Even though I think MPF is the best site for the school, I do also believe that the site should be protected against further development. Some may say this doesn’t make sense. I disagree.

Further development of the site after a school had been built on it would completely negate the advantages that made the site so attractive. Those who at the moment are seeking to protect MPF from any development whatsoever would naturally find support from all the stakeholders involved with the school were it to be placed on the MPF site.

MPF accounts 2010-2014

One way to save MPF from development would be to ensure it is economically viable independently of RBC as Trustees. A quick glance at the Charity Commission website shows us that the MPF charity is not earning the kind of cash needed to either build or maintain a pavilion.

A central argument of campaigners opposing a school on the playing fields is that they are regularly and extensively used by the community. Having visited the site any number of times over the past years I have of course spotted dog walkers, football players, tennis enthusiasts and joggers, but I’ve never, on a regular basis at least, seen the kind of really bustling activity at MPF that I do frequently see at Albert Road Park, for instance. Except on polling day of course.

That’s not a scientific way of looking at the issue, I agree. So I poked around for information on past and future events.

In looking for the range of activities available at MPF I’ve not been able to locate anywhere a list of activities available to residents. Sure, the Summer Fete is coming up, it’s a big date on the MPF calendar, but what else?

I would suggest that a major stumbling block to self-sufficiency for MPF is the lack of public advertisement of events. There is no timetable to be seen anywhere on the pavilion. The posters on the notice board do not actually detail events happening at the pavilion. There is no website detailing what’s going on.

In short, there is a failure of imagination happening here. There may well be a schedule of events somewhere, but if nobody can find it, it may as well not exist.

Some imagination must also be applied to what ‘recreation’ actually means to the Trust. Yes, tennis courts and football is one interpretation of that aim, and a Summer Fete is a great idea. What else though?

1. How about organising an official fireworks display on bonfire night? Donations could be collected at various entry points. The (newly rebuilt) pavilion could be used to help serve food and drink. It may be possible to have vendors on site selling kids things that flash, small rides, an inflatable castle, and so on.
2. Becoming integrated into already successful events would be a great way to grow attendance at MPF. With that in mind a newly rebuilt pavilion might be able to participate in Caversham Arts Trail by becoming a temporary studio or gallery holding art workshops.
3. Christmas is a key time for one-off experiences. A skating rink on MPF might be one idea to consider, but perhaps some sort of winter-wonderland experience could be devised? If there is a school on the field, it’s not as if kids will not be in the area!

Just three ideas, all recreational. Maybe some have been done before, but if they have, I’ve not heard about them and I live close enough to MPF to be the target of any marketing that MPF events should generate.

Events like those above, marketed widely enough – in local media and on social media, as well as traditional leafleting – to attract at least the residents of Mapledurham itself, should be enough to grow the earnings of the charity. Earnings which should be fed directly into a ring-fenced trust account which Reading Borough Council has no access to directly control, but which the Committee of Management may draw upon for use by the Trust itself.

It’s time to start thinking outside of the box.

A new pavilion would massively enhance the attractiveness of MPF and the ability of the Trust to hold events like those listed above. A new school would all but guarantee the profitability of those events.

Firstly, not that it’s any of your business, but no, I do not have a child at The Heights Primary. I will say though that even if I did have a child at the school, free speech is still protected in the UK and it’s certainly not fair to those who do have kids at The Heights Primary to bandy about that fact as if there is a conspiracy or hidden agenda against those who do not want a school built on MPF. Wanting the best possible education for your children is a perfectly rational bias.

Secondly, why now? Why have I waited until now to comment on this? The answer is that I’ve not actually waited until now to comment on this. The difficulty of securing school places for Mapledurham kids has been a hot topic of conversation for years, yes, since even before The Hill Primary thread was created on Reading Forum. I’ve discussed it locally with friends and family a lot over that time.

It is fair to ask why I’ve taken my concerns ‘public’ so to speak. Well, the recent consultation delivered a crystal clear result, but since then all local stakeholders seem to be sat back and waiting for EFA to make a decision.

Why?

