What does a music festival say about you?

　　

　　

　　

　　The season for music festivals is about to kick off, with seemingly more people going than ever before. But what does your choice of festival say about you?

　　Glastonbury, Bestival, the Big Chill, Latitude, Reading? Which wristband will you be flashing at friends and work colleagues this summer?

　　It's safe to say music festivals are now an established part of British summer time. There are 450 in the UK alone this year and more people are going to them than ever before, says Virtual Festivals UK.

　　They used to be about leaving the social snobberies and constraints of everyday life at the gate. The mud and general madness was a great social leveller. Banker or buddhist, everyone was in it together. Now many are sponsored by big corporate brands and money can buy you luxury unimaginable years ago - tipi with shower and double bed for £3,000 anyone?

　　

　　THE BIG FESTIVAL DATES

　　Glastonbury, Worthy Farm, Somerset, 24-27 June

　　Latitude, Henham Park Estate, Suffolk, 15-18 July

　　Reading/Leeds, Little John's Farm, Reading and Bramham Park, Leeds, 27-29 August

　　Isle of Wight, Seaclose Park, Newport, 11-13 June

　　Bestival, Robin Hill Country Park, Isle of Wight, 9-12 September

　　Big Chill, Eastnor Castle, Herefordshire, 5-8 August

　　"They are completely mainstream now," says Caspar Llewellyn Smith, editor of the Observer Music Monthly magazine. "Glastonbury is a national institution. It's like an advertisement for the Somerset Tourist Board."

　　But with so much choice and such a range of "experiences" on offer, where you go says more about you than ever before. It's why people continue to wear the wristbands for weeks afterwards, it's about making a statement.

　　"Your choice definitely says something about your identity," says says Professor George McKay of the University of Salford, who has written extensively on festival culture, including the book Glastonbury: A Very English Fair.

　　"I often make the point that people don't go to festivals for the music, which is a secondary attraction. They go because of the mass experience, the event itself. Some festivals are simply 'cool' and others not."

　　And it's basic human nature that many of us want to surround ourselves with like-minded people at festivals - it's life affirming.

　　"For some, membership of a tribe gives them self esteem," says Professor Adrian North, director of psychology at Heriot-Watt University. "If you are with people you think are cool it reaffirms your own lifestyle choices - you're basically patting yourself on the back."

　　Saturation point

　　So what are these festival tribes?

　　"If you go to Glastonbury or WOMAD you are probably interested in ethical issues around the environment or multiculturalism or a global consciousness. You may even have an organic allotment," says Professor McKay.

　　"If it's Latitude you're a bit older and possibly taking the kids, but don't want to be too uncomfortable - perhaps thinking you'd like to hire one of those tipis."

　　Those who work in the festival industry agree divides exists. Reading and Leeds are a teenage rite of passage and all about the music, says Daniel Fahey, editor of Virtual Festivals UK.

　　

　　Wristbands are often kept on for kudos

　　"The Isle of Wight festival is about big heritage acts like Paul McCartney, so attracts a slightly older crowd. The Big Chill is for the former rave generation who are now in their 30s and Bestival is still a bit hippy, with fancy dress and healing fields"

　　The increasing divides are something canny festival organisers have seized upon in order to survive what is now a very crowded market.

　　"The scene reached saturation point and it's now maturing and segmenting," says Caroline Jackson, a lecturer at Bournemouth University, who is doing a PhD on music festivals. "Individual festivals are now increasingly recognised for what type of experience you get there. Certain groups go to certain festival."

　　Glastonbury, the biggest and best-known festival, has cleverly adapted by expanding to offer something for everyone, she adds. It has segmented within the festival itself. The diversity means people go to the same festival but have completely different experiences.

　　The changing nature of the scene has triggered very heated debate about authenticity and what a "real" festival is, says researchers. Is it a one-day shindig in a London park or a three-day party in Somerset with healing fields and heavy rock?

　　Snobbery

　　One post on an internet message board moans about a family spotted enjoying a cheese board in a comedy tent at one festival. Another complains of people's "fake sentiment", while pushchairs, middle-aged people and "tame" band line-ups also get slated.

　　"There's a huge amount of snobbery when it comes to festivals these days," says journalist Alice-Azania Jarvis, who writes for the Independent.

　　

　　Glastonbury didn't always have 180,000 punters

　　"The reputation of a festival is more important to some people than the acts who are playing. If watching your favourite band means standing in a field of people who look like mobile-phone salesmen, then some people will decide not to go. It's not what you're watching, more who you are watching them with."

　　It's inevitable when something becomes mainstream, like a festival, it loses its credibility among some people, says Prof North.

