BBC SPORT | Football | My Club | Cardiff City | Ridsdale to fulfil Hammam ‘dream’

New Cardiff chairman Peter Ridsdale has promised to fulfil Sam Hammam's "dream" of building a new stadium for the club and leading them into the Premiership.

Ridsdale praised Hammam for his "sacrifice" to step aside as chairman so that new investors could come in.

Hammam said relinquishing control of Cardiff "shattered" him, but accepted it was in the club's best interest.

"Sam knew that this club needed new investment to take it forward," Ridsdale told the club's website.

"This is a massive club with even more potential. By stepping aside now, he has given us a chance to achieve everything that has been dreamt about."

Former Leeds United chairman Ridsdale has refused to reveal the identity of the new investors willing to manage Cardiff's £24m debt in exchange for equity in the club.

He says they are "two or three" London-based financial institutions who specialise in hedge funds – a process using high-risk techniques in an effort to make extraordinary capital gains.

The deal is being brokered by former Football League chairman Keith Harris, now head of investment bank Seymour Pierce.

Harris is also advising the Icelandic businessman hoping to buy West Ham United.

Ridsdale said: "We will end up within 12 months being debt-free business and having a new stadium.

"Sam has taken his shareholding down from 82.5% to not a lot and people who are putting the money in wanted to see a change of management before their investment.

"They become the majority shareholders."

Hammam bought control of Cardiff back in 2000 when the Bluebirds were languishing in the bottom division of English football.

His investment and vision has transformed them into a club currently leading the chase for Premiership status.

But the next crucial step was building a new stadium and retail park which would ensure the club's financial stability for years to come.

The £35m project has been dogged by years delays as Cardiff have been unable to give assurance to Cardiff council they were able to cover the cost.

Hammam has resolutely stood up to the critics who questioned his ability to finance the project, but the Lebanese businessman has now admitted he has been punching above his weight.

"I am a man with strong financial clout but nevertheless nowhere near what is needed for the club to go forward," he said in a statement on the Cardiff website.

"Very simply, this club in common with many big clubs, proved to be far too big for one individual to handle – unless of course you are an Abramovich or a Glazier.

"I am not that and in effect I pumped up the club prospects to such a level that it became too big and powerful for me to handle. The club has outgrown me!"

Ridsdale was recruited by Hammam 18 months ago to help him drive through the new stadium project.

The appointment raised many eyebrows as Ridsdale's reign as Leeds United chairman ended in 2003 with the club £103m in debt.

But Ridsdale is now likely to be credited with being the man who finally delivered Cardiff with a new 30,000-seater stadium, although he is keen to stress the significance of Hammam's contribution.

He said: "Whatever happens, Sam will be ever remembered as the man who created the new Cardiff City.

"The 'dream' was his and when achieved will be remembered as his. Sam is an 'all or nothing man' and with new investors it was not possible for him to remain. He therefore agreed to this personal sacrifice."

Ridsdale added: "Sam gave me the opportunity to get back into football and restore a reputation that had more recently taken a severe knock.

"I will never forget that. I am also now acutely aware of the tremendous responsibility that I now inherit."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Understanding the climate ostrich

Why do people find it hard to accept the increasingly firm messages that climate change is a real and significant threat to livelihoods? Here, a sociologist unravels some of the issues that may lie behind climate scepticism.

I spent a year doing interviews and ethnographic fieldwork in a rural Norwegian community recently.

In winter, the signs of climate change were everywhere – glaringly apparent in an unfrozen lake, the first ever use of artificial snow at the ski area, and thousands of dollars in lost tourist revenues.

Yet as a political issue, global warming was invisible.

The people I spoke with expressed feelings of deep concern and caring, and a significant degree of ambivalence about the issue of global warming.

This was a paradox. How could the possibility of climate change be both deeply disturbing and almost completely invisible – simultaneously unimaginable and common knowledge?

Self-protection

People told me many reasons why it was difficult to think about this issue. In the words of one man, who held his hands in front of his eyes as he spoke, "people want to protect themselves a bit."

Community members described fears about the severity of the situation, of not knowing what to do, fears that their way of life was in question, and concern that the government would not adequately handle the problem.

They described feelings of guilt for their own actions, and the difficulty of discussing the issue of climate change with their children.

In some sense, not wanting to know was connected to not knowing how to know. Talking about global warming went against conversation norms.

It wasn't a topic that people were able to speak about with ease – rather, overall it was an area of confusion and uncertainty. Yet feeling this confusion and uncertainty went against emotional norms of toughness and maintaining control.

Other community members described this sense of knowing and not knowing, of having information but not thinking about it in their everyday lives.

As one young woman told me: "In the everyday I don't think so much about it, but I know that environmental protection is very important."

Security risk

The majority of us are now familiar with the basics of climate change.

