When is racism not racism?

So Shilpa Shetty won Celebrity Big Brother - now there's a surprise! I would imagine most people who voted for her did so because of the way she was treated during the show, which was deemed by many to be racist, she being Indian. But this raises (for me at least) the question of whether voting for her for that reason alone would not be just as racist. You see my problem - if I do something nice for someone because they are black/brown/Jewish/Muslim/gay or whatever, then that's OK, but if I do something nasty to them for similar reasons then that's racist or homophobic or somesuch. If you're going to treat people differently for reasons such as those, then that I think is wrong, irrespective of whether you are treating them better or worse than you otherwise would. As George Bernard Shaw said, through the mouth of Professor Higgins in "Pygmalion" - "The great secret is not having bad manners or good manners or having any other particular sort of manners, but having the same manner for all human souls."

Ha-ha

I really think it must be time for another joke, so here goes - Two men talking in a pub, and the conversation gets round to slagging off other countries. One says to the other "Of course, you know that all Italians are either footballers or prostitutes". The other says indignantly "My wife is Italian!". Quick as a flash, the first man says "Oh yes - what team does she play for?".

Not so pretty pictures.

There are two lines of argument as to why possession of images of child pornography should be illegal. The first is that if there were no market for them, such images would not be made, and that therefore the person who views them is indirectly responsible for their creation and the inevitable child abuse which goes along with it. Although slightly simplistic, this argument is basically sound. The second argument however is that those who view such images are ipso facto a danger to children, and that one, it seems to me, is far from clear. After all, I am not aware of any suggestion that those who view what might be termed "straight" pornography pose, as a result, any particular danger to the opposite sex. Indeed there is a school of thought which says that viewing pornography may act as a safety valve for those who might otherwise be inclined to physical acts of sexual abuse. So why should those whose sexual predilection is for children be any different? Is this a simple case of demonising that which we find distasteful?

Storm in a tea-cup?

The current spat between the judges and the Government may seem a little childish, but what is really behind it? I think the Judiciary have for some time been annoyed and concerned at what they have seen as Government interference with their independence, and with some justification. This Government is not the first to find an independent judiciary a pain, and something they would rather not have to deal with, but what I think has brought matters to a head over recent years is the fact that the current Lord Chancellor is seen as far more of a political animal than any of his predecessors, and the judges therefore feel that they have nobody prepared to speak for them and champion their views, and as we know, when any group of people with clout feel ignored and put-upon, there's likely to be trouble. The office of Lord Chancellor has always been a tricky balancing act, but I fear that Lord Falconer isn't making a very good job of it.

Road rage.

If you're a driver, then you doubtless remember a few years ago being bombarded with literature from the DVLA informing you that in future you not only needed to pay your road tax but, if your car was off the road, you needed to officially register that fact as well (so-called SORN notice). And then later you will probably have seen TV and press adverts telling you that as a result the DVLA now have a database of all cars and therefore can, at the touch of a button, identify those who have not paid their tax or registered themselves as off-road and take the appropriate action. Well, it seems this is all so much hot air - the Department of Transport's own figures reveal that there are some two million untaxed cars on the road, and that this is twice as many as a year ago. So where's this much-vaunted system? Is this another Government IT white elephant?

Goody baddy?

After what I said about Muhammad Ali the other day, it may seem two-faced of me to now come in on the side of another brash, arrogant loud-mouth - Jade Goody. I think the difference is, she can't help what she is, whereas Ali was a highly intelligent young man who took on the persona he did from choice. Yes, I feel somewhat sorry for Jade, and feel she has rather been thrown to the wolves by Channel 4. They introduced her to the Celebrity Big Brother house knowing what sort of person she was and clearly with the intention of stirring things up, and when she stirred them up in a manner which didn't suit, they dumped her. And some of the behaviour towards her since she was evicted is at least as bad, if not worse, than her own. I wonder if the people involved see the irony of showing their opposition to intolerance by being intolerant? Work it out if you can.

B.O.G.O.F. or bog off?

Tesco are coming in for some stick, aren't they? Personally I rarely shop there, but the criticisms are more directed at supermarkets generally, rather than Tesco specifically, and I am a great devotee of supermarkets. For me, they provide a quick, convenient, easy and cheap way of shopping. So should I be concerned at the thought that they are putting small shops out of business, or squeezing suppliers? Well, frankly, no. Shops exist for the benefit of customers, not the other way round. It's sad when a shop has to close because it can't compete, but that is and forever has been the nature of the shopkeeping business - supermarkets have simply highlighted what has always been the reality. As for suppliers, it stands to reason that if the supermarkets force the price down to a point where suppliers can't make a profit, they will go out of business and then there will be no supply, so it's obviously in everybody's interest for that not to happen. Market forces rule, and rightly so.

