What is it about the United States? I admit to having a love-hate relationship. For most of my career I have worked for US-based employers and have had a demanding, but rewarding work environment. I have been mainly fairly treated and occasionally seen dodgy practices, but would not single out the US for that as I have seen the same in Europe. I have also found many people in the US to be extemely hospitable opening up their homes on light aquantance; something I have not often seen in more 'reserved' countries like the UK or Germany. However the flip side is that I have often been confronted with a superficial, shallow welcome - "I'll invite you round before you leave" - which is not sincere and which would lose considerable face in most European countries.

For the last 20 years I have hypothesised that the US is a bimodal country while most European and Asian countries are unimodal. Just take body mass and fitness. Over this period I have noticed that the US has significantly more "spacehopper" shaped people, yet also more superfit people who spend a massive amount of time, energy and money keeping fit.

OK, I have been digressing... When it comes to politics I have often had a much more critical view of the United States and its projection of economic and military power. The same applies to HMG here too! I have often felt it was important for us in the UK to take a distinctly different stance on some issues while remaining allied on most issues. Iraq was a classic failed opportunity. Iraq was a horrible dictatorship but not a haven for terrorism before the US/UK invasion. Why did we not speak out? I could write resentful essays on this...but I am getting even further from the subject! .

Despite my love of many places and people in the US over the last 35 years, one thing I have never understood is the attitude to energy. In 1973 there was a major energy crisis that affected most of the western world. At that time I recall from my school lessons, the USA was the largest single supplier of oil in the world yet was still dependent on importing oil from the Middle East. This struck me as being very strategically dumb given both the level of energy wastage in the US then with massive "gasguzzling" motor vehicles, virtually no public transport and the high political risks of the Middle East. The obvious solution was to be dramatically more energy efficient and be independent of outside oil suppliers. There was also good research taking place in the US at that time (as good as anywhere else) on saving energy yet little seemed to be applied in practice. But OK.. that was the view of a then naive teenager!

But what was strategically dumb in my teenage years seems to be repeated in my middle age. SUVs are widespread in the US even though they depend on energy from politically dodgy sources. The US out of all large developed countries is the only one that has a fighting chance of being energy self-sufficent but does exactly the opposite of achieving that. What an own goal!! It makes me sad for my really good US friends.

So what about George Dubya? On one hand he is disarmingly honest about some of his past sins like drinking, yet fails to see the moral issues around things he has initiated e.g. Guantanamo Bay. I think that US foreign policy has some rightful concerns about security but has screwed up most of the rest. Since we British have naively followed Dubya we ought to be doubly ashamed as our history should have taught us better. But back to Duwya, he has just asked the Saudis to increase oil production so that the price he pays to import it goes down. Why should a country like Saudi Arabia that is economically dependent on oil redcue its own income to suite George? It is not surprising they did not warm to the idea.

Having just got back from Finland, I often think that it is odd that just 2 hours of time difference can be disturbing. I never seem to have problems going to France or Germany with just one hour time difference. Yet on the flight two fellow passengers - one British and one Finnish discussed the same thing.

I suppose fundamentally getting up two hours earlier than normal is a bit of a stretch. There is either the choice of getting up very early and getting the early connection from Heathrow. Alternatively evening flights get you into your desitnation late in the evening. A risk is that despite it being bedtime you feel wide awake and then face getting up at an early time Finnish time. Basically there is always one or more very short nights of sleep.

Often on the return journey I fall asleep on the evening flight home. I then need to be alert to drive home safetly, then cannot relax to sleep at a sensible time. Yet another short night ensues....

Another issue might be the differences in light. In winter Finland seems a lot darker. In summer Finland seems a lot lighter.Maybe I am just a wus, but I find Finnish trips with one or two nights away a lot more tiring than those to France or Germany.

Yes, I have been Finlagged!

Every country has its strong and weak points. Today I went to a lovely country pub after a walk in a spectacular copse full of bluebells.

Two things though were crazy but are widespread:

a) the use of brim measure for draft beer
b) the use of carpets on the floor

Brim measure guarantees that you spill part of the drink on the floor. Carpets guarantee that the drink gets absorbed and that the customers walk over a sticky floor. Why not have glasses that are big enough to avoid spillage combined with a rough tiled floor that is easy to keep clean without being slippery?

O.

