You are navigating - map reading - or chart reading. Using a GPS perhaps.
You are on a committed course.
You check your position.
You check the map - what you should see - you look up - with what you are actually seeing.
It doesn't quite fit. It isn't quite right.
This is where it can all go wrong.
This is where you can make a big mistake.
You convince yourself what you are actually seeing does somehow fit the map.
What is your motivation?
Maybe it is because you are an optimist - it will somehow come right. (that's me - lol)
Maybe because you do not want to face up to wasted effort and have to back track or make major adjustment.
Maybe it is hubris. Maybe you cannot admit to yourself or your crew - your friends - your family - you have made a mistake.
Whatever the reason ploughing on regardless is rarely the right answer. The sensible thing to do is recalibrate and get back on the right track.
If you don't you will seriously end up in the wrong place. (the snooker ball a half inch out at cuing is 6 inches out by the time it gets to the other end of the table!) You may end up a blind alley or in a deep hole so to speak. Turning back will become harder and harder the more doggedly you follow the wrong course.
This I think can be a lesson in life.
People get on the wrong path - lets say conspiracy theorists or deniers as an ideal example. A new reality does not fit their narrative - but they make it fit. They choose to see or hear the bits that fit but blindly choose to ignore the decisive bits that don't. They are on the wrong course but they are committed to it in some daft way.
What can happen? Their world gets smaller and smaller. They are lost. They are going nowhere. They are up a blind alley. The saddest thing is it often leads to alienation - isolation - and personal destruction and unhappiness because their views become less and less sustainable under objective rational scrutiny and they annoy people. This is the lot of the conspiracy theorist. Their world becomes a downward spiral. Almost always they have made a fundamental navigation error some way back and have failed to deal with it. Is it too late to turn back and get on the right road? The navigators dilemma! In the end you have no choice. Stop digging the hole. Give yourself a break. But it can be a long hard journey - even just to get back to the start again in order to find the right path. A sailing analogy - you might have to beat into the wind - alas - but if it is the only way to get there that is what you have to do. xxx
On the 22nd February 2021 the Johnson led government published a "road map" with target dates to move from lockdown to the end of covid restrictions.
As ever with covid the MSM, politicians and social media were quick to give opinion. Much was supportive - but many argued it was too slow and some it might be too fast.
The too slow lobby argue it is unnecessarily damaging to business and livelihoods - and also affecting peoples well being more widely. Some used words like using draconian powers.
The too fast group - talk about further wave and potential lockdown later in the year.
The governments position, which they state is science based (undoubtedly it is), provides for a 3 week assessment period following each incremental lock down easing measure. They argue this gives time to measure the impact of each change in order to ensure we identify a further spike in cases should it happen. For instance schools reopened on March 8th. What has been the covid impact (effect on the R number) of that? That is currently being measured. The next easing is scheduled on 29th March providing the school returns have not meant covid infection rates have shot up.
I think for the vast majority of the general public this all makes sense and they have bought into the road map plan without much complaint. The road map dates are known and understood and people are now planning around them. There is a strong sense we know where we are going.
However some are still lobbying for a road map change. They want it to be sped up in the light of positive covid news. Much of the thrust is coming from Tory backbenchers such as Steve Baker.
My message to the likes of Steve Baker is as follows :
you might be right. We might be able to getaway with unlocking faster.
you are right that the covid lockdown is widely damaging - of course.
however you might be wrong and for the sake of a few weeks the public are not in the main on your side.
the public as I have said have bought into the road map and the key dates and the reasons for them.
changing it now will bring unnecessary confusion.
please back off - leave it where it is and stop causing division.
Here is the Governments published road map out of lockdown :
Roadmap out of lockdown
From 8 March, people in England will see restrictions start to lift and the government’s four-step roadmap offer a route back to a more normal life.
The success of the vaccination programme is one factor - so far over 17 million people have had their jabs - but by no means the whole story. The public have also risen to the challenge of suppressing COVID-19: by obeying the law; staying at home; getting tested when needed; isolating when required, and following the ‘hands, face, space’ and ‘letting fresh air in’ guidance.