Worst case scenarios threaten the very basics of our social, political and economic infrastructure.

Yet there has been less response to this environmental problem than any other. Here in the US it seems that only now are we beginning to take it seriously.

How can this be? Why have so few of us engaged in any of the range of possible actions from reducing our airline travel, pressurising our governments and industries to cut emissions, or even talking about it with our family and friends in more than a passing manner?

Indeed, why would we want to know this information?

Why would we want to believe that scenarios of melting Arctic ice and spreading diseases that appear to spell ecological and social demise are in store for us; or even worse, that we see such effects already?

Information about climate change is deeply disturbing. It threatens our sense of individual identity and our trust in our government's ability to respond.

At the deepest level, large scale environmental problems such as global warming threaten people's sense of the continuity of life – what sociologist Anthony Giddens calls ontological security.

Thinking about global warming is also difficult for those of us in the developed world because it raises feelings of guilt. We are now aware of how driving automobiles and flying to exotic warm vacations contributes to the problem, and we feel guilty about it.

Tactful denial

If being aware of climate change is an uncomfortable condition which people are motivated to avoid, what happens next?

After all, ignoring the obvious can take a lot of work.

In the Norwegian community where I worked, collectively holding information about global warming at arm's length took place by participating in cultural norms of attention, emotion, and conversation, and by using a series of cultural narratives to deflect disturbing information and normalise a particular version of reality in which "everything is fine."

When what a person feels is different from what they want to feel, or are supposed to feel, they usually engage in what sociologists call emotional management.

We have a whole repertoire of techniques or "tools" for ignoring this and other disturbing problems.

As sociologist Evitiar Zerubavel makes clear in his work on the social organisation of denial and secrecy, the means by which we manage to ignore the disturbing realities in front of us are also collectively shaped.

How we cope, how we respond, or how we fail to respond are social as well.

Social rules of focusing our attention include rules of etiquette that involve tact-related ethical obligations to "look the other way" and ignore things we most likely would have noticed about others around us.

Indeed, in many cases, merely following our cultural norms of acceptable conversation and emotional expression serves to keep our attention safely away from that pesky topic of climate change.

Emotions of fear and helplessness can be managed through the use of selective attention; controlling one's exposure to information, not thinking too far into the future and focusing on something that could be done.

Selective attention can be used to decide what to think about or not to think about, for example screening out painful information about problems for which one does not have solutions: "I don't really know what to do, so I just don't think about that".

The most effective way of managing unpleasant emotions such as fear about your children seems to be by turning our attention to something else, or by focusing attention onto something positive.

Hoodwinking ourselves?

Until recently, the dominant explanation within my field of environmental sociology for why people failed to confront climate change was that they were too poorly informed.

Others pose that Americans are simply too greedy or too individualistic, or suffer from incorrect mental models.

Psychologists have described "faulty" decision-making powers such as "confirmation bias", and argue that with more appropriate analogies we will be able to manage the information and respond.

Political economists, on the other hand, tell us that we've been hoodwinked by increased corporate control of media that limits and moulds available information about global warming.

These are clearly important answers.

Yet the fact that nobody wants information about climate change to be true is a critical piece of the puzzle that also happens to fit perfectly with the agenda of those who have tried to generate climate scepticism.

Dr Kari Marie Norgaard is a sociologist at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington state, US

Lone parents face more interviews

Unemployed single parents will now have to take part in quarterly job interviews or face 20% of their benefits being stopped.

The government said the plan is to help lone parents in England and Wales with children under 14 get back to work.

Up until now job interviews have been held only twice a year.

Employment minister Margaret Hodge said giving lone parents "the opportunity to talk through all their problems in work focused interviews is very effective".

'Circumstances change'

If they do not turn up to interview, they face a 20% reduction in the payment of their £56 of their income benefits.

Ms Hodge said: "People's circumstances change over time and it is important that we continue to see them on a regular basis to tell them about improvements in the package of help that is on offer."

The government has said there are now a record number of single parents in work. It said over 56% of single parents were now working, an increase of 11% since Labour's 1997 election win.

Last year the government said tax credits designed to help lone mothers return to work have had a "dramatic impact" on employment levels, according to an academic study.

The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) rewards people who take low-paid or part-time work with extra cash.

Architect of a modernist dream

Imagine an era without makeover shows on television, or glossy magazines to peruse at home. When architecture was something the ordinary person didn't dabble in, and a house was simply four walls and a roof to keep the rain out.

Then along came Basil Spence, a flamboyant, enthusiastic designer – who wanted to know what the public thought about his buildings, even if it wasn't always positive.

Born in India in 1907, he arrived in Edinburgh as a schoolboy and later studied at Edinburgh College of Art.

