Think of a railway. ‘British Rail’ was a much disliked public service company that ran the railways at the end of the twentieth century. It was poorly managed, probably underfunded and the sandwiches it provided curled at the edges. It was sold off to private business presumably as a way to solve all those problems. Now the private rail companies are poorly managed, probably underfunded and they don’t provide sandwiches; you have to buy them from the shop at the end of the platform.

What we have in the title above is a binary question. Is it one or the other? But this type of question, I think, most people can spot is over simplistic and denies the existence of complexity. In reality a railway is both a service and a business. It’s a blend, like two types of coffee bean are used to make a drink better than one can achieve on it’s own.

The question is, on a scale of ten, how much is a railway a business and how much a service? Would you agree that for a public company the service element is around eight and for a private company the service is around four. For a public company the business element is around two and for a private around six?

I have used railways as an example but the question can be applied to a variety of bodies that describe themselves as services and businesses.

Take health. At the end of the second world war, it was decided to create a National Health Service in the United Kingdom. It was thought by politicians that it is wrong for the poor to have to pay to see a doctor. They had no money and therefore no medical support. On the above scale the NHS is nine as a service and one as a business.

I live in Spain where there is both a private and public health service. If you work, you pay into the social service system and get a variety of benefits in return such as medical cover. If you don’t then you need to have health insurance or a lot of money. There are two types of hospital and two types of ambulance. If a public ambulance picks you up in the street after a heart attack and you have health insurance, you will be paying for the ambulance out of your own pocket. The two systems do not have a sharing agreement like banks do with cash machines. Ambulances may come from a long way away if you want the right company or service to arrive. Good luck.

I once sat on a committee which discussed over coffee and croissants, ‘future proofing’ a large public organisation, the police. One day the notion was brought up that the police force should be privatised. I remember I strongly objected because I could see it would open the doors to corruption and Mafia type organisations taking over. Not everyone in the room saw my point of view, which was scary.

This dichotomy can be seen in most businesses and public organisations. The cake shop selling buns to busy commuters is helping people by providing a service, whilst selling buns at a price that makes a profit.

But when you hear of local authorities having to cut their spending from 440 million pounds by 70 million pounds, you realise that the United Kingdom is taking it’s austerity policy seriously. The down side to cuts is the answer to the question, what do local authorities do?

I heard an interview on the radio with a man who lived on a rough estate in west London. Gangs ruled and knife crime and shootings were common. He was asked when this all began and he answered, when youth services were cut. When he was a child all the kids were taken out of London to the countryside where they learnt to get along because they were all the same. The result of not preventing knife crime and shootings are social and financial costs for communities and the public services like health and criminal justice. Cuts can be a false economy.

If we turn our services towards businesses, they start to fail. Just as if we turn our businesses into services, they start to fail. A bun cannot be cheap. A sticking plaster must be paid for.

To achieve success in both areas, managers must not lose sight of the aims of their organisations and know what mix of business and service they are. Politicians must know the minimum thresholds below which businesses and services just stop.

Perhaps the largest concern for voters in the recent UK referendum, was the issue of immigration. People felt that the ‘open border’ policy of the European Union was against the interest of Britain. They were concerned about their jobs and the pressure on public services and housing caused by unregulated migratory labour. The argument put forward was that by leaving the European Union, an ‘independent’ United Kingdom would regain control of it’s borders.

Did you worry about what you were being told was true or not? Perhaps you should have.

Here is a little test to see how much you really know about border control and travel within the European Union.

Most of the paperless immigrants coming to the United Kingdom come from Europe – wrong.

Most paperless immigrants come from outside the European Union, such as Africa and the Middle East.

The UK is included in the Schengen Area which is a border free travel zone. – wrong.

The UK is not in the Schengen Area.

The Republic of Ireland is included in the Schengen Area – wrong.

Both countries believe that their shared maritime borders provide greater security than ‘permeable’ the land borders of many European countries. They therefore set up their own Common Travel Area (CTA) to create border less travel within the UK and it’s islands, and Ireland.

Patrolling coastal borders for paperless immigrants is a high priority for the UK government – wrong.

When Mrs Teresa May was Home Secretary, there were three patrol boats to cover the 19,491 miles of coastline. Dorset police had to introduce their own patrols in rubber dingies as they were particularly vulnerable.

