Q. In the last few days I have opened six separate letters asking for sponsorship for the London Marathon. Each one comes from either a godchild, a relation or a child of a really close friend. I think £100 is about the going rate but I can only afford £100, not £600. I cannot sponsor one and not the others. What do you suggest, Mary?
P.Z., London SW15
A. It is time the junior generation had a reality check, so have no qualms about replying with the news that you are having to divide your London Marathon budget equally between all the applicants. Enclose a cheque for £16.65 and make no apology. Do praise them for competing but remember that, for the runner, the mental participation of the sponsors is just as relevant as the sum of money raised for good causes. There is also an element of narcissism in marathon running and the exhilaration of completing the course should tide these juniors over any minor funding blows.
Q. How can I ensure that my medical records are not inputted on to the giant NHS computer covering the whole population? I assume there is an opt-out clause for the rich and powerful but how does an ordinary person such as myself opt out? I do not like the idea of discs being lost in the post or my records being hacked into by people who do not have my medical interests at heart. We all know how easy computer hacking is and I am dismayed by this invasion of privacy. At the same time I do not want to rub my GP up the wrong way.
L.B., Dartmouth
A. There is no hurry. At present, patients’ records are kept safely within their practice and cannot be accessed remotely. The prospect of their being accessed by all NHS personnel is still a long way off in spite of the £18 billion already spent on the project. Doctors estimate that it will take at least five years given the current rate of progress and problems encountered with the system. If and when it is finally fit for purpose individuals will be able to opt out. What the government has not yet decided is whether individuals will have to positively opt in or out of the system when it goes live.
Q. I recently attended a wonderful bijou literary festival in Aldeburgh, Suffolk. My problem is that one of the most interesting talks, featuring Edward Lucas and Mary Dejevsky, was marred for me by about a fifth of the audience coughing so loudly as to drown out some of the most interesting points. How is it that you never hear a fifth of the audience coughing their guts up in the cinema but only when someone is giving a fascinating live performance on a stage? Do you agree with me, Mary, that since the Aldeburgh Literary Festival is wildly oversubscribed every year, the organisers should run a blacklist of coughers and use this to prune the ticket allocation?
M.W., Wiltshire
A. Many live performers share the view of the late Harold Pinter that audience coughing is often passive aggressive. Yet it would be cruel to penalise genuine coughers in this way. Instead the Festival organisers would do well to seek sponsorship from a lozenge-maker like Fisherman’s Friend, an appropriate sponsor for a seaside festival. With limited-edition literary festival mini-packs of the lozenges given to each member of the audience as they file into the venues there should be no excuse for anyone to cough.
Comments