Why must we wait for the EFA to make a decision in Whitehall somewhere divorced from this community? There is no guarantee that EFA will choose MPF as a site, even though that is what has been mandated by the consultation. I find that outrageous. And so should every other stakeholder in this issue regardless of where they want the site to be. But not every stakeholder has the authority of being the Council Leader, or the local MP, or the local Councillor, or the lead Councillor for Education in Reading.

Our elected representatives, more than any others at this stage in the game, have the power and connections to at least lobby privately to make sure the decision goes the way the community have mandated. On top of that, if they worked together in a concerted effort, I can’t see how the EFA can deny the community its wishes. I see no evidence of that happening.

Thirdly, I do actually care about protecting our green spaces for generations to come. But this is not an either/or choice. It is possible to apportion some small part of the over 24 acres of MPF to build a new school, and still keep the vast majority of the land within the charitable trust. The school has to go somewhere. Siting it at MPF is simply making the best of a bad situation.

Fourthly, I reject the idea that I need to be a legal expert to comment, and that considered disagreement with others means I’ve been misinformed.

I do know that the governing document of the MPF charity can be amended, and has been in the past. I do know that charities can and do sell and lease land all the time. It’s not really rocket science. The fact that EFA put MPF on their own list of possible sites indicates that they believe there are no legal obstacles to building a school on MPF that cannot be overcome.

I have seen comments to the effect that Reading Borough Council has failed in its duty as Trustees of MPF and that this may have some bearing on the issue. That may be so, clearly RBC itself faces a serious conflict of interest here, and that could be another reason why the Labour-led administration has hidden its head in the sand for so long over this issue. It is not an easy problem to face up to. As Trustee of MPF, RBC is duty bound to protect the fields. But it is also duty bound to support the educational needs of the town.

If the worst comes to the worst, perhaps RBC could serve itself as Trustee of MPF with a Compulsory Purchase Order for that part of MPF which the EFA may (or may not!) decide is appropriate for a school. Compulsory purchase of land held by a charity for the purpose of building a school is not without precedent. Aberdeenshire Council wanted to build a primary school on land owned by the British Heart Foundation. The Compulsory Purchase Order proceedings started in September 2014 and by March 2015 the order was served.

Compared to the glacial speed at which this whole process has been going, that kind of timescale is positively light speed.

In Mapledurham in particular, it seems like there has been a perfect storm of obstacles that have stopped the development of a new school.

For starters, Mapledurham is the smallest ward in Reading, with a single Councillor to represent it. All other wards in Reading have 3 Councillors to fight their corner. Whilst Mapledurham parents have been screaming for years about the need for more school places, having but one voice on Reading Council has not been in our favour.

Then there is the fact that Mapledurham is a safe Conservative seat whilst the Council is held by Labour. Might this partially explain some of the lethargy and lack of leadership that the Council has displayed for years in failing to address the growing educational gap in Mapledurham?

Add to this that the Education Funding Authority (EFA) has been secretive to say the least. Their reasoning for ‘limited consultation‘ with the local authority when buying the High Ridge site was so as not to get caught in a competitive bidding war in the open market. This approach may be appropriate in many other communities, however, when the local authority actually owns or controls some of the potential sites for the school, this is a ridiculous state of affairs.

If it had not been just taken as gospel that MPF was not available – perhaps if residents had been consulted first? – could Reading Borough Council have privately come to an agreement with EFA in order to achieve a fair market value for the land?

Even now, though the community voted fairly and transparently during the consultation for where they want The Heights Primary to be situated, that is still no guarantee that the EFA will pursue the Mapledurham Playing Fields option. Following the publication of the results of the consultation it would be nice to know the position of our elected representatives.

Cllr Isobel Ballsden – Mapledurham’s only Councillor – is in an understandably difficult position. She is now under pressure to argue against allowing The Heights Primary to be developed on MPF, but also to support the overwhelming wishes of the community she serves.

Cllr Ballsden has said that she supports both The Heights Primary and MPF, however she has stated categorical opposition to a school sited on MPF. Specifically that “the school should not be delivered at the expense of MPF“), and, if this public Google group is to be believed, she has told a great many people that  “…my children are too old to benefit from attending The Heights.  My family however will benefit when Mapledurham Pavilion is regenerated.”

