Rights and Responsibilities

Living in Britain we could be forgiven for taking our human rights for granted. Living in Britain we take as read our right to free speech, our right to a fair trial, our right to freedom from slavery, our right to life itself but there are many counties in the world where people do not have such privileges. Yet in Britain, while organisations like Amnesty International may campaign on behalf of those people in other countries who cannot rely on receiving the most fundamental of human rights, there are other groups who would suggest that Britain discontinue adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights. These are not all crackpot, ultra radical groups (although some are); they have included politicians of most political hues. For instance in 2007, while leader of the opposition  David Cameron said, " "It (the Human Rights Act) has to go. Abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, which sets out rights and responsibilities."

Cameron was prompted to make his comments following the case of Italian-born Learco Chindamo, convicted of the murder of head teacher Philip Lawrence, but who escaped deportation on human rights grounds and this has been by no means the only case that has enraged politicians, law makers and the general public. For instance, in 2011 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) prevented Britain from deporting Abdisamad Sufi, a Somalian who was in Britain illegally and who had been convicted of 17 offences, including include burglary, fraud, making threats to kill and indecent exposure. The ECHR ruled that it would not be safe to return Sufi to Somalia, that his human rights would be infringed. In the case of another Somalian, Mustafa Abdi was awarded damages by the EHRC on the basis that his human rights were breached after his detention pending deportation having being sentenced to eight years imprisonment for the rape of a child.

Philip Lawrence (left) was murdered by Learco Chindamo.

 It is a common complaint that lawmakers appear more concerned with the rights of offenders than those of the victims and cases like those of Sufi, Abdi and Chindamo support that view. Of themselves these cases, and others like them do not however justify  scrapping human rights legislation, rather the suggest that it needs some amendment; in fact to some degree one might argue that it merely needs to be applied properly.

Behind the right wing hyperbole there are very real concerns that human rights legislation is being misused.

In 2006 the Department for Constitutional Affairs issued A Guide to the Human Rights Act and there is a key and very telling paragraph in the very first section of the guide; it says:

1.8 The first part of these Articles sets out the right and is followed by a second part describing how the right may need to be limited. For example, everyone’s interest in combating crime and promoting public health is mentioned several times as a reason why public authorities might need to limit an individual’s right. That kind of thinking is behind the statement that rights and responsibilities go together. The whole system of respecting rights works best when people recognise that and act responsibly towards others and the wider community. 

There you have it; an individual's rights may be limited in combating crime; commit a crime and your human rights may be restricted. It is telling that both this document, and David Cameron in his remarks back in 2007, mention responsibilities. This is a word all too infrequently used when human rights are discussed; indeed responsibilities are all too rarely mentioned in society these days, unless it is someone bleating about other people's responsibilities; other people's, but never their own, yet without meeting their responsibilities do people deserve their rights? Human rights are part of a contract that we have with the state, the government of the day and society as a whole. In exchange for these rights we have responsibilities; responsibilities to respect the rule of law and the rights of others.  Those who ignore their responsibilities, who infringe or ignore the rights of others, forfeit their rights. It is iniquitous that offenders seek to hid behind the very rights that they themselves have ignored or held with such little regard when they apply to their victims.

What regard did of Sufi, Abdi and Chindamo pay to the human rights of their victims? None; yet each of them, or more probably their lawyers', immediately played the human rights card when, having abdicated their responsibilities to society and committed their various crimes, they were caught and convicted. There is an old saying; "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" which seems to no longer apply, being apparently over-ridden by the offenders' human rights.

This is not to say that I believe that we should not consider human rights, nor that we should stop upholding them, and certainly not that the Human Rights Act of 1998 should be repealed, merely that we should balance the rights that everyone, and that includes offenders, have against their responsibilities. Even Liberty, more formally known as the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), who as you would imagine, are vociferous advocates of the Human Rights Act, may say " rights are universal and inalienable in nature" but also that " Human rights and responsibilities are inextricably bound together. Rights mean little if others do not take responsibility to protect them." This is where human rights legislation could be improved; in addition to setting out our rights, it needs to specify our responsibilities and just as importantly, the consequences should we ignore them.

In some ways there is a similar issue with respect. It is sadly the case that the media have all too often to report some incident of violence and even of death occasioned because some youth (and it is normally a youth or group of youths), feels that they have been disrespected in some way and metes out some violent retribution. Respect, like rights, is a two-way street; to get respect you have to give it; respecting yourself and others is the same as protecting other people's rights by meeting your responsibilities.

All too few people are willing to meet their responsibilities and their obligations, to respect other people and their rights. Too many people believe they have rights without responsibilities and when everyone has rights but no one has responsibilities, anarchy follows.

The Last Dinosaur

There is a social convention that we do not speak ill of the dead so it was unsurprising that following the premature death of National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) leader Bob Crow at the age of just 52, those who had disparaged him in life came to praise him in death. 