He had a practice in Edinburgh, and raised his family there – which is why they decided after his death to leave his entire archive to the city.

It has taken 11 curators at the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland several years to catalogue the collection, and select the exhibition currently on display at the Dean Gallery in Edinburgh.

There's a whole room devoted to his break-through project – Coventry Cathedral.

The building, desecrated by German bombs, became a potent symbol of a Britain rebuilding itself post-war.

Modernist lines

Spence's proposal – one of more than 200 – was the only one to fully incorporate the ruins of the old cathedral into the new building.

But it was controversial.

To traditionalists, its simple modernist lines rising in grey concrete above the ruins, were an outrage.

But it won the competition in 1951, and in time, a string of plaudits.

As well as a detailed model of the building, the exhibition includes a section of the original roof, and designs by the artist Graham Sutherland for the massive tapestry which hangs above the cathedral's altar.

Of course, modernist design wasn't everyone's cup of tea – and as its most high profile proponent, Sir Basil Spence had his fair share of critics.

But that didn't stop him appearing on television and radio, and at public events, defending modernist architecture.

To him, it was simply an extension of the European trend for clean, simple lines using the new practical materials available post war.

When he designed the Hutchesontown C high-rise in the Gorbals area of Glasgow in the 1960s, he envisaged open, airy apartments in the sky.

His sketches – included in the exhibition – show spacious verandahs, and European style piazzas.

For many people, they were a happy contrast to the cramped tenements they'd lived in before.

For others, they were cold, grey rooms, isolating them further from the communities they'd left behind.

Some argued the construction was to blame, others the council for failing to maintain them.

Fresh perspective

Whatever the reason, Spence's dream flats had become a derelict concrete jungle by 1993 when, with local consensus, they were torn down.

As the tide turned against modernism, the public turned against Spence. Increasingly his public appearances saw him under fire from angry consumers.

His final project – the new Home Office building in London – was hardly his most successful, dogged by red tape and public criticism.

He died in 1976, just months short of his 70th birthday.

But his family – who gifted the entire archive to Scotland – hope history will be kinder to Sir Basil Spence.

And that the new exhibition will offer a fresh perspective on the architect's process.

Globalisation forum mulls NYC’s future

Thursday, 31 January, 2002, 21:35 GMT Globalisation forum mulls NYC's future
Political and business leaders focus on New York

A year ago, world and business leaders gathered in Davos, Switzerland, focused their concern on a technology-stock meltdown that threatened to harm economies around the globe.

A scant year later, attendees to the World Economic Forum (WEF), now underway in New York, are trying to answer questions of far greater magnitude.

Indeed, the change of venue itself was the source of much discussion as those attending mused over the novelty of being in the bright lights of New York and not the small village of Davos.

Beyond the change of location, the 3,000 attendees to the annual meeting debated the significance of the 11 September terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, leaving some to wonder if they were a series of tremors or one big earthquake.

Rudy speaks

Early in the day, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani told reporters the city had been greatly affected by the attacks of 11 September, which felled the twin towers of the World Trade Center, killing about 3,000 people.

"[But] not in the way most people think," he said, adding the city had been strengthened by the attacks even as New York and its people are still recovering.

There is an economic benefit implicit in the rebuilding process, Mr Giuliani said, "[that] gives the people of this city great strength".

"New York is more legendary than ever before," the former mayor said, choosing his words carefully.

Business leaders chime in

At about noon New York business leaders gathered at the elegant Palace Hotel, a few blocks West of the Waldorf-Astoria hotel where attendees to the WEF have gathered.

Over a lunch of lemon chicken and pasta, chief executives of several New York-based businesses sought to answer questions about the future vitality of New York.

The question is a valid one given recent announcements by investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter to move outside Manhattan to Jersey City and suburban Westchester County, respectively.

Moves such as these leave many in the business community worried over whether New York will be able to lease available office space in the downtown business district, which includes the 16-acre World Trade Center complex.

Re-employing workers

One of those more hopeful than worried is Henry McKinnell, chief executive at Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company that has been based in New York for 153 years.

He said he hopes the redevelopment of the World Trade Center complex will include a structure – not necessarily a building – that will exceed the height of the twin towers.

"We have a determination that America will become stronger than before," Mr McKinnell said.

Local tourism officials are grateful to have the business the WEF generates.

Hotels, restaurants and retail stores have been hurt in significant ways by the terrorist attacks, as Americans and overseas tourists postponed travel plans.

Tourism is a $25bn (£17.7bn) business that employs 300,000 people, mostly through smaller businesses in New York.

The WEF is "leading by example", said Tim Zagat, chairman NYC & Co, "by re-employing some of the 40,000 workers displaced by 11 September".

