St SWITHIN HAS A LOT TO ANSWER FOR !

The traditional story says that if it rains on St Swithin's Day, July 15th, it will rain for the next 40 days.

Having experienced nothing but rain for the last 6 or 7 weeks, today it has been dry. Does that mean it will not rain tomorrow, or the day after ?

If only !:-(

PAUL NURSE : GREAT SCIENTIST OR ANOTHER FOOL ?

Listening recently, and very belatedly, to the 'Dimbleby Lecture' given by Sir Paul Nurse I found myself revisiting a number of issues I've previously pondered.

Sir Paul is an 'Old Boy' of my own school, not that that is anything to brag about. We both attended Harrow County School for Boys, Sir Paul 3 years or so before me, and we both had some of the same teachers. Indeed, Sir Paul made reference in his lecture to the inspiration he gained from his biology teacher, Keith Neal, who also taught me. Our careers seem to have diverged from school days with Sir Paul going on to win a Nobel Prize and become President of the Royal Society, the most prestigious scientific organisation in the world, as well as receiving a knighthood while I remain ........................... . I hold no grudges and have no envy :-)

During his lecture, Sir Paul made reference to the great benefits that science has bestowed on mankind to date and sought to assure us that it could continue to do so into the future if our education systems were adequate. There is no doubt that many countries can meet this latter criterion even if our own cannot. He laid great store on the 'scientific method' by which new discoveries are held to be nothing but theories until properly and rigorously tested. He also laid great emphasis on the advances of medical science in the last century, a field with which his own research is closely associated.

While I have little argument with what Sir Paul said, I do have some issues with some of the things he left unsaid. Specifically, he referred to research into genetically modified crops, gene therapy and stem cell research  without referring to the unfolding disaster story surrounding antibiotics. You may well ask what is the connection between these seemingly disparate issues and I will explain.

We are constantly told that genetic modification carries no dangers, that doctors can, in future, cure assorted diseases through the manipulation of genes and that stem cell research is the basis of eternal life. What no one talks about, at least in public, very loudly or in a way that the general public understands, is that previous ventures into such areas have been less than wholly successful.

When antibiotics were first brought into general use, no one gave any thought to the potential Darwinian consequencs; that is, that the bacteria would become immune to their effects. When steroids became the drugs of choice for various conditions, no one thought they would end up being too dangerous to use routinely. These treatments were advised by scientists, no doubt the best of their day and acting in the very best interests of society, who have been proved to have been wrong in very important ways.

Today we are being asked to accept the word of today's best scientists that GM crops, gene therapy and the rest, are the way forward; we are being told that they carry no danger and are essential to our survival. Are today's scientists so arrogant that they can afford to ignore the lessons of history ?

Everything has its place in the ecosystem in which we live and that includes the nasty little bugs that sometimes kill us; it also includes us, and we trifle with this order at our peril. For every bug we wipe out, another will take its place; for every bug that is destroyed by an antibiotic, another will aries that is immune. This is evolution as described by Darwin and it has yet to be shown as being anything but immutably true.

Paul Nurse talked of the prevention of illness and even seemed to suggest the prevention of old age; in these aims he is horribly misguided. Human kind needs change in order to progress and part of the mechanism of that change is death; to try to extend human life beyond a natural span, by artificial means, is a step too far and will result in some as yet unknown reaction from the natural world. The increasing use of a battery of vaccines and drugs will, ultimately, result in the rise of viruses and bacteria that are new and resistant; we already have seen the rise of HIV and the occurrence of the human version of BSE. Bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to existing antibiotics to such an extent that there are fears we will be unable to combat ANY bacteria in a few years time.

Where Sir Paul actually stands on these issues was difficult to determine. On the one hand, he praised the scientific method, which should exclude the occurence of disasters arising from inadequate research and short-term actions, and on the other he appeared to be promoting the achievement of the very goals that this same 'short-termism' seeks.

Many years ago, John Wyndham wrote a number of books that attempted to deal with some of these isses. In the 'Day of the Triffids' he showed what might happen if specially bred ( = genetically modified) plants became out of control; in 'The Chrysalids' he explored some of the potential horrors of a post nuclear world. Wyndham was writing more than 60 years ago and yet his messages ring loud and clear today - we mess with nature at our own risk.

I AM A CELEBRITY : I AM NEWS.

I often think I am alone in my hatred of the current 'cult of the personality' that is so beloved by the media and, it seems, a large part of the population as well. Thankfully, one or two people have managed to convince me otherwise.

Why is it that the news is so often  filled with stories about the doings of an assortment of non-entities who simply happen to be 'soap stars', pop singers, models and the like ? We are also fed far too much about the personal lives of the monarchy, politicians, assorted sports people and others whose only claim to fame is their celebrity; few of these people ever contribute anything of real value to the nation, let alone the world.

