Category: Media

More Than Just Fashion

This strikes me as being beyond the normal selection of freaky and nuts News stories.

Shoes are a part of life that we can’t do without. At least given the climatic conditions in our temperate region of the world. They are primarily put on to protect the feet from the cold and wet and any sharp objects that littler the ground. I found the BBC radio interview with the foot specialist Professor Anthony Redmond fascinating. Doctors Chris and Xand van Tulleken[1] make a point of finding interesting people to address the myths and realities of medical subjects.

Me being me, it’s impossible to mention the subject without reference to the HHGTTG[2]. Douglas Adams was attuned to people’s obsession with footwear. The Footwarriors, were robots specifically designed with poor fitting shoes so that they would limp. This meant that they couldn’t lay chase, much to the advantage of anyone who encountered them. The story of their makers the Dolmansaxlil Galactic Shoe Corporation is a classic.

[I guess Adams chose the name Dolman because it sounded right. it’s an ancient Anglo-Saxon name. Close to where I live, the Dolman’s were a wealthy English family who owned Shaw House[3] in the 17th Century. I’d recommend a visit.]

Improperly fitting footwear is a good a way of slowing down opponents. One sure way to hobble or cause discomfort to the wearer. The fictional purpose in the HHGTTG was as a marketing rouse. Bad shoes forced people to buy more shoes in the hope for better shoes, but they were always bad, by design.

Now, I don’t know if you can imagine it. Let’s say that Lucius Junius Brutus had poor fitting shoes, or sandals or whatever Romans wore. Would his approach to Julius Caesar have been thwarted and history have been written-up different? Would he have stumbled and failed to dispatch the dictator of the Roman empire? It’s a question.

Back to 21st century everyday tales. No fiction or intriguing historic figures. No wacky robots or corporate shenanigans. It’s reported that US President Trump likes shoes. Specific shiny shoes. So much so that he’s been giving them to colleagues[4]. Demanding that they wear them too.

I don’t think this is Fake News. Plenty of people in the world are obsessed with shoes. With her massive collection of pairs of shoes, this is the one thing people remember about Imelda Marcos[5]. Shoes can become the stuff of legend.

Corporate uniforms are not new either. The love of a conformal identity and the sense of unity that this superficially portrays. Having everyone in a team dress like robots is a way of stamping a leader’s authorly on a wayward group.

I started by writing that this development was freaky and nuts. I could be missing a vital part of a deep and detailed strategy here. It’s theorised by some management thinkers that the grit in the oyster is a key part of making change happen. So, why bother with grit. The same effect can be created by wearing shoes of the wrong size. An ill-fitting irritation. Could I be wrong?

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0ncgb9j

[2] “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” a comedic science fiction series by Douglas Adams.

[3] https://www.westberkshireheritage.org/shaw-house

[4] https://www.wsj.com/style/fashion/trump-florsheim-shoes-tucker-carlson-jd-vance-bessent-448567ab

[5] First Lady of the Philippines for 21 years.

Spring Reflections: Communication

The season is one of mild rain and occasional storms. Seeds that have been lying dormant now get their chance to germinate. To enter the struggle for life as they compete with their surroundings. Leaves emerge, they twist and turn to channel the energy of the Sun. It’s Spring. A time for new beginnings. Longer days. Shorter nights.

UK Government Ministers are often their own worse enemies. These are smart people. Yes, I say that with no sense of irony. If they have fought their way up the greasy pole of a political career, they are not the numskulls that it’s soothing to think that they are. Well, there are naturally exceptions. God only knows why Liz Truss became Prime Minister of this great country.

Amongst the skills that are mandatory in the role of Minister, communications is surely one of them, if not the most important. Because if a Minister can’t communicate what they are doing the chances are that they will not be in a job for long. The cacophony of noise that pervades the everyday media will distort all but the clearest messages.

Let’s say there’s a 5-minute slot available on the national media to address a matter of public concern. There’s a massive pile of matters of public concern. It’s wise to stick to the ones that the individual has a modicum of knowledge about or at least has recently been briefed.

My instinct would be to us a tried and tested formula for public communications. It goes like this – tell them what you are going to say, tell them, and then tell them what you have told them. Doing this focused on one key point. Not wandering off onto tangential subjects and getting sidetracked. I know this is easier said than done. An interviewer, worth their salt, will want to extract as much new information as possible. They will be driven by the common journalist’s creed. The instinct that the greatest accolade is to get a “scoop.”

