Do I believe any more, the things that our politicians are telling us? Either yes or no! For starters, while they were assuring us of how well they were managing the economy, they, nor their highly paid advisers, saw what was happening in the world stock exchanges. Surely it is unfair for David Cameron to be criticising, when the whole purpose of the Opposition is to check the weaknesses in government, and the Tories missed the big one. The USA is allegedly the world leader, do I trust its leader or his inexperienced successor? The answer in my case is no to all, so I question the statement made by a Cabinet member on television, that, in spite of the credit crunch, we are going to increase our spending to save the world. I thought about it. We have been wrecking the world since the dawn of time. Just take the number of trees the Spaniards felled to build the Armada, the trees we felled for duckboards in World War I, and the incredible clouds of exhaust by the Industrial Revolution. The Yanks never do anything by halves, they got rid of the indigenous population, then got rid of the bison, and subsequently built dustbowls and wide plains which must have had some effect on the weather also.

I am unconvinced of what the scientists tell me about global warming. As they do the testing over the poles, and cold air falls and is replaced by warm air, carrying any other gases with it, I suggest the testing over the poles could give a higher concentration of carbon etc., not the mean. I am unconvinced that these recent Globwarm changes are solely due to carbon emission etc. I believe there is a wider explanation related to the world as a whole. We have been emitting carbon as long as I remember, with the fogs in London every November, and Manchester was famed for them. The changes have been too quick and too extensive, to be placed at the door of global warming, which by its very nature is a slow process

Let it be clear, I am not a scientist, nor a mathematician, just a bloke seeing if the politicians are getting it wrong yet again. I made a table setting out 20 countries who allegedly have a carbon emission greater than 1,000,000 tonnes. I took their emission as a percentage of the whole, and divided it by the country’s population as a percentage of the world population. This gave me a series of figures for the CO2 percentage per head of population, varying from about 5% in the USA to 0.3% for India. Unsurprisingly China was about 1%, but surprisingly Canada and Australia were in the 4% range. We supply 2.4%, or a 40th, per head of population.

The question that I’m asking myself is, if we are giving off 2.4% currently, and are ordered to halve this by some date in the future, I just have no idea of what this will cost in the course of a generation, but believe that our gang want to lead the world yet again at our expense, when they personally haven’t a clue of what they’re really talking about. I believe it is just political claptrap, a sop to the green lobby. I would want a lot more hard proof of exactly what is causing climate change, of how much other countries were going to subscribe, as a common problem, which should be tackled universally. The range in the figures is a clear indication that some countries are bound to increase their percentages as their innovation and wealth increases, others may not change but will not bother reducing them, and there will be few if any that do reduce them to the extent our government is proposing.

All those who think I’m wrong, raise their hands!

I read a piece in the UK News section of Google, which gave the league tables of the first hundred universities of the world, starting at the top with America. It was noticeable how few British universities appeared on the list. The comment accompanying this list was a verbal wringing of hands. To me, who has been wittering on for a long time about the poor standards required for entry to, and the quality of the degrees at the end of the day, it came as no surprise. You probably get sick of me harping back, but when I see the level of dropout that we are paying for with our taxes, and think back to what university life was like in the late 40s, some obvious lessons just jump at you. There was a fair cross-section of educated humanity which made up the average Year in any faculty, but in those days it was rare to find someone who didn’t appreciate that he or she had been selected for an experience that few enjoyed, with the result that the majority of us worked consistently and even in the Vacs, to make sure that we passed our exams at the end of each year. A university education is as much to do with the social and sports side of the year, with societies, educational trips, and above all the interchange of ideas in the union over a coffee. There were some who wasted the opportunity and had to resit, but most of us, especially the older ones like myself on an ex-service grant, worked hard, and if we had time played hard. Those like me with a young family were at a disadvantage where it came to the out of hours activities, which was something that I regretted losing, but I had my responsibilities.