Internet links:

WEF
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Top Business stories now:

Hacker breaches credit card security
Job losses escalate at Reuters
New SEC chief pledges tough line
Oil prices push higher
Rwanda denies DRC plundering
Overseas sales drive Wal-Mart
Congo's finance minister resigns
Blair keeps euro options open
Links to more Business stories are at the foot of the page.

Bhopal: Could it happen again?

On 3 December, 1984 the world's worst industrial accident happened when toxic gas leaked from a chemical plant over the densely populated Indian city of Bhopal.

Many thousands were killed and the death toll continues to rise with at least 15,000 dead. And 20 years on, tens of thousands still suffer serious symptoms from contact with the gas.

After the accident Union Carbide accepted "moral responsibility" for the disaster but even today arguments continue about contamination of the local environment and water supply.

Has the world turned its back on the victims of Bhopal? And could an industrial disaster on this scale happen again?

Thank you for your comments. This page is now closed.

Click here to Have Your Say on the Bhopal disaster

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received:

Thank you for facilitating watching the BBC programme, One Night in Bhopal, in Hindi. This allowed the elders of Indian origin to get the proper understanding of the disaster. We went to Bhopal three years ago but the atmosphere in the city was depressing. The government owned hotels for the reasonable people were in a disgusting state. The infra structure was the worst I have come across in my 60 year life.
Suresh Chandarana, UK

This is just another example of how a greed-driven Western corporation walks into a Third World nation exploiting its riches and endangering the lives of its civilians. Sadly, many governments are corporate driven, therefore we will never see true justice.
Ned Jones, East Anglia

I remember I was nine years old in India when this tragedy happened and, like many other failures of a socialist government in India over decades, this was also brushed under the carpet for obvious reasons. I welcome efforts from Amnesty and other organisations to bring light to this issue 20 years on, but, like many Indians who have lived through the period, feel this is too little too late and appears more like gimmick than real effort.

When world media failed to cover this story at the time of the tragedy, efforts to weave stories out of hearsay and speculation 20 years on appears only opportunistic and a sad attempt to glorify a tragedy.

Let us look at realities today. I don't think 20 years on that the people of Bhopal have a legal recourse to compensation and equitable relief purely because the remaining shreds of evidence itself are so tainted that neither in India nor in the US stand a chance in a court of law to indict any individual or corporation.

The only alternative route is to apply moral pressure on the US and the Indian Government to ensure that some form of a tangible compromise is reached with residents of this city. In the end, the US Government owes no obligation to Indian citizens but the Indian Government does.
Prabhat Misra, UK

When one considers the ease that "victims" of minor motoring accidents etc, collect a few thousand pounds for so-called "injuries" in the UK/US, from the large "institutions" of course. I cannot understand why, when truly deserving recipients of compensation, a la the Bhopal disaster received £300 or so. Despite the suffering being real and of considerable significance, loved ones dead and so on. Perhaps we still haven't learnt that humans are all equal – India/UK/US wherever. So come on Union Carbide and your "big boy" insurers, pay up! .
John Fergus, Burnley

If Bhopal were a major financial contributor to the world, I'm sure nothing would be spared in helping the victims of this terrible accident. Unfortunately the country's poor economy means its people are left to suffer and die. This is the rotten fruit of industrial capitalism.
Rich, UK

Can anyone point out why the CEO of Enron is standing a court trial in USA. A trial for what happens to be a financial collapse, and why the then CEO of Union Carbide does not stand trial for the Bhopal gas tragedy, even though thousands of people were killed? A humanity catastrophe. Is it because it happened in India?
Dipal Thakker, London, UK

Just watching your programme on Bhopal on BBC One. Whatever mythical entities we invent to represent evil are no match for what the human race is capable of in its selfishness. This is absolutely heartbreaking.
Andy Walker, UK

I am from Bhopal. My parents and a number of relatives and friends were in Bhopal on the night of the disaster. Some of them also helped evacuate people from the worst affected areas. Some of my friends have suffered the effects of the gas poisoning and continue to be treated for their condition.

The Union Carbide disaster was waiting to happen.

Both the company owners and Indian Government are equally responsible. What is needed today is a regulation that sees to the cleaning up of the factory site and regular medical check ups and treatment of those who were affected by the disaster.

In recent years, after the compensation payments began, the residents of inner city Bhopal are now said to have found "sudden wealth" (as was reported in a local newspaper some time ago) which has increased their "spending power". These payments are minuscule when converted into £s, but we are talking of people whose monthly income has jumped from £10 to £40/£50.

Although a large number of people (as well as street animals) died that night and a number were affected, there had been a migration of rural poor from adjacent villages to occupy the vacant huts to claim the compensation.