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: "He made an important contribution to the debate around the future of rail services in this country." Mayor of London Boris Johnson said : "He played a big part in the success of the Tube and he shared my goal to make transport in London an even greater success." While Mr McLoughlin's words are neutral in tone and may be damning Bob Crow with faint praise, Boris Johnson's remark is at odds with his comments during the recent dispute over ticket office closures when he said that he could not negotiate with Mr Crow while he (Crow) was holding a gun to Londoners' heads. Whilst one might not have expected Boris to maintain an antagonistic stance towards Mr Crow after his death, his remarks were nonetheless surprisingly fulsome; it reminiscent of the comedy sketch in which one politician is maligning an opponent, only for that opponent to drop down dead, at which point the diatribe segues seamlessly into an eulogy.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and a Muppet.

It is of course appropriate and decent that (with a few exceptions) we do not vilify someone in death no matter what we thought of them in life, as difficult as it may be. Even the most obnoxious and intransigent of opponents was still a human being with friends and families whose memories of the man ought not to be sullied; it is after all a difficult enough time for those family members, colleagues and friends without the scoring of cheap points against someone who can no longer answer back. Not that Mr Crow had any qualms on that score, however. On the death of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher he said that he hoped she rotted in hell. Whilst this was insensitive and crass, disregarding of those who cared for Mrs Thatcher and might better have not been uttered, regardless of what he thought, at least one could not accuse him of hypocrisy.

Bob Crow's tenure as general secretary of the RMT was marked with a number of disputes with London Underground (LU). Whereas many people feel that the withdrawal of labour should be the last resort in a dispute, one always had the impression that for Bob Crow it was the opening gambit. Certainly more disputes between LU and the RMT ended with strike action than in most other industries and while it is undoubtedly true that Mr Crow had the best interests of his members at heart, this did not extend to the workers in industries who were affected by his members' walkouts. Businesses threatened with bankruptcy as a result of transport strikes were dismissed as ‘casualties of war’ disregarding the fact that the collateral damage might include ordinary workers and union members just like his own.

Bob Crow has been called a dinosaur; indeed in an interview shortly before his death, he was called one by Jeremy Paxman, to which Crow retorted that "they were around for a long time," but in the end he was a dinosaur; he was very much the last of his generation. The days of the firebrand union leader, presiding over strikes and work to rules of the type Britain saw in the 1970's, when power cuts, uncollected rubbish and the three day week were commonplace are now gone. The days when Britain was dubbed "the sick man of Europe" are behind us and the union reforms introduced by Mrs Thatcher's government mean that there are now few areas of industry and commerce where trade unionists can hold companies or the country to ransom. The downside of the union reforms has been that the pendulum has swung perhaps too far from the unions to management and while no one would deny management's right to manage it is equally true that without union opposition there are many industries in which workers' rights, be they pensions, security of employment and other terms and conditions have been seriously eroded. RMT members continue to enjoy benefits that many in other industries do not, but of course the rail industry is a very different animal to manufacturing or finance. Rail bosses do not have the weapons of outsourcing or offshoring open to say, banking or insurance. Unlike in a private concern where union demands may be tempered by the realisation that immoderate requests, if won in the short term, might in the long term bring the company to its knees and ultimately lead to members becoming unemployed, railway workers know that whatever their demands their jobs could not be shipped off to India or Malaysia and that the government could not allow their employers to fail. Had Mr Crow been leader of bank workers, or shop workers or those in some manufacturing industry, he might have found the benefits he won for his members more difficult to come by.

The right wing press were critical of Bob Crow's January holiday to Brazil just three days before the first of the union walk outs, which struck me as somewhat desperate; they almost made much of the fact that despite his generous salary, reported to be £145,000, he continued to live in a council house. Famously he said that he had been born in a council house and would die in one. As a former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, his continued residence in social housing, when he could quite obviously have afforded to buy his own property, struck me as being at odds with the socialist doctrine " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

For London's commuters in particular, and for LU bosses as well, it will be interesting to see who succeeds Bob Crow at the RMT and whether they have the will, the power or the mandate to continue in a similar vein. Transport for London (TfL) have announced that they have advertised a £16bn contract to introduce driverless trains on the Piccadilly, Central, Bakerloo and Waterloo & City lines by the middle of the next decade, which Bob Crow had already said "would not happen." This because of safety concerns despite the proven track record of such systems in many European and Asian countries and in North America. Whoever takes up the reins at the RMT will doubtless have to take up the cudgels with TfL on that one. The fact is that driverless trains already run on parts of the London underground network; the extension of them to other lines is a logical step.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu makes a valid point when he says "Good governments govern well only when there is a strong opposition. Good governance requires strong opposition and fair representation." This is equally true of employers and their relationship with trade unions. Bob Crow might have tipped the balance too far in favour of the workers and where unions have been too powerful in the past we have seen the excesses and problems that this has caused, but equally employee rights and conditions will often be eroded by employers who do not have to face union negotiators seeking to protect the rights of their members and with the strength to do so; there can be no doubt that Bob Crow did just that. For the sake of all concerned however, strong opposition still needs to be reasonable opposition and in many ways it would be difficult to describe Bob Crow as having been reasonable in his negotiations with employers.

Whatever you opinion of Bob Crow, I've no doubt that public sector workers who have been offered a below inflation pay deal this year probably feel that they would have done better with someone like him batting for them.

