K.I.S.S.

The best systems are the simple ones. The more complicated they get, the more likely it is they will go wrong. The Tax Credit System is horribly complicated, and I'm not in the slightest surprised that it's in trouble. But even the basic principle is barmy - you pay people money for this year on the basis of what they earned last year. If this year they earn more, that creates an overpayment which you then ask them to repay. But by their very nature, these are mostly people at or near the breadline, who spend money as they get it, so how are they supposed to repay? If there's one thing worse than a complicated system, it's a silly complicated system!

I must be getting old.

There's nothing quite like nostalgia. The news that the BBC is to axe "Grandstand" brings back floods of memories of settling down on a Saturday afternoon to watch events you would never otherwise have seen, or even known took place. Anybody remember hill-climbing at Shelsley Walsh for example? I suppose in this commercial world where money can buy the exclusive rights to just about anything, it was inevitable that the Grandstand approach would ultimately run out of events worth showing, but they led the way back in the early years, and Saturday afternoons will never be quite the same again.

What the.........!!

Funny how things come in clusters - like buses. Another for the "You Couldn't Make It Up" collection: a bloke here in the Midlands lives next door to a piece of council land which had become a local rubbish dump. Fed up with the eyesore, he decided to do something about it, and spent some £1500 on clearing the site up. So what happened? The Council wrote to him ordering him to "re-instate the land to its original condition, or face criminal or civil proceedings". I'm just lost for words.

I'll stick with what I've got.

Sky have been bombarding me with literature extolling their new High Definition service. To enjoy the wonders of this new service, all I need is a new HDTV - anything from about £1000 upwards, a Sky HD box - £299, installation costs of £60, and an extra subscription of £10 a month. Yeh, right!

Ooh, me back!

The Supermarket I go to regularly has just had a make-over of its car park, with the result that it is now impossible to park within about 30 yards of the entrance unless you are disabled, or a parent with a toddler. Now I've no problem with special arrangements being made for such people, but what about those of us who are getting on in years and, although not disabled, do on occasion find walking any distance a bit of a struggle? Where do we fit into the great scheme of things? Nowhere, it would seem. How about special parking places reasonably close to the door for the "able-bodied but elderly"?

The perils of emulsion

Going further down the "You Couldn't Make It Up" line, have you heard about the bloke who was not allowed to board a bus because he was carrying a tin of paint? Brand new unopened tin, apparently, but it seems paint under new health and safety regulations is classed as a "hazardous article". The farce of it all is that if the tin's in a bag, then that's OK. Who the dickens thinks these things up? Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks is beginning to look quite sensible!

You couldn't make it up!

The last series of "Doctor Who" included episodes based on the premise that the Government of this country had been taken over by aliens posing as Ministers. Have you looked at Charles Clarke, our beloved Home Secretary lately? Could he in fact be a Slithereen? It would explain a lot. Have you seen his latest piece of idiocy? He is suggesting that people who have been convicted and imprisoned but subsequently had that conviction overturned on appeal should not be entitled to any compensation. So if I'm taken away from my home and family and locked up by a criminal, I would be entitled to compensation, but if the same thing is done to me by the state, I wouldn't be. It appears that I would be classed as a "victim" in the first case, but not the second. Is the man sane?

Is gatso?

There's a basic contradiction with speed cameras. If they're doing their job properly - that it deterring motorists from exceeding the speed limit, then they will raise little revenue. But the fact that they are raising, and continue to raise, considerable revenue means that they are not doing their job properly. And if they're not doing their job properly, what's the point of having them?

I'll see to that, dear......

We're spending more and more on DIY apparently, and yet how many of us are really competent at it? The number of bodge jobs you see - and not just small jobs. There's a bloke near where I live who is building an extension to his house. He's doing it himself - has been in fact for the past two years - and making a right pig's-ear of it. And what's the point? Far from adding to the value of his house, he's actually detracting from it. Best get a man in, and if you can't afford to do so, put it on the back burner until you can.

Who would have believed it!

