Pnewsology

Pnewsology – the one about addiction!

12/19/2025

The week’s news with a dash of psychology!

Jane Ogden (Professor in Health Psychology, Emeritus; email janeogden509@gmail.com; based on a conversation with James Cannon at Radio Surrey; 8.40 am 19/12/2025)

Week ending 19/12/2025

All opinions are those of Jane Ogden

In the week up to the festive season, often dominated by celebration and excess, this week’s news has seen many stories of addiction. We have read about the tragic murder of the film Director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele and watched as their son Nick was charged. His life seems to have been a struggle against substance abuse and periods of homelessness, and the stories described periods of tough parenting and his parents’ regret over listening to the health care professionals rather than their son. How on earth all this led to a brutal stabbing of two people is beyond imagining.

The news also reported how a doctor called Mark Chavez has become the second person to be charged for selling ketamine to Matthew Perry (Chandler from Friends) – the first was known as the Ketamine Queen. I listened to Matthew Perry’s autobiography which was full of sad times of loneliness and depression and wild times of the excessive use of every drug under the sun and alcohol.

More locally, Amy Dickson from Reigate, Surrey described how Christmas is hard due to her father who died in 2020 from his problematic drinking. Children with alcoholic parents can have a difficult time growing up and often report having to be ‘good’ and ‘invisible’ which is reflected in a recent film released by the National Association of Children of Alcoholics.

And in line with many rock stars before him, the base player from Biffy Clyro from Scotland announced he was leaving due to addiction and mental health problems.

So, on one hand we live in a world where drinking alcohol is a normalised part of an annual festival (as well as everyone other social get together across the year) and yet it can become a problem for so many people. Where is the line? and how does it become so much of a problem for some but not others?

The classic definition of addiction involves withdrawal and tolerance and its interference with our social, family and work lives. But in essence its about amount and control. If you are drinking so much that it’s damaging your health – that’s a problem. And if you can’t stop, you have lost control. I guess it’s the age old ‘moderation’ in everything yet again and once this line is crossed, the use of any substance, whether legal or not, is just going to do harm.

Then why do some people cross this line and why does it seem to be more common amongst the rich and famous? Often, addiction is just down to the people around us. Peer pressure is huge and if our friends and family indulge then we are so much more likely to do the same. We copy and we want to fit in. But also, at its simplest, we do anything because we like it and it makes us feel good. So, a drink or a drug that has an instant effect of pleasure (which they all do!) will make us want to do it again (and again!). But then along comes the negative consequences which put us off and should make us decide to stop. Unfortunately, these often come the following day which are hard to anticipate and very easy to forget. So, we often ignore them and next time do the same again. But when the more serious consequences come along that influence money, work, family, marriage and children, us mere mortals may get a wakeup call and announce ‘never again’. But for those in a peer group of excess AND with a fame and financial buffer, maybe the pressure to keep going is too great and the consequences are too far away making it easier to stay on that downward spiral.

So, find yourself a moderate peer group this Christmas, stay away from the rich and famous (!) enjoy and have fun and if you do overindulge try to remember how this feels so that you are less likely to do it again!
Pnewsology – the one about freedom of speech!

12/13/2025

The week’s news with a dash of psychology!

Jane Ogden (Professor in Health Psychology, Emeritus; email janeogden509@gmail.com; based on a conversation with James Cannon at Radio Surrey; 8.40 am 12/12/2025)

Week ending 12/12/2025

In the modern world we pride ourselves on having freedom of speech and much as we recognise that there must be limits, we champion our right to speak out, march and strike. This week the news has been full of examples of when this right has been challenged. The protest group ‘Palestine Action’ was proscribed by the UK government as a terrorist group after they took direct action against defence firms. Since this time more than two thousand peaceful protesters have been arrested for holding handmade cardboard signs supporting Palestine Action (or Plasticine Action in one case!) and protesting against the genocide in Gaza. This week we have seen reports of those on remand (without trial or charge) going on hunger strike to raise awareness of what has happened to them. We have also learned that the US are going to start checking the social media accounts of all tourists (How? Really? All of it? For what? The World cup?) and Salah was called out for speaking out against his manager at Liverpool for dropping him from 3 matches. Apparently, he should have kept his feelings to himself!