Taken together, this means that even though absolute case numbers remain relatively high, we will be able to begin relaxing the current strict lockdown. While we must all remain vigilant - in particular against the threat from new COVID-19 variants - and continue to protect the NHS, a safe exit from lockdown can begin. It will take place in four steps; and at each step, we plan to lift restrictions across the whole of England at the same time.
In implementing this plan we will be guided by data, not dates, so that we do not risk a surge in infections that would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS. For that reason, all the dates in the roadmap are indicative and subject to change. There will be a minimum of five weeks between each step: four weeks for the scientific data to reflect the changes in restrictions and to be analysed; followed by one week’s advance notice of the restrictions that will be eased.
Only when the government is sure that it is safe to move from one step to the next will the final decision be made. The decision will be based on four tests:
the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully
evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated
infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS
our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern
The government will continue to protect the public by ensuring local outbreaks are managed quickly and effectively and that we combat new dangerous variants, both within the UK and at the border. The government will also continue to support families and businesses throughout the steps set out in the roadmap - details of which will be set out by the Chancellor in the Budget on 3 March.
Step 1 - 8 and 29 March
Changes on 8 March
Education
In Step 1, our priority is to ensure that all children and students return safely to face-to-face education in schools and colleges from 8 March. Childcare and children’s supervised activities can also resume where necessary to enable parents to work or engage in similar activities. We are introducing twice-weekly rapid testing for secondary and college pupils - in addition to regular testing for all teachers - to reduce the chance of the virus spreading in schools.
Higher Education students at English universities on practical courses can also return from 8 March.
Social contact
People will be allowed to leave home for recreation and exercise outdoors with their household or support bubble, if they are eligible for one, or with one person from outside their household. Care home residents will also be allowed one regular visitor.
Changes on 29 March
Social contact
The evidence shows that it is safer for people to meet outdoors rather than indoors. And this is why from 29 March, when most schools start to break up for the Easter holidays, outdoor gatherings (including in private gardens) of either 6 people (the Rule of 6) or 2 households will also be allowed, making it easier for friends and families to meet outside.
Business and activities
Outdoor sports facilities such as tennis and basketball courts, and open-air swimming pools, will also be allowed to reopen, and people will be able to take part in formally organised outdoor sports.
Travel
The ‘stay at home’ rule will end on 29 March but many restrictions will remain in place. People should continue to work from home where they can and minimise the number of journeys they make where possible, avoiding travel at the busiest times and routes. Travel abroad will continue to be prohibited, other than for a small number of permitted reasons. Holidays abroad will not be allowed, given it will remain important to manage the risk of imported variants and protect the vaccination programme. The government has launched a new taskforce to review global travel which will report on 12 April.
Step 2 - not before 12 April
Business and activities
Step 2, which will be no earlier than 12 April, will see the opening of non-essential retail; personal care premises such as hairdressers and nail salons; and public buildings, including libraries and community centres. Indoor leisure facilities such as gyms will also reopen (but only for use by people on their own or in household groups); as will most outdoor attractions and settings including outdoor hospitality venues, zoos, theme parks, and drive-in cinemas. Self-contained accommodation such as campsites and holiday lets, where indoor facilities are not shared with other households, can also reopen.
Hospitality venues will be allowed to serve people outdoors at Step 2 and there will be no need for customers to order a substantial meal with alcoholic drinks and no curfew, although customers must order, eat and drink while seated (‘table service’). Wider social contact rules will apply in all these settings to prevent indoor mixing between different households.
Events
While funerals can continue with up to 30 mourners, the number of people able to attend weddings, receptions and commemorative events such as wakes will rise to 15.
Step 3 - not before 17 May
Social contact
As part of Step 3, no earlier than 17 May, the government will look to continue easing limits on seeing friends and family wherever possible, allowing people to decide on the appropriate level of risk for their circumstances.
This means that most legal restrictions on meeting others outdoors will be lifted - although gatherings of over 30 people will remain illegal. Indoors, the Rule of 6 or 2 households will apply - we will keep under review whether it is safe to increase this.
As soon as possible and by no later than Step 3, we will also update the advice on social distancing between friends and family, including hugging. But until this point, people should continue to keep their distance from anyone not in their household or support bubble.
Business and activities
Most businesses in all but the highest risk sectors will be able to reopen. In all sectors, COVID-Secure guidance will remain in place and businesses may not cater for groups bigger than the legal limits. Indoor hospitality will reopen - and as in Step 2, venues will not have to serve a substantial meal with alcoholic drinks; nor will there be a curfew. Customers will, however, have to order, eat and drink while seated.
Other indoor locations to open up in Step 3 include indoor entertainment venues such as cinemas and children’s play areas; the rest of the accommodation sector, including hotels, hostels and B&Bs; and indoor adult group sports and exercise classes. The government will also allow some larger performances and sporting events in indoor venues with a capacity of 1,000 people or half-full (whichever is a lower number), and in outdoor venues with a capacity of 4,000 people or half-full (whichever is a lower number). In the largest outdoor seated venues, where crowds can be spread out, up to 10,000 people will be able to attend (or a quarter-full, whichever is lower).
Events
Up to 30 people will be able to attend weddings, receptions and wakes, as well as funerals. This limit will also apply to other types of significant life events including bar mitzvahs and christenings.
Review of social distancing
Finally, before Step 4 begins, the government will complete a review of social distancing and other long-term measures that have been put in place to cut transmission. This will inform decisions on the timing and circumstances under which the rules on 1 metre plus, the wearing of face coverings and other measures may be lifted. This will also inform guidance on working from home – which should continue wherever possible until this review is complete.
Step 4 - not before 21 June
Social contact
By Step 4 which will take place no earlier than 21 June, the government hopes to be in a position to remove all legal limits on social contact.
Business, activities and events
We hope to reopen remaining premises, including nightclubs, and ease the restrictions on large events and performances that apply in Step 3. This will be subject to the results of a scientific Events Research Programme to test the outcome of certain pilot events through the spring and summer, where we will trial the use of testing and other techniques to cut the risk of infection. The same Events Research Programme will guide decisions on whether all limits can be removed on weddings and other life events.
As we move through each of these phases in the roadmap, we must all remember that COVID-19 remains a part of our lives. We are going to have to keep living our lives differently to keep ourselves and others safe. We must carry on with ‘hands, face, space’. Comply with the COVID-Secure measures that remain in place. Meet outdoors when we can and keep letting fresh air in. Get tested when needed. Get vaccinated when offered. If we all continue to play our part, we will be that bit closer to a future that is more familiar.
It is early Sunday morning. I am just back from my bike ride. I thought I would quickly share this with you.
For perhaps a year now - maybe more - I have often passed the same lady walking with ski poles.
She was a very large lady - walking with a very distinct side to side motion - very reliant on the poles to take her weight. She was not young either. Her efforts looked painful - I am pretty sure they were.
While we never talked (not really the done thing early in the morning) we always smiled and I always had it in mind she was a nice lady.
From time to time I have observed walkers or joggers or bike riders - going at it for a while - but then you do not see them again. But this lady has not been like that. She is out in all weathers and she has kept plugging away.
Gradually I have seen her walking a bit freer - certainly a bit faster - but the most marked thing is the extent that she has gradually slimmed down.
This morning we were approaching a narrow point at the same time and we had a ready opportunity for a quick chat. I observed that I had seen her out walking all through the winter and "had she lost a fair bit of weight ?". She proudly said she had lost over 6 stone and how wonderful the ski poles had been in helping her. I congratulated her and she said while her hips were still a problem she was feeling much better for the weight loss.
I think she is a great example of what is possible through self help. She is a very determined lady. Clearly her excess weight had become a major issue for her. She has taken personal responsibility and by dogged incremental steps over quite a long period she has made huge progress.
Whether it will result in the pain in her hips fully dissipating I don't know - but I am sure there are a lot of benefits accruing. A friend of mine has been told by his doctor he has to lose weight before they will consider replacing an arthritic knee joint. This might be the case with her hips.
She has done so well and it has not been easy. It is easy to reflect on was the hip damage caused by her obesity but at least she has done something about it. No excuses. No victim mentality. Just some personal effort. Anyway I feel this is a positive tale. Good for her - and she has achieved it with a ready smile even on the gloomiest and forbidding early mornings. xxxx
I am just sat here listening to Prime Minister's Questions.
A discussion just ensued regarding the shocking prosecution and conviction rates relating to accusations of rape made to the police.
The diabolical statistic is less than 2% of rape cases reported to police result in prosecution and successful conviction.
Everyone agrees this is shocking - it is horrendous. Everyone wants every man who rapes a woman to be prosecuted, found guilty and given a custodial sentence for a very long time.
Everyone wants every woman to have unequivocal confidence in the legal system that when they report rape they will be treated seriously and compassionately and that the presumption will be they are telling the truth.
So if everyone agrees that - why is it not happening?
Why are conviction rates so horribly low. Why are women being left so disillusioned and in many cases so angry?
It seems it comes down to one thing - burden of proof - our legal system - innocent until proved guilty.
Of course men usually claim consent in defence - and as most often there is only 2 people involved how do you prove it was not consensual (beyond a reasonable doubt) when it is one word against another. How do you establish beyond reasonable doubt that a diabolical crime has been committed?
This is the great problem. This is the reason so many rape accusations are not even taken to court because the police and particularly the Crown Prosecution Service realise the case has little or no chance of success.
Apparently one reason for the drop in the number of cases taken to court is the CPS have taken the view it is even worse for a woman to go to court and lose than not to go to court at all.
This is all dreadful. Longer sentences for rape convictions are not going to be the deterrent we all hope they will be if the conviction rate is so ridiculously and unacceptably low. In fact it is possible indeed likely, that the diabolical conviction rates might give confidence to rapists.
So what can be done? This issue has been wrestled with for years and no one has been able to find a workable and acceptable answer.
It seems to me there is only 2 possible answers :
1) you can find a way of obtaining proof that is enough for a conviction under current legal rules.
or
2) the burden of proof is reduced or the emphasis changed.
Starting with option 1). How can proof be obtained in a 1 to 1 situation ? The only thing I can think of is the man is required to produce evidence it was consensual in the form of written or recorded evidence. (most people carry a mobile phone). I am not sure if this is practical - certainly not romantic - but a sort of pre nuptial. The man has to prove it was consensual. I am sure this would be highly problematic in practice.
This leads to 2). The burden of proof changes. It could go from innocent until proved guilty to guilty until proved innocent - or possibly the plaintiff is given the benefit of a reasonable doubt - rather than the defendant.
This is the change many campaigners want to see. The problem is it turns the whole premise of our legal system on its head - guilty until proved innocent or guilty if there is reasonable doubt (rather than innocent). For many - maybe for the majority - this is a step too far however much they feel the situation regarding rape convictions is wrong. Some argue however that a woman must be believed and / or as men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of rape they must be the ones that suffer one way or another (not women) !
Are we prepared as a society to increase the chances of hanging an innocent man by lowering the bar to establish guilt?
Some will argue we should be - because if we don't many men will continue to get away with the terrible crime of rape. Lowering the evidential bar will mean a certain % of convicted men will be innocent - but that is the price worth paying for the greater good!
This is pure speculation on my part. There are about 50000 reported rapes to the police each year. Only 2% of cases are brought to court and convicted. - so 1000 men. Question - how many of the reported rapes actually occurred? I am going to guess over 90% - so 45000 out of the 50000. That would mean 44000 men per year would be getting away with rape!
Why would a woman claim rape when it is not true? We can speculate. It happens from time to time. Is there a chance that by lowering the evidence threshold more bogus charges might be brought?
In situations like this I try in my own tiny brain to simplify the arguments - to cut to the chase. A brother and sister. The sister is raped but cannot prove it. Just her word. The son is convicted of rape and imprisoned but is innocent. Which is worse. What if you are the parents?
Everyone wants to see action on rape convictions . But how and what ? The best answer of course is to stop rape happening in the first place. How do you achieve that in reality? That must be for another blog.
A full blown narrative is sweeping across social media and journo columns. The story is "mental health".
It goes something like this.
Mental health is now defined as simply how someone is feeling in their head. Mental health is no longer just about acute issues such as clinical depression, schizophrenia or paranoia etc. Mental health is also about stress levels, happiness or otherwise, self esteem, self confidence etc.
The narrative runs - there is no longer a need to hide your mental health issues - be brave and talk about them openly. You should not be feeling like this - seek help.
It then follows where does this help come from and who pays for it?
But is this story going to have a happy end? I suspect not. I think it is flawed which is why I am writing this blog.
I am now going to park this narrative and go off on a tangent (or so it might seem)
I am thinking that we are all animals. ( sorry if that offends you but scientifically it is indisputably true.)
Like all animals - like everything in this world - we are in an inescapable maelstrom - explained as Darwinian Theory. Simply summed up - Darwinian Theory is " the survival of the fittest."
Life is a battle for survival and then you die.
Many would deny this. Many will claim we are better than that - that human intelligence, our education, our moral code - societies common decency raises us out of the animal world. They would argue we have lost our base instincts through evolution (if they acknowledge we ever had them).
However in my view - those that deny Darwinian Theory no longer has relevance in the 21st century for human kind are deluding themselves. We are all in a battle for survival - that remain our base motivation.
True it is a more subtle battle now in many aspects of western life style - we are not exactly killing each other for food - but actually I would argue that is not so far below the surface as we would like to think.
For more enlightenment my other building block - which I combine with Darwin is Maslow - and his hierarchy of needs theory. I have referred to this before in previous blogs.
Darwin explains we are in a battle for survival. Maslow to me acknowledges human progress and shows how Darwinian theory is taken beyond food and water and shelter and that other "intelligent" things are required for longer term survival - like to feel a sense of purpose - or to feel happiness. Maslow refers to a human need/motivation to find status and a sense of achievement and fulfilment - to engender a feeling of a sense of purpose and all those things that might lead to happiness.
So now back on the subject of mental health (new definition)
This is my theory - my take :
Put simply - (and I am not referring to serious clinical mental health issues - as understood by the former use of the description mental illness) I list the following thoughts :
we all need to understand life is a battle for survival.
that life is not easy.
that you will only survive if you are prepared to compete.
once you give up the battle for survival your life will implode and you will die.
while people may be able to help you, fundamentally it is your battle and and no one else can fight it for you.
it is a grave mistake to believe someone else can fight your lifes battle for you.
it is naïve and damaging (however well meaning) for you to believe you can fight someone else's life battle.
it will be damaging - destructive - to do much other than to emphasise we each have to keep battling and that it is down to each of us - our responsibility to ourselves.
I appreciate this sounds gloomy. However I do not think it is. The reason I do not think it is happiness has its root in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The human spirit is lifted by a sense of, security, status, achievement and a sense of fulfilment. A sense of achievement and fulfilment is a feeling you get when you know deep down that you have put the effort in, that you have tried, that you have done your best. No one can give you that feeling - you have to earn it for yourself.
I have often used running a marathon (a series of marathons maybe) as an analogy of life. The run might not always be fun - always be pleasurable - it will be deeply challenging at times - you must expect that - but you have to keep going. And when you get there - joy - a wonderful feeling. You will never experience that deep joy if you try and take the easy way out. You cannot run someone else's marathon for them and you do them a mighty disservice if you pretend to them you can. Life does not work like that.
So my driving point - I am deeply sceptical - actually very concerned about where this current narrative running on mental health is actually going and what it is likely to achieve.
In my view it is a big mistake to pretend life is not going to be a struggle - that you will not have ups and downs in terms of stresses, setbacks and periods of unhappiness. That is normal. That is life. You have to battle through it. You are NOT mentally ill.