What happens, if this morning is anything to go by, is a jumble of slogans come out in an almost involuntary way. The speed of speaking increases as the clock ticks away the precious minutes. Then phases, probably implanted by civil servants, pops out of the conversation. Jargon terms like, implied wholesale element, third party intermediaries, or qualifying financially disadvantaged customers. These will mystify the listener unless they have already read chapter and verse of the subject the Minister is talking about.

As the interview progresses then Ministers become parodies of themselves. I’m sure they walk away from their media interviews with the voices inside their heads saying, I should have stuck to the script. Why didn’t I – keep it simple.

There’s a resort to catch phrases that seems irresistible too. It’s one thing to say that a government is working at pace but what on earth does that mean? The alternative would be to be sitting on one’s backside waiting for something to happen.

There’s also the pretence that an action is taking place immediately. Fixes are happening now. I think most listeners are mature enough to know that doing things takes time and resources. So, being evasive about an action that will take place in April next year, as opposed to now, sounds shabbily. Switching to a defensive mode is never a clever way to win over supporters.

It’s Spring. A time for new beginnings. It should be a time to elevate people’s spirits. The prospect of summer and the shaking off a dull dark winter is reason enough to be optimistic. Someone needs to tell government.

Understanding Primary and Secondary Legislation in the UK

Clear again is the conservative politician’s propensity to trade on ignorance. Remember the slogan of the big red bus of the Brexit campaign. All the abject nonsense that was said and written in 2016. It would be extremely charitable to call these intentional inaccuracies. There’s a three-letter word that sums them up. In theory, Parliament has rules. In practice, those rules are abused. That is until miscreants are exposed. Those politicians that misled the House of Commons over parties in Downing Street during the COVID pandemic shouldn’t be forgotten.

It’s a simple question. How many people know the difference between primary and secondary legislation? As far as I know these aspects of the UK’s method of making laws is not taught in schools. I think it’s vital that people of all ages get the opportunity to explore how their democracy works. Including its inherent peculiarities.

[Here’s a national event, later in the year, which can help. It’s free and already possible to plan for UK Parliament Week in November 2026[1].]

Back to the difference between primary and secondary legislation? A tabloid newspaper editor may see that question and fall about laughing. On the basis that the subject is not widely understood, instead of explaining, they may choose to write any drivel that serves their agenda. Day after day this sleight of hand provides bold headlines and support for misleading political campaigns. Then, if the truth pops its head above the parapet cries of Fake News ripple through the right-wing media.

By the way, the sad fact about this common distortion is an erosion of trust[2]. It’s no wonder that Parliament can be seen as remote from real-life. It’s regular inhabitants a strange breed of people who go native as soon as the walk through its hallowed doors.

During the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) it expanded. In certain specific technical areas, its “competence” grew. Member States agreed to give it new roles and responsibilities. As an example, before aviation legislation was harmonised in Europe, national legislation had to be amended to accommodate every major change that developed. In the UK, both primary and secondary legislation were applied. They are now. That consists of a UK Air Navigation Act and an Order[3]. The Act being the primary legislation and the Order being the secondary legislation. These two rules are not new as they have been part of the UK’s national aviation landscape for decades.

Above here I’ve kicked at the UK’s tabloid media. Well, they are merely doing what they have always done. There’s something in morbid consistency. What’s more disturbing are the lines being taken by a national media that might be expected to be objective. Read this short article and the predisposition shines through, and this is the BBC[4].

Sir Keir Starmer is planning a law which will mean that the UK government can adopt EU single market rules, without a normal parliamentary vote.

One, it’s the personalisation. This is the government of the day and not an individual. Two, it’s the incorrect use of the word “normal.”  As I’ve stated, secondary legislation is perfectly normal. In fact, the UK’s normal regulatory structures depend upon it being in place and up-to-date.

[1] https://www.ukparliamentweek.org/en/sign-up

[2] https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/full_fact_report_121021.pdf

[3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937jkvp3w8o

Modern Polymath

It’s easy to conclude that there’s no such thing as a polymath in the 21st century. So expanded is the field of human knowledge that no one person can have a sufficient overview of every academic, cultural, political, and economic discipline. Not only that but the ability to articulate concepts and ideas in an understandable manner.

