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.