I just hope that someone sees to it that compensation is paid to those who need it and does not go to the free-riders.
Vibha Joshi, Oxford

While billions are spent avenging September 11, Bhopal is swept under the carpet. Where is the justice that the US is so proud of?
Yvette, Kuwait

We may not know who was ultimately responsible for the Bhopal disaster, but we know who wasn't, and that is the thousands upon thousands who suffered and are still suffering. It is monumentally callous to suggest otherwise. The governments concerned should pull their finger out and do something responsible for the victims, regardless of who was at fault.
Andrew Marshall, Cambridge

Why have the United States not extradited Warren Anderson, to stand trial in India? Or is it a case that it's one rule for the Americans and another for the rest of the world.
David Holder, Aldershot, Hampshire

I'm no apologist for the chemical industry, but I find it disturbing that you don't mention the results of Union Carbide's investigation that showed serious irregularities in the condition of the plant and the logs after the accident. Isn't one of the working theories that the leak was caused by sabotage?
Paul Zaremba, Chicago

This is proof that big corporations can get away with whatever they want.
Tony, Bristol

A severe chemical accident like Bhopal could easily happen again. A lot of chemical manufacturing operations are being based in low to middle income countries. In these regions there remains a risk that environmental and safety standards are not robust or effectively monitored.

I think the core controls to prevent such accidents and to compensate the Bhopal victims needs political and government initiative. Dow claims it is 'free' of all obligations and responsibility of its subsidiary's actions. I think this urgently needs to be further examined.

The complications of the illnesses suffered by the Bhopal victims continue to emerge and new claims should be given a hearing. The actual costs of the accident needs to be re-evaluated in light of ongoing pollution and health damage.
Milla, UK

First of all I have no attachment to Union Carbide. However it is never pointed out that the people who died, and those who still suffer, lived in an illegal township that sprang up around the plant. The Indian Government knew there was a safety risk and banned such developments as a safety measure, but the law was never enforced.

How different things might have been if houses had been built miles away, instead of right up to the plant perimeter fence. The Indian Government is responsible for that, plus the people who ignored the laws. Simply claiming ignorance is no defence. Everyone knew there was a danger.

But of course people only want to blame Union Carbide for the simple reason they have deep pockets and can be taken to court. Obviously they have a responsibility, but it is shared with others who are also to blame, but this is never mentioned.
Mike Stollov, Seattle, USA

The Government of India and Madhya Pradesh should decontaminate/clean up the Bhopal site, undertake detailed assessment of damage, ensure Dow/ UCC provide full compensation and information and provide adequate safe water/ healthcare, work with survivors' organisations and ensure ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) submits research reports.

The US Government should do everything possible to ensure redress, co-operate with Indian Government. Dow/ UCC should decontaminate Bhopal site, co-operate and make public all information, appear in Bhopal courts and provide full reparation, compensation to victims.

The UN Commission on Human Rights should adopt universally recognised HR standards for business, play a leading role making transnational corporation responsible, and offer unconditional technical assistance for justice to Bhopal victims.
Raj Doctor, National Director – Amnesty International India

Health threat from computer use

Tuesday, 28 January, 2003, 21:48 GMT Health threat from computer use
One way to put your health at risk?
Long haul air travel is not the only activity to pose a risk of developing potentially deadly blood clots – sitting at your computer for too long may also put you at risk.

The European Respiratory Journal reports the case of a young man from New Zealand who nearly died after developing deep vein thrombosis following long periods of physical inactivity in front of his computer.

The man, the first recorded victim of a condition which has been dubbed e-thrombosis, spent up to 18 hours a day using his computer.

He developed a massive blood clot that formed in his leg veins, broke off and travelled to his lungs.

Blitz problem

Although the controversy about long-haul air travel has recently put DVT in the headlines, the condition was first described in people sitting on deckchairs in air raid shelters during the Blitz in London.

Researchers, led by Dr Richard Beasley, of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, warn the widespread use of computers in so many aspects of modern life may put many people at risk of developing DVT.

Dr Beasley said: "It may be similar to the situation with the risk of blood clots with long distance air travel – it was not until there was publicity with individual cases that the real extent of the problem was recognised."

The researchers say anybody who uses a computer for prolonged periods should undertake frequent leg and foot exercises, and take regular breaks away from the screen.

Read a selection of your comments on this subject below.

What is never mentioned is exactly how long you would need to remain still and how still for this to be a risk. I am a very heavy computer user but I find it impossible to keep particularly still as naturally your legs start to hurt if you remain still for prolonged periods not to mention the need to relieve yourself and make drinks.
Alex Atkin

I've spent years in front of the computer with varying physical problems resulting form this during my life. I'm only 24 and already have severe carpal tunnel syndrome which my health insurance won't cover.

I've learned I have to change positions throughout the day. I don't always sit when using the computer. This is a lot of the reason why I purchased a laptop recently. It allows me to get out and still be able to do my work when I get a brain storm. Much much better. Stretching and several hours of yoga a day have helped also.

