slowly, some very quickly indeed and for a multitude of reasons.  It is this last bit that concerns me most.  Popular thinking has it that this latest change is a direct result of man.  It is specifically the extent of the change that is attributed that I question (note that I say question, not deny).  Furthermore, it is what it is that contributes to the change that needs full clarification.

Paving Paradise...

Before I go on, let’s understand why that is important.  It is important because if we concentrate all effort in resolving a problem that isn’t as big as we think it is, then the real cause persists and we do no good at all.  In very simplistic terms it is generally assumed that CO2 emission is a major contributing factor but we hear little of the one thing that can reverse this entropy, forestation, it ‘eats’ carbon dioxide.  So what do we do?  We produce ‘bio fuel’ to propel our vehicles.   We remove vast swathes of irreplaceable forests.  These vast storehouses of carbon are quite often burned, releasing huge amounts of stored carbon.  The land is then left to rot in preparation for the planting of bio-fuels.   Unfortunately, this rotting process further releases a noxious cocktail of other harmful gases.  We then produce plants that are then processed (more wasted energy), into fuel which is burned (releasing more carbon), to propel our vehicles.   In theory,  if you chopped down the Amazon, turned it into a car park, and burned the wood in a power plant, that would be treated as a carbon-emissions reduction strategy.  Now, who the hell thought that was a good idea?

But I digress; my issue is that we have the eye on the wrong ball.  What’s more is that there is a body that keeps our eye on the wrong ball, the IPCC, (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).  However, I have a lot of  with the IPPC.

Firstly, the stated aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:
1. Human-induced climate change,
2. The impacts of human-induced climate change,
3. Options for adaptation and mitigation.

It is NOT a primary objective of theirs to establish what the causes of Climate Change are and it is NOT their job to apportion responsibility.   Their job is to report with reference to “human-induced change”.  My first criticism therefore is precisely what I keep banging on about.  If everybody is focusing on human-induced change, then it loses focus on the wider picture and misses what I believe is more important.  That change is inevitable and not possible to avoid.  We should therefore be looking at how to deal with that.

My second criticism is as I have said earlier, that focus is always given to the effects of Carbon emission when other factors have greater impact, Water Vapour for example has a far greater impact and we are not looking at any way of offsetting the effects of that.  Furthermore, the myopic attention to man’s CO2 emissions attract far greater attention than the effects of deforestation, much more dangerous.  Read a bit about these guys who I share my scepticism with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

My third criticism is the membership makeup of the IPCC. If you look at any list, for example,  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis), following the links to individuals soon reveals a pattern that suggests that the IPCC membership is largely made up of those who support the theory that man is responsible for sufficient carbon emission to warrant the mainstream of research into climate warming.  They are NOT objective but merely supporting the theory and not challenging it.  Indeed, for many, to challenge and find fault, it would be contrary to their espoused position and would be embarrassing.  For others, it would prove a financial problem.

It’s not a good basis on which to found the largest body of scientists looking at the problem.  They are all pointing in the same direction and not necessarily the right one.  Not necessarily the wrong one either, but I and many others are not convinced that the science is sufficiently robust and it is too dangerous to ignore the other factors.