Choosing to Die? A Review:

A Cup Of Hemlock.

The poison is to be drunk
and best sooner
than later

It is ridiculous to cling to life
when it has no more
to offer

Such cowardice suffices
only to delay
reckoning

Better to drink the poison now
with the swift calm
of a dead man

Having so spoken
Socrates drained the cup
in one breath

And a short while after
was found still
and cold

Watching Terry Pratchett on assisted dying, on the BBC 2 documentary last night, I think it is debate that needs to be aired, as publicly as possible. I have considerable reservations relating to pressure on the elderly and vulnerable, but I can see that there may be exceptions; it is a very difficult area, and I'm not sure it can be presented in simple black and white terms. But against the strident voices who accuse the BBC of bias, and of breaking guidelines, I think we need to tackle the taboo subject of death, and do it in a way that brings the effects home, and not at a distance.

Peter, who took the poison at the Swiss Clinic, died quietly and with dignity, and yet there was a moment when he cried out that he was thirsty and wanted water, and it was refused, and was clearly in discomfort, and it flitted through my mind that he might have, at that eleventh hour, changed his mind; it was an unsettling moment, even if only for a few seconds, and I was not happy watching that.

If I had Alzheimer's,  I'm not 100% sure how I would feel. I've seen people deteriorate until they become shells of the human beings they once were, their memory lost, and unable to live with any kind of dignity. I certainly don't think they should be "given" euthanasia, but what if they made the choice while they good, knowing what was to come? Unlike other illnesses, like cancer, or motor neurone disease, there would be a point where one would be unable to make a conscious choice, and Terry Pratchett could see this problem very well: where would the "tipping point" be, because he would not want to die too soon, but wanted to taste every last morsel of life.

I was struck by how the person had to take the drug themselves; they could not in fact be assisted to do it, and no one could do it for them. Also it was clear that the environment in which this took place was very strongly organised against any coercion being given.

This reminded me of the problem of the trolley, which Michael Sandel introduced in his lectures on Justice:

"Suppose you're the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurdling down the track at sixty miles an hour and at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the track. You tried to stop but you can't your brakes don't work - you feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers they will all die. Let's assume you know that for sure and so you feel helpless until you notice that there is off to the right a side track at the end of that track there's one worker working on the track. You're steering wheel works so you can turn the trolley car if you want to onto this side track killing the one but sparing the five. Here's our first question, "What's the right thing to do?" Because it can't be right to kill five people when you can only kill one person instead. It wouldn't be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead.

Most people said they would turn the wheel, but then they were presented with another problem:

This time you're not the driver of the trolley car, you're an onlooker standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track and down the track comes a trolley car -  at the end of the track are five workers. The brakes don't work - the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them - and now you're not the driver you really feel helpless until you notice standing next to you leaning over the bridge is it very fat man. And you could give him a shove he would fall over the bridge onto the track right in the way of the trolley car he would die but he would spare the five. Now, how many would push the fat man over the bridge?

And he makes the point:

Most people wouldn't. Here's the obvious question, what became of the principle better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one? What became of the principle that almost everyone endorsed in the first case?

What happens is that behind the original principle is another principle, which is in the second case, you are involved in making an active choice of pushing a person - and that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all. You are choosing on his behalf, and otherwise he would have escaped.

I can see the same kind of distinction at work here between someone giving another person a lethal injection, and the person taking a cup of poison themselves; there is a difference in volition, even if the end result is the same. It may seem minor, after all, I could request someone to give me an injection, just as I could request the cup, but it is not quite the same, because - as with the trolley thought experiment - there is the element of active personal action. Another person is supplying the poison, but the choice, and the decision to drink it, must be yours - they cannot choose to act on your behalf, however much you may request it. Thomas Szasz makes this same distinction, and he warns against the use of slippery language in which doctors actually kill the patient, but it is termed "physician-assisted suicide":

"Physician-assisted suicide" can be one of two things. The physician can give the patient a drug--let's say a barbiturate--and then the patient takes the drug and dies. But that's simply suicide, a person killing himself. If you buy a rope in a store, you don't talk about "merchant-assisted suicide." On the other hand, what can also happen is that the physician helps a person to die--in effect, speeds his death or kills him. This is how many old people have died in the past and continue to die. They are going to live another few days or weeks; they are in heart failure and can't breathe. The physician gives them a little extra morphine, and they stop breathing. This is how Sigmund Freud died. But this is not suicide.

I don't, as yet, have a life threatening illness (as far as I know), so it is very difficult for me to know how it must feel from the inside, as we could get glimpses from Peter in the programme, and Terry Pratchett. That's I think part of the problem: looking at it from the outside, there seem to be a number of problems, and indeed Terry raised the problem of coercion, and of doctors or relatives deciding, or the state of mind (as with depressives). Granny will be encouraged to die because she is a burden on the family. And that's a real problem.

Thomas Szasz illustrated cases of how elderly relatives in the USA would be sectioned as "mentally ill" simply because it was an easy option for their families to take. If an elderly widow decided to give away most of  her money to charity rather than family, or sell up the family home and enjoy holidays with the proceeds, or the father wanted to marry a much younger woman - he gave cases where psychiatrists would be brought in to section them as "mentally ill", and allow the families to ensure they didn't lose their inheritance. That's not a good omen where "assisted dying" is concerned.

Rather than having a debate about the ethics of taking away an individuals freedom, psychiatrists often colluded with the families, used a medical model to side-step the moral issues, and give the families what they wanted. Szasz called this "bootlegging humanistic values through psychiatry", and noted that the same evasion of debate took place in the domain of abortion. So coercion is a real problem, and if professionals get involved, the situation can be very dangerous for the most vulnerable.

But from the inside, from having a life threatening illness, with no hope of remission, the choices must, I am sure, be much more stark and final. That's why I wouldn't be dogmatic about it, because I don't know what I would perceive the matter if it concerned me. Terry also raised the matter of people who decide to commit suicide in such cases of terminal illness in the UK, which is invariably botched and messy, because DIY just isn't that reliable.

Certainly medication without assistance would seem to be one kind of protection, and I would not be happy with someone giving a lethal injection. But is it enough? It is fine when there is a remote clinic, and not many people are queuing up to pay the £10,000 price tag, but when it becomes more of a mass-market affair, of the kind that Terry Pratchett wants, the safeguards would have to be iron-clad to prevent abuse, and I'm not sure that is possible.

I do understand that most Christian teaching, certainly in Catholicism, is firmly against assisted dying of any kind, but that also raises the question of whether those values should form the basis for the legislative framework for the rest of society; that's difficult. I think insofar as they can be presented as purely ethical arguments, that's ok, but while internally Christian values can be supported by scriptures and tradition, that is a kind of argument that may not hold value in the public domain, what Richard Dawkins terms "playing the God card" as a kind of trump.

Certainly some things should be "common ground". I would never countenance under any form the society that starts judging life by "quality of life", and then proceeds to remove the handicapped. The dangers of abusing such a system to save money is very great, and of course, we all know the lesson of history

The nationwide policy of administering euthanasia to mentally defective people, psychotics, epileptics . . . was in violation of the [National Socialist] penal code. . . . The program was regulated according to the motto: "The needle belongs in the hand of the doctor." (German euthanasia policy, 1938-1945)

But should individuals have the right to make up their own mind? Should Christianity trump matters as the backbone for our decisions, or should they be made on rational grounds that can be universally agreed?

The Modern Pagan writer Emma Restal Orr presents a quite different view of suicide:

If we acknowledge an individual as having responsibility for what he makes of his own life, we must also allow him responsibility for how he might end it. In Paganism, there is no God, nor any other body wielding authority, whose judgment on such a decision has any validity. Indeed, the very idea that someone would prevent another from ending their life would be an act of force that negated the individual's freedom, implying that their life was in fact not their own. Yet in a culture that does not accept slavery, who might justifiably claim ownership of (authority over) another's life is an incomprehensible question. With its emphasis on the importance of self-governance, such an idea is entirely counter to Pagan thinking.

But she is also aware that the pressures of our society are also an important factor, and the cool decision taking that Peter took in the Terry Pratchett film are not possible for many. Peter was clearly a wealthy man, and Terry looked around his house; here was a life with considerable luxury, in which the only factor was his own health. For the great mass of the population, living with considerably less means, and to whom £10,000 would be a huge sum of money, that kind of cool stoic thought may not be possible:

What does compromise our human freedom are the flooding tides of desolation and depression, now at epidemic levels in Western society. Unable to function or think clearly, an individual may stumble into fantasies of suicide, particularly if legal or illegal drugs are further complicating the chemical mix, paralysing parts of the brain. These urges can be temporary, provoked by loss or trauma, and to make critical decisions when emotionally flooded is always dangerous. Blinkered by the experience of suffering, seeing only pain ahead, we risk behaving with clumsy dishonour, lacking courage, dismissing our responsibilities, forgetting loyalties. Yet, even dishonourably done, through the selfish fog of despair, the decision to end the suffering by taking our own life is still ours to make.

Schopenhauer, a man who had journeyed extensively through the dark valleys of despair, supported the right to commit suicide: it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person'. However, he also spoke of the risk of being overwhelmed by suffering, acknowledging the difference between submitting to the dreadful torrent, letting despair overcome reason and killing oneself through an act of destruction, or stepping aside from the force of Will and choosing to end the nightmare by taking one's own life, fully awake to the nature of existence. With a clear head, mindful of the threads of connection and relationship, fully present in our authenticity, we can commit suicide with honour.

And in her book "Living with Honour", she makes the distinction between two kinds of people who may be thinking of taking their own lives:

Through my own experience with people who dance the precarious edge of suicide, Pagan and non-Pagan, and having meandered within that place myself, I perceive a very clear distinction: between those who do not want to live and those who want to die. The former are crying out for  help, desperately needing to re-establish the functionality of their life.  Without that help, finding themselves unable to make the suffering  disappear, they want to disappear from the suffering, and death appears to  offer that option- At the crucial moment, however, the soul clings to life.  Overwhelmed by fear, such people wish that they could let go, but they have not yet crossed the river. The latter have. Whether requesting help or acceptance from others, or just to be left in peace to walk their chosen road, their situation is totally different from the person who does not want to live, and needs to be acknowledged as such. Here we find authenticity, and so the possibility of honour.

