Damned if you do......

Hefty daily doses of Vitamin D can dramatically reduce your chances of developing certain cancers, apparently. But wasn't it only a few months ago that I remember reading that hefty daily doses of Vitamin D could cause liver damage? I'm confused.

A bulging net.

I don't take much interest in football anymore - not since it gave up any pretence of being a sport, and became just a money game - but to the extent that I do follow a team, then it's my local team, Wolverhampton Wanderers. It's hard to believe that back in the 50's Wolves and their near neighbours and deadly rivals West Bromwich Albion were the top teams in the land. Since then, I've followed Wolves through thick and (mainly) thin. This season, they are once again underperforming, with no realistic chance of doing any better than maybe scraping into the play-offs. But on Wednesday night they booked their place in footballing history by becoming the first team in English football to score 7,000 league goals, so let's hear it - Up The Wolves!!!

Coincidences.

Perhaps for want of anything better to write about over the Christmas/New Year period, the papers have picked up on the story of a man who claims to have found an image of the Virgin Mary in a stain on a piece of pottery. This is a classic example of seeing something significant in a random chance event. Given that the pottery is stained, then the stain has to take some form or other. Look at it this way - if I take a well shuffled pack of cards and deal out four cards, and they turn out to be the four Aces, then, assuming I've not cheated, you would probably be amazed, and if you were a good statistician, would point out that the chance of this happening was 4/52 x 3/51 x 2/50 x 1/49 = 24/6497400 or 1 in 270,725. So now I put the Aces back in the pack, shuffle again, deal out four more cards, which turn out to be the 2 of Spades, 7 of Diamonds, King of Diamonds and 10 of Clubs. Do you consider this amazing? Probably not, and yet the probability of dealing those four cards (or any other named four cards) is exactly the same - 1 in 270,725. The difference is simply that four Aces have a particular significance, whereas the second four cards have none. So the stain on the pottery could have ended up in any of who knows how many ways, all of them equally improbable. But you are unlikely to say "Oh, look at this stain - it looks a bit like a dead bird under a sort of upside-down W", whereas if it resembles something which has significance for you , you will think you've seen something special.

Is it April 1st already?

I studiously try to avoid commenting on matters outside the UK, which I feel I am not competent to talk about, but I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw a report that President Bush's Christmas message included a reference to his armed forces who "...are working to...advance peace...around the world". This has got to be a wind-up, surely?

Site of the month

Prize for best Christmas site goes to NORAD, the North American air defence organisation, who used their radar network to track Santa on his way round the world delivering presents. Kept my grandchildren reasonably quiet all Christmas Eve evening, which is no mean feat! Apparently they've been doing this for some years but this is the first time I've come across it, and it gets a well-deserved five stars from me.

As Tiny Tim would say...

Highly professional and well-presented Queen's speech, as usual. But did my ears deceive me? Did she, as Head of the Church of England accept, however tentatively, that other faiths may have something worth saying? If so, God (whoever he or she may be) bless her. I was brought up as a churchgoer, but the one thing I have never been able to accept is the idea that salvation (whatever that is) is only open to Christians - all others are damned. I mentioned that I was at a funeral the other day, and the vicar gave the usual reading - you know the one "In my Father's house are many mansions..." Well actually she used one of the new translations, but I have always preferred the language of the Authorised Version, but the bit that always grates with me is "...no man cometh unto the Father but by me...", which as far as I can see means that something like seven out of every ten members of mankind are doomed to eternal hellfire. Even as a child, I remember being confused as to how a religion which preached love, tolerance and forgiveness could take such a stance. If there's any hope for the world, the major religions have got to come to terms with, and accept each other. I have the greatest respect for the Queen, and if she has taken a first small step in this direction, then my respect is increased a hundredfold.

My seasonal message

A happy and peaceful Christmas to one and all.

A sure thing

A couple of years back I had a small friendly bet with a mate that the new Wembley Stadium wouldn't be ready for the 2006 Cup Final, as was the original plan. Loser to buy the winner a bottle of Scotch. I've got my glass ready.......!

Don't mention the dog!

Plans are in hand apparently to remake the film "The Dam Busters" (why??), but problems have arisen over Guy Gibson's dog. Anyone who's seen the original film, or read the book will know that the dog's name reflected the fact that it was a coal-black Labrador. Unfortunately, it is also a word which now, despite the best efforts of Richard Pryor (God bless 'im) cannot be freely used because it might cause offence. To whom, exactly, I'm not quite sure, but there are those who are prepared to find offence in anything - remember Mary Whitehouse? Agatha Christie wrote a book which has had to be retitled because it contained this word. I'm sure you all know what the word is, so isn't it silly to have to keep tiptoeing round it just because some brain-dead morons use it as a derogatory generic name for people of a certain colour. Why don't we all just grow up?

Yorkshire puddings, Chelsea buns....

So now you can't call a pork pie a Melton Mowbray pie unless it's been made in Melton Mowbray apparently. Of course, I'm looking at things purely from a consumer's point of view, but it does all seem rather silly and trivial. I can see that if a product is specific to a place or an area, because it depends upon some ingredient which can be found or grown only there, or some process which can be carried out only there, then it is perfectly justifiable to protect its identity in law, but where we are dealing simply with a recipe using common ingredients, or a process which can just as well be carried out in one place as another, then its name simply reflects the recipe or the process. An Eccles Cake is what it is because of the ingredients from which it is made, and the way in which it is made, and not because of anything specific to the small Lancashire town of that name. I would suggest that the acid test should be - what would the reasonable consumer understand from the name in question. If I buy a Melton Mowbray pork pie, do I really think I am getting a pie which has been made in Melton Mowbray, or do I think I am simply getting a pie made in a certain way? Speaking for myself, definitely the latter.

One man's meat.......

Grandchildren are getting really excited as Christmas draws near, and it's certainly a magical time for them. But not for everyone. Went to a funeral earlier this week, and now for one lady, Christmas-time will always be associated with the death of her husband. Sobering thought.

Oh no - the flag's up!

Do you understand the offside rule? It seems that most people - even most football supporters - don't. And yet the basic principle is very simple and straightforward. If you are ahead of the ball when it is played, there must be at least two members of the opposing team between you and their goal - or at the least you must be level with the most forward of them. No problem, eh? Well if they had left it at that, there wouldn't have been, but they had to complicate the issue by introducing the concept of "active" and "passive" players. Take the Arsenal/Chelsea match last Sunday. Arsenal felt badly done by when a van Persie shot beat the goalkeeper all ends up, but the goal was disallowed for offside - not against van Persie, but against Henry. Arsenal argued that Henry was not involved in the play and should therefore have been designated a passive player, and the fact that he was several light-years offside should therefore have been ignored. My opinion? Get back to the basic rule. These are highly-paid professional players who know the rules, and presumably are in control of their feet and can count up to two. Why should any allowances be made? - if they get themselves into an offside position, they should take the consequences. Let's do away with these unnecessary complications. Do you remember Brian Clough's comment when an earlier test used to be whether a player in an offside position was interfering with play or not - "If they're not interfering with play, what the **** are they doing on the pitch?".

Education, education, education.