I can vote because the suffragettes took direct action. I get reasonable working hours and holidays because of the unions and I proudly spent much of my twenties demonstrating against what the Thatcher government was trying to do. I also love it that Count Binface stood next to Boris Johnson in the last election, that the Monster Raving Looney party has stood against pretty much every famous MP for decades and that the late comedian Jane Godley met Trump off his helicopter will her succinct and precise placard!

Freedom of speech is key to being British and when it goes hand in hand with our irreverence its perfect!

But not everyone can say or do whatever they like. This week Australia banned social media for the under sixteens in a damage limitation move and the leader of the AFD in Germany has been involved in an ongoing court battle for using banned Nazi slogans. There need to be lines and it’s good to see that when these are crossed, action is taken (and governments could actually legislate against social media companies?). But then why can Trump seize a Venezuelan tanker without any consequences and how can Israel keep supporting the illegal settlers in the West Bank as they set fire to Olive trees and attack the locals with no-one doing or saying anything?

Freedom of speech is a great thing and the fundamental building block of democracy. I can march, rant or argue against the things I don’t like and then vote to try and make things better. But we have laws to stop this going too far and I know that if I incite hatred, violence or am racist then there will be consequences.

But sometimes these consequences are misplaced – we have to be able to speak out against a genocide that is playing out now in our lifetime. And sometimes these consequences are nowhere to be seen, and people seem to literally get away with murder as the world looks on and does nothing.

All opinions are those of Jane Ogden
Pnewsology (28/11/25) – the one about human error!

11/28/2025

The week’s news with a dash of psychology!

Jane Ogden (Professor in Health Psychology, Emeritus; email janeogden509@gmail.com; based on a conversation with James Cannon at Radio Surrey; 8.40 am 28/11/25)

Week ending 28/11/25

This was ‘budget week’ and the news was full of changes to tax and welfare systems with the government declaring that this was a Labour budget with labour values and the opposition and pretty much all the newspapers using it as an opportunity to score political points. As far as I could see no-one stood back and thought ‘Lets have a think and see what will be best for the country’!

Amidst all of this was one whopping human error when the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) accidentally pressed publish too early and released details of the budget together with their forecast even before Rachel Reeves could. With all the expertise, technology and systems in place a human error became headline news. We also heard of human error when a children’s football coach in Northern Ireland published a ‘drugs list’ on the coaches chat! Bizarre! Consisted of the prices of different drugs (illegal) and a phone number to get them! He was quickly dropped!

So, if humans are prone to error is AI here to save the day?

This week the police announced their new AI Bobbi to help as a virtual assistant leaving real Bobbys to deal with the more emergency and sensitive problems. Wes Streeting as always remains a great fan of AI to save the NHS and improve the health of the nation. And the OBR predicted that AI would make a huge contribution to growth over the next year.

But AI still makes mistakes. Apparently, Elon Musk’s Grok will tell, if asked, that Elon Musk is better looking that Brad Pitt, would beat Himmler in a poop eating contest and be quicker to resurrect than Jesus! Really??

And surely we still need humans? The dreadful fires in Hong Kong have been devasting and I’m sure drones will one day be used to deliver water and help put these out. But can drones reassure people, carry people out of burning buildings or encourage them to stay put if that’s for the best? We’ve heard of a local food charity called Fareshare clocking up over 32,000 volunteer hours this year to create food packages and cook hot meals for those in need. And Surrey and Border NHS Trust have an extra £20 million to support people with Eating Disorders. Surely these are jobs for humans who can chat, smile, listen and react. Not sure a robot can ever be as good as some people at that! Well maybe some people I can think of but not many!

