Screen Violence

I have not owned a television for many years and I rarely watch programmes. As a result I wonder if I have become over-sensitive to the gruesome scenes which seem common fare to TV viewers these days- and I’m talking about the news as well as crime-thrillers. I used to enjoy ‘Inspector Morse’ and, more recently, the series ‘Lewis’ and though these always involved a murder and generally a view of the corpse and the pathologist dissecting it, I don’t remember having to watch any graphic violence. The recent glimpses I have had on iPlayer of recommended viewing such as ‘The Fall’ or ‘Whitechapel’ have left me hiding my face in a cushion, like a child watching Dr Who or simply turning away in horror. Rape scenes, blood, guts, gore, violent attacks are shown in technicolour detail.

After wondering if it was just me who has to avert my eyes from this horror, I was relieved when my cousin told me that she had stopped watching ‘Waking the Dead’ and ‘Silent Witness’ because each series had become steadily more gruesome, had started to give her nightmares and leave her with unpleasant images in her head.She is a nurse and not squeamish in any way but these previously watchable series had gone beyond the pale even for her. Reviewers though seem to think that the likes of such programmes are tame in comparison to the sexual violence seen in the Scandinavian noir dramas which have become so commonplace on the prime time schedules.In today’s Observer, Ann Cleeves, herself a writer of televised detective fiction, complained that the Scandinavian crime writers “seem intent on outdoing each other when depicting graphic violence against female characters.” She said: “I especially don’t like the graphic violence against women and children, often depicted in novels such as The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and others. I’m not sure if it’s being done just to entertain, or whether it really is necessary for the characters involved.”

But judging by the ratings, many viewers are thoroughly enjoying this new genre of drama. Many of us are capable of enjoying the drama knowing full well it is not real and nobody is really getting hurt.Some can have a personal reaction because they have known violence, some people are easily spooked and perhaps enjoy the feeling of being frightened in the safety of their living room. I am just somebody who should steer clear of horror films; I cannot understand how people can take pleasure in watching sadistic and needless violence as entertainment, whilst eating Popcorn and Revels, as people on screen are brutalised. But I realise that in the same way we all have different thresholds of pain, we all have our own inner gauge of horror we can stomach. My eldest son is sensitive like me but I was mildly troubled when his seven year old sister, by accident rather than design, watched and clearly enjoyed the DVD ‘Sleepy Hollow’ finding the ‘headless horseman film’ very entertaining.There have been many studies carried out which suggest that media violence does influence aggressive behaviour, but not all children react the same. Professor Mark Griffiths, a psychologist at Nottingham Trent University, said such studies could not prove a causal link between watching violent images and committing real-life violence. He said: “I don’t think anybody would deny that people do become desensitised to violence. But the real issue is whether that in and of itself causes negative consequences.” Just to be on the safe side though, I will be steering my youngest daughter away from the films of Quentin Tarantino for as long as possible.

Statistics

Having what some would call an illogical mind, statistics bore me. I like to gather my own evidence from what I see, my own experiences and gut feeling. Scientists shudder as they need the facts; statistics, graphs, pie charts-God, how boring! Who invented statistics and what is the point of them? Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation of data.Could anybody stay awake through such a lecture? Statistical methods date back at least to the 5th century BC but its mathematical foundations were laid in the 17th century with the development of the probability theory by Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat. Probability theory arose from the study of games of chance.The use of modern computers has made possible new methods of statistical computation that are impractical to perform manually.