The quality of the teaching in any university reflects the quality of the teachers. A man who has spent years arriving to a point where he has a PhD, is not going to be satisfied with just being a schoolmarm, his main drive is to do the sort of research that has been his main objective all along, to catch the eye of industry who will subsidise this research, and in the end to produce papers in technical journals that will enhance his reputation, and inevitably that of the University. The life of a university lecturer is what he cares to make it. There are those who are glorified teachers, but there are those who are specialists of a very high quality, and it is these that we need in our universities to raise the standards to those we had years ago. If you have that level of expertise and innovation on the teaching staff, you will inevitably improve the quality of the degrees, but this also can only be effected if the intellectual quality and enthusiasm of the students is commensurate. It is clear from what I have written that you either have an upward or downward spiral, nothing in this life stays still and remains the same. Even years ago when I was working, and I had graduates joining my staff straight from university, while there were some who were extremely bright, I felt in many cases that the standard had dropped since my day, and that was years ago. I believe the spiral has been winding down ever since.

The answer is to pump more money into the salaries of the teaching staff, in order to raise the standards of teaching, and research, so that industry subsidises the research in the universities, and consequently increases the income to the University, instead of dropping the standards in order to increase the income by increasing the student population. I am told that overseas students pay a lot more for their education here in university than ours. The only way you’re going to attract overseas income is to raise the standards across the board

Forgive me for plagiarism but I believe the phrase fits the bill. I’m referring to Peter Mandelson’s return to British politics from his role as Trade Commissioner to the EU. I find it surprising in view of the fact that he resigned twice from the Cabinet in his days with Tony Blair. What astonishes me is his right to receive roughly half a million pounds per year, for two years, while at the same time receiving approximately £180,000 for his services to our government. I assume he will also qualify for expenses during his service. In addition he will qualify for a 30,000 a year pension for services as a commissioner. My astonishment is on a number of levels, firstly he only worked there for four years, which shows you the incredible cost Brussels entails, when you consider the number of people there and the grades at which they work, not to mention their expenses for travel, accommodation, entertaining, lunches and pensions’. Another level of astonishment is that our government, in spite of his history, is having to bring him back. This would seem to indicate a paucity of people who would agree to, and are able enough, to fulfil the post that Mandelson is taking up, which itself I find extraordinary, because I believe that apart from someone like Einstein, there are few of us who are unique. I wonder what the public as a whole thinks of this in the light of the credit crunch, in the light of the Blair aftermath, and the possibility of Peter copying the Blairs’ incredibley lucrative lecture tours.

Another surprise this week was the theft of David Beckham’s memorabilia. I have considerable sympathy for him and his wife, and this is yet another twist in the change in morality that we think we can rely upon. I inevitably wonder if eBay, as an intermediary, should not ensure that the products they are advertising have not been stolen. The purchasers have no way of vetting the source of the products yet they are receiving stolen goods, which is against the law. Surely, if a series of articles whose value was increased by being once the property of the Beckham’s, suddenly appears on the market, it must raise questions?

Some councils are proposing to turn off the street lights at some time in the night to save costs and save the world. The criminal fraternity must be rubbing their hands, and the elderly will be vulnerable. Joy-riders will be harder to catch and girls will be afraid to stay out late. The irony is that everybody will be buying their own street lights in the form of spotlights, so once again the ratepayers will be paying twice, and the world won’t be saved at all. They do of course mean well – these councillors.

In one part of the United Kingdom there is a senior official who is being taken to task by some of the public and the media, for not having sufficient isolation wards attached to a hospital with a sudden and recent large outbreak of one of these killing viruses. I personally don’t blame him, it would be far too expensive to have vacant wards in every hospital just in case there is an outbreak. I would have thought that it would not be difficult to modify mobile homes, by using additional strutting in lieu of the internal walls, to provide torsional strength, and design in such a way that four of them could be bolted together, with additions, in short order, to supply an isolation ward, suitable for the 20 beds, plus a sluice plus also an area for serving meals. These could be set in place very quickly and moved from hospital to hospital as required. These days with all the advances that have been made in the mobile holiday home industry, toilets, washing facilities and all else, could be accommodated, with just a little thought and co-operation from the mobile home industry. If the police can set up incident rooms on a similar basis, why not wards within the DHSS

Art today is driven more by money and exposure, than by genius and the quality of the work. So many of the artists, whose paintings are now so in demand as investments, were quite often very poor. In the earlier centuries they had to depend upon patronage or commission. At the time of the Impressionists they were mainly dependent, as it is today day, on agents. Agents tend to set trends which suits their clientele rather than the artist. If there is collusion between the agents and the critics, especially in this age of sound bites, then the artist will suffer. Success in submitting material for exhibition, in any of the fields of art, will be dependent upon the taste of the judges. You can offer, say two paintings, for submission, one because you have great faith in it, and it has attracted respect and praise. However, judges could easily prefer another painting, submitted by the same artist, who feels that it contains errors and in consequence is nowhere near the quality of the other, yet is hung. This experience says something about selection, which is a form of criticism and possibly fashion. Criticism applies to a great extent in amateur circles, where people’s sensitivities are more vulnerable, and hurt is not uncommon. Teaching, explanation, example should be the tools of instruction by experts, not random criticism. Criticism is a blunt tool easily misunderstood.

The appreciation of art: might be learned from explanation and presentation, but it will also always be subjective, that is obvious, but what is not obvious to me at least, is the spate of presentations in national and private galleries of what amounts to little more than everyday experience. This is then further stretched to represent conditions that may occur, as demonstrated in a website entitled, Channel 4, Anatomy Of Disgust, which demonstrates art that wishes to portray openly to the viewer, domestic conditions they consider hold a special message. The purpose of art is to provide not so much a palliative, but stimulation of a positive kind to the mind, through vision, and I fail to see how various versions of an unkempt bedroom of the worst kind could be a positive stimulation.

I accept that once students have seen illustrations of, or visited the sites of the incredible work, as paintings and sculptures, that have been executed over hundreds of years, it is hard to believe that there is room to better them. It would seem, therefore, that they must find another way of self-expression. In many fields today advancers have almost reached saturation point and innovation has become considerably more difficult. What the new breed of artists do, and how they do it, is their business. The responsibility for maintaining the standards rests solely with the exhibitors, some private, some nationally funded. It is they and the media who hold sway, broadcast their opinions, while the man in the street is sceptical, unable to understand how a set of bricks that he sees daily as he drives past a builder’s yard, can ever be, art when set out in a rectangle. When you see the better work of regional artists in all the different media, they raise the spirits in many cases, because they see a landscape, a situation or a portrait, with different eyes, and the next time you see anything similar, perhaps your own appreciation will be modified. Looking at my own bedroom when I get up in the morning is depressing enough, God knows, I have no wish to look at someone else’s clutter.

What I write here is really only relevant to people who are interested in the law, or over 50 years of age. The fact that a woman had to go to the High Court to discover whether her husband would be charged with the criminal offence or not, of aiding and abetting suicide, if he went with her to Switzerland to help her and be with her, in her last hours, for a clinical suicide, to me is totally illogical. First of all, on his wedding day, he took an oath to keep her and look after her in sickness and in health. That was a religious undertaking, as well as a legal one as it is used in the oath in registry offices. The fact that suicide is a criminal act, even if it is justified, because the condition is unendurable, is surely based on religious doctrines that have come down through the ages. So here we have a dichotomy, do we obey the law, or standby our oath? The history of religious intolerance, with heinous acts, and unspeakable punishment for merely having adherence to a different version of the same religion, should itself make any law based on religious doctrine, suspect.

I wish to tell you about a painting my mother made just before she died. She had contracted cancer in the neck and shoulder and come to us in Ireland for company and to be cared for. Religious all her life, she became a Christian Scientist in latter years, so when she became seriously ill she took no medicine, nor the help of a doctor. Shortly before she died she painted a picture in water-colours. The picture was a series of concentric rough circles, in varying intensity of colours starting in brown going through deep red, red, a light red through orange and yellow until she came to a blistering white in the centre. The ragged edges where the colours intercepted, and indeed sometimes merged, were spattered with dark thorns at irregular intervals. ‘That,’ she said, ‘is what it feels like.’