And maybe human error is fine and just something we have to live with. Own up, say sorry, try not to do it again and we will all accept ‘that could have been me’, give respect for them for being honest and move on.

We seem to want to live in a zero-error world where everything runs perfectly. BUT that’s simply not possible. Humans and even AI get things wrong. But do we want zero error? In the law of unintended consequences, even if we try to sort out problems now, we could easily cause more problems in the future. AI could streamline all our services, simplify our shopping and even do our jobs. But then who would we chat and laugh with? A world without banter would be the biggest error of all.

All opinions are those of Jane Ogden
Pnewsology (21/11/25) – all about U-Turns!

11/21/2025

The week’s news with a dash of psychology!

Jane Ogden (Professor in Health Psychology, Emeritus; email janeogden509@gmail.com; based on a conversation with James Cannon at Radio Surrey; 8.40 am 21/11/25)

Week ending 21/11/25

In the 1980’s Margaret Thatcher famously announced that ‘The Lady’s not for turning’ as a sign that she was strong minded and not one for U-turns. In contrast, this week’s news has involved U-turns everywhere you look. Is a good sign if someone can change their mind or are they better sticking to their guns regardless?

The government’s manifesto just over a year ago promised not to raise taxes and they have made much of sticking to their promise. Last week, ahead of the budget we heard that Rachel Reeves was considering breaking this promise and raising income tax. The press responded, the markets responded and even the millionaires responded. But then we heard that she had changed her mind and income tax was going to stay as it was. A U turn or maybe a double U turn (a W turn?).

We also heard from the COVID inquiry how Boris Johnson’s indecisiveness and constant U-turns over the level of restrictions (groups of 3 or 6? Schools closed or open? Wedding or funerals allowed??) probably caused excess deaths in the second wave of the pandemic and contributed to the lasting impact on young people’s mental health.

And lo and behold President Trump changed his mind (again) over the Epstein Files and encouraged everyone to vote to have them released (although the level of redaction is yet to be seen).

But in contrast, Keir Starmer announced that will definitely lead the Labour party into the next election (after rumours of a leadership challenge). And we also heard how the determination to follow a herd immunity approach at the start of COVID caused delays in introducing any restriction causing an estimated 23,000 deaths. Definitely a hint of Thatcher and sticking to their guns, just like Jeremy Corbyn who was said to have stuck to his own ideological and policy guns since the 1970’s.

So what is better – U- turns or sticking.

It seems to me that there are two reasons people change their mind. The first reason is due to new evidence emerging whether it be through time, changes in the world order or the natural environment. With a war in Ukraine, Russian drones over Poland, Belgium, Norway and Sweden and the Netherlands and Israel still bombarding Gaza, the narrative is clearly there to raise taxes and put more money into the armed forces. With wild unpredictable weather it is also there to invest in renewable energy, to save the planet and make us more self-sufficient. I think people would have accepted tax increases to do this. And sometimes this new evidence is just personal experience. John McCaine changed his views on LGBTQ rights in terms of military service and marriage as his wife and gay daughter became ambassadors for equality. These seem to be perfectly good reasons for a change of mind and are a sign of strength.

But the second reason is a less positive one – fear. Fear of the press, fear of the voters and fear of how they might look to their colleagues can be behind a lot of U-Turns and ironically can end up backfiring making the U-turner look the very thing they are trying to avoid – weak.

U-turns are neither good nor bad nor inherently a sign of strength or weakness. We all change our minds all the time – what to wear, eat, what job to do or even who to be married to. But why we make them is what matters. And sticking to your guns may sound like you know your own mind, but if you do this regardless of the evidence then you are probably just stuck in the past.

All opinions are those of Jane Ogden
Pnewsology (14/11/2025) – all about Leadership!

11/14/2025

The week’s news with a dash of psychology!

