BRCA – Genetic testing and the NHS

The story this week that has been impossible to miss, and that everyone has been talking about, has been that Angelina Jolie has revealed in an article in the New York Times that she chose to undergo a double mastectomy. Her decision to have the surgery was based on the results of a genetic test of the BRCA gene – BRCA 1 or BRCA 2, which can determine if you are at risk of developing breast cancer or ovarian cancer. According to the article, Angelina Jolie had an 87% risk of developing breast cancer, and so opted to take preventive measures to reduce her chances of ever getting breast cancer down to just 5%.

Angelina Jolie lost her mother to breast cancer, and as most people know – not only is Jolie a world famous actress and an UN ambassador, she has six children. In my opinion, and to the opinion’s of most people supporting her on twitter and Facebook, her decision was brave and heroic. She is taking the fight to cancer, and she’s saying I won’t wait for you to come for me. She’s taking the offensive, and she’s on the attack. Ultimately she’s being clever. Just look at the statics and the percentages of her genetic testing!

For someone like Jolie to have done this, in her profession where looks count for everything, I think she is going to have given courage and self respect back to thousands – if not more, of woman around the world. Woman who have doubted themselves, felt self-conscience and even ashamed at times, when they have looked in the mirror after having undergone lumpectomy’s and mastectomies – singular or double.

Yet it is not just about confidence, but – as Jade Goody did before she died, Jolie has also raised awareness. There is no one not talking about this story. Whether you agree with what Jolie’s done or not? Whether you would get tested or not? Whether you would opt for the mastectomy or not? Everyone has an opinion on this story, and so everyone is once again thinking and talking about cancer. People often say that cancer is never forgotten, but sadly all too often I fear that it is. All too often I think it becomes all too easy to ignore what does not affect us, what is not in our day to day life.

We should also not forget when talking about BRCA that for many there isn't a preventative genetic test. For many they have to wait for cancer to strike, and then hope like hell that they can fight it off and survive. Yet for some it is a fight that they cannot win. Cancer is brutal and cruel, and it affects not only those with the disease but also their friends and families.

So for me, the significance of my breasts compared to my life I feel cannot be compared. I would choose my life every single day. Surgeons can give me back replicas of my breasts. They can’t always give me back my life, not if the cancer takes hold too fast. Cancer is, let me say it again, brutal and cruel.

Jolie’s test, it is said, revealed an 87% chance of her getting breast cancer. Yet following her actions this has now been reduced to 5%.  I honestly cannot see how her decision was not the right one, and in any other avenue of life you would follow that course of action. Why would you run the risk when the odds were so against you? 87% chance of being faced with cancer, now it’s just 5%?

In The Guardian this week there were concerns raised about how the NHS was going to cope with the increase in the number of women wanting to be genetically tested. I appreciate that this will be a strain on the NHS, and any women choosing preventive surgery will obviously add a burden to the already over stretched NHS. Yet my argument would be this. Bevan’s philosophy for the NHS was that it was intended so that people would get better so that the NHS might one day not be needed. Granted this has not happened, and there has become a greater reliance on the service.

However in regards to genetic testing, if you offer women from having what could be preventative life saving treatment then they would hopefully not get breast cancer / ovarian cancer (if they had like Jolie the double mastectomy or in the regards to ovarian cancer an oophorectomy.) This would therefore save the NHS money in the future with regards to treating future possible cancer patients who would need further care, and it would also save money in regards to the additional treatments that these cancer patients often require such as radio and / or chemo therapy. It would also – as one of the credit card adverts say, be priceless in terms of the psychology benefits of not having to deal with the disease itself.

Some people may read this and think that there is a flippancy to the tone in regards to mastectomies, but let me assure you that there isn't  Cancer is a subject that touches very close to home, but I just feel that each woman that has the opportunity to be genetically tested should be. Then, in my opinion, it is that woman’s choice as to how she moves forward.

Ovarian cancer is a more sensitive issue for me, especially depending on the age of the woman, as it will remove any chances of her bearing children. Yet for me if removing your breasts can save your life, or have a high percentage / probability of saving your life, then I cannot see any reason not to do it.