Eat, Drink...and Be Miserable

"Eat, drink and be merry," they say; don't eat, don't drink, be miserable more like.

I really don't know what I should eat or drink anymore. The media is full of a constant stream of health advice that one day suggests that something is good for you but the next that it is bad for you. I realise that this is exciting news for The Daily Mail and The Daily Express, whose front pages are rarely without some story on the benefits or risks to health of one thing or another, but to us ordinary people, well it is thoroughly confusing.

Take coffee for instance. Coffee can improve energy levels, helps burn fat, lowers the risk of developing Type 2 Diabetes, can protect against Alzheimer's disease and dementia, may lower the risk of Parkinson's disease, can protect the liver, lowers the risk of liver and colorectal cancers, does not cause heart disease and may lower the risk of having a stroke and is the biggest source of antioxidants in the Western diet. On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that it may contribute to ulcers and irritable bowel syndrome; that it may cause heartburn, may adversely affect the performance of your kidneys and is potentially carcinogenic.

Then there is wine, which can promote longevity, reduce the risk of heart disease and of Type 2 Diabetes, strokes, cataracts and colon cancer and can slow brain decline. Conversely, wine can apparently significantly increase the risk of mouth or throat cancer, can cause liver damage, corrode brain cells, and cause impotence and birth defects.

Next up we have sugar and salt, both of which have been in the news recently and have come in for a thorough pasting from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Department of Health (DoH) respectively.

The WHO have warned that we should cut our sugar intake to the equivalent of five teaspoons per day because studies show that diets high in sugar are linked to diabetes, kidney disease, cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's and premature ageing. But on the other hand, sugar is essential in providing our bodies with energy, is proven not to contribute to the risk of diabetes if consumed moderately  and contains minerals and nutrients that we all need. Who do you believe? The problem with the WHO idea that sugar consumption be limited to five teaspoons or less per day is how on earth do you do that? Every day I drink at least six cups of tea; each one contains a teaspoon of sugar. I have tried drinking tea without sugar and I simply cannot do it. I could switch to coffee because I take that sans sucre, but I can only realistically enjoy one or maybe two cups of java a day before the caffeine gives me the jitters.

Refined, white and deadly

So let us say that I either stop taking sugar in my tea, or more realistically stop drinking it at all. As alternatives most soft drinks are out of the question as a can of Coke has seven teaspoons of sugar and a large glass of orange juice has five.  Hang on, I can make a smoothie with an orange, a banana and some blueberries; perhaps a bit of ginger to pep it up. No, sorry that is the equivalent of thirteen and a half teaspoons right there in one go. So, that's me drinking nothing but water today then.

So what's for breakfast? Some cornflakes (two and a half teaspoons) and some semi-skimmed milk (negligible). Wow, that's something. Now, lunchtime and a cheese sandwich is only one teaspoon! Whoopee, this is easier than I thought, half the day gone and I've only got to three and a half teaspoons, I have a whole teaspoon and a half left! And that's where it goes wrong. Some fresh pasta, broccoli, carrots and peas in a tomato sauce is four and a half teaspoons. I'm over the limit now, so no crisps or chocolate as a treat later...and I still can't have a cup of tea.

But isn't this five teaspoons a day a bit arbitrary anyway? The much vaunted "5 A Day" initiative in which we are all encouraged to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day is a fairly random amount and in any case five bananas would be equivalent to 35 teaspoons of sugar; how can I square my fruit intake with my sugar consumption? It is apparently irreconcilable.

Baked beans, one of your five a day but all five teaspoons of your sugar allowance.

What about salt? Everyone knows that salt is not good for you, don't they? The DoH have started a drive to cut salt levels in food and it is difficult to disagree when you see just how much salt (and sugar for that matter) that most processed foods contain. And of course salt is linked to hypertension, abnormal heart development, osteoporosis, kidney disorders, dehydration and digestive diseases. On the other hand though, salt stabilises irregular heartbeat, balances sugar levels, prevents gout and some forms of arthritis, helps kidney processes, strengthens bone structure and maintains muscle tone. Salt, like sugar is an essential part of our diet but only, like so many other things, in sensible quantities.

Two of the key factors in maintaining a healthy diet are balance and the incidence of processed foods. Processed foods like the supermarket ready meal and the takeaway abound in salt, sugar and various artificial additives. While the occasional frozen lasagne or takeaway kebab aren't going to make you instantly keel over and expire, a constant diet of them might. A diet laden in sugar intake from fizzy drinks, biscuits, cakes and sweets is not going to keep you healthy but a special treat now and then is not going to be harmful. There is a world of difference between the sugars that occur naturally in fruit and the refined, white and deadly stuff that processed foods contain. Not that one may consume any amount of foodstuffs with naturally occurring sugars of course, if for no other reason than that acids and sugars in fruit may still cause tooth decay.

Reducing our consumption of things like salt and sugar are particularly difficult in that these are "hidden" ingredients in many foods. Yes, the label on the packet tells you how much salt and how much sugar there is in a serving, but do we ever sit down, read the labelling and calculate how much we have already consumed that day and therefore whether or not we really ought to eat that last slice of pizza? No, we do not. What we do (or at least what we ought to do) is take a holistic approach, ensuring that our diets are well balanced and not over burdened with foods and drinks that may be harmful. As the saying goes, moderation in all things.