Non-EU citizens with valid visas may enjoy this free movement across borders in the Schengen Area– correct.

Criminals obtain stolen passports on the black market for this purpose.

In order to prove that an EU citizen or non-EU citizen has the right to cross a border within the Schengen Area, national police are permitted to request a passport or recognised ID, provided this is not equivalent to a border check – right.

(comment; when is a border check not a border check? Travelling from France to Spain, I encountered French Border Control officers at the last payage control in France. That’s a stop to pay your road toll, not a border check of course.)

The Channel Islands have their own border force independent of the UK – right and wrong.

The Channel Islands are within the CTA so check travellers from outside this area such as EU citizens. They do not have a single border force but two. (comment; why two border forces for such small islands?)

If you were born in Northern Ireland but wish to become a Irish Republic European Citizen, you can – correct.

The ‘Good Friday Agreement’ permits such persons to hold dual nationality and after Brexit they will expect to travel to Ireland unhindered.

There are fixed controls at Irish ports and airports, to establish where people entering have come from – true.

Even if you came from the UK, you would be checked at Dublin airport to see if you had come from within the CTA or not. (comment; intending to abandon border checks is a paradox as there is always a need to check if you need to check!)

The land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is open without checks as a condition of the Good Friday Agreement – right.

(comment; good walls do not make good neighbours in Ireland. If you don’t have an agreed plan in place to maintain peace in the island of Ireland after Brexit, don’t have a referendum. Put simply for the benefit of politicians, don’t cross a desert without a bottle of water.)

An individual may travel to the UK without a visa if they in transit to another destination, unless that individual is intending to travel to Ireland – right

If you are coming from Afghanistan to visit your uncle in Dublin and arrive at Heathrow, you should have a visa to enter the UK and another to enter Ireland.

A person travelling from Spain to Gibraltar must show a valid passport – true

Gibraltar is part of the United Kingdom and therefore not part of the Schengen Area.

(comment; Margaret Thatcher moved Tornado jets to Gibraltar during the Falklands war to deter invasion of Gibraltar by Spain. The people of Gibraltar and the Falklands defend their UK nationality proudly and yet they were rarely mentioned in the Brexit debates.)

In truth, I am not an expert on any of this. I’ve just cribbed a few facts from Wikipedia. My main point is that even the right to travel, is a highly complex subject. It is fraught with political judgements balancing a citizens right to freedom and right to be safe and secure. In practice European Union Member countries bend rules to achieve a border control process that suits them. The UK and Republic of Ireland and few other European country’s decided not to be in the Schengen Area. They can’t blame the EU when it comes to border control and the consequences of poor government decisions. 

But even with strong border controls, they are really only paper walls. A person entering a country for whatever reason, with a valid visa or passport is potentially going to morph into a paperless immigrant by ‘overstaying’. The United Kingdom has this problem in the same way the the United States and many European countries do.

The UK will need to deal with it’s ‘ghost’ population humanely and with respect. They have a right to freedom and security as much as the indigenous population. That is what ‘democracy’ stands for, isn’t it?

Their existence was not addressed by Brexit in the debates I listened to. Trump wants them out of the USA and wall built. Australia puts them in internment camps. Will post Brexit voters want this in the next UK election?

I felt sorry for the couple featured on the news the other night. They had just won sixty million pounds on the National Lottery in the United Kingdom. They were filmed shaking the ritual bottle of carbonated liquid and spraying the contents into the cosmos. Smiles wrapped around bony faces that did not like they were used to being stretched. These were working people who were just not used to good luck.

I am disappointed by the popular expectation of lotteries by the general public in Europe, which is to make them wealthy beyond their dreams.

I don’t enter lotteries because the odds of winning are ludicrously infinitesimal. I would rather have a thousand times larger chance of winning 60,000 than win 60,000,000. And although popular opinion would not agree with me, I think that the lesser prize would bring greater contentment.

I remember hearing how one lottery winner declared that he would buy a new washing machine but otherwise his life would not change. I wonder how he got on? Did he survive the unexpected consequences of extreme and sudden wealth? So concerned are the lottery companies around the bad publicity from winners who encounter ‘problems’, that they set up a support network of advisers. Not for the winner’s well-being but to avoid any bad publicity for the lottery.