That is a clear distinction in theory, and very true - I've heard of a young man, desperate for work, whose thoughts have turn in despair to suicide  - but how would that be put in practice to legislate for the latter but protect the former? I'm not convinced it can be easily done.

An analogy would be like distinguishing between messages you want to let through, and spam. As human beings, we can spot spam very easily, but for a computer, it is very difficult to provide formal procedures which are failsafe. And the same may be true of legislation.

I am concerned where this may all lead. And sometimes science fiction can cast a warning note for the present. One such example is in Isaac Asimov's novel "Pebble in the Sky". Set thousands of years in the future, it portrays a society where the pressure of population has led to a legislative policy of euthanasia, where the old have to die at sixty to make way for the young. That, of course, would solve our own demographic time-bomb in an instant. This extract is from when Arvardan, an archeologist from Sirius, is visiting Earth for the first time. Is it a vision of a society in which assisted suicide is at first beneficent, and then becomes cheaper than palliative care? Because whereas the Nazi ideology was driven by race, our own ideologies are driven by cost-effectiveness.

From the dark wine-purple of the extreme stratosphere, Earth presented a fabulous appearance. Beneath him the vast and misted land areas in sight (obscured here and there by the patches of sun-bright clouds) showed a desert orange. Behind them, slowly receding from the fleeing stratoliner, was the soft and fuzzy night line, within whose dark shadow there was the sparking of the radioactive areas.

His attention was drawn from the window by the laughter among the others. It seemed to centre about an elderly couple, comfortably stout and all smiles. Arvardan nudged his neighbour. 'What's going on?' His neighbour paused to say, 'They've been married forty years, and they're  making the Grand Tour.'

'The Grand Tour?'

'You know. All round the Earth.'

The elderly man, flushed with pleasure, was recounting in voluble fashion his experiences and impressions. His wife joined in periodically, with meticulous corrections involving completely unimportant points; these being given and taken in the best of humour. To all this the audience listened with the greatest attention, so that to Arvardan it seemed that Earthmen were as warm and human as any people in the Galaxy. And then someone asked, 'And when is it that you're scheduled for the  Sixty?'

'In about a month,' came the ready, cheerful answer. 'Sixteenth November.'

'Well,' said the questioner, 'I hope you have a nice day for it. My father reached his Sixty in a damned pouring rain. I've never seen one like it since. I was going with him-you know, a fellow likes company on a day like that-and he complained about the rain every step of the way. We had an open biwheel, you see, and we got soaked. "Listen," I said, "what are you complaining about, Dad? I've got to come back."'

There was a general howl of laughter which the anniversary couple were not backward in joining. Arvardan, however, plunged in horror as a distinct and uncomfortable suspicion entered his mind.
He said to the man sharing his seat, `This Sixty, this subject of conversation here-I take it they're referring to euthanasia. I mean, you're put out of the way when you reach your sixtieth birthday, aren't you?'

Arvardan's voice faded somewhat as his neighbour choked off the last of his chuckles to turn in his seat and favour the questioner with a long and suspicious stare. Finally he said, 'Well, what do you think he meant?'
Arvardan made an indefinite gesture with his hand and smiled rather foolishly. He had known of the custom, but only academically. Something in a book. Something discussed in a scientific paper. But it was now borne in upon him that it actually applied to living beings, that the men and women surrounding him could, by custom, live only to sixty.

The elderly man was talking again. 'She's coming with me,' he said, nodding toward his genial wife. 'She's not due for about three months after that, but there's no point in her waiting, she thinks, and we might as well go together. Isn't that it, Chubby?'

'Oh yes,' she said, and giggled rosily. 'Our children are all married and have homes of their own. I'd just be a bother to them. Besides, I couldn't enjoy the time anyway without the old fellow-so we'll just leave off together.'


References
http://www.sweetspeeches.com/s/1013-michael-sandel-what-s-the-right-thing-to-do#ixzz1PEqDpijf
Justice, Michael Sandel
Fatal Freedom: The Ethics and Politics of Suicide. Contributors: Thomas Szasz , 1999
R. Proctor, "Racial Hygiene", pp. 190, 193; and D. Pappas, "Recent Historical Perspectives Regarding Medical Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide", British Medical Bulletin 52 ( 1996): 390.
Living with Honour, Emma Restall-Orr
Pebble in the Sky, Isaac Asimov

 

Nothing is lost

I listened to a Radio 4 programme, Lost Voices, about Anne Ridler (30 July 1912 - 15 October 2001) . She was a British poet who worked with T.S. Eliot, selecting "A Little Book of Modern Verse" for Faber and Faber. But she was also a friend of C.S. Lewis, on the edge of the Inkings, and edited a collection of Charles William's works.

This poem was one of those read out during the programme by Juliet Stephenson. The presenter, Brian Patten, noted how it was one often selected at funerals, and while poignant, did not trivialise or sentimentalise death. There is no "other room" to slip away to in this poem.

In its way, it is as quite bleak, extraordinarily so for a Christian writer - there is no mention of heaven, no sunny reunions, no Dantean vision of Paradise.

Instead we have an almost Darwinian and humanist hymn to how we encapsulate our ancestors in biology and memory, and how in turn, our descendants will do when we too, are gone.

Nothing Is Lost by Anne Ridler

We are too sad to know that, or too blind;
Only in visited moments do we understand:
     It is not that the dead return-
          They are about us always, though unguessed.

     This penciled Latin verse
You dying wrote me, ten years past and more,
Brings you as much alive to me as the self you wrote it for,
     Dear father, as I read your words
          With no Word but Alas.

     Lines in a letter, lines in a face
Are faithful currents of life: the boy has written
His parents across his forehead, and as we burn
     Our bodies up each seven years,
          His own past self has left no plainer trace.

     Nothing dies.
The cells pass on their secrets, we betray them
Unknowingly: in a freckle, in the way
     We walk, recall some ancestor,
          And Adam in the color of our eyes.

     Yes, on the face of the new born,
Before the soul has taken full possession,
There pass, as over a screen, in succession
     The images of other beings:
          Face after face looks out, and then is gone.

     Nothing is lost, for all in love survive.
I lay my cheek against his sleeping limbs
To feel if he is warm, and touch in him
     Those children whom no shawl could warm,
          no arms, no grief, no longing could revive.

     Thus what we see, or know,
Is only a tiny portion, at the best,
Of the life in which we share; an iceberg's crest
     Our sunlit present, our partial sense,
          With deep supporting multitudes below.

 

How Peter Hitchens gets the Bible to agree with him

Blessed are the Spongers? That's not what St Paul said, Archbishop

That is Peter Hitchens, writing in the Daily Mail. And he goes on to criticise Rowan William's recent article in the New Statesman:

Why is it so bad to draw a line between the deserving and the undeserving poor? I have searched the Sermon on the Mount for the words 'Blessed are the Spongers' and I cannot find them - or anything remotely like them. So why does the Archbishop of Canterbury speak as if it was obvious that we should treat people who can work, but won't, in the same way as we treat those who are truly in need?

As Dr Williams has decided to take up political commentating, I think I shall do a little bit of Archbishoping. Here beginneth the first lesson: In St Paul's first epistle to Timothy, Chapter 5, we read: 'If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.' And in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, St Paul rubs it in, in that way he has: 'This we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.' This seems pretty clear to me, and a dozen generations before my own knew these words by heart and lived according to them. They gave to charity and supported the helpless and needy with all their might. But they scorned those who sought to live off others when they had no need to. Our Welfare State took much the same line until Harold Wilson 'reformed' it in the Sixties.

Hitchens, of course, is proof texting like mad. To "proof text" is to take Biblical texts out of context, denude them of their original significance, and present them in such a way that it looks like they prop up your own argument. Stripped of the language of the King James version, no doubt used by Hitchens to provide some kind of pretentiousness to ancient wisdom, a modern translation from the original Greek (the New Testament was written in Greek) reads:

But if any do not take care of their relatives, especially the members of their own family, they have denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever. (1 Timothy 5:8)

What matters is the context that Hitchens has wrenched this from. The author of the letter (whether it is Paul is debatable) is addressing the matter of widows, and who should provide for them. It is not a general matter about working for one's family, but quite specific. If a widow needs financial support, where should that support come from. The letter says that if the widow has children or grandchildren, they should look after her - as part of a Christian community, not as part of a rule for the rest of the Roman pagan community in general. It is not giving a general rule that - as Hitchens tries to wrench an interpretation - people should work and not sponge off society:

Show respect for widows who really are all alone. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, they should learn first to carry out their religious duties toward their own family and in this way repay their parents and grandparents, because that is what pleases God. A widow who is all alone, with no one to take care of her, has placed her hope in God and continues to pray and ask him for his help night and day... Give them these instructions, so that no one will find fault with them. But if any do not take care of their relatives, especially the members of their own family, they have denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever.
(1 Timothy 5:3-8)

Of course, the letter was written at a time when there was no Welfare State. That's indeed the background against which we see the passage that Hitchens quotes from Thessalonians. But what kind of society was it in which people might become freeloaders? While Hitchens rants on about "we are at heart a Christian nation and people" and says "they really have to get out of their heads the idea that the Welfare State must be unconditionally defended", it is worth looking at the kind of society which Paul is addressing in that letter:

The group of believers was one in mind and heart. None of them said that any of their belongings were their own, but they all shared with one another everything they had. With great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and God poured rich blessings on them all. There was no one in the group who was in need. Those who owned fields or houses would sell them, bring the money received from the sale, and turn it over to the apostles; and the money was distributed according to the needs of the people. And so it was that Joseph, a Levite born in Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means "One who Encourages"), sold a field he owned, brought the money, and turned it over to the apostles.
(Acts 4:32-37)

Now if Hitchens wants the kind of society that the early Christians adopted, well and good, and I look forward to seeing him selling his fields and houses and turn it over to Christian Aid for distribution. There is also a rather salutary story about people to tried to keep something back, and perhaps a lesson might be drawn about tax evasion by the rich here, or the way in which some rich people want to be seen to be doing good, but don't do so in any way that seriously inconveniences their own lifestyle.