As everybody knows, the trouble with statistics is that they can be manipulated to prove anything that somebody has a keen interest in proving. These figures are generally presented in a raw way as a fact and it is only if one has the tome or inclination to investigate further that one can discover that all is not as the headline would make it appear.This struck me today whilst reading a piece in The Guardian on IVF. Professor Susan Bewley is a Professor of Obstetrics at Kings College London and admits that there is sleight of hand, massage and plain lying by omission in the world of fertility statistics.”It all depends on the denominator, the starting point. If you’re counting everyone who walked into the clinic, or everyone who can afford one cycle, or everyone who can afford three cycles. If you’re measuring people who have had three cycles, then they do have a 60% success rate, but the people who’ve been unable to afford more than one have a 30%. Some people who’ve dropped out, it will be because they’re told they haven’t got good eggs. So you’re weeding the failures out of your success statistic, which turns it into a meaningless statistic.” And worse, “I’ve seen women on the labour ward have two babies at 25 weeks, both die, but they’re counted as live births because they came out alive. They go into HFEA figures as live births …” If anybody seriously wanted to find out their prospects of having a successful outcome to IVF treatment, would there be any point at all in looking at the statistics. The private clinics clearly want to make success look likely and present the statistics accordingly-“look at all these live births we’ve had,” conveniently neglecting to add how many babies died soon after birth.

Even the BBC use statistics in a meaningless way, probably because they make a good soundbite.The campaign group Big Brother Watch has highlighted this problem:recently Radio 4’s PM news programme had a piece debating a new petition to be handed in to Government on Thursday calling for a ‘default block’ on internet browsing. ‘One of the key statistics relied upon by the campaign is that “1 in 3 10 year olds have seen pornography online.” They did recognise it was published in Psychologies Magazine in 2010, but the appearance is given that this is a serious statistic. It was also used in their ‘Key Facts’ briefing. If you had the inclination to dig a little deeper however, that definitely isn’t the case. The full section in the magazine reads:
“We’ve had plenty of letters from concerned readers on this very topic, and when we decided to canvass the views of 14- to 16-year-olds at a north London secondary school, the results took us by surprise.
Almost one-third first looked at sexual images online when they were aged 10 or younger.”
So, the statistic – used to introduce the PM segment and at the heart of the petition’s press release – is based on one magazine’s anecdotal research at a single school.

One only has to pick up a copy of the Daily Mail to see how statistics are used to obfuscate the truth.I’m with Mark Twain:’Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.’

Fancy Dress

The origins of fancy dress parties in the United Kingdom can in some respects be traced to masked balls of the 18th century period.Fancy dress outfits used to be simple affairs until the 1970s and were generally either hired or home-made. Retail purchased costumes is a largely modern phenomenon (late 1990s onward).Fancy dress parties are still popular in the UK; my local pub had a Vicars and Tarts party on New Year’s Eve, children’s parties often have a fancy dress theme,fancy dress parties have been held by the Royal Family; Prince William celebrated his 21st birthday with an “Out of Africa” theme, Prince Harry famously wore an Afrika Corps uniform with a Nazi armband to a “Colonials and Natives” themed party in January 2005. There was an international controversy after the News of the World published a photo of him in the costume.

But one has to be very careful these days with fancy dress. This week, supermarket chains Tesco and Asda have withdrawn two Halloween outfits. From Asda, £20 would buy a blood stained strait jacket with ragged edges and a mask and a fake meat cleaver while Tesco’s orange boiler suit came with a plastic jaw restraint and offered to “complete the look” with a machete.Very similar outfits can be bought on eBay and no doubt from many other High Street retailers.The marketing of these outfits though was, to say the least, misguided. Asda labelled its product “mental patient fancy dress costume”, and Tesco a “psycho ward” outfit.The reaction from mental health charities was predictable: Paul Farmer, Chief Executive of Mind said: “This really went way beyond the line of acceptability.” Alastair Campbell, who has battled with depression, branded their sale by these companies as “unacceptable” and added: “We are trying to change attitudes towards mental illness so people do not stigmatise it and something like this comes along and it just reminds you we are basically still in the Dark Ages if some of the biggest companies in this country, Tesco, Asda and Amazon think that it’s acceptable to sell something like this.”

