Market forces

I bet not many of you are old enough to remember the "Buy British" campaign of the late 1960's. It was a response to the then relatively new phenomenon of cheap imported goods undercutting home-made products. It was predicated on the somewhat fatuous idea that consumers would be prepared to pay more for goods made in this country. It didn't work of course - purse comes before patriotism for most people. Since then, the waters have become even more muddied by the fact that many products which appear to be home produced are anything but - it's called globalisation. All this was brought to mind by the news that Burberry are moving production from Wales to China, where they can produce their product cheaper. Apart from the workers who will lose their jobs, will anybody care? I would imagine that any Burberry wearer who finds that their next purchase has come down in price will be delighted.

Neeeowwwww.....

The idea is being floated of fitting speed restrictors to motor cycles. Very worthy idea, I'm sure, but I would be even more impressed if they were to talk about fitting them with noise restrictors!

Kiss me quick.

So, following the House of Lords' vote, the "super casino" may or may not come to fruition. I'm not sure I'm generally in favour of the idea, but if there is to be one, then I would have thought Blackpool the obvious location. It is after all the traditional spiritual home of mass entertainment in this country. I was as surprised as anyone when it was passed over in favour of Manchester. Not half as surprised as I was, however, that London didn't get it, like it seems to get everything else!

Emergency service??

I really think I may have to start a separate blog for the "You couldn't make it up" stories, they are coming that thick and fast. The most recent involves a fireman who was called out when someone saw a woman in difficulties in the water. It was clear that she would drown unless something were done immediately, so he jumped in and saved her, at considerable risk to his own life. Hero? Not a bit of it! Apparently Fire Service regulations forbid firemen from going into the water to rescue people, so he's likely to face disciplinary proceedings. Once again, words fail me.

Football's coming home?

Lots of column inches in the sports section of the papers bemoaning the lack-lustre England performance against Israel, and the real possibility that we will fail to qualify for the European Championships next year. Why can't we just accept that we are no longer a major footballing power, and that we're just not that good? If we could get rid of this mind-set that football somehow owes us a seat at the top table, we could perhaps put our performances into perspective. The fact is that in international terms we are very much a mid-table team, and have been for getting on for forty years (in my opinion the 1970 team was the last time we had a truly world class side). And changing the manager won't make any difference....

Tick tock

Changing clocks time again, and this time it's made even worse because we lose the hour, so my alarm went off this morning at what was in effect 5.00 a.m. Grrrrrr!

Work it out - the solution

It doesn't matter which robot you ask the question of - what matters is the question, which is "If I asked the other robot which the door to freedom is, what would his answer be?" Now think about that - if you're asking the truth-telling robot, then the other robot is bound to lie and would indicate the door to death, and the truth-telling robot would report this truthfully. If you're asking the robot who tells lies, then the other robot (the truth-teller) would indicate the door to freedom, and the lying robot would tell you the opposite. So whichever robot you are asking the question of will reply by indicating to the door to death. You just go out the other door.

Work it out......

You've probably heard this one before, but it always strikes me as being a pleasingly neat logical problem - you wake up to find yourself in a room with two doors. Also in the room are two robots. A voice through a loudspeaker tells you that one of the robots has been programmed to always tell the truth, and the other one to always lie. The voice also tells you that one door leads to freedom, and the other to certain death. You are allowed to ask one of the robots just one question, and then you must choose which door you are going to go through. You don't know which robot has been programmed which way, but in fact one question will be enough to identify the door to freedom. But what question, and which robot do you ask it of? Answer tomorrow.

The little red box.

I reckon this has got to be getting on for the fiftieth-some-odd budget since I started taking a personal interest in such things, and yet I cannot remember a single one which left me significantly better or worse off. For the most part it has been a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Now I am a pensioner things are slightly better because I don't pay National Insurance but even so, we're talking at best about a few quid a month - better than a slap in the face with a wet kipper, as the saying goes, but hardly champagne and caviar.

Square eyes (2)

Following on from yesterday's post, one of the most annoying aspects of satellite television is how fragile reception is. It only takes an average rainstorm - nothing serious - to cause picture breakup. Indeed, it's often possible to anticipate bad weather is on the way because the picture starts to misbehave. In real stormy weather I've had complete picture blackouts of five, ten minutes and more. Of course, at the moment, provided you are watching one of the main BBC or ITV channels, you can click over to analogue, which is not affected by bad weather. But they're going to switch analogue off, aren't they? Hmmm....