But there was a man named Ananias, who with his wife Sapphira sold some property that belonged to them. But with his wife's agreement he kept part of the money for himself and turned the rest over to the apostles. Peter said to him, "Ananias, why did you let Satan take control of you and make you lie to the Holy Spirit by keeping part of the money you received for the property? Before you sold the property, it belonged to you; and after you sold it, the money was yours. Why, then, did you decide to do such a thing? You have not lied to people---you have lied to God!" As soon as Ananias heard this, he fell down dead; and all who heard about it were terrified. (Acts 5:1-10)

Now - to be absolutely clear - I'm not advocating that society should be modeled on that kind of early Christian communitarian model, with everything in common. For a start, that was a decision taken among the believing community, and clearly to impose that as a model for the whole of society would bring in a theocratic dictatorship, which would be a great evil. Also, historically, for some reason, it doesn't seemed to have survived for long, perhaps because of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

But if Hitchens is bleating on about "giving to charity", and quoting the New Testament, I think he should at least let us see the kind of society described there - that held things in common - was all about; he should see that just as much as those who sponged off this society, there was also criticism of those who held back their own wealth for themselves, and who thought that a token "giving to charity" was all that it meant to be part of such a society.

That such articles occur in the Daily Mail, alongside criticism of Rowan Williams is not surprising; the same paper has another article entitled "Rowan Williams is a profoundly divisive Leftie". No one really wants to listen to what he says and understand the thrust of his argument; they just take the bits they want to attack. I notice they haven't addressed another of his key points about "the bafflement and indignation that the present government is facing over its proposals for reform in health and education. With remarkable speed, we are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no one voted. At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context."

Democratic mandate, anyone? Or is how well a government acts in accordance with its mandate, and how far it can go from that when elected and in power not a proper subject for debate? Or should Daily Mail readers not be introduced to this kind of debate, because "nothing has changed", as one of the officials after the Anschluss said in "The Sound of Music"?

What Hitchen's really wants is for the New Testament to support his views, and when he makes the distinction between the "hard working poor" and "near neighbours living lives of shameless idleness on their money"; no doubt, in his view, there are many such.

When Rowan Williams says that political debate about cut-backs is "not helped by a quiet resurgence of the seductive language of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor, nor by the steady pressure to increase what look like punitive responses to alleged abuses of the system", he is noting that there is a profound hermeneutic of suspicion which sees a large proportion of the poor as somehow "undeserving", and is prepared to take any opportunity, in the name of cost-cutting, to make it harder for poorer people to be supported.

It is a shift in perception to seeing people as "undeserving" unless they can prove otherwise, more detailed forms for the means testing to ensure that no one is milking the system - and as in Jersey - the call for people to call in about suspected "benefit cheats" among their neighbours, and - as over here - be able to do it anonymously.

That is the kind of strategy that grinds people down, and I know people in Jersey who are on income support who have been told to get more than a part time job, but the jobs are just not available. They are being steadily crushed by the bureaucratic machine. The older system, of a Parish welfare system, where the Constable, together with elderly Miss Havershams, vetted and probed applicants, could also be strict, but it was also flexible; the new legislation seems to have increasingly lost that flexibility.

Hitchens clearly sees the poor as objects of charity. Rowan Williams, in his article, takes a quite different position, he asks us to look at the "theological strand to be retrieved that is not about 'the poor' as objects of kindness but about the nature of sustainable community, seeing it as one in which what circulates - like the flow of blood - is the mutual creation of capacity, building the ability of the other person or group to become, in turn, a giver of life and responsibility."

It appears that what Hitchens really wants is a kind of ossified Christianity, a kind of benevolent paternalism, which used to be part of the fabric of English society:

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

Unfortunately, the New Testament reveals a very different kind of community behind its texts about work and support.

References:
1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2002516/PETER-HITCHENS-Blessed-Spongers-Thats-St-Paul-said-Archbishop.html
2) http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/06/rowan-williams-government






Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2002516/PETER-HITCHENS-Blessed-Spongers-Thats-St-Paul-said-Archbishop.html#ixzz1P6FNL9MC

Time To Live

This is a short poem about what it means to be truly alive...

Time To Live
 
Along the paved streets of old London town
I see so many people struggling, pulled down
And on the bus, blankly looking for a destination
Passing brick houses, slums full of such negation
And shops through which flits the weary buyer
Worn down by life, and looking ready to retire
Sad faces, so many regrets, unhappiness and pace
This modern world shuts out all life, and grace
And like the walking dead, they shuffle on their way
Of only motion, only habit, time before decay
Feelings stifled in fear, in pain, in a silent scream
Because there is nothing here left, nothing to dream
I watch, a pale shadow, a ghost of joys gone by
Wish I could tell them to seek truth, not live a lie
And find that there is still time to live, to be free
In dying to self, rebirth, embrace life, let it be.
 

Portugal Day

Today is Portugal Day, which is celebrated in Jersey, officially Dia de Camões, de Portugal e das Comunidades Portuguesas ("Day of Camões,Portugal, and the Portuguese Communities"), and it marks the date of poet Luís de Camões' death on June 10, 1580, which is Portugal's National Day.

A couple of poems (in translation) by Luís de Camões. I'd never come across him. They are lovely poems, even in translation.

"The eyes where love in chastest fire would glow"

The eyes where love in chastest fire would glow,
Joying to be consumed amidst their light,
The face whereon with wondrous lustre bright
The purple rose was blushing o'er the snow;
The hair whereof the sun would envious grow,
It made his own less golden to the sight;
The well-formed body and the hand so white,
All to cold earth reduced lies here below!
In tender age, a beauty all entire,
E'en like a blossom gathered ere its time,
Lies withered in the hand of heartless death:
How doth not Love for pity's sake expire?
Ah! not for her who flies to life sublime,
But for himself whom night extinguisheth.

Translated by J. J. Aubertin.

Beholding Her

When I behold you, Lady! when my eyes
Dwell on the deep enjoyment of your sight,
I give my spirit to that one delight,
And earth appears to me a Paradise.
And when I hear you speak, and see you smile,
Full satisfied, absorb'd, my centr'd mind
Deems all the world's vain hopes and joys the while
As empty as the unsubstantial wind.
Lady! I feel your charms, yet dare not raise
To that high theme the unequal song of praise,--
A power for that to language was not given;
Nor marvel I, when I those beauties view,
Lady! that He, whose power created you,
Could form the stars and yonder glorious heaven.

Translated by Robert Southey.

The Shepherdess Nise

Aurora with her new-born crystal ray
Arose the enamelled world again to dress,
When Nise, fair and gentle shepherdess,
Departed whence her only true life lay.
The light of eyes that darkened those of day
She raised, while flowing anxious tears oppress,
Of self, fate, time, all wearied to distress,
And gazing heavenward thus did pensive say:
Rise, tranquil sun, once more all pure and shining,
Clear purple morn with new-born light be clad,
And see sad souls with you their grief resigning;
But my poor soul, while others all are glad,
Ye know ye ne'er shall see but as repining,
Nor any other shepherdess so sad.

Translated by J. J. Aubertin.

Increased Retirement Age: Impact on Manual Workers and other Demanding Jobs

There appears to have been no study or assessment on the impact of raising the retirement age on manual workers. It is well known that manual workers often have more significant medical demands because of the physical nature of their work, and may well have to be signed off permanently before retirement age and have an invalidity allowance (or component of Income Support) instead.

Retraining itself can be difficult for a variety of reasons, especially if the nature of the infirmity relates to back trouble, and moving to a desk job also has problems as if someone has back trouble, a sedentary occupation can also make it worse.

There is an interesting study from Malta, where they are looking at increasing their retirement age to 65 rather than 68. It is entitled: "65 Years Retirement Age: Impact on Manual Workers and other Demanding Jobs Supplementary Paper to the Final Report of the Pensions Working Group"

It is still of interest, because any shift of pension age upwards has unexpected consequences on the population, and there was clearly a significant concern that Malta might experience these kind of problems. Hence, they looked both at the impact of these shifts, not just in Malta, but across the EU, and also looked at different ways in which an increased pension age could be mitigated for manual workers to address these problems.

They noted that the number of "inactive persons" aged between 55 and 64 years was the largest group of inactive persons in the population, but noted that care needed to be given when interpreting such figures, as  55-64 age group includes those persons who have already retired.

They noted that during October to December 2004:

- males in the 55-64 age cohort preferred full-time participation rather than part-time participation in the labour force;
- those males over 65 years of age preferred part-time employment more than full-time employment.

On the other hand, the percentage of females over 65 years of age in part-time employment is low when compared to other age cohorts although females over 65 years of age preferred part-time employment rather than full-time employment like males. The percentage of females aged between 25-54 years in part-time employment is higher than other ages.

The reason behind this trend can be attributed to family responsibilities, as females may be more able to maintain part-time employment rather than full-time employment after having children.

They noted that an increase in retirement age impacted differently on different cohorts in the population, and noted that any study should distinguish between the "macro impacts" resulting from an increase in retirement age, and the more specific impacts of an increase in retirement age on workers in manual and other demanding jobs. The negative sides of these could be given as follows:

Macro-Economic Impacts

Statistics indicate that older workers have high rates of unemployment, which may be aggravated, as the unemployment of old workers is less humiliating than the unemployment of young workers. Moreover, when employed older workers are often underemployed, as the employment does not match their skills levels.

Impacts on Employers

Employers feel that older workers are less productive than younger ones and the reduction of natural attrition could be detrimental to the company performance. This could lead employers to remain fixed at their current head count, when in actual fact, in need of the dynamism provided by the younger workforce.

An increase in retirement age may open a minefield of litigation as employees feel that they have been discarded or that they have suffered a decrease in salary because of age discrimination and not for other valid reasons

Impacts on Workers

Employees who have poor health, but do not quality for a disability pension will find it difficult to get a job.

Employees who are made redundant by their employees, may feel discouraged to apply for jobs because they think the will be discriminated against because of their age.

An increase in retirement age, increases the impact of work-related stress, demands and pressures on the individual's physical and mental health. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work studies estimate that the cost of stress at work and the related mental health problems could amount to 3% to 4% of the Gross National Product in the 15 EU members (pre-2004).