Part of me can fully understand the negative reaction, there certainly does still exist a stereotype in the public’s mind of a mad axe man figure reinforcing a questionable link between mental illness and violence.The mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.There is still a taboo about mental illness which causes those who suffer to keep quiet because they fear the reaction.Many suggested that these fancy dress outfits were serving only to reinforce prejudices.But I also think that the withdrawal from sale of these outfits could also be seen a patronising in that the buyers can’t be trusted to differentiate between a horror movie cliché and a real mentally ill person.We all know somebody who suffers from depression and know too that they are not axe-wielding maniacs. In the wake of the news of Harold Shipman’s murders, some considered it bad taste to go out on Halloween as Dr Death but macabre humour has always been around. And perhaps any fancy dress has the potential to offend;Cowboys and Indians could offend native Americans for instance. My nephew’s fourth birthday party tomorrow has a pirate theme; Somalian pirates do exist and capture and kill, should we be treating this lightly? With Halloween fast approaching at least I have the comfort of knowing that thankfully Zombies aren’t real.

Language

Language has immense power, and its impact depends entirely on how we use it. All too often words are used automatically and unthinkingly, we have learned to take them for granted and treat them lightly. In daily conversation, we speak mostly out of habit and social obligation rather than for any clear or defined purpose.I think we also read our words in the same way, unconsciously. We barely process the text but the message of the writer becomes ingrained on our psyche. Witness the reaction of many people on the street to the word ‘immigrant;’ nine times out of ten it will provoke a negative reaction. It is the same with the word ‘Muslim.’ Even with no context many will react with dissent or cynicism. But why is that? These are only words.

Though it barely registers with us we have a constant backdrop of news which insidiously feeds us messages; immigrants are the cause of our woes, Muslims are out to kill us.In the media, the words ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islamic’ and even ‘Islam’ preceding a name or an event seem these days to be used only negatively.When did you last hear the Olympic gold medal-winning champion Mo Farah described as “the Muslim athlete Mo Farah? The same would apply to Monty Panesar one of our finest cricketers who would never be described as “that Sikh.” Samir Nasri is one of nearly forty Muslim footballers who play in the Premier League. There are many positive Muslim role models and celebrities but no attention is drawn to their faith.

This demonisation of a religion has only happened in the United Kingdom press twice in the last hundred years. The first episode during the Edwardian period and on in to the 1920s was the use of ‘Papist'(Catholic) as a suffix for Republicans during the formation and War of Independence of the Republic of Ireland.The second episode was the subtle destruction of the character of Jews living in Britain during the 1930s by the British right wing.The power of the media and the British press in particular of these religious descriptors cannot be underestimated.The impact of this has been shown in recent surveys to have influenced the British public to such an extent that they no longer have any trust in Muslims.This is ironic because in day to day life when visiting their GP or hospital consultant the issue on their mind is their health not the religion of the professional.

Clearly,the terrorist threat from the Middle East now equals the terrorist threat from Northern Ireland.The lack of positive news in the British press coming from these two locations is apparent reinforcing a negative opinion of the people who live there.Despite the fact they are of many different religions, creeds and colours.Terrorists are always described as Muslim, if they are not Muslim they are simply terrorists.Is there any wonder that Figures from the Metropolitan Police released in August suggest there has been a 61% rise in anti-Muslim crime in London over the past year.Language is a vital tool and it must be used properly. Media bias affects us all, our news goes through a prism, we hear it or read it and it sways our opinions. It is almost never unbiased, there will generally be an agenda.Baroness Warsi pointed out that unenlightened opinions haven’t changed much from the days when Anglican clergymen described Islam as the ‘most nauseaous of all abominations, Mohammedanism.’ This can mostly be attributed to the inflammatory language of our media.

The UK Arms Trade

The UK is one the world’s leading arms exporters. The UK arms industry employs 100,000 people and turns over around £22 billion a year, £8.8 billion of that in exports.The UK is the sixth biggest exporter of arms in the world.Many may be pleased that we still have one successful industry left in this country, it is great that we are doing well in exporting arms and the government should do all it can to encourage this to provide jobs and investment.It could be argued that though many find the trade distasteful, the reality is that if we don’t do it someone else will (I think the French also competed to sell fighter jets to UAE) so we only shoot ourselves in the foot if we don’t become a big player. It would probably be naive to think a jet factory can suddenly switch production to mobility scooters or electric bicycles or other “ethical products.”