Jane Ogden (Professor in Health Psychology, Emeritus; email janeogden509@gmail.com; based on a conversation with James Cannon at Radio Surrey; 8.40 am 14/11/25)

Week ending 14/11/25

We often talk about why people become leaders, what makes a good one and when it’s time for them to go. This week’s news saw the Director General and News COE of the BBC stand down following the editing of Trump’s speech for a Panarama documentary. We heard about a possible challenge to Keir Starmer’s leadership of the Labour party with conversations about whether Wes Streeting wants this role and would be better at it than Keir, and, yet again, many universities went back on strike to protest against job losses and cuts in degree programmes, in part due to inefficient leadership. These are the formal leaders of our world who run organisations and call themselves ‘Leaders’ although we used to call them managers (when we were being polite!).

We have also seen other more lowly mortals show leadership this week in less formal ways. We have watched as many celebrities and ‘normal’ people have completed fabulous challenges for Children in Need. Last night a young boy called Richard from Esher who has suffered from a rare cancer came out as England’s mascot for their football match against Serbia and locally in Guildford groups of creatives are pitching to relaunch our Electric Theatre and run it for the local community.

So why do people want to be a leader and what makes a good one? The point of a leader is surely to make those around them work better, to help any organisation fulfil its purpose, to be an inspiration and to bring out the best in people. And ideally those in any leadership role use basic psychology through focusing on the positives, being a good role model, leading by example not just words, and have risen through the ranks so they understand the day job. Parachuting someone in from outside may seem like having a fresh pair of eyes but can create resentment and irritation if they don’t actually know what the jobs other people are doing entail.

And a good leader also needs to be liked. They should have some degree of warmth and humour, be relatable whilst also having a degree of gravitas to gain trust and get the job done. And all this whilst being authentic! Pretending to be fun is just annoying and faking knowledge from a position of ignorance has us all pressing our ‘B***S***’ buttons pretty quickly. (Although I’ve always thought that deeply unpleasant people should try to hide who they really are for the benefit of everyone – authenticity can back fire!).

But unfortunately, not all leaders are driven a sense a common purpose. Many have their own agendas to fulfil, are compensating for bad childhoods and deeply held inadequacies and some are simply bonkers!

All opinions are those of Jane Ogden
PNEWSOLOGY (07/11/25) – all about responsibility!

11/07/2025

The week’s news with a dash of psychology!

Jane Ogden (Professor in Health Psychology, Emeritus; email janeogden509@gmail.com; based on a conversation with James Cannon at Radio Surrey; 8.40 am 07/11/25)

News for week ending 07/11/25

We often talk about blame and where the buck starts and stops and too often people throw their hands up and declare ‘not my problem’. But this week has been one of generosity with people (at last) standing up and showing some responsibility. Sadly, the lovely Patricia Routledge died whose lead in ‘The Lady of letters’ has stayed with me for years. Reports show that she gave over £1 million away to charities, particularly relating to young people and mental health and her town – Chichester. We also heard that the footballer Mbappe donated $20 million to Jamaica to help with the rebuild after the hurricane and Angelina Jolie has pledged millions to help orphans in Gaza. We also watched Billie Eilish ask a room of rich people at the Wall Street Journal Awards ‘if you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire?’. Good question. She has donated $11.5 million to charity! At the same time Rachel Reeves gave us a hint of the forthcoming budget suggesting that taxes might well go up and all or some of us will have to pay more into the communal pot. How will people feel about that?!

Often, we are very good at ‘othering’ and look at images of those who are in war zones amongst the bombs and rubble, hungry and homeless with compassion fatigue thinking they are not ‘like us’. And even when the problems are closer to home, we find ways to classify those in need as ‘different’ even if they speak our language and walk our streets. But taking responsibility for the world’s problems and trying to help comes from a feeling of being connected to others and seeing them as relatable. It also comes from a sense of agency and power and that we can make a difference. And it also is much more likely to happen if it is rewarded in some way. Holding on to your millions is rewarded if your friends do the same and you live in a micro world of massive bank balances and multiple yachts (what on earth do they spend it on?). But feeling good about yourself and getting praise from others can also help people be more generous. We used to live in a world of philanthropists when people took pride in dying broke so they could build libraries, schools and help the poor. Plaques on walls, recognition through named prizes or even just a bench can be enough to help people give away their money to a good cause. Sweden even publishes a tax list each year to celebrate those who pay the most.