Square eyes

Glad to see that Ofcom are going to have a look at satellite TV charges. I rarely go to the pictures or theatre any more, so TV is my main form of entertainment, and I am prepared to pay to get the widest choice, but I was a bit shocked when I sat down the other day and calculated that - including the licence fee - it's costing me the best part of £2 a day. Problem is that Sky (and I'm not just having a go at them - I'm sure other providers are the same) have a captive audience. They can - and do - put up their charges as and when they feel like it, and I have to grin and bear it. Certainly could do with some sort of regulation.

Out of the mouths....

A coming programme on the telly will apparently look at the modern habit of using acronyms to describe our lifestyle - you know the sort of thing: SKI (Spending the Kids' Inheritance) DINKY (Double Income No Kids Yet) NEET (Not in Education Employment or Training). This reminded me of something my young grand-daughter said the other day. "I'm going to marry oil" she said. "Very sensible" I said "very profitable business, oil". "No" she said "OIL - Old, Ill and Loaded".

Rugby Union

Some exciting (though not particularly skillful) games last Saturday, but the Italy/Ireland game in particular highlighted the enormous number of forward passes which go unpunished these days. The problem is exacerbated by the relatively recent adoption by Union sides of the Rugby League use of the "crash ball" to try and break through the defensive line. I don't know what the answer is - the referee is invariably behind the play, which means that unless a pass is way forward he's not going to be able to tell, but the idea that we should ignore these infractions on the basis that the passes are only just forward reminds me of the old joke about the girl who maintained that she was "only a little bit pregnant". We either have to look at the rule, or the way it is policed, but I don't think we can do nothing - particularly when, as in the match mentioned, tries are scored as a result.

Hello Mum.

Today is Mothering Sunday (not Mother's Day please, that's a completely different, more recent American invention). It falls on the fourth Sunday in Lent, which means that like Easter, Shrove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday and the like, it's a moveable feast. And originally, the Mother in Mothering Sunday did not refer to your female parent, but to your Mother Church - that is the church where you were baptised. On Mothering Sunday you were supposed to go back and worship at your Mother Church for the day. Of course, if you worked away from home - as many young people in service did - this was also an opportunity (perhaps the only one of the year) to visit your parents, and doubtless you would turn up with a bunch of flowers for your mother. And that's how it all started.

Cor, what a pong!

The Government wish to increase the amount of rubbish we recycle. To this end, they are encouraging - even coercing - local authorities to switch to fortnightly collections of "ordinary" rubbish, rather than weekly as at present (for most of us at least). Those opposing this move point to the health and hygiene problems which will be caused by rotting rubbish standing around for up to 14 days. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence to that effect from people who are already on fortnightly collections. A Government funded report however has stated that there are "no adverse health effects" involved. So a Government funded report has come up with the answer the Government wanted - now there's a surprise!

A question of balance.

You can understand the indignation of the men who were wrongly convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater and spent over 10 years in prison as a result, at the decision to reduce their compensation to reflect the living expenses which they would have had to pay had they not been in prison. Whatever the legal rights and wrongs about this, what struck me most strongly was how miserly the amount they were awarded in the first place was, given what had happened to them. I couldn't help comparing it with the award to the man who underwent a personality change due to a head injury, which I posted about on 19/12/06.

Whose bang is it anyway?

It would be better if there were no nuclear weapons at all, but given that there are, and always will be, do we need our own, i.e. Trident or whatever its successor will be called? I think on balance - but only just - the answer is "yes". I would however feel much more confident about giving my approval if I was satisfied that our weapons were truly ours - in other words that our much-vaunted independent nuclear deterrent was really independent. But is it? It appears that the weapons are American manufactured (albeit in the UK) and the trigger and guidance system together with all the sophisticated software which controls it comes from the US. So although we could theoretically launch our missiles without US approval, in practice they could, if they wished, make it virtually impossible to do so. This makes the case for Son Of Trident significantly weaker, I feel.

Rien ne va plus...

Can't help but feel that the decision to allow casinos and betting shops to advertise on TV is a bad thing. It seems rather strange that this is being allowed at the same time that cigarette and junk-food advertising is being banned or severely restricted. Those who gamble responsibly (if that isn't an oxymoron) will continue to do so, but I fear many gullible people will be sucked in by the advertising and end up in debt - or more in debt than they otherwise would have been. Of course, the Government stand to gain from increased revenue, and that's probably what's really behind it. After all, they've got to make up the amount they're losing on cigarette duty somewhere, haven't they?

Sexy........