Statements like this might make residents wonder how much of an open mind Cllr Ballsden is keeping on this issue. As part of the Planning Applications Committee she could potentially halt the school in its tracks. Can she really have her cake and eat it, so to speak? It’s difficult to ascertain Cllr Ballsden’s current position on this matter. Does she support the wishes of the majority of residents, or does she still think that a school should not be built on MPF?

Furthermore, will Rob Wilson MP, who rightly pledged not to rule out or even express an opinion on any site – but who perhaps forget this commitment to impartiality when he attended the Save Albert Road Park fun day – now lobby EFA privately and campaign publicly to get the school built where the majority of Reading residents have said they want it built?

For all these reasons, I’ve despaired at how democracy and genuine community opinion seems to have been disregarded when it comes to building a new school in Reading.

But we are where we are.

The education portfolio within Labour-run Reading Council has passed to former Mayor, Tony Jones. This might well bring a fresh perspective and it’s my hope that Cllr Jones will set aside party politics and help Mapledurham residents achieve their aims.

It’s clear that the Council hold no objections in principle to selling off part of MPF. The Council resolved in 2003 to sell part of MPF in order to raise money for replacing the Pavilion. Some of the Councillors who took that decision in 2003 are still serving on the council now, including the current Leader of the Council, Cllr Jo Lovelock – who ironically was Lead Councillor for Education between 1996-2004.

Given that the majority response from the whole of Reading is supportive of building a school on MPF land, as the ultimate Trustee of MPF the Labour-run Council should be working with EFA.  The proceeds made from a sale of part of MPF coupled with the funds already earmarked for the Mapledurham pavilion would be a great head-start towards either refurbishing the existing pavilion or building a new one. High Ridge was worth £875,000 in 2012 that kind of money would pay for outstanding new facilities at MPF.

Not everybody has a vision of sharing part of MPF to build a new school. There may well be legal obstacles to be overcome. Given the strength of community feeling this would have no doubt been the case whatever the outcome of the vote. To site the school on MPF may take more time, energy, and money than other options, the end result, however, will be a no-compromise modern school fit for purpose for decades to come. Reading residents knew this, and voted for MPF regardless.

I would hope that if all our elected officials – from ward, to Council, to national level – worked together towards the common purpose of supporting the wishes of the overwhelming majority of residents, all legal issues could be resolved far quicker. It’s not fair on residents  to on the one hand claim ‘leadership’ of this issue, but then to clam up when a mandate is delivered to build the school on MPF. Passing the buck to EFA is not leadership. Actually fighting to support the Reading community is.

Awkward catchment arrangements that place primary school kids many miles away from home and at schools not built to hold that many additional children can only last so long. The ‘bulge years‘ that Caversham schools have been asked to endure were never meant to be a long term solution, but the complete dearth of real leadership from our elected community representatives at all levels of democracy, along with an opaque EFA has done nothing but exacerbate the situation.

Our community deserves better than to be treated like this.

We all know the situation is not perfect. The mandate is to build the school on part of MPF. The EFA has the funding and the capacity to help deliver the school. Now is the time for elected representatives, at every level and of all political stripes to show the coordinated leadership needed to face down all the coming challenges and to actually deliver a new school to be proud of.

Rather than see the repeal of the HRA and the predicted £12bn in welfare cuts as two distinct elements of the Conservative government’s ideology, it’s more instructive to see them as an interlocking suite of polices.

More on that later.

Theresa May almost immediately launched a defence of her plans to see off human rights, which, if successful, will bring us nearer to the kind of state that monitors and punishes citizens for dissent. Whilst details of Tory plans to replace the HRA with a ‘British Bill of Rights’ remain vague, we do know for sure that it won’t be a like-for-like replacement.

Theresa May is framing this debate around curtailing extremism, however, the HRA is used more commonly used for the protection of everyday people who have been failed by the apparatus of the State.

Rape victims with mental health issues,  for instance.