We seem to be developing a narrative where we are trying to pretend that it is not normal - that there is another way - that you do not have to compete in the battle for your survival - that you can wrapped in cotton wool - that someone else can do it for you. Most perverse - it is the governments responsibility - the tax payers responsibility to ensure you are happy - to ensure you survive the battle of life. That the world owes you a living. The "snowflake" mentality. This I fear leads to an ever downward spiral. A victims mentality - someone elses fault - someone elses problem to solve. It is not. It is yours.
Like everything else on the planet - like everything else in the universe (probably) - life is a battle - and yes - there will be casualties. That is life. Some people will not compete or throw in the towel. That is life. That is the reality of life - however sad. That is natural selection.
This is a very short blog - because I am not an expert here in any way and do not claim to be.
However I have a daughter and two grand daughters - and I have common-sense. Of course I want them to feel and be equal with men - to not be held back by gender prejudice in any way.
Women have not been treated equally. They have fought a long and hard battle.
However in the UK (unlike many other countries - especially countries dominated by religion) women are now equal under the law. Our law is not gender biased and of course rightly so. It was indefensible when it was.
But the battle for many women still goes on. Why?
Well it seems mainly because many women focus on "equality of outcomes". ie gender pay gap - the number of women in senior FTSE roles etc etc. I was listening to a woman explaining why this is entirely the wrong approach for women to adopt because it assumes women have the same objectives as men - want the same outcomes. She felt this attitude just in itself actually demeans women - ie to ape men.
What she explained is what women should really be focused on is "equality of opportunity". If a women chooses a corporate life her progress to the top should be based on her performance and not be held back because of gender. But the measure of this should not be there is 50 50 gender parity in FTSE boardrooms because a higher proportion of men than women may seek a corporate life. Women might want to choose to do other things.
She went onto to say focusing on equality of outcomes very often leads to thinking social engineering is required (or justified) - so women only short lists and gender based targets etc. She felt this was discriminatory behaviour and hard to justify. In fact she said it did woman no favours to be given promotion just because she was a woman.
I thought this was an interesting point of view and makes sense to me.
I think it undermines any campaign where disparity in equality of outcome is used as evidence of discriminatory behaviour when in fact differences in outcome arise for other other reasons - like individuals exercising personal choice..
On a slightly different theme I read an article about gender parity in sports prize money. In many sports it has been achieved - others lag behind. Football for instance - there remains a big gap - where in tennis for instance it is equal. Some people argue that the prize money gap is evidence of discriminatory behaviour towards women. However what they are unwilling to acknowledge is there is a commercial reality here. If gate receipts, endorsements and TV money is the same for men's and woman's matches then of course prize money should be the same. When it is not - as it is not in football - then is it not reasonable that this should be reflected in the reward to the participants?
Yesterday we walked around the east Wight village of Arreton. It was only 3 or 4 miles. It was a stroll - not hard in any way - a chatting walk - ha! It was a perfect early spring afternoon - bright, clear and both cool and warm at the same time (if you know what I mean.)
Arreton is a linear village with a busyish road running through it (Sandown - Newport) - so I was not that hopeful for the walk we had chosen (because of traffic noise) - despite Arreton's history and it's location in an extremely fertile and otherwise quiet valley.
However our walk route took us both south and north of the busy through road. It might have been part wind direction - but I think mainly topography - but traffic noise did not carry in either direction. Walk away from the road and it became very quiet and peaceful very quickly. It was a lovely walk as a result - much more than expected. Normally we would end up in a pub but of course we are still in lockdown - so we had a BYO and sat in the sun on the foot of the Downs. Simple pleasures are usually best - ha!
Here are a few snippets about Arreton :
Arreton is a village and civil parish in the central eastern part of the Isle of Wight, England. It is about 3 miles south east of Newport.
The settlement has had different names and different spellings over the years. For example, the village was called Adrintone in the 11th century, Arreton in the 12th century, Artone in the 13th century, Atherton and Adherton in the 14th century, Adderton in the 16th century, and Aireton in the 17th century.
St George's Church Arreton is renowned. The war memorial was designed by local architect, Percy Stone (1856–1934).On the road to the church is the 17th century Stile Cottage which was previously used to store ales for the church.