Jolie’s attitude is truly inspirational, and she remains confident, beautiful, and one of Hollywood’s most glamorous women regardless of her surgery. Also I feel it would be wrong not to mention the attitude of Brad Pitt in all of this. He has appeared to be amazingly supportive, kind, and loving. He too has been an inspiration for men that will be put in a difficult position for their wives, girlfriends, sisters, mothers, and even friends, that may turn to them at some point in their lives over this issue.

What a couple Pitt and Jolie seem to be? They have certainly risen above the naysayers of Hollywood. They seem to have defied all the odds, and I hope that Jolie will continue to be a tour de force for women. She is a voice now, and I hope that she will continue to be. 

The Pyrce of Sensationalism

Regardless as to whether you’ve wanted to know what has been happening in South Africa this week with the bail hearing of Oscar Pistorius or not, it’s been hard not to know. The hearing has dominated the news, and the newspapers – both hard copies and online. Also for anyone living in London, had you managed to remain oblivious to the news (an impressive feat – you must have stopped listening to the radio and watching the television) you’ve had to contend with the boards at the major stations displaying updates on the hearing on your commute.

The coverage of the “alleged” murder of Reeva Steenkamp by Pistorius has dominated the news since it happened, and it doesn’t look likely to ease until the trial is over. The bail hearing though, I fear is only just the beginning. I think that we’re likely to find that whether we like it or not, the sensationalism storm that is already underway has only been a minor blizzard in light of what we can expect to see once the trail is in full swing.

To me, it is all starting to feel a little bit like OJ Simpson’s trial – not that I’m in anyway drawing comparisons between the cases (before anyone makes that comment). Although, you’ve got to wonder if OJ didn’t have the better defence to Pistorius! OJ’s whole there was another person angle, and the glove didn’t fit sounded far more reasonable than what we’ve heard from Pistorius so far. I’m not sure I’m persuaded by what we’ve read of his “I thought Reeva was still in bed... I thought it was an intruder... I thought... I thought...” Is it just me, or does it all sound a little bit like tweety bird? “I thought I saw a pussy cat... I did, I did!”

Granted, it’s only been the bail hearing, and yes a lot of what we’re reading is speculation from the media. I’m certainly not reading the court transcripts! But I can’t say I’m convinced, not with the whole cricket bat and shots through the closed bathroom door. Although that that said, the prosecution doesn’t exactly look like it’s got its act together either. Their evidence is reliant upon a witness who heard screaming from 400 metres away. Er hello! Who exactly hears screaming from that far away, you know, aside from superman? Also, not particularly great for them that the lead detective on the case has just been arrested for seven counts of murder!

All in all, the facts, the scandal, the whole thing, it looks a mess. One thing is for sure though, it looks set to make for great reading, and even if you want to avoid reading about it you won’t be able to. A part of me really wants to rise above it. I know that it’s sensationalist nonsense. We shouldn’t speculate. Pistorius should have the right to fair trial, and we should feel genuinely sorry for Reeva and her family.

The thing is I do want Pistorius to have a fair trial, but I think we all know that he faces two trials – one in the courts and one in the public eye. The one in the public eye though will be marred entirely by the Press. I think I’d fear the press trial more. As for Reeva Steenkamp it is a tragedy, and for her family I feel unbelievably sorry. They are not only having to deal with their grief, but the momentous question of why did this happen?

Sadly they may never get an answer to this question regardless as to the outcome of either of Pistorius’s trials. They must also live their grief out in the public eye, and endure what could be months of what will be a worldwide public spectacle to try and find an answer to this question.

Moving on slightly from sensationalism, but sticking with the issue of the law, I must touch upon the Pryce trial. It really does beggar belief that a case of such simplicity saw a re-trail, and a jury dismissed. I think it is best summed up by the trail judge himself – Mr Justice Sweeney, who said: "In 30 years of criminal trials I have never come across this..., never."