The Prime Minister's plans for school reform are coming under fire - mainly from his own party. Personally, I've always found it rather strange that it's perfectly OK to provide special schools and specifically tailored teaching for the educationally sub-normal, but the idea of doing the same for the educationally super-normal produces outrage and cries of elitism. Why should our brightest kids not be given every opportunity to achieve their full potential? I thought we'd got rid of the politics of envy, but apparently not.

Puffing Billy

In a recent case, a judge has ruled that smoking may amount to contributory negligence - at least, smoking since 1971 when health warnings first started to appear on cigarette packets. He made no distinction between people who started smoking after 1971, and those who started earlier and continued after 1971 - indeed the case in point involved a man who started smoking in 1955. I think the distinction should be made, because as a one-time smoker myself, I know how difficult it was to give up, and I can empathise with anyone who has tried and been unable to do so. Those who chose to start knowing the risks can certainly be considered as knowingly putting themselves in harm's way, but I feel it is a little hard to assume that anyone who continued smoking after 1971 was doing so by choice. I, by the way, gave up in 1965 - not because of health considerations, but because, as a newly married man, it was costing too much.

In my young day....

As a senior citizen, I am often drawn into discussions by my contemporaries about how terrible the world is these days, and how much better it was when we were kids. I usually find myself saying something like "Oh yes, it was so much better when we didn't have 'fridges so the milk went off before you had a chance to drink it, freezing cold in the winter with no central heating, draughty windows, no hot water until you'd raked out last night's ashes and got a fire going. Those were the days!". No, in my book life is infinitely better these days, certainly on the practical front, but there's no doubt that attitudes have changed and that it's a very different world. This was brought home to me again the other day when our local paper published a notice for people to cut out if they wished and put in their front windows saying "No carol singers, thank you". When I was little I used to go out on my own on Christmas Eve (not before) and sing carols (at least two) at every house up and down our street, and get maybe 6d (2½p) a time. These days people are unwilling to open their front doors to strangers after dark, even if they can hear the singing over the noise of the television. It was, I think, a more open and innocent world in my young day, but a better one...?

Housey-housey

If the first sign of madness is talking to yourself, where does shouting at the television rank? There's a programme on in the afternoons called "The House Doctor" where an American lady helps people who are finding difficulty in selling their houses. This invariably involves a certain amount of redecorating, and what she calls "decluttering". Prospective buyers are filmed giving their comments before and after. Makes for reasonably good television, but are these prospective buyers for real, or are they told what to say? I suspect the latter, but if they really are genuine and unscripted, then you do wonder about their intelligence. Who in their right mind would walk into a room of a house they were considering buying and say "Oh, I don't like all this furniture". This is the point at which I have to stop myself screaming at the screen "You idiots, if you buy the house, this will be an empty room". And "I don't like this wallpaper" has me wanting to shout "Well, change it then - you're almost certainly going to have to anyway". Surely what any sensible prospective purchaser is looking at is the potential, rather than the actuality. The worrying thing is that apparently the House Doctor is successful - houses which have not sold tend to sell after her ministrations, which seems to suggest that the average prospective buyer is in fact pretty stupid.

We are sailing, we are sailing....

It's coming up to Christmas, and the booze-cruise business is booming. Readers of this blog (are there any?) will know that I am basically pro-Europe - not wildly so, but essentially because I do not see any sensible alternative. But there are aspects which drive you silly, and the disparity of taxation is one of them. I regularly holiday in Spain and the Canaries, and when I'm there I can buy a litre of brandy for half the cost of a standard 70cl bottle of exactly the same product here, and a litre of basic table wine for less than a quarter of the cost of a bottle here. The difference of course is the tax. So just where is this "Common Market"? It makes no sense.

Resquiescat in pacem

I keep a database of books I have read - purely a practical matter, so that I know what I've read, and what I've enjoyed - and what I haven't. My latest read was Ed McBain's "Alice In Jeopardy", and as I've been reading McBain for as long as I can remember, I thought I'd check up and see how old he is - must be getting on, I thought to myself. But I just wasn't ready for the news that he had died. July apparently, and he was 78 which is a good enough age, but dead? No more 87th Precinct stories? Carella, Kling, Meyer Meyer all silenced? Somehow it just doesn't seem possible. As John O'Hara is reputed to have said on being told of the death of George Gershwin "I don't have to believe it if I don't want to".

Two breasts good, two balls bad?

Not sure how I feel about positive discrimination. David Cameron is intent on having more women as prospective Conservative MPs, and to this end has decreed that all future candidates are to be chosen from a centrally produced list, 50% of which will consist of women. If this means that women will be included who deserve on merit to be chosen, but who might otherwise be discriminated against by mysogynistic male-dominated selection panels, fine and good. But if what this means is that able men will be pushed off by less able women, simply to keep the percentage of the sexes equal, then this can't be right, or good for the party.

TV Times

Last night I watched "My House in Umbria" on one of the Sky movie channels. Not my choice - my wife's, but I found myself enjoying it. Of course, the real star was the ravishing Umbrian scenery, but it served to remind me what a talent we have in Maggie Smith - sorry Dame Maggie Smith, and what a talent we have lost in Ronnie Barker.

24 hour news channels

I'm not sure about the way the television news channels handle "breaking news" stories. Turned on the TV this morning to hear about the oil depot explosion in Hemel Hempstead. Obviously of great importance to those in the immediate area, and of interest to the rest of the country, but it soon became clear that little was known other than that the explosion had happened and that the police were treating it as an accident. So then we had hours of waffle, phone interviews with anyone they could get hold of - none of whom could add anymore factual information - and commentary from a correspondent about a mile away who had nothing to report on other than what he could see, which was what we could all see on the screen. This was obviously an important story, but there must have been other news, and surely the better way of handling it was to keep going back to it on a regular basis, but otherwise continue with the other news. As I write, it is still the only story being reported on - and this five hours after the event. Sense of proportion required I think.

English as she is spoke

Did you see that report yesterday about an escaped chimpanzee who became dangerous and had to be killed? Tragic story, but what about this quote from a spokesperson at the zoo concerned - "...the animal became extremely aggressive after having been tranquilised...". Hmmm.

Vee haf vays.....

The House of Lords has ruled that evidence which has, or might have been obtained under torture cannot be used in legal proceedings in this country. This on the basis that torture is an "unqualified evil" which "can never be justified". Right decision but unnecessarily convoluted reasoning in my opinion. The UK courts have always taken a rather more robust line on improperly obtained evidence than, for example, the US. The UK line has always been that the admission of evidence is to be judged on how relevant it is and how likely it is to be true, irrespective of how it was obtained. So if a murder weapon is found in a suspect's house, it would be completely illogical not to allow it to be introduced in evidence, just because the circumstances in which it was found amounted to an illegal search. The illegality of the search is a matter that can be dealt with separately. So as I see it, the justification for not allowing evidence where there is knowledge of, or a suspicion of torture, is quite simply that such evidence is inherently unreliable - end of story.

Do as you would be done by - again!

