Diagnosis by google and the man who ate too much fish

So, on Monday I had to go to Accident and Emergency. Nothing serious, but worth getting checked out to assuage my own over-active paranoia. However, before going to the A&E I went to the walk-in clinic in Soho - kind of like an emergency GP's office - to make sure that it wasn't something that could wait a few days to go see my actual GP about.

After spending an hour waiting to see someone, and having to subsequently cancel my evening with two old friends to which I had been looking forward for some time, this little Irish lady popped her head out of her room and called my name like it was an item off an Indian takeaway menu. Nevertheless, I followed her in and I told her what was wrong. Now what followed was possibly the least confidence inspiring experience I have ever had in a doctor's office.

At first, everything was going normal. She checked my vitals and asked all the right questions, but then it came to making a diagnosis - or even just a rough estimate would have been helpful. After reading all my symptoms that she had scribbled hastily on to her little notepad for the third time, she said: "oh my God, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. If I were you, I'd go to A&E, but I just don't know."

Now, you can imagine how I, the patient who had been panickly saying those exact words to myself for the last hour, felt on hearing these words. Fair to say, I was starting to have my doubts about the ability of this particular nurse practicioner. Yet lo and behold, she had an idea. Perhaps I had misjudged her. Maybe she did know her stuff all along and I was just being too hard on her.

So, I stood next to her and watched as she typed my symptoms into google and then proceeded to scroll through each website that came up, most of which were internet forums dominated by random people discussing the details of their own exotic illnesses to each other. For a brief moment she thought she had struck gold when she found one post listing all the same symptoms as me. Alas her hopes were dashed as she read on and discovered that the author had in fact been complaining about mercury poisoning he had contracted through eating too much fish.

So, I finally put our brave friend out of her misery, informing her that I now definitely would be going to the A&E where I could see, you know, an actual doctor. She asked for my number (try not to get too hot under the collar here - it's not what you think) so she could check on my progress because she was "just curious" as to what the hell exactly was wrong with me. Luckily she has not yet called me, so either she forgot or she finally found the answer she was looking for on google. In any case, she has saved me an awkward conversation and an unwanted reminder of the dilapidated state of British medicine today.

God bless the NHS!

Obama-Biden: Pleasant Surprise and Wise Choice

Back during the primaries, I cited this pairing as my idea of the dream ticket - not because I could foresee it happening, but because I liked the look of Biden just as much, if not secretly more, than Obama, mainly because of his foreign policy experience. I was, therefore, thrilled to hear him announced as running mate, even though I never realisitically expected him to get it.

The immediate response to him in the press has been predictable in terms of the pros and cons assessment of Biden and what he will bring to the ticket. Only one commentator though, Justin Webb of the BBC, has mentioned what for me is the biggest risk of Obama´s choice: people starting to wander if the ticket should not be the other way round. As admirably mature as Obama´s decision was, bringing in a popular, headstrong, wise and very experienced Senator who is more than a match for McCain in his own right, has ironically made Obama look like something of a rookie.That said, I am not too concerned. Once the campaign is in full swing, Obama won´t hesistate to remind people who is calling the shots and his maturity will shine through. Besides, a fresh open minded approach is exactly what the US needs right now.

In many ways, Obama´s selection of Biden is very much like Kennedy´s choice of Johnson for running mate in 1960 - an experienced and accomplished political operator who knows Washington better than anybody. However, there is a warning in that too. Johnson and Kennedy strongly disagreed on foreign policy with Johnson lacking Kennedy´s in depth understanding of foreign affairs and innovative approach to dealing with the Soviet Union. Fortunately, this time it´s the VP who has all the foreign policy nous and as long as Obama is serious about making the right decisions for the country he´ll pay close attention to what he has to say.

Why police chiefs should not be elected

The issue of elected police chiefs is one that has been broiling for some time. The Tories have been a fan of the idea of creating American style sherrifs for a while now. Last year, Sir Simon Milton of the LGA officially proposed direct elections for Chief Constables, a proposal endorsed by two of the three main London Mayoral candidates in May's elections, including the eventual winner. Now, even the Home Secretary has got in on the game. Sensing that more and more people are converting to the cause, she has decided to do an Italy, changing sides just as it becomes apparent who's going to win.