An extension of the retirement age might result in too heavy a burden in terms of physical strain, on the manual worker. The increase in the retirement age may lead individuals in this category, who are not able to work for these additional years, to leave the workforce and seek social assistance, unemployment benefits or invalidity pension thus restricting their social right to leave the workforce in a dignified manner

Older workers suffer more from osteoarticular problems as they are exposed to physical stress. 50% of the employees who carry heavy loads and are under the age of 25 (men or women) who suffer from back problems attribute these to their work. 75% between the ages of 45 and 54 for men and close to 80% above the age of 50 for women attribute their back problems to their work.

The economy is increasingly becoming service-driven making it easier for older workers to perform their jobs. However, those still in manual jobs and in other demanding jobs may find it difficult to maintain their current job for a longer number of years. Moreover, the pace of change is a very rapid one, which may make it more difficult for older workers to keep up. Therefore, manual workers and other workers in other demanding jobs may need to be retrained to do a different job to maintain their
participation in the labour force.

They noted that the panacea of "reskilling" could not be relied upon as the change of job could be a problem with older people, especially if the new job is very different than the former. Surveys across Europe show that the perception among older workers is that it is harder for them to "to learn new things" And equally, employers tend to tend to believe that older workers lack the capability of training or are less flexible.

But they note that industrial gerontological and occupational psychology research (OECD. Incentives and disincentives to early and late retirement (Working Paper).) shows that it is simplistic to conclude that the common belief that older workers are less flexible than younger workers is true. Rather it is the case that a different approach is needed:

Older workers need a different training approach which takes into consideration their particular characteristics. One reason for the different training approaches is that "fluid" cognitive abilities (including short term memory and attention) are negatively related to age and "crystalised" cognitive abilities (relating to verbal, acquired or specialised skills) are positively related to age. Therefore, training programmes for older people should:

- involve learning by doing;
- build upon existing concepts and structures;
- appear directly applicable; and
- be suitably paced.

There is another effect of increased retirement age which relates more to manual workers where their children are also on low incomes, and that is an increased burden of childcare on expenses. They note that:

This brings about a change in lifestyle together with a change in culture as the grandparents are no longer available to support their children in employment and thus their children have to find other alternatives for support (e.g. the use of childcare services for grandchildren).

And another factor to consider is the longevity of the manual worker. The current statistics (Economist's View. 2005. The costs and benefits of raising the retirement age.) support the view that blue-collar workers do not live as long as white-collar workers.

Thus, an increase in retirement age could have blue-collar workers even less likely to enjoy their pension. Moreover, blue-collar workers tend to be poorer and consequently an increase in the retirement age will have a larger impact on blue-collar workers and low-income workers. In Switzerland, occupations in physically strenuous work sectors, such as occupations in the construction industry, forestry and wood-processing industry, there is a clearly higher morality rate compared with the average. Architects, engineers, doctors and teachers show a mortality rate far below the average.

Conclusion

Increasing the retirement age impacts the workers of manual jobs and other demanding jobs in a different and possibly more intense way. It may be harder for workers in manual and other demanding jobs to maintain their employment for the additional number of years. Studies also indicate that this category of workers have a less healthy lifestyle and do not live as long as white-collar workers.

But they also noted that the intensity of the impacts emerging from the increase in retirement age depends also on a number other factors including the number of employees actually in manual and demanding jobs. Regarding health, they note that:

Individuals unable to work for the additional number of years may be constrained to leave the workforce and seek social assistance, unemployment benefits or invalidity pension. Such individuals are not be allowed to leave the workforce in a dignified manner and may experience a decrease in their disposable income resulting from not actively participating in the workforce. Being inactive has an impact on the pension received upon reaching the retirement age, as the individuals who are incapable of maintaining their job up to the retirement age will find it more difficult to pay the required contributions and thus will not be entitled to the full pension.

What they suggest for manual workers is not early retirement as an option, as that tends to benefit the more wealthy, and increases difficulties for manual workers - but a "Partial/Gradual/Phased Retirement" option. This works as follows:

Manual workers and workers of demanding jobs who have not reached the statutory retirement (65) - but who are not able to work up to age 65 years due to valid reasons associated with their employment - are offered the possibility of partly retire and partly work. This will ensure a smoother transition between work and retirement and will alleviate the burden on employees who cannot maintain their full time employment.

In order to be eligible a worker must have 61 years of age and must have paid 30 years contributions. Eligible workers will receive a partial pension from age 61 years but will continue to work on a part-time basis. The total of the partial pension and of the part-time wage should not go over the wage of an employee doing the same job on a full-time basis. The partial pension is calculated in such a way that the same total pension benefits are received over lifetime, but in smaller amounts to take into account the longer period the beneficiary will be receiving them.

Advantages

- Minimises the theoretical "pension shock" by offering the possibility of gradually retiring, while at the same time workers can pass more time with their family or engage themselves in activities that do not have to do with work.

- People stay longer in the workforce than if they offered early retirement or retirement based on contributions, positively impacting the sustainability of the social security system and the economy of the country.

- Minimises the negative impacts of an increase in retirement age on workers of manual and other demanding jobs who are not able to participate in the labour market due to the nature of their job, as work is adjusted according on the worker's decline in capabilities and physical fitness.

- Older workers will still participate in the labour market although not a full-time basis and thus their experience will not be lost and the transition to future generations is facilitated.

Perhaps Jersey needs to consider this as an extra option?


References
https://secure2.gov.mt/socialpolicy/download.aspx?id=1034

The States have just voted to increase the retirement age, for everyone who doesn't get a golden handshake, that is.

As a more lighthearted post, and by way of change, this posting has pictures of two of the politicians in the news recently - Ian Gorst, who brought the changes, and Philip Ozouf, the person committed to transparency and openness - except where golden handshakes are concerned!

What would they look like when they retire? Thanks to some rather natty software, available for online use at

http://morph.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/

I am able to present what they might look like in 30 years time.

I'd have done the same for Terry Le Sueur, but he already looks 30 years older than he is.

Just a Minute?

STATEMENT TO BE MADE BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE ON 7th JUNE 2011

On 3rd March 2011 the Assembly voted by 23 votes to 22 (with 1 abstention), to adopt paragraphs (a) and (c) of P.1/2011, 'Standing Orders: time limits on speeches during debates,' lodged by Senator Paul Routier. In doing so, the States agreed that Standing Orders should be amended to introduce maximum time limits for speeches made by members during debates, and asked the Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) to bring forward for approval the necessary amendments to give effect to the proposal. Paragraph (b) of the proposition proposed a series of time limits and was rejected by 33 votes to 13. Accordingly, the actual time limits were left to be determined by PPC.

The deliberations of Privileges are very fair to the States Members in their report, but show that the end result would resemble something like the popular BBC Radio 4 show "Just A Minute".

States Members, unlike those in that show, invariably speak with hesitation, deviation, and repetition!!

But one aspect of the rules is similar - when challenged, the clock is stopped, because otherwise the minute would be consumed by the challenge and banter between members. Only after that challenge has taken place, and the Chairman has made his decision, does the clock start again. Now look at this comment on limits by PPC:

Time limits would need to be monitored by the Presiding Officer, who would advise members when their allotted time had elapsed. During the course of a debate, if the advice of H.M. Attorney General was sought on a particular point, for example, it would be reasonable to expect that the countdown on the member's speech would be paused during the Attorney General's response. If this was the case, it would follow that the countdown should also be paused if a member's speech was interrupted for a point of clarification or a point of order. The Presiding Officer and/or the Greffier would therefore spend a significant amount of time pausing and restarting the countdown, or attempting to monitor the number of interruptions in order to allow for additional time at the end of the speech, a calculation which could then be disputed by members.

This is very similar to "Just a Minute" with the clock being paused! Of course, part of the problem is that Senator Routier's original proposal was to limit member's speeches to 15 minutes, which means that every second would count - and a clock would be needed:

MOST States speeches may be limited to 15 minutes under new rules proposed by Senator Paul Routier. The Senator has tabled a proposal to cut down on rambling, long-winded speeches by setting a limit on how long politicians are allowed to speak. He wants a big 'TV Countdown-style clock' in the middle of the States Chamber so that Members know that their time is ticking away. (2)

Had he put a limit of 30-40 minutes, losing some time would not have been a problem, and really long speeches would have been curtailed, but 15 minutes was quite absurd and could never be countenanced unless every second counted, which - with a surprising burst of commonsense - PPC realised would be completely unworkable, as it would involve the "Just A Minute" stop/start of the clock.

Senator Routier didn't mention in his original proposition, of course, that in jurisdictions which have limits, while the person speaking may be heckled, they are not usually stopped until their speech is complete.

How much time of the States was consumed on this issue because he put such an absurdly short time limit, and did not stop to think about the practicalities of implementing his scheme  - apart from the "Countdown Clock"? To push the practical matters onto PPC is simply an example of sheer and sloppy laziness, he simply didn't do his homework properly and think matters through.

Links
(1) http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/statements/22195-19045-762011.htm
(2) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2011/01/06/move-to-end-long-winded-speeches-in-states

Register of Members Interests Online?

Deputy Bob Hill is bringing a proposition to ensure the Register of Members Interests is online. The Privileges and Procedures Committee, as might be expected, have decided that confidentiality is a key issue here, and will not support the proposition. They do not seem very effective where transparency is concerned, or even common sense.

The reason for this is that while Jersey's register of members interests is not online, it is in the public domain - anyone can go to Mourier House, and look at the ring binder, and make any notes of interests that they want (or simply memorise a particular interest). There is no confidentiality; that's what it is supposed to be about, not having special financial interests which may influence a member's voting, and which are concealed from the general public.