But what about when we want to find someone to blame? Who do we look for? This week two prisoners escaped and calls went out for those at the every top to take the hit – David Lammy should resign. And as we read of war crimes and atrocities are the soldiers to blame? The Generals? Or the government? We need to hold people responsible, take action and see some consequences to feel that we live in a ‘Just world’ where law and order counts for something and bad people will be held to account. And so they should be. People have agency and make their own decisions, and sometimes ‘I was following orders’ doesn’t ring true and the person on the ground needs to get their comeuppance. But sometimes we also need to accept human error and old fashioned cock up. The wrong form was filled in, I was overwhelmed by work and I just signed on the dotted line mistakes we all make at sometime. No-one needs to fall on their sword – a simple ‘sorry’ and moving on is enough.

Taking responsibility for the world’s bigger problems is a wonderful thing to do and we need to find ways to better reward those who do (to make them do it more!). And holding those to account for evils of the world gives us a sense of fairness and makes us feel safe. But sometimes things are just human error – so let them go!

All opinions are those of Jane Ogden
PNEWSOLOGY (31/10/25) – all about accidents of birth!

11/01/2025

The week’s news with a dash of psychology!

Jane Ogden (Professor in Health Psychology, Emeritus; email janeogden509@gmail.com; based on a conversation with James Cannon at Radio Surrey; 8.40 am 31/10/25)

News for week ending 31/10/25

We often talk about ‘accidents of birth’ and this week’s news handed these out in their droves. The deadly hurricane Melissa devasted Jamaica and Cuba with poor residents having their homes wrecked and having to flee to safety. Just bad luck because that’s where they were born. I’m from Chingford in North London. We don’t have hurricanes there (yet) and my childhood home still stands 60 years after my birth in the top bedroom. We also watched as Presidents Trump and Xi revised their tariffs in exchange for rare earth minerals and Andrew, formerly known as Prince was stripped of his final title. All randomly born into money and power and living in the top echelons of society just because of who their parents and their parents’ parents were. Our days of Lords and serfs are way in the past, the US prides itself on the American dream and a classless society and China is run by the communist party. But here we are with accidents of birth still driving our news and very little sign of it changing.

We also debate ‘nature vs nurture’ and weigh up which is the biggest driver in who we are. But in this week’s news, it seems to me that these accidents also show that it doesn’t matter what the real drivers are but what people think they are. And those with power and money are not only at the top of the ladder but also think that they deserve to be there. They love the nature side of the argument and absolutely believe that they are better people who are better positioned at the top than others due to their better genes, better families and better biology.

But its not just them that love the nature argument. We’ve had a poor man carry out a DNA test only to find out his dad is not who he thought it was, social media trolls abusing Brigitte Macron about her sex at birth and a young woman claiming she’s Madeleine McCann. A biological basis to who we are seems to win hands down when it works for us.

But what about nurture? Accidents of birth throw us into places of danger not safety which shape who we become. The rich and the powerful surround themselves with those who faun, collude and enable as they become entitled and arrogant. And, to be fair, not everyone born into privilege just revels in their position. Some use it to change the world), some do actually work really hard and some with money just choose to give it away. Nurture clearly has its way.

Believing in biology works great for those at the top and helps them justify their worth as they cling onto their inherited gains. But they need to recognise they also got there through a good dose of nurture by the sycophants around them and that biology may not be so great when you turn out to be the genetic offspring of someone who has been disgraced.

All opinions are those of Jane Ogden.

recent posts

about