It is obvious though that arms dealers ought to have a higher moral code than those who export handbags.The current Coalition Government has made some dubious decisions which really cannot bear close scrutiny.It has issued 3000 export licenses, worth £12.3 billion, to states which are known to be repressive and tyrannical such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, China, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Belarus, Somalia and Zimbabwe.Ironically,many of these feature prominently on the Foreign Office’s list of states with worrying civil rights records. A July 2013 report even found there had been 62 licenses granted to sell military equipment to Iran. There were an incredible 271 licenses granted to sell biotechnology equipment, sniper rifles, laser weapons systems, weapon sights and drones to Russia. It is known by our government that both states are arming the Assad regime in Syria, thus we are guilty of indirectly arming Syria.While William Hague appears on all media channels condemning the uses of chemical weapons by Syria, he has been simultaneously supporting the sale of such weapons to states across the globe, including Syria. To call it hypocritical doesn’t even come close.

At a show last week, the comedian and political activist, Mark Thomas, brought to the audience’s attention the fact that every two years an Arms Fair is held in East London. It lasts a week, is host to,400 international weapons companies, and nearly 30,000 buyers and sellers attend the event. Mark Thomas was vehement in his opposition to this event which maintains its prestige by issuing invites, accommodation and hospitality to known human right abusers and war criminals.The way it seems to work is thus:- our arms salesmen bribe a repressive regime to buy our weapons, the UK Gov’s Department for Export Credits underwrites the deal, the makers ship the weapons, the salesmen get massive commission, the repressive regime probably won’t pay, Dept for Export Credits reimburses the maker with UK taxpayers’ money. It certainly seems that despite all of the rhetoric to the contrary, we’re not just equipping tyranny but subsidising it.

As an example of the corruption which goes on in the UK Arms Trade, one need look no further than British Aerospace which is the world’s third largest arms producer. BAE’s arms are sold indiscriminately around the world. The Campaign Against Arms Trade details on its website:”A notorious recent deal was the sale of 200 Tactica armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. These vehicles were used by Saudi troops helping to suppress pro-democracy protests in Bahrain in March 2011. In 2004, following compelling evidence in the media, the UK’s Serious Fraud Office began investigating BAE deals with numerous countries including Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Tanzania and the Czech Republic. Tony Blair intervened to stoop the investigation on the pivotal Saudi case. BAE are still under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office but last week it was announced that identities of prosecution witnesses in a case against BAE Systems were among thousands of documents lost by the UK’s anti-fraud squad. Convenient, hey?

Soldiers’ Suicides

In 2009, the University of Manchester published research which showed that Young men leaving the British armed forces are up to three times more likely to commit suicide than their civilian counterparts. young veterans aged under 24 stood out as being exceptionally at risk. Although the number committing suicide was relatively small, they were two to three times more likely to kill themselves than civilian men of the same age, or young military men still on active service. Although the MOD funded this research, their own statistics on suicide do not take in to account the number of veterans who take their own lives. Indeed they have no way of tracking the well-being of those who go back to civilian life.

It has been pointed out that one reason for the alarming trend in soldier suicides could be harrowing experiences in conflict zones such as Iraq or Afghanistan.A second explanation is the difficulty that some veterans experience in making the transition to civilian life. It seems obvious that anyone who has spent long periods in a war-zone is going to find adjusting to the banality and normality of humdrum home life challenging to say the least. Servicemen and women are exposed to stresses that most people won’t be exposed to in their lives so it is really little wonder that we in civilian lives cannot really comprehend the full horrors of war and the atrocities seen and many believe that it is a dereliction of duty on the part of the MOD to not offer more help with the transition from soldier to civilian.