That is, after all, how the JEP revealed that Senator Terry Le Main's links to an individual he was supporting over a breach of Housing regulations, where there was clearly a special interest. As the JEP reported:

HOUSING Minister Terry Le Main has resigned from office after links going back decades emerged between him and the property developer he tried to get cleared of Housing Law breaches. Senator Le Main tendered his resignation as a minister last night after being confronted by the press over the fact that developer Frank Venton has 'sponsored' his election campaigns since 1978. The Senator had claimed that the two were not friends, that he had done nothing wrong and that he had nothing to hide. But this morning he issued a statement announcing his resignation, although admitting no wrongdoing, and referring to 'media and frenzied allegations'. (1)

This was obtained by the JEP and Channel Television by looking at the register of members interests. (In fact, they probably have a copy on their files.) The CTV report makes this quite clear:

The former Housing Minister denied the friendship, but Channel Television has learnt that Mr Venton's company has been the senator's political sponsor for more than 30 years. In the senator's Statement of Interests Form, he wrote: "I have had some sponsoring on election brochures, posters and advertising costs, as I did in the 2005 election campaign. This sponsor is Vision Advertising & Design." The Director and Creative Director, was Frank Venton. (2)

So the information was in the public domain, and made available both in the news reports and online - the online reports are still in place. Because the information was already in the public domain, there should not have been a breach of Data Protection, after all, anyone could have seen that data, and told anyone else.

I've not checked with the Jersey Law, but would have thought it was on the same lines as the UK one - with regard to Data Protection, as EU laws have to be similar, and Jersey has to follow suite for the free flow of data to be permitted across the EU from here.

7.12 What is the position in relation to personal data already in the public domain?

Section 1 (4) (b) of the Data Protection Acts provides that the Acts do not apply to personal data consisting of information that the person keeping the data is required by law to make available to the public. A key point here is that the exemption from data protection requirements only relates to the information in the hands of those public bodies that are obliged to make it available.

The UK Commissioner sites this with relation to a case study (Annual Report 1998), Case Study 6, and notes:

In considering this matter, I had regard to section 1(4)(b) of the Data Protection Act, 1988, which provides that the Act does not apply to "personal data consisting of information that the person keeping the data is required by law to make available to the public". This provision would mean that, if the names and addresses of the local authority's housing loan account holders were required by law to be made available to the public, then the disclosure of such data by the local authority could not have been in breach of the Data Protection Act.

Now, as I noted,  the Register of Members Interests is available to any member of the public, so hence is in the public domain. If someone took down details of a members interests and published that online - which is effectively what Channel Television did -  I cannot see that would be breaking the Data Protection Law, because it is "personal data consisting of information that the person keeping the data is required by law to make available to the public"; moreover, as the original intent was to make members interests available to the public in the public domain, merely transcribing it would not change the purpose for which it was originally intended.

It is not a problem with Guernsey, the UK, and most other jurisdictions because the data in question is both in the public domain AND online, but this would seem to be a loophole that, if the data was not made available online, it could be done so by a private individual. Perhaps the Data Protection Commissioner could give her opinion, annotated with an explanation of how that fits the existing law, and how Channel Television clearly did not breach any Data Protection Laws - there was absolutely no criticism from her of their reporting of the matter.

Mind you, you might just end up with dawn raids on your house, if you put it online, and with seven or eight police sent round to act as "the heavy mob". On the other hand, if it was Emma Martins in person to complain, I might invite her to breakfast!

Links
(1) http://www.thisisjersey.com/2010/06/02/minister-resigns
(2) http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/displayarticle.asp?id=489224

Civil Partnerships in Jersey

The Jersey Proposition on Civil Partnerships says that:

'Civil Partnerships will not be allowed to be held in a place of worship.'

The Jersey government, as usual, is behind the times!

The UK is moving towards an "opt in" clause whereby particular religious groups would be able to "opt in" to conducting the civil partnership in a church. The Consultation document makes this clear:

These measures are entirely voluntary, giving faith groups the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to allow civil partnerships to be registered on their premises. Those faith groups that do not want to use their premises for the registration of civil partnerships will not be compelled to do so.

It seems perverse that Jersey would not at least conduct a similar consultation before deciding on behalf of religious groups (such as Quakers, who are in favour) when the UK has launched one recently. Do we always have to be 5 years or more behind? Can't we be proactive just for once?

Article 13(1) provides that a civil partnership may be solemnized on authority of a licence only on approved premises. By Article 13(2), premises may be approved by the Connétable of the parish in which the premises are situated. The premises provided for the Superintendent Registrar are also approved premises. Under Article 13(3) the Minister must by Order publish a scheme for the approval of premises and Article 13(4) describes what provisions may be included in such an Order. Article 13(5) prohibits premises used principally for religious purposes from being approved premises. (Draft Jersey Law)

It is pretty convoluted stuff, and civil marriage ceremonies can take place in other locations that a registry office, for example:

Couples can also get married at "Approved Premises," which have been licensed for the celebration of Civil Marriages. These premises include Jersey's magnificent medieval castles, other heritage sites, manor houses and hotels.
 
I assume that the articles cited give the civil partnership the same freedom for "approved premises" as civil marriages; unfortunately the pre-amble does not make this comparison, and I don't have the time for a clause by clause comparison of the two documents. For the sake of clarity, it would be useful to have this question answered.

I personally am in favour of an "opt in". I don't think it would be right to force religious groups to have to have a civil partnership - after all there is a conflict of freedoms here - but if there is no conflict, they want to "opt in", then they should have the right to do so. To remove that to the decision of the State is very "Yes Minister", especially as the State has non-Christians among its midst as well.
 
Quite how it would work if the place of worship also doubles as a secular place, such as (for instance) a house church, or in fact Hautlieu School Hall, has also not been considered. Presumably such a place would not be deemed to be "used principally for religious purposes". The clause in question is worded as follows, forbidding approved premises to be:

5) Premises that -
(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes; or
(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes, may not be approved premises.

That would presumably mean that it would be possible to use Hautlieu school hall, or for that matter, a large room or hall used once a week by a house church, but used for other purposes on the rest of the week.

But this is surely a very constrictive way in which "place of worship" is considered. Christianity's formative worship took place in a "house church" kind of environment, especially after Christians were expelled from the synagogue. To ignore that is to simply neglect history. There are "house church" Christian groups in Jersey, and while they would probably not be of the kind of Christian persuasion to want to "opt in", if they wanted a civil partnership in a house, under 5(b), there is no reason why they should not be "approved premises".
 
As far as the local Pagan community goes, anywhere inside or outside, could become a place of worship, as indeed they do when rituals are celebrated. A hand-fasting with a civil ceremony at a a heritage site ( a castle or a dolmen) would presumably be legitimate under 5(b), but that opens up everywhere as a "place of worship", especially as civil weddings themselves need not take place in a registry office, and presumably the same is true of civil partnerships.

But of course, there is an additional caveat that:

14 (5) No religious service shall be used at the solemnization of a civil partnership on approved premises.

which would prevent the local Pagan community as well from celebrating a civil partnership at an "approved site".

But that, of course, begs the question of what exactly constitutes a religious service, and it is not clear how any texts that would be read out would be "vetted"  against being religious. While some texts may be quite ambiguous, what may seem a religious texts in some circumstances might be considered quite secular in another.

A goodly chunk of 1 Corinthians 13 (see below from the ISV), often chosen in marriage ceremonies, surprisingly does not actually mention God in most translations (and the original Greek), so that it could simply be taken as a text in praise of love - even Richard Dawkins could use it without problems, so it is not possible to just rule out the Bible!

Of course, how the text is interpreted may be in a religious sense, but that will depend upon the hearer, and unless the law is going to do what Elizabeth I did not, and try to "to make windows into men's souls", there may be problems in restricting the use of material in the civil partnership ceremony which may be capable of religious interpretation - unless, of course, the States of Jersey is planning its own "index" of forbidden books or texts!

Returning to the subject of  "places of worship" is buildings set aside purely for that purpose, but if that is the case - and a house church would thereby be an acceptable place (a house where Christians regularly meet), this would make the building (church, synagogue, Quaker meeting House) intrinsically distinct, and I'm not sure such a distinction could really be coherent.

As far as theology goes, it seems the government is trying to make a theological distinction about the merits of historical sites that even the Pope would not!
 
And it is also a betrayal of Jersey history; if there was one lesson from the Reformation in Jersey that should be learnt, it was that worship in buildings could take the form of worship of buildings, and the Reformation leaders in Jersey designated "the church" as the people, and the building as "the temple" to make that distinction quite clear. Otherwise, they said, it is a form of idolatry, of worshiping stones and mortar, where the people and their relationship with God was more important to them than the place they worshiped in. As Joy Davidman said (in "Smoke on the Mountain"):

I am still an idolater. I have fallen into the last and subtlest trap; I bow down to wood and stone, in the shape of a church building. Through regular attendance, through handsome financial contributions, through raising the minister's salary and redecorating the altar and improving the organist's technique and encouraging the foreign missions, I expect to be saved. To put it bluntly, I have forgotten that the church itself is not God.

Clearly, the clause forbidding a civil partnership in a "place of worship" goes counter to that whole principle. That's not to say people can't see the place they worship in as a "sacred space", but that's grounded in quite different concepts.
 
As far as the Quakers go, I'm certain it is not exact as to how defined their "meeting hall" would be as a "place of worship" in their own understanding of worship; I suspect they would certainly be less fixated on place, and they certainly want an "opt in" opportunity.

Quakers consider that they should be able to follow the insights of their membership in celebrating life-long committed relationships between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, in exactly the same way as they currently recognise the marriage of opposite sex couples.

Who can have their civil partnership or marriage solemnized in a Quaker meeting house?

Quaker marriage is not open to all, but is for members and those who, while not in formal membership, are in unity with its religious nature and witness.

Each Quaker area meeting appoints suitable members as registering officers who are normally present at the solemnisation of a marriage at a meeting for worship. They ensure that marriages are prepared, celebrated, witnessed, reported to the state, and legally valid. Quaker meetings do not have clergy.
 
That is why the "opt in" UK option is so much better - because it focuses on the community that worships in the "place of worship", and their freedoms, and not on the building itself. And it is not compulsory for religious groups; it requires an "opt in", which preserves freedom for the religious group as well  - it is a fair balancing act:
 
Derek McAuley, Chief Officer of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches , said "We were pleased to work with the Quakers, Liberal Judaism and the Metropolitan Community Church and others to build a coalition for change. This went a long way to breaking down the stereotype that people of faith are in cultural opposition to the lesbian and gay community. This was a matter of equality and religious freedom. The amendment does not compel religious groups to register civil partnerships on their premises. With our historic Unitarian commitment to civil and religious liberty that what we desire for our communities we do not wish to force on others.

