In Tokyo, Mary Rand was the first ever British female to win a gold medal in a track and field event. This achievement came just two years after the birth of her first daughter.

Smashing the previous world record, Mary took the gold medal in the long jump with a jump of 6.76 meters. Mary was the first Brit to break a world record at the Olympics since 1932. That year at the games Mary also took home a silver medal for the pentathlon and bronze in the 4×100 meter relay.

Mary’s path to success was not an easy one. Her record in Tokyo was set 4 years after massive disappointment at the Rome Olympics where, after setting a British long jump record in the qualifying round, she fouled twice in the final and came ninth.

1964 was also the year that Mary was voted BBC sports personality of the year. Given this year’s disgraceful absence of women from the BBC’s shortlist it is surprising to be reminded that in the sixties almost half of the winners were women.

Whilst much of the furore over last year’s award has now died down I am still disgusted that not a single woman made the shortlist. That ‘lads mags’ Nuts and Zoo, who could be said to trade in the objectification of women, participated in the nominations, is just one more example of the pervasive sexism in the media highlighted in the Leveson inquiry.

1964 was a particular high point in Mary’s illustrious career, but was far from the only success. Mary also broke British records in pentathlon and won medals at the 1958 Commonwealth Games and European Championships.

Fellow Olympian Brendan Foster has said that Mary was an inspiration to female athletes.

Cameron had the temerity at the World Economic Forum to tell Eurozone leaders how to run their affairs, affairs Cameron has made sure he has had nothing whatsoever to do with.

The non-Eurozone British Prime Minister, according to the Evening Standard warned that Europe was at a “perilous moment” and attacked its leaders for “tinkering here and there” rather than showing the bold leadership needed to save the Euro. You may be forgiven for forgetting that this is the same British Prime Minister who flounced out of the European Summit in Brussels on December 9 and has resolutely refused to engage with his opposite numbers – the national leaders across Europe – preferring splendid marginalisation instead.

Just to rub it in, David Cameron with breath-taking lack of subtlety blew his own trumpet telling Angela Merkel and the others world leaders that Britain – i.e. his Tory-led coalition – is doing it right.

Are they really? There are now 2.69 million unemployed in the UK, up 118,000 in the three months to November and still rising. The IMF revised its growth projection for the UK downwards due to lower than expected output in the production and construction sectors.  And, to cap it all UK government debt is now over a trillion pounds – 64.2% of GDP.

Britain is so obviously in as bad, if not worse, state than the Eurozone. The facts speak from themselves.

While I understand the motives for LOGOC – the London Olympic Games Organising Committee – taking Dow Chemical money, those accepting commercial sponsorship should always be aware of where the money comes from. However strapped for cash an organisation may be, this never justifies taking funding from tainted undertakings.

This is a non-negotiable principle, and a principle that must be rigorously upheld when it comes to major national projects. However much in need of cash the London Olympic Games may be, those in charge should never have had anything to do with Dow Chemicals.

And Dow has a lot to answer for – somewhere in the region of 20,000 deaths and thousands more serious injuries resulting from the disaster at Bhopal in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh in 1984. True it was Union Carbide not Dow who owned the plant at the time, but once Dow took over Union Carbide in 1999 it also took over this responsibility.

Despite Dow’s claims that the Indian Government accepted a £300 million payment in final settlement of any obligations, there is ample evidence that the tragedy has not come to an end.

In December last year Lorraine Chase, a 29 year old nurse, who has worked at Bhopal, told the Guardian “The mistake people make by continuing to say that this is about an explosion in December 1984. It’s about contamination that’s happening today.”

Toxic sludge was dumped in pits, on top of plastic sheets, in an attempt to cleanse it through evaporation. Instead the chemical leached into the ground water. The pits and the sludge are still there and the water is still used for drinking and washing by people for whom government supplies of water are unreliable. Chase says, “People know the water tastes funny, they know it isn’t doing them any good, but they don’t have a choice. And absolutely nothing is being done.”

Dow Chemicals apparently continually maintain that this appalling state of affairs is nothing to do with them.

I really do not understand how LOGOC can take money from a company which has so little regard for human life.