If I were to think of a classical polymath, I’d instantly go to American Benjamin Franklin. It’s even how he is described in literature. Here, I’m going back to the 18th century. In the multimedia age, there are numerous influential intellectuals who have become spokespersons for their discipline, but none stride across a vast range.

We segment and partition knowledge, and pepper it with dedicated terms, that it’s way more than a human head full. Specialisation is both a curse and a God send. Generally, the intensification of study of each and every subject has been a bonus to human progress.

There’s become an excess in manipulation of language to suite each scientific endeavour. That goes for politics and economics too. Particularisation does tend to create distance between those who dig deeply into specific subjects.

To help unravel ingrained complexity there’s a respectable number of writers and YouTubers who try their best to communicate. If anything, the demand for this skill is increasing as we move from the traditional paper-based publications, say New Scientist, to the myriads of social media platforms. Then the issue becomes which one speaks with authority.

I started this piece with a thought in mind. It really was to say something complementary about the BBC. Yes, a media organisation that gets a fair share of criticism, but the world would be a much poorer place without it. Its roots are deep.

A popular British pastime is quizzing. That has played a part in TV and Radio since they were invented. A quiz is both entertaining for the participants and those who look on. Like a modern-day mediaeval tournament, a display of quick thinking and astonishing depth or range of knowledge. A test that allows us all to take part even if we come away all too aware of how little we know. Not so much unsettling as a quick return the earth.

Is there’s no such thing as a polymath in 2026? As an avid watcher of the BBC’s University Challenge[1], I’m struck by the breadth of questioning and the ability of the teams of students to find answers to the most tortuous questions. Obscurity knows no bounds.

On questions of famous paintings, I have a preprogrammed response. It’s either Titian or Tintoretto. It’s surprising how many times that works. Try as I might, I rarely get into double figures however much I guess. It’s always worth a punt. Sitting in the back if my memory are facts that I’ve no idea how they lodged there over the years.

Watching the winning teams of students, I do wonder if the notion of a polymath is dead. It does restore my faith in the infinite variety of human capabilities. This counteracts the fancy marketing blurb that accompanies machine learning software. Practically, humanity is far from becoming obsolete.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t6l0

The False Dichotomy

Like a clock work toy. Wind them up and away they go. It goes something like this. Space exploration is a waste of scarce resources. We’d better spend them fixing problems here on Earth. Compare and contrast as if a viable choice was just to move piles of money from one place to another. This line of argument is favoured by nationalistic green politicians and liberal journalists tasked with filling newspaper column inches. A bunch of academics like to jump on the bandwagon too.

They like to divide the world into billionaire technologists ardently in pursuit of progress at the expense of everyone but themselves and open-toed sandal shoed environmentalists who’ve inherited the legacy of 1970s hippiedom. These two exists, of course, and they have influence, but they are oddities to most people.

So, much of the debates that fill the media are carved out of planks of wood. As if there are only ever two sides to every argument. Two choices to make. Two views open to debaters. As a good liberal, I must reject this dichotomy.

However, to address the subject, I’m corralled into the compare and contrast stock yard.

On the one hand, the environmental challenges before humanity are such that they need ardent attention. The stupidity of “drill baby drill” is mindbogglingly thoughtless. Stupid at a level it’s difficult to comprehend. It’s true that taking short term gains that lead to long term pains is not new. It’s one of humanities troublesome failings. Surely, we can learn from history.

On the other hand, Exploration is human. From the moment primitive bipeds took off across open plains we’ve wanted to know what’s over the horizon. What’s around the corner. Are there opportunities or threats? It’s linked with the fragility of our existence. Space isn’t a boundary that puts a stop to this curiosity. We must see with our own eyes. 

Now, I’ll demolish the false dichotomy. Both above, to degrees, need to be respected. Both can be seen through the lens of human imperatives – safety and security. In fact, to an extent both are linked.

Understanding how to mitigate the negative impact of our technology, we need to develop better ways of doing business. Solar power is an example.

The fate of our planet is better understood by studying other planets, and our own from space. Nature presents itself in a myriad of complex different formula across the universe.

To get away from the either/or mentality there does need to be a marshalling of political will. This is probably the greatest challenge at a global level. I believe we can both confront climate change and progress human exploration. It requires imagination.

Lost Opportunities

It’s kind of odd. The wacky folk who still argue that the Brexit referendum was a good thing. For one or two well-heeled people that might be the case. It’s not the case for the overwhelming majority of British people. Maybe one issue is that it’s so difficult to get across the idea of lost opportunity. Benefits foregone because of choosing poorly.