The 'News' is frequently peppered with stories about what will, or may, happen today, or tomorrow, rather than about what has already happened. More often than not, this includes drivel about celebrity weddings, pop concerts, football matches that have yet to take place and similar non-events that are somehow considered to be 'News' already.

In recent weeks the 'News' was filled as much by what might happen at Wimbledon or in England's next football match as in what had actually happened in the real world. Why is this ? Why are people so interested in being told about what hasn't yet happened rather than in hearing about the real news ? Is it really the case that the bulk of the population is so shallow and stupid as to be more interested in what might be about to happen in the fictitious 'Coronation Street' or 'Eastenders' than in what has happened in the real world ? Is the bulk of our population really so moronic ?

I fear the answers to all of these questions are the ones we would rather not be true and I fear for our futures as a result.

WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT, NOT EQUAL.

Watching today's Formula 1 Grand Prix from Canada makes me wonder, yet again, about all the equality nonsense we are fed on an almost daily basis.

All of the teams in Formula 1 are owned and managed by men; all of the pit crews, engineers and technical staff also appear to be men. All of the drivers are men. This is not because women are not allowed but because women either aren't interested in the practicalities of the sport are simply can't deal with the undoubted physicality of it.

The role of women is limited to being wives or, more often, girl friends, of the drivers; these pretty things are shown on the television broadcasts in typical, almost stereotypical, stance, showing all the essential emotions of a woman supporting her man. The only other women who appear, other than the obligatory female contingent in the broadcasting team, are the droves of scantily clad lovelies who carry boards or banners around the pit lane and those who then line the way as the top three from the race march towards the podium. There are no men carrying banners, nor lining the way for the victors; presumably they aren't considered pretty enough.

If anyone wanted any more clear evidence that men and women are NOT equal, it would be impossible not to wonder why. Different but entitled to equivalent opportunities, yes; equal - No Way.

MUSINGS ON THE 'DIAMOND JUBILEE'.

As the Dear Old Queen celebrates her Diamond Jubilee, I find myself wondering what all the fuss is really about and whether it means anything. Yes, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor has been our head of state for 60 years but in all that time what has she actually done that deserves all of the 'hype' and general hysteria that's been blowing around this year ?

Elizabeth was already Queen when I was born and could well still be Queen when I die. She lives in a world of such luxury that it's hard for any ordinary person to comprehend; she, and the rest of her family, receive medical care that is guaranteed to eke every last second out of their lives without ever having to rely on the NHS. None of this was expected when she was born, in 1926, as it was her uncle and not her father who was expected to succeed old George V but, of course, events changed all that. One has to wonder what might have happened had the establishment not determined to force Edward VIII to abdicate; he would, presumably, have been King until his death in 1972 and the surrounding history would undoubtedly have been very different. His heir would, most probably, still have been Elizabeth, although she would not have succeeded until in her mid-40s rather than her mid-20s. This year, we would have been celebrating her 40th year on the throne, her silver jubilee having been destroyed by the mess that the family made of the events surrounding the death of Diana - or perhaps not. No one can know what would really have happened had Edward not given up the crown for the woman he loved.

In the past, our monarchs had great power and held their positions because of this. When they showed too much frailty, they were swept aside, often brutally, as in the cases of Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI, and others considered more powerful took their places. The intrigue and infighting led to major civil wars 3 times in the last 1,000 years - in the 12th, 15th and 17th centuries. After the last, though, things changed. Although Charles II was a fairly traditional monarch, the failure of his brother James led to the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 when William of Orange and his wife Mary, daughter of James, were invited by Parliament to take a joint throne. This was the second and last time in our history when Parliament has directly intervened to select who should be our head of state, the other having been the deposition and execution of Charles I. The years immediately following the accession of William and Mary saw other changes to our constitution which ensured that all future monarchs had to be Protestants and also gradually reduced the power that they were able to wield.

In 1714, the crown passed to a German-born descendant of James I, George, the Elector of Hanover, simply because he was the senior Protestant in the line of succession. George had no interest in England and, apparently, couldn't speak English; it also seems he was a rather unpleasant man. The subsequent generations saw fathers and sons constantly at war with each other, culminating in the utterly failed relationship between George III and his son, the Prince Regent who ultimately succeeded his father as George IV in 1820. By this time, the Royal Family had become so dissolute and wayward that there was no obvious successor to be found and brothers of the Regent were required to give up their various mistresses, some of whom had several, or even many, children, in order to marry sutable princesses who might be able to produce an heir.