Strong supporter of the London Olympics that I am, I ask LOGOC to think again. Other sponsors will come forward once the word gets out. A wrap around a sporting stadium is not worth even the smallest amount of human suffering let alone bringing continuing tragedy to thousands of very poor people who have already been through more than most of us could even imagine.

During his visit I had the opportunity to ask him about what we need to be doing here in the European Parliament to increase the use of vaccines and immunisation in developing countries.

In his talk Mr Gates focused on the positive effect that aid has already had on many developing nations. He pointed out that success stories are often sidelined when it comes to talking about development since much of the coverage focuses on crisis situations. This positive angle is something that he hopes to promote with “Living Proof”, his partnership with the ONE Organisation.

Bill Gates praised the EU for its current and past commitment to development aid but stressed it was important to keep the ball rolling on this issue.

His speech highlighted the positive impact that agriculture and immunisation have in developing countries and the  far-reaching changes that projects focused on these two factors bring about. He also spoke of the importance of effective aid.

Gates pointed out that improving agricultural productivity reduces poverty more quickly than any other investment. Small farmers who are assisted in developing the means, in terms of technologies and knowledge, to improve their output are then able to provide greater support for their families. This can enable to send their children to school.

He also illustrated the massive effect vaccination programmes have had on the number of deaths related to diseases such as measles and polio. Between 2000 and 2008 measles deaths fell by 78% whilst cases of polio have fallen by around 99%. Aid from the EU is estimated to have helped vaccinate 5 million children against measles.

One organisation that is a good example of a vehicle for effective aid is the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI), which is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. GAVI has been commended for the ‘value for money’ and efficacy of its work in this area.

So, how did Bill Gates answer my question?

He responded by saying that together UNICEF and GAVI have made much progress on vaccines and immunisation in developing countries and are key organisations by which vaccines and immunisation programmes can be rolled out. 

However, following a big push in the 1980s, pressure to ensure that all children are immunised against vaccine preventable diseases has plateaued . Demographically 20% of children are still missing as a result of lack of access.

We need to re-dedicate ourselves to ensuring equitable coverage of vaccines everywhere in the world.

You can view Bill Gates’ response in full below. His answer made it clear to me that we must work together to push the discussion of vaccinations and immunisation back up the  EU’s aid agenda.

 Cameron now wants to reform the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which is, incidentally, nothing to do with the European Union. While there is probably no institution on this earth which would not benefit from some kind of sensible reform, Cameron’s attack on the ECHR is undoubtedly motivated by a desire to appease the feral Eurosceptic Tories who not only make up much of the Parliamentary Conservative Party but were also instrumental in electing Cameron as Party Leader.

 Cameron obviously knows little about ECHR. In yesterday’s Independent Sir Nicholas Bratza, the British judge who heads up the Court, put forward a sterling defence of its long and distinguished record, citing, amongst other things, the judgements which allowed the media to challenge restrictions on reporting the Thalidomide case and ensured child criminals were not charged in adult courts.

 David Cameron’s attitude to the ECHR becomes even more dislocated when the history of British cases tried in the Court is examined. Over the past 12 months Britain only lost eight of the 955 applications sent to the ECHR. This fact alone makes a complete mockery of David Cameron’s accusation that the ECHR “meddles” in internal UK matters.

Maybe Cameron should look hard at the two cases he believes did constitute interference – allowing prisoners to vote and the ruling that the radical cleric Abu Qatada cannot be returned to Jordan. I believe prisoners have basic human rights, the franchise being one of them. In the case of Abu Qatada, the ECHR would not allow the deportation of a man who would be tried by the Jordanians using evidence gained by torture.

Prisoners voting rights and the Abu Qatada case transported the feral Tory right into a state of apoplexy. This is the real reason Cameron is turning his attention to the European Court of Human Rights. Winston Churchill, who played a key role in establishing the Court, would surely turn in his grave if he knew the levels to which the modern Conservative Party has sunk.

David Cameron is displaying the same breathtaking level of ignorance about the ECHR as he has already done on the European Union. While I am prepared to concede there may be a case for reasonable reform of the ECHR based on proper evidence, this does not appear to be the way Cameron is looking at the issue.