 

Military charities have long since warned that we are  faces a “ticking time-bomb” of mental illness and suicide among young Army veterans, owing mainly to a lack of mental health care for veterans, combined with the stress of fighting the Taliban. David Hill, director of operations for the charity Combat Stress, said it took an average of 14 years for veterans to ask for help with post-traumatic stress disorder. Many suffered in silence – often harbouring suicidal thoughts – because they were reluctant to admit to their vulnerability. Given that the army training includes the ability to never show signs of weakness it is fairly predictable that serving soldiers as well as veterans do not want to admit to feelings of depression or an inability to cope. Ex-Royal Engineer Lewis Mackay believes screening for PTSD after a tour would solve the problem of troops not wanting to admit they were not coping with the stress. “You don’t want to admit it to yourself that you have got something wrong with you,” he said.”The Army says ‘come and see us if you have something wrong’. Guys aren’t going to do it.”

Watching a heartbreaking Panorama, ‘Broken By Battle,’ broadcast earlier this year detailing the lives of soldiers who killed themselves after leaving the army, or the many more who suffered PTSD and controlled it with drugs or those who cam back from war zones changed, withdrawn or, more likely, violent it is clear that the MOD need to take more responsibility for the welfare of their personnel. In  Lt.Col. Dave Grossman’s book ‘On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society’ he says that humans have an innate resistance to killing and there are great psychological costs that weigh heavily on the combat soldier who kills if he is not mentally prepared for what may happen; if his actions (killing) are not supported by their commanders  and peers; and if he is unable to justify his actions (or if no one else justifies the actions for them). As our soldiers haven’t been defending our country but been the aggressors, it is probably impossible to come to terms with the carnage they have seen and perhaps caused. The servicemen and women pay a heavy price for the warmongers in power.

 

 

 

 

Food Convictions

It is a minefield inviting people for dinner these days. So may follow restricted diets; they may be vegetarian, vegan, gluten-free, dairy intolerant. Knowing her guests were none of these, my friend made a huge bolognese in anticipation-only to discover that her guests could not eat it because on a Saturday, they had a made a personal devotion to their (Catholic) faith of not eating meat on a Saturday (or Tuesday or Friday). My friend herself follows the Bible and therefore neither eats any meat from a pig nor shellfish, so she understands and happily tolerates those who have a religious conviction to avoid certain foods.The role of food in cultural practices and religious beliefs is complex and varies among individuals and communities and this is why some are very difficult to cater for.And why do some follow these religious dietary beliefs? It seems obvious that in Biblical times, before food preservation and refrigeration, eating pork or shellfish would have been the easiest way to contract food poisoning. That the three Abrahamic religions or if you prefer the three peoples of the book (The Bible), Jews, Muslims and some Christians still strongly insist that the eating of these products is somehow profane seems strange to a non-believer like myself. In Judaism, Kosher means that a food is ‘fit’ or permitted. Foods such as pork and shellfish are strictly forbidden.The Jewish ‘food laws’contribute to a formal code of behaviour known as Kashrut, this forms part of the identity of a Jewish community. Food therefore forms an integral part of religion in life for a practicing Jew.Facts to be remembered when entertaining practicing Jews are fairly complex in that any meat must be slaughtered in a Kosher way.The consumption of certain foods , including dairy products and fish, is also subject to restrictions; for example, there are rules forbidding the  mixing and consumption of dairy and meat products. Ritualised fasting is also included in Judaism. For example, Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement –is a Jewish fast that lasts from approximately dawn till dusk.

Islam is very similar to Judaism in that no meat from a pig can be eaten, fasting during Ramadan is an important time in the Muslim calendar. Alcohol and, for some Muslims, even coffee is forbidden. The words Halal and Kosher are almost interchangeable in these two religions of the Book, showing how similar they are. 

Hindus are different again; because they believe in the interdependence of life (karma) many are vegetarian and certainly none would consider eating beef or beef products as in their religion cows are sacred.