Because spending money wisely is not a skill many of us have. I live next door to some lottery winners who after ten years have reportedly, spent the lot. Their house and it’s garden could hardly be described as aesthetically pleasing and is patrolled by three large and ill disciplined dogs. The high metal boundary fence keeps the dogs in and the world out. They have never emerged and walked the five hundred metres to introduce themselves to their neighbour. I have never wanted to shake their locked gates whilst being barked at by dogs and introduce myself.

There is an assumption in the wealthy nations of the world that happiness is found through wealth and lost in poverty. Inhabitants of the poor countries aspire to this same goal thus making the yellow brick road more real. But most who have lived in Europe since birth with only moderate resources, know that it a ‘high standard of living’ does not make you ‘happy’.

To be happy is like a child at a birthday party. It knows that tomorrow life will be back to normal, but for the time being, various fantasies and pleasure fulfilments can be enjoyed.

Such fantasies follow us into adulthood and for some, end only at death.

I went to a children’s party once in the early 1960’s and at the end, all the children were given a stick of rock. One boy however didn’t get a stick of rock and I remember my annoyance with my parents who insisted I break my stick of rock and give one half to him. Their act of compassion was intended as a learning opportunity for me, for which I was not grateful but now am. For I must have learnt that the happiness shared, brings the greater contentment.

Therefore if I was on that team of advisers supporting our lucky lottery winners my pitch would be something like this;

‘Put aside the amount you need to keep you at the level of comfort you are accustomed to, for the rest of your life. Perhaps buy one thing for yourself that you have always dreamed of owning. The remainder you should give away. Now let’s think how we are going to give away so much money.’

In my view, a lottery with thirty or sixty thousand pound prizes, is far easy to manage. Winners will continue to work, if they are working age, and keep those friendships and daily routines which make them content. They can pay off part of a mortgage or accumulated loans that have been a financial burden and feel lighter in themselves. Or if they are natural savers, put the money in the bank.

Perhaps the problem really has nothing to do with money but what we expect from life. I have sat on a beach in Bali, Indonesia chatting with local people who told me that I was very lucky because I have possessions. I told them they were more wealthy because they could enjoy the best sunsets.

Somewhere in-between I guess is the place where contentment with life lies. If you want to find it, take my advice and spend your two pounds for a lottery ticket on a bus ride to somewhere beautiful.

 

The thief left it behind,

the moon at the window.

 

Basho, Zen Master on discovering a thief had taken his only possession; a begging bowl.

 

How ironic. David (disappeared without trace) Cameron nobly handed over the chalice to the new PM TM, so that the party and country, could Brexit in a seemly fashion. The resignations yesterday of the Brexit and Foreign Secretary’s show that Brexiting her way, was not what they expected.

One has to wonder (and chuckle a little), thinking that the Brexit cart was put before the Brexit horse on purpose, or perhaps through pure folly. What do I mean? Well the last referendum on Europe, debated and agreed the plan before the vote. It was in October 1974 when the nation was asked to vote on whether to accept the terms of accession to the (then) European Communities, or not.

The labour party (who were in power under Harold Wilson) was split, as are the Tories now. The principle difference is that in 2016 the referendum was a broad question, which meant many things to many people.

The old adage, ‘ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer,‘ applies.

In contrast to 1974 when there was a substantial majority in favour of joining the EC under the terms being proposed of 67%, only a negligible majority swung the referendum vote in 2016. And we predicted with foresight and now mourn with hindsight, the chaos that ensues from any majority that is hopelessly weak.

Add to this Teresa’s Mays’ Lady Macbeth like ambition to be Prime Minister and you have a cauldron containing a good mixture of hubble and bubble and toil and trouble.

Cameron probably switched off the television news and weather forecast this evening and poured himself another gin and tonic, muttering how pleased he was he resigned. He at least, could see that the chalice in the Tory Manifesto that brought him to power, was poisoned with something similar to Novichok, only more deadly.

Is Boris now going to turn his hand to political murder to fulfil his own ambition for the Tory throne? He will probably deny wanting to be PM continuously until the time is right and then announce he has changed his mind. That trick is perhaps the only thing he learned from Trumpy Towers.

In the meantime, what will happen to the United Kingdom? Will it drift towards Brexit aimlessly?

Surely it has been evident to all, that the devil has always be waiting to be roused by questions of detail?

