April 1 2007

No April Fool Here - DonInLondon ‘A Day In The Life’

Having made a video earlier these words reflect an extra outing to AA and friends and coffee this evening. So in all, three AA meetings today.

Why? Because I have friends at all three meetings and its great to see them all. Maybe I am replacing my alcohol addiction with a friends addiction? Great!

So how am I feeling tonight? With the benefit of little sleep last night and doing a "chair" share and seeing everyone I had hoped, its been a busy day. And quite knackered I am. Still its been good I have lived and experienced the twelve steps of AA all day. Which means I have been out and been in good sober company, had a laugh and shared ways to help a fellow. I have remained equal sized to everyone and felt their friendship.

Listening to others stories of life is just fascinating and better than any TV. And very helpful in my recovery. People and socialising and being part of a community. All those things which seemed to have been lost in the chaos of the last century!

I have also made the video reflect the concerns expressed to me via you tube and emails on the relative efficacy of recovery and how one may approach it. With listening and processing and understanding what might work for someone coming into a fellowship. And not as well because AA is not the only way to be sober.

Recovery versus Recovered

In my life these days I have two Doctors, one says I am recovered from my addiction, the other suggest I am in recovery. Which one is right is for me to consider.

Indeed if I am recovered from my addiction can I drink again? In my humble opinion of my situation, not bloody likely! Although one Doctor suggests I can, the other is vehement I may not safely drink ever again.
Now which theory is best to live with or test?

Recovering is Best for me…

I do believe recovering is the best of me today. To try out and experiment with alcohol, a legal drug I used for oblivion, well the answer is in how I used alcohol, and not maybe how you the reader might use alcohol.

Why even debate this question when I happier not drinking, that my experiments in controlled oblivion just yield the same old scenario. Drunk and addicted as per usual I would surmise.

Researching alcohol use is not the key to my living today. And my sensibility tells me quite obviously the difference with a drink in me I less able than no drink in me. Or why do we limit drinking and driving?

So if I treat life like I am driving and responsible and accountable for my actions, drinking will end in consequences most likely undesirable and ill conceived.

So tonight I am happy with my sober lot. No need tomorrow debate my road, simply one day at a time.

Tonight

I feel ok, not concerned what may happen next, having done pretty much the right thing all day.

On the big issues in the world, well I have not seen the news and guess it will be the usual dreadful and never ending combative posturing of wise men who do know better? Maybe they don’t.

My world be it ever so small and local is quiet tonight and so am I. there are birthday wishes to a friend, thanks to lots of friends for being there for me today as I am for them, and an earlier night and sleep. Of course this depends on London Underground and essential Tube line maintenance, I hope they have a night off and me too from the usual racket.. Time will tell

Acceptance

"And acceptance is the answer to all my problems today. When I am disturbed, it is because I find some person, place, thing or situation -- some fact of my life -- unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until I accept that person, place, thing or situation as being exactly the way it is supposed to be at this moment.
Nothing, absolutely nothing happens in our world by mistake. Until I could accept my humanity, I could not be complete in living; unless I accept life completely on life's terms, I cannot be happy. I need to concentrate not so much on what needs to be changed in the world as on what needs to be changed in me and in my attitudes."

adapted by DonInLondon

More DonInLondon "A Day In The Life"

---

BBC OnLine News April 1 2007

Iran leader attacks 'arrogant' UK April 1 2004

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has condemned the UK as "arrogant and selfish" for refusing to apologise for the Royal Navy captives crisis.

He insisted that "British occupier forces" trespassed into Iranian waters and that his country's border guards had displayed "skill and bravery".

Meanwhile, Iranian diplomat Gholamreza Ansari said "legal process" had begun against the 15 British personnel.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Mr Ansari's comments were "unhelpful".

'Occupier forces'

Mr Ahmadinejad attacked Britain for failing to apologise.

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery," he said in a speech in the city of Andinmeshk.

"But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise.

"After the arrest of these people, the British government, instead of apologising and expressing regret over the action taken, started to claim that we are in their debt and shouted in different international councils.

"But this is not the legal and logical way for this issue."

BBC OnLine Full Story

BBC OnLine News April 1 2007

Bush attacks Iran over captives April 1 2007

President George W Bush has condemned Iran's "inexcusable behaviour" after its capture of 15 Royal Navy personnel.