In the event, a new princess was born in 1819 being the only child of the Regent's 3rd oldest brother, the Duke of Kent, and this child was later to become Queen Victoria. Victoria's reign had its own 'ups and downs' and was nothing like the period of perfect splendour so often portrayed in the media.Victoria was, of course, our only other monarch who lived long enough to celebrate a Diamond Jubilee but she also had a horribly disaffected son, the future Edward VII, waiting in the wings. Edward had a colourful life with assorted mistresses and dubious friends and yet, during a short time on the throne, became much loved by the populace. By this time, the power of the monarch had been reduced to little more than a cypher and yet Edward seems to have been able to influence his Prime Ministers to good effect. 

Edward's successor was another who was not expected to come to the throne. George V was only the second son of his father's marriage but became the heir when his elder brother, the Duke of Clarence, died in 1892. Clarence was another of the Royal Family's 'better forgotten' characters, with rumours of homosexuality and other misadventures surrounding him; it was even suggested at one time that he may have been 'Jack the Ripper', though this seems to have been more mischieve-making than anything else. George V, born to it or not, was a man who made the best of what life gave him and also became a respected and even beloved figure; the one blot on his personal record was the shocking refusal to allow the Tsar and his family to come to England in 1918, a decision that led to their murders. George celebrated a Silver Jubilee in 1935, but died in the following year, whereupon the 'Abdication Crisis' got under way. The upshot was that another second son became King in December 1936, as George VI, and it is, of course, his daughter who now sits on the throne.

While it is said that it was George VI who chose Winston Churchill to be Prime Minister in 1940, the monarch's power was really very limited by this time. Since WW2, that power has diminished to virtually nothing and the Queen can do nothing of any real note, without the agreement of her government. Any attempt to act in the absence of such agreement would almost certainly lead to a constitutional crisis and threaten the continued existence of the monarchy. Nonetheless, the Queen has been head of state for 60 years; she has done almost nothing, magnificently. She has toured the world, meeting other heads of state and has represented the United Kingdom wonderfully well; she is a revered and loved figure in many countries, both within and outside of the Commonwealth which she also heads. She has worked tirelessly and, as far as we can know, without complaint and has put up with a dozen Prime Ministers, at least some of whom must have tried her patience sorely. She has hosted dinners, made speeches, opened buildings, bridges and bazaars, launched ships and done a thousand other things without ever contemplating retirement. Throughout her 60 years, she has been accompanied by her husband, the nonagenarian Prince Philip, whose own ecentricities have endeared him to many, while causing others to despair. To see these 2 elderly people continuing to perform numerous public duties at such advance ages is a clear signal to those who seem to believe that retirement at 60 or 65 followed by a life of sybaritic idleness is the way to go.

There have, of course, been moments during the Queen's reign when things were not perfect. The difficulties over Princess Margaret's liaison with Peter Townsend was probably the first major problem, but the later choices and behaviour of the Queen's own children has been far from ideal. Three failed marriages ending in divorce, Prince Charles relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles and the death of Diana, the embarrassing behaviour of the Duchess of York and so on. Of all of these, it has to be the disastrous decision to marry Charles to Diana Spencer in 1981 that eventually caused the greatest distress. It seems certain that Charles would much rather have married Camilla, but she was considered to be an 'unsuitable' wife for a future King, precisely why we can only guess at. The subsequent events, culminating in Diana's death in a Paris tunnel in 1997, resulted in a confused response from the Royal Family that totally failed to come up to public expectations. Had there not been a hurried rethink on their part, the monarchy might well now be on its way out but, to their credit, they did go some way to restoring their credibility and have worked hard over the succeeding years to continue to repair the damage. The one person who has seemed oblivious to the likes and dislikes of the people has been Prince Charles, whose general attitude remains one of supreme aloofness and self-absorption.

Where does all of this leave us at this time of national celebration ? Firstly, irrespective of the loss of power of the throne or the dubious path that has led Elizabeth II to be sitting  upon it, she has served this nation, unstintingly, for 60 years, and continues to do so; she has constantly placed the duties of her office above those of her own self-interest. She has not been a monarch in the mould of her namesake, Elizabeth I, and has not overseen a period of expansion and effective world domination as did Victoria. She has, however, presided mostly effectively at a time of international instability; she has seen the British Empire replaced by the Commonwealth, an organisation of which she is titular head and which is a major force for good in the world. The experience of her advisors goes back to Churchill, a man born in 1874 and who fought in Egypt in the 1890s and the Boer War before becoming an MP while Victoria was still Queen. Her own experience ranges from the depression of the 1930s, through WW2 and the 'Cold War', into the space age. Put together, her expereinces must be greater than those of any other current world leader, making her a most valuable asset to this nation.

The Diamond Jubilee celebrations are well merited for this woman who has done everything asked of her over 6 decades. She is a much loved and much respected figure both at home and abroad and one can only hope that she doesn't see these current events as simply another round of public engagements in which she has to join and that she does see them as a genuine expression of the feelings of the country towards her. Whether the country's feelings towards the monarchy will be the same after she has gone is, sadly, another matter.