Let's reinvent the wheel - and charge for it!

Hello Windows Vista - yes, this is the latest in the Windows operating systems series and it will be with us anytime now. I go back to the days before Windows, when you got your hands dirty at the "C prompt", but since then I've gone through Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98 and am currently running Windows XP. Each has been prettier and had more gizmos than its predecessor, but other than that has done basically the same job. So do we really need yet another incarnation? The answer is, no we don't really, but Microsoft apparently do. This is essentially just a money-making exercise on their part (it looks like the minimum it will cost you will be £100). XP works perfectly well, but in a matter of months, if you want the latest software, you'll have to be running Vista. You'd think Bill Gates had got enough dosh already, wouldn't you?

A Daniel is come to judgement.

All hail to the District Judge who threw out the case against Brian Haw, who has been protesting outside the Houses of Parliament against the Iraq war (and before that, against sanctions against that country) for getting on for six years. Whatever your views on the rightness or otherwise of the war, we are told it was entered into as part of the "war against terror" which has been presented as essentially protecting our democratic values against those who would destroy them. One of the more important of those values is that of freedom of expression, so how does that square with the Government's continuous efforts to silence Mr Haw? I fear they won't stop, but their hypocrisy is there for all to see.

Grandstanding?

It feels a little strange to find myself agreeing with David Blunkett, but I too find myself somewhat at a loss to understand why the Police found it necessary to turn up mob-handed at 6.30 in the morning to arrest Ruth Turner in connection with the "cash for honours" enquiry. Surely they didn't consider her a flight risk? You would have thought they could have arranged things in a rather more civilised manner. This looks like simple show-boating on their part, and I think they should explain themselves.

Progress

If you've ever read "1984" you'll be familiar with the concept of words meaning the opposite of what they say (war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength etc.). Progress is a good example - we are forever having changes forced on us which we are assured are "progress" when in fact they are quite the reverse. In my youth, the doctor lived locally and knew all about you and your family. If you were taken ill in the night or at the weekend, you would ring him up and he would come straight out to see you - maybe still in his pyjamas. If you went to his surgery, you just went in and sat down and knew that you might have to wait a while but you would be seen - he wouldn't finish until his waiting room was clear. And today? If I want to see my GP I have to make an appointment, and chances are the first available one will be in a couple of days time at the earliest. And it's no longer a doctor but a "medical centre", so when I get there I may find my appointment is with a doctor that I've never seen before, and who knows nothing about me other than what's in my notes. And in the night and at weekends? Well, all I can say is try not to fall ill in the night or at weekends because heaven only knows how long you will have to wait, or who you will see. And all this is progress apparently.

Seen through rose-tinted spectacles?

I was no fan of Muhammad Ali when he was in his pomp. As far as I was concerned he embodied everything I disliked about Americans - he was brash, arrogant and loud-mouthed. It is sad to see him today struck down by Parkinson's, but I find this attempt to re-write history and portray him as always at heart being some sort of loveable cuddly teddy-bear both ridiculous and distasteful. It is possible, with the benefit of hindsight, to see reasons why he was what he was, but while that may explain his behaviour, and for some even excuse it, it doesn't alter it. He was clearly a great fighter - his record speaks for itself - but it doesn't alter the fact that, for me, he was a rather unpleasant character.

I really couldn't care less, but.......

I would never watch "Big Brother" from choice, but when I visit my children, they invariably have it on, so I have been drawn into this discussion about the way this Bollywood actress is being treated. The burning question seems to be - is it racist or not? From what I saw the other night, there are definitely racist overtones, but the over-riding motivation of those who are having a go at her seems to me to be simple envy. They don't like her because she's classy - something they will never be, and are therefore jealous of. Of course, as a result of the furore, the viewing figures are going through the roof, so could it all be a put-up job that perhaps has got somewhat out of hand?

I think, therefore you are.