A big car-boot sale near where I live is being forced to close because of threats of prosecution due to some of the stallholders being discovered selling "dodgy gear". Piracy is theft, proclaim the local Trading Standards Officers. Really? Just what is being stolen from whom? As far as I can see, if I buy a hooky copied CD, the only way this can be considered as theft is on the basis that I am thereby denying the producer of the legitimate article a sale. But as, I suspect in common with most people who buy pirate copies, I am doing so specifically because I am unable or unwilling to pay the price being asked for the legitimate article, they wouldn't be getting a sale in the first place. So who's losing out? Before they start complaining, those who produce regularly pirated goods should ask themselves why, and examine the way they price their goods, and seek to control the market. One of my grandchildren asked for the DVD of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire for Christmas, and I had to explain that, as it had only recently been released in the cinemas, the DVD would not be out for some time yet. But why not? Because they can make a lot more money by forcing anyone who wants to see it to have to go to the cinema, that's why! As I've said before, those who deliberately rip people off are in no position to complain if they are ripped off themselves.

The car is king

My family often accuse me of being a grumpy old man, and maybe justifiably so. Certainly I seem to find a lot in the news to mutter about. How about congestion charging, which it seems is definitely on its way sooner or later? I have seen successive governments over my lifetime quite deliberately create an environment in which, for most people, a car has become an essential piece of kit - and now suddenly car use is being portrayed as antisocial and to be discouraged. Talk about being two-faced! Public transport is put forward as the acceptable alternative - I can only think by people who have never used it. And I know whereof I speak - I passed my test when I was 17, but didn't own my first car until I was nearly thirty, and prior to that used public transport on a daily basis. And this was in the days when it was infinitely better, cleaner and more reliable than it is today. Once having my own car, I realised what I'd been missing. And it's not just a matter of convenience and privacy. The other week I travelled into Birmingham by bus (well buses actually - two of them). This is a journey which would take me between 25 and 35 minutes by car depending on traffic. And by bus? 1 hour 10 minutes there, and 1 hour 17 minutes back. So a trip that would have taken me about two hours in total by car, took getting on for twice that long. Time I could have better spent doing something else. And it was raining, so I got quite wet into the bargain. Public transport - bah humbug!

Who can explain it?

Isn't it strange how the manner in which a person is killed affects how we feel about it? The inquest opened yesterday into those British victims of the tsunami last Boxing Day. Top news story, with many interviews of relatives and friends. Hour-long programme on prime-time television. And yet, why are their deaths any more terrible and tragic than the hundreds or possibly thousands of other people who have been killed accidentally over the past year? If a plane crashes killing a hundred or so, it seems to have massively more impact than the same number of people killed in individual car crashes. Like I say - isn't it strange?

Forbidden fruit

It has been suggested that the Government will increase the age at which you can buy cigarettes from 16 to 18. As any parent knows, the worst thing you can do if you want to prevent a teenager from doing something is forbid them to do it. Basic psychology. So such a move would simply make smoking more attractive to under-18s. Shooting yourself in the foot, really.

Get your facts right!

Oh dear, I'm going to nit-pick again! Report in the papers of a lad who was turned off his bus to school because the driver refused to accept a Scottish £5 note. Clearly this was something which shouldn't have happened, and the bus company have quite rightly apologised, but the report then went on to say that Scottish notes are legal tender. Well they aren't - simple as that, but this also shows a complete misunderstanding of what legal tender implies. If you are in debt, and you offer payment to your creditor in legal tender form, he/she is obliged to accept it, or suffer in costs if they later sue you for the debt. The rules relating to legal tender are quite complicated, but the crucial words here are "if you are in debt" - legal tender has no relevance unless you are. So when you offer to buy something in a shop, or buy your ticket on a bus, or whatever, you are not offering to pay a debt, and therefore legal tender doesn't come into it. If your offer to pay does not suit the shopkeeper, busdriver or whatever (for example offering a high-value note for an item worth pence) they are perfectly entitled to refuse it. So the bus driver was within his rights, however unwise he was to do what he did.

Don't mention the....

Sometimes interesting to look back at things that happened on this day in past years. So it was on December 3rd 1988 that Edwina Currie, then a junior Health Minister, told the country that most eggs were infected with salmonella. She was so roundly castigated for saying this from all sides that it led to her enforced resignation. So why is this interesting - because she was right! It took some thirteen years for there to be an official admission, but the fact is that she was sacked for telling the truth. And that should be a matter of interest, not to say concern, to everyone.

What goes around....

Isn't it funny how old ideas are taken out, dusted off, given an izzy-whizzy name and sold to us as something new? Ever heard of "synthetic phonics"? No, me neither but apparently it's the completely revolutionary idea of teaching children to read by getting them to learn the sound individual letters make, and then building up words by putting these sounds together. Well wow - how on earth did they think of that? But wait a minute - isn't this exactly how I and my generation were taught sixty-odd years ago? And for that matter, my own children thirty something years ago - and indeed, as far as I am aware, my grandchildren currently? So, however it may be presented to us, it's certainly not new.

Public money down the drain

So the costs of the 2012 Olympics are already running over estimate - now there's a surprise! These days little or nothing seems to come in on budget or on time. Certainly not government projects. Every indication that this will be another Millennium Dome or Diana Fountain - except that it'll be a damn sight more expensive! Watch this space.....

Old news

Has anybody noticed how often a morning news item will start something like "...in a speech later today, such and such a person will say...". You wonder why the person concerned bothers to turn up and make the speech when what will be said has already been reported. I would have this overwhelming urge to stand up and say something completely different, just to see the look of bewilderment on everyone's faces.

Urban myths

Lots in the news about pensions, which inevitably brings up that old chestnut about Civil Service pensions being non-contributory. Nothing more guaranteed to raise the ire of Civil Servants or, in my case, ex-Civil Servants, because it's just not true. If you're an employer prepared to pay £x to an employee, but then requiring them to pay £y as their contribution to their pension, you can go about it in two ways - you can pay them £x and then deduct £y from their pay, or you can do what the Civil Service do, and simply pay them £x-y in the first place. So when Civil Service pay-rates are negotiated, they are done on the basis of being net of pension contributions. When I was working, I was able to demonstrate this, because I had a close friend of similar age, doing a similar job with similar responsibilities in the private sector. He was paid significantly more than me, but when his pension contributions were taken into account, our pay rates were not that dissimilar (he was still paid more than me, but then the Civil Service has never been a generous employer). Where he really scored over me was the perks which came as part of his job package, but that's another story. So Civil Servants do pay for their pensions - in fact they pay before they have received a penny.

When I use a word.... (Humpty Dumpty)

I have no problem with same sex couples living together, and equally no problem with them putting their relationship on a legal footing. What I do have a problem with is calling such a relationship a marriage. It ain't! Look it up - a marriage is by definition a union of a man and woman as husband and wife. You might just as well stick a notice on the side of an elephant saying "This is a giraffe". It doesn't alter the fact that it isn't. I suppose the problem is that it's difficult to think of another word to describe such a relationship, but that doesn't excuse the deliberate mangling of the English language.

Seeing beyond the obvious.

Every year at about this time, we get assurances from our local authorities that they are well stocked up with rock-salt, they have gritters on standby, they have learned from past mistakes, and that this year there will be no chaos on the roads caused by bad weather. And then what happened on Friday in Cornwall happens.... Is it that they are seeking to solve the wrong problem? As I understand it, the situation in Cornwall was not directly caused by the weather, but by an accident which blocked the road (possibly caused by the weather). In other words, the sort of thing which could happen at any time, and which inevitably would cause long tailbacks. What the authorities should perhaps be asking themselves is - have we got any contingency plans in place to deal with long tailbacks in freezing weather? Clearly Cornwall hadn't.