 While salt and sugar are very much flavour of the month as far as food evils are concerned, it is very likely that next month another study will show that we should reduce our intake of carbohydrates, or of proteins, of potatoes or past, of red meat or eggs. Eventually we shall become so scared of the contents of our kitchen cupboards, so scared that a killer lurks in our fridges that we will be reduced to living on fresh air if it were not for the fact that fresh air is a killer because of the levels sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead.

The killer in your kitchen.

Frankly all of these health stories are so contradictory, so arbitrary, that I have little faith in them and prefer to trust my own judgement. I know too much sugar is bad for me, but moderately consumed it is essential. Same goes for salt and some types of fat. The diktats of the WHO or the DoH, well intentioned though they are, are unlikely to have an effect on the sort of person who eats nothing but takeaways and who is a stranger to fresh vegetables while those who will take notice are probably already complying to some degree anyway.

The next time there is a health story that suggests that I should abstain from something or significantly reduce my intact of something I'm going to take it with a large pinch of (metaphorical) salt...after all, metaphorical salt can't be harmful.

3G Pitches - The Debate Goes On

When I wrote about 3G pitches last September (see http://rulesfoolsandwisemen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/3g-or-not-3g.html).  I said that the advance of technology meant that artificial surfaces were now much more grass-like now. In the 1980's the unnatural bounce and the likelihood of players getting carpet burns brought these sort of pitches into disrepute but now the increased use of 3G pitches is inevitable. By the by, in referring to 3G pitches I think it better to use the term artificial surface or artificial pitch rather than plastic which has only negative connotations and is used by their detractors as a put-down.

The most high profile club with an artificial surface in English football are Maidstone United, currently riding high in the Ryman League Premier Division. They may well find themselves in a promotion place at the end of the season but at present would be denied the opportunity to go up to Conference South due to the Conference's position on artificial pitches. In January this year Conference clubs met to discuss and vote on the proposal that artificial surfaces be allowed in their league. The vote, fairly predictably, was not in favour. This, together with the Football Association's ban on artificial surfaces in FA Cup after the qualifying rounds would have appeared to be a major setback for Maidstone United, a club who have made great strides in recent years. After their decline from their Football League position in the late 1980's and having folded in 1992, the club reinvented itself and now regularly attract gates nearing 2,000 and are heavily involved with the local community. They run disabled teams and soccer schools; their 3G pitch enables more extensive use of the stadium than would be possible with a grass surface and while the Ryman League has suffered over 500 postponements this season due to the monsoon conditions the country has endured, Maidstone have not surprisingly been able to play all of their home games.

The Gallagher Stadium, home to Maidstone United and their 3G pitch.

When the Conference voted against allowing artificial surfaces, Maidstone co-owner Oliver Ash was quoted on the club website as saying, "We will continue to campaign for 3G to be allowed higher up the pyramid, while the first team will push for promotion for the Ryman Premier Division. If we were in a promotion position come the end of the season we are very confident we would be allowed to go up on 3G.” At first sight this seemed difficult to reconcile with the decision the Conference had made. Perhaps Mr Ash was taking solace from the FA document, " Third Generation Football Turf Guidance[1]" which stated that they were considering changing the standard code of rules so that leagues would not be allowed to refuse the use of 3G Football Turf pitches provided they meet the required performance standards. Even so his statement seemed overly optimistic...until this week.

On Tuesday it was announced that the FA have decided to revisit the debate on artificial surfaces after a meeting chaired by FA chairman Greg Dyke and including former Manchester United chief executive David Gill. The twelve person committee agreed unanimously to abandon their “grass-only” policy. This paves the way for games in the FA Cup competition proper to be staged on 3G pitches and increases the pressure on the Conference and indeed the Football League, to re-examine allowing their clubs to use artificial surfaces. The FA ban on the use of 3G surfaces for cup ties after the Fourth Qualifying has been mooted as a factor in League clubs not voting in favour of their use. With that ban removed clubs like Wycombe Wanderers, Torquay United and Burnley, who all expressed an interest when Maidstone ran a conference on 3G surfaces, may explore the possibility of ripping up their grass pitches.

FA chairman Greg Dyke. 

Knowing how slowly the wheels grind at FA headquarters and given the fact that the Conference ban on 3G pitches is still in place, Maidstone may still find their way blocked should they win promotion this season, but with the FA stance changing, they could have a case to challenge the Conference's position.

Opposition to the use of 3G pitches normally comes down to one of three arguments. The first is sentiment; football has always been played on grass and people still want to play on it. At one time I would have held a similar position but my mind has been changed in recent months. As I have often noted, resistance to change is inevitable - sometimes it is nothing more than prejudice and with artificial pitch technology now so far advanced from thirty years ago, resistance is largely based on just that...prejudice.