The trail may also have re-raised the issue of whether jury’s are the best way in which to try cases. One of the main issues of concern in the Pryce case was whether the Jury had the sufficient intelligence to be able to understand what was required of them in order to be able to reach an outcome.

Of the ten questions that they asked one of them was: "Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?"

I honestly would have hoped that had that question been put to children aged eleven and above, they would have known the answer. It does seriously concern me therefore that a jury, of adults, had to ask this question. Let’s not forget that there were twelve of them in the room, surely one of them had the sufficient intellect to say, “er no, I think we’re dependent on facts.”

Perhaps the sensationalism of the Pistorius trial may do us all some good. Perhaps everyone, as we may all – if we are on the electoral roll, be called upon to do jury service could stand to learn something. The press should therefore take it upon themselves not only to sensationalise but also to educate. Yes the South African system may differ slightly to ours, but if its stops juries asking such ridiculous questions as got asked in the Pryce trial then at least we’ll have learnt something in addition to the fact that Pistorius wears blades to run in!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

It seems to me that there’s a lot of stuff just being made up this week!

This week I read that diet drinks can contribute to depression, but coffee can stave it off! Girls need aunts to stay on the straight and narrow, and apparently anyone who doesn't want anyone to live their whole life on the benefit system supports all conservative ideals – including the big society (even though I’m still not sure that David Cameron or Nick Clegg know what this is themselves, but continue to pat themselves on the back for what they think sounds like a very labour – sorry liberal slogan), and thinks that those who want to find a job and are on job seekers for what it was intended – a safety net, should be shot! Honestly, what a lot of nonsense!

Clearly I've had a slow first week back at work, but you really do have to ease back into things. For anyone who read my blog last week you’ll know that I was in over Christmas, but still I found that this week was still a shock to the system. What was it with everyone else being back at work, turning off their out of office and replying to emails?

Anyway aside from having to do some work, I’d like to hazard a guess that I, like the vast majority of the people who were back at their desks this week, found myself occasionally browsing the beeb or some other online media service and some of the articles and news stories were irritating to the extreme!

I appreciate that advancements in science are always on the go, and in truth this should be supported if not applauded, but I wish that the media would keep their noses out. I’m not sure causing confusion with the findings has any benefit to the general populous. Conflicting reporting on whether or not to have mammograms a couple of years ago led many women to be unsure or not to know whether to be screened, and there is always conflicting data over various different health issues depending on usually what’s on trend. This month you can read more information than not about how dry January is a waste of time than you can in support of it, although I’m proud to write that its day 12 and I’m still without an alcoholic drink!

This week the media reported the very weak finding that diet drinks could be linked to causing depression (if you drink four or more diet drinks every day). Fear not though because if you are a coffee drinker this could stave off depression. What I read delved into no greater detail however, in that there was no prognosis for you if you were both a diet drink and coffee drinker, or if you drank coffee and have depressive tendencies, or if you’re a diet drink addict and never feel blue. Also these findings seemed to only be in their preliminary stages, so it could be absolute hogwash!

Could it be that depression has absolutely nothing to do with aspartame? It could be an interesting campaign tactic though couldn't it? Clegg and Cameron handing out flyers and coffee, with Osborne crying out; “four, or four and bit more years till we fancy calling the next election” – not too catchy but our political system isn’t quite as smooth cut as the Americans, whilst Milliband and Balls hand out Diet drinks and chant; “we’ll make coffee free on the NHS, courtesy of Starbucks of course!”

So aside from the this story, and the headline story in The Sun yesterday about a man shaving his girlfriend’s Shih Tzu – really I just don’t have the words, the other commentary has been about the books that I suppose you’d best categorise as self help books on how to raise girls.

Being January this seems to be a time for stats. We’re all too fat – but fad diets don’t work, we all drink too much – but dry January is a waste of time, more of us now suffer from depression than ever before – quick hit the coffee cart, and more significantly the girls of today are more prone to eating disorders, drugs, depression, bullying, and going off the rails than ever before!