Alas, so desperate to follow popular opinion wherever it may go so she can lead it, I fear she is making a terrible mistake, even by the Home Office's standards. Chief Constables and Commissioners must not be directly elected any more than High Court judges or military officers. Public safety is too important to be decided by a show of hands, which is why I baulked at an article written in the First Post (see link) today by Daniel Hannan - oh how I loathe that man! Hannan's whole argument seemed to rest on one survey result from 2001, carried out in nine constabularies with a dose of Ian Blair bashing to boot.

Coming off a little like a host of Family Fortunes, he reported how the survey indicated that the constabularies viewed "recruiting more ethnic minority officers, cracking down on sexist language, [and] improving their relations with the gay community" as their core priorities. Carrying on his faultless Les Dennis impression, he added that when extended to the local population of each constabulary, the survey said: "catch more criminals". Now even if we ignore the ridiculously open ended nature of the question that makes it impossible to fairly compare the answers given -somehow I suspect the Police consider catching criminals not so much a priority as much a raison d'etre- the answers do paint a worrying picture of what we could expect in any Police Authority election. How do these people know that improving police relations with minority communities, often vital sources of police intelligence in sensitive investigations, and eliminating discrimination within forces themselves to ensure that only the best qualified individuals get the best jobs, is not integral to catching more criminals? And how many right-thinking (as opposed to vote seeking) officers would place catching criminals as a higher priority than preventing crimes in the first place?

'Catching Criminals' makes for a great soundbite and indeed soundbites are what win elections: 'The Economy Stupid' and 'Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime' come instantly to mind. But the level of jurisprudence, reponsibility and integrity required for such a vital role in our society cannot be condensed into soundbites. Furthermore, the critical decisions that Chief Constables take every day on everything ranging from tackling anti-social behaviour in town centres to counter-terrorism must be objective not political. The pandimonium that would inevitably arise from a Chief Constable feeling pressured to put his/her core constituents before their professional opinions is unimaginable. No sensible person would ever suggest subjecting our leading Generals to popular election because they dare not think how different the war may have turned out had General Montgomery been kept from the front because he lost an election to an opponent pledging to kill more Germans. To say that Police chiefs should be treated differently is to say that pubic safety is not as important as national security when in fact, as anyone who was around on 7/7 knows, the two are heavily intertwined.

However, this not to say the police should be accountable only to themselves. The core requirement of any liberal democracy that the state remain under civillian control at all times means that they will always be subject to a degree of political decision making. But this is because the police service is not responsible for making the law, but only for implementing it, leaving legislation to those who were elected to perform that very purpose. This is right and proper as any population that does not expect to get a say in the formation of the laws that govern them is living in a dictatorship.

Those same elected officials though rely on the independent expertise of the Police to enforce those laws if for no other reason than to make sure those laws are effective, so they can keep their seats come election time. The people have already had their say. Put another way, I'll vote for brain surgery to kept available on the NHS, but when it comes to the doctor performing the operation itself, I want the guy who finished top of his class at Medical School not top of the opinion polls in my local borough.

Knife crime

Knives have been a pre-eminent theme this week with the government announcing that from now on anyone over the age of 16 caught carrying a knife in public can expect to be prosecuted. As someone who had the privilege of working for the country's most senior police officers for six months, I think this is a terrible idea. Surely, the decision to prosecute for possession of a knife should be based on criminal intent and the circumstances of their arrest.

Anyone who thinks that such a response equates to being 'soft on crime' should look at surveys conducted by the ONS and the Youth Justice Board which show that one of the main reasons why children carry knives today is out of fear of being a victim of knife crime themselves. Are we really saying that the very children who are so in need of our protection that they have taken to arm themselves are, from now on, to be lumped into the same category as the gang members and bullies who prompted them to take these measures in the first place?

Furthermore, when the Police Service has to spend more of its time combating the stigmas of old that manifest themselves in the resistance to increased stop 'n' search and surveillance powers, not to mention the chronic under-reporting of crimes that most hampers the ability of police forces to do their job, are we really prepared to alienate a whole new generation of youngsters?