The HRA was used against Hampshire police after they failed to investigate properly an allegation of rape, and who then arrested the rape victim. Would this be a ‘frivolous’ case which could be thrown out under the British Bill of Rights?

Another group protected by the HRA are the disproportionately ethnic minority victims of what Liberty calls “extraordinarily broad police power to stop and search anyone without suspicion.” Liberty fought these draconian powers all the way to the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that the power was “arbitrary” and “open to discriminatory use.”

Human rights also provide a safety net for the most vulnerable amongst us.

Those with disabilities have been able to enforce their human rights to, among other things, get a fair hearing following misleading advice from the DWP, as well as to argue that the size criteria in the housing benefits regulations discriminates against disabled people.

It may well be true that replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights will suddenly free the police and our courts to better target Islamic extremists and Neo-Nazis as Theresa May argues. Whilst this approach may lead to slightly better statistics around terrorist convictions and/or extraditions, it’s very likely that increased police powers (to ignore what used to be a human right, to track every website you go to and each e-mail you send and receive) will be focused upon existing law-abiding groups.

Peaceful protest groups such as environmental activists, anti-capitalist and anti-racist groups, animal rights campaigners, and even the elected political opponents of the government of the day will almost certainly become targets of police surveillance without being hindered by such frivolities as human rights. The Human Rights Act has already been used to protect the rights and freedoms of such groups.

Perhaps the most recent example of this in action was the startling revelation that the Stephen Lawrence family had fallen victim to a police spy who gathered intelligence in order to give the Metropolitan police an “advantage” over the Lawrence family during an inquiry into how the Met handled the investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence. I’m no legal expert, but I suspect that perhaps breaches the right to privacy?

Far from simply providing a route to bring trivial cases against the State, as Theresa May would have us believe, the Human Rights Act offers a failsafe level of protection for the most vulnerable and most marginalised people in our country when the government has already failed to execute it’s duty, but fails to recognise or admit so.

Repealing the Human Rights Act would remove very real protections for people we all know.

Victims of police discrimination and mental health stigma. Disabled people dependent upon benefits. Activists who simply disagree with or have different priorities from the government. People who have committed no crime, nor who ever intend to. People struggling simply to survive on benefits, or fighting to bring attention to injustice at home and abroad. It is by no means clear that the freedoms of these people will be guaranteed by a British Bill of Rights.

Meanwhile. George Osbourne is planning deep cuts to social services. The HRA has already proven an obstacle to spending reforms. When the disadvantaged and disabled can use the HRA as their last ditch attempt at defense against spending cuts imposed by central government, and win, is it any wonder that this Tory Government sees repealing the HRA as urgent business?

Consider the repeal of the HRA as a prelude to the carnage to come. Once the rights of the least-privileged people in our communities have been tweaked in the name of anti-terrorism, the government may cut services with impunity.

Julien Blanc, wooing a women?

The issue of Julien Blanc is being framed in some circles as a civil liberties issue. It’s not. It’s a protection of civil society – in particular women – issue.

In 2010 Theresa May excluded Zakir Naik from entry in the UK because he had made comments that we’re evidence of “unacceptable behaviour”. Note. Theresa May had no evidence that he was involved directly or indirectly in an act of terrorism, but she excluded him anyway.

There was no high-profile MP to campaign about it. No cries of injustice on this particular curtailment of civil liberties. But on the subject of Julien Blanc, some liberals seem to be getting into a tizzy. It’s like there is a blind spot in their mind. Are we are so committed to being and acting liberal that we’ve forgotten that the State has a duty to protect?

If Theresa May was being consistent she would ban this so called ‘rape guru’ on the same unacceptable behaviour premise as she did Naik, and I suspect, and hope, she will.

I agreed with the exclusion of Naik, just as I agree with Lynne Featherstone on the exclusion of Julien Blanc . This guy is literally promoting the psychological and physical abuse of women. He wants to teach people how to lie and cheat for sexual gratification. It’s not about S&M, or informed consent. Quite the opposite. It’s about using tricks and techniques to get laid, nothing more, nothing less.