David Cameron is also going it alone again. He either does not understand, or does not wish to understand, that European institutions are made up of many countries, 47 in the case of the Council of Europe which oversees the European Court of Human Rights. I believe that as a lone voice, albeit as the one currently holding the Council of Europe presidency, calling for reform, Cameron will almost certainly fail. To be successful, he will need to build alliances, something he does not seem to have done and may not be able to achieve during the six month presidency.

This is all very reminiscent of the debacle on 9 December. Cameron left the Brussels summit with nothing. We know he did not circulate the British demands to the other summit members until the night before rather than two weeks earlier which is the usual practice to allow time for discussion negotiation. We have also heard that Cameron did not involve the UK Permanent Representation to the EU in the preparation for the summit, an extraordinary dereliction of duty which lends weight to the argument that Cameron did not take the summit seriously.

 David Cameron is treating the EU and now the ECHR with utter contempt in order to buy off the rebellious hordes on his backbenches. He is merely engaging in superficial posturing. I very much doubt if push were to come to shove he would actually take Britain out of the ECHR, largely because there would be a huge body of informed opinion against such a move.       

 What I personally want to see from the Prime Minister is honesty. The UK has been in the EU for nearly 40 years and the ECHR even longer. These institutions are part of the very fabric of our society and also have a lot of good in them. Britain is never going to come out of either, so let’s stop kidding ourselves.

Or this is what one would think from reading an interview with Viktor Orban, populist and increasingly dictatorial leader of Hungary, in German Tabloid Bild last week.

Below is a rough translation of the section of the interview relating to women in Hungarian politics.

“Bild: This [nothing has changed] attitude also seems to be true for your opinion on women. It is only a short time since your government gained a female minister, responsible for development

Orban: … and 7 state secretaries!

Bild: That’s still not much!

Orban: I hardly think about women in terms of too much or too little. To me it’s about capacity and talent.Hungary’s politics is a harsh world, politics in general is. The fights in the political arena take up very few women. I’m happy about any who do enter politics. For example, the head of the statistical bureau, the judicial authority or the equality body. These things are done by women. But, most of them stay outside the boxing ring and rather let the men do the fight.”

Given the ever growing list of criticisms towards his Fidesz Government’s record on human rights, hearing his attitude towards gender equality and women’s rights is hardly surprising.

It is even less surprising when I recall Orban’s defence of Hungary’s new regressive constitution, brought in by his government at the start of the year, during his visit to the European Parliament last week.

The behaviour of Orban and his Fidesz government has led to the unusual step of the European Commission launching infringement proceedings against them.  The situation in Hungary is alarming to put it mildly.  This is the first time that there has been a genuine concern that a member state is going the way of authoritarian rule.  These comments in Bild show just how reactionary Orban is and they are very troubling coming from the mouth of a European leader. 

At a time when the Hungarian economy is in melt down and their currency is tanking at an alarming rate the government will be looking to the EU for help and support.  That support will be difficult to give if the Fidesz government continues with these constitutional reforms.  I will be watching with interest to hear what decisions have been reached following Orban’s visit to Brussels today.

For those of you who can read German, the enlightening interview can be read in full here.

It is, of course, true that the Iranian government is disingenuous to talk about wanting a nuclear capability only for energy. With massive oil reserves this really does not ring true. Will their next argument be that Iran wants nuclear energy so it can go green?

I hasten to add that I do not support  the current government in Iran in any way shape or from, and particularly disapprove of the Iran’s treatment of women as second class citizens. I also apply my own personal boycott by not appearing on Press TV,  a television service supported by the Iranian government.

The difference though is that this is my personal decision, not a government decision.

The EU and the West in general needs to talk to the Iranian government.

We also need to plan for the inevitability that Iran, together with other countries, will obtain nuclear technology. Surely the experience of oil sanctions on Iraq should teach us that this way forward will not work. The sanctions will be breached. They will be used by the Iranian government to justify their actions.

We also run the risk of increasing oil prices at a time when the British and European economies are in poor shape following the transgressions of various bankers.