Control Orders in the news again, following a proposal to extend them to those involved in "organized crime". I would hardly describe myself as a liberal, but I have grave concerns, not just about such orders, but about what they stand for, and the direction the law is taking in this regard. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Home Secretary can make such an order (which effectively, despite the Government's protestations, can amount to a form of house arrest) against anyone he suspects of being involved in terrorist activity. The crucial word here of course is "suspects". So the basic principle of English law that no-one should have their liberty taken away or curtailed except on proof that they have committed some offence has been swept aside. All that is necessary now is that the Home Secretary thinks you may have committed an offence - or even worse, that he thinks you may be thinking about it. If the evidence exists, it should be properly tested in court, and if it doesn't, then on what basis are these orders being made? If that makes me a "wishy-washy liberal" then I don't recognise myself as such, but so be it.

Who dealt this lot??

In a court case, a jury has decided that poker is a game of chance and not skill. That's got to be a load of rubbish! If it were so, then by the law of averages, I should win every now and again. So how come I always end up out of pocket?

Big Brother - not so bad.

The Government's suggestion that there should be a national database containing all the information held by its different Departments has, perhaps understandably, met with general opposition. For once, I'm on the Government's side. As a retired Civil Servant I can testify to the enormous amount of money being spent by individual Departments to collect information which is already held by another Department but which, under existing regulations, cannot be passed by the one to the other. It's a complete nonsense. Subject to stringent safeguards ensuring that such information stays within Government, it's just common sense that what one Department knows should be available to other Departments.

Yes, we have no.........

Can anyone explain why we can't get Canarian bananas in Britain? They're so much sweeter and yummier than the only sort supermarkets and fruiterers sell. I've heard it's something to do with EU regulations, but haven't been able to find out any more. Anybody out there able to throw any light on the subject?

Leider, versteh'ich nicht.

Another for the "you couldn't make it up" collection, and on a scale of 1 to 10, this has got to be an 11! A firm here in the Midlands has just landed a big contract with a German firm. So obviously they will be getting correspondence, 'phone calls and so on from Germany. Problem is, they haven't got anyone on the staff who speaks German. So they go down the Job Centre to put an advert in for someone who does. The Job Centre refuse the advert on the grounds that it would discriminate against non-German speakers! Just read that again, and yes, you read it right! What can I say??

Clarification.

I hope my post of last Wednesday did not give the impression that I am anti-gay, or anti anything else for that matter. I assess people individually on the way they behave, irrespective of race, colour, creed or sexual persuasion. What I was trying to get across was that I think everybody should have the right to choose in their dealings with other people, and not be obliged by law to behave in a way they may not wish to. I'm certainly not a supporter of the views of those who are opposing the proposed legislation regarding discrimination against homosexuals, but I do understand their concerns, however misguided I might consider them to be, and I do wonder whether a distinction such as I was putting forward (which I accept is a very fine one) might provide a solution acceptable to both sides. I fear, however, that there are those on both sides who have no interest in any solution which does not signify complete victory for their point of view.

Caution - flying pigs.

So Beckham's off to America apparently, having signed a five-year deal to play for LA Galaxy for £128m. I work that out at just under £50 a minute, day and night. He tells us though that he's not going for the money, but to raise the profile of football ("sakkur") over there. Right.....

Massive respect

Have you read Captain Scott's last letter to his wife? The one addressed, because he knew he would never make it, to "my widow"? I cannot imagine what it must have taken to write like that - I can only hope that, in similar circumstances I would have had the fortitude and courage to behave that way - but I doubt it. Here was a genuine British hero. They were all genuine British heroes. I hope, if there is any life after this, they have received their just rewards.

A matter of choice

Discrimination is in the news again as a result of proposals to make it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their homosexuality. By the way, it's a common mistake to think that "homo" here is from the Latin, meaning "man", whereas it is in fact from the Greek meaning "same", so a homosexual is someone attracted to their own sex - male or female. I have to say that my basic instinct has always been to oppose all anti-discriminatory legislation. If I am a supplier of goods or services, then I consider I should have the right to decide to whom I will supply them. If I take an idiotic dislike to left-handed men with red hair, or anyone whose surname begins with the letter Y, or whatever, then, however stupid that may be, I should have the right to deny them my goods or services - after all, choice is a concept beloved of all political parties, and discrimination is simply a posh word for choice. However, I have to accept that this is no longer a sustainable position to take, but does this latest proposal go too far? I think a distinction can and should be made between discrimination on the basis of what people are, and discrimination on the basis of what people do, of how they act, and whereas I accept, albeit with some reluctance, that the former should be illegal, I'm not so sure about the latter. On this basis, although it would be illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their homosexuality (that's what they are), it would not be illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis that whatever goods or services you supply may be used to engage in homosexual activity.