The argument that artificial surfaces provide clubs who use them with an unfair advantage may carry more weight; certainly Maidstone have lost more times on their travels than at home this season (they are unbeaten at home in the Ryman League), but that argument can equally apply to teams who have a grass pitch depending on the quality of it, or as back in the old days when Barnet and Yeovil Town had notoriously sloping pitches, some other unusual quality.

A common site this season at many a ground in non-League football.

It is fair to say that the possibility of more injuries would be a more coherent argument against 3G pitches, but even that is not proven . Simon Barker, Chief Executive of the Professional Footballers Association, said " It is our member’s view that they would much prefer to play on a good quality natural turf pitch than any other surface,"  and he is concerned about increased likelihood of injury. One takes his point except that there are any number of poor quality grass pitches around and about, especially below Conference level that would be much more dangerous and likely to cause injury than an artificial surface. A study by Jay H. Williams, Emmanuel Akogyrem, and Jeremy R. Williams, " A Meta-Analysis of Soccer Injuries on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass," found that the risk of injury on (artificial) turf was 10-14% lower that on grass.[2]

I referred earlier to the fact that over 500 matches have been postponed in the Ryman League this season; some clubs are trying to shoe-horn half their season into the last fifty days of the season. Clubs in the Ryman League (and a number of other leagues) are steeling themselves for the prospect of playing four games a week every week between now and the end of the season. Incidentally, clubs at this level, whose players generally have full time jobs and therefore sometimes have to take time off work to travel to away matches in midweek, and in any case have to play after a full day's work, just shrug their shoulders and get on with it. They may moan a bit, but they get on with it. Compare this with Premier League clubs, whose players' full time occupation is playing football; not working in a factory or an office and playing in their spare time, but playing football for a living, yet who go into fits of the vapours at the prospect of having to play twice in three days now and again!

---

[1] http://www.thefa.com/my-football/football-volunteers/runningaclub/yourfacilities/~/media/28C08936D04B4A67B64CF168B72843AE.ashx

[2] http://www.scienceofsocceronline.com/2013/06/injury-risk-artificial-turf-vs-natural.html

Careful With That Data, Doctor!

Have you had one of these leaflets come through your door?

You should have; in fact you probably have had one but may just not have noticed[1]. A recent poll for the BBC suggests that only 29% of adults recall receiving it. In early January one came through my letterbox. It was inserted carefully inside a leaflet for the Co-op supermarket, together with an invitation from Talk Talk to sign up to their broadband package, and with some other assorted pieces of paper that were of even less interest.  If you are anything like me that sort of collection of junk mail normally gets no more than a cursory glance before being consigned to the recycling bin. So much for the fact that NHS England's statement that its deal with the Royal Mail specified that the leaflets would not be wrapped up in other mail! If the NHS were going to go to the expense of using the Royal Mail, they might at least have put their leaflet in an envelope addressed to their patients; we might have noticed it then.  It was only the letters NHS in the top right hand corner of the leaflet that made me give the thing a second look.

The proposals contained in the leaflet are that the NHS will share data that they hold on you and me with "those who plan health and social care services, as well as with approved researchers and organisations outside the NHS, if this will benefit patient care." Now on the face of it that is not too controversial. The idea behind the scheme is that the data will be shared in order to find more effective ways of preventing and treating illnesses, that the NHS will be able to manage their resources better and that people at risk of a condition can be identified and offered treatment. All very laudable and at first sight nothing to be too alarmed about. After all it makes perfect sense for the NHS to use data it collects to manage patient care and provide a better service...except. Except that not only is the intention that this data be used within the NHS, but that it will be shared with  "approved researchers and organisations" outside the NHS, although quite who these organisations are is anyone's guess. That is a little disquietening because although the NHS says that data will be anonymous they also say that postcodes, National Insurance numbers and dates of birth will be used, although that will be redacted before data is released to outside organisations. The question that should concern us is who are these other organisations and what would they do with the data?

It is difficult to have a great deal of confidence in exactly how confidential the NHS will keep our data when you consider how many data breaches the NHS has been responsible for. The Daily Mail recently reported more than two million breaches since the start of 2011, an extraordinary figure that fortunately looks to have been grossly overstated as figures published by health website pulsetoday.co.uk suggest that breaches during this period number less than ten thousand, although that is quite enough thank you. Breaches include paper records being left in shops and car parks or thrown in litter bins in public places, of confidential patient data being sent to the wrong addresses and of computers being sold without confidential data being removed.

The media has been full of stories on the Care.data subject.

For instance, NHS Surrey failed to completely wipe and destroy 1,570 hard drives containing highly sensitive data on over 3,000 patient records before disposing of the computers containing those hard drives. This came to light when a member of the public, who bought a computer online (it is believed it was sold on eBay), found those records on the hard drive. The NHS trust were fined £200,000 in July 2013 for that offense, which given the parlous state of NHS finances, is a criminal waste of money for failing to comply with basic data protection principles. Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust were fined £325,000 in 2012 for similar breaches.