The EU imposition of sanctions against Iran seems a desperate last push to stop the inevitable. Governments in the West need to plan for a multipolar world recognising the inevitability of  nuclear weapons. This is not an easy position and one which I would find hard to accept, while at the same time understanding that it is what needs to be done. 

I say all this from the perspective of someone who has campaigned against nuclear weapons all of my political life.  I truly believe that Britain, and indeed the rest of the world, would be better off without destructive nuclear  capability.

Having said that,  I also believe governments have to be realistic about the extent and reach of nuclear proliferation across the globe and put forward sensible policies for damage limitation. It is inevitable that, as an increasing number of scientists gain nuclear knowledge, more countries will have the opportunity to develop nuclear capability.

As we know, several countries, not all of them stable democracies,  actually do have nuclear weapons.  Pakistan is a case in point.  It is also highly probable that Israel has them. The situation regarding Israel obviously has to be taken into account in putting forward  any policy on Iran . 

The EU imposition of sanctions against Iran seems a desperate last push to stop the inevitable.

For all our sakes the EU  needs accept the reality of the international situation rather than undertaking measures which could potentially  alienate dangerous regimes across the world.

Blair was, it appears, intent on the UK joining the single currency in 2002 or 2003. In the middle of 2002, according to Hain, the Prime Minister “talked discreetly to key pro-Europe individuals about raising funds for communications research, focus groups, opinion polling and detailed research.” Pro-Euro business figures raised £200,000 very easily for this enterprise.

A small, select and seemingly secure group which included the pollster Philip Gould and Blair aide Pat McFadden, now an MP, was formed to look at the whole question. Secrecy was paramount as Gordon Brown would never have agreed to join the Euro and had therefore to be kept away from these initial discussions.

Secret cabals in politics are rarely a good thing – they have no actual power and are unlikely to be kept under wraps for any significant amount of time. Something ended up going horribly wrong with Blair’s Euro group in that the whole project was stymied when Gordon Brown devised the five economic tests for joining the Euro and then declared the UK had not met them.

 You cannot help wondering whether Brown had heard what was going on and devised a way to kill any idea of a referendum on joining the Euro stone dead.

Despite current orthodoxy, I remain convinced that Brown’s opposition to the Euro was extremely short-sighted.  Given that the UK economy is so tied up with the Eurozone and Britain gains considerably from the EU single market, being in or out of the Euro makes little difference economically. Indeed George Osborne has recently agreed another tranche of funding to contribute to the additional $500 billion the International Monetary Fund says it requires to protect the world economy from the European debt crisis.

The UK quite simply cannot ignore the Eurozone in its hour/day/week/month/year of need. What is more, there is little difference between UK and Euro interest rates.

Britain is also suffering as much as the Eurozone with rising unemployment and poverty. Indeed, this Tory-led coalition is increasing the burden on the sick and vulnerable and would, I am certain, be doing the same whether or not we were in the Euro.

Economic arguments aside, what is truly unacceptable about Britain’s status as a non-Euro country is that we are unable to be a major player in the European Union while we sit outside the single currency, a fact thrown into even starker relief by David Cameron’s walking out of the recent European summit during the small hours of 9 December last year.

In order to be a power in the world, the UK has to be a power in the EU. Unpalatable as this may be, it is undoubtedly the case. In the 21^st century the world power is the EU, not Great Britain. True, the United States remains up there, but our transatlantic links are weakening and Britain is very much the underdog in the modern “special relationship”. That leaves the emerging powers of China and India, both of whom are racing well ahead ofBritain in the world power stakes.

Thus being outside the Euro has huge national and international implications forthe UK. Outside the Euro with David Cameron we really are not much more than Norway. I have never bought the UKIP argument that it would be good to be like Norway. Excellent country that it is, it is not really significant in the scheme of things, does not take part in major international decisions and appears to be content to sit at home avoiding power and responsibility.

As a British patriot, I do not want the Norwegian option for our country which ruled the waves only 100 years ago. I want to be where it matters. That is at the heart of the European Union with a seat at all the tables and the power due to us as one of the second largest EU member states after Germany. In order to be where we should be, Britainhas to be a member of the single currency. It’s as simple as that. We ignore this at our peril.