Firstly I’m not entirely sure I agree with this. I think that in an era where there are more stats readily available than ever before it’s just easy to compile data than ever before. I also believe that data is very easily manipulated so that it appears the way that you want it to, just ask a good accountant! It’s also my opinion that girls have been going off the rails in every generation; and I don’t always think this is a bad thing.

Secondly the eating disorder isn't unique to the noughties. Drugs too are not a new trend unique to girls of today, and drugs if anything seemed far more prolific in the eighties and nineties! As far as depression, and bullying, and anxiety are concerned, could it not just be a case that there is far wider understanding of these issues now. The sheath that they were once forced under has now been lifted and there is now an awareness and a desire to address and help not only girls but anyone suffering one or any of these afflictions!

I hate the notion in these raising girls books though that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it, whether that means relying on an actual aunt, pseudo aunt, or no aunt at all. Each child is bound to be unique, and is whether you like it not bound to test the limitations of your patience – and I would assume at some point your love. Yet I guess that’s what you sign up for, but I also guess that’s why there isn't actually a handbook that you’re given at the hospital!

I don’t have children, but I was one and the only thing I can say is that if I’d ever caught my parents making reference to a “how to raise your girl” book is well .... the only thing I can hear in my head right now is the music in Jaws right before the shark’s about to eat someone!

Teenagers will be Teenagers, and they’re going to make mistakes. Surely as parents you just want to be there for them when they do. The only thing I continue to learn is that no one is perfect, and maybe that’s what we need to teach the next generation rather than pretend to act as though we've solved the meaning to all that afflicted us as we grew up and write a book about it! I don’t know, perhaps I just need another cup of coffee minus the sweetener!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

Maybe the simple New Year’s Resolution can help us all look at the bigger picture, but in order to do that I’m guessing we’ll probably have to keep them past January!

Okay so like most people I have massively over indulged this Christmas. Yet I feel that I have had more reason than normal this year to eat and drink in excess. My birthday falls on the 24^th December. Yes, that’s right Christmas Eve, and I’ve long since gotten over the fact that whenever I have to give my date of birth the first thing that gets said to me straight after is; “do you know your birthday’s on Christmas eve?” (If that’s what you were thinking) I also, sadly, tragically, somewhat depressingly, turned 30. This meant that in the lead up to my birthday, and then on my birthday I was drinking and celebrating (and obviously eating) a lot, then you have Christmas, then the leftover period, and before you know it you’re into the New Year festivities.

Anyway, back on point, I like most people have massively over indulged this Christmas. So I, like most people of my age group (please no one comment that I have slipped into a different tick box on forms) will be doing dry January from the moment that I am sober on New Year’s day, and I will also be starting some diet of one kind or another. Probably taking the advice from whichever of my friends reckons they know someone who knows someone who lost half their body mass in a month!

More seriously though, the dieting and non drinking aside, it is that time of year when you can reflect on the year gone by or alternatively look forward and plan and hope for the year ahead.

What will be the great resolutions of 2013? For President Obama, well surely he has the greatest resolution to make? Can he forge a path in America’s history where gun control can finally be brought under some element of I don’t know, let’s say, control? Where the right to bear arms which was arguably never intended by the founding fathers to allow anyone and everyone outside of the militia the right to buy guns, machine guns, and rifles and shoot up innocent people can be amended?

The founding fathers had a common enemy when they wrote the Second Amendment. It was an occupying force. The enemy was not small primary school children. It was not any children. It was not any innocent man, woman, or child for that matter. As an Englishwoman I have no qualms in writing this (also it’s historically accurate), it was us. We did it! We were the enemy. We were being greedy and colonial, but times have changed and the right to bear arms is surely passed. Although that said, I don’t think anyone has a problem with farmers, hunters, or the army having guns. Surely as always, gun control as with most political wrangling it’s a matter of degrees.