I wrote on ‘The sterile landscape of the old, 25, 4, 07′, and ‘The responsibilities of old age, 28, 5, 08,’ which can be found currently on the blog, I also wrote a piece about euthanasia which has since been withdrawn. What is undeniably essential is that there is a legal framework to ensure that people do not take their own lives without careful thought and guidance if necessary, and that if they do so, they do it within a legal framework, approved by two professional opinions, either medical or legal, and conducted in an approved and regulated environment.

We will never stop people from committing suicide, but the cost to the individual concerned in the act, also to him or her if it’s a botched attempt, to relatives, and to the officials who have to clear up afterwards must surely demand a better system. This doesn’t take into account the cost to the ratepayer or the government in the subsequent investigation, which could include heavy plant and divers, to ascertain whether it was indeed suicide or murder.

It is time that those responsible for our lives and our welfare, appreciate the problems that the elderly face, and in many cases suffer, starting with their dignity, stretching to intolerable pain and psychological suffering, unnecessarily, even in some conditions not being aware of such. If a racehorse breaks its leg, in some cases it could be saved, but it is shot out of hand, mainly for economy’s sake. In the case of the humans it is not finance that is at stake, it is psychological and physical suffering from an outdated concept, in a country that does not hold anywhere near the religious belief that it once did.

Having listened to David Cameron stating that the Conservatives intend saving money by getting rid of consultants, I felt I had to write to you, as I believe this short-term approach would lead to total disaster. I believe him to be wrong both in principle and in practice, what is required is long-term change in policy. While I am speaking only as an engineer, I do believe that where possible, governments should not be handing out work to consultants but carrying out the work themselves, but to revert to this system will take time, This would also be particularly applicable to the use of computers in the civil service where currently I believe the interest of the supplier is put before the interest of the civil service.

I have worked as a consultant, a contractor, and in government service as a design engineer and a construction engineer, in the civil engineering field. I have designed and constructed marine works, sewage works, waterworks, runways, and tunnels, while working for Belfast Corporation and the civil service, and have been in charge of large workforces handling millions.

On retirement in 81, I left a team of experienced, well-trained engineers in both construction and design, It saddened me later to discover that the civil service, had decided to farm out all design work to contractors. In-house-trained people at any level or position, are a priceless asset. In engineering one starts at the bottom, progresses, gaining experience year-on-year, handling more and more money and controlling more and more people. This is essential, firstly for the engineer to know the quality of the work and the reasons for it, but more importantly he will retain the information, should it be required later if problems occur. His designs will be let to contract, and then the construction supervised, by him or a colleague, examining the quality, the competence of the work and agreeing the payments. The beauty of the in-house system is that accurate information is available in the face of unseen problems, and local knowledge is invaluable. It would seem that Mr Cameron proposes to delete all this. When Departments hand out work to consultant, they are detracting from the training of the very people who will be responsible for supervising and approving the work of the consultants, which includes the preliminary assessments, the designs, the implementation and verifying the payment.. If the in-house engineers have not had sufficient experience, then the government department has either totally to accept what the consultant is offering, or employ staff of the quality of standing and experience to be able to control the contract and oversee the consultants. Some contracts are for millions of pounds, some for a few hundred thousand, and as most contracts contain a contingency sum, placed in the contract precisely because in civil engineering the unexpected can be expected, the man responsible has got to be able to understand the problem and make the right decision, where a tyro would be totally lost.

You will see from what I’ve said above, either you have to lift experience off-the-shelf and this is not easy, is divisive, nor always successful, as the best are always in great demand, or it will take years to sow the seed and reap the harvest, in-house. Small organisations generally have small contracts and so the experience of the engineers is commensurate. Big organisations consequently require people versed in large works. I’m sure that these remarks apply not only to civil engineering, but in all the professions.