But I have to say, I'm going to find that tea-time program (see Stu Carter, below) I really want to install that, that would be great. Especially since tea is such a great relaxer and a way to wander around for a few minutes doing something else. (Not to mention, if you drink enough tea, then you'll get those regular breaks to the powder room in addition to the tea breaks…)
Jay, USA

Of course sitting in front of a computer all day is bad. The human body isn't designed for that. I sit in my office along with women several years younger than me and up to thirty years older than me, and we're all doing the same thing – sitting on identical chairs in front of identical screens, for eight hours a day. Surely that can't be good. I recently went part-time in the office to take up a very physically active alternative job and I feel a million times better for it.
Rachel, UK

I am a software engineer. Most work days I'm eight to ten hours working on a computer. When you have a knotty problem to solve it often isn't practical to take a five or ten minute break from the screen every hour. I try and take a half hour walk during my lunch break, but the British weather often puts paid to that. I usually do an hour or two in the gym each week to overcome the lack of fitness that comes with a sedentary job. The only problems I've noticed are from poor posture: a stiff neck and occasional back pain. I get tired, but then so does anyone that puts in a good day's work.
Marcus, UK

I spend up to 9 hours a day in front of my computer. I often have a deep ache behind both knees and the same pain wakes me up at night. Another problem I have is a prolapsed disc and if I don't get up and walk every other hour I experience a lot of discomfort. It really helps to get up every now and then and have a walk, even if it is a short one!
Meta Anley, Austria

I spend a good ten hours a day at work in front of computer. I also spend another three or four at home some nights. Difference is not only do I move around and get up a great deal, I also exercise six times a week. If your entire lifestyle is sedentary, then I am sure DVT is a serious risk. The key, I think, as to other risks of modern living is activity. Cardiovascular exercise not only lowers the blood pressure, but reduces the risk of clots building up in the first place.
Damian Leach, UK

My computer monitor has a 'tea-break' option which will flash a picture of a cup of tea on the screen at a set interval. I have it set to 1 hour, and leave the computer for at least 5 minutes each time it goes off. It seems to work for me – and visitors using my computer!
Stu Carter, UK

I am a computer student in my final year, and because of my course I am required to spend quite a lot of time behind a computer screen, I also am on a work experience year and so working in an office environment. One thing I have notice from all this computer use is my eyes, they have been getting worse over the years and now I believe that I need glasses. I am well aware of the dangers of prolonged computer use since I was taught at high school and so take precautions like walking around the office and other such activities, but I am surprised to the lack of information available in the workplace.
Barry Allott, United Kingdom

After starting to get pain in my arm, which I thought was the beginnings of RSI, I changed from a mouse to a tracker ball and paid attention to my posture. This seems to have worked. I also have a chair with a 'waterfall' front – it curves down rather than having an edge to the seat so it doesn't dig into my thighs. And I make sure to take a few minutes break every hour to stretch and relax.
David Pollard, UK

I spend about 6.5 hours each workday looking at a screen. I'm supposed to take breaks but I forget! Then if I have freelance work, or just fancy browsing or gaming, I can spend another 3 hours in the evening. Although I make an effort to go to the gym, rather than vegetate online! I do get headaches a lot at work, but that's probably a combination of two large monitors, bad fluorescent lights, and poor air-con! Oh and my right arm aches from excess mouse usage… weren't computers meant to make our life easier, not injure us?!
Paul Madley, UK

Whilst I am aware it's not healthy, in a small and busy office it is not always easy to take breaks. This is not something that is limited by management but purely the restrictions and pressures that we put upon ourselves to reach targets and workloads. Maybe in time we will have a small exercise machine that will fit under our desk and enable us to exercise our legs whilst working.
Frances, England

Thankfully a large proportion of PC software is so unreliable I get ample exercise banging my head on the keyboard, kicking the desk, waving my arms in frustration etc.
Nick, UK

My job at a call centre requires me to be sat at a computer for 10 hours a day. We get 2x 10 min breaks and 1x 1/2 hour break. I am 21 and I have already started suffering from minor back problems which the doctor says could develop into something much worse. Is there a law against this?
Andrew Logie, England

I was already concerned about my eyes, now this. Anyway I've decided to take up smoking to force myself to take regular breaks. Also a proper pub lunch with a couple of pints instead of the sandwich in front of the screen. This should improve my health no end.
Jim , Northumbria

I have a small alarm clock that is very quick to program. Every one and a half hours, it goes off and I go for a quick stretch and drink.
Bob, UK

Just remember if you do have to sit at your PC for long periods, try to have music on headphones, so you can tap your feet to the rhythm, and keep your circulation going! With me, it is always the eyes that tell me I've been on it too long, they always start to tingle and water.
Kye, England