Simply the best?

Papers today quite rightly full of tributes to George Best. Many of them describe him as one of the greatest players of all time. Not sure about that. Most talented - yes, but greatest? How many times did we see him beat a defender, only to then dally around and allow that defender to get goal-side of him again. You could almost hear him thinking "that was fun, let's do it again". I remember one match where, as a result of this tendency, he had to beat the same defender three times! That he was able to do this was a measure of his skill and talent, but that he needed to do it was a measure of the extent to which he fell short of true footballing greatness. There is however no dispute about his status as a legend and a hero to millions. RIP George.

Relevance?

In my paper yesterday - "In court today, the brother of Premiership footballer ****** was accused of....". Where I have put asterisks, the paper printed the footballer's name. Nowhere in the rest of the article was there any reference to the footballer, and it is clear he is in no way involved in the case. So why was the relationship mentioned? Why should a completely innocent person have their name associated, however obliquely, with a trial which is nothing to do with them? I won't identify the newspaper concerned, but I have to say it is one from which I would have expected rather higher standards.

In by the tradesmen's entrance?

I must have dozed off - how the heck did Parliament manage to pass a law overturning centuries of tradition by allowing an accused man's past misdemeanours to be put before a jury as evidence that he has committed the crime of which he stands charged before them? Where were the voices of reason? Where were the screams of outrage? Quite apart from the highly dubious probative value of such evidence, the mere fact that the prosecution feel the need to rely on it would seem to indicate that their case is basically weak. I am utterly appalled, and cannot help but feel that it is a yet another step on a very slippery and dangerous slope.

Flu, flu, Barney McGrew...

So we're running out of 'flu jabs - typical government cock-up! Of course, nothing is ever the Government's fault, so they're blaming the doctors. Plus ça change and all that.... Not that I'm bothered - I'm entitled to one by reason of my great age (!) but haven't had it. I had one a few years back, and felt really grotty for about a fortnight after, so ever since have decided to take my chance with the 'flu - couldn't be much worse.

Treading carefully....

Outrage by women's organisations at the finding of an opinion poll that "more than a third of people" think that "flirtatious" women are partly to blame if they are raped. Have to be very careful here, being a man, but surely all we are talking about is taking responsibility for one's own actions. If I go up to a thug in a bar and start taunting him, I really have nobody but myself to blame if he thumps me. That doesn't excuse what he's done, or make it any less of an offence, but equally it doesn't exonerate my actions. And surely, that's all this poll is saying?

Come out into the open.

Not surprisingly, many calls over the weekend for the reintroduction of capital punishment. I must declare an interest - my attitude was crystalised by the Craig/Bentley case back in the 50's, and I am implacably opposed. But trying to look at it logically, would Friday's events have been prevented if capital punishment was in place? This supposes that, before the person responsible pulled the trigger, they would have stopped and considered the consequences - I leave you to decide how likely that scenario is. So why the call for bringing back the rope (or lethal injection, or whatever)? Let's bare our souls - this has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with revenge. That's not to say that the desire for revenge is not a perfectly understandable emotion, but let's be clear about it, and not try to disguise it by dressing it in more acceptable clothing.

Smart thinking?

Drove to a nearby town the other day. Thanks to roadworks (and there don't half seem a lot of them around lately), was forced to take a diversion down roads which all had speed humps. What a pain! The justification for speed humps seems to be to discourage people from using these roads as "rat-runs", and the council appear ever more willing to install them. But what they never seem to ask themselves is - why do people need rat-runs? The answer of course is that the main roads are just not up to the job - but rather than address that problem, it's easier and cheaper to install speed humps. Of course, by so doing, they exacerbate the problem on the main roads - now there's clever!

Respect.

I'm a nit-picker - sorry, that's just the way I am. Following the terrible events in Bradford yesterday, there were pictures on the news this morning of a flag at a police station being flown at half-mast. Except it wasn't - it was being flown halfway up the flag-pole, which shows a complete misunderstanding of what "half-mast" is all about. It's origins are lost in the mists of time, and it's not clear whether it started on land or (more probably) at sea, but what is clear is that, when A defeated B in battle, A would hoist their flag on B's flagpole, with B's own flag underneath. This served two purposes - it was a declaration of victory by A, but it was also a recognition of defeat by B - effectively a signal saying to their fighters and supporters "Give it up lads, it's over, we've lost", and thereby hopefully saving any unnecessary slaughter by people fighting on for a lost cause. So when you fly a flag at half-mast, you are essentially B flying your flag below the invisible flag of death, or fate, or whatever. So it should be flown one flag-width or so below the top of the pole - the official line on government flagpoles is two-thirds of the way up, with at least the width of the flag between the top of the flag and the top of the flagpole.
Like I say, this is nit-picking. My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of the WPC who was killed.

Round the clock drinking

Lots of comments in the news about "binge drinking" and the Government's Bill to extend the licencing hours. For myself, I cannot see that the new rules will have much effect on the way people drink Certainly, the idea that Britain will adopt a continental-style "café culture" is I think pie in the sky. We just don't have the climate for it. I know a man who runs a city-centre pub in a pedestrianised area, and puts tables and chairs outside in the summer months. He tells me that if he gets 30 days over that period when the weather is such that people use that facility, he's done well. No, I think people's drinking habits will remain much the same, except that they - including any associated problems - will be spread over a longer period. The people I feel really sorry for are those who live close to pubs, who at present, come midnight to 12.30 a.m. probably feel they can relax, and that the liklihood of any bother from those tipping out has past, who will no longer be able to do so.

Don't shoot the pianist.

The Child Support Agency are under fire again, with no less than the Prime Minister himself putting the knife in. Back in the mists of time, I was a Civil Servant, and was around when the CSA was being set up and they were trawling for staff. I well remember the whisper coming down from those in a position to know - "don't touch it with a bargepole - it's horribly underfunded, hopelessly understaffed, and bound to be a disaster". And knowing the Treasury, they doubtless bought in a cheapo computer system that was never going to be able to cope. Of course, those who made those decisions will never have to face the music - they'll have moved on (and probably upward) by now. No, it's the poor unfortunates who work there who will take the flak. 'Twas ever thus.

A burning issue

Our local firemen are embarking on a series of strikes. About the one thing my wife and I will argue about is the right to strike - she very much in favour, me basically opposed. I don't know enough about the current dispute to have formed a definite view (in fact, as it appears that their conditions of service are being fundamentally and unilaterally changed, I have some sympathy with them), but what I do find distasteful - and my wife is inclined to agree with me on this - is the putting of human life at risk in pursuit of an industrial grievance. The union trot out the standard line of "the employer has left us with no choice", which is as fatuous an argument as it ever was. If, God forbid, anyone loses their life as a result of this action (why do we call it 'industrial action' when it's quite the reverse?), will anybody be willing to accept responsibility? I don't think so!