Arreton Manor, the local manor house, was rebuilt between 1595 and 1612 by Sir Humphrey Barnet. Arreton Manor is mentioned in the Domesday Book (1086) and has been owned by at least eight monarchs, the earliest being King Alfred the Great who left it in his will to his youngest son Aethelweard.King Charles I reviewed troops on the lawn in 1629, and Queen Victoria planted a tree in the garden.
Evidence of habitation during Bronze Age Britain are the "two round barrows, the larger, some 9 feet high, known locally as Michael Morey's Hump".
The Arreton church of St. George was first begun in the Norman era. The monks of Quarr helped to extend the Church of St. George around 1160. A tower was added in 1299. In the fourteenth century, a brass effigy of Harry Hawles, Steward of the Island on behalf of Montecute, Earl of Salisbury, was added to the church's interior. The brass effigy is missing its head and also the coat of arms.
There is a note marking Hawle's resting place that reads:
Here is ybried under this grave
Harry Hawles, his soul god save
Long tyme steward of the yle of wyght
have m'cy on hym, god ful of myght.
A renowned bowling green in Arreton Parish flourished during the 16th and 17th centuries. "I have seen," wrote Sir John Oglander (1595–1648), "with my Lord Southampton at St. George's Down at bowls some thirty or forty knights and gentlemen, where our meeting was then twice every week, Tuesday and Thursday, and we had an ordinary there and card-tables."
Arreton appears as the central location, fictionalised as "Arden", in the 1889 Maxwell Gray novel, The Reproach of Annesley.
The parish of Arreton was at one time one of the largest on the Isle of Wight. In 1894, Arreton was divided into the parishes of North Arreton and South Arreton. In 1898, part of South Arreton was transferred to Godshill, and part of Godshill was transferred to South Arreton in return. North Arreton was absorbed into Whippingham in 1907.
Here are a few mob photos to give you an idea :
St George's church Arreton
Fertile arable land getting ready for spring planting
Heading up to the Downs - the chalk spine running across the Island.
Haseley Manor
A small tributary running down to the East Yar river
On a day following the UK budget - where the staggering cost (and colossal debt burden as a result) of managing the covid pandemic in the UK is really sinking in - the article below indicates much could have and would have been avoided if the UK had gone into the pandemic as a slimmer fitter nation.
While this is no suprise and in many ways is commonsense - the stark statistics are shocking and revealing.
For years we have been talking about the "obesity time bomb" in the UK. We know obesity is also usually associated with lack of exercise and therefore general unfittness. But we continue to do so little about it!
The reason we have done so little about it? Because we pussyfoot around. Mainly for politically correct reasons we do not fat shame. We should. Maybe lessons from covid will act as a wake up call - but sadly I somehow I doubt it. However for some this concise and stark revelation might help drive home the obvious and bring about sustained change in our way of life.
Britain's Covid death toll has been fuelled by its obesity epidemic, experts have said, as global research finds nine in 10 fatalities occurred in countries with a weight problem.
Britain was found to have the third highest death rate in the world and the fourth highest obesity rate, with more than than two in three adults overweight or obese.
The study by the World Obesity Federation examined almost 100 countries and found that 2.2 million of 2.5 million deaths occurred in countries with high levels of obesity. Overall, death rates were found to be 10 times higher in countries where more than half the population was overweight.
It found that not a single country with low levels of obesity had a coronavirus death rate higher than 10 per 100,000 population. No country with death rates above 100 per 100,000 had less than 50 per cent of its population overweight
Obesity has already been found to increase the risk of death from Covid-19 by around 50 per cent, as well as increasing the risk of severe disease, and the World Health Organisation said the report should act as a "wake-up call" for governments to tackle their nations' obesity problems.
The country with the lowest Covid death rate was Vietnam, which has one of the lowest levels of excess weight in its population, with 18 per cent overweight. Japan and Singapore were also singled out for their low levels of obesity and deaths from Covid.
In 2008, Japan introduced the "Metabo law", which requires everyone between the ages of 40 and 74 to get annual measurements of their waist circumference. Employers of those with waistlines above approved limits are required to provide weight loss classes.
Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organisation, said: "This report must act as a wake-up call to governments globally. The correlation between obesity and mortality rates from Covid-19 is clear and compelling.
"Investment in public health and coordinated, international action to tackle the root causes of obesity is one of the best ways for countries to build resilience in health systems post-pandemic. We urge all countries to seize this moment."
Dr Tim Lobstein, the author of the report, senior policy adviser to the World Obesity Federation and visiting professor at the University of Sydney, said: "We now know that an overweight population is the next pandemic waiting to happen.
"Look at countries like Japan and South Korea where they have very low levels of Covid-19 deaths as well as very low levels of adult obesity. They have prioritised public health across a range of measures, including population weight, and it has paid off in the pandemic.
"Governments have been negligent and ignored the economic value of a healthy population at their peril. For the last decade they have failed to tackle obesity, despite setting themselves targets at United Nations meetings.”
Johanna Ralston, the chief executive of the World Obesity Federation, said: "The failure to address the root causes of obesity over many decades is clearly responsible for hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths."
Tom Watson, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, who lost eight stone and reversed type two diabetes and has become an anti-obesity campaigner, said: "This report is sobering. Again and again, public health experts shouted from the rooftops about the risks of obese populations.
"Failure to keep pubic policy promises on tackling obesity has cost many lives. It's a stern message for grieving families and people who have lost jobs and income to hear: much this crisis was preventable. Surely now, the lesson for post-pandemic Britain is a massive shakeup to public health policy?"
The report also suggests the economic costs of preventing health services being over-run through lockdowns could have been significantly mitigated if governments had tackled population weight issues before the pandemic.
The International Monetary Fund has projected that the world will lose $28 trillion in economic output worldwide up to 2025, as a result of health problems. Of this, at least $6 trillion will be directly attributable to the issue of populations living with excess weight, researchers said.
The Conservative government have responded to the social and economic pressures of managing the covid pandemic with unprecedented financial support for people and employers (financed by government borrowing). This was necessary albeit there has evidently been mass fraud by unscrupulous claimants - (both personal and corporate.)
Several things have happened over the last covid year.
many people have been furloughed (on 80% wage/salary and have got used to not working) - a status many have enjoyed and maybe preferred.
many have come to the conclusion life is too short for mundane work.
the nation has borrowed massively and the nations debt pile is staggering (which leaves us acutely vulnerable to even small interest rate rises.)
while the debt has to be repaid many seem to think it either doesn't or more particularly - if it has - not by them!
a populist view has emerged - that there is no scope to increase tax paid (to repay the debt) by the ordinary man in the street or to reduce public expenditure (but repay the debt) - because that would not be fair on the ordinary man in the street. So called austerity policies are no longer acceptable apparently!
there is a rational economic arguement that tax rises could stunt recovery and growth (which is the main route to being capable to repay the debt in the longer term). However many (especially the Labour Party) see this as only a short term - temporary position.
The standard wokish MSM pedalled answer is the virtue of the hoary old mantra- to selectively tax those with the "broadest shoulders" - higher earners and corporates (as if they are not carrying the main tax burden already) !
But is it - I do not think so. This is why - in 2 simple paragraphs :
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
A parable: The ant worked hard all summer collecting food and preparing his home for winter. The grasshopper played all summer not doing any work. When winter came the grasshopper had no food. No worries, the grasshopper elected a socialist leader that took away 40 percent of the ants food and gave it to the grasshopper. The next year the ant thought what is the point of working hard if the government is going to take it off me. He decided that the new government would have to take care of him the same way so he played all summer too, as did all the other hard working producing ants. When winter came, there was no food and they all starved to death.
I fear there are too many out there that wilfully do not understand or accept the practical and dangerous reality of these statements. It will cost our nation dearly if we let what is effectively a cursed socialist doctrine hold sway (as it has before with such awful economic/societal consequences).
I am one of those calling for the Chancellor to be straight with the people. The debt must be repaid. It is both highly risky but also immoral to plan to pass it on to future generations. Our nation has to start dealing with it now.
It will not work if the burden falls only on the entreprenurial and industrious. It will kill the goose. That is the reality.