It was, therefore, a tragic shame that Tony Blair did not take us into the Euro. Apart from giving Britain a place in the world, it would also have sealed his legacy, a legacy which became so damaged by the Iraq war. As a strong Blair supporter, I believe he deserves to be better remembered than seems to be the case at present. This may have been the reality not just something on my wish-list if Blair had found the courage to put our country well and truly at the economic and political heart of Europe.

Cameron’s comments come after last weeks decision by the ECHR to stop the extradition of Abu Qatada to Jordan on the grounds that evidence at his trial may have been obtained through torture.  There have also been numerous mutterings from within the Tory party about the UK’s current relationship with the ECHR and many extraordinarily misinformed articles in the right-wing press.

Now the UK government is in a position to do something about their perceived problem as they have taken over the six monthly chairmanship of the Council of Europe, which oversees the ECHR.

This seems like another example of Cameron’s populist tendencies coming through.  The idea that the ECHR should not look at cases that have already been dealt with in Britain is absurd beyond belief.  That is exactly what the court is designed to do and has done effectively in the past.  We should not forget that it was the ECHR who ruled that the highly controversial interrogation methods used during the Troubles in Northern Ireland in the seventies were in breach of the Convention on Human Rights after the UK had dismissed the case.

I would also advise Mr Cameron to stop reading the Daily Mail and the Telegraph so much, as their anti-European bent leads to a great deal of misinformation being published in their pages.  Both papers made the extraordinary and unfounded claim that the British government is defeated in three out of every four cases brought against it in the ECHR.  Given the fact that, as published by the ECHR which you can read here, 84% of all cases brought to the court are deemed inadmissible, that 75% claimed by the Mail and Telegraph is probably more like 2%. 

The fact is that if Abu Qatada would have been tried using evidence obtained through torture then we are obligated not to send him to Jordan.  We can’t have a set of rules, but ignore it if the person in question is really awful.  That is not how free and open democracies work

The Don Valley stadium was built for the World Student Games. When accessing legacy for sports stadia, no-one can factor in the role  infrastructure plays in producing future champions. However, having a word class facility has assisted Jessica’s development. One of the things which excites me most about the new Olympic stadia is all the future champions it will inspire and hopefully enable.

Jessica Ennis was unable to compete in the Beijing Olympics due to an injury that was potentially career ending.  Since returning in 2009 though she has won two World Championships in a row and a European Championship.  Jessica has set her sights on the Gold Medal at the London 2012 Olympics. 

Jessica’s career in athletics began in 2000, progressing through the junior and youth competitions, showing a promising talent for the future. She then went on to do a degree in Psychology from The University of Sheffield, before becoming a professional athlete.

In 2006 she enjoyed her first season as a senior athlete and managed to secure her first ever medal.  It was a bronze medal at the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, and it marked the arrival of a new star on the British team where she now ranks as one of Britain’s best ever heptathletes.

In May 2007 Jessica equalled the 25 year old British High Jump record for women by jumping 1.95m. She also broke Denise Lewis’ British under-23 record for the heptathlon by scoring 6388 at the IAAF Combined Events Challenge in Dezenzano, Italy. In doing so reached the qualifying standard for the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008.

Since then Jessica set a new personal best clocking up 6469 points at the IAAF World Championships held in Osaka, Japan before suffering a cruel injury just before the 2008 Olympics.

Jessica made her heptathlon comeback at the 2009 IAAF Combined Events Challenge in Dezenzano (a favourite venue!), Italy setting another personal best of 6587 to win the event. Her gold medal in Berlin at the IAAF World Championships resulted in a points score of 6731 and a new World Champion was crowned.

More success quickly followed in 2010 when she dominated the indoor season to win the World Indoor Pentathlon title, this time inDoha. The European heptathlon GOLD medal followed, and together with a new PB score of 6823 capped a truly remarkable year.

I think I speak for every British person when I wish Jessica the best of luck for the up-coming Olympics.  Given her track record, I’m sure that she will be fantastic.  To have so valiantly come back from what must have been a horrible injury and to win so many medals is quite an achievement already.  I hope that she’ll be adding to those medals with a gold one in seven months time.