As a BA frequent flyer...but with a company that books only the lowest available fare I have had mixed experiences of our "national" carrier. Whenever my company has been forced to pay for a higher level class I have had excellent service....but on lower (usual) fares the experience has been more dodgy.

With T5 being trumpeted as a great new checkin and transfer experience I was a bit sceptical. BA has been very successful in attracting transfer business. I recall a decade ago when I lived in Munich that I could get a Munich to San Francisco flight for less than Lufthansa. For me an attraction was the chance to meet parents or sisters during the ugly inter-terminal transfer. However T5 has proven to be a nightmare.

I was therefore greatly relieved that my flight to Helsinki yesterday was through T1 and not T5. It was checkin as usual but a 1 km walk to the old domestic lounge ... but that was no big deal.

I am greatly troubled by the T5 stories. I do not give "a monkeys" if Denver airport screwed up their baggage system for months after opening. Heathrow T5 was trumpeted as having a doubly-redundant baggage system and 'terminal designed around the baggage system'. Both claims would give me great confidence that everything would work smoothly from day one (or at least from day two!).

However, it is clear that other airports do better than BAA/BA (I do not care who is responsible, you both profit from my tickets!!). Munich airport in about 1991 moved its entire airport (I'm convinced this was not  a smaller undertaking than BA moving to T5) from Riem to Erdingermoos in one night without major mishap. Beijing (whatever we may think about the government) moved their airport recently to a totally new site without major incident. T5's transition has been a poorly thought-out exercise (even if the terminal is architecturally interesting). My friends working at BA say that many staff warned about problems but they were ignored.

I have had the impression over the last decade that BAA is focused on running (admittedly good) shopping malls rather than air transportation systems!

My wife could only get this Monday off work and getting the Monday overnight sleeper back home would have been too late for her. We therefore looked for a day train service from Inverness to London using the National Rail website. We were amazed to find that we could get singles on the Highland Chieftan direct service to Kings Cross for just £16/person. At first I thought this was a mistake, but booked immediately.

I have never previously been on a day train between lnverness and London. I recall decades ago my grandparents taking a train from Euston to Inverness (the Clansman?) which took at least ten hours. The current service is operated by National Express via Edinburgh.

 

The train is an InterCity 125 which despite its quarter of a century age was well fitted out inside. There was even a free wireless internet which some people were using. Importantly the windows were clean unlike the journey up on the Caledonian Sleeper!

 

We left on time at 7:55 and rapidly left Inverness and sped up towards Slochd summit. There was a "big sky" view back to Ben Wyvis from the Moy area.

 

A few minutes before Aviemore, we got a good view of the Cairngorms. The picture taken leaving Aviemore station shows the Lairig Ghru pass that goes between the highest Cairngorm peaks. I was pleased to see that the train was fairly full a good 70% occupancy.

 

The countryside in the Spey valley became more and more desolate as we went upstream. After Dalwhinnie where was a view to Loch Ericht and shortly after that we sped over Drumochter Pass. I recall taking the train from Inverness to Glasgow as a student and we certainly seemed to be going a lot slower then. This train also stops far less - only at Aviemore, Kingussie and Pitlochry between Inverness and Perth.

 

After Drumochter Pass the Sun came out and we got a glorious view towards Loch Garry (above). The hills seemed less desolate as we went south through Blair Atholl.

 

The train slowed by the pass of Killiecrankie and then stopped at Pitlochry. South of Pitlochry the landscape softened as we headed out of the Highlands to Perth.

 

Between Perth and Stirling, there were big sky views across to the Southern Highlands such as the view above to Schiehallion.

 

We crossed the Forth just before stopping at Stirling. After Stirling we sped across the lowlands towards Edinburgh. The last glimpse of the Highlands was just before Linlithgow.

 

You get a glimpse of Edinburgh Castle as you pass below it on the way into Waverley station. We stopped there for a good 15 minutes and then headed along the coast towards Berwick upon Tweed and the English border. There were good views of the Firth of Forth and the North Sea. After speeding through Berwick we passed along the sand dunes of Northumberland before stopping at Newcastle.

By Newcastle the train was at least 90% full. I was pleased that a steward went 4 times through the train with a large rubbish sack between Edinburgh and London. On so many trains in the past the bins have overflowed on a long journey.

The remaining journey offered views of Durham Cathederal, York Minster and Peterborough Cathederal. However with the train full it was not easy to get up and take photos. There was a large catering staff on the train (at least 4) and a good trolley service.

