Changing my lifestyle one choice at a time

There have been quite a few changes in my lifestyle over the past few years. Not just in the way I think and live my life, but also in the products I choose to put into my body.

One of the major changes came back in 2017, when I quit smoking. At the time, it wasn’t really for health reasons. I was simply fed up with the smell and, more importantly, the cost of smoking. That said, I still vape to this day.

Another major change happened in February 2025, when I decided to take a complete break from alcohol for a month. Well, that one month turned into two, then three, and here I am, 19 months later, still completely teetotal.

My most recent lifestyle change is something I’ve kept pretty quiet about.

After taking enough flak from some of my old drinking friends when I packed up alcohol, I can imagine what they’d say about this one. I had comments like, “You won’t last,” and “Go on, have a drink!” The funny thing is, I never actually said I would last. I wasn’t on some sort of crusade to give up alcohol forever. I simply decided to stop drinking, and it stuck.

But this one might raise a few more eyebrows.

I am now a vegetarian.

Although I should probably add that I’m a vegetarian with L plates.

It’s only been a few weeks, and it’s been a pretty steep learning curve trying to replace the meat products I would normally reach for without even thinking about it. There’s been quite a bit of experimenting, some successes, and probably a few things that won’t be making a return appearance on the shopping list!

For the past few years, the only meat I’ve really eaten has been chicken and ham, with the occasional burger or sausage thrown into the mix. I’ve never been a fish eater, so that was never really an issue.

But, just as I eventually got fed up with drinking alcohol, I’ve also become fed up with treating food simply as fuel.

I now have more time on my hands, and that has given me the opportunity to think a bit more about what I’m actually putting into my body, rather than just grabbing whatever is convenient because I’m hungry.

There’s also been a change in the way I think about animals bred specifically for slaughter. I’m finding myself increasingly uncomfortable with that whole side of food production, and it’s becoming harder to simply ignore those thoughts.

So, I suppose becoming vegetarian is a combination of a few things. It’s about what I eat, how I think about food, and increasingly, how I feel about where that food comes from.

I’m still very much learning. I’m not claiming to have all the answers, and I’m certainly not about to start telling everyone else what they should or shouldn’t eat.

For now, I’m simply making a change in my own life and seeing where it takes me.

As for whether I’ll still be vegetarian in a few months’ time… well, we’ll see.

Early Prison Release. What Does It Mean for Justice and the Future?

 

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the criminal early release programme, but I think many ordinary people are still asking the same basic question. What exactly is going on, and what does it mean for the future of our justice system?

For me, this is not about being soft hearted or hard hearted. It is about a very simple principle. If somebody commits a serious crime, is found guilty and is sentenced by a court, that sentence should mean something.

Over recent years we have seen changes to the point at which some prisoners can be released. The most widely discussed example was the move to release some eligible prisoners after serving 40 percent of their custodial sentence rather than 50 percent. This was introduced largely because our prisons were running out of space.

I understand the practical problem. If there are not enough prison places, something has to be done. But I find it difficult to accept that prison capacity should ultimately determine how much of a sentence someone actually serves.

Imagine being the victim of a serious crime. You go through the trauma of what happened, the investigation, the court process and eventually the offender is convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.

You might reasonably think that means five years in prison.

Then you discover that the person could potentially be released much earlier and spend the remainder of their sentence living in the community under licence.

Legally, the sentence has not necessarily been reduced. But from the perspective of the victim, it can certainly feel that way.

And this is where I think we need to have an honest conversation.

What is the purpose of a prison sentence?

Surely it is partly about punishment. It is also about protecting the public, deterring people from committing crime and, where possible, rehabilitating offenders so that they do not go on to offend again.

I accept that rehabilitation matters. I also accept that simply locking somebody away for longer does not automatically make them a better person. If someone comes out of prison with no support, no accommodation, no employment prospects and no willingness to change, they may simply go on to commit another offence.

But there is another side to this argument.

If we continually soften sentences and reduce the amount of time people actually spend in prison, what message does that send?

If somebody is considering committing a crime and believes that even a serious offence will result in relatively little time behind bars, surely there is a danger that the deterrent effect of imprisonment is weakened.

I am not suggesting that everyone sits down and calculates the exact percentage of a sentence they might serve before committing a crime. Most people do not think like that.

But criminals are not completely unaware of the consequences of their actions either.

There is a difference between saying that prison should be used for every offence and saying that serious offences should carry serious consequences.

We also need to think about victims.

Too often, the debate seems to concentrate on the prisoner's rights, rehabilitation and circumstances while the victim becomes almost an afterthought.