Apart from the alarm that the data sharing proposals have raised with the general public, GPs have also raised concerns and some have already opted their patients out of the scheme. Oh yes, the NHS mention in passing that you have the option to opt out of the scheme, but to do so you need to inform your GP (cue a large spike in appointments for GPs as patients ask that they be exempted). In practice you do not need to see your GP, you just need to speak to your GP practice, i.e. the receptionist (that helpful, cheerful breed whose raison d'être appears to be to protect doctors from ever coming into contact with patients).There is no form to fill in, nothing to sign...which begs the question, how confident will you be that your wishes have been complied with and how can you ever prove that you made the request if it turns out that your data is used against your wishes? Why could the NHS website not provide an option for patients to opt out online? If nothing else, why could there not be a paper form that would become part of your record at your doctor's surgery?

The NHS and other government departments do not have a great track record with IT projects; not to put too fine a point on it they are rubbish at them. Government departments have thrown good money after bad trying to develop ill advised systems that have been scrapped or not been fit for purpose. In some ways this current project, known as Care.data, is as likely to founder as any other, like the NHS patient record project which was dropped last year but only after £10bn had been spent on it. Other debacles include the project that was meant to save the Department for Transport about £57m but which actually  cost £81m, the Ministry of Defence project that even in 2010 was £180m over budget and eighteen months behind schedule, not to mention the £5bn spent on the ludicrous National Identity Card Scheme that was scrapped for a multitude of reasons. And they are just the tip of a very big iceberg.

My reservations about the Care.data scheme are many fold. Firstly the cost and the time involved that could probably be better spent by the NHS on actually treating patients. I also fear that the perceived benefits will be far less than has been stated.

Secondly, given their track record, I have absolutely no confidence that the NHS will protect patient data. It is a near certainty that there will be data breaches; patient data will not be anonymised properly. Data containing full patient details will be lost or simply sold to organisations who will use it for commercial purposes. Imagine the potential for insurance companies to use this sort of data to either target potential customers for health insurance, or conversely reject applications from certain people.

Thirdly, there is the fact that this is an opt out rather than opt in scheme. The very fact that a BBC poll showed that only 29% of adults could recall receiving the leaflet means that potentially a great number of people who might have opted out of the scheme would have been blissfully unaware of it. With a project of this magnitude and sensitivity the NHS should have been asking patients to opt in and even once the NHS get their act together and re-launch the scheme it is probable that a great number of people will remain unaware of it and be opted in by default, whether they like it or not.

The whole thing smacks of the NHS were trying to foist this upon us without our noticing and that they are now somewhat embarrassed to have been found out; the fact that the project is now in temporary abeyance suggests that they realise that they have got this badly wrong. I was going to pop round to my GP's surgery and opt out, but on balance I'm not sure if there is any point; either they will still use my data anyway, regardless of my wishes,  or just as likely the whole thing will be consigned to the same bin as the Identity Card scheme.

---

[1] If you have no recollection of receiving this leaflet and want to read it in full, you can find it here: http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/records/healthrecords/Documents/NHS_Door_drop_26-11-13.pdf

The Joy of Exams

My younger daughter, Sarah, is currently in the midst of her GCSE's and I must admit I don't envy her. When I was taking my O levels (and there is a phrase that I've used frequently in conversations with Sarah, much to her aggravation), there did not seem to be the same sort of pressure as there is on teenagers today. These days I believe that expectations are much higher than they were when I was sixteen; back then our teachers wanted us to pass our exams and they wanted us to realise our potential but now it seems that simply passing GCSE's is not enough; these days it seems that everyone is expected to gain A* grades in everything. The publicity that is generated about the number of students achieving A* grades fuels both the belief that the qualification is getting easier and the pressure that students are under to obtain that grade.

The proportion of GCSE entries awarded an A or A* increased every year between 1988 and 2011. Illustration: Paul Scruton for the Guardian

There has been a lot of debate about whether GCSE's (and A levels) are easier than they used to be. From what I have seen of Sarah's school work it is difficult to say if it is easier or not, but it is definitely different. Successive governments have altered the format of GCSE courses and whereas when I took my O levels it was a case of one, two or maybe even three exams per subject at the end of two years of study, these days students are taking formal exams, submitting coursework and undertaking controlled assessments. Changes are afoot to put more emphasis on the end of year exams and while that would be my personal preference, obviously there will be a lot of students who are more comfortable with the current regime of coursework and controlled assessments in addition to some formal exams. Everyone has a different learning style after all, so everyone will have their preferences as to the form their exams take.

When I was taking my O levels (there's that phrase again!) and indeed when I took A levels, the format was simply formal exams and that suited me. For me there was an adrenaline rush about going into an exam hall, sitting down and turning over the paper and being (usually) happy that the questions matched the areas of the syllabus I had specifically revised. For that the teachers at my secondary school have to take a lot of credit; by and large they were pretty successful in predicting what sort of questions we would be facing and therefore directing our revision into those areas.

Most of us tend to look at the past through rose tinted spectacles and skip over the bad bits so you may think that I am recalling the days when I took formal exams purely with the benefit of forty years of selective hindsight, however it was only a few years ago that I put pen to paper in a formal exam when I studied for a Diploma in Business Analysis and Operations.