We arrived in Kings Cross ten minutes early. The entire journey was 7 hours and 50 minutes.

 Comfort, cleanliness, service, views, punctuality and price.

I do not know how typical our experience was but we were very pleased with this service.

Mrs O. and I had a long weekend trip North of Inverness to visit a close relative. We have sometimes driven up (which loses a day or two counting the return and you arrive or return exhausted) and sometimes flown from Gatwick or Luton then rented a car in Inverness. This time though, I thought it would be good to travel by train and to see some of the countryside between S England and the Highlands, then rent a car in Inverness to go further North.

In January we looked at rail prices and found that we could get Bargain Berths from the First Scotrail website at £19 per person for a single. This is less than a fifth of the normal price and obviously easier to get at less busy times.

The sleeper appealed for a few reasons:
- no stress at the airport
- a chance to eat out at Diwani near Euston station
- no stress driving late at night to our final destination.

As somebody who loves Highland scenery the thought of waking up high in the Spey valley was very appealing too; especially as the days are getting lighter now.

 

Duly fed at Diwani we boarded the train. The sleeper trains must be a good 25 years old - I vaguely recall them being introduced in the early 1980s - but they are in reasonable condition inside. Getting on the train you are immediately struck by the narrowness of the corridor leading to the berths. Our cabin is shown above with bunks, shelves, a sink under the black rucksack and little room to move. Our conductress was really friendly and helpful. She looked neither Scottish nor English and it turned out that she was from Galicia in Northern Spain! She seems to be happily resident in Inverness.

The small cabin space is partly due to the loading gauge of British trains. We built the world's first railway lines and established a track width standard that was adopted by most of countries. However, on the Continent when the first international trains were being introduced they agreed a standard width and height of the coaches (UIC) which is broader and higher than those here. Britain was not interested in adopting the standard as we were an island with no plans for a railway link to the Continent at the time! Now of course, with the Channel Tunnel, our Eurostar trains are narrower than the equivalent TGVs and need a retractable step to bridge the gap to the platforms in France and Belgium.

Some years ago I took couchettes between France and Spain and the higher and wider coaches were an advantage. The couchettes allowed triple bunks with the same amount of sleeping comfort as we had with Scotrail. Furthermore - and this was a real advantage - the train started with the upper bunks folded and we could sit comfortably before going to bed. In contrast with the Caledonian sleeper, you cannot sit on the lower bunk comfortably as the upper bunk is too low. We resorted to one of us sitting on the upper bunk and one on the shelf over the sink!

The sleeper train at Euston must be the longest passenger train in Britain. At 21:15 a single train leaves with a portion for Inverness, another for Fort William and a third for Aberdeen. The train is split in Edinburgh in the early hours of the morning. Each portion of the train has a "lounge car" with independent seats and the possibility of buying food and drinks. Some years ago my son and I had a wonderful time sitting in the lounge car from Fort William southward enjoying the wonderful views to mountains and of red deer on Rannoch Moor as the evening drew on. However two years ago we did the same Inverness trip and were very disappointed with the refreshments. This time we had our own wine in the confines of our cabin!

On this trip we slept very well and were not woken by the jolting of the train as it was split in Edinburgh (that happened last time). We woke just over the Drumochter pass (which at about 450 metres is the highest railway pass in the UK) and saw that there was a dusting of fresh snow.

 

We could see light in east as we trundled downwards along the Spey Valley.

 

There were views across bogs, lochs (this one must have been around Kincraig) and to the Cairngorm and Monadliath mountains. Sadly the windows of the sleeper train were filthy on the outside and I took the photos from the doors of the carriage; did Scotrail think nobody would look out of a sleeper window?

After Aviemore we were given a little airline-style breakfast tray and coffee/tea. The train then went uphill again leaving the Spey Valley for another pass - Slochd summit 401 m - which is quite a desolate area with boggy ground and some pine forest.

After Slochd we had the final run into Inverness. At one point the sky seems to open up and there is a great view northwards to the Black Isle and beyond that to the snow of Ben Wyvis. Many years ago I remember a fantastic view inland to peaks in the middle of the highlands (probably the Fannich range) but the visibility was only clear near to the sea.

 

Near Culloden there is a great view to the Black Isle, the Kessock Bridge and beyond to Ben Wyvis. The above photo does no justice to the view. A few minutes later we arrived on time in the middle of Inverness at 8:30.