It’s as if an ardent walker is faced with two paths. One is covered in glitter and hung with shiny streamers for the first mile only. The other is much the same as the path already traversed but it gets wide and smother after a couple of miles. One has minstrels singing patriotic and sentimental songs at its gateway. The other path has a well-meaning professor babbling on about solidarity, peace and progress. It’s the guidebook recommendation.

The destination of the first one is to circle around to get back where the walker started meantime having exhausted a lot of their provisions. For the second path there’s a whole new set of possibilities, yet unwritten. Companions are supportive and share their stories. Everyone is richer, both commercially and culturally.

The facts are that Brexit has made us poorer. In every way. It’s a pathway to nowhere, as we have found. After a decade it’s truly painful to tot-up the lost opportunities of the Brexit era. The financial numbers are huge but it’s not just about numbers. Now, the main issue is security. Developing a strong independent European defence against the global turmoil that’s ensuing.

Never a group to roll back and say – yes, you were right all along – those so deep in the Brexit ditch are pumping out propaganda much as they did in 2016. Cherished British food stuffs will need to be named using words last heard in a chemistry class. Hordes of criminal invaders will overrun our cities. They ask us to listen to apologists for climate change deniers.

Brexit is a deep fake. It’s not going to get any better. It’s going to get worse. Even if we wait 50-years, it’s not going to get any better. Certain right-wing commentators implore us to wait. To burden the generations that follow with perpetual decline.

One result of the current turmoil that is raging around the globe is the recognition that struck people with wisdom after the second world war. We have the capacity to choose between order and disorder. Anarchy has a massive cost. International rules are incredibly difficult to establish and maintain but it’s best that we try.

I know those who will counter this argument will count out the number of times the world’s institutions have failed since the late 1940s. However, that’s no-good an argument in of itself. Imagine getting to 2040. Going full circle in a century and arriving at a dystopian world of chaos where imperial racketeers terrorise billions of people. I think we can do a lot better than that if we are prepared to work for the common good.

There’s a few of words to cherish – the common good.

Why King Charles Should Delay US Visit

I’m doing that Keynesian double-take. The facts change, so what do I do? I change my mind. That’s what I’ve done in respect of the current situation on the other side of the Atlantic. Shear pig-headed stubbornness is in fashion in high places. That prideful assertion that says nothing I do or say can be wrong. Well, I’m not going to fall into that foolish trap.

Should the UK’s Head of State pay an official visit to the United States (US). The answer must be “yes” at an appropriate time and place. I listed a respectable number of reasons why the UK and the US are linked by history and a whole lot more. However, I’ve put a caveat on the view presented. At an appropriate time and place, is a way of saying that there should be conditions.

As it stands, the King’s planned visit to the US this year should be called off. The conditions are not right for a successful visit. The US -UK special relationship has a past, it may have a future but at the present there’s a big problem.

In this anniversary year of American independence, I had argued that it was good to celebrate a long-standing relationship. However, just at this moment, the US and UK are in quite separate places. It maybe the case that the citizenry in both countries is thinking similar things. What’s clear is that the leadership of both countries are not on the same page.

If the non-partisan opinion polls are to be relied upon, the citizenry in both countries have a highly negative view of the decision to enter a war in the Middle East. Putting the UK’s Head of State in a position where an appearance can be manipulated to indicate support for the instigation of war in the Middle East is not a good place to be.

It’s right to acknowledge the facts. There is a war in Europe which is of greater concern to most British people. That situation needs to be resolved. Engaging in a war of choice in the Middle East is not in the best interests of people in the UK, or Europe. It’s happening and the daily news gets worse and worse.

From what I gleam, and what little I know, King Charles is doing well at upholding the dignity and integrity of the British Monarchy. Not so easy a task when blessed with a wayward brother and long-standing family splits. The King is faced with small protests in the UK given his brother’s past associations and the blind eye that was turned to his brother’s behaviour.

I’m a British republican in nature but continue to have respect for our peculiar constitutional settlement. Yes, we could do better but that’s an argument for another time. Imagine how much distaste a substantial number of the British people will feel if our King is seen to align himself closely with an unpopular American President. Not good optics, as they say.

My points are made without thought of political bandwagon hopping as favoured by lots of UK Members of Parliament (MPs). That just doubles-up the complexity of making the right long-term decision on this difficult real time issue of international relations.