In 2004 my then employers, HSBC Bank, offered a Diploma in Business Analysis and Operations (DipBAO) course in conjunction with the Institute of Financial Services (ifs) and having received an email inviting me to take the course, I applied. I was encouraged to do so partly because I thought it would be interesting, partly because I wondered if after such a long time I could actually undertake any formal study or not, and in part because other members of my team seemed keen to take the course too. You will notice that I did not consider possible advancement in my career as a potential benefit of taking the course, I was (and still am) too cynical to have believed that to be likely!  As it turned out, having applied and been accepted, I found that none of my colleagues had actually applied; I was on my own!

The Diploma course was made up of four modules; Managing People in Organisations, Managing Information, Business Analysis, and Project Management. The first two modules consisted of distance learning which required two written assignments to be submitted plus a formal three hour written exam. The latter two modules required attendance on bank run courses after which written assignments were required.

In the summer of 2004 I received the course material for the first element, Managing People. It was daunting now to realise that I had to start studying for the first time in three decades, and studying via distance learning too, something I had never previously tried. Even more daunting was the realisation of how big a commitment I had made as I tried to fit studying around a full time job and my home life. Frequently this meant starting my studies at ten o'clock in the evening and working through until about two in the morning. Having obtained passing grades in the assignments, the really hard work started as I began revising for the exam. There are lots of different ways to revise, most are a matter of personal preference. For me it largely consisted of re-writing my notes in a particular format as my memory is quite visual; if I can call to mind the format of the page it helps me recall the content. One thing I found out while revising was that sleeping on it was important. I would sit revising into the small hours and find that little was sinking in. I would go to bed and wake up to find that, like an overnight database job, my mind had ordered my thoughts and I could remember a lot more than I had been able to before I went to bed.

One thing that took a bit of practice was writing for three solid hours. Most of us now probably write very little with pen and paper and here I was embarking on a marathon session with a biro. Anyone thinking of taking a written exam in the near future would do well to spend a good deal of time just practicing writing for long periods; there is no point in going into an exam with all the answers in your head and not be able to get them down on paper because you go down with writer's cramp after thirty minutes.

 Interestingly, as I was at that time not a line manager and had no experience of actually managing people, I was able to treat this subject as a purely academic exercise; I had no preconceptions to get in the way of learning the subject and producing the sort of work that met the examiner's expectations. Whereas I gained a Distinction in the Managing People in Organisations element, I just scraped a pass in Business Analysis, ironic as I was (in part) employed as a Business Analyst, which sort of proves my point about approaching formal study without preconceptions.

As you will have gathered (it's in my profile on this blog after all), I managed to pass the whole shooting match and am now entitled to the letters DipBAO after my name; well I would be had my membership of the ifs not lapsed and I'm blowed if I'm prepared to pay over a hundred quid a year solely for that privilege (and a regular magazine).  In March 2007 I received my Diploma in an awards ceremony at Southwark Cathedral, which is up there with the proudest days of my life. It wasn't exactly a cheap day; hiring gown and mortar board and having an official photograph taken cost a tidy sum, but it added to the sense of occasion.

Southwark Cathedral

With some of my fellow students at our graduation.

Taking the Diploma was one of the hardest things I've had to do (in terms of fitting it into the rest of my life, if for no other reason), but also one of the most rewarding and it certainly makes me sympathetic to the testing times that Sarah is going through at the moment. To all of you who are in the throes of taking some form of formal qualification I say the very best of luck and to all of you who aren't but have a family member who is... good luck too!

Sunday In The Park

Every Sunday morning thousands of men up and down the country drag themselves out of their beds and head for the park or recreation ground to play Sunday League football. Some of these men are young and fit; many have left their youth behind many years ago and many have only a passing acquaintance with fitness. Some of these men can play a bit; many...well, you get the idea.

With the previous night's Match Of The Day still fresh in their minds, these men dream of emulating Luis Suarez in the penalty area, bossing the midfield like Yaya Toure, of making heroic tackles like John Terry, or pulling off dramatic penalty saves like Joe Hart. The reality is somewhat different.

Dream...

...reality.

The thing about Sunday league football is that it is, in theory at least, exactly the same game as that played in the Premier League: in exactly the same way as literature is exactly the same whether it is a classic novel by Charles Dickens or a self published work by a semi-literate madman from a sink estate.

Premier League matches are played on immaculately manicured pitches tended by an army of groundstaff; Sunday football is played on patches of scruffy grass better suited for growing vegetables. With all of the wet weather we have been experiencing in recent weeks, most parks and recs have been out of action, but I recall the frustration many years ago when I played Sunday football, of having games postponed on Friday evening because of a little overnight rain only for Sunday to dawn dry and bright with the pitches in perfect condition but deemed unplayable due to rain 48 hours earlier. Contrarily one would sometimes arrive on a Sunday morning to find that overnight rain had turned the pitch into a paddy field, that ducks were swimming in a puddle in one goalmouth but despite which the game was on.

Premier League...

 

...Sunday League

Premier League footballers change in luxuriously appointed rooms with state of the art facilities; Sunday league footballers are grateful to have anywhere to change. Again, when I played Sunday football the facilities were variable. At places like Hainault Forest they were quite good; at our home venue at Wanstead Flats they could best be described as adequate; at some venues they were little better than barns. In fact at one ground we called home, Sutton's Manor near Stapleford Tawney, the dressing rooms were a barn.