Do as you would be done by

On holiday a couple of years ago, my wife and I were browsing round the local shops. We saw a nice T-shirt in one shop - perfectly plain in a sort of burnt orange colour, good quality according to my wife, and priced at £6. A couple of shops further along, another T-shirt in a virtually identical colour - not such good quality according to my wife, BUT this T-shirt had a logo on - Lacoste, Calvin Klein or some such - I can't really remember. And the price? £22!! I am always reminded of this when designer goods companies start kicking up a fuss about "fakes". It seems to me that if you are ripping people off, you can't really complain if you are ripped off in turn.

Dog doesn't bite man!

I always feel that my Sunday newspaper could be prosecuted under the Trades Description Act, because it's anything but a newspaper. It's full of gossip and "human interest" stories, but little or no news. I accept this, but I expect rather better from the BBC. However for the past couple or three Sundays, the BBC's breakfast news programme has seen fit to regale us with details of Bill Turnbull's exploits on "Strictly Come Dancing". Fascinating though this may be to his friends and family, and to devotees of the programme, of one thing I am certain - it ain't news!

Judgment of Solomon

Story on the news recently of a patient who has been told by their Local Area Health Authority that they cannot have potential life-prolonging treatment on cost-benefit grounds. Please God I am never put in the position of having to make such a decision, but the way in which the Authority have been presented as heartless bean-counters is, I feel, rather unfair. The question they face is not - do we spend this money on this patient or not, but - do we spend this money on this patient or do we spend it on other patients? In other words, spending this money on this patient may benefit them, but may result in others not receiving treatment they need. Like I say, I do not envy those faced with such a choice, but I think they deserve our understanding rather than a knee-jerk reaction.

"Lord" Buckingham

I'm a bit confused by this recent case of a man who adopted the name of someone who had died in infancy, and created a new identity - including a title - for himself based on that name (anyone who has read "Day of the Jackal" will be familiar with the idea). He's recently been up in court, and been sent down for 21 months - but for what? I can only assume it is for making a false declaration on an application for a passport, because otherwise I am not aware of any law which prevents you calling yourself whatever you want, provided you do not do so in order to defraud, and there does not appear to be any indication that this man gained any pecuniary advantage from his deception. He may have something to hide, or he may simply be several sandwiches short of a picnic, but he does seem to have been treated rather harshly in proportion to his offence.

Overstepping the mark.

There's a fine line between self-confidence and arrogance. Following the Government's defeat in the House of Commons on Wednesday, Tony Blair, by his response of "I was right, you (Parliament) were wrong", has without doubt crossed that line. How ironic that I should feel compelled to make this post at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. We will remember them.

Call up the walking wounded.

We British like our traditions, but there are times when they verge on the ridiculous. One tradition is that, in order to register their vote, an MP must present him or herself physically in the voting lobbies. Realising that they were in danger of losing a vote, the Government called back two ministers from official trips abroad so that they could take part. Presumably, having done this, they will then return abroad to carry on doing whatever they were doing there. At what cost to the public purse? Surely in this day and age, and given the appropriate safeguards, there is a case for allowing voting by proxy.

Bring back the red flag?

It's Wednesday. On Wednesdays I go shopping, and that involves driving down a certain local road. This road dates back to the 1920s or 30s, when the availability of land was not a problem, so it's a good wide road - indeed four lanes wide for part of its length. The houses which line it were built around the same time, and are set well back from the road with long front gardens. When I first started driving, and roads were either 30mph or derestricted, this road was derestricted. Then, when variable speed limits came in - 1960s or thereabouts - it became a 50mph road. About 20 years ago, it suddenly was redesignated as 40mph, and then a few years back, reduced again to 30mph. This in itself is baffling - nothing has changed except the volume of traffic. The road is as it ever was, no new houses have been built, so on what basis this has been done is a mystery. What really gets up my nose, however, are the new speed limit signs. "Speed limits life" they proclaim under the new 30 figure. It's not just the sanctimonious and patronising tone that gets me, it's the fact that the statement is at best misleading, and at worst a deliberate untruth. There is no evidence that an increase in speed, in and of itself, makes the likelihood of having an accident more likely - indeed up to a point, quite the reverse. All evidence shows that the safest speed (that is the speed with the lowest accident rate associated with it) is around or just above the "85th percentile" speed - that is the speed which, left to their own devices, 85% of drivers would not exceed, and in most cases this is well in excess of the posted speed limit. It's bad driving that causes accidents (and inappropriate speed may well be a factor), but unfortunately the police have long since given up on policing driving standards, and speed cameras bring in a nice little revenue for no effort. Once again, I have no axe to grind - I have no points on my licence, although that's as much a matter of luck as anything.

If you can't stand the heat...

I personally would not ever have volunteered to be a policeman - I just wouldn't fancy the sort of things I might have had to deal with. I have the greatest admiration for those who do go into that profession. What I find less acceptable is that, having made that choice and then having had to deal with the nasty aspects which go with the job, some of them are now seeking compensation for what they have had to put up with. We seem to have imported the American approach that, if something unpleasant happens to you, somebody must be at fault and therefore liable to pay up. The idea that, to quote one of the less pleasant modern sayings - shit happens, no longer seems to register. I'm sure my gran would have had an appropriate saying - and it wouldn't have been the one I've just used!

Site of the month

I spend a lot of time (far too much my wife would say) browsing around on the Internet. Most of what is there is unremarkable (yes, including this blog), but every now and again you come across something really different and clever. Here's one for you - have a look at http://www.lejo.nu/, and click on "videos". Brilliant!

What next - the 2 a.m. knock on the door?

The government are having problems getting their legislation on holding terror suspects for up to 90 days without charge through Parliament. Quite rightly in my opinion - I have commented on this before. But what amazes me is to hear the Prime Minister trying to sell this idea by saying "the police have told me they need these powers, so they should have them". What sort of argument is that? Since when have we lived in a Police State? There may be arguments in favour of the proposal, but the idea that the police should unquestioningly have what they want is a highly dangerous concept.

None of the above...

Today is the official start of the hunting season apparently, and of course this is the first seaon where traditional fox hunting is now banned. There are polls in the papers from both the pro- and anti-hunting sides today claiming majority public support. Well they can't both be right, can they? But are they in fact both wrong? I'm always highly suspicious of public opinion polls, because it all depends on the question being asked, not to mention the circumstances in which it's being asked. I would imagine that, if presented with a truly open question with no undue pressure, the reality would be that some 10-15% of people are opposed to hunting, some 10-15% are in favour of it, and 70-80% couldn't care less.

Connections

What have The Caine Mutiny, Tony Blair and Sir Alex Ferguson in common? If you've read the book or seen the film, you'll know that in The Caine Mutiny there comes a point at which it becomes clear that Captain Queeg is beginning to suffer a mental breakdown, and the other officers have the choice of either supporting and helping him, or turning on him and destroying him. To make a good story, the author naturally has them choose the latter course, but the point is that they did have that choice. Tony Blair has more or less singly-handedly saved the Labour Party from political extinction. Alex Ferguson has brought glory to Manchester United beyond their wildest dreams. Both are now looking a little wobbly. The question is, are those who have benefited from their efforts over the years now going to support and help them, or turn on them and destroy them? What do you think?

Whizz-bang!