What I do think would be terrifying to see in 2013 would be the whole of America armed in a response to the government’s failure to deal with gun control. Yet this seems to be an approach favoured by the head of the NRA Wayne LaPierre when he was speaking in his response to the recent shootings in Newport. Instead of showing any kind of humility in the face of tragedy, his response was to become like a parody of a Hollywood blockbuster, he said what you could be forgiven for thinking was the kind of thing Al Capone might once have said (granted if you swap around where good guy and bad guy are in the sentence); "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." No Wayne LaPierre, no! All this does is arm people and raise the probability of more innocent people getting caught up in the cross fire!

Turning away from what could be the greatest resolution of 2013, I want to look at what could be great resolutions for us all to try and keep and these are based on the findings of a nurse who has spent her career in palliative care looking after the elderly. She found that the elderly and dying had very similar regrets, and here are the top five;

1.     I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

2.     I wish I hadn't worked so hard.

3.     I wish I'd had the courage to express my feelings.

4.     I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.

5.     I wish that I had let myself be happier.

I want to say that going in to 2013 I will make each of these a personal resolution. Yet sadly I know that this is a rather flippant thing to write, I also know that I’m already breaking 3 and 4 as I write. 4 in so far as I’ve just silenced a call from a friend so that I can finish writing this blog, and 3 because sadly I’m quintessentially English (and I don’t mean that in a good way). Yet I can honestly say in the couple of days between Christmas and New Year, I absolutely excelled at 2!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

Surely, some people are just too stupid to run for government?

I am of course directing my blog this week at the Missouri Representative for Senate Todd Aiken. If you don’t know who this guy is, he is the Republican who this week raised two highly contentious issues that one can only guess Mitt Romney didn’t want to have bought up with only a few months to go before the November 6 2012 elections. On top of this he also did this whilst setting his statements against the most ludicrous and ill-founded science known to man.

Sometimes, I find it hard to believe that so many in the land of the free are opposed to abortion. To me a women’s right to choose is a fundamental freedom, and so I often find myself bemused by the controversy that this causes in the States.

This blog however is not about the prolife argument. I am not a politician, nor do I wish to be one. I am also not an American. This blog is about the absurdity of Todd Aiken, and his comments, and about how he can possibly be taken seriously as a Representative for Senate following on from what he’s said.

I like to think that the PM and MPs in this country are relatively intelligent, after all they have important decisions to make – you know, like what to spend their expenses on! Similarly I like to think that Congressmen and Senators in the US are intelligent, again they have important roles to fill – I’ve watched the West Wing, and also that debt ceiling isn’t getting any lower.

So you’d think, that when voting in a Representative for Senate or Congress the State doing the voting will want to choose a candidate that they feel will surely not only represent them well but who can also do the job. I’m not persuaded that I’d vote for a man who clearly has no idea how basic biology works, in fact I might want to see a transcript from his high school days. Did he even go to high school, and if so did take biology?

Todd Aiken said – with a certainty that despite his back pedalling has made it hard to retract from; that a woman’s body would shut down and prevent a pregnancy from happening in the case of a legitimate rape. Now aside from all the certified doctors, pharmacists, health practitioners, nurses, biology teachers, and anyone with common sense in every country around the world suddenly and collectively saying “huh!” You also heard the same thing from voodoo doctors, witch doctors, and the whole cast of the TV series Doctors!

I honestly didn’t still think that it was possible that people still thought this kind of thing, much less said it out loud. Yet for some of prominence to say it, for someone seeking a position of responsibility and leadership to say it, well I was astounded and incensed. Not only was what he said biological balderdash, but I can only assume that it was also unimaginably hurtful to any woman that has found herself pregnant as a result of the horrific ordeal of rape

Let’s not forget though, Todd Aiken made another faux par. He also used the word legitimate when determining when a women’s body would shut down or not during the course of a rape.

I’m just thinking about our judicial system now, and I can’t help thinking that the courts have been a bit slow over the years. In fact what have they been doing? Why have they been trying to struggle with evidence, and all the difficulties of he said she said. Judges and Lawyers have obviously never realised that Mother Nature, has already resolved this highly contentious issue for them. Who needs CSI? All you need to know according to Aiken is; is the rape victim pregnant?

