NaBloPoMo Day 28 - Group Therapy

It's all gone on in the X Factor house this week. At least for Tulisa's groups it has; it seems rather than going from strength to strength they are going from trauma to trauma.

Earlier this week, Stephen Fry tweeted a link to an open to Simon Cowell and his multi-million pound show from the organisers of a charity. The charity in question was called Rhythmix and works with young people in the South East of England. Their aim is to develop the kids' personal and social skills while encouraging creativity. They have reportedly worked with 40,000 young people in the twelve years since they were formed. When the X Factor four-piece girl group formed, they chose their name without knowing about the charity. When the Syco - Simon Cowell's production company - tried to trademark the name, the charity took action so they could continue to use their existing name. When the girls found out about it, they decided to change their name and this evening announced that, from this weekend, they will be known under the new name 'Little Mix'.

However, that's not the end of the changes. This evening, on twitter, The X Factor announced that four-piece boyband, The Risk, have lost one of their members. Ashley Baptiste, aged 22, said on twitter "I love The Risk to the core. I just know that I am not at the right place to commit fully." Rumour has it that Ashley still wants a solo career and was concerned about committing to the band, only to leave. Ashley has also struggled with illness during the live shows and last week appeared despite suffering from Laryngitis and Glandular Fever in the run up to the show. Rather than continue as a trio, the boys have petitioned X Factor hopeful, Ashford Campbell, who sang in the first and second live shows with rival group, Nu Vibe, to take Ashley's place.

It seems the Girls category is not short of their own problems this week as category mentor, Kelly Rowland has fallen ill during a trip to Los Angeles earlier in the week. A statement read "Kelly is devastated she won't be here for this weekend's show. She is extremely ill with a viral throat infection and her doctors aren't permitting her to fly." However, rumours abound that Kelly is considering quitting the show following accusations from Tulisa in last week's live show that one of Kelly's star acts, Misha B, had been bullying some of the other contestants.

Regardless of whether there is any truth to the rumours, the question is, how will this week's X Factor roller-coaster affect Little Mix, The Risk and three girls, Misha B, Janet Devlin and Sophie Habibis? Such upsets, if playing on the contestants' minds, could affect their performances, and The Risk in particular, face the challenge of bringing a new member up to speed in very short shrift. No wonder Gary is feeling confident for this week. And of course, the earlier controversy over fourth judge, Louis Walsh, is now forgotten. How convenient.

NaBloPoMo Day 6 - Sent From My iPhone

There were a number of different topics that I considered writing about today, but all that fell by the way when I saw the news.

Steve Jobs died today.

Sometimes a technology comes along that really does change lives. Medical advances like MRI machines and pacemakers literally save lives, while other advances change the way we think or the way we use something. Apple and the technologies the company has developed in recent years have done just that.

In the same way that Sky+ changed the way I use TV, the iPhone changed the way I use my phone. I remember the days when I used to schedule study time around what I wanted to watch on TV and these days I very rarely watch anything at the point of broadcast, and I remember the days when my mobile phone was for making and receiving calls. These days all my TV viewing gets recorded to the Sky+ and I'm more likely to use my phone to check Twitter or my email than to make a call. My iPhone keeps me informed and keeps me connected to friends and family across the UK and all around the world. My iPhone is my camera, my music player and the whole internet in my pocket. It's communication, it's entertainment and it's knowledge in the palm of your hand and the technology that has come after it (namely the iPad) is just as impressive - this blog post is written on an iPad.

These are amazing tools that set make accessing the Internet and media easier and they are tools that set us free from the office. And they as beautiful as they are versatile.

Some people will play down Apple's contribution and Steve Jobs' role in it but make no mistake, while these great products are the result of great software and great design that is developed by many many skilled and talented people, but Jobs brought that talent together and inspired the company that facilitated that development. You may not be a fan of Apple and you may not use any Apple products but look around, look at the technology you do use: would your MP3 player exist without the iPod, would your Android phone exist without the iPhone, would tablets have had the resurgence they have experienced without the iPad? For the past decade, Apple has been leading the way and every one else has been playing catch up.

So I feel perfectly justified in saying the Steve Jobs was a genius and a visionary and that his death is a loss to the world of technology. This is a sad day for those of us that appreciate Apple products and so, in tribute, I say this:

Sent from my iPhone.

Media Responsibility

This morning I read on twitter that a local journalist, for whom I have the greatest respect, has written an article concerning local authority budget cuts. In particular, this article encourages "the people of Greater Manchester to stand up against unfair spending cuts" by adding to a petition to central government - by purchasing the paper and filling out a coupon on the front.

The Manchester Evening News article claims that spending cuts are unfair because some local authorities will suffer higher percentage cuts to central government funding than others (reported to be 21% for Manchester City Council, 19.6% for Salford City Council vs a UK average of 15.2%). Whether you agree with cuts, or the general thrust of the article is very much up to you. My personal view is that this is a half-truth being pushed by Labour-led councils to make the public take a more lenient view their of their irrational spending decisions (£170m on a town hall extension, Manchester, or £700,000 on moving two cranes, Salford). The facts, as I understand them, are that the government has cut many of the grants upon which some councils are very much more reliant than others, while some of the direct funding (for example, to schools) has increased. This fact, it seems, will be somewhat off-set by additional government funding to the tune of £85m that will be used to help the poorest areas. However, whether or not any of this funding will end up in Greater Manchester, or the wider North West, is unclear. Therefore, I approach the government line and claims published in the paper with hesitation in equal measure.

My greatest concern is that I do not believe that a newspaper is the place for a party-political campaign and, for the second time in two weeks, I am bitterly disappointed by the standard of reporting.

Freedom of speech (and by cursor, freedom of the press) is not a license to say or print whatever an individual or group sees fit. Copyright and libel are the two most obvious manifestations of this fact, but there is, I feel, an unwritten responsibility or standard to which the media should hold themselves. The media has an incredibly powerful influence, particularly in modern society, and as Spiderman's uncle Ben says: 'With great power comes great responsibility.'

The job of the media is not to campaign. The job of the media is to inform. It is right that outlets like the Manchester Evening News should question and probe and criticise authority - both local and national - but they must do so in a fair and balanced way. When they fail to do so they sell-out and are willingly surrendering their right to press freedom. And for what? A cynical attempt to sell more papers! It honestly disgusts me how unbalanced modern media has become and how low the standard of reporting has fallen across the media spectrum. I hasten to add that I have often felt that local reporting and the BBC is the last bastion of honest reporting, which is perhaps, why I feel so strongly about this now as it seems to me that even my local press cannot resist the tidal wave of social irresponsibility that is plaguing us at the moment.

I can't change the minds of those responsible for the likes of the Daily Mail or Fox/Sky News who have long since whored their industrial freedoms in the name of turning of a profit, but I hope that this at least might influence those on the frontline and encourage them to hold themselves to a higher standard.

Rural Unemployment

I worked from home today so I had the pleasure of the BBC News channel this morning while I was logging on. There were several interesting reports - student fees and benefits were the hot news of the morning - but the one that really caught my attention was a report that said unemployment in rural areas was lower by percentage than in urban areas. The BBC went on to report about two young people from rural communities, one apprenticing as a butcher and a young woman learning a trade as a stone mason. It was a very interesting report but sadly, very poorly reported and sorely under-researched.

I spent my adolescence in a rural Scottish community so I know too well the choices and issues that people living in rural communities face. I therefore wasn't surprised by the statistic and can immediately think of some reasons for it that the BBC didn't even mention.

Firstly, populations in rural communities tend to be quite static, occasionally increasing or declining, but not usually by too much. Planning constraints and green belt often limit the number of homes that can be built which limits the potential for growth. This in turn has the additional effect of inflating house prices as demand (by wealthy investors looking for holiday homes or second homes) outstrips supply.

Employment and education also tend to control the population. Back when I was approaching the end of my school days, if you were good at exams, you were encouraged to go to university (if you weren't the careers advisors made other suggestions, including the armed forces, college in Inverness 40 miles away, apprenticeships or work.) and going to university meant moving out and moving away. Dundee is the nearest city to Strathspey, where I grew up, and is around 90 miles distant; Aberdeen and Edinburgh are just over 100 miles away and Glasgow is about 125 miles away. As a school leaver in the Highlands with decent exam results, moving away was a virtual certainty. However, because of the type of employment available in the area, staying away was an almost equal certainty.

While there are plenty of employment opportunities in rural communities, they can also be quite limited and often unstable and this keeps young people away. In Strathspey, many of the employment opportunities are based on the tourist industry, which is highly seasonal and horribly unstable. There are plenty of positions in hotels and bars, in retail and in sports and leisure but this type of work is notorious for being there one minute and gone the next. Tourism is dependent upon so many factors: Lots of cheap overseas deals is death to the British tourism industry; something like a Foot and Mouth outbreak keeps visitors away in their droves; even the wrong sort of weather (a warm winter or a wet summer) might result in a massive drop in visitor numbers and global terrorism keeps foreign visitors away too. It's also ironic that the recession is doing wonders for our tourist industry: When the nation is prosperous, British tourism suffers as people are able to spend more money on overseas holidays to exotic destinations. Rural communities do present other opportunities; in farming, land management, environment, education, social care and local government, but such positions are far less abundant

In addition, when you live in the middle of nowhere, the cost of living is also higher. In a city, if you can't get work, you get rid of your car and you shop in Aldi instead of Sainsbury's. When you live in a rural community, you need a car because there is limited or no bus service. (Where I lived, the Doctor was in the next town, 3 miles away, as was my school and the chemist.) In a rural community it also costs more to run your car. In a city you have a choice of any number of petrol stations to fuel up (I have 6 choices within a 5 minute drive of my house or place of work) but in a rural community, there might only be one within a 30 minutes drive. A captive audience means a higher price. And forget going to Aldi for your shopping; if you're lucky you might have a supermarket in your town, but you might equally be reliant on a supermarket quite some distance away, or on smaller shops with higher prices.

Don't get me wrong, rural life is wonderful. Living in a rural community is an enriching experience and if I felt it was a viable option, I would have moved back years ago. The air is cleaner, locally produced food is better, the pace of life is more relaxed and the view is magnificent, but make no mistake, rural life is also bloody hard. For more than a decade I watched my parents working hard to make their business - a gift shop and cafe - work through years of tough conditions. It was graft. Every single day. And decisions had to be made with the business and their survival in mind. (I got married in September because that was the best month dictated by the requirements of the business.) It doesn't surprise me that unemployment is higher in the urban areas than in rural communities because, in a rural community, if you lose your job or it disappears because of a bad season, the choice is to get something else, quickly, or leave for a place with more opportunities. When you also consider that young people, who tend to move away from rural communities to take up study after school, are the worst affected by unemployment, and the statistics mentioned by the BBC begin to make more and more sense.

What Else Are They Hiding?

Back in 2007 it became all too apparent that for years, banks around the globe had been trading irresponsibly. In the space of a year, something in the region of thirty global banking organisations went from operating normally to teetering on the brink of oblivion. The consequences of this fall from grace are well documented and continue to be felt by ordinary people all around the world as unemployment, higher taxation and low interest rates begin to erode the money in our pockets.

The warning signs of the crisis were there to be seen, if you chose to look hard enough, but you didn't have to be Vince Cable to see them. There were plenty of symptoms of the ongoing corruption that anyone could spot.

As early as 2006, thousands of people were successfully reclaiming bank charges by arguing that they were unlawful penalties. These were the charges levied by banks for each bounced direct debit, bounced cheque or for each transaction that exceeded an overdraft limit. Charges were, at that time, typically around £30 or £35 each, and it was not unusual for a bank to make multiple charges for a single infringement, for a bank to charge against transactions that they were able to block, or to refuse a transaction for less than £30 only to then levy a charge of £35. They were sneaky and underhanded practices that punished those most in need of help, like people on low incomes and individuals suffering temporary financial problems beyond their control. Banks justified their practices using a number of excuses, and defended them in court by claiming that the charges recovered additional administration costs. At one stage extra admin costs for these functions were estimated to be somewhere between zero and £6 per transaction. Most banks continue to charge over £10 per fee, and many continue to charge almost double that.

In addition, there are thousands of PPI (Payment Protection Insurance) policies may have been mis-sold. Payment Protection Insurance covers the policy holder in the event of redundancy or illness. However, many of the policies have been taken out without the borrower's knowledge or consent, have been sold when not needed, or been sold where the policy didn't apply so that the borrower could not actually make a claim.

There have also been multiple complaints about other products being 'sold' without the borrower or account holder's knowledge. Most banks now have privilege accounts that include extras, such as holiday insurance, mobile phone insurance, breakdown cover and more. For these so-called services, the banks charge anywhere from £10 to £20 per month, adding up to somewhere between £120 and £240 per year. If you don't take a holiday abroad, don't have a mobile phone (or have home contents insurance that already covers your mobile phone), don't drive a car or pay separately for breakdown cover, this is money. It is better in your account than in your bank's pocket. Even if you do take advantage of one or two of these add-ons, you are still probably paying well over the odds for the product.

Today I read that the British Bankers Association is seeking a judicial review of new rules that are due to come into force on the 1st of December designed to prevent these kinds of practices and to ensure those that have been mis-sold PPI receive refunds. The BBA's reasoning for seeking a judicial review is that they believe the new rules are illegal. It seems the actual reason for the review is that the banks are concerned that they could be forced to refund billions in mis-sold PPI policies, but worse, that this could then set a precedent that would open the doors to refunds for other mis-sold products. It makes me wonder what else the banks have swept under the rug that might be a liability for them.

The fact is that practices that have been employed by most, if not all of Britain's banks, have left them horribly exposed to liability and litigation. These practices may not have been systemic, but the were certainly endemic. They were callous, ruthless, devious practices that were possibly encouraged and, when complaints started to roll in, were certainly ignored. The banks made a mint off unsuspecting customers and in many cases refused to issue refunds when they were caught out. This is a mess that is of the banks' own making. It's time they accepted the legacy that they have made for themselves. An apology for their collective arrogance wouldn't go a-miss either.

Caster Semenya - All Woman?

When an 18 year old girl runs to a stunning victory in an athletics competition, one would expect testing for performance enhancing drugs, but it isn't often that you see the individuals sex being called into question.

Last week, Caster Semenya, a South African runner aged just 18 years old, won gold in the women's 800m in Berlin with a time of 1:55.45. Even before she ran in the final, questions were already being raised about her gender due to her broad, muscular physique.

In general, I agree with IAAF spokesman, Nick Davies, who said "There is a need to make sure the rules are followed". However, this gender test seems grossly unfair to me. It is true that she whooped the rest of the finalists in the event, beating the reigning champion, Janeth Jepkosqei Busienei, by nearly two and a half seconds, but the South African is still two seconds off the world record, which has remained unbeaten since 1983. It's not been made clear where the accusation, or suspicion has come from, but it is based entirely on Semenya's appearance. As far as I can see she is a typical female athlete: toned, muscular with very little bust. The only difference between Semenya and her rivals is the fact that she has slightly broader shoulders and short hair.

It's sad that even now, when women have much greatly equality than we have had previously, that women still have to conform to a set of physical expectations and rules. I wonder, if Caster had grown her hair long prior to this competition, would the same accusation have been made? Perhaps next time she runs, she should wear a skirt and high heels just to be on the safe side?

28 Mathematicians Later

I've seen Shaun of the Dead. I've enjoyed Shaun of the Dead. I especially liked the moment when Sky News anchor Jeremy Thompson is seen giving advice on how to deal with the Zombie plague. Little did I realise that surreal experience would come true... sort of.

This afternoon, Sky News reported that a group of Canadian egg-heads has created a mathematical model for surviving a Zombie attack. Yes, you read that right, someone has actually seriously considered the possibility of there being an outbreak of 'Zombieism'! The study was published in a book titled "Infectious Disease Modelling Research Progress" and concludes that eradication is the only strategy that will ensure the survival of civilisation.

It seems that Sky News got this from Wired, where the story can be viewed in full, here. Whatever the source, it seems that even mathematicians let their imaginations get the better of them sometimes. Personally, I'm going to blame a combination of beer and '28 Days Later' while chuckling at the background footage for the report. I assume it was a group of hapless Sky News employees that were roped in to take a star turn in front of the camera.

BNP Legal Injunction

It has been announced this afternoon that the BNP faces a legal injunction over its membership and employment policies. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has received numerous complaints from the public and believes that the party's policy of excluding non-white people from membership (and employment) is in breach of the Race Relations Act. The Commission has written to party leader, and recently elected M.E.P., Nick Griffin, issuing an ultimatum that demands changes to these policies by 20th July or else the BNP will face a legal injunction that will force them to adopt inclusive policies.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is charged by law with protecting the British public from discrimination as well as enforcing equality and human rights law in the UK. The Race Relations Act legislates against discrimination on racial grounds, which it defines as 'colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins'.

The BNP repeatedly claim that they are not a racist organisation and that they seek to champion Britain and the British people. However, their membership rules are clearly racially discriminatory and, because Britain is a multi-cultural society that incorporates people of differing ethnic ancestry, by excluding non-whites from membership, the BNP actively excludes British people from membership: people that have not only been born British, but whose parents, grandparents and sometimes even great-grandparents have also been born British.

Order! Order!

So, yesterday, Parliament chose a new Speaker of the House. John Bercow was elected yesterday by democratic process and already some of his peers are throwing their toys out of the pram and whispering about a challenge. Don't they get it? The public aren't interested in their bitching and whining! This guy was elected by them just as they were elected by the public. They have to respect the democratic process or risk looking like stirrers, at best, or at worst, like spoiled children!

The fact is that Mr Bercow was elected because he appeals to members from across the political spectrum. Such a person is exactly the right choice for the Speaker of the House, who must be able to set aside political allegiance. Congratulations to Mr Bercow. I wish him a successful tenure as the Speaker.

Photo credit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Big Mac, Large Fries and a dip in the harbour for Ronald

Shore leave hijinks in Chile resulted in a hefty fine for two Royal Navy sailors when they took the concept of a takeaway 'Big Mac' a little too literally. The pair absconded from a local McDonald's restaurant in the Chilean port of Valparaiso with a life size Ronald McDonald statue. The 'McThieves' were ordered to pay £350 damages by the Valparaiso court while poor Ronald ended up face down in the harbour. The two men have formerly apologised to McDonald's while a BBC source in Chile (is that a Chile Source?) emphasised the good humour of the locals, saying that "Most Chileans have laughed at the pair's antics."

Seeing Stars

Belgian teenager, Kimberley Vlaeminck, is in the news today after having a tattoo featuring 56 stars... on her face! The eighteen year old claims that she requested just three stars and fell asleep during the process, only to wake up when the tattooist had moved onto one of the stars on her nose. According to The Sun Online, the tattoo artist, Rouslan Toumaniantz, has defended his work, stating that Kimberley was awake throughout and checked his progress several times. It seems that there was only an issue when Kimberley's Dad found out. Kimberley claims that she is now so ashamed of her appearance that she can't bring herself to look in the mirror and is suing that tattooist for compensation to cover the cost of laser treatment to remove the stars.

When I heard about this story on Sky News this morning a few thoughts occurred. Firstly, while I understand her desire to get a tattoo, I'm not sure why she would have one on her face. I assume that at the age of eighteen it's down to youthful exuberance and a lack of foresight of how this might impact on her future potential. Like it or not, people make judgements based on appearance. Having a tattoo on your face is a very strong and essentially permanent statement that many people will judge negatively. Indeed, many employers ask that tattoos be hidden from sight: an impossibility for Kimberley. Basically, this was a daft thing to do, whether it was three stars or 56!

I'm also not convinced about the truth of her story, although I'm very open to being proven wrong. If Kimberley is telling the truth, I wonder what motive the tattooist had for doing it. He must've known that his reputation, and consequently his business, would be at risk, so why would he continue without her consent. For the sake of art? I understand that there are many tattooists that consider themselves artists using the human body as their canvas. However, I find it unlikely in this case as the tattoo is relatively plain. Also, Kimberley's reaction doesn't quite add up: if you were the victim of such an action, how would you react? I doubt you would happily leave the shop and go home quietly! My reaction would have been to call my parents there and then... maybe even get the police involved. A far more likely scenario is that Kimberley entered into this lunacy voluntarily and then told a porky pie to deflect her Dad's anger. If that's true, I hope she comes forward before Mr Toumaniantz's business is irreparably damaged: costing someone their livelihood so that you can avoid punishment is mean and immoral.

However, as I said, I am open to the possibility that Kimberley is being truthful and I hope that I'm able to keep track of the case as it develops. The most interesting aspect of this story will be how it comes to be resolved. I wonder what a court will make of it? In the meantime I'm sure there will be some further debate on tattoos in general as increasing numbers of people - including women - have a procedure that some people believe is a disfigurement. Personally I think Kimberley's tattoo looks really cool - but I would never in a million years have had it done myself and believe that if she did want something so extreme she should have thought long and hard about it!

Photo credit: thesun.co.uk

"My Vote Doesn't Count": Bollocks!

Today is polling day in local elections all around the UK and in European Parliamentary elections across Europe. If you choose not to go to the polls your vote definitely doesn't count. If you want to make yourself heard in a crowded room all you have to do is open your mouth and speak: so get up and speak already! Mark your ballot any way you choose (because even a spoiled ballot is louder than silence) but for goodness sake, vote!

What Hazel Did Next

Hazel: picking up the pieces of her political career. (photo credit: dailymail.co.uk)

Hazel Blears has resigned from the cabinet. Unfortunately, the residents of Salford are still stuck with her. She claims that she is 'returning to her roots' out of a desire to renew her personal committment to the people of Salford. Rubbish! She's jumped before she was pushed in the impending cabinet reshuffle. The timing of her announcement and that fact that it has come from her and not Number 10 suggests that she is playing a rather skilful political game. Allow me to elaborate.

Hazel must've realised well before now that her position on the cabinet was under threat and she must, by now, also realise that her popularity in Salford is ebbing away. In the last election in 2005, Hazel won with over 50% of the vote. However, the Lib Dems' candidate, Norman Owen, has been making up ground on her with every passing election. Now that Labour is polling lower than the Lib Dems nationally, she must anticipate that the Lib Dems will be nipping at her heels - especially in the event of a snap election! With all this in mind, I believe she has taken the decision to resign in order to distance herself from an obviously failing government with the hope that it will stall her similarly failing popularity here in Salford. She has nothing to lose and everything to gain. If Gordon Brown is deposed (as the media seems is certain will happen very soon after the European Elections) taking an anti-Brown stance now will increase her chances of being re-selected in a new Labour cabinet. Particularly if she can does manage to boost her popularity. If she is not re-selected for the cabinet, it still isn't a disaster for her: You can bet she will come out fighting to keep her parliamentary seat. She's a smooth talker and an experienced politician - she knows the words that will sooth and charm you and she'll tell you whatever you want to hear to try and sway your support to her.

Don't be fooled: this resignation is more about her political career than the people of Salford!

The fact is that Labour (and the Conservatives) and so completely out of touch with the public that they wouldn't know honesty if it crept up and gave them a big sloppy kiss! Nationally, Labour got it wrong on expenses, they got it wrong on Gurkhas, they got it wrong on fuel duty and locally they got it 110% wrong on the congestion charge, ice rink, propaganda wagon etc etc etc. The Conservatives are no better choice - they only know how to oppose and have no new ideas of their own (no good ones anyway). A vote for Labour or a vote for the Tories is a vote for the status quo. Vote Lib Dem if you want change for the better!

Sam Puttick

How much tragedy can one family bear? Clearly, only so much.

After just eighteen months of a normal healthy life, Sam Puttick was seriously injured in a near fatal car accident. He spent nine months in hospital before he was able to return home but would, sadly, be paralysed from the neck down for the rest of his life, requiring 24 hour care. His parents, Neil and Kazumi, spent every moment from then on doing everything they could to give Sam the very best life they could. On Friday 29th May 2009, Sam Puttick, aged just five years old, died from Meningitis at his home in Wiltshire. Shortly thereafter, striken with grief and unable to face a world without their little boy, Sam's Mum and Dad made the 140 mile trip to Beachy Head where they threw themselves off a 400ft cliff with the body of their beloved son in a backpack.

When I was nineteen my brother, David, died very suddenly. He was born with Spinabifida and Hydrocephalus. He was paralysed from the waist down and suffered brain damage as a result of the excess fluid on his brain. My Mum and Dad did their very best to give him a superior quality of life, nurturing his incredible gifts and overcoming his disability one day at a time. He was a wonderful person: musically talented, happy, funny, loving (and perhaps just a little too overprotective of his 'baby' sister!) My childhood is defined by hundreds of wonderful memories of the best family life anyone could hope for. My life since he passed away has been redefined by those same memories and by the gaping hole that his absence leaves in its wake.

For our family, life went on: Mum and Dad have literally travelled around the world (they are touring India at the moment) and we have continued to share many happy memories. But when one person is at the heart of your entire life and the centre of your whole world, it can be unbearable to think of anything beyond the immense weight of your sorrow. In just five short years Neil and Kazumi Puttick enjoyed the joy of raising a child. They almost lost their son to an accident, were given a second chance which they grabbed with both hands, only to then lose him again a few years later. Clearly, this was more tragedy than they were able to face.

This post is dedicated to all the very special people that make life worth experiencing - no matter how long or short that experience, or their contribution to it, is.

David, you made my life richer and happier than it could have ever been without you. I miss you every day. Your girl forever. xxx

Charly Charly

Sad news.... my poor little beaten up motor, named 'Charly Charly' after the last two letters of her reg number, has suffered a severe battering this evening at the hands of mindless thugs. The little bar-stewards smashed the front driver's side and passenger side windows and the rear windscreen in an effort to make off with my valuables. Fortunately I am not daft enough to leave anything of worth in my car so they got away with only a couple of bags for life, a bottle of water and my sunglasses (worth about £20). They did lift my work security pass, OU course book and my music score for the upcoming concert at the Bridgewater Hall this June, but a local resident spotted the culprits dump the stuff at the top of the car park and returned it to me safe and sound.

It all happened this evening in the visitors' car park at the Royal Apartments while I was having my piano lesson. The apartments are a stone's throw (or perhaps a brick's throw) from Encombe Place, the current site of the Salford Youth Offenders Service. This office is currently the subject of a hotly contested restricted document that has found its way into the hands of local residents in the Blackfriars area of Salford - where the council proposes to resite the Youth Offenders Service office. I understand that the document notes that within a half-mile radius of the YOS office there is a significant hotspot of crime - particularly opportunist crime like theft from a vehicle. Local Labour councillors are trying to suppress the document as it is a clear indicator that such a service should not be sited in a residential area. They have even tried to skew the figures (reported in the Manchester Evening News tonight) by saying that these crimes are the fault of vehicle owners for not carrying out basic security. I would like to ask Councillor Lancaster if I deserved to have three windows smashed in my car for the sake of a bottle of water and some books?

Fortunately, the fateful tale of Charly Charly has a happy ending. Thanks to the angels of Autoglass who came out at midnight, my car will be fixed and returned to me in a matter of hours. In the meantime I remain grateful to the two separate residents of the Royal Apartments that witnessed the crime and reported it to the police. Also a big thank you to the police that attended the scene - they were friendly, helpful and professional. And finally a huge thanks to hubby Steve for fetching me a dustpan and brush and doing all the ringing round and fetching and carrying for me. Because of him I was still able to make it to a very successful rehersal for the June concert. Yippee!

What Does Gordon Brown Eat?

Barack Obama has been pap-snapped popping out for a burger - something he can pull off because he's pretty much the most powerful man in politics and can do whatever the hell he likes, but also because his charm and easy-going nature makes it seem perfectly normal. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown couldn't be less normal or more distant from the public. His attempts at YouTube are forced (just like his smile) and he it seems he has been pap-snapped too... standing in front of a Nazi Swastika (apparently taken in a school he was standing in front of a WWII display about Nazi Germany).

So Barack Obama is normal and eats burgers. Gordon Brown is clearly an alien (I wonder if he has the right to live and work on our planet) so what does he eat????

ID Please...

On the news this morning, I discovered that Manchester will be the trial city for the government's hair-brained ID Card scheme. What joy!

Identity cards will cost anywhere between £30 and £60 and, according to Jacqui Smith, will 'increase protection' against crime, illegal immigrants and terrorists. The Home Office press release claims the benefits of ID Cards as:

• a universal and simple proof of identity that brings convenience for organisations and individuals –ending the disorganised use of photocopied bank statements, phone bills and birth certificates;
• control over who can see your personal details – this means no longer revealing details about your finances or personal life just to prove who you are and where you live;
• ensuring that foreign nationals living, working and studying here legally are able to easily prove their identity and preventing those here illegally from benefiting from the privileges of Britain;
• and convenient travel in Europe using the identity card.

Seems great, doesn't it... until you start to really think about it.

Just like any form of identification, it will be possible to clone and forge these cards. They will be stolen and they will be lost. No security system is completely unhackable - a truth that has been repeatedly reasserted, most recently with the banks' certainty that 'Chip & Pin' and 'Verify by Visa/Mastercard Secure Code' would reduce credit card fraud instances of which continue to increase. It might make it more difficult for forgers and fraudsters, illegal immigrants and terrorists - for about five minutes - but like Star Trek's 'Borg', they will adapt and if we rest too much faith in such a system I fear that we will ultimately leave ourselves and our nation fatally exposed.

As for the so-called benefits of the scheme, I keep wondering if the Home Office is trying to be funny. We already have two major forms of identity in this country - the passport and the driving licence. Both of which we have to pay (through the nose) for every time we need to renew or change the details. The passport now contains biometric information and the driving licence has your address on it. Why do we need a further proof of identity? (Which we would also have to pay (through the nose) for every time the details needed to be changed). Convenience and 'control' of my information are paltry reasons to introduce a scheme as such massive cost. I will still have to have a driving licence in order to drive and I will still need to have a passport for travel outside Europe, so why is having extra ID considered to be convenient. Furthermore, I fail to see how this will give me more control over my personal and financial information than I already have. As things stand, I don't need to hand over such information to prove who I am. This seems rather like grasping at straws to me!

I don't agree with the argument that says carrying an ID Card is an infringement of civil liberties. I think it's important to be able to prove who you are and frequently those who try to conceal their identity when requested, are precisely the people who are up to something! What does concern me here is that this will be a huge waste of money - a colossal white elephant. The government will waste billions of pounds (even with the public putting in fistfuls of cash themselves) just getting this scheme off the ground and the most important aim of the scheme (to increase our national security by preventing fraud, illegal immigration and terrorism) is unachievable through this scheme. Introducing a further form of identity does not properly address any of these problems. Fraudsters will be able to forge, clone or steal the cards, if not immediately, then some time in the not too distant future. Illegal immigrants will still arrive here and will just continue to do what they do now: present no form of identification so that they cannot be deported, end up being released, and then disappear into the population without a trace. And terrorism is a far greater problem with far more complex issues than can be solved by a bit of plastic - after all, those identified as guilty of or suspected of terrorism in this country in the last decade, have all been here legally.

At the end of the day, an ID card does not tell anyone what you are doing or planning or what your moral, legal, religious or fanatical beliefs are (neither should it). We need to be smarter than this if we want to combat the problems in our society. This is yet another sign of Labour's inability to approach anything with a modicum of common sense or originality.

Swine Flu

As I sit here watching I Am Legend, the story of a lone survivor of an infection that decimates the human population, it is, perhaps fitting that I should blog about Swine Flu.

Swine Flu, even at the worst projected mortality rate, is not going to kill to the extremes of the aforementioned movie. However, it seems that some people seem to think this is an end-of-life-as-we-know-it scenario. On Friday morning I was driving to work with the radio on (taking a well deserved break from singing practice) and heard someone being interviewed on the morning news criticising what was being done. Although I can't remember it verbatim, the person said something along the lines of "If one person has it on a plane, 100 people have it". This assertion gave me a right chuckle since that kind of infection rate would already mean many hundreds of cases in the UK. The "Catch It, Bin It, Kill It" leaflet that I found had been circulated at work on email. I particularly liked the advice about setting up a network of 'Flu-Friends': Not, as you might imagine a group of friends and relatives that you can infect, but instead, a group of minions that you can train to do your bidding should you fall ill (the leaflet suggests that you can ask them to run errands for shopping and medication for you but surely there's more fun to be had than this?)

This is a serious situation, but I really think some people need to get a bit of perspective. Firstly, you're extremely unlikely to catch it passing someone in the street - even sitting next to an infected person on a plane or train is no guarantee of contracting the illness. Furthermore, the UK is fortunate that we have a good stock of antiviral drugs available and with sensible precautions the virus can be contained so that they should not be needed.

I'm not sure that 'Flu-Friends' classes as a precaution, sensible or otherwise.

No wind farms... but then again...

I could have blogged about so much this evening. Obviously, there's the Swine Flu 'Pandemic' which is no doubt scaring the socks off you by now. Alternatively I could've gone for something totally banal, like the fact that I left my glasses at home and spent the day working through a eye-strain and the resulting headache. However, just as I was about to blog, something was reported on the evening news that caught my attention.

It seems that there is a wind farm in Cumbria, which is only a few years old, that is under threat... by a nuclear power station. Residents are, of course, up in arms at the proposals. The replacement buildings would take up a much greater footprint and would tower above the height of the existing turbines. I can hardly blame them for their concerns - even ignoring the nuclear element, I would much rather stare at a flock of whirring windmills than a concrete box.

However, what amused me is the fact that all over the country people are campaigning against these things. Now it seems the community in Cumbria will have to campaign to keep their wind farm!

Serious Stuff....

Dear Messrs. Brown and Darling,

I just wanted to take a moment of my time to personally thank you for all your effort over the last twelve months. This year has been quite an accomplishment: One I would not have dared thought possible. Allow me to elaborate.

I am a sensible individual, pragmatic and careful how I spend. However, I admit that in my younger years I was lured by the golden fleece of credit and consequently saught to live beyond my means. Over the years I am sorry to say I built up a reasonable cushion of debt, which, when faced with tough times, I was unable to afford. It has taken me several years but a couple of years ago I became virtually debt free. Thanks to you, I now realise the error of my ways.

There I was, mistakenly thinking that the way to be secure and able to survive any crisis was to minimise my personal debt. But I am thankful to you for showing me the light. Of course I should spend every penny I earn, and more. If I want a new car, I should buy one. That expensive Radley handbag? Why not? A Gucci watch , PRADA sunglasses, and the two week long haul holiday to go with them? Definitely! It makes so much sense now - the way to survive a recession is to spend, spend, spend. We can always pay for it later, right?

So thank you for showing me the error of my ways. And also thank you for helping me to 'hit the ground running' with my renewed responsibilities by ensuring I have a £22,000 personal share in the national debt. You two are bloody geniuses!

Yours,
Kat Middleton
No-longer a Labour voter