Well, Halloween's over, and now we have a noisy week of more or less continuous fireworks what with Divali and Bonfire Night - and it tends not to end there. Not good news for pets, babies, invalids and older folk like me who don't appreciate being kept up until the small hours, but great for children, and that's how we need to look at it. Mind you, perhaps I'm just jealous - when I was little, we didn't have fireworks, we had the genuine article, courtesy of Herr Hitler and his Luftwaffe.

Blind side

So David Blunkett's in trouble again. Nothing new there, then. He's not going to change - he's what my gran would have called a "chancer". Questions are being asked once again about his judgment, but to me the judgment which should be being questioned is that of a Prime Minister who would appoint such a man to his Cabinet - and not just once, but twice.

Cui bono?

Adverts have started appearing in the press reminding us that, as from next February, you will have to use your PIN number with your "chip and pin" card - you will no longer have the option of signing instead. The chip and pin system has been sold to us on the basis that it (a) helps prevent fraud and (b) apart from having to key in a four-digit number instead of signing, makes no difference to us, the consumer. Well, (a) may be true, but what about (b)? It seems to me that it potentially makes a big difference to us. Consider - you get your credit card statement and see to your horror that several large purchases appear on it which you haven't made. You query them. Under the old system, it would be for the credit card company to show that you had made those purchases. They would do this by producing the chits that you had signed, and if those signatures were not yours, you would be able to demonstrate that. But under the chip and pin system, all the credit card company would have to show is that your pin number was used, and how ever much you may protest your innocence, that as far as they are concerned would be conclusive. So in cases like this, chip and pin has actually shifted the onus of proof from the company to the consumer, and as, if your pin number was in fact used, it will be virtually impossible for you to show that it was not used by you, or by somebody with your permission, or as a result of you disclosing it - possibly accidentally - to somebody else, your chances of success are pretty slim. So let's not kid ourselves, chip and pin's main benefits are for the credit companies, not us.

Horses for courses

Recent news item - offering long-term contraceptive injections to women rather than have them rely on other ad-hoc methods "could cut the number of unplanned pregnancies by 70,000 a year". The report went on to say that objectors rejected such an idea as it "could help fuel promiscuity". Question - is this a proper and relevant objection? Of course, not all unplanned pregnancies prove to be a problem, but to the extent that they are, the problem is a social one, whereas promiscuity, if indeed you see it as a problem, is a moral one. Here we are concerned with the treatment which doctors - i.e. the NHS, which in turn means the Government - should offer, and that is a decision which should be driven solely by what is best for society. Purely moral questions are by no means unimportant, but they are for parents, teachers, church leaders, philosophers and the like. Government is there to make decisions in the best interests of us all, and not to promote a particular attitude to the way we should live our lives.

Tick tock - aargh!

At an interview I once attended, one of the questions was - If you had the power to get one law passed, what would it be? I'm still not sure just what the interviewer hoped to find out about me by asking such a question, but my answer was immediate - I would abolish Summer Time. Actually, in retrospect that wasn't exactly what I meant. What I would really like to do away with is the necessity of changing the clocks twice a year - I'm not that bothered about which particular time-zone we ally ourselves with. I live in a fairly standard three-bedroomed semi, so I would imagine that my experience is pretty typical, and last night I once again had to change the time on no less than eleven clocks. And the major problem is that only about half of them are real clocks - the others are digital displays on various pieces of equipment, and because I only have to deal with this twice a year, that means that I can't remember how to do it (they all work differently of course) and that involves getting out the various instruction books (first remembering where you put them last time!) and trying to make sense of the strange English these things tend to be written in. And as for the central heating clock, that involves half emptying the boxroom and then scrobbling on the floor with a torch! Plenty of suggestions in the papers today that we should go on to Central European Time, but that wouldn't solve the problem because they change the clocks as well. I'm sure they hadn't used to - does anyone else remember Two Way Family Favourites where the intro used to change in the summer to reflect the fact that our Summer Time now coincided with their clocks. So here's my suggestion - we (England and Wales) adopt a Standard Time which is half an hour ahead of GMT, and stick with it throughout the year. If the Scots want to do their own thing, let them, and the other European countries of course can decide for themselves. Please???!!

Tiptoe through the......

Spent the last week picking my way through mud and various sorts of animal poo on a semi-working farm in Devon. The grandchildren loved it despite the somewhat inclement weather, and I can thoroughly recommend the place to anyone with small children - the people who run it put themselves out to entertain them, and they have a wonderful time running wild in complete safety. I've no hesitation in giving them a well deserved plug - the website is http://www.northhaynefarmcottages.co.uk/.

Learning from history - again!!

So the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party are now down to two, and they are both, apparently but not surprisingly in view of the clout of the "little Britain" wing of the party, eager to present themselves as eurosceptic. And yet, once again, look at the past. If there's one thing that two world wars have taught us (or should have) it is that, however much we may want to, we cannot be self-sufficient - at least if we wish to maintain anything like the lifestyle we aspire to. This was why the Battle of the Atlantic was second only to the Battle of Britain in importance to the eventual outcome of the last war. So, it's clear that we need to have an trading/economic alliance with someone - the only question is, who? There are only three reasonable options - (a) the USA, (b) the Commonwealth, or (c) Europe. The problem with the USA - apart from the fact that many people, myself included, would baulk at any possibility of becoming the de facto 51st state - is distance. Goods from the USA will have to travel around 3,000 miles or more, with all the cost and other implications involved. The same problems arise with the Commonwealth, quite apart from the fact that the Commonwealth is basically an artificial grouping of countries that don't always get on that well with each other, so long-term stability cannot be taken for granted. And that leaves Europe. We may wish that Europe worked better, but the question of whether we should be in or not is really a no-brainer, isn't it?

A bumpy playing-field

Did anybody spot the case of Campbell v MGN before the House of Lords the other day? Did you realise that if you are successfully sued by someone who has a Conditional Fee Agreement with their solicitor (commonly referred to as "no win, no fee") you may end up paying up to twice as much in costs as you otherwise would have done? I didn't, and I can't help but feel somehow that it ain't right.

P.S. Mea culpa - I had assumed (see post dated 10th October) that an insurgent was someone who came in from outside to create trouble, but apparently it is anybody who rises up against authority. Must consult dictionary more.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Another set of crime figures - what, if anything, do they mean? Let's face it - nobody knows how much crime there is, only how much crime is reported. So that's what these figures represent, and the extent to which crimes are reported depends on many changing factors. When the police started to take domestic violence seriously, the incidence of domestic violence appeared to increase - but this was simply because more people felt it was worthwhile reporting such behaviour. Recently, a local police authority who decided to put more bobbies on the beat reported a marked increase in crime - but again this was because you're far more likely to report a crime if you see a policeman just down the street than if you have to go down the local (and it's probably not that local) cop-shop to do it. So let's be clear - these new figures which show overall crime falling may represent a genuine decrease, or equally may simply be an indication that people, for whatever reason, are somewhat less likely to report crime. Equally, the reported increase in violent crime may be nothing more than the public's reaction to their perception that these crimes are being taken more seriously. The reality may be that nothing much has changed.