I shouldn’t be flippant about this in all seriousness though, because what Todd Aiken has said is detrimental to all the work that prosecutors, counsellors working with victims of rape, and anyone who works with victims of rape going to court, do on an everyday basis to put the people who commit this atrocity behind bars. Yet I have read that apparently that Representative Aiken is in meltdown. I wonder if that’s the body’s natural response for when the mouth has made a legitimately stupid comment.

The title of my blog was; surely, some people are just too stupid to run for government? I don’t know the man, and I honestly wouldn’t wish to, but there is a chance that he isn’t stupid at all. It’s possible that he is instead simply ignorant, but regardless. Stupid or ignorant, I feel it matters none. To my mind, neither of these seem like the qualities that you’d want to vote for if you were selecting a representative for Senate for your State. 

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

It’s a good job Accurist weren’t the sponsors of the closing ceremony!

Now according to my television planner, last night’s closing ceremony was supposed to be done and dusted by 11.30pm. Yet at 12.10am the fireworks hadn’t even started – oops!

I have to say by 11.30 I’d honestly had enough, but I’d felt that I’d already invested two and half hours of my life so I was adamant that I was going to see it through. I also did really want to see Take That, and I was eventually disappointed that they only did one song. Although possibly for the best – was Jason Orange feeling okay? He seemed to acting very odd and not in line with what the other three were doing. Or maybe he was just doing a little bit of show boating, a quip there for anyone who was tuned into channel four for the evening and was watching the Wedding Crashers!

Okay, so the closing ceremony. This morning I’m trying to be objective. I’ve had the night to sleep on it and this morning I’m trying to evaluate it fairly.

Overall I think it was fun, a little weird in places, too long, and once again quintessentially British. Although I was absolutely dumbfounded when McCartney wasn’t rolled out at the end, isn’t that what we do? Perhaps not, perhaps Queen were wrong and the show can’t always go! At some point it does have to come to an end, and perhaps Seb Coe was worried that if the closing ceremony went on any longer Boris Johnson would pull the plug siting the boroughs noise restriction hours.

A couple of my favourite parts of the closing ceremony came from two of our musical best who are no longer with us; the great John Lennon and the brilliant Freddy Mercury. How awesome (please when you read the word awesome can you imagine David Hasselhoff – aka the Hoff, on America’s Got Talent saying awesome, as American’s just say it so much better than us Brits,) was it when the audience participated with the recordings of Freddy Mercury?

I personally thought it was amazing! Actually, I thought it was even better than that. The man was truly something else and is a legend. Brian May and Roger Taylor were also pretty cool, but I don’t think they needed Jesse J. We will Rock You is so iconic that I thought she brought nothing to the stage, apart from in my opinion a huge fashion faux par.

I thought that The Who did well closing out the closing ceremony, but I can’t help feeling the McCartney will be feeling disgruntled about that! I thought that the Spice Girls were okay, although I feared a little for their safety when their taxi’s started belting them around the stadium. I mean come on fellas, these ladies are now in their late thirties early forties and most of them are mums! Yet credit where it’s due, I thought Victoria Beckham looked very good. As for that matter did Kate Moss. In fact Kate Moss has now looked that good since, well, actually pretty much since I can remember and I’m starting to find that annoying in a ‘does she have special genes’ kind of way?

What else? Oh, the Pet Shop Boys! That part of the evening mixed in with Madness’s performance made me feel like that moment when you wake up and you can hear your alarm going off but you can’t quite place where you are! That goes in my ‘a little weird in places’ category, as does Annie Lennox’s performance, but I doubt that will surprise many people reading this. One Direction made me want to vomit. They are just so sickly sweet it actually hurts my teeth, but in fairness I suppose that might be how my age group felt when Take That were big the first time around!

George Michael, Fat Boy Slim, Eric Idle, and Russell Brand I’m putting into quintessentially British, with a slight cross over into a little weird. Ray Davies though, I’m not sure what to say. I love the Kinks, but I think his day as lead vocalist may have come and gone.