　　"If your sub culture sets you apart, once everyone else joins in it no longer makes you different. You're just normal."

　　But researchers say one thing has not changed and spans the divides - the temporary escape from the mundane routine of everyday life.

　　"Young people like festivals to experience the freedom of youth and their own new music, and older people like them too, trying to remember their own youth, not least by seeing their favourite bands reforming," says McKay.

　　"And that kind of child-like freedom is a great part of the promise of any festival: outdoors, open air, camping in the countryside, music and other arts, with a group of like-minded people, seeking relaxation or excess."

　　Put that way, it sounds so good.

Should the whole Supreme Court come from two schools?

　　

　　

　　

　　

 

　　The nomination of Elena Kagan to replace the retiring John Paul Stevens on the US Supreme Court means, if she is confirmed, all of the justices will have been at either Harvard or Yale law schools. But why should two educational bodies provide all of the US's most senior judges?

　　It is really only a score of five-and-a-half for Harvard, some pundits would suggest.

　　If Ms Kagan is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, there will be five from Harvard law school, three from Yale law school and one from Columbia law school.

　　

The court has become a bastion of the elite - it's sophisticated, north-eastern, highly cultured

 

　　Prof Peter Hoffer

　　But Ruth Bader Ginsburg started out at Harvard law school before transferring to Columbia.

　　The inference could easily be drawn that the finest legal minds all come from just two of the US's law schools.

　　It has also been pointed out that four of the court will be New Yorkers and that the court will consist of six Catholics and three Jews - no protestants.

　　But should it aim to be representative on educational background, or anything else?

　　For much of its history, a geographical spread of justices was the top priority, notes Peter Hoffer, distinguished research professor at the University of Georgia, and co-author of The Supreme Court: An Essential History.

　　

HARVARD LAW GRADUATES

　　731 degrees conferred last year

　　402 male, 329 female

　　Ethnicity: Asian/Pacific Islander (10%), Black/non-Hispanic (9%), 42 Hispanic (6%), International students (26%), Native American (1%), White/Non-Hispanic (40%), Unknown/other (8%)

　　"Theoretically, the court is supposed to be divided among different parts of the country. Now we have gone past that - we are one nation, connected by the web and the media - that kind of geographical distinction is not so important any more."

　　After the need for geographical diversity of the court ebbed, other priorities emerged.

　　"As late as the 1960s you had a Catholic seat and a Jewish seat to ensure some kind of representation. It's rather ironic that now you have six Catholics and three Jews," says Prof Joel B Grossman, co-editor of The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.

　　With white, black, and Hispanic justices on the court and both men and women represented, the court might seem heterogeneous but in terms of educational background it's become extremely homogeneous.

　　

　　Elena Kagan would be one of four New Yorkers on the court

　　"The court has become a bastion of the elite - it's sophisticated, north-eastern, highly cultured," says Prof Hoffer.

　　The retiring Justice John Paul Stevens finished his education at Northwestern law school in Chicago, a body with an excellent reputation. But new graduates of that school, nourishing hopes of rising to the pinnacle of their profession, might have cause to be pessimistic.

　　"It must not be very encouraging for the vast majority of law students who are in school in the middle part of the country where there are some very good law schools, but they are not Harvard and Yale," says Tony Mauro, Supreme Court correspondent, at the American Law Magazine. "It is time to have a bit more diversity."

　　It's not just the Supreme Court, of course. The prospects of Harvard law school graduates are high anywhere within the profession.

　　"There is nothing quite like having Harvard Law school on your resume," says Mauro. "It just has a certain cachet that is hard to beat."

　　Anyone defending the status quo might point out that Harvard and Yale do produce a stream of brilliant graduates, but there are of course brilliant graduates elsewhere too.

　　

THE JUSTICES

　　John Roberts: Harvard (undergraduate), Harvard (law school)

　　Antonin Scalia: Georgetown, Harvard

　　Anthony Kennedy: Stanford, Harvard

　　Clarence Thomas: Holy Cross, Yale

　　Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Cornell, Columbia (started Harvard)

　　Stephen Breyer: Stanford, Harvard

　　Samuel Alito: Princeton, Yale

　　Sonia Sotomayor: Princeton, Yale

　　John Paul Stevens: Chicago, Northwestern

　　Nominee Elena Kagan: Princeton,

　　Harvard

　　"It is unfortunate Obama couldn't find somebody a little different," says Prof Grossman.

　　But he jokes that no-one would want to go as far as 1960s and 70s Nebraska Senator Roman Hruska, who spoke up for the need for average candidates for the Supreme Court, after the nomination of Harrold Carswell.

　　"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?" asked Hruska, to much derision.