It’s clear to me that, in his second term, the legacy that President Trump will hand down to the next generation, is and will be a horrid and tragic mess. We’d better start looking further ahead at how the 2030s[1] can be made a better decade. Historian will look as aghast at the late 2020s. The political volatility of the current situation is such that predictions become even more difficult. Power drains away when politicians ignore the people – let’s see how that goes.

Post 1: I agree with David David Dimbleby labels King’s visit to US ‘an embarrassment’

Post 2: Now there’s no doubt in my mind that the King should not visit the US at this time Iran war latest: Trump issues expletive-laden threat to Iran demanding Strait of Hormuz be opened – BBC News

[1] Trump’s term of office: 20th January 2029.

Dysfunctional Culture of UK Politics

It’s as true today as it’s aways been. Well, that sound like a famous bread avert. The phrase “as good today as it’s always been,” was used for years by one notable bread maker in the UK. A memorable slogan that painted a picture of tradition and continuity.

What I’d like to do is to take the word “good” out of the equation. I’m not talking about our daily bread. Or the need to meld tradition with a modern industrial reality. However, there is an enduring appeal when it comes to selling ideas. A linking with some mythical golden age.

Paddy Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader whose memory is not entirely lost in the mists of time, was not a fan of the Westminster culture[1]. That’s the political culture that pervades the British Parliament and its environs.

He shared the view of many British people that Westminster is grossly “out-of-touch” with life as it’s lived across the nation. Our democratic institutions often alienated people. Not by intention but just by being what they are and acting the way they do. The core of British politician’s concerns come across as detached and insular. More tied up in big egos, infighting, and inflated pompousness. Protecting their own interests.

Now, I know the insipid excuse is to say – surely, politicians are like that throughout the world. Aren’t we lucky to have such ancient and noble traditions. A heritage that others admire.

Paddy knew what he was talking about having been a Member of Parliament (MP) a long time. I first met him in the 1980s, when he was a young idealistic newly elected MP. He was the guest speaker at an evening event in Cheltenham. Full of ambition and vitality.

This week, neither of the two largest political parties in the UK covered themselves with glory. Quite the opposite in fact. It was not pleasant to see or hear.

Labour became a stuck record. Vacillating and dithering. Increasingly then sound like their predecessors. It’s a kind of Westminster conditioning. A bland mediocrity that seeps out of the gothic towers of Parliament. Supporters of Labour twist and turn with despair.

The Conservatives are in more trouble for a whole host of reasons. Not least their past performance. What we are witnessing is a peculiar dance by their leader. It involved constantly looking over her shoulder and spinning around at the same time.

Whether we like it or not the problem is our problem. With our institutions becoming ever more dysfunctional over a period of decades the door is open to extremist forces. The more we pretend that Westminster is working the more voters look elsewhere.

The British media are no help in this respect. Instead of shining a light on a dysfunctional culture they race to be part of it. Getting excited at every crash and upset. Every scandal and broken promise. Building careers in the same way as the politicians they report on.

There’s no easy answer. First, it’s important to recognise the problem.

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ashdown-says-outoftouch-westminster-alienates-voters-disillusionment-could-lead-to-extremism-liberal-democrat-leader-warns-1493502.html

Manchester

Crunching numbers after a British by-election is rather like taking one racehorse win and saying that all races will be won by that horse in future. There’s one or two who get hysterical. A test of public opinion, in one spot on the globe, is a good indicator. It’s not an absolute pointer to every future event.

How can I possibly disagree with Sir John Curtice[1] this morning on the BBC. He’s that human hardy perennial of domestic election analysis. Number one guru that the media runs to. A track record for an on the money sum-up.

In essence, the British electorate wishes to support candidates who can articulate their concerns. No prevarication, all manner of obfuscation or jam tomorrow speeches. Preferably tailored to the location where they stand.

Sir John is thinking like this John. In moments, as per yesterday in Manchester[2], clarity matters. True, that in a by-election it’s easier to do for a candidate who carries little political baggage. A fresh set of well-presented phrases and a new broom. A relatable individual.

Not for one moment do I believe that the Green Party will surge forward so powerfully as to become a national leader. What may happen is that, with the fragmentation of the British political landscape, the Greens will play a bigger part than they have in the past.

And you know what? As a liberal, I’m fine with that shift. Balance is so important if positive change is to happen. Representation means just that – representation. If the Greens say the exact opposite to the Reform Party, which mostly they do, then they will occupy the two ends of the classical normal distribution – the bell curve.