So that’s it on my summary and opinion of the closing ceremony. It was not all bad, but not all good. I’m so British! And on that I’ll just quickly add that at least it didn’t rain, but it is awfully close today that I think we could do with a shower.

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

Who knew that that mascot and muse for the British opening ceremony was Jimmy Saville!

Madames et Messiuers, bienvenue ...... No hold on a second, aren’t the 2012 Olympics in London?

Okay, so last night the greatest show on earth – we’re told (but hold on I can now feel all London commuters rolling their eyes at me), arrived in London last night. At 9pm – past the watershed (I wasn’t sure whether to expect nudity or bad language!) the opening ceremony began and the 2012 Olympics commenced.

I thought that overall the ceremony went well. Was it on the same scale and spectacle as Beijing four years ago? Well no, I can’t say that in my opinion that I thought it was. Was it uniquely British? Well let me see, it had Bond, Bean, and as always we rolled out the McCartney to bash out some Beatle classics. So with the three B’s present, and the Queen and the royals in attendance; yes – you’d have to say that it was as British as we’ve come to expect – especially following the recent Jubilee!

However I have to say that as much as I loved the Bond and Bean segments of the opening ceremony, I did feel that there were certain things missing. Now I know that this may be slightly controversial given that the comments on twitter and facebook seem to be glowing with how brilliant the opening ceremony was – but why did Danny Boyle decide to start our history with the rise of the industrial revolution?

I appreciate that we’re hosting the Olympics as the United Kingdom, but I sort of felt that a good 1600, 1700 years of our history – and by our I don’t just mean England, was written off, forgotten, ignored, swept under the carpet – you get my gist! I don’t feel any homage was paid to the history or cultures of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, or yes England. However, everyone with origins in pastures, the black country, or miner towns must feel well represented.

I reckon that if we made everyone play a game of family fortunes – with the question being; name one thing most commonly associated with the United Kingdom? Surely, the top the answer would be the Queen? No, is this just me? Yet Danny Boyle made no reference to our history of Kings and Queens. No worries though, as Bevan sleeps soundly as Boyle chose to celebrate the NHS for a good ten minutes!

Again, back to family fortunes you’d hope that someone would also answer Shakespeare – no? I’d like to feel that that’s when you’d hear waharah waharah (where the contestant also wins a mystery prize – probably a trip to Stratford upon Avon in keeping with their answer you’d guess) but was any reference made to our literary greats? No. Boyle made no reference to the phenomenal literary history that we have. Although he did celebrate Lord Voldemort, and anyone watching at home will have heard the BBC commentators say JK Rowling was the greatest writer to come out of the UK ever!

This comment however, sort of seems reflective of the whole opening ceremony. Boyle seemed to concentrate only on the new, or not very old. The music focused on the past sixty plus years, we celebrated the inventor of the world wide web, and the medium of social networking. But our history, our long and industrious history, was ignored.

I feel that with a country as old as ours, we should have celebrated a whole lot more. If we’re looking at music why couldn’t we have included bagpipes, to be representative of Scottish heritage? We are the United Kingdom, and I kind of thought that the opening ceremony would have reflected the heritage of the whole of the United Kingdom. I wonder how heavily involved the political correctness police were, and how high the rug stands – where they managed to sweep the 1700 years of our history!

Finally as you might have guessed from my opening line, I was a bit confused as to why all the announcements and introductions were being given in French before English. I can only assume that this is because the Olympic Committee and Chairman of the Olympic Committee or Committee Olympic is French. But still – if we’re paying to host the event and we’re hosting the event, they could at least let us have the announcements in English first!

As I sit on the train writing this blog, in a carriage filled with passengers here for the Olympics, I know that I should be feeling happy that we’ve got this amazing event. Yet sat listening to two American tourists talking about how there is nothing to see in the UK – makes me want to scream at them and send them back home with Mitt Romney. Yet, what can I expect? According to Boyle all we once had was pastures and then industrial cities! Don’t worry about Snowdonia, Stone Henge, Edinburgh Castle and the Giant’s causeway, to name but a few of the wonderful spectacles that can be visited!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk