TALKING POINT
TALKING POINT
Granny Flindt is a lady of considerable age and formidable wisdom. Only she knows how to skin a rabbit in fewer than 10 seconds. She alone knows the magic recipe that makes her flapjack sticky enough to mend punctures and remove fillings. However, Ive always disagreed with her during the inevitable "nature versus nurture" debates that happen in a house full of children.
"Its all in the egg, you know," shed say when proudly watching one of her 11 grandchildren. "Theres nothing you can change. Its there for life when youre born." Its at this stage that I would ask her why she bothered being a magistrate for 25 years. If you cant change someones behaviour by threatening them with prison, why bother? This would usually bring on an outbreak of hearing loss that often happens with gentlefolk of four-score years.
But now it would seem that she might be right after all. A couple of weeks ago, it was announced that there is a gene responsible for all sorts of antisocial behaviour and outbreaks of general yobbery. Researchers had shown that many of those responsible for such behaviour are anything but responsible for it. They cant help it. Its in the genes. "Its all in the egg."
This news comes not long after the discovery of the fat gene. When people say "I only have to look at a bar of chocolate and I put on 2lb," they might be right. It can be only a matter of time before they find the "must go down the Jolly Flowerpots and have three pints of Village Elder and a ham and two eggs bap" gene. Im sure it must exist; after all, I get the irresistible urge to do just that three times a week. Its not my fault; I was just made that way.
When news of the crime gene broke, I searched the papers for some comment from the boys at Greenpeace, and, more specifically, Lord Melchett. Nobody had thought to ask them the blindingly obvious question: If genetic modification of people could eliminate crime, would they oppose it? Would there be good-GM (elimination of crime) and bad-GM (herbicide-resistant maize)? Would people identified as having been genetically modified run the risk of being hacked down and stamped upon by dozens of white-boiler-suit-clad protesters, watched by armies of well primed TV cameras?
Hold on a minute: Hacking down crops? Trampling and destroying other peoples property? That rings a bell. Yes of course. Its exactly the anti-social behaviour and general yobbishness that is exhibited by those possessing the crime gene! Next time they are arrested for trashing someones crop, lets hope they volunteer to give gene samples for analysis. It would all make perfect sense: Those who think such vandalism and destructiveness is justified to protest against genetic modification could be turned – by genetic modification – into rational human beings willing to argue their case in a more civilised way! Ah, sweet irony.
Then again, in September 2000 at Norwich Crown Court, Lord Melchett and his 27 fellow eco-warriors were acquitted of the charge of criminal damage. And in June 2001, seven more were cleared of aggravated trespass by Weymouth magistrates.
I have never understood how on earth they got away with it. We always used to joke that when Granny Flindt was a JP, you could get off any charge, no matter how serious, if you slipped her a nice knitting pattern that she could take home after the case. The Hampshire police used to reckon it was a stitch-up. Perhaps such practices are more widespread than we thought.
Its all in the
genes…or is it, asks
Charlie Flindt?
Would people identified as having been genetically modified run the risk of being hacked down and stamped upon by dozens of white-boiler-suit-clad protesters…?
• Charlie Flindt is a tenant of the National Trust farming 360ha (910 acres) with his wife Hazel at Hinton Ampner in Hants. Hazel runs the livestock units and Charlie runs the arable enterprise.