It certainly seems to be the case that the Jersey Government has not carried out consultation with the representatives of religious community, as the Quakers would almost certainly have pointed them in the direction of the UK consultation. Half a loaf, of course, may be better than no loaf at all, and at least Civil Partnerships are on the way, but it would be good if the States gave even a nod towards the possibility of the changes that are taking place in the UK.

References:

http://www.quaker.org.uk/samesexbriefing
http://www.weddinginjersey.co.uk/The-Service/Legal-Information/
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/govt-launches-consultation-on-church-civil-partnerships/
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/49339-7926-3152011.pdf

If I speak in the languages of humans and angels but have no love, I have become a reverberating gong or a clashing cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can understand all secrets and every form of knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains but have no love, I am nothing. Even if I give away everything that I have and sacrifice myself, but have no love, I gain nothing. Love is always patient; love is always kind; love is never envious or arrogant with pride. Nor is she conceited, and she is never rude; she never thinks just of herself or ever gets annoyed. She never is resentful; is never glad with sin; she's always glad to side with truth, and pleased that truth will win. She bears up under everything; believes the best in all; there is no limit to her hope, and never will she fall. Love never fails. Now if there are prophecies, they will be done away with. If there are languages, they will cease. If there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For what we know is incomplete and what we prophesy is incomplete. But when what is complete comes, then what is incomplete will be done away with. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways. Now we see only an indistinct image in a mirror, but then we will be face to face. Now what I know is incomplete, but then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. Right now three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.
(1 Corinthians 13:1-13)

It is time the politicians were as professional as the men and women they send to their deaths

Marine Sam Alexander, 28, and Lieutenant Ollie Augustin, 23, based at Bickleigh Barracks, were killed by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) on Friday. The men were both in 42 Commando Royal Marines. Between 400 and 500 people lined the streets of Wootton Bassett yesterday afternoon to pay their respects after the bodies arrived at RAF Lyneham. The cortege stopped briefly in front of the town's war memorial as family and friends of the two marines laid flowers on the hearses. Cans of beer were also placed on the roof of the hearse carrying Mne Alexander's body. Mne Alexander was awarded the Military Cross in 2009 after he charged at the Taliban in order to provide cover for an injured comrade. (1)

I'm posting this because I know Sam's grandfather, and who thought a lot of Sam, and his bravery. I can imagine he was one of those placing a can of beer on the hearse (even though his preferred drink is gin). Sam's father has questioned whether Britain should be in Afganistan; he has said: ""It is time the politicians were as professional as the men and women they send to their deaths".

I agree. This war seems too much like a remote armchair theatre, where there is no real strategy objectives; it is a long war, dragging on, with no end in site, except withdrawal. For those of us old enough to remember, it reminds me so very much of Vietnam, the war that the USA said had to be won, but eventually had to be lost.

Writing in the Independent, he has made the following points:

Recently there have been two sustained public relations campaigns. One says that we (Nato/Britain) are succeeding militarily. The other says that we cannot win this thing militarily and that talking with the enemy must be stepped up. Plans for withdrawal are being worked on continuously

Is that a kind of facing both ways at once, the accusation so recently lodged against Pakistan by a finger-wagging David Cameron? How motivating is it if a stream of analysts say this is an unwinnable war, pointing out that Afghanistan has witnessed more than 100 years of failed interventions?

What is sure is that the deaths of these two Royal Marines from 42 Commando Group brought the total cost in lives for this campaign up to 368; one of those made me, for a while, the subject of that bland reference which is Ministry of Defence speak: "The family has been informed". Informed. What does the public really know? Are we winning the fight for democracy in Afghanistan, or is that country just a loose federation of fiefdoms, often still run by warlords?

Who or what are the Taliban? From what I have been told, this was not a ragbag peasant army. The most likely opponent, often very highly trained, could be Iranian, Chechen or Pakistani, not Afghans. So what does that do for the argument that, by waging war in Afghanistan, we are protecting Britain from a 9/11 or a Mumbai terrorist attack? Where does 7/7 fit into that? How much is the enemy already within?

Nothing should be taken away from Sam or the other 367, or the thousands more with life-changing injuries. But one thing for sure is that these guys and women are fighting primarily for each other in the most professional way. And there is much more emphasis on the ground, though not always in war reports, on forging links with the local community.

But Nato, when the Afghan public opinion chips are down, is not wanted. What we see as liberation is too often seen by them as occupation - and, if they listen to their own history, it is only a matter of time before Afghan life is restored. The average farmer struggles to survive and is certainly not a beneficiary of the reported $1bn of aid funding that has quietly disappeared. (2)

Links
(1) http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/TEARS-FALLEN-HEROES/article-3624877-detail/article.html
(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/was-my-sons-death-in-afghanistan-a-price-worth-paying-2290769.html

Darkness

A poem inspired by T.F. Powys (Mr Weston's Good Wine, Darkness and Nathaniel), with a touch of Tolkien. A somewhat sombre poem...

Darkness
 
Cold  is stone upon the earth
Night's canopy on starry skies
A time of death, a time of birth
A time for truth, an end to lies
In solitude, to now appraise
Find anew the Shaman's ways
 
For the darkness of each hour
Before the dawn, the black of night
In hill and vale and tree is power
Beneath the coldest stars of light;
In solitude, to now appraise
Find anew the Shaman's ways
 
Unseen by the open eye
Here the ancient barrow Wight
Here the Dryad makes a cry
Linking sense to sound and sight;
In solitude, to now appraise
Find anew the Shaman's ways
 
In the darkness, warmth and love
Find once more the inner child
Hearken to the mourning dove
And the inner storm so wild
In solitude, to now appraise
Find anew the Shaman's ways
 
Gathers darkness, more and more
Clouded sky, no stars above
Waves upon the darkling shore
A patterning of shadows wove
In solitude, to now appraise
Find anew the Shaman's ways
 
Time to drink the dark red wine
To the world so freely given,
Mend the thread of finest twine
Tears of sorrow, now forgiven
In solitude, to now appraise
Find anew the Shaman's ways

The Candle and The Slow Worm

"There are some negative factors in human existence which can be understood as limit situations, impressing on us our own finitude and at the same time evoking the idea of absolute being." (John Macquarrie)

T.F. Powys' Fables are extraordinary short tales. While they are in many respects surreal, he uses the strange framing narrative to tell tales about ordinary people, and comment on their lives, and the setting in which the strange narratives take place, all the incidental descriptions of place, are thoroughly realistic, drawn from his rich experience as a countryman.

This tale - in which a candle and a slow-worm can have a conversation, is about taking stock of one's life, and how a shallow life can end in despair, and a sense of the futility of existence. But the existentialist theologian John Macquarrie once said that one of the fundamental questions of life is "What does it mean to be an existing human being?".

And Karen Armstrong wrote that "Originally the meaning of the word 'faith' was akin to trust, as when we say that we have faith in a friend or an ideal. Faith was not an intellectual position but a virtue: it was the careful cultivation, by means of the rituals and myths of religion, of the conviction that, despite all the dispiriting evidence to the contrary, life had some ultimate meaning and value."

What T.F. Powys suggests out is that a life which studiously avoids these kind of ultimate questions is ruinous to the individual, because such questions have a troublesome way of coming back when least expected; in this tale, an existential abyss opens up before Mr Guppy, as he contemplates what he has done with his life, and how much of it has been wasted, empty years.

It is a modern fable, and one very relevant to such a secular age as ours.

[Note that when Powys was writing, average life expectancy was a good deal shorter than it is today.]

THE CANDLE AND THE SLOW-WORM
 
Human beings are not the only creatures in the world that like a little talk; there are other things which are interested in what goes on, and that like to say something, too. There are some places that are more fitted than others for a few happy words about one's neighbours. And one of them - lonely by the nature of its matter, and silent too -- is perhaps more suitable than any other for a harmless tale. This quiet place is a country churchyard.
 
It may be observed about every conversation that, in order to be completely satisfying, it should be the last of its kind. And even the lightest and most careless talker should, if he wishes to be listened to with interest, take his matter from the grave and his jests from corruption. If the conversation is to be out-of-doors, it is well that the winds be not blowing, and there is no better time to hear a tale told than the middle of a still winter's night, and no better place than the little field where the dead are laid.
 
The folk in the village are then snug in bed, and only the nightjar, the owl and the fox are abroad. A winter's night is better for a churchyard conversation than a summer's one. For, in the summer, the coming dawn treads so quickly upon the heels of the departing evening, and Farmer Told's barn-cock will begin to crow so soon, that even the charnel yew tree - that never slumbers - has hardly a moment to say a word to a lank tom-cat before the bold sun breaks in upon them with his coloured lights.
 
One winter's night, when the great timepiece in the parlour at the old Madder Hall Farm was striking the midnight hour-that made the mice scamper - a slow-worm who had awaked out of its winter's sleep, thinking, owing to the mildness of the weather, that the spring had come, and having a natural inquisitiveness and a liking for new acquaintances, moved upon her belly in the Madder churchyard over the graves. She had a mind during this time of a surprised awakening, to hear some doleful village tale that would give to her a sound melancholy sleep through the rest of the winter. She felt at her ease and in safety; for her place of residence - protected by the ghosts of the dead against the rude boys during the night-time, and by the surly-looking sexton in the day - was well suited to her harmless needs.
 
The night in which the slow-worm had awakened was as mild as could be; the winds that had been boisterous and loud but a day or two before were quite hushed and still. The slow-worm, as soon as she opened her eyes, wondered to whom to address herself. There was the half of a skull, about two hundred years old, that had been cast out of a grave and left near to the old crumbling wall. This skull had been the companion of the slow-worm during the last summer, but she had grown weary of him, for he would be ever prating of what had happened in his day, and that wasn't much; and he would only tell over and over again how he had got a young woman, named Bessy, into trouble, and how he had been robbed of his goods by the unjust steward of the late Lord Sussex.
 
The worm went silently by the skull, hoping that he would not hear her, and, after pausing to address a word of encouragement to a rat who was making a nest in Mr. Barker's grave, she moved gently through the grass and the dead stalks of nettles, that tickled her belly and made her wish the more eagerly to meet an interesting friend.
 