Requiescat in pacem

With the greatest respect to John Humphrys, for me Mastermind was and always will be associated with Magnus Magnusson. I was greatly saddened to hear of his death.

Will we never learn...?

Several papers have commented on the fact that Kate Middleton, Prince William's girlfriend, has been given increased police protection because of unwanted attention from photographers. The story as far as they are concerned is whether or not this presages an imminent announcement of their engagement. For me, the important and worrying aspect is that such protection is needed. Have we so soon forgotten how the paparazzi helped destroy the relative innocence of the young Princess Di, and were instrumental in turning her into the rather more manipulative, less likeable character she became? Let's not go down that road again, for goodness sake!

Information, information, information.

Is the Freedom of Information Act being misused just to provide one-day-wonder stories for the media? I ask the question because the lead story on the BBC News yesterday was that the Prison Service had no overall statistics on the number of prisoners who had absconded from open prisons and were still on the run. The Director General of the Prison Service was interviewed on air, and made it clear that this was a statistic which neither he nor the Police required to do their job, and that he could track individually each prisoner and say whether he was in prison, and if so where, or whether he had absconded and was still at large. So what was the story - was there a story? If there was, it simply seemed to be that the BBC was asking for a statistic which wasn't available, and which no-one, apart possibly from the BBC, had any use for. Doubtless the Prison Service will now have to start keeping this useless statistic, and that will doubtless cost money. Does this make any sense?

Faith - but no hope and definitely no charity.

It seems likely that stem-cell research will be severely restricted as a result of a ban on using "chimera" embryos - that is embryos created using mostly human but part animal DNA. In refusing the go-ahead for this, the Government appears to be bowing to pressure from so-called "faith groups". My father-in-law died from Motor Neurone Disease, and this is one of the conditions which this research might assist in treating. So how arrogant of these faith groups to think that their beliefs, however sincerely held, are more important than the possibility of finding a cure for this and other horrible illnesses. How dare they!

TV Times

Was it me, or was the television unusually crap this Christmas? I suppose now that we have all these movie channels, the days when we looked forward to holiday times like Christmas and Easter because there would be films on we hadn't seen have long since passed, but surely they could have done better for peak time viewing than "Strictly Come Dancing", "Stars In Their Eyes" and "Challenge Anneka"?

What would Wallace say?

Shock, horror - cheese has been designated as "junk food" by the Food Standards Agency and therefore cannot be advertised on the television when children are likely to be viewing. Oven chips and currant buns are OK apparently, as indeed is milk. Funny old world, isn't it?

Baker days - bah!

Schools go back today after the Christmas break - so why am I sitting here at home looking after my grandchildren? Because it's a feeding Training Day, that's why! Now I've nothing against the concept of training, even though from what I understand these days are not so much about learning to do the job better, but more about disseminating the latest Government ideas on what should be taught, and how, but what really gets up my nose is that, when teachers get 13 weeks holiday a year, surely training time should be taken out of that, and not out of term time. When you realise that most teachers only work a 6½ hour day anyway, the situation becomes even more annoying. And just to put the icing on the cake, training days tend to be sprung on you at short notice. And before teachers start bleating about the amount of work they have to do at home, they're not alone in that. I imagine most people in managerial positions find it necessary to do that - I certainly did. I don't envy teachers the instability caused by constant Government "initiatives", and certainly the general lack of respect for authority these days makes their job more difficult, but even so, on the whole, they've got a pretty cushy number compared with the outside world.

Simple probability.

I've mentioned the "gambler's fallacy" before without properly explaining it. It goes something like this - if I toss a coin twice then, assuming no jiggery-pokery, four things can happen - I get a head followed by another head, a head followed by a tail, a tail followed by a head, or a tail followed by another tail. So the chances of me getting two heads is one in four - right? So I toss the coin and get a head. The gambler's fallacy says that the odds must favour getting a tail on the next throw. After all, there's only one chance in four of getting two heads, isn't there? The fallacy of course is that the probability before you start of getting two heads is indeed one in four, but once you've got your first head, the probability of getting a second head is only one in two. It's the same false reasoning which says if you're playing roulette and red has come up ten times in a row that the odds must heavily favour black on the next roll. Probability depends on the information available to you - different information, different probability. Once I know that I have got a head on the first toss, it alters the probability of getting two heads.

A load of rubbish.

In common I suspect with the rest of the country, my council has severely cut back its refuse collection service over the Christmas and New Year period - just one collection in three weeks. Can you think of any other organisation that reduces its service to a minimum just when the demand is at its maximum?