BRING ON THE REVOLUTION !

Yet again, today's news carries a story that makes me despair of the activities of Government. Today's piece of nonsense involves the labelling of food, which hardly seems to be something for Government to be concerned about.

Apparently, our food is currently labeled in a variety of different ways, specifically in relation to the content - the amounts of salt, fat, sugar, calories and so on, are described or set out in different ways, and Government thinks this should all be standardized. They are, therefore, about to embark on a 12 week long consultation involving food manufacturers, supermarkets and, God help us, 'health experts'. Presumably, once the consultation has been completed, the results will be collated and analysed, legislation will be drafted and a Bill will be pushed through Parliament so that all packaging will carry the same basic style of presentation by some as yet indeterminate date in the future. At a time when the country and, indeed, most of the western world, is facing its greatest crisis since WW2, is there really any sense in this ? Is it actually achievable and will it really have the desired effect ?

Changing the packaging of foodstuffs will cost businesses money and the costs will be passed on to already hard-pressed consumers. Will the the packaging of foodstuffs coming into the country from abroad be subject to the same rules and, if so, how will the rules be enforced on overseas manufacturers ? How many people ever read these nutritional notes on the packaging of their food and how many really care what the details are ? To extend the likely scope of the eventual legislation, will the same information be provided for restaurant and 'take-away' meals and, if so, how ?

Government seems hell-bent on saving us from ourselves and on compelling us to do whatever they feel is 'right' and in our 'best interests'. In doing this, they regularly find themselves having to change their 'guidance' as the professional advice changes or the mania of the 'Health NAZI's' rounds on a particular subject, such as smoking or alcohol. The inevitable result of all this Government interference in our eating habits will be the imposition of punitive taxes on foods that are deemed unhealthy, followed by a requirement for bland packaging, and then hiding the 'undesirable' products in the same manner in which cigarettes are now to be treated. Eventually, certain foods will be banned, in our best interests. Alcohol products will, of course, be the first to suffer this treatment, but foods with too much salt, fat or sugar will soon follow.

This may all seem fanciful rubbish but anyone who's ever read '1984' will already know how close we are getting to a world in which our every movement is monitored and controlled by centralised Government authorities. Successive governments have already totally destroyed our economy and education system, and we are well on the way to seeing our health and transport systems turned in to objects of international ridicule. And still they pretend they know what they're doing and try to impose ever more control over the actions of the people.

There will be revolution, the only question is when.

WHO WILL RID US OF THIS OLYMPIC NIGHTMARE ?

Once upon a time, the 'Olympics' were an occasion for amateur sportsmen to gather and compete for simple athletic glory. No more.

The fast approaching 'London Olympics', or 'London 2012' as the media likes to call it, is set to be a vast extravaganza, costing a fortune to stage and at which an array of professional athletes will dominate. These athletes will all be competing under the banner of their country, in many cases not the country of their birth but an adopted country because either a) their original country has too many better athletes or b) their adopted country offered them money to switch allegiance. That this runs counter to the Olympic ideal should be clear to all but, sadly, it is not.

Another lunacy is the existence of an ever-burgeoning 'Paralympics'. This travesty is designed for all those who are simply unable to compete at THE 'Olympics' due to some disability, which would be fine if they all just competed against each other, but they don't. Instead, competitors are divided into lord knows how many categories depending on the precise nature and severity of their disability and, when the 3 athletes in category XX2U7, or whatever, have finished their downhill rhythmic juggling, all 3 get medals - Hooray ! What utter nonsense, and yet another total denial of the Olympian spirit.

Putting aside all this and being forced to accept the modern Olympics as the travesty that they are, it now seems that staging them is as much a military event as a sporting one. In recent weeks we have learnt that there will be warships in the Thames and surface-to-air missiles on nearby rooftops; today it's become known that something called a 'Long Range Acoustic Device', an American crowd control weapon, will be made available in the event that crowds get out of hand. With such a name, this really only could be an American instrument - call it anything but what it actually is, '1984' style. This 'device' will apparently be deployed by the MoD, adding to the already frightening vision of a nation under military control for the period of what are still, laughably, called 'THE GAMES'.

We've previously heard that there will be thousands of armed police on our streets and what Government people love to call 'enhanced security measures' during July and August, just in case any nasty terrorists should try to blow anything up, shoot anyone, or do anything equally horrible. Am I alone in wondering what kind of world we are living in ? All of this is being put into place at what is meant to be a time of peace, National joy and International celebration, and yet our rulers are so terrified that they feel it necessary to deploy the most extreme security measures.

What is going on and why ? More importantly, where will it all end ? No doubt, with a Gold Medal for the winner of the 800 metres, small bore, terrorist shooting event.