There is no grey area here.

It’s a struggle sometimes, but the UK must balance the values of liberty, equality and community. This means that rights of an individual do not necessarily take precedence over the rights of the community.

Our community.

We bang on about equality and this is the moment where we nut up or shut up. This man specifically portrays women as objects to be manipulated, tricked and abused. If we are committed to equality, we will have no problem saying this man and his sickening ideology is not welcome in our community. He is free to go anywhere else that will have him to spew his women-hating bile. On his own Twitter and YouTube accounts, but not here. Not in the UK.

To permit this man into the UK to preach his particular brand of BS would certainly contribute to an already over-the-top objectification of women as purely objects for male sexual gratification. The point of excluding this guy would be to reduce the chance of harm being caused to anybody because of his actions, and also to deny him the opportunity to commoditise sexual assault. At £2,000 per ticket to attend his seminar, that’s some income to be denied.

Excluding Blanc is to avoid the normalisation of sexual assualt, and reduce the potential harm that could come to women who fall prey to men who actually pay to go to seminars run by Blanc.

But what’s the evidence against him? Well, in fact he’s locked his Twitter feed to new followers, he’s taken down tweets and locked videos and images that people have already pointed out as presenting the psychological and sexual abuse of women as being acceptable.

But here is what there is agreement from multiple sources on:

• Julien Blanc started a hashtag promoting going up to women and putting your hands around their throat : #ChokingGirlsAroundTheWorld
• Julien Blanc has made racist statements saying that white men can do what they want in Japan, including grabbing women and forcing their faces into their crotch whilst yelling “pikachu” to dispel the tension.
• Julien Blanc thinks it’s OK to repeatedly lie to a girl about where you are taking her in order to actually her to your home for sex. “Tell her you know where there is a cool party, it’s only 5 minutes away, around the corner get her in a taxi and change the parameters, it’s like 10 minutes away, by the time you actually get her alone in your flat, she knows what’s going to happen, she knows it’s for sex.” In effect, he’s advocating anything so long as you get the girl out of the club, away from her friends, and into your flat, alone.
• Julien Blanc has posted videos and tweets advocating the psychological manipulation and sexual abuse of women which he has since either made private or removed completely.
• Julien Blanc has already been denied visas in Australia and Brazil, and once some hotels who were due to host him were made aware of the nature and content of his seminars they refused to host him, and eventbrite.com has also refused to provide it’s services for his events having looked into it themselves.

The facts are out there. This isn’t a knee-jerk reaction and it’s not populist to review the evidence and come to a conclusion that the presence of Blanc is “not to be conducive to the public good.”

Of course. I could be wrong. Perhaps Julien Blanc is a mis-understood soul, and he’s been taken out of context. Maybe he’s the victim of a vicious campaign of lies? All he has to do is explain himself. In the first instance we should stop him entering the UK, and as luck would have it, because he’s not an EEA citizen he can apply for a judicial review at which he could put his case. If he’s been wronged, I’ll be the first to eat my words.

Right now it’s a complete no brainier. He should not be allowed in this country.

Last year I wrote about a man who had been allowed to get away with multiple different abusive behaviours which culminated in the tragic death of 6 of his children, some of which Julien Blanc has highlighted as a checklist of what to do with women. Blocking Blanc from the UK is the first line of defence we have against this type of eventuality, and will go some way to sending a signal that this behaviour really is inaapropriate.

There are limits even to a liberal democracy. This is one of them.

Derek Nash at the 606 Club

As you mature you begin to want – and expect – different things from a night out. As a thirty-something dad I don’t particularly want to go to a club where I can barely hear myself think anymore, and neither do the bunch of guys who I went to the 606 Club with. We wanted a nice night of chatter and food, and we weren’t too bothered about the entertainment to be honest. At least, we weren’t to begin with.

The 606 Club is everything you’d expect from a jazz club. On the way there my companions and I joked that it would be down a back street somewhere, and that we’d have to do downstairs to some underground hidey-hole. Sure enough, we weren’t disappointed when our bigotry turned out to be true. Oh how we chuckled self-satisfyingly to ourselves as we went downstairs.