Book prices

With the possibility of Waterstones taking over Ottakers, there has been much whinging about the power the booksellers wield over the publishers. Should we feel sorry for the publishers? Consider this - I have several paperbacks which I purchased in the mid to late 1950s. Price, 1/6 and 2/6 (and for those who don't go back that far, that's 7½p and 12½p respectively). Taking account of inflation, that equates to around £1.25 and £2 in today's money. And the price of a paperback today? At least £6.99!! Even if it's a best-seller and you're able to take advantage of the supermarkets' discount prices you're still going to have to pay around £3.50 or more. Like the man in the bank advert says - someone's having a laugh!

The future's red - the future's Labour

So Ken Clarke's out. I can't help but feel that the Conservatives have just ditched what miniscule chance they might have had of winning the next election. David Cameron might be the man to lead them back into power eventually, although I'm not sure about the wisdom of going for a Blair-alike, but in any event, even if he can fight off being taken over by the right-wing, as William Hague was, I can see it taking him a good few years to do the business. As for David Davis and Liam Fox - permanent opposition, I'm afraid.

A sp(l)iffing idea.

The question of drug-taking is in the news again, thanks to one of the proposed Conservative leadership candidates not being prepared to come clean on whether he had or hadn't. I find our attitude to drugs most confusing. My understanding is that the number of crimes committed specifically as a result of someone being under the influence of drugs is - if we exclude alcohol (which most strangely doesn't count as a drug) - very small. What tends to be referred to as "drug-related crime" refers almost entirely to crimes committed by people after money to feed their habit, and turf-wars between drug-dealing gangs. In other words, the main problem as far as society is concerned is not to do with people taking drugs, but with the practicalities involved in them getting those drugs, and yet all our laws seem designed to make the problem worse by making the supply more restrictive. If our laws were based on logic rather than on hypocritical bigotry we would, as a first step, make drugs readily and cheaply available thus virtually eliminating drug-related crime as defined above, and then, but only then, if thought appropriate, we could embark on an education programme designed to try and make drug-taking socially unacceptable - though why we should when we place no restrictions on the consumption of alcohol, escapes me. And let me make clear that I have no axe to grind - like Bridget Jones I regularly exceed my daily alcohol unit intake - v.v. bad.

Another poke in the eye for poor old Magna.

Just the other day I was musing on how easily one could fall foul of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and in the papers today is a report of a young lady who was arrested and held for several hours under said Act for - wait for it - walking in an area designated for cyclists only. Yes, really - it is not April 1st! What makes matters worse are the quotes from the various authorities involved trying to justify their actions, and each blaming somebody else. I reckon Franz Kafka and George Orwell are up there having a really good laugh. By the way, for anyone not aware of the fact, George Orwell was a nom-de-plume - his real surname was Blair. Now how spooky is that!

You've got an ocracy?? (Part II)

So just how democratic is our Parliamentary system? Well, if we go back to the basic ideal that democracy means that each person has an equal right to have their voice heard, the answer has to be "not very". At present we have a government with a very comfortable majority for which only just over one person in three voted. And that's not a snipe at this particular government. I think I'm right in saying that every post-war government has been elected on less (and in most cases, considerably less) than 50% of the votes cast. This wouldn't matter so much if MPs did what they ought to do, which is represent their constituents, but with a very few honourable exceptions, they don't - they do what their party tells them to, irrespective of the wishes or best interests of those they are supposed to be representing. Indeed, what we like to think of as our "democracy" is much closer to what Lord Hailsham referred to in 1976 as an "elective dictatorship". If you voted for Party A, but Party B got in, you're going to have no say in what goes on, at least until the next election. Does this all really matter? After all, it's a system which has developed over centuries, and although we may slam a few doors and kick the cat when election results go against us, for the most part we are content with it. Well, it does to the extent that when we talk about "bringing democracy" to Iraq or Afganistan or wherever, this is what we are talking about - not democracy as such but Western parliamentary democracy, and what I'm not at all sure anybody has really thought through is whether that model, which serves us well enough for all its faults, is really suitable for others.
P.S. I see that Condoleezza Rice is over here to talk to Tony Blair about "Iran's nuclear programme" - why do I get this feeling of "Oh, God, here we go again"?

You've got an ocracy??

I keep hearing the word "democracy" being used in connection with what's going on in Afganistan and Iraq, and this has led me on to some thoughts about that word and what it imports. Let's start with basics - all the "ocracy" words derive from the Greek "kratos" meaning power or strength, and thereby the right to rule. So we have "autocracy" meaning power in the hands of one person (autos = self), "theocracy" meaning government according to the rules of some religion or other (theos = god), "meritocracy" meaning rule by those who have proved their ability (from the Latin this time - merere, to deserve), and of course "democracy" meaning rule by the people (demos = the ordinary people). So in a true democracy everybody has a right to their say, and everybody's say carries equal weight. The closest mankind ever got to this was in ancient Athens, where all citizens could go to the Assembly (which by all accounts was just an open hilltop) and speak their piece and vote on what laws should or shouldn't be made - at least in theory. In fact this wasn't as open as might first appear. For starters, you had to be a citizen, which ruled out slaves and women, for instance. Then if you weren't a good orator, or didn't have a particularly powerful voice, your chance of being heard (or more to the point, of being taken any notice of) was slim. In any event, such a system could only work where you had a small population, and so it was quickly taken over by the concept of "representative democracy", where people elected representatives to speak and vote for them. And that is essentially the system which has developed here in the UK, where Parliament is the modern equivalent of the Assembly. But just how democratic a system is this? More later.

Joined-up government?

Two recent headlines -
26th September - Sylvia Hardy jailed for seven days for failing to pay £53.71 of her council tax.
13th October - Thousands of prisoners could be released early because of chronic overcrowding in jails.
'Nuff said!

Poor old Magna

Another of my gran's sayings was "You can't have the penny and the bun", by which she meant, make your mind up - you can't have it both ways. But have you noticed how this doesn't seem to apply to politicians? Consider two quotes from Tony Blair:-
1. "...when they [terrorists] seek to change our country, our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed."
2. "Let there be no mistake. The rules of the game are changing."
Excuse me? If the rules of the game, that is the way we live our lives, are changing, then the terrorists have already achieved their objective surely? And boy, are they changing! Not long ago, if the police wished to arrest me, they had to have a reasonable suspicion that I had committed, was in the process of committing, or was about to commit one of the more serious crimes ("an arrestable offence"). They then had 48 hours to charge me or release me, and if charged, bring me before a magistrate "at the earliest opportunity". In theory at least, this is still the case, but the reality is that, if I am arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (which may be for doing something completely innocent but which arouses someone's suspicion, for saying something that someone takes exception to or for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time), I can be held without charge for at least a week and probably considerably longer. And proposals are currently under consideration for this to be extended to three months! The justification for this seems to be that the police need this sort of time-frame to investigate your computer, mobile phone records etc. But hang on a minute - surely this is putting the cart before the horse. What happened to the presumption of innocence? If they've no evidence, what are they doing arresting you? This idea of "we'll arrest you now, and hope to find the evidence after we've been through all your stuff" goes against all the principles of basic justice. To quote Tony Hancock (of beloved memory) "Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?".