I have been working with computers for over 20 years, and have always made a point of leaving my desk for 10 minutes in every hour, for my circulation and eyesight. The only persistent obstacle to this has been employers who see this as time-wasting and skiving. There is plenty of law supporting my behaviour in this regard, but directing my employer to the relevant points of law usually only gets me labelled a trouble-maker.
Zagi, UK

It's not a health threat from "computer use": it's a health threat from sitting down too long! In any situation where you have to sit for ages it is advisable to stand up and stretch your legs regularly. Whether this be at an office-desk, in an airliner, working with a computer, or driving a car a long distance. Computer workstations should have carefully arranged ergonomics: the monitor should be slightly below eye-level, and the seat should have an adjustable height amongst other things.
Douglas, Scotland

Any long term immobility will predispose you to a DVT. It is worse if you are overweight, in a low pressure (aircraft) pregnant, or have poor circulation such as severe varicose veins. Sitting at a PC with your legs tucked under you (as so many of my co workers do) increases the risk. Like on a plane, you should stretch your legs out even if you do not get up and walk around, although getting up to walk around is a much better idea.
Stuart, UK ex-pat in USA

I have had DVT in the past, and always insist on business class when my company send me on a long-haul flight. Does this now mean that I should have a larger chair and free champagne in my office as well?
Simon Cooper, UK

I work more than 8 hours a day on a computer. With me, the problem is with my sitting posture I believe. I developed pain in my shoulders [trapezes] and the back of the neck, Doctor suspects of spinal cord cartilage disks dislocation. Diagnosis: Spinal x-rays can show narrowing of the disk space, but computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans more clearly identify the problem. Treatment: Aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs usually help relieve pain. Exercises are often recommended to reduce muscle spasms and pain and to hasten recovery, but surgery may be required if pain and signs of nerve damage are severe and progressive.
Haneef Khan, USA

I am a freelance software developer, and some days sit at my computer from 7:30 am until 1 or 2 am the next day. After reading this I will make sure I get up and do some chores from time to time. The problem is that developing computer software is a very involving experience and you don't realise the hours are rushing by !
Dennis McDermott, England

I spend many hours a day in front of the computer. The best I can recommend is fidgeting! Tap your toes, stretch your legs out and roll your shoulders. It stops you getting too stiff. But it may annoy your colleagues!
Paul Gitsham, England

Yesterday I spent four and a quarter hours looking at my screen without standing up at all. But I wouldn't spend as much time in front of my computer if the BBC website wasn't so good! From now on, I shall get up and walk around when I need a break from work and become ignorant of current affairs in the process.
Krissy, UK

I work in IT as a web developer. After 6 years of 7 hour days sat in front of a PC, I have developed problem's in my neck and shoulders – I think it is especially important for desk workers to get out and do something active.
Simon, UK

Yes, I'm aware of it – my husband died of precisely this in 1995. He spent most of his waking hours in front of his computer and did so for a number of years. The thought of taking fresh air and exercise appalled him. He was 54.
Maggi Lilienfeld, UK

I spend all day at my computer. I gave up smoking three months ago so now I spend virtually all day here – unlike when I was a smoker and taking a five minute 'break' every hour.
Tony, UK

I found I was sitting at my desk for too long, so I made a high level computer desk that forces me to stand up when doing email and surfing the web. It gets a bit tiring getting up from the desk every time I want to go online, but at least I won't drop dead from DVT.
Chris Partridge, UK

I normally spend up to six hours a day on the computer. Thank you BBC for saving my life.
Richard, UK

I work in an IT related job. Therefore I spend most of the day in front of a pc (average day is 9 or 10 hours). The only break I get from this is a lunch break, meetings and a walk to the coffee machine. Although more meetings are taking place at people's desk via the telephone and internet. I am quite lucky that I work for a large company that is very health conscious and does look after its staff. But after reading the report I might try and break up my day more to prevent me being at my pc for such long periods.
Nicki, UK

I spend seven hours 45 minutes a day in front of my computer. I've heard that experts recommend you look away from your monitor and get away from your desk and walk every so often. In my job (sales) this in not feasible due to the pressure we are under and the targets we must hit to earn a living. Our employers certainly provide no guidelines as to what would be most healthy. I have lower back pain and am anxious about my employer's lack of concern for their employees' wellbeing, but I believe that this is the case for most people who work in call centres.
Stephen, UK

Being an IT student, this time of the year means long hours at the computer for weeks on end – roughly 12-15 hrs per day!
Indy, UK

Who really bought those modernist fitted kitchens?

• Paul Mason
• 18 Apr 06, 11:30 AM

When I idly scrawled about the V&A's exhibition of Modernist Design I bumped into a bigger debate sparked by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian, who has taken umbrage against tower blocks. I decided to steer clear of that furore and took refuge in the library on my week off. But you can never escape… while researching something totally different I came across the following: In Germany in 1929 a sociologist called Erich Fromm carried out research into social attitudes among manual and white collar workers….