But the clichés stopped at the door that night. The club itself was cosy small. Tables crunched close together. The assembled crowed was triumphant in diversity – which was a relief for us 30-somethings seeking to avoid the headache of a nightclub populated by little more than kids.

Before the music… the food. And again our expectations were confounded when we were served excellent fair. After a brief tussle we all threw caution to the wind and opted for a full three-course meal. For me, mozzarella and beef tomato with a pesto dressing for starters, followed by subtly spiced salmon and, whatever it was called, it was essentially top class mashed potato, coupled with fresh veggies. A number of us converged on cheesecake as our dessert of choice, and let me tell you that I savoured every mouthful, drawing out each morsel, which as my companions noted, is not my usual style.

Whilst we were chomping away, the music filled our other senses. And what a treat. That night it was the Derek Nash Quartet. Never heard of anybody in this band before, and like the 606 Club itself, and the food, my expectations were not high, but how wrong I was.

Nash has accompanied many great artists, but tonight he was accompanied by Gunther Kurmayr on piano, Phil Mulford on bass and Frank Tontoh on drums, each successful in their own right. I honestly did not know what to expect, and though I couldn’t name any song that was played, I can tell you the music was amazing. The quartet worked hard but made it look effortless, and the jazz solos that each member played out were, well, groovy man, but the clear stars of the show were Nash and Tontoh who seemed to be egging each other on to do more.

The 606 Club Menu

Nash showcased his talents as he fingers slinked easily up and down the various saxophones he brought out, Tontoh rocked it on the drums, sometimes teasing the crowd with the gaps he left between the beats and keeping the aficionados clearly present on their toes.

So a night of shattered expectations for me then. But in the best way possible. Banished were those Fast Show stereotypes of Jazz, shattered by the quartet that was refreshingly unencumbered by the need to be some polished pop band. No dance routines here. No PR guru manipulating an image. No soft-porn music video action. Just unadulterated music pleasure, about as far removed from easy-come-easy-go mainstream music as you can get, but yet so accessible.

In amongst his anecdotes and repertee with the crowd throughout the night, Nash was plugging his albums for purchase and asking us to find him on Spotify. I hope more people do because his is a talent that should be appreciated and rewarded, and the 606 Club is a place that deserves to prosper with a winning combination of atmosphere, music and food.

Matt Damon getting his gun on in Elysium

There is something familiar about Elysium. In fact, there are a lot of things familiar about Elysium, drawing, as it undoubtedly does on the usual sci-fi tropes. The dystopia of the future. Hi-tech droids. Unfeeling conglomerates that operate beyond the law, and so on, and so forth. Anybody with a passing interest in sci-fi has seen it all before, and yet, Elysium is still a compelling proposition for even the most hardened sci-fi fanatic.

Elysium is the second full-length feature film written and directed by Neill Blomkamp. His first movie was District 9, and if you’ve seen that movie, you’ll suddenly realise why Elysium seems so familiar, especially when you figure out that bearded-bad-guy-in-chief is Sharlto Copely who virtually stole the show in District 9.

Blomkamp brings the same kind of lo-tech gritty feel to Elysium that we saw in District 9. His future is not so much the dark industrial cityscape of Blade Runner, nor is it the slick future of Demolition Man, but it squats somewhere in-between – and is more believable for it. The juxtaposition of a diseased and crowded Earth with the healthy and wealthy space society of Elysium is deliberately highlighted.

It’s refreshing that the society of the future is not, apparently, populated by carbon-copies of today’s Americans. Up in Elysium there appears to be a President of Indian descent, and the scheming Secretary of Homeland Security – played by a deeply sinister Jodie Foster – seems to be of French origin. In the Los Angeles of the future there appear to be lots of Latinos.

The vast chasm between the wealthy citizens of Elysium and the down-and-outs on Earth is brought into sharp perspective when we see the Bugatti spaceship with separate compartments for the money-grubbing CEO of Armadyne and his 2 personal defence droids.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that there are no aliens in this movie. Of course, there are. This film addresses so many issues – illegal immigration, healthcare, defence, wealth and poverty, corporate greed and responsibility – that it’s impossible to address any of the issues in detail, but that’s OK, because you don’t need more than a sketch to get the point and move the movie on.