Do you get as annoyed as I do at reports which come out with conclusions that are so gob-smackingly obvious that you cannot understand how anybody could justify spending good money on getting them? The latest is this one that says the poor are more likely to be burgled, more likely to be stressed by it and less likely to be insured against it. Would anybody honestly have thought different?

God and Mammon

Today is apparently the only Sunday when shops are forbidden to open. Why? In fact why are there any restrictions on Sunday opening at all? Why should one section of society with certain views have any right to curtail the activities of those who may not share their views? I don't object to those who wish to treat Sundays as a special day. I don't object to being awakened on Sunday mornings by the ringing of church bells. Why should they object if I wish to go shopping? Live and let live, that's my philosophy.

There's no place like....

I've always wondered why people choose to go away in this country on Bank Holidays. You just know that the roads will be choked, the trains will be overcrowded and running later than usual, it will take you at least twice as long as normal to get where you're going, and when you get there the place will be full of other holidaymakers. And then you'll have similar problems getting back! Best to stay at home I reckon.

A Pyrrhic victory?

Woman on the news celebrating her "victory" over her local Health Trust who had refused to fund a drug treatment for her on the grounds that her case was not exceptional. But it remains to be seen just how much of a victory this really is, because when you examine the judgment, you find that the court's verdict was based simply on their finding that it is unlawful to discriminate between patients. In other words, if a treatment is available, then it must be made available to everybody who would benefit from it - or to nobody. And of course it is those last three words which are crucial. Health Trusts may now well be faced with saying "There is treatment available, but we simply can't afford to provide it for everybody, and therefore, following this judgment, nobody can have it".

Loony Rooney?

I'm not a Rooney fan, but I think this business of his gambling losses has to be kept in perspective. £700,000 may seem a hell of a lot of money to you and me, but it probably represents no more than a couple or three months income to him. Still by no means a trivial matter, and clearly, however good a footballer he may be, he's obviously a lousy gambler!

Good health!

Pharmaceutical companies are being accused of "inventing" diseases so that they can sell more drugs and thus make more profit. I've no doubt there's some truth in it, but of course in order to succeed, it depends upon the public being willing to believe they are not well. We're not just talking hypochondria here - the fact is that good health is a very subjective thing. There is no doubt that the health of the nation has improved dramatically over my lifetime, and yet doctors' surgeries are as full as they ever were. If a 1950's doctor were to be presented with a modern day doctor's list of patients, I imagine that he would spend much of his time saying "What have you come to see me for - there's nothing wrong with you". What has happened is that, as people's health has improved, so their expectation of what constitutes good health has gone up as well. So we're just as much to blame as the drugs companies.

Folic folly

Big hoo-haa being made over the question of whether or not folic acid should be added to bread, to cut the risk of babies being born with certain defects. The main opposition seems to come from those who object on the grounds that this is "compulsory medication". I wonder if these people realise that flour is already "enriched" by law with certain additives, so the principle is well settled. Anyway, anybody who objects can always stick to wholemeal bread, because that will not be affected.

This is news?

Papers over the weekend full of stories about Prince Harry going out on the razz with some of his mates to celebrate finishing their Officer Training Course, and ending up at a lap-dancing club. So? Am I missing something?

National disaster.

You might wonder why anyone would choose to bet on the Grand National. It is after all the biggest lottery of any horse race. Fallers and loose horses can ruin the chances of the best of them. And yet, it has this fatal attraction - people who know nothing of racing, and who never otherwise go into a betting shop will study form and put their money on their fancy. If you work in an office, bet you had a National sweep. I have this crazy system just for this race. This time it gave me Innox. Great choice - fell at the first fence! Ah well, there's always next year.

Gospel truth?

Have you read about the Gospel of Judas? Fascinating stuff, and I have no real opinion on its authenticity, but what is clear once again is that the New Testament is in fact a highly selective compilation of writings designed to promote a certain image of the life of Jesus which the Church wished to disseminate. It perhaps comes as a bit of a surprise - shock even- to those who take the New Testament as being the last word on the subject, to realise that there is much other material which was simply left out because it didn't fit the picture which the Church wished to put forward. So spin isn't new, you see.

Beauty in the eye of the beholder.