In order to see clearly who was abroad, she crawled up a new grave-mound, and, raising her head, she gazed about. In a corner of the churchyard where a few tall burdocks grew in the summer, and where only one or two deserted grave-mounds showed themselves above the ground, a mysterious light flickered. The light, though not constant in its burning, shone clearly, and appeared to come from a kind of candle that burned in the deserted corner.
 
The slow-worm, who had lived in the churchyard for a number of years, had never seen a light of this kind before - there had only been the sexton's lantern to be noticed, and this she had always avoided because a man carried it. The light in the corner had so different a look from the sexton's and seemed so ghostly and strange, that the slow-worm, wishing to make its acquaintance, moved upon its belly in its direction.
 
Every creature --- and our slow-worm was no exception-likes to think of itself as king and lord over that portion of the earth, however small it be, that it calls its own. Mistress worm - in common with a great many other people - believed herself to be of great importance and to have the right to know what went on in her world, as well as the right to inquire-did she come upon any strange thing - what it was. No sooner, therefore, did she reach the spot where the light shone, than, in order to assert what seemed to be her own proper authority, she inquired of the light who he was and what he did there.
 
"I am," replied the light proudly, "an emanation from the dead. I am made of phosphorus, which rises out of the ground from the corruption of dead bodies. I am important, for where I shine a new grave is to be. Do you know Mr. Guppy?"
 
"I do," replied the worm, "for Mr. Guppy spared my life last summer. I had happened foolishly to wander out of my realm upon a cause, and for a desire, that I need not trouble you with - for what queen is exempted from certain feelings?"
 
"And what king either?" murmured the light.
 
"The little boys set upon me," said the worm, "with intent to murder, but Mr. Guppy, coming by at the moment, saved me from their barbarous cruelty."
 
"Though Mr. Guppy was able to save you," remarked the light, "he was unable to bestow the same favour upon himself - he died this evening."
 
"How did that happen?" asked the slow-worm, crawling slowly upon the grave of a young unmarried girl who had died in childbed, and settling herself contentedly down for a long and pleasant conversation.
 
"I will tell you," answered the light - who was none other than a corpse candle - "for certain relations of mine played a part in his death, and Mr. Guppy is very much to be pitied. You must know, madam, how life slips away so easily to men, who have so little pleasure in the present moment that they are always drawing the future to them at a quicker rate than it should properly come. Thus it happens that the years go so fast to these foolish ones, just as if they had been no years at all."
 
"There is no harm in that," said the worm, "and, so long as a man is not reminded of their flight, he may be glad to see them so gone."
 
"Sometimes, alas!" observed the corpse candle, "he is reminded of them all, and if a man be as sensitive as Mr. Guppy, the result of having all his years, in their heavy bulk, pushed before him may be disastrous.
 
"Mr. Guppy's fiftieth birthday was today, and in order to gratify the foolish whim of a child, Mrs. Guppy, while her husband was out a-walking, prepared a cake for him, surrounded by fifty candles, and though these were made but of coloured wax, I am, at least in name, their relation."
 
"But a higher one," remarked the worm, "for your composition is of a better and a more exciting origin."
 
"You say truly, lady snake," replied the candle, "for I shine awfully, and am made by no living hand, and am, indeed, far grander in rank and station than my first cousin who lives down in the marsh beyond Madder Hill. It was to Madder Hill that Mr. Guppy walked in a dreary manner this very afternoon."
 
"It was his birthday," interrupted the slow-worm, "and he should have gone to the inn."
 
"Had he been younger he might have gone that way," replied the candle, "but knowing, as he knew only too well, how time went, he preferred the hill to the valley, and, reaching the summit of the hill and feeling a lack of strength in his legs, he sat down upon a tussock of dry grass to rest. His mood was a gentle one, and as, poor sinner, he often did, he forgot all that had happened to him in his past life, resigned himself to the harmless pleasure of the afternoon, and brooded over the peaceful view of the village that was presented below him."
 
"There seemed to Mr. Guppy to be so little time gone behind him, so small a vista when he looked back at his days, that he felt he had hardly lived at all, and, though the time before him might be short       too, yet even out of his sadness a sweet day might come that would grant him a little joy."
 
"Mr. Guppy saw his life as so little a thing that he appeared merely to have awaked out of nothingness unto forgetfulness."
 
"The winter shining of the afternoon sun, now near to setting behind the hills, threw a rich look upon the fields of Madder, deepening their green, while the smoke from the cottage chimneys rose in sleepy garlands and died in the air - a fit sight for one who wished his own life to be absorbed and taken. Mr. Guppy viewed, too, his own cottage, near to the Madder church. It was there that a pleasant tea would await him. And why should he not - in common with his kind - feel joy again? Perhaps even youth might smile upon him, play and be merry."
 
"He rested for a few moments longer and then arose with a sigh, and, descending the hill, he entered the little lane that led to his home."
 
"Mr. Guppy had started out late in the afternoon; he had remained longer than usual resting upon the hill, so now the darkness of evening crept along the lane to meet him. Mr. Guppy walked the slower and welcomed the coming night with pleasure - a few stars appeared in the sky, and the folk who were abroad passed him like shadows."
 
"Mr. Guppy moved still slower until he turned a corner in the lane, and then he stopped. He was now within sight of his cottage, and the light from the parlour window shone out warm and pleasant into the thickening darkness."
 
"Entering his gate and going nearer to his house, Mr. Guppy could see the pictures upon the parlour walls, the fire burning in the grate, and the merry faces of his guests who had assembled for his birthday party."
 
"Mr. Guppy silently opened the outer door. He found himself in the little narrow passage that was quite dark. Mr. Guppy took off his overcoat - in doing so he tore the lining out of one of the sleeves. This incident, small as it was, made him hang his head. At that exact moment he seemed to be grown into an old man. His hands must be got feeble, for he had no patience nor yet care to take off his coat, even, without tearing it."
 
"Mr. Guppy carefully hung up his coat, and, after waiting for a moment to listen to the merry laughter of those within the parlour, he softly opened the door."
 
"The guests were all seated around the table, waiting impatiently. Pretty things they were, dainty coloured frocks, faces aglow with merriment-the best of fare."
 
"Mr. Guppy was somewhat dazed by the brightness of the light - or lights - that seemed to come from the table. He looked to see from whence came such a glow of brightness. In the middle of the table there was a large cake, and around the cake, stuck so near to each other that there was hardly room to put a match between them, there were fifty coloured candles."
 
"Everyone laughed when they saw him look, and wondered what Mr. Guppy would say."
 
"But, instead of the commonplace remark that was expected of him, Mr. Guppy said nothing. Indeed, he seemed strangely bewitched by the sight of those fifty candles. They were so dose together and so many, that had there been a hundred, the shock of seeing his years stare at him so, and all a-burning, could not have been more. Mr. Guppy stared at the candles - there were his years, in crowds, booing, jeering and mocking him."
 
"Each one of them had now become but a coloured light - each year a little burning candle.
 
"Mr. Guppy sat down in silence at the table. The cake was cut and eaten, but the candles still burned. Mr. Guppy could do nothing else but look at them. There were his years - so many - and what had he had in them? "
 
"The grease was beginning to drop in large red and white tears, each candle was quickly dying down, but no quicker than the years had died."
 
"Something happened in that room - the guests appeared only like the shadows that Mr. Guppy had passed in the lane, but the candles were talking."
 
"The first years of Mr. Guppy's life had little to say for themselves, for they were childish years, they appeared to fade away with the speed of forgetful childhood. Even on to the first twenty all seemed to be well. And had there been but that number round the cake, Mr. Guppy might have regarded them with tranquillity, nay even with hope and pleasure."
 
"There would have been no crowding then amongst those twenty; they would have stood like pretty children at a party, who await the dance; they would not have pressed against one another like coffins in a filled graveyard. Had there been but twenty there would have been life and air between them. But Mr. Guppy saw the years increase - there were thirty of them now, and these began to talk together, wondering what joy they had had."
 
"Had those thirty been all, there would still have been room between them, but there were others - twenty more of them. In all his years, as Mr. Guppy looked at them, he saw no joy at all-he might just as well have dreamed of them through one short night. They were all exactly the same to him now. All the years, expressed by the fifty candles, appeared completely obliterated. They were like footsteps in the sand that the first tide that had followed him in his sad journey had washed out. He had once lived them, they were torn out of his bowels; but there was no life nor any part of him left in them, they were all gone and done with, like a tale that is told."
 
"It was impossible for anyone so burdened to be anything but utterly saddened. Why, those years of his might be counted by tens instead of by ones.
 
"Mr. Guppy grew very thoughtful."
 
"Could he but discover one happy one amongst that crowd of years, all might yet be well. Was there not one good one, one fruitful blessed one, in all the Sodom city of his years? Had there been one in which he might have found a little joy or goodness, he could have pardoned the others. No, there was not one kind one amongst them all."
 
"Mr. Guppy's look grew proud as he judged those years. The destroying fire and brimstone should fall upon them all. Never should any of them be aught again. No new candle should be added to them-their end was come."
 
"A child -- one of the guests-pulled a cracker, and Mr. Guppy had to be merry too, but he could not keep his eyes off those fifty candles. They burnt low now and someone carried them away."
 
The dimness of the night made the slow-worm sleepy; she had half a mind to curl up and to go to sleep where she was.
 
"And how did it end?" she asked.
 
"Why, you know how happy a birthday party can be, when there is wine to be drunk," replied the candle.
 
"Mr. Guppy drank that night more than was good for him, for he had a mind to light a candle of another kind."
 
"You mean yourself," said the worm.
 
"I do," replied the light, "for Mr. Guppy, in order to take a little air, wandered over Madder Hill into a low-lying field, where there are pits filled with water. In one of these ponds, Mr. Guppy lay down and the water covered him."
 
The corpse candle burnt faint and vanished. The slow-worm curled up upon the grave and slept soundly.

Caring for each other, caring for ourselves

Michael Moore: [to a British couple in hospital] What'd they charge you for that baby?
British mother: [confused] I'm sorry?
Michael Moore: You gotta pay before you get out of here, right?
British mother: No.
British father: Na na na. Everything's on...
British mother: This is NHS.
British father: So no. It's not - it's not America.
("Sicko", Michael Moore documentary)

We remain the only country in the western world without free, universal health care. (Michael Moore on the USA insurance based scheme of healthcare)

The Jersey health department have just launched a consultation, entitled "Caring for each other, Caring for ourselves". They outline the possible future options:

Scenario 1: "Business as Usual" - We should keep the same structure for providing services as we have today, and significantly increase spending so that services can be provided to meet growing demand.