Perhaps, I need to be careful with this basic analysis. My presumption is that most people are not highly involved in everything party political. That on the typical doorstep often the key task is not to engage in detailed debate but to remind people that there is an election taking place. That the tie to traditional voting patterns continues to weaken.

The last one on my list is perhaps the biggest. Gone are the huge factories and industrial heartland that provided the Labour Party with their core support. Gone are the dependents of the shire country manor houses that provided the Conservative Party with their core support.

In 2028 or 2029[3] the make-up of the British electorate will have changed markedly. Seems obvious to say – doesn’t it, but politicians love to fight the last war not the next one. The political landscape will have shifted. Traditional voting patterns will have further disolved. There will be no let-up in the dynamic nature of public discourse. A small number of big issues will dominate the campaigns of the parties able to make an impact.

Clarity will matter. Distinctiveness will matter. Relatability will matter.

In the background, a bucket load of past performance and costed polices will be chewed over by professional commentators. That will not be the deciding factor. At the end of this decade there’s a break away coming. Busting out of past patterns. Setting new horizons.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwygpdjq9jjo

[2] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/

[3] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/our-work/topics/parliament-and-constitution/general-elections

From Daedalus to Artemis

Being in good company is always nice. That spirit of experimentation doesn’t suite everyone. Now, I find myself in company of a NASA astronaut and an 12th Century English Monk. All in one week.

I stumbled across the NASA App[1] last evening. I hadn’t reckoned at that being available on my smart Sony TV. There it was. So, it only seemed right to download it and check up on what’s going on with the current Artemis mission. Other News told of delays and troubles with the launch vehicle that’s to send astronauts to circle the Moon. Setbacks are common in space flight so that’s not an issue to be alarmed about.

[Whatever would we do without the Ancient Greeks. Artemis, Apollo, Mercury, Gemini[2]].

This is a fundamentally important space mission given that it’s the first-time humans will have ventured so far since the days of the Apollo missions. Sending four astronauts around Earth’s satellite is a hard task to undertake. It’s aimed at establishing a means to get to the Moon on a regular basis.

Apollo spacecraft did this journey when computers were relatively primitive machines. Artemis has the advantage of a technical capability that is many fold greater. The problem is that sheer complexity and society’s tolerance for safety risk has moved on since the 1960s.

Anyway, the tale told, in interview of one of the Artemis astronauts is one of jumping off a barn roof as a young lad. Constructing a homemade parachute and trying it out. Having that freedom of a life growing-up on a farm and that appetite for experimentation. I was thinking, been there, done that and lived to tell the tale. In my previous scribblings I’ve mentioned the large red Dutch hay barn that was part of my youth.

Back to the Greeks. It’s myth but there may have been an element of truth in it. A map of modern Greece makes it clear that the islands of Ikaria and Crete are separated by a great distance. So, suggesting that a father and son in ancient time flew from one to the other can’t be true. However, that doesn’t dismiss the possibility that the Greeks experimented with the possibility of human flight.

So, the myth goes, Daedalus was the design authority for a method of flying which does not come recommended. Strapping on wings made of wax and feathers is a 100% risky venture. Daedalus was, if a real person, an imaginative ancient inventor. An inspiration to others. In this century it’s best to interpret the famous myth of flight as one of experimentation in a way that is fully respectful of the risks involved.

Coincidentally, this week, more by accident than intention. It’s a long story. I visited the town of Malmsbury. Inspired by the story of Daedalus, Monk Eilmer of Malmesbury[3] has solid claim to be the first European to fly. It wasn’t an entirely successful flight, but it was a flight. In the 12th Century he leapt from a church tower with wings of his own invention and survived.

Monk Eilmer of Malmesbury did end up with broken legs and a place in history. It would be unwise to repeat his early experiment as an example of human flight. That is unless a crude glider was replaced by four rotors, electric motors, some electronics and a powerful battery.

I share the hazards of a technical ability. Luckily my youthful attempts at flying with a parachute made of black polythene sheeting from a red barn roof didn’t result in any broken bones. Good luck to all who fly. Especially those who travel the furthest.

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/nasa-app/

[2] https://www.greeknewsagenda.gr/from-olympus-to-the-universe-where-greek-mythology-meets-nasa-missions/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilmer_of_Malmesbury