The US leader added that he would "strongly support" the British government over the crisis.

However, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has attacked the UK as "arrogant and selfish".

He insisted that "British occupier forces" trespassed into Iranian waters and that his country's border guards had displayed "skill and bravery".

'Inexcusable behaviour'

Speaking at his mountain retreat in Camp David, Maryland, Mr Bush told reporters: "The British hostages issue is a serious issue because the Iranians took these people out of Iraqi water.

BBC OnLine Full Story

Guardian Unlimited OnLine April 1 2007

George Bush denounces capture and calls for hostages to be freed April 1 2007

Iran snubs UK olive branch

Ned Temko, Mark Townsend and Jason Burke

The Observer

President George Bush last night called for the release of the 15 British sailors and Royal Marines being held by Iran, denouncing their capture as 'inexcusable behaviour'.
Commenting for the first time on the issue, Bush told a press conference at Camp David: 'Iran must give back the hostages. They're innocent, they did nothing wrong.' He also declared support for Tony Blair's efforts to find a diplomatic resolution.

However, he would not discuss options for what might be done if Iran does not comply and he rejected any possibility of swapping the British captives for Iranians detained in Iraq. His remarks came after Britain offered a diplomatic olive branch to Iran earlier in the day to try to secure an early release of the prisoners. Hopes were dashed, however, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced London's handling of the ongoing crisis.

Read The Guardian OnLine

Times OnLine April 1 2007

BAE hired actresses for Saudis £60m slush fund used to woo prince April 1 2007

David Leppard

A SECRET slush fund set up by BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest defence contractor, was used to pay tens of thousands of pounds to two British actresses while they befriended a senior Saudi prince and his entourage.

Confidential documents seen by The Sunday Times reveal that money from the £60m fund went on the mortgages and rent, credit card bills and council tax of Anouska Bolton-Lee and Karajan Mallinder. It even paid for language lessons.

BAE channelled the cash through a London travel company which financed “accommodation services and support” for Prince Turki bin Nasser and other Saudi figures responsible for the desert kingdom’s involvement in the £40 billion Al Yamamah arms deal.

The revelations are bound to reignite controversy over the deal, which sparked a bribery inquiry by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). Documents giving details of the payments were handed to SFO staff.

Read The Times OnLine

Independent OnLine 'Indy' News April 1 2007

IVF Exclusive: Donor eggs to be rationed April 1 2007

New restrictions will leave thousands childless

By Sophie Goodchild, Ian Griggs and Jonathan Owen

Women unable to conceive naturally will be limited to a single egg transplant under new "rationing" plans for fertility treatment.

Thousands of women may be denied the chance of having a baby because of the moves to limit to one the number of embryos implanted. The UK's fertility watchdog, the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (HFEA), will this week call on clinics to allow women to have only a single egg fertilised and implanted in the womb, instead of the two at present.

The watchdog claims this will limit risky multiple births following a huge rise in the number of twins born because of women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment. Twin births have nearly doubled over more than three decades, from 6,000 in 1975 to 10,000 today.

The HFEA warns that multiple pregnancies can cause health problems in mothers such as fatal haemorrhaging during birth and cerebral palsy in the babies they are carrying. They also say that the high incidence of premature births among IVF twins is having a major impact on the already limited resources of special-care baby units.

However, campaigners last night attacked the HFEA's proposals, which apply to women under the age of 40, saying single embryo transfer could diminish thousands of couples' chances of becoming parents.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) issued guidelines in 2004 recommending that women should be allowed up to three cycles of IVF treatment on the NHS. In practice, this has never been achieved and few hospital trusts actually offer women this opportunity, largely because of the cost.

Professor Ian Craft, one of the pioneers of IVF in Britain, said he would back single embryo transfer in women who had a good chance of getting pregnant in the first place through IVF, but warned that a strict policy was not appropriate for everyone. "What I'm against is rigid rules made by policy makers that fit everybody, because some women will lose out," he said. "The whole concept of having a fixed treatment is going to disadvantage some women, whether we like it or not. I feel very sorry for women because they become part of a system where they cannot control their own destiny."

Read The Independent OnLine

---

Steve Bell & Martin Rowson Cartoons Guardian Unlimited


Independent Indy News & Comment
Don Oddy - DonInLondon
DonInLondon Not for Profit Site