Premier League...

...Sunday League.

Sutton's Manor is now a private psychiatric hospital, but back in the 1980's it was a rambling manor house with lots of open space, some of which was marked out as football pitches. As our football club had been unable to find a pitch with our local council (well I assume we did not get one, I am still waiting for Havering Council to tell me if my application was successful), we were grateful to find a pitch at Sutton's. Unlike a pitch with the local council, teams had to mark out their own pitches and supply their own goalposts, so one Saturday morning, armed with pegs, twine and a line marking machine, we marked out a pitch. One of our team, one Jerry Moffat, a carpenter by trade, arrived with some lengths of wood and a couple of hours later we had a pitch complete with bespoke goalposts.

The pitches at Sutton's each had distinguishing features. One had overhanging trees so that a long, high ball down one flank might have its progress retarded by low hanging branches. Another had goalposts that bore only a passing acquaintance to normal dimensions. I well recall playing in goal on that pitch; despite my lack of inches I can jump and put my hand over a regulation crossbar, but try as I might with this one I could only just reach the underside of the bar, it must have been a good six inches too high! One Sunday we arrived to find that a tractor had been driven across our pitch leaving two long, shallow trenches. Common sense prevailed and a non-aggression pact was introduced when the ball went in a trench so that one player could extract it before play recommenced.

It seems that council run pitches are deteriorating these days, though. Used by thousands of amateur teams each week, these pitches are in an "abhorrent state" say the Football Association. Pitches are not only currently waterlogged after heavy rain but are also suffering from overuse and a lack of maintenance, in part caused by local government cutbacks. According to Sport England about  1.8 million people play football each week and about 80% do so on council owned pitches that were once heavily subsidised, however budget cuts mean that the cost of hiring a pitch has gone up by as much as 300%.

 

Sunday in the park; typical Sunday League action.

That 1.8 million figure is well down on the 2.14 million that Sport England reported were playing the game as recently as 2007. This decline in playing numbers has no single cause; busier lifestyles, weekend working and other distractions are just some of the factors. The increased cost of running a team (in 2001 a survey by the Grassroots Football Show estimated that the annual cost was around £2,000 and that is likely to be considerably more now), the loss of referees (many of whom have given up the game because of poor player discipline) and a shortfall in facilities are other key reasons. Just as budget constraints mean that local councils have had to cut down on pitch maintenance, many are also selling off playing fields. In my local area for instance, Oldchurch Park, which once boasted numerous football and cricket pitches is now the site of Queens Hospital, while the plot where its predecessor, Oldchurch Hospital, stood is now a housing estate.

Hackney Marshes, perhaps the most iconic Sunday League venue of them all.

Despite the costs, running a Sunday team these days must be easier than it was when I did, if only for the fact that everyone has a mobile phone! One of the biggest obstacles I faced in running a Sunday team  was making sure everyone knew where and when we were playing and actually getting them there. On one occasion we all met up alright but our convoy of cars became separated en route to the ground. Critically the one vehicle that never made it contained our goalkeeper and our main goalscorer; it will probably come as little surprise then that we lost (10-1).

In fact the stress and strain of getting the game on in the first place seriously distracted from my enjoyment of playing on a Sunday. I'll admit to having been no more than an ordinary player; if I had one strength though it was my versatility (I was able to perform equally well - or poorly, in a variety of positions); I played in goal, at left and right back, in midfield and as a forward. On one memorable occasion I managed to notch two goals by half-time but when we were awarded a penalty in the second half my dreams of a hat-trick were shattered when I sent the goalkeeper the wrong way from the spot only to put the ball wide of the post. On another occasion, playing in goal against a team from three divisions above us, I was having a storming game despite the driving rain and had kept the score to 3-0 at the break. One of my team-mates confided in an opponent who had said how well I was playing that I didn't normally play in goal. This appeared to galvanise the opposition who scored a further seven in the second 45 minutes.

After a number of years of struggle in the Barking & District Sunday League Division Three (the bottom division of five), Parkstone FC, for that was us, actually managed to attract some better players, including one Jon Bates who had played Isthmian League football with Barking. He scored 24 goals in 16 games for us that season. It was to prove our final season however as a number of players announced that they would leave in the summer. Faced with trying to recruit new players together with the cost and the time involved I decided to jack it in. Our last hurrah was a double header, played after the season had officially ended and only then because our opponents were in the running for promotion. It was played on a Sunday afternoon and we were forced to field a number of "ringers" one of who had already played on Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning! We lost the first game by a single goal and the second 5-3, a game in which I made one goal and scored two. Being Sunday football of course, neither of my goals were particularly orthodox. One was direct from a corner that went through at waist height and eluded everyone before creeping in at the far post, and the second was a penalty. My spot-kick was pushed out by the 'keeper; the ball landed about half way between us. Both me and the 'keeper, and the ball ended up in the net.

It may be understandable that the number of people playing Sunday football is falling, but the game is such a part of the fabric of English life I truly hope that the decline can be arrested or reversed.