 

We arranged a car rental with Arnold Clark and they picked us up just beside the train and took us to their nearby rental office. The station is also conveniently next to the Eastgate Shopping Centre where we had breakfast.

Overall impressions:

Views from the train, friendly service, sleep, price, overall experience
 Cabin space, ability to sit before and after sleeping, windows
Did not try the lounge car this time.

Sadly I suspect that sleeper usage is dying in Britain. It is potentially very good value for money - even with a normal fare - as you can potentially cover both the travel and save a night in a hotel. However the overall experience could be improved. Stowing the upper bunk in the first hours of the journey would be a major improvement.

On the Continent I know that my colleagues make far more use of sleeper trains than my friends and colleagues here. I think that there is more space and a better experience for business travellers there. Nevertheless I think far more could be done in the UK. For example (as combined travel and saved hotel room) a double bed cabin would be a good idea; a really good evening meal/bar and breakfast service would also be worthwhile.

Anyway I can recommend this way of transport if it fits your constraints.

I have often wanted to write something about Iraq and US/UK policy there. However having started blogging in 2006 I imagined that most things that could be said had already been said by then. However, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto will sadly probably ensure that there is further instability in the countries from the Middle East to India. I am not an able thinker on politics, let alone geopolitics, but I find old strands of thought coming to the surface again especially with regard to the West's policy on energy.

There has been a lot that disturbed me about the US/UK invasion of Iraq. In the runup to the invasion I had really accepted the argument that if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass distruction that he cold potentially unleash on Israel, Saudi Arabia or Iran this was sufficiently dangerous to warrant an invasion. I unfortunately believed the untruths that were being propagated by our Government then but at the same time was disturbed by quite a few things:
- I was aware that Britain had no moral high ground with regard to Iraq, having helped arm Iraq against Iran in the 1980s. Our politicians and news media were very quiet when Saddam was using poison gas on their Iranian enemies.
- The Bush administration seemed to be justifying the attack on Iraq due to the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. Duh... wasn't al Qaida based in Afghanistan not Iraq then? Didn't the militant islamists see Saddam Hussein as an enemy just as much as they saw the West?
- Friends in the British military privately expressed doubts about the ethics of the invasion. As they are very ethical people that I trust this was worrying.
- There was oil in Iraq but not in other places with bad regimes e.g. Zimbabwe or Myanmar.

Of course, the Iraq invasion (with the benefit of hindsight) has been disastrous. Around the time of the invasion, much of Iraq's infrastructure was ransacked by angry Iraqis with no resistance from invading forces. Terrorists have moved into Iraq. The country has been split by inter-community fighting (Shiite versus Sunni, etc). Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced including most of Iraq's ancient Christian community; before the war roughly 8% of the population.

From the UK point of view, we are engaged in two theatres - Iraq and Afghanistan. However having tried to reap the 'peace dividend' from the end of the cold war this is a huge stretch. A lot of the British military infrastructure has been either privatised or civilian techniques such as 'just in time' supply chains have driven down cost. However, cost reductions have also led to helicopters being cannibalised and a rapid ramp-up of supplies to meet an emergency is virtually impossible today. Britain's military expenditure and political commitments requiring military involvement have diverged dramatically.

We have not done ourselves any favours. Bush and Blair talked about bringing 'rule of law' and 'democracy' to Iraq. That was hypocritical particularly for the US - who have deliberately exploited legal grey areas in Guantanamo Bay and who have a shabby record with prisoners in Iraq. If 'rule of law' means you can define grey zones to do what you like what good example is that? By "standing shoulder to shoulder" with something wrong we are also culpable in the UK.

Standing back a bit, I am amazed that the US and to a lesser extent Western Europe has not learned the lessons of the early 1970s. In 1973, OPEC increased oil prices by 70% precipitating a worldwide economic crisis. Strangely the US, as world nr 1 oil producer then, was very hard hit. They assumed that they could rely on almost limitless cheap energy supplies from their own oilfields or from the Middle East. Unfortunately although gas guzzling cars went on the decline there was no major change in their energy profligacy.

Moving on more than thirty years the West has not got any more energy independence than in 1973. There is still a great dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Iraq is in a mess. Iran has not had a friendly relationship with the west. Saudi Arabia while considered an 'ally' is home to a militant brand of islamism that may topple the house of Saud. Instability in Pakistan just makes that part of the world worse. 

