A student and a tutor

An attractive female student went to see her tutor about a course she was struggling with. She knocked on the door, and he answered.

"Dr Smith, I really need to pass your course, and I would do anything ..... anything whatsoever ...... to pass."

Now you probably think you know where this is going. Of course I am going somewhere different.

Dr Smith looked at her, noted that Lucy was both attractive and moderately intelligent, but who had been enjoying university life rather too much, and not doing as well as she should have been in her course work.

"Lucy," he said. "I have 4 pieces of advice for you. Firstly, never offer anything unless you know precisely what it is that you are offering. Secondly, most things in life that you work for are better than those handed to you on a plate. And thirdly, don't be a cliche. Now get out."

She left his office quickly, and was almost at the coffee shop when she realised that he hadn't made sense. She was just about to return and ask him about it, when the answer hit her - she was reasonably clever after all. As she realised, she got a coffee from the shop, and returned to her room to study.






I am sure that you understand this, seeing as all those who read my blog are wise and intelligent people, but I have to explain it because I want to make a point.

The core point that Lucy realised is that Dr Smith had only made 3 points explicitly, despite offering 4 pieces of advice. Of course, this was the 4th piece - that people sometimes lie, that you cannot always trust people. So what did this mean in the context? Well, he could have taken advantage of her - or, considering his first piece of advice, insisted she do something highly publicly humiliating - and then not given her the pass she asked for. That was a lesson in itself, but there was more.

The comment about the cliche was a reference to the response you might have expected. It was a pointer to say that the thing she needed to do was actually work. The point is that if he had simply told her this, she would probably have dismissed it, but because she had to work it through, because she had to work to find the answer, she understood it better. That was the real message he wanted to teach her, and she learnt it because she had to work a little bit to get there.

Of course, the story is just made up. We all know that tutors are not that perceptive, and students don't get these sorts of lessons so quickly. Or something. But the point is there - people learn more by doing than by being taught.

I am tempted here to give some examples of how this applies, but I am sure you can all find better examples, more appropriate ones. I am not dismissing book-learning, but I am suggesting that simply reading things in books is not "learning". learning is something you only get if you work for it, fight for it, struggle to get it, understand because you have engaged with it. I am currently working for my advanced driving test, and I realise that many of the things I have learnt in some 30 years of driving have been learnt the hard way. But it means that I am now a better driver, having learnt not from someone teaching me, but from my own experience.

Quantum Confession

I have recently finished reading this book by Stephen Oram, and it is a very good read, a good story, a challenging book to read and make you think. If you haven't read it, this post may contain spoilers.

There are some aspects of it that I struggled with, which are not problems with the story as such, merely the characterisation of the two sides - the libertarians and the absolutionists. In one sense, this is simply because they are both characterised in emphatic terms, as extremes. What is more, because of the conflict between them, their positions tend to become more extreme. The problem is that I wanted to see which side I would be on, given a division of this nature, and I am not sure.

The faith communities are generally on the absolutionist side, because they stand for absolute truths, even though they differ greatly in what these truths are. They are united solely in opposition to the libertarians, by the fact that they all hold to some form of absolute truth. The problem I have with this is that I, and others who would be broadly on the side of the faith communities would not subscribe to this absolutionist position. I do not believe that there is an "absolute truth" that we are seeking to understand and learn. I believe that we are called to seek truth in all sorts of ways and all sorts of places. If you want, truth is like food and drink - I want and need to keep eating and drinking, some of which will be great, some will not, but I just need to have more and different. There is never a time when I would say "I have had the best meal possible, so I don;t need any more". My faith is about seeking for, searching out truth wherever it is, not to find some "absolute truth" that exists somewhere, any more than I eat in the hope of finding "the perfect meal".

So would I sit on the other side, the libertarians? Well not as they are portrayed, because there is one situation where a doctor refuses to suggest a treatment, because it is not his job to tell the relatives what to do. They are expected to research into the various treatments and identify what they would like the doctor to do. But this is not libertarianism, this is something else - this is a doctor failing to use his skills and expertise to help guide relatives. Actually, I am all for doctors not proscribing treatment, and to be honest, they don't for this sort of serious condition tell relatives what to do. They do outline options, give pros and cons, outline any particular issues that treatments might have, and suggest what they consider, in their professional opinion to be the best route to take. That is what I expect of professionals (medical or otherwise).

So I would not be on the side of those who refuse to offer advice when they have appropriate knowledge. Of course, I also wouldn't be on the side of professionals who dictate rather than discuss. The problem with most of those on the libertarian side is that they are not supporting freedom of thought, they are eroding trust. They erode trust in medical professionals who refuse to use their knowledge. They erode trust in friends and families, because they break the bonds of respect (however loose they are) - both ways, where parents deny any responsibilities they might be considered to have, and children refuse to accept their parents conditions. This breakdown in trust, rather than a rejection of absolute truth, causes people to breakdown.