　　Most would now agree this is taking equal opportunities too far. And on a small body like the Supreme Court, it will always be tough to keep everyone happy.

　　"There is only a limited number of ways you can divide up nine," says Prof Grossman.

　　There are even allegations that the choice of clerks to the Supreme Court, an avenue to valuable experience for young graduates, is weighted towards certain schools.

　　"There was a time when the law clerks all came from Harvard, not even Yale," says Prof Grossman. Sandra Day O'Connor and Thurgood Marshall helped change that, and Justice Clarence Thomas is known for picking clerks from less predictable backgrounds.

　　"It turned out there are a lot of smart people they don't all go to Harvard law school," says Prof Grossman.

　　"[But even] if you look at the clerks today a majority come from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia and Chicago."

　　

　　There has been a long battle to make the court more diverse

　　You can read too much into the number of prominent people that come from certain key schools, says Prof John Manning, from Harvard law school.

　　"There are very many great law schools in this country. This is a moment in history where there are just an unusually high number of people who attended three law schools - Harvard, Yale and Columbia. I don't think it will always be this way."

　　But he suggests people often get the wrong idea about the social backgrounds of students.

　　"We have a very generous programme of financial aid. People think of Harvard and Yale as being these elite homogenous places but we really have a large and diverse class coming from many different backgrounds and places.

　　"It isn't like we are taking a tiny slice of Boston high society."

Doctors urged to discuss dying days care

　　

　

　　 

　　The GMC says doctors should not prejudge what certain patients want

　　Doctors are being urged to discuss end-of-life care with the terminally ill well in advance of their final days.

　　The General Medical Council, the profession's regulator, says early discussions can help avoid misunderstandings and conflict.

　　In new guidelines, the GMC says doctors should start from the assumption that life should be prolonged, although not at any cost.

　　Opportunities should also be sought to discuss organ donation.

　　It has long been the case that patients have a legal right to refuse treatment, but in recent years there has been controversy about the right of patients to be tube fed or hydrated right up until the point of death if doctors do not feel it is beneficial.

　　The GMC guidance states that in some cases providing nutrition or hydration at the end of life may cause unnecessary suffering.

　　Malcolm Leighton: 'She wanted to die at home'

　　It also notes there are times when attempts at resuscitation with CPR may not be in a patient's best interests, as an inevitable death can be transformed into a traumatic experience.

　　A discussion about the benefits, burdens and risks should be had with the patient and those close to them.

　　In some cases it may be appropriate for the doctor to decide not to offer such treatment, but for the most part it will be the patient's request which is the "deciding factor", the new guidelines state.

　　The regulators do not address the issue of assisted suicide, which is illegal in the UK.

　　No preconceptions

　　It is hoped having the opportunity to discuss a care plan in advance should allay patients' concerns that they may be under- or over-treated in their final days and hours, and that all decisions will be directed by their doctor.

　　It will also allow patients to think about where they would like to die.

　　

When the benefits, burdens and risks are finely balanced, the patient's request will usually be the deciding factor

 

　　GMC guidelines

　　The GMC said it received more than 500 written responses to its two-year consultation on the subject from a wide range of individuals and organisations including the religious groups, patient organisations and medical charities.

　　It highlights the need for doctors not to prejudge what care someone would want at the end of their life based on their age, disability or ethnic group - research suggests these people can receive poorer care as they die.

　　The guidance also sets out how those children with the capacity to understand should be involved in decisions about their treatment, and includes a new section on issues surrounding caring for very sick and premature babies which draws on existing recommendations.

　　There is also advice on doctors' responsibilities after a patient has died, and how they should approach conversations about organ and tissue donation. Demand for organs significantly outstrips supply and various initiatives are currently being examined to increase donation rates.

　　The chief executive of the GMC, Niall Dickson, said: "In the UK we have led the world in the care of patients at the end of life but we also know there is more that can be done.

　　"Every day at the front line of care doctors are having hard conversations with patients and their families and helping them to make incredibly emotional and difficult decisions. We hope this guidance will support them in providing the best quality of care and support."

　　The British Medical Association, which had been involved with the development of the guidelines, said: "We believe the GMC's new guidance is clear about the need to work with the patient or where appropriate their relatives or advocate to ensure that they are treated fairly, with dignity and without prejudice."

　　But the Alzheimer's Society said the issue of dementia in terminally ill patients, an increasingly common occurrence, had not been adequately addressed.

　　"'People with dementia have specific end of life care needs and too many are subjected to an undignified and unnecessarily painful death.

　　"We need dementia-specific guidance for clinicians if we are to ensure people with dementia get the dignity they deserve at the end of their lives."

Pledge to stop mother-to-baby HIV spread

　　

　　

　　The virus can spread from mother to baby

　　A campaign is being launched to try to enlist public support to ensure no more children are born with HIV by 2015.

　　It is the work of the Global Fund, which uses donations from governments to fight HIV, TB and malaria.

　　The Born HIV Free campaign comes at a critical time, with the fund seeking donations of up to $20bn over the next three years.

　　It recognises this will be a battle, as governments deal with the aftermath of the Greek financial crisis.

　　HIV can be passed from mother to child during pregnancy, labour or breast-feeding.

　　This type of transmission has been almost wiped out in countries such as the UK, because pregnant women who test positive for the virus that causes AIDS can be treated with drugs.

　　Other measures - such as giving birth by caesarian section - help stop HIV being transmitted to the baby.

　　But in developing countries, 430,000 children are born with HIV every year.

　　International effort

　　The Global Fund already channels more than half of international resources used to prevent mothers passing on HIV.

　　It believes that the goal of ending this type of HIV transmission by 2015 is achievable - if governments feel they can pledge money with the support of their electorates.

　　Its executive director, Professor Michel Kazatchkine, said: "We can win this battle against Aids if we get the funding we require.

　　"This campaign is intended to encourage people to sign up in support of the Global Fund, and to show their leaders that there is strong public support to continue and increase funding for its mission."

　　Endorsement

　　The campaign has been overseen by the French first lady, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, who is an ambassador for the Global Fund.

　　Her voice urges people to lend their support in a series of films, with music by Amy Winehouse and U2, which are being promoted on the internet.

　　The logo has adapted the visual imagery of the red ribbon - long associated with AIDS awareness - to symbolise a mother and child.

　　The US is the biggest donor to the Global Fund. The UK has pledged or contributed $1.1bn since the fund began in 2002. France is the largest European contributor.

　　The next round of donations will be confirmed at a crucial meeting in October, chaired by the UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon.

　　Insiders at the Global Fund are waiting to hear how the new coalition government in the UK will respond to the request for commitments.

　　They say they have previously had "promising noises" from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on global health issues.

　　The editor of the Lancet medical journal, Dr Richard Horton, said: "An early indication that our government will support the Global Fund is really important.

　　"It's something that has worked - because the money has been spent on drug treatment and bed nets.

　　"Another pressing issue is taking a serious look at the Department for International Development.

　　"There is genuine concern that a lot of money has been spent on development aid - without always getting a clear return.

　　"There needs to be accountability at this time of financial stringency."

Woman gives birth to sextuplets in Oxford

　　

　　

　　The babies were born more than three months early

　　A woman has given birth to sextuplets 14 weeks early at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.

　　Vicky Lamb, 31, gave birth to four girls and two boys, ranging in weight from 1lb 5oz (0.6kg) to 1lb 15oz (0.9kg).

　　Mrs Lamb, of Oxford, who had fertility treatment, is said to be recovering well following the birth on 14 May.

　　The babies are in intensive care and doctors have said the next few days will be "critical".

　　Publicist Max Clifford, who is representing the family, said Mrs Lamb became pregnant after taking the same fertility drug she used before the birth of her first child, Gracie, now aged five.

　　

They are fighting for their lives

　　Publicist Max Clifford

　　"They are just incredibly grateful for the John Radcliffe Hospital, the doctors and the nurses," he said.

　　Talking about when Mrs Lamb and her husband Andy, also 31, might be able to take their babies home, Mr Clifford said: "It is a long way off.

　　"They are fighting for their lives, they are still critical."

　　The hospital said sextuplets were born once in every 4.5 million pregnancies.

　　Last year a woman gave birth to six babies at the Royal Jubilee Maternity Hospital in Belfast.

　　Staff 'privileged'

　　Before that the last surviving sextuplets in the UK were born in 1993, according to the Multiple Births Foundation charity.

　　The John Radcliffe Hospital said: "Staff... feel privileged to play their part in such an unusual birth.

　　"A large team of doctors and nurses were present at the delivery or involved with the immediate management of the babies.

　　"There were several weeks of planning the delivery prior to the birth."

　　Consultant neonatologist Dr Kenny McCormick said: "Babies that are born this early need a lot of specialist care.

　　"They are receiving round-the-clock intensive care and specialist nursing at the moment and their condition is constantly monitored."

　　Keith Reed, chief executive of the Twins and Multiple Births Association, said it was "truly amazing news".

　　He added: "We waited for decades for the birth of sextuplets in the UK and now two sets have now been born within the space of the year.

　　"Families in this situation face a rollercoaster of emotions and we all wish the whole Lamb family well."