In a similar way that Buddhists, who believe in reincarnation are vegetarian, therefore stopping them from consuming any animal products.

Interestingly,research has now shown that strictly observed Kosher and Halal diets are very healthy for one,resulting in longer life and lower levels of illness and obesity. However research has also shown that many diets observed for religious reasons, when coupled with modern processed foods are extremely unhealthy and do lead to obesity, premature death and  diseases that one would expect to see in old age appearing in middle age.

It’s hard enough to ensure  one’s family eats healthily in the 21 st century without having any religious observance to uphold,let alone having to cater for Finicky religious diets.

 

Survival Instinct

The human instinct to survive is our most powerful drive.In the Western world, generally our lives aren’t threatened on a daily basis. Our basic needs of shelter, warmth and food are pretty much met, we have universal free healthcare. Our survival instinct is therefore latent.But for those who live their lives in the shadow of death, the drive to survive is all-consuming.I imagine if one has known real hunger or seen family members die of starvation or malaria or in childbirth, one’s survival instinct is always active. Though we in the Western world are clearly the fortunate ones, it would seem that creature comforts do not automatically bring happiness.The clinical depression that is so rife here is anathema to poverty-stricken African who are too busy trying to survive to think about their emotional well-being.

It used to be the same for all of us which is why we have evolved in such a way, the ‘fight or flight’ response being an obvious relic of that time. Then people didn’t have the security of jobs, houses, law enforcement,telephones or refrigerators. Everyday, they had to go out into the world, whether it was a forest, plain, or arctic wasteland, and find food and water while not being killed by the elements or wild animals.These people went out and climbed, jumped, ran, and fought knowing that if they didn’t do this properly, that was the end of them. The sea didn’t care if that suitor turned you down. The rocks at the bottom of the cliff didn’t care if your boss didn’t like you or passed you over for promotion. The wolf or lion definitely didn’t care if you felt good about yourself. Then, more than now people felt alive everyday, because they had to live in a constant state of alertness.No we no longer live primitive lives though for some the desire to live on the edge is overwhelming; boredom has become the enemy and some have to think of increasingly risky hobbies to get the adrenalin rush they so desperately crave. From bungee jumping to gambling to over indulging on drink and drugs,a certain percentage of the population are addicted to risky behaviour, many of the rest are bored, depressed or on prescription drugs.Although risk-taking has obviously negative aspects,but without it, humanity would never have progressed in the way that it has; there would have been no drive for discovery. The trait persists—but there is little left to explore and work for most is dull as ditchwater.

So what is the answer? Has modern life become so trivial that our survival instinct has become unnecessary or simply fails us by making us react in an inappropriate way. It is not ideal to beat somebody to a pulp because you feel threatened by a hand gesture or annoyed because you didn’t get the job on which your livelihood depends. But the urge that goes with the anger and irritation may nevertheless be there. In the Western world at least , the fight-or-flight reaction, once crucial to our survival, would go the way of the dinosaurs and the appendix, extinct or having no impact on us.Ironically,unless we find ourselves at war,it is those who learn to control and direct those primitive instinctive reactions who will become the new survivors.

Fanatics

The dictionary definition of a fanatic is a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal for a cause or a person with an obsessive interest in and enthusiasm for a particular activity. Most people feel passionate about something in their lives, be it a political cause or a hobby but fanaticism suggests an unusual level of devotion; travelling around the country to watch your preferred football team play each week, dressing up and meeting other Star Trek fans at Trekkie conventions or loving the TV series The Prisoner so much that you join the Prisoner Appreciation Society who spend a weekend in costume in Portmeirion, re-enacting episodes from the programmes which were filmed in the village in the 1960s. I think the eagerness to participate in this type of event perhaps transgresses social norms. Isn’t it enough to really enjoy The Prisoner, talk about it with friends and get on with living or discover that Star Trek has enhanced your life and now you can hungrily await a new film?