TM has leant on the dispatch box repeatedly over the last couple of years issuing platitudes of broad intent to the party opposite. Meaningless statements are a sure way to wrong foot someone intent on confronting details…and she has used them to good effect.

Before the referendum question entered the Tory manifesto, a wise Home Secretary would have objected. ‘What will be the effect on the Good Friday agreement?’ ‘Surely we cannot risk the peace that has taken so long to achieve?’

The Trade Secretary should have asked similar pertinent questions about Tariffs and Trade deals in a post Brexit lah lah land?

Surely the Home Secretary should have asked cutting questions about the effect on immigration, post Brexit?

Surely the Employment Secretary should have asked about how skilled and unskilled labour will be recruited from abroad for much needed employment post Brexit?

Surely the Defence Secretary should have been very interested in knowing where the UK would stand with it’s allies in Europe post Brexit?

‘What,’ might have asked the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ‘will become of farmers and fisher folk, post Brexit? Who is to pay the CAP subsidy – if anyone?’

The list could no doubt be extended with a little more research on my part, however I hope I have suggested enough to support my point. The list of ‘unintended and unforeseen’ consequences is as long as TM’s speeches to parliament have been short.

She has expected the Rt. Honourable David Davies to tackle the difficult questions for her whilst she slides down in her seat behind the despatch box. She thought she could flatter Boris Johnson into submission by giving him responsibility.

Now these stratagems have exited stage left, she is left centre stage with blood on her hands.

Out, damned spot! out, I say!—One: two: why,
then, ’tis time to do’t.—Hell is murky!—Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power to
account?—Yet who would have thought the old man ( F’king Brexit) to have had so much blood in him.

Authors parenthesis; apologies to the Bard.

For some time now I have been frustrated by the persistence of the western myth of the origin of the universe.

It was about forty five years ago that I wrote to the then prominent astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, and proposed the idea that the universe didn’t begin. Astronomers at that time were using the idea of a ‘big bang’ to hang their theories on.

Since we observe stuff in the physical world being made, that is a pattern of thought that we have adopted. One day you go down to the car showroom and you have a look around and choose one you like the colour of and say, I’ll have that one. And you read the documents that come with the car and it tells you where and when it was made.

But that isn’t the case – even for a car, it was made from other things. Some clever chap pulled together all sorts of stuff in an original way, as if from nowhere, and made a car.

This is compelling notion from which Judea, Christian and Islamic religions base their premise on the origin of the universe; Jehovah, God or Allah made it. And that was a convincing enough answer, until scientists started asking awkward questions in the eighteenth century. Sir Isaac Newton pulled out the idea that the universe was some sort of enormous clock that was put together in such a way that it ticked. And that fooled everyone enough to last a few centuries until scientists started talking about a big bang.

But that idea, as clever as it is, denies the questions about what was there before the origin of the universe and introduces the next question which is; what is there after the universe?

In Hindu mythology they have a story which they call the churning of the ocean. You have two opposing / complimentary forces lined up holding a huge snake like two ‘tug of war’ teams. They pull hard against each other and sometimes the snake is pulled in one direction and sometimes in the other. In this way the Ocean, which scientists call Space (although it is nothing of the kind) is churned, so sustaining matter and movement from one eternity to the next.

This was the meat from which I gained my sustenance to write to Sir Fred and suggest that the Universe doesn’t need to have a beginning or an end; why would it? He wasn’t convinced.

In recent times we have been presented with the image derived from mathematics called ‘fractals’. These present to me very clearly how the Universe is made. It is not stuff or the spaces between stuff but pattern. If you observe atoms and electrons under a microscope you see an image which might as well be a picture of suns and planets, or suns and galaxies, or galaxies and universes, or universes and …

You see if you think it through eventually you run out of words because language runs out of the ability to fit your thoughts. That is why the Zen Masters and Sufi Masters described the universe in poems, because poetry is a kind of verbal fractal. It can describe matter and movement at one level in order to describe a similar process in infinite levels, infinite universes.

So for me the ‘big bang’ was a whisper, not a bang. It was just a changing of direction of everything that already was and always will be. It was what you might call ‘a cosmic breath’ that keeps existing because it changes state, changes direction.

Because we were once ‘born’ and had our little bottoms smacked to put air into our lungs for the first time, we think the universe came into being in the same way. But we think like this because we use scientific materialism as our model of thought, especially at an unconscious level from where we obtain our ideas.

Because we imagine ourselves to be the development of a ‘me’ inside a bag of skin, we separate ourselves from the universe in a most fundamental way.

Astronomers will tell you that your body is made up of ‘star dust’ that is elemental matter from the origin of the universe. And this is a fractals way of telling you that not only is our body the universe, but our spirit as well.

We are no more separate from the universe than a newspaper is from it’s readers. What I mean is that a newspaper is at one level skins of paper which is really nothing, it’s just something to read or light the fire with. A newspaper only exists in the minds of it’s readers.

So do we come alive when we stop thinking of ourselves as a bag containing organs and bones. Instead we should see ourselves as part of the churning ocean, the ocean from which we evolved, are evolving and will evolve into something else…not dust to dust, but star dust to star dust to star dust to star dust ad infinitum.

 

Strengths

Europe has the potential to act as one nation. With a population of 500 million and its standing as ‘First World’ states, it is strong compared to many other players in world politics. Two world wars were fought to make it so, at the cost of the lives of millions of it’s citizens and allies from other countries around the world.

In my view, Europe shames their selfless contribution to peace, if it does not work as one for the greater good of it’s citizens and the world.

There is a Parliament in Brussels bristling with highly paid politicians and civil servants, who are responsible for policies. This parliament could have made a strategy to deal with immigration and have passed it into law. This would have controlled immigration by quotas, processing visa and asylum applications and closing down the illegal business of trafficking migrants.

Weaknesses

Europe has a large number of member states making it difficult to have unanimous agreement on policy.

Instead each state has ‘done it own thing’. Germany opened it’s doors to migrants weakening the strong government, other states like the United Kingdom accepted limited quotas, and some states like Italy and Malta closed their ports.

Immigrants have waited in camps in questionable conditions for their claim for a right to residency to be considered. One can only presume that too few resources have been allocated by the EU to process claims within a humanitarian time scale.

The whole business of trafficking of migrants has flourished at the cost of thousand of lives and human suffering.

Migrants are forced to use unseaworthy vessels to travel to Europe because the land borders are closed. At the airports, airlines themselves are at risk of being fined if they allow passengers without papers, to fly. So instead of paying 60 Euros for a flight to safety, they pay 1000 Euros to a criminal gang.

The risking of their own and their children’s lives, acts as a form of moral blackmail on European states to ‘do something’. Failure to act is seen as contrary to the Human Rights legislation each country is signed up to, including Italy and Malta who are now refusing to take migrants for rescue ships like the Aquarius.

Failing to stop migrants using unseaworthy vessels, has given moral cause to these humanitarian ships, to come to the rescue of drowning immigrants. But they inadvertently allow the traffickers to prosper because it gives hope to those setting out. There is a case (yet to be proven), to prosecute those aiding migrants on the grounds of aiding and abetting illegal trafficking

Opportunities

If there are wars on ‘terror’ and ‘drug trafficking’, why is there not a ‘war on immigrant trafficking?’ This would involve gathering intelligence within the states from where the traffickers operate, arrest and extradition of traffickers through sting operations and raids, removal of asserts likely to be used by traffickers such as unsafe inflatable boats, unsafe life jackets etc.

In an age when technology is able to monitor the entire north African coast and Mediterranean sea by the use of real time satellite images and drones, it is strange that unsafe vessels are not intercepted early and made to return to the port they came from. This policy would have a devastating effect upon the businesses of the traffickers who rely on never seeing their clients again – dead or alive.

Dealing with the human traffickers will potentially uncover and or deter terrorists and other criminals trying to enter Europe illegally.

Within those who chose to leave their countries, there are many who are educated and able to contribute to the country that accepts them. At a time of falling birth rates in much of Europe, it’s economic prosperity depends on a growing work force. It is possible to process applications for asylum at their country of origin or neighbouring states offering temporary asylum whilst processing takes place.

Threats

There is an opinion that the large influx of persons of the Muslim faith is designed to destabilise European governments, some of which have showed a strong prejudice against Muslims, perhaps following the lead of the USA president and Brexiteers . Such a prejudice would not be acceptable towards Jews and yet it is left unchallenged by Europe when directed at Muslims.

The cultures of the countries from which migrants are from are very different to the European way of life. Language, religion, social and family values, law and religious jurisprudence, community values ( sometimes tribal in nature ) prejudice, misinformation and unrealistic expectations – all place a large burden on migrants and their potential host European nations. European nations have to be flexible and realistic enough to allow the assimilation process to take several generations. Their citizens must be  informed and educated so that they view the process in the same way, otherwise their expectations will be unrealistic, leading to anger and dissent.

Right wing nationalist views are being expressed by many political parties in Europe. If such views and the effects of the economic recession gain dominance amongst the people Europe, there is a risk of some European countries falling under the control of fascist dictators. Dealing with immigration ineffectively gives the power to persuade to these parties and spreads their influence amongst the people of that country.

The bottom line for the European Union is this; if it cannot control it’s borders to deal with the arrival of desperate souls in rubber boats and prevent their deaths en-route, how can it be successful at anything?

It is the year 2050 and we are witnessing the annual conference of the World Organisation of Flight Safety (WOOFS). At the podium is Mr Carlos Sanchez having just finished a rather long speech. He is handing over the Medal for Preservation of Human Life to a short man in his fifties. Uncomfortable in a oversized grey suit, the man is a software engineer and part time inventor from Boston, Massachusetts. He flats down his greying hair with one hand and holds the gold plated statue of a heart in the other. The photographers from the world press shout at him to lift it above his head. He does so and the audience raise the level of their applause.

If you missed the speech it went something like this. Mr. Peter Striker, employee at MIT, conceived of something that has revolutionised aviation safety. That claim is no exaggeration. In the year 2049 to 2050 there were no fatalities as a result of civil plane crashes. None.

He achieved this single handedly by conceiving of a way to bring passengers and crew safely to earth, in the event of a catastrophic system or structural failure of the plane, or that old chestnut, pilot error.

With his ‘inventor’s hat’ on Peter conflated several design solutions that bring heavy objects safety to earth. The first was watching the lunar module deploy a parachute as it plummeted into the Pacific Ocean. The footage was a rather fuzzy black and white video from the 1960’s but the image locked in his mind. The other inspiration came from the joke about sitting near the Black Box flight recorder if you want to survive a plane crash. Peter wondered how you could put passengers and crew in a literal ‘black box’ and how you could extract it from the plane before it crashes, not after.

He came up with the idea of a sort of ejector seat, as has saved the lives of many military pilots. But instead of a seat, the cockpit and passenger compartment can be pulled out of the plane by large parachutes. This pod came to be known as the POPE or the Protection of Passengers in Emergencies.

The engineers came up with a ‘double skin’ concept for the aircraft. Using the latest composite materials including mass produced spiders web filaments in structural polymers, they were able to reduce the weight of the outer skin. The effect was a minimal increase in weight gain and thus fuel consumption.

Their designs produced a long pod which was on runners and bearings and locked into the fuselage until an emergency.  The pilots were able, for the first time in the history of aircraft design, to make a decision to ‘abandon ship’. Instead of looking forward to a freezing dip wearing a plastic life preserver with a whistle and light, the passengers would all remain in their seats. The parachutes would deploy from the end of the plane and pull out the POPE. As it comes out further parachutes deploy along it’s entire length making it level off in a few seconds.

The rest is up to gravity and the wind. Balloon pilots look for a safe landing zone and this is something the pilots would have considered before deployment. The POPE descends either onto land or sea.

In the event of landing on land, it is strong enough to withstand impact, partly due to it’s curved outer shell and the reinforced frame under the passenger seats. Like a balloon, impact does not involve a direct collision. Lateral forces drag the pod until the parachutes collapse. Much of the kinetic energy is used up dragging the POPE and thus reducing stresses from impact which would otherwise cause damage and injury.

In a desert or forest or farmland, the passengers and crew can stay with the POPE until rescue arrives. Various advanced beacons send out messages containing vital information enabling a swift and successful rescue mission.

Whereas older planes were not designed to float on water for very long, the POPE is designed to remain afloat indefinitely. The parachutes are jettisoned and sea anchors deployed to prevent it moving to a less safe location. Again the pilots will aim to land the POPE away from danger.

As now all passenger aircraft contain POPE’s, there were three deployments in 2049. Two of these were overland. One in the Syrgarya Desert in Kazakhstan and in Oman near the Arabian Sea. In the latter case the pilots brought the POPE down fifty kilometres south of the city of Muscat. Emergency services reached the POPE in under thirty minutes and apart from minor injuries, nobody was hurt.

One critical advantage to this system is that the cockpit voice recorders and flight instruments recorders are preserved within the POPE. A full investigation is able to start straight away, with or without the fragments of the rest of the plane the search for which is costly and time consuming.

Military aircraft have adopted designs similar to POPE but ejecting the whole of the pilots cockpit only. Pilots no longer have to take the risks of injury and mental stress associated with the ejector seat!

After the photographs Peter Striker gave a short speech of thanks to those organisations who had helped him and a gibbe at those who had derided his concept. He noted that not everyone is born with the ability to make things better for others. When we see someone trying to do this, we should at least, listen.

He sat down and placed the trophy on the table beside him. His toes pointed slightly inwards and the public nature of his predicament obviously made him uncomfortable.

Blessed are the Meek

The most simple image to produce for early photographers was in tones of sepia. As techniques improved, colour photography took over. The same transition occurred with television. In each example the process was from simple, to complex.

The same can happen to the way we think. As children we are introduced to ideas and skills starting simply. As adults we have the opportunity to develop our thinking skills.

So if you were outraged about my previous blog concerning the difference between artists and art technicians, I will admit to being tongue in cheek – deliberately to introduce this subject.

The point I was making was not that there is no art to playing the piano or any other technique of an artist. Clearly there is. The debate is around how much art.

It was Albert Einstein who said that science is one percent inspiration and ninety nine percent perspiration. I expect he would agree that artists have to perspire to produce too. The question is again, how much?

If I were to give an opinion, I would say that artistic technicians vary in the art content of their performances between ten and one percent. My view of the artist is that they put in between fifty and ninety percent art. The remainder is the technique of the artist, varying conversely.

The point I am trying to illustrate is that decisions are rarely yes or no; that is polarised between two opposites. Each yes contains a no and each no contains a yes.

Consider a court of law. There the only possible outcome is a polarised decision, guilty or not guilty. And yet, it might be that the victim bears a little of the guilt, albeit a fraction of the guilty party. If this is believed then why should not both parties be punished in proportion to their share of the guilt.

I once witnessed a road collision. I had a good clear view from a distance from start to finish. Both drivers pulled into a car park and I joined them to leave my details as a witness. In my view both parties had broken the Highway Code and their driving had fallen below an acceptable standard – known as driving without due care. The day came when the court was due to hear the case. I waited outside to be called. After a while both drivers appeared with their solicitors. The one who had been least careless had been let off and the other fined. I wasn’t even called in as a witness. But I did notice the look of exasperation on the face of the driver found ‘guilty’. He couldn’t understand how the other driver, who had also been careless was being treated as the innocent complainant. I didn’t speak to him but I sympathised with his frustration.

Because of the need for a decision in a court to be polarised, the court could not find both parties guilty.

Part of the problem is vocabulary. In English we use numerous terms that express opposites – black / white – hot cold – yes / no.

Apply the first couplet to this argument in terms of race. Negroes are not black – they are different shades of brown. Caucasians and not white – they are different shades of pink. Regrettably there are no words for these shades other than exaggerations, from which prejudice can develop. In Apartheid South Africa under Prime Minister Ian Smith, Chinese people were black and Japanese white! That proved a problem for bus conductors on the ‘white only’ buses.

Is a bath hot or cold? A mother will test the temperature with her elbow before placing a baby in a bath. Somewhere between hot and cold is the correct temperature, but alas it has no name.

The sparsity of language blinkers our ability to discriminate the finer points of anything. Most of us are familiar with the ability of Inuit people to describe snow in forty different words. This is because they need to know the difference as it will affect how they travel, hunt, predict weather, what to wear etc.

So when language lets us down we have to create in our minds the space between the meanings of words. If we do not then decision making becomes over-simplified. We start to ignore complexity in favour of ‘keeping it simple’.

Beware the effects of ‘dumbing down’. In our present society, politicians, entertainers, journalists have to be wary how they communicate with the population. Perhaps it is time adults went back to school, to brush up on thinking skills?

Perhaps it is time to teach our children how to think as well.

I firmly believe that we should teach them not to think in black and white – but to think in colour.