…About 500 people were interviewed, answering 271questions on everything from Adolf Hitler to the length of women's hair. Question 240 asked:

"How do you decorate your home?"

The answers are obviously of interest to anybody involved in the debate about whether Bauhaus modernist design and technology was any good, or ever appreciated by the "masses" who were supposed to buy it. The thesis of modernism's critics has been that it reflects the growing authoritarianism of society in the 20s and 30s. The results were lost for 40 years, however, because academic differences, Nazism and war got in the way of publication. But they were published in the 1980s.

Here are the results:
When asked "How Do You Decorate Your Home?"
A consistent 40-50% – from unemployed to to skilled white collar – said "flowers and pictures".
Between 6-10% said "bric a brac"
Only skilled manual and skilled white collar workers mentioned "New Realism" – which was the German term for modernist designs like the kitchen on show at the V&A, and then only 4 and 5% respectively.

However…
Tabulated by political allegiance things become clearer:
Social Democrats favoured bric-a-brac over modernism by 10% vs 3%
Communists also, 4% to 2%
Nazis too liked flying ducks better than Mies van der Rohe chairs, by a factor of 11% to 6%
Only one group, left wing members of the Social Democratic Party, were totally sold on modernism: 11% versus a fat zero for 1930s kitsch.

The total sample for "Left Socialists" was 45 people, but that level of unanimity has to be listened to: my provisional conclusion is that it was not the authoritarian-inclined Communists and Nazis who bought and treasured Bauhaus designs but a particular urban clan of left Labourites who had been generally identified as white collar workers or skilled engineers. Modernism never really took off among the "masses", even in its birthplace Weimar Germany. Make of it what you will…

If you want to look further into this survey, one of the first to try to discover the link between occupation and psychological attitudes, it is published as Fromm E, The Working Class in Weimar Germany: A Psychological and Sociological Study, London, 1984 ISBN 0-907582-09-5

Biscuit factory makes ‘comeback’

The sweet smells of a factory that produced some of the country's favourite biscuits – like the Garibaldi and the Bourbon – are to be revived after 16 years.

With the help of a £33,000 grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), the 123-year-old biscuit company Peek Frean & Co, which closed in 1989, is making a 'comeback' in the form of an exhibition.

From September, The Pumphouse Educational Museum in Rotherhithe, south-east London, will host a permanent exhibition about the company, which was based in Bermondsey, south-east London.

Peek Frean & Co was the first mass producer of biscuits and employed over 3,000 people in its time from when it opened in 1866 to when it closed in the late 80s.

The exhibition will include collections of Peek Frean artefacts dating back to 1900, which have never been publicly displayed.

It will also feature recorded interviews with former employees, several of whom still live in the area, as well as sound and pictures so that visitors can explore the factory's past.

To complete the experience there will also be a "smell pod" which will allow visitors to experience the aroma of the factory.

Caroline Marais, from the museum, said: "We are grateful to the HLF for providing this opportunity to give local, national and global visitors a sense, and even a smell, of the past."

Peek Frean & Co stood at the centre of the local community in Bermondsey and was the biggest company in the area at the time.

Besides the Garibaldi (made in 1961), Shortcake (1912) and Bourbon, formerly Creola, (1910), other celebrated lines included Marie (1875), Chocolate Table (1899), Golden Puff (1909), Glaxo (1923), and the cocktail snacks, Cheeselets and Twiglets.

It also made a 6ft wedding cake for Queen Elizabeth II's wedding which will be on display in the museum.

Former employee Graham Stephens, 71, who worked there from 1957 until 1987, told BBC News that generations of families often worked at the factory.

"Peek Frean & Company was a very friendly firm, a very caring company for its employees.

"Working at the company became a tradition. Fathers and sons joined.

"As an employee you were really made a fuss over. We had great fun working at Peek Frean."

The factory closed in 1989 when its then US-based owners, Nabisco, decided that the company had too many manufacturing units in the UK.

Mr Stephens has provided the museum with memorabilia, including a whole range of biscuit labels and a booklet outlining the history of the company for the first 100 years.

"The exhibition will show what life was like in those times. I do think it will be very good for children to see how life was both before and after the war," he said.

The museum will be producing educational worksheets for schools and a booklet on the social history of the factory to accompany the exhibition.

Sue Bowers, HLF Regional manager for London said: "The factory is over 120 years old and was loved by the community and people who worked there.

"The company played a crucial role in developing Southwark's unique character. This project will ensure everyone can celebrate that inheritance."

BBC NEWS | The Editors

Your name

Your e-mail address

Your comments