I have a real problem with the equating of "removing trust" with "rejecting absolute truth", because they are different. In fact, because I don't accept a universal truth, I need to trust people - not with everything, but with being honest and open with me. It is more important to me that we can discuss and explore with openness, and not with some hidden purpose behind it. What is more, if you remove trust, people will move towards a breakdown, because you remove hope, you remove any sense of purpose. You do not recover from this by giving them absolute truth - you recover from this by caring for people.

None of this actually takes away from a good read, but it does give a challenge to the more absolutionist approaches of churches (in particular, but not exclusively). The choice is not between an absolute truth and any truth goes. The choice is, as the book tries to show, who you allow to define truth for you. Do you accept someone telling you "this is truth, accept or or not", or someone saying "believe whatever you want", or do you accept someone saying "find truth wherever"?

Nurse

Nurse is a short series by Paul Whitehouse, a dark comedy with Esther Coles as a community mental health nurse, visiting a range of her patients (mostly played by Whitehouse). I was both intrigued and worried by this, knowing that Whitehouse is a talented character actor, that he can define different characters well; but also that making fun of mental health issues is an easy target, and not actually that funny.

What really struck me early on was that there was an interesting interplay between Nurse Liz and her patients - in some ways, her patients are more together than she is, to an extent because she has to pretend to be OK, whereas her patients don't have to. The question that it asks me again and again is Who is the one with problems? The answer is everyone, the nurse, the patients, those people like Lorrie's neighbour Maurice who is not one of Liz's patients, but maybe he should be.

What was interesting was that there was humour in the series - and it was not making fun of those who were ill. It was sometimes seeing the humour in their situations, and often the target was nurse Liz herself. Ray the forgotten rock star, who talks about all of his past glories, to put off the moment when he needs an injection in his behind, is funny and poignant. There is something of Les McQueen from The League of Gentlemen, but more nuanced, less cynical. Graham is hugely overweight, but the jokes are not AT his weight problem, but as much at those (like his mother) who pamper to his food desires. If anyone is the butt of jokes in these sketches, it is his mother, not Graham himself.

There was a sense in some of the storylines, of progress, development, a sense that there was progress happening. In the final episode this week, some of these were resolved - in various ways. Graham got out of bed and walked a little - no miracles, but important progress. Ray had nothing to say in his last meeting, his silent depression a reflection of him acknowledging his problems. And yet there is the Alzheimer's sufferer who is really no better at the end than at the beginning - her son, who is Liz's actual patient, may have had enough.

As a whole, I think the series was very sensitive to those with mental health problems. It was funny, in a rather dark way, and I would put a trigger warning on it for those with mental health issues. Not everyone would find it funny, some would consider it offensive. I am not dismissing these views, all I am saying is that for me, it was insightful. Rather than laughing at at people with mental health problems, the series as a whole did identify some of the issues that they face, some of the challenges that mental health problems cause for individuals. For me, Ray - that chatty, outgoing star who ends up unable to say anything, was perfect, and someone who (in some ways) I relate to. That is the reality for many - including myself - of depression.

So, despite some reservations, I think Paul Whitehouse has done something very good, very positive. Well done.

Germanwings crash

There has been a whole lot of discussion about the tragic crash this week, and the health of the co-pilot who (apparently) deliberately crashed the plane. There are some headlines suggesting that "people with mental health problems shouldn't work" - because we are clearly dangerous.

Aside from the ridiculous nature of these claims, I would love to never work again (of course, I would need to get paid as I currently do). The truth is that people with mental health issues can, often, work in jobs exactly as anyone else. Let me be clear - you who are reading this work with someone who has mental health issues, and you don't know about it. I can say this with reasonable confidence because it affects at least 1 in 4 people, and many of these work exactly as anyone else.

Of course, sometimes people with mental health issues have restrictions - just like people with physical health issues. If you have a broken leg, you might not be able to walk about quite as much as otherwise. If you have anxiety issues, you might not be able to cope with certain situations. It might be that people with particular health issues might not be suitable for particular jobs, something that is applicable across mental and physical health matters.

Andreas Lubitz (the co-pilot) had been cleared by Lufthansa to fly. I know that the airlines take the health of their pilots seriously, and if Andreas would not have been allowed to fly if he was unfit, either physically or mentally. I know many people with mental health issues who are perfectly safe to work in any area. The problem with Andreas was not his mental health issues - if his action was deliberate, it was because he did not have enough help and support, because he could not talk about his problems enough, he could not say "I need help".