As in District 9, Blomkamp explores a kind of melding of man and machine which culminates in a titanic battle between – massively buff – Matt Damon and Sharlto Copely. The technology on display is not so far advanced from what we know now as to be conceivable.

This movie is not subtle, it’s a brutal slap to your cerebrum, with violent fight scenes taking you close to the struggle between life and death that hark back to Matt Damon’s portrayal of Jason Bourne. And we have seen the sci-fi ideas of Elysium before, there is nothing amazingly new here. But it’s the range of ideas, the depth of the thought and the overall execution that sucks you into this film.

I have to admit I got slightly obsessive about the damn thing. I’d admire it from afar, drooling over it in the shop window, biding my time, partly hoping I’d just get over it and save my cash instead. This carried on for months, until I’d saved enough and actually bought it.

The watch was part birthday present from my wife – and this went some small way to me convincing myself that I wasn’t spending all that much really. She wasn’t my wife at the time, but it was the early noughties, we were young, occasionally foolish, and we were both working. Like many couples, before we had a child to fuss over and spend money on, we’d fuss over and spend money on each other*. So, being partly a gift, the watch has a deeply sentimental value. It is a physical memory of a different epoch in my life.

At the time I bought the watch I was experiencing an intense period of personal growth and change, both personally and professionally. I was in a great job, but I was dressing for the job I wanted, rather than the one I had. As I looked around, I noticed a number of the people that I admired and respected – work colleagues and friends – seemed to be wearing Omega watches. I’d not really paid attention to the watches people wore before, and I’m not ashamed to admit that the need to fit in, and to also show some aspiration took a hold of my psyche.

Ask my wife, she’ll tell you I’m quite the skinflint, but she’d also be the first to concede that, oftentimes, my heart rules my head. I’d been without a watch for years, in fact, I’d never bought myself a watch before. It seemed to me that if I was going to buy myself a watch as an adult, it had better be a damn nice watch. and it also occurred to me that a damn nice watch could become a family keepsake.

There was an undeniable element of me wanting to make a statement with my watch. A bit like your shoes, or your suit, or your car, your watch says something about you. And so I wanted my watch to say something about me.

A watch (or lack of one) is part of a set of things that define you. It gives clues about who you are that people will pick up on. But my watch doesn’t frame the whole picture of my self. Like I said earlier, it’s not me, but my Omega still expresses elements of my philosophy.

There are lots of garish watches out there regardless of your budget, but I wanted something the antithesis of garish. Some will disagree but I don’t think my Omega is garish. It’s understated, completely lacking in some of the more obvious bling-o-rama that other “luxury” brand watches bolt on in some sort of arms race for buttons and bevels and dials. If I could de-badge it I’d probably do that too.

So multiple psychological and sociological pressures coalesced into the perfect storm compelling me to purchase a Limited Edition Omega Seamaster. Even at the time I found it strange. But who hasn’t really pushed the boat out for something special? Whenever I wear it I feel caught between childish glee at owning this unabashed expression of masculinity, and guilt at the ludicrousness of having spent a fortune on it.

A recent service cost as much as a really quite decent brand new watch, which is frankly obscene. Part of me was tempted to just buy a new watch, but I couldn’t do it. My Omega is a deeply sentimental object. It’s simplistic aesthetic exterior masks some sophisticated internal workings. Perhaps this is ultimately the message I’m sending about me when I wear it?

One day, I’ll need to find the right moment to give the watch up. There are a few occasions I have in mind for surrendering this part of my self and my past, and I suspect I’ll agonise as much about the right time to gift it and who to gift it to as I did about buying it in the first place.

It’s apt that my watch represents my past, present and future. It’s a timepiece that makes me mindful of the journey I’ve been on, the place I’m in now, and the journey still to come.

*Sidebar: My wife and I still fuss over each other even though we have a child. It’s just that our daughter takes the lion’s share of the fussing. That’s just how parenthood seems to work.