If that's not enough, think of all the paperwork that police officers will have to fill out for every random youngster they find carrying a knife, even for the most innocuous reasons. Should such officers decide merely to give these youths a reprimand so they can focus on real crimes, they'll be lambasted by their Chief Constable, and their force condemned by the Home Office, as a failure.

In short, Rod Morgan, the former chairman of the youth justice board and one of the government's advisers on youth justice, was wrong to label this measure as gesture politics. It's just bad politics.

John McCain's Prophecy of Doom

Found this on American comedian John Hargrave's website: http://http://www.zug.com/pranks/senator/letter_mccain01.gif

Pretending to be a 10 year old boy doing a project on government, he wrote to all senators in 2003 asking them what their favourite joke was. I wonder what people woud make of McCain's joke now.

At least he replied though. Hillary Clinton came out as the unfunniest senator, who "couldn't even be bothered to send in a joke to a ten-year-old who was dying of cancer (even though he didn't mention the cancer part in his letter, because he's classy)."

Unfortunately, Barack Obama wasn't in the Senate when this prank was played. I would like to have seen what joke he'd have come up with, not doubting for even a second that he would have replied.

Why We Should Legalise Tax Evasion

"Up to £42bn - enough to eradicate UK child poverty ten times over - could be going begging every year through tax evasion and (legal) avoidance, of which just £4bn is recovered by tax inspectors. There is also £12bn lost to VAT fiddles every year. " This, reported by Private Eye, based on figures supplied by HMRC in 2005, sums up just how desperate the situation has become when it comes to paying taxes in the UK. At the same time as this is going on, we read about pensioners being driven into poverty by ever increasing rates of council tax and cleaners paying more in income tax than their multi-millionaire employers. As if this wasn't bad enough, last year the government added to the woes of low income earners across the country, abolishing the 10p tax rate (or rather doubling it) to finance a juicy tax cut for the rest of us. Yet, public spending is increasing, the government is being called on to save reckless banks from themselves -using taxpayers' money of course- as the credit crunch unfolds, and as of the end of 2007, according to the Office of National Statistics, general government debt stands at £618.8 billion, equivalent to 43.8 per cent of GDP.

The numbers alone show what a problem tax evasion and avoidance is for the economy. The greater underlying problem is the glorification of these practices by those who see and portray tax as a cost or a burden imposed upon us by government. So why is tax important? For a start, the public services we continue to clamber for whilst rejecting any proposed tax hikes, as well as our emergency services and armed forces depend on taxation. Increased revenue through taxation allows the government to retain more control over our economy, constrain public debts and prevent dependence on foreign investment. Taxation is also crucial to the equitable re-distribution of wealth; the silver bullet for many of the social problems that plague our nation ranging from child poverty to illiteracy. The Tax Justice Network likens the redistribution of wealth through taxation to shareholders' dividends, arguing that "companies do not make profit merely by using investors' capital. They also use the societies in which they operate, whether that is the physical infrastructure provided by the state, the people the state has educated, or the legal infrastructure that allows companies to protect their property rights. Finally, and most importantly in my view, taxes are our stake in the state, securing our right to representative governmentand free speech.

So what do we do? A good template is the American system where citizens living abroad are obliged to pay US taxes on all their earnings no matter where in the world they are. If they have a problem with this, then they are offered a simple choice: pay your taxes or renounce your citizenship and do what you like with your money. Only problem with this is that it does nothing to prevent domestic tax evasion or avoidance, so here's my idea: legalise tax evasion. Send all current British taxpayers a form where they can smply tick a box to opt out of paying any taxes on their earnings at all levels of government. In doing so, they agree to give up the right to free health care, and to a free education for their children. They forfeit their national insurance as well as their citizenship. They lose the protection of the law and access to emergency services and most significantly, they give up the right to vote. All these things depend on taxpayers' money to function and they are all instrumental to allowing us to lead the lives we do and enjoy the freedoms bestowed upon us by the gradual evolution of the sacred social contract. It's time we call the libertarians' bluff and give them exactly what they want and then see how they feel about taxation.