Do you want to learn something from this tragedy? Maybe it should be that mental health is something that effects all of us. Maybe it should be that mental health is something we should talk about more. Maybe it should be that someone you know, someone you work with or socialise with, someone you meet somewhere and talk with needs help, needs to be able to talk to someone about what they are coping with (or not coping with).

To those who read this who suffer with mental health issues, talk to someone if you need to. I do help run the "Waving not Drowning" board on the Ship of Fools, which helps many people who have mental health problems. You are not alone - there are others who can listen and help. Call the Samaritans if you need to. Find those people who will not judge, who will be there for you.

To those who don't, find those around you who do, and be there for them. Nobody asks you to "understand" or offer formal counselling or medical advice. What we need most of all is people who can listen, who can hear when we are at our lowest and not get scared off. And no, it is not easy, but then living with it isn't either. We understand - we don't want you to be perfect.

It's time to talk about mental health issues. The answer to avoiding another Germanwings incident is not to label all people with mental health problems "dangerous" or "unfit to work". The answer is to accept that people have problems, and be prepared to discuss them.

Rat Running

OK, I have started a new job in Rickmansworth, and so I am having to drive there each day. This means, of course, I have been working to find the easiest and quickest route to get there. And, of course, that means that I am taking routes through more residential areas, finding the really good rat runs.

And, of course, I do feel a little bad about it. I don't race through them, but I do take these shortcuts, and I understand that those who live in these areas must get sick of it. But it is not entirely my fault - it has shown me more clearly some of the problems of this particular area of the South East.

You see, I can get to work on the motorway, and out of peak times, that is a good route - I can make it into work in some 25 minutes. But at peak times, it can easily take me 30-40 minutes to get onto the motorway, and there is a good chance that there will be delays on the motorway as well. This is the core problem - we have a significant 4-lane motorway, that is not doing the job, because it gets too full. The answer is not to expand the motorway more, because the bigger it is, the more traffic is attracts.

The next option is to take some smaller main roads, taking a route around these main roads (something which is a challenge, as there are motorway spur roads, and feeder roads, all of which suffer many of the same problems as the motorway). I did this for a while, but the problem is that places like Watford get congested, which blocks up the surrounding roads. There were also roadworks, which cause significant extra hold-ups. The problem is that the main towns and cities have queues into them, and this means that these are other spots to avoid, because they are also too busy and also delayed.

So I have had to take back roads and rat runs to avoid the problems and the traffic around the area. I don't do it just to annoy people, I do it because I cannot spend 90 minutes each way to get to work. Especially when it is only 15 miles. So I use whatever roads I can to get me around these problems.

But the core issue is not my driving route. The core issue is that we have too much traffic, to many people driving to places, which has two justifications: firstly, we are actually very poor at allowing people to work from home, or hubs near their home. So many people travel because they are told they have to be in an office. Secondly, the public transport system is not up to scratch, because of neglect for decades.

On the first one, I did look for roles from home. there are a few, but not many, not enough. Within IT, which should be at the forefront of technological development, this is not good. I suspect other areas of business see that IT feels it is not practical, and so don't even try. We should be leading the world in this, because we have a small country, we have national broadband, and we have some of the best technical people in the world.

On the second, I would love to go by train, but the train system doesn't work to get me from home to there. There is a station in Rickmansworth, but I cannot get to it from home, except by going a long way into London first, with all of the cost that involves. It would also take a long time. For my daily commute, it is not practical, and the same appies to many others who are not travelling into London.

I was reading recently a description of motorways, the sort of thing you get in most driving books, that they are "fast roads, enabling you to get places quickly". this may be the case in some parts of the country, but around the South East (Milton Keynes and South, Oxford and East) this is not so - in particular in peak hours. They are usually slow, very busy, and to be avoided if at all possible. they are the only sensible route for some journeys, but where they are not, I want to avoid them. As such, they are failing to improve the traffic around and through the area.

So my conclusion is that our road system is broken - and the solution is not more roads, it is more radical. Our motorway system is not helping any more - it just attracts traffic, and when there is a problem on them (a weekly occurrence), it simply causes more problems around the other roads.

The midget, the old man and the lad.

This week, Jeremy Clarkson had been in trouble once again for hitting a member of staff (after, it would appear, verbally abusing him). He has, as I am writing, been suspended, and the rest of the Top Gear season has been suspended.

If, in any job I have had, I had racially abused a colleague and then hit them, I would have been sacked immediately. In fact, if I had done either of these, not both, I would probably have been taking some time at home. Doing this when I was on a final written warning would have meant that this home time would not be unexpected.

Sacking Clarkson would have an impact on the BBC revenue - although much of this money is from the Top Gear programme, which is more than the one presenter (however significant he is in it). Losing him would result in all significant financial cost from paying him off (possibly twice, because he also has an investment in the worldwide sales of the programme), and from the loss of revenue from sales.