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on

To recap, Phillpott lived with 2 women, through whom he acquired benefit payments directly into his bank account. Philpott, his wife and lover shared a 3 bedroom house with 11 children. Philpott had appeared on national television bragging about his lifestyle. Now, I’ve said before that how other people choose to live their life and express their love is no concern of mine, but in a case with children who I believe are entitled to the highest levels of protection, I have to draw the line.

The risk to any child – physical risk – in the care of Philpott was massively high. Why is there no system in place to effectively protect them?

The insurance industry has got judging risk is down to a fine art. When you apply for car insurance multiple risk factors are taken into account before you get a quote for a premium. How many miles you drive in the car each year. Your past claims history. Your age. Your address. The type of car you drive. And so on.

We accept the risk assessment of insurance companies – backed by evidence based upon the claims history of a huge pool of people – as being a generally good way of judging risk. We can say with confidence that a newly qualified driver at university, regularly driving a souped up Citreon Saxo around town and up and down the motorway to visit mum and dad during holidays, who parks on the road in a high crime area is, on average, more likely to make a car insurance claim than an middle-aged housewife driving a VW Polo TDI who happens to live in a low-crime area and who parks her car in a locked garage.

Yes. There are exceptions to the rule. The housewife may be involved in an accident, and the newly qualified driver may well beat the odds, but the point is that there is a system that assigns appropriate levels of risk, and, on the whole, that risk assessment is supported by historical data and facts.

We don’t really think about applying risk assessments to people. But we do it all the time. If I see a man in the street armed with a knife, I very likely judge the risk of some form of physical violence to be unacceptably high and will seek to avoid that situation. Similarly, if you apply for a job which involves looking after children, prepare to go through a police check for your previous criminal history. And if you are on the violent and sex offender register, there’s a high probability that you would be considered too high a risk to leave alone with a child.

This stuff isn’t controversial. Adults can judge risk for themselves and take action accordingly. Young children, though, are not normally expected to be great risk assessors, and they are certainly not responsible for accepting responsibility for being left in a high-risk situation. If nothing else, the victims of Jimmy Saville proved this.

I think it’s fair to say that the situation that Philpott’s children were in could reasonably have been considered to represent a high-risk to their well being. Lets look at the facts:

• Philpott had a recent history of physical abuse of his wife having been given a police caution
• Philpott had been convicted stabbing a previous girlfriend and breaking her arm and finger in 1978, a violent crime which alone could probably discount him from jobs involving the care of dependent or vulnerable individuals
• Philpott beat his first wife before leaving her for the girlfriend he later stabbed
• Philpott was on bail at the time he set fire to his own house over a road rage incident that included violence
• Philpott did not have a regular job and the wages of the two women he lived with and all the family benefits were paid directly into his bank account
• The house the children were in was apparently massively over-occupied on a permanent basis

It can’t be beyond the wit of man to devise a risk assessment procedure through which children in an environment controlled by a man with a history and pattern of behaviour like one listed above can be taken to a place outside the direct or indirect control of a person who clearly has issues.

It’s not just violence against humans that could be an indication of risk, there isevidence that links cruelty to animals and cruelty to children and vulnerable adults.

In the vast majority of cases, the best place for any child is with their parents. Whilst we know that most people will not engage in high-risk behaviour, we still need an effective system in place that manages transgressions – especially where there are multiple instances of serious violence.

The Every Child Matters initiative has apparently been in place for a decade, but what good did it do for the children in the care of Philpott? When doctors do wrong, they have to face a Fitness to Practice panel. When drivers make a serious mistake, they lose their licence, or their insurance costs rise. When people abuse animals they can be disqualified from looking after animals. Philpott had a demonstrable history of violence, and yet was permitted to care for children who probably had no concept of the magnitude of malevolence of which he was capable.

As a society we don’t have a problem placing sanctions on people with a demonstrable pattern of irresponsible behaviour, but it seems to me that when it comes to our kids, we’ve still got some work to do to pre-emptively protect children so that they can be removed from harms way before they become victims.