Bad, worse, worst

Poll carried out by local news programme the other night - should we withdraw our troops from Iraq? Result - 90% yes. Why does this worry me? My position on Iraq is quite clear - we should never have got involved in the first place, but we did and must now deal with the situation as it is, however much we may wish it were different. If there's one thing nearly 70 years in this world has taught me, it is that life rarely presents you with clear and easy choices. For the most part, you find yourself making choices you would rather not have to make, and choosing between options which all have a downside. So how do we deal with this? There are two strategies which have helped me over the years. The first is the seat-belt approach. Every year several people are killed or seriously injured as a direct result of wearing seatbelts, so how can the government possibly justify passing a law requiring us to wear one? The answer, of course is that many, many, many more people are saved from death or serious injury as a result of wearing seatbelts - in other words the advantages far, far outweigh the disadvantages. So, list the pluses and minuses of your various options and you might find the answer becomes obvious, or at least easier. But what happens if there are no pluses? Then you fall back on the "least-worst" approach. Which option produces the least worst result? Which brings me back to that poll. I can't help but feel that many of those 90% have not considered the matter any further than to see the obvious bad things which will flow from our troops remaining there. But what is likely to happen if we withdraw? Will that lead to even worse things? I don't claim to have the answer, but I'm certain it's not so clear-cut as that poll would suggest.

The sound of silence

My gran, who was mainly responsible for my upbringing, had a fund of maxims, one of which was "if you've got nothing worth saying, say nothing". As this is a blog about current affairs here in the UK, I feel I really should say something about the terrible stories and pictures coming out of Pakistan - particularly as where I come from (West Midlands) there are many people with friends and family in that area. But, however much I may wish it were different, nothing I can say will affect things, or make things better, so......

...a rose by any other name....

So we now have a new candidate as the "true" author of the works of William Shakespeare. But does it matter? Surely the value of the works of Shakespeare lies in the works themselves, irrespective of who wrote them. Similarly, I recently read an article in a music magazine suggesting that the music of Richard Strauss should not be played because he was a Nazi. Well, I'm not sure that in fact he was in the sense in which the writer meant it, but even if he was, what relevance has that got to the worth - or otherwise - of his music? Does a great painting or a wonderful poem become any less great or wonderful if we learn that the painter or poet was a mass murderer or a paedophile or whatever? If your inclination is to answer "yes" to that then consider the opposite - does a crap painting or a terrible poem become any less crap or terrible if painted by the Dalai Lama or written by Mother Theresa? Works of art have - or don't have - an intrinsic value irrespective of who creates them. So, speaking for myself, I couldn't give two hoots about who actually wrote "Romeo and Juliet", "Julius Caesar", "Othello" et al., I am simply content to accept them as the works of genius they are.

Musical pockets

So Network Rail have been fined £3.5m for their culpability in the Hatfield rail crash. But wait a minute - aren't Network Rail a nationalised concern (or whatever the current expression is), meaning that Network Rail's money is government money? And where does the fine go? Well presumably, either directly or indirectly, to the Treasury. So if I'm right, the effect will be that the government will take £3.5m out of one pocket, marked "Network Rail" and transfer it to another pocket labelled "Treasury". As Jimmy Greaves used to say (and probably still does) "It's a funny old game"!

Learning from history - part the twoth

The government keep trying to excuse the mess they have helped create in Iraq by maintaining that they couldn't possibly have foreseen what was going to happen. And yet.... It's not that long ago that we watched what happened in Yugoslavia, a recent artificially created country only held together by a strong repressive government, when that government collapsed. So now we have Iraq - a recent artificially created country only held together by a strong repressive government, and we go in and deliberately remove that government, and...... well, goodness gracious me, I didn't see that coming! Of course, as we all know, it's really down to the insurgents. This word "insurgents" keeps cropping up in official pronouncements, rather like a comfort blanket - it's all down to these wicked people coming in from outside, and the Iraqis themselves, left alone, would live a Utopian existence in peace and harmony. Really? My understanding is that in those (admittedly few) cases where the perpetrators of terror attacks have been able to be identified, the overwhelming majority have been native Iraqis. Ah yes, then goes the argument, the insurgents are using Iraqis to do the dirty work, but they are behind it. Comfort blanket again. I'm sure there are people who have been drawn to Iraq to help in what they see as a struggle of principle - exactly as many British and Americans were drawn to Spain's civil war in the 1930's (learning from history - part the third!), but I think this insistence that it's all down to these insurgents owes more to wishful thinking than reality. I guess that my use of words like "Iraq" and "insurgents" probably means that this post will have been flagged by the intelligence services - so hello, lads, and have a nice day.

It's round and it rolls, stupid!

When I went to school - more years ago than I care to remember - I recall our history teacher explaining to us what the purpose was of studying history. "It is" he said "to prevent each generation having to re-invent the wheel". In other words, you build on what others have done, and avoid the mistakes others have made. And yet it's amazing how often this lesson is ignored. I was reminded of this the other day when listening to the speech of one of the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative party. Essentially his message was "I want us to stop apologising for being Conservatives" which to me, at least, appeared to be a coded way of saying "Vote for me for more of the same". The fact that "the same" had resulted in three straight big election defeats just didn't seem to register. The most cursory examination of elections since the war demonstrates that they are won from the centre ground. I am no fan of Tony Blair, but give him credit for understanding that the Labour party would never win an election from way out on the left, and for dragging them kicking and screaming into the centre. Of course the Conservatives then made their fundamental mistake. Instead of fighting for the centre ground, they adopted the "clear blue water" policy which resulted in them moving further and further to the right and becoming, in their turn, unelectable. So they now face the same problem that Labour did in the 80's - stay where they are and become the "sadly-misunderstood party" permanently in opposition, or move back into the centre. I've seen governments come and go over many years and developed a somewhat cynical attitude to politics and politicians, but it is important for the political process to have a strong opposition - something we haven't had for the last eight years - so the outcome of the Conservative leadership contest does concern me, and the fact that the party are even willing to listen to candidates who simply promise "more of the same" worries me.

...and possibly goodbye from them

Top story today is of the danger of species becoming extinct due to global warming. Am I alone in wondering just what it is we are getting our knickers in a twist about? After all, environmental factors have been killing off species throughout history - anybody seen a dinosaur lately? I see a certain similarity here with the arguments over fox-hunting. As far as I could see (and I am a townie who knows nothing of country life) it had little or nothing to do with foxes or dogs or one creature tearing another to pieces - after all, this is the natural order of things. No, what was at issue was human behaviour - it was OK for a pack of dogs to chase and kill a fox, but not OK for people to specifically organise such an event, and then to watch and get enjoyment from it. The same people who were so vociferously anti-fox-hunting would probably see nothing wrong in a TV program showing a lion hunting down and killing a gazelle. In the same way, the problem with the possible extinction of species due to global warming is not that this sort of thing doesn't happen naturally, and that these species may well become extinct in due course anyway, but that what is happening is the result of human behaviour. I'm not arguing for or against, but it seems to me that we should be clear in our minds about just what the argument is. There may be good reasons for trying to stem the tide of global warming, but I'm not sure that the possible extinction of species is one of them.

Goodbye from him.........

The news yesterday and the papers today are dominated by the death of Ronnie Barker. Certainly the most accomplished comedy character actor of the television era, his portrayals of Norman Stanley Fletcher in "Porridge" and Arkwright in "Open All Hours" will ensure that his memory will live on. I, like I suspect many others, feel that I have lost a personal friend. Four candles, anyone...........?