What about the person whose life has been permanently changed by the crime?

What about their family?

What about the fear, trauma and financial consequences that can continue long after the offender has been released?

There has to be a balance, but that balance should not leave victims feeling that justice has been compromised simply because the prison system does not have enough space.

And that brings me to what I believe is the biggest question of all.

Should the Government be able to change the practical meaning of a sentence because there are not enough prison places?

If a court decides that someone deserves five years for a particular offence, shouldn't the Government have ensured that the prison capacity exists to enforce that sentence?

I appreciate that this is not as simple as building more prisons. Prisons cost money. Staff have to be recruited and trained. Prisoners need healthcare, education and rehabilitation. The whole system has to function properly.

But surely that is what government is supposed to plan for.

We know that people will commit crimes. We know that courts will send people to prison. We know that prisoners will eventually need to be released. None of this should come as a surprise.

So rather than continually changing release rules whenever the prison estate becomes overcrowded, perhaps we need to step back and ask what sort of justice system we actually want.

A system where sentences have a clear and understandable meaning.

A system where victims know that the punishment handed down by a court will be taken seriously.

A system where prisoners are given genuine opportunities to rehabilitate themselves.

And a system where public safety comes before political convenience.

I also think we need to be careful about suggesting that every early release automatically causes more crime. The evidence is more complicated than that. Good supervision, rehabilitation and proper support after release can make a genuine difference to whether someone reoffends.

But that does not mean we should ignore the deterrent effect of punishment.

There has to be a point where society says enough is enough.

If you commit a serious crime, you are responsible for the consequences.

If you are convicted, the sentence imposed by the court should carry real weight.

And if the public is told that someone has been sentenced to five years in prison, people should not need a law degree to understand that it might actually mean considerably less time behind bars.

Justice needs to be understandable.

It needs to be credible.

And above all, it needs to give victims and the wider public confidence that the criminal justice system is actually working on their behalf.

Because if people lose faith in the idea that crime leads to meaningful consequences, we should not be surprised when they begin asking what the point of the law is in the first place.

Punishment should not be about revenge.

It should be about justice, protection, deterrence and rehabilitation.

But justice also needs consequences.

And if we continue down a road where sentences are repeatedly shortened because the system cannot cope with the number of people being sent to prison, I think we need to ask a very uncomfortable question.

Are we actually reforming the justice system, or are we simply making the consequences of crime easier for the system to manage?

JUSTICE IS NOT NEGOTIABLE Commit the Crime. Serve the Time.

The government has said it’s “not possible” to exempt “one or two offenders” convicted of manslaughter from early release, amid growing pressure over the possibility of PC Andrew Harper’s killers being released from prison as early as January.

Well, perhaps someone needs to remind them who they actually work for.

We elected you. We pay your wages. We gave you the power you have.

You’re there to represent the people, not to tell us to sit down, shut up and simply accept decisions that so many of us fundamentally disagree with.

And if petitions are being ignored, if public opinion is being dismissed, then perhaps it’s time for people to stand up and be counted.

And I mean that literally.

Imagine peaceful demonstrations taking place in towns and cities right across the country, with ordinary people coming together and saying:

Enough is enough.

This isn’t about violence. It isn’t about intimidation. It’s about exercising our democratic right to protest and making our voices impossible to ignore.

• We expect serious crimes to have serious consequences.
• We expect victims and their families to matter.
• We expect public safety to come before political convenience.

And above all, we expect the people who govern us to actually listen to the people who put them there.

Because politicians should never forget one very simple fact:

We can put you in power, and we can take that power away.

Democracy gives us a voice.

It’s up to us to use it.

My New E-Bike Is On the Way! 🚲 A Change of Style for Easier Riding

 

So, I have another e-bike on order! 🚲

This time, it’s a more compact 16" folding bike, which I think will be much better suited to my current physical health issues.

I’m currently in the process of selling my Ado A20+ 20" folding bike. As much as I’ve really enjoyed cycling through the countryside on the Ado, I’m finding its bulkier size a bit more difficult to manage, particularly when it comes to getting my leg over the crossbar (top tube), which also houses the battery. And when you are struggling to get a leg over, it can be quite depressing.

Ooh err, missus! 😂

So, I now feel it’s time for a change of style. I’m moving to a step through model that’s not only easier for me to get on and off, but is also more compact and practical for transportation, whether that’s in my car or on public transport.

I’ll be making a series of videos on the new bike, covering the setup, specifications, features, road testing, and of course, the accessories I’ll be adding along the way.

So, watch this space! 👀🚲