The question is, should this financial loss impact on the decisions the BBC will make? I am all for them considering the financial implications of decisions they make, because they are a publicly funded organisation. But at the end of the day, this is a question of morality, of whether the stars should be allowed more leeway because of the money they generate.

The problem is that I am reminded of the Jimmy Saville era, when he (and a number of others) was allowed to get away with abuse and unacceptable behaviour for many years because he was a "star", and he brought a lot of money into the BBC. But that was wrong - his star status should not have excused his behaviour.

While I am NOT suggesting that Clarkson is guilty of sexual abuse of any sort, he is guilty of abusing people, of being racist, sexist and violent. In my view, irrespective of his "star" status, this should not be tolerated, and he should be sacked.

Of course, he doesn't really care. He is a multimillionaire, much of which has come from his role on Top Gear. He could find some work somewhere if he wanted to, or simply retire and enjoy life. Sacking him would not cause him any real problems, so it is not a threat. Some part of me thinks he might be behaving like this deliberately to get a decent payout so he can then retire with an extra few million in his pocket, and claim to be persecuted.

I used to watch Top Gear, and enjoy it. I haven't for a decade or so, because it has gone from seeing some aspirational cars, understanding where the market is going, providing an insight into the motoring industry to a lads show a sort of Men Behaving Badly. I am not convinced that the other two presenters are actually much better - they have, to a large extent, taken their lead from Clarkson, and this is shown in the other shows they present.

I am a bit of a petrol-head (and I know that this is not entirely consistent with my Green party membership). I enjoy driving good cars. But I do find their arrogant, careless attitude and approach to be broken and mistaken. That is not me, and that is not the only attitude that fits - I want good cars that drive well, and, ideally, are environmentally acceptable. That does not mean that I enjoy watching a group of old men driving strange beat up vehicles across other countries. That doesn't mean that I have to accept their views. That does not make me a lout.

I think it is time to get rid of the louts. It is time to get rid of the celebrities who think they can dictate their own terms. It is time that we stopped celebrating thugishness. Because celebrating being a thug gives real thugs - people who then consider it to acceptable to be offensive and violent - a role model.

Natalie Bennett

This last week Natalie Bennett - the leader of the Green Party - had a meltdown in an interview on LBC.

Having heard the interview, it was bad - she really couldn't answer the questions. She explained that she had a cold and I know that when your head is bunged up, it is difficult to think straight, it is hard to be coherent. And yet, this is not really an excuse. Politicians need to be on the top game all the time, illness or not. If she wasn't up to it, she should have cancelled.

I am embarrassed by the leader of my party making a cock-up like that. But does this mean that she is not able to play a leading role in politics, as some are saying? In truth, all of the party leaders have times when they are under par, and make a mess of interviews.That is part of politics - it is unfortunate that it happened at this time, but that is life.

So firstly, we demand such a lot from our politicians, particularly the party leaders. I don't have a problem with expecting them to behave in a moral fashion, to be exemplary in terms of their conduct if they are expecting to represent us, but in terms of their performance in interviews etc. We expect them to have all of the answers to all of the questions, meaning that we so often get pat answers to questions, because they cannot know the details of everything.

The answer to the question - on how building plans would be funded - is one that she should have known a basic answer to. If you want full details about the funding of the party plans, talk to the finance spokesperson. If you want to know what the policies are, and what the implications are, talk to the leader. She claims she had a "brain fade" - I know what that is like! - but I question whether she should have been expected to know all of the answers. She didn't because she is human, but we seem to expect something other than humanity in our leaders. this probably explains Milliband and Cameron.

Secondly, does the fact that the party leader had a moment mean that the policies of the party are all wrong? Does the failings of one person mean that people shouldn't vote for the party? I suppose it depends on what you are voting for

If you are voting for policies, ideas, principles that you would like to see enacted, then it doesn't matter at all. The party policies are just the same as ever. If you believed in them - and in the party's commitment to making them happen - then this should still be the case.

If you are voting for party leaders, then maybe you should vote for the ever-slick David Cameron. As a interviewee, he rarely stumbles - lies, dissembles, avoids questions, yes, but rarely stumbles. If that is what you want in a leader, he is your man.

Of course we tend to vote for people. I still believe that the people standing for the Green party are deeply committed people who want to make a difference: not just to the environment, but to your environment, our situation, and the direction we as a country take.

So yes, Bennetts stumble is embarrassing. She is embarrassed by it, quite rightly. But does it undermine the whole party? Unlike the main parties, the Greens are not a single person or small coterie of people. the Greens are represented by all our members, by a range of people, meaning that the mistakes one one - while serious - do not make the party irrelevant.