Not being particularly fanatical about anything, so this may be a little harsh, I think fanaticism is characterised by a sense of devotion with minimal analysis or thought, and this can be coupled with an intolerance of those who challenge or question the topic of interest. This is what differentiates fanatics from more casual followers; a fanatic will defiantly and stubbornly resist anything or anyone that may try to besmirch the reputation of his or her interest. According to Winston Churchill, “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”. Fanatics are often intensely single-minded, focusing all of their energies into their interest,
dedicating substantial amounts of time (and money) on learning more about it. Their interest is often comprehensive and all-consuming; anything even vaguely related is interesting. This contrasts with people who may be interested in a topic, and can spend time researching and compiling data, but usually have reasonable self-imposed limits on their levels of dedication.

Some believe fanaticism is akin to an addiction, others go further thinking fanaticism is a mental disorder when it reaches extremes. Reality can be distorted, emotions run wild, reason has no power over the person and behaviour can become dangerous.I think it is fair to say that there are more fanatics around today than there were fifty years ago; this could be because there are more bandwagons to jump on owing to a more diverse range on interests, for instance there are far more genres of music available. Psychologist Peter G. Stromberg believes that, “In its relentless pursuit of economic growth and profit, contemporary society erodes people’s commitments to their families, their traditions, their communities, and their ideals. And in so doing, our society leaves people more vulnerable to fanaticism.” Most people need reassurance and like to feel a sense of belonging. Neil Postman states that “the key to all fanatical beliefs is that they are self-confirming….(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are ‘false’, but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false.” A One Direction fan who thinks she follows the best group in the world is never going to be convincingly challenged on her ideal because it is simply a subjective belief.

Swimming

Swimming is known to be one of the best forms of exercise because it exercises your entire body.If you are swimming laps using a stroke such as the front crawl or the breast stroke, you will use the muscles of your legs, arms, shoulders, buttocks and more.When you are swimming at a fast pace you will experience the cardiovascular benefits of swimming.Your lungs will also strengthen as you breathe more quickly and intensely.It is also a great exercise if joints and muscles are weak and aching.The water makes the swimmer feel light and weightless and it is much more difficult to do any lasting damage to ligaments in the water. In that way too it is much more appropriate than for instance high-impact aerobics for most people. When I was pregnant I used to love the feeling of weightlessness that swimming gave me as the water supported my baby bump. Regular swimming can reduce the risk of chronic illnesses, such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and stroke. It can also boost your mood and keep your weight under control.It is certainly almost meditative to swim a few lengths of a pool, not surprising that it can also improve your mood and reduce stress, anxiety and depression.

As well as all of the health benefits though is the practical advantage of being able to swim; the ability to save one’s life of somebody else’s must surely mean it is in everybody’s interest if we can all swim.The last Labour government offered free swimming lessons to the over 60s and children a generous and forward-thinking scheme which was soon quashed by the Coalition.Drowning is the third highest cause of accidental death in children in the UK. More than 400 people accidentally drown in the UK every year and thousands more have near drowning experiences – some resulting in life changing injuries.Only 33 per cent of parents are confident that their child knows how to be safe near water and 80 per cent said that water safety skills should be on the national curriculum.This would make perfect sense as only this year during the hot Summer, fourteen people drowned while swimming in open waters.Earlier this year the the Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) warned that more children may drown without better school swimming provision.Half of seven- to 11-year-olds in England, some 1.1 million children, cannot swim the length of a standard pool and only 2% of schools surveyed delivered the government’s recommended 22 hours a year of swimming lessons.A report said Ofsted should focus PE inspections on swimming as “it is the only sport that can save lives.”

I was a late swimmer, only learning at the age of sixteen.Having a few children precludes taking them all swimming without another adult, such are the council’s policies but I have been fortunate enough to give them a weekly reasonably priced swimming lesson. But swimming has become a very expensive sport. That combined with driving to a pool and the general hassle of finding the time and getting the kit together puts off many people from partaking.Perhaps instead of free school meals, the Liberals would have helped more people if they had reinstated free swimming.