In 1973 the Soviet Union and allies were in enmity to the West. However. a lot has changed since then. Russia now is proven to be very energy rich especially in natural gas. Yet, despite much in common with the West for example fears of terrorism, the West's relationship to Russia has become frosty.

All in all, this looks pretty grim for the West's fossil fuel supplies. Although I think it is important anyway - due to climate change - to use less energy and to use more renewal sources, geopolitics alone ought to force this on the West urgently.

Despite the well-publicised international  initiatives of recent British governments on climate change, we are profligate in our energy usage. Much of the British housing stock is poorly insulated meaning that massive amounts of energy are wasted. Poor habits - e.g. airport conveyor belts that run continuously even when there is no luggage - make us far more wasteful than most of our neighbours in Europe. SUVs are on the increase. It is time to wake up and save energy and to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

It is interesting to see how different countries approach the design of hotel rooms. Well, that sounds nerdy but if you travel as often as me you think about these things. In the past, the UK hotel rooms seemed to be over-decorated and fussy and almost invariably overheated with radiators blasting away. In Nordic countries the designs were usually refreshingly clean in their design and very airy if light-coloured wood was used. Hotel rooms in North America are different again with high and often very wide beds.

 

Something though I have never understood is the way that in better US or UK hotels often pile up the pillows and even additional cushions. Is this to create a feeling of opulence? Personally I do not sleep well unless it is on a single pillow.

In my Vancouver hotel (OK this is Canada but a US chain) there were no less than six pillows and three cushions. Most had to be cleared away if I was to get a sleep!

Today a report from the Governments Foresight programme warns about the obesity-caused health crisis facing this country. The evidence is quite alarming:

- According to the International Obesity Taskforce, adult obesity (body mass index > 30) in England has increased threefold between 1980 and morbid obesity (BMI>40) increased threefold too.
- Childhood obesity has also increase the Economic and Social Research Council reports that 10% of six-yearolds are now obese.
- Being overweight is responsible for 90% of type 2 diabetes cases
- Being overweight is responsible for 85% of high blood pressure cases
- Obesity doubles the risk of heart attack or stroke.
- Obesity reduces life expectancy by 13 years.

This is alarming especially if the state (NHS) will pick up the tab for treating the problem some decades in the future. Suffering from being overweight is not exactly making life more pleasant (and I say that as somebody who is overweight). The health side effects are quite terrible.

Yet, I cannot understand why so many British journalists report the problem as somehow inevitable and imply that we as individuals have no sense of responsibility.

Take the BBC headline today "Obesity 'not indiduals fault'" gives the impression that we should not fight the problem as obesity is inevitable. That may not be the message of the article but the headline offers excuses. Similarly the report on the schoolrun "Schoolruns do not cause obesity" is very misleading. Walking for six minutes daily may not be sufficient to change children from being game-playing couch potatoes but the attitude behind the parents dropping the kids is the problem. So many parents drop children in cars because they fear they are not safe walking (despite no evidence of that). As a result children do not go out to play in our parks. 30 years ago public parks were full of children playing games like football and they were exercising and having fun. Today parks are empty apart from dog walkers while the children are safe sitting in front of the telly.

Even the report today I think gives the message that obesity is inevitable and not individual responsibility. This is London says

But modern life - with the easy availability of cheap unhealthy food and families relying on their cars - means it is almost impossible for many to avoid putting on weight.

Indeed, it is becoming inevitable for most because our biological instincts combined with our modern environment mean we are "destined" to pile on the pounds.

- Most people used cars sparingly and two car families were not the norm
- People walked to the shops and to schools
- People used bicycles for short journeys and for recreation
- People knew how to cook with fresh ingredients
- People ate smaller portions
- More people had physical work
- Chidren played outside in streets and parks and thereby exercised

Today think of what has changed:

- Most families have multiple cars (I'm guilty)
- Many people use cars for shopping or taking children to school (I'm guilty on the former but not the latter)
- Many people feel unsafe cycling and children are often forbidden to cycle far (not guilty)
- Many people do not use fresh ingredients and focus on ready meals or takeaway food (not guilty)
- Portions (especially of junk food) have exploded (don't think so)
- Most people have sedentary work (guilty)
- Parents feel safe if their children are playing indoors on a game console, computer or in front of the TV (not guilty)

Of course the Government has a role to play too. Other countries have invested far more in cyclepaths and footpaths - ours appear to be designed by people who never cycle - we can do the same. Schools should teach straightforward healthy cooking. The government should counter the sensational treatment of child crime cases by the media by pointing out that it is safe for children to go out.

Maybe I am a hypocrite writing this as somebody both overweight and with hypertension. However at least I see some responsibility to exercise and eat healthily.

When I was a teenager my teachers and parents told me that British journalism was probably the most objective and impartial in the world; well apart from the 'red tops'. They were obviously looking through rose-coloured spectacles, but there was probably a grain of truth in it. However, middle-aged fart that I am, I am sure that the quality of reporting has dropped in recent decades. Instead of trying to establish facts we are bombarded with opinions and almost lurid entertainment. With newspapers, stories often have thinly veiled spins to force the political views of the proprietors down our throats.

I find that the BBC falls into the same category. I really wonder if they are trying to act like a commercial station focusing on viewing figures and ratings rather than its mission 'to inform, educate and entertain'.

Two things strike me about the news media today:
a) there is an unhealthy obsession with child disappearances and murders
b) there is a very narrow selection of international news.

I have been shocked at the amount of attention given to the terrible cases of child murder like Sarah Payne a few years ago and recently the disappearance and alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann. This obsession with a very few terrible cases is in my view unhealthy and leads to parents making poor choices. Many parents think it unsafe for their children to play in a park with their friends even if they do not live in an area with much crime - our beautiful local park is often empty apart from dog walkers while in my childhood it would have been full of kids playing games. Parents think it is safer for their kids to be sedentary in front of a games console or the TV. Similarly many parents feel it is safer to drive their offspring to school rather than to let them walk or cycle. However, the dangers of having obese unfit kids are far greater than being abducted by a stranger.

It would be very interesting if the Home Office published abduction and child murder figures. In my childhood - when such news was treated with less sensationalism - there were certainly some cases like the Moors Murders. I bet the figures are not much different today and yet the media coverage is totally different. When I lived in Germany, there were also cases of crimes against children; in fact to our horror we found out that a child murderer had lived at the other end of our street. However the stories were covered as they broke and were revisited if there was real news like an arrest or court case.

 

The blanket coverage given to the Madeleine McCann case is breathtaking. To parody Churchill "never in the field of British journalism was so much written about so little by so many". The whole point is that so little is known. She disappeared, there was a failure to gather forensic evidence, there are Portuguese secrecy laws which are unfamiliar to us and a few possible sightings. So what is the justification for the column-metres of coverage? This happened again this week with the sighting of a child that looked like Madeleine in Morocco; though I admit that was one of the few newsworthy items. Inevitably one wonders if Madeleine came from a poor working class family, was black- or brown-skinned or had ugly parents whether the coverage would have been so comprehensive.

Thankfully there have been a few voices of sanity in the media. On 10 September Martin Bell writing in the Comment is free blog pointed out that the BBC had sent an army of journalists to Portugal while not maintaining a full camera team in Afghanistan. 25 British soldiers have died there this summer. In yesterday's Times Mike Hume makes the point that "The line between investigation and emotive entertainment has disappeared".

Perhaps even worse is our coverage of momentous events abroad. I recall that a quarter of a century ago we did get a fair number of stories from abroad. However today our news is dominated by the UK, the US and occasionally the Middle East. When I was living in Germany I was surprised that my parents did not read stories of terrible floods or a terrible airport fire in Düsseldorf in the Telegraph or the Mail or see anything on the TV news. But if a Germany story is not reported what about an African one?

 

When I was in Portugal I made a visit to an internet cafe because I wondered what the weather in the UK would be like when we returned. It was 26 August and I was checking the weather in the UK - just curious about what it would be like when we got back. I was shocked when the Met Office reported that 50,000 people had been displaced by floods in Uganda. I have friends in Uganda and looked on mainstream UK news websites for more information. I found precisely nothing.

The African floods hit not just Uganda but were as far west as Ghana and as far north as Sudan. Yet the news only seemed to appear in our media in mid September. As of last week 1.5 million people need emergency help. However this is apparently not very interesting.

I think our news media has a twisted coverage. While my heart goes out to families affected by crimes against their children the amount of coverage is absurd. It is obscene that far greater human tragedies in poorer places are squeezed out from our newspapers and broadcasts.