Always nice when you find your judgment is shared by others. A list of the "100 Most Beautiful Women Ever" puts Audrey Hepburn at No. 1. Couldn't agree more. Grace Kelly No. 2 - again for me spot on. Not sure about Cindy Crawford at No. 3 but certainly wouldn't argue with Sophia Loren and Marilyn Monroe at 4 and 5. But Brigette Bardot down at No. 31? You cannot be serious!

Growing old gracefully.

Why on earth are they tarting up the Sphinx? Surely the whole point is that the Sphinx is ancient, and it should look it. It should show the ravages of time. What exactly are they trying to do?

How safe is safe?

We all know Sod's Law - "if it can go wrong, it will go wrong", but this is just an eye-catching way of presenting a much wider truth - if it can happen, it will happen. A thing - anything - is either impossible, in which case it can never happen under any circumstances, or it is possible, in which case, make no mistake, it will happen, sooner or later. Probability is a measure of how long we are likely to have to wait before it happens. It's worth bearing all this in mind when someone tells us that something is "safe". Following the death of a young lad from measles and a general increase in the disease, doctors are once again pushing the MMR jab and assuring us that it is safe. But this doesn't imply a complete absence of risk - simply that the risk can be regarded as negligible, and that the dangers associated with not having the jab are massively greater than those which may result from having it. This is what parents need to be aware of when making their decision.

La plume de ma tante...

One can have some sympathy with President Chirac in his attempts to maintain the status of the French language and to fight against the hegemony of English, but it is, I'm afraid, rather like Canute trying to hold back the tide. I can't help but feel that much of the problem, historically, lies with the Académie Française and its insistence over the years in attempting to maintain the "purity" of the French language. One of the reasons English has been so successful - apart from being the language of the USA - is that it absorbs words and ideas from other languages like a sponge. It's a mongrel language, with minimal grammar, and an ever changing vocabulary. It is capable of being all things to all people - that is its strength. The French language sees itself as a thing of beauty, with heavy reliance on correct grammar, and - if the Académie had its way - with a strictly controlled vocabulary. That is its weakness.

Success (n), define.

Story in the papers over the weekend about the intention to use airport-style scanners at tube and railway stations to detect people carrying knives. This follows a trial of such measures in London which the Transport Secretary described as "extremely successful". Statistics published show that some 10,000 people were scanned, 68 knives were seized and 100 people arrested - presumably some for reasons other than carrying knives. So 1% arrests and less than 1% where knives were discovered. Obviously it's better than nothing, but given that this was targeted and not random scanning, I would hardly describe such a result in such glowing terms.

Council Tax

Is it unfair? Yes, of course it is - problem is, how do you construct a system which is fair? By its very nature a large percentage of local government expenditure tends to be to provide services to the disadvantaged - so any idea of "pay as you use" is a non-starter. Local income tax - quite apart from the practical problems of collection and distribution - means that those who benefit from the services least end up paying most, which could be seen as equally unfair. The current system - which, with a few tweaks, is really just the old "rates" under a new name, means that the couple living in one house pay the same as the five people living next door. Perhaps the least unfair system would be one which divided the total bill equally between all adult local inhabitants. But this of course was the basis of the so-called "poll tax" and we all remember what happened to that. So, Council Tax unfair - you bet, but what's the alternative?

Save or spend?

A favourite aunt of mine ended her days in a nursing home. Top class care - no complaints. She was brought up to believe that you should take care of your money - that you shouldn't buy anything you didn't really need, and couldn't afford to pay for outright. And that you should save. As a result she had amassed a fair amount of money, and as a consequence had to pay the full whack of her nursing home fees. She became great friends with another lady there, and as they talked about their lives, it became clear that this other lady had, by comparison, led a feckless existence - spending every penny as she got it, buying luxury items on HP, going on two and three foreign holidays a year, and as a result now had nothing left, and nothing coming in except her pension. Her fees were paid by Social Services. They both got exactly the same care and treatment. Not surprisingly, my aunt confided in me that she wondered why she had bothered to scrimp and save and deny herself all her life. She thought she was doing the right - the socially responsible - thing. But what was the point? Anybody got an answer? I hadn't.