Scenario 2: "A small increase in funding" - We should keep funding almost the same, provide what services we can within this budget and accept that many services will be subject to restriction or may no longer be available free.

Scenario 3: "A new model for health and social care" - We should change the way services are provided, so patients see the right health or social care professional at the right time and in the right place. Changes will affect the way that health and social care works in the island; there will be some cost

What has struck me with the way these options are presented in the paper is that it is very much a forced card, like a magicians trick, in which the individual has to take a particular card because they are given no choice, despite the appearance choice.

Two major factors are costs, and the demographic time bomb, of an increasingly elderly population in proportion to the working population supporting them. But the time bomb is consistently treated as a continuing situation, whereas while more people are living longer, part of the demographic skew is also due to the baby boomer generation becoming older, and may be a "hump" to be navigated over rather than a permanent fixture. This doesn't effect the medium term strategy, but it may mean that in the long term the situation may need revising again.

Scenario 1 is presented as pretty much ruled out completely. It is simply not viable with increasing numbers of elderly population to sustain business as usual, however much we would like it, because of the sheer element of costs involved. So it is ruled out.

Scenario 2 is presented as the same at present, but with cut-backs to services to contain costs. So while it may be a painful option, no one is going to want it if possible.

Scenario 3 is the card of choice. A completely rethought idea of the health service. Now this is not bad in itself, and insofar as functions provided directly can be delegated at less cost - for instance, blood pressure or diabetes checks being done at the pharmacist rather than at a doctor's practice, there are some good suggestions being made. But the meat of the proposal comes with the funding suggestions which are tucked away at the back, and I was struck in particular by:

Insurance - A social insurance scheme, whereby people pay into a fund that specifically raises money for health and social services. This is already planned for long term care from 2013.

As a universal method, I still think this is wrong, and Aneurin Bevan summed up the main arguments against it in his book "In Place of Fear", in the chapter on the NHS.

Bevan notes that such a scheme unless it is very simple, is liable to all kinds of complications, and notably it will increase the bureaucracy needed for its administration. But it will not be a simple scheme, for at the very least, it will need to tie in with income support, and it will have to account for people who do not work, who have chosen, for example, to bring up their children at home, or equally the unemployed, those taking early retirement, those who cannot work because of health or handicap. How will the scheme deal with children, too, is another question for an insurance scheme, as they will either be exempt, or an insurance levy will need to be placed on an individual basis like a poll tax.

It had always seemed to me that a personal contributory basis was peculiarly inappropriate to a national health service. There is, for example, the question of the qualifying period. That is to say, so many contributions for this benefit, and so many more for additional benefits, until enough contributions are eventually paid to qualify the contributor for the full range of benefits. In the case of health treatment this would give rise to endless anomalies, quite apart from the administrative jungle which would be created. This is already the case in countries where people insure privately for operations as distinct from hospital or vice versa.

And the move away from taking the budget from taxation also means that the burden of double taxation will rise. At present, an individual is taxed on their gross income, less the contributions to social security. But, however one dresses it up, the contributions to social security are none the less, a form of taxation by the state, which is also subject to the 20% tax before it is taken!We may appear to keep up the appearance of a 20% tax rate, but increasing the amount taken by the State in the form of contributions, while subjecting that difference to taxation, is effectively increasing taxation by more than 20% on earned income. Wouldn't increasing direct taxation be a fairer and more transparent mechanism, rather than taking more by stealth and pretending that 20% is the tax rate.

Bevan points out that an insurance scheme invariably leads to means testing for health, and while this may be a way off the American system whereby health is not provided until it is known that the patient can pay for it, it is still a slippery slope:

Whatever may be said for it in private insurance, it would be out of place in a national scheme. Imagine a patient lying in hospital after an operation and ruefully reflecting that if the operation had been delayed another month he would have qualified for the operation benefit. Limited benefits for limited contributions ignore the overriding consideration that the full range of health machinery must be there in any case, independent of the patient's right of free access to it. Where a patient claimed he could not afford treatment, an investigation would have to be made into his means, with all the personal humiliation and vexation involved. This scarcely provides the relaxed mental condition needed for a quick and full recovery. Of course there is always the right to refuse treatment to a person who cannot afford it. You can always 'pass by on the other side'. That may be sound economics. It could not be worse morals.

And Bevan also considers those who would be exempt from such a scheme:

Some American friends tried hard to persuade me that one way out of the alleged dilemma of providing free health treatment for people able to afford to pay for it would be to 'fix an income limit below which treatment would be free while those above, must pay. This makes the worst of all worlds. It still involves proof, with disadvantages I have already described.

The really objectionable feature is the creation of a two-standard health service, one below and one above the salt. It is merely the old British Poor Law system over again. Even if the service given is the same in both categories there will always be the suspicion in the mind of the patient that it is not so, and this again is not a healthy mental state.

And the litmus test of any system of healthcare, he states as follows:

The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged.

The Gardener's Calendar - June 1863

This is from Whitnash Parish Magazine, in 1863, and here is the section that begins June, and the gardening tasks.

Measurements are given in "bushels" - the name derives from the 14th century buschel or busschel, a box, although the modern usage of the term is now weight rather than volume. As volume, a bushel would be 4 pecks, and a peck would be 16 dry pints. I thank goodness we now have the metric system. I don't remember bushels, but I do remember doing calculations at primary school in both imperial measures, and the old currency of pounds, shillings and pence, and being hugely relieved when everything went metric. As bushels are now weight, rather than volume, there is a further complication in that a standard weight is assigned to each commodity that is to be measured in bushels!

It is estimated that the productivity of wheat was about 19 bushels per acre in 1720 and that it had grown to 21-22 bushels in the middle of the eighteenth century. It declined slightly in the decades of 1780 and 1790 but it began to grow again by the end of the century and reached a peak in the 1840s around 30 bushels per acre.

It is also interesting in that the weeds are used for manure, which of course they can be if they are not treated with weed-killers; something for the organic gardener to consider, and which was natural not special in 1863.

For the seasonal poem which follows, the following terms are useful to know:

Woodbine is another name for honeysuckle
Convolvulus is a name for bindweed
Purple ramping-fumitory is a species of hedge-banks
Small Mouse-ear Hawkweed, known commonly as Mouse-ear is still collected and used by herbalists for its medicinal properties.
The cinquefoil is quite easy to recognize in the wild. The herb is a rather pretty and dainty species of plant. The name of the cinquefoil is after an Old French word that means "five-leaf."

I have retained the original spellings. Nowadays, "brocoli" is spelt "broccoli" and "Brussels-sprouts" has lost its hyphenation and capital letter; it is salutary to see how modern "standard" spellings are actually fairly recent in origin, less than 200 years old.

The Gardener's Calendar - June 1863

In June the foliage of the are trees is completed, and vegetation advances on all side:, very rapidly. The grass grows thick in the meadows, and is generally ready for the scythe by the end of this month. The days are at their longest: hot weather alternates with cold north winds and storms of thunder and hail. The fields and woods are full of flowers; the hedges are covered with "May," which seldom comes to its full perfection in its own month, and the stately chestnuts are covered with their scented blossom.

The Garden - keep the soil loose among growing peas and other crops. Water and mulch if dry. Sow spinach, lettuce, and all salads. Plant brocoli, Brussels-sprouts and cabbages for succession, brocoli for main crop. Sow parsley for winter ; sprinkle asparagus and red beet beds with salt; water strawberries and protect the fruit by putting grass or straw between the rows. Sow biennials and perennials; take cuttings of choice pinks, carnations, wallflowers, and lavender. Train box edgings and laurel hedges early in this month.

Weeds are very troublesome both in the field and garden during the summer months. They should be removed and reduced either by burning or in the pig-yard to state of rottenness and utility as manures. They are thus made useful agents instead of causing serious loss.

A striking proof of the destructiveness of weeds in corn fields is given by the Bath and West of England Agricultural Society. Seven-acres of land were sown broadcast - of these one acre was measured, and left unweeded for experiment, the other six were carefully weeded.. the unweeded acre produced eighteen bushels of wheat; the six weeded averaged twenty-two and a half bushels per acre. Again, six acres were sown with barley, and well prepared in every respect: the weeding (charlock abounding there) cost 12s. per acre.

The produce of an unweeded acre was thirteen bushels, of the weeded twenty-eight bushels ! - and besides this, the land in the one case was in good order for the succeeding crop, and in the other in a bad state. But further, six acres were sown with oats,-one acre ploughed but once and manured, produced. only seventeen bushels; the rest ploughed three times, manured and weeded, produced thirty-seven bushels per acre: of this increase, one half of the excess was attributed to careful weeding, the other half to the manuring -a good practical lesson in both results. It will be thus seen that though the trouble and expense of getting rid of weeds are very great, yet they are amply repaid by the increased value of crops. The soil will only produce a certain amount of vegetation, and the careful farmer and gardener will take care that. the vegetation shall be, as far as possible, only what he desires.

June

Who does not love the balmy hours of June
When, book in hand, we stray,
The streamlet singing us its loving tune,
Along the lone pathway ?

By tangled hedge-row now how sweet to wander,
'Neath trees that arch on high
The gray church-tower, just peeping dimly yonder,
Pointing from earth to sky.

The wild rose blushing, as from tree-top height
Her graceful arm she flings,
Luring the summer butterflies to light
And close their brilliant wings.

Gather her roses for our summer wreath,
But not the fully blown ;
Choose the green buds with dainty pink beneath,
Nor cull the rose alone-

But blend the woodbine, with its fragrant breath,
That woos the passing bee ;
They grew in life together, so in death
Let them united be.

Cull too their playmate in the sunny day,
Convolvulus all white ;
Then add the purple fumitory's spray,
Mouse-ear and cinquefoil bright.

Now where the streamlet bubbles into life,
We'll twine our wreath together,
And far from scenes of sorrow and of strife,
Thank God for summer weather