Election Dilemna

Tonight I had the privilege of attending a truly refreshing exercise in direct democracy, a town hall meeting of sorts with Nick Clegg and Brian Paddick. Ok, there was nothing to vote on or anything, but what I -and any other member of the public- were treated to, entirely for free, was the opportunity to grill both men on their policies, beliefs, pretty much anything for an hour and a half. What made it more amazing was that these two were taking the time to subject themselves to this from people who, for the most part, were already on their side anyway, with just two days left till the local and Mayoral elections. Time they could have spent, in other words, campaigning to people whose votes they needed and didn't already have.

Clegg has been doing this frequently across the country since becoming leader. It's part of his programme to re-engage with the vast swathes of the population who couldn't bring themselves to vote at the last election, outnumbering the total of those who voted for the winning party for the first time in history. Paddick joined in naturally, with the event being held in London and the election round the corner, to highlight his own Mayoral credentials. It was him that I went along to see in particular, hoping that he would assuage some of the doubts that have so far been keeping me from voting for him this Thursday. Unfortunately, he failed.

One of Paddick's top manifesto pledges is to chair the Metropolitan Police Authority, giving him the power to influence the Met's policing strategy and, therefore, focus their efforts and resources on the key areas of crime and disorder as specified by him. Although this would hardly turn the Mayor into the Tsar of the Police Service, he would still have a decisive stake in the hiring and firing of Police chiefs whilst his opinions and decisions, as an elected official, would carry far greater weight with the public. Some may celebrate this as a brave attempt to make politicians truly accountable, to the people they represent, for the state of their city. Sir Simon Milton, President of the Local Government Association, is one of those people and in February called for local councils across the country to be gven the power to hire and fire their respective Police Chiefs. I, however, harbour great concern that it would mark the politicisation of the Police Service and therefore felt compelled to question Mr Paddick on his declared intention to chair the MPA, when presented with the unique opportunity to do so tonight.

Sadly, he did not share my point of view, replying to my question with a tirade against Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and Ken Livingstone for backing him through all the trials and tribulations of late. This told me more about why he wanted to chair the MPA than anything else and subsequently reinforced my view that such a position should be kept well out of reach of the London Mayor and his political agenda. However, it was not just his all too clear grudge against his former boss that bothered me, but the lack of any foresight on what I consider to be a very contraversial issue.

The need for the Metropolitan Police Service, and indeed all police forces, to be independent so that each Chief Constable and Commissioner can focus their attention on solving and preventing crimes and not on tending to their political masters with the impending fear of losing their jobs if they refuse, did not seem to register on Mr Paddick at all. This in spite of the fact that he himself recently criticised Sir Ian Blair for so forcefully backing the government up on their calls for an extension of the pre-charge detention limit to 90 days back in 2005. Speaking to the BBC that day, he said: "If there's a perception that their (police forces') chief is aligned to a political party...that undermines the rank and file officer."

It is not unconceivable that in such an instance as the 90 day campaign, a Mayor with the power to fire the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, a far less complicit Commissioner in this scenario, could publicly accuse him of undermining the security of the city, whilst privately threatening him, if he refused to get on board. And of course, why does the support of the Police matter so much in such heated political debates? Because the opinion of the police is considered, by not least the public, to be independent and only concerned with the security of the citizens under their protection, thereby serving as the perfect endorsement for what would otherwise be a distinctly political decision.

As a result, the failure of Brian Paddick to take any of this into consideration as well as the precedent that such a move would set throughout the rest of the country if he, or Boris who has the same policy, were to be elected this Thursday is what's stopping me from pledging my support for him. That and his whiter than white rhetoric which displays a significant naivety on his part and which you just know will come back to haunt him at some point in the future.

On the upside, I did think that Paddick had an otherwise good night, making some thoughtful and impassioned arguments, and being interrupted for applause on several occasions. Nick Clegg, meanwhile, was absolutely breath-taking. He seemed so genuine, engaged and passionate. His answers were thorough and actually addressed the questions put to him, a first for many a politician. Tonight I found myself, for the first time, being truly inspired by him and his vision for the country. If only he could pull off such amazing performances on TV, the we might not be languishing on 17% in the polls, but rather taking advantage of Labour's meltdown. In any case, a truly stimulating evening with two very talented politicians, who for all their flaws, still have an incredible amount to offer the people of London and throughout the UK. Hence my dilemna.