So Hans Blix - one-time UN Chief Weapons Inspector - has now gone on record to say that the dossier used by the Government to justify the Iraq invasion "replaced question marks with exclamation marks". I wouldn't go walking in the woods if I were him!

Which came first?

Did you see "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on TV the other day? Very interesting. I remember reading a book by Michael Crichton a couple of years back on the same theme - I think it was called "State of Fear". What is clear is that there is a statistical correlation between the levels of atmospheric CO2 and temperature. The question is - which causes which? We are continually being told that CO2 levels drive temperature whereas the TV programme and the book maintain that it's the other way round - variations in temperature cause variations in CO2. Given that both sides agree that there is a significant lag factor involved, it should surely be easy enough to determine who's right? Let's settle the issue once and for all.

Shooting yourself in the foot.

I am a supplier of a service for which you can pay in one of two ways - A and B. I wish to encourage you to pay by method A. I can do one of two things - I can say "the cost of my service is £100, but if you pay by method A I will give you a discount of 3%", or I can say "the cost of my service is £97 but if you don't pay by method A I will charge you an extra £3". The practical effect is exactly the same - if you pay by method A you will pay £97, if you pay by method B you will pay £100. But for a method B payer the perception will be quite different - in the second instance you will feel you are being penalised. So why would BT, who want to encourage people to pay their phone bills by direct debit, choose to be seen to penalise those who don't rather than reward those who do? Like I say, it's all about perception.

Whither the House of Lords?

So the Commons have voted for a fully elected second chamber. The danger with this is that it will either become a rival to the Commons, or more probably, just a House of Commons Mark 2. What we need is a second chamber with a different viewpoint, as apolitical as possible, which can look at what the Commons is proposing, point out the weaknesses and curb the worst excesses. What we're in danger of getting is a body which will just rubber-stamp whatever the Commons sends along, because essentially they will be just the same sort of people. Perhaps that was the thinking behind the Commons voting for it?

What's going on?

Just why has David Cameron sacked one of his front-bench MPs? Is it because he suggested that being called a "black bastard" is all part of the ordinary cut and thrust of Army life, just as being called a fat bastard or ginger-haired bastard would be? Or is it because the MP - who was himself a serving soldier of distinction - suggested that incompetent black soldiers sometimes used racism to excuse their shortcomings. Either way, the MP is speaking from personal experience, so either Cameron is calling him a liar, or punishing him for telling the truth. Or is this just another case of a politician bowing to political correctness? Either way, I'm afraid he's rather gone down in my estimation.

Oh no, not again!

What is it with the "Daily Express" and Diana? The self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper" continues on an almost daily basis to flog the Diana conspiracy story long after the rest of us have laid it quietly to rest. Is there some connection between the paper and Mohamed Al-Fayed? There's a real danger of the Express turning into the British equivalent of the "National Enquirer".

Ha ha

Must be time for another joke -

A diehard Manchester United fan was surprised to see an empty stand seat at a home game, and he remarked about it to the woman sitting in the next seat.
"It was my husband's but he died", she said.
"I'm very sorry to hear that”, he replied, “but I'm really surprised that another relative or friend didn't jump at the chance to take the seat reserved for him."
“Well, I did offer”, she said, "but they would all insist on going to the funeral."

Act of convenience?

I've posted several times before about how easy it is to fall foul of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and find yourself arrested for doing nothing much. Now the Government's own figures lend weight to the argument with the revelation that more than half those arrested under the provisions of the Act (or its predecessors) have subsequently been released without charge. When you remember how long you can be held under this legislation, this is not a comfortable statistic.

Identity crisis

I live in the Black Country - or do I? There seems to be no agreement about just what area that name covers, and indeed what the origin of the name is. Some say it goes back to the Middle Ages and to the fact that around what is now Dudley and West Bromwich the coal seams came to the surface, hence the ground itself would have been black, while others maintain that the name derives from the time of the Industrial Revolution, when the air was constantly black from the smoke from all the foundries and factories. And then there are those who do not want to be considered as living in the Black Country and therefore restrict its boundaries so as to exclude their address, and surprisingly perhaps, those who see a certain cachet in living there, and therefore seek to expand its boundaries so as to include their address. Where I live is certainly towards the edge, but is it in or out? I don't mind, so you can take your pick!

A pinch of salt.

The couple who were originally convicted of killing the young boy they had taken for adoption by feeding him salt have finally been acquitted at a new trial. The way this case has been handled raises many concerns, not least the manner in which the burden of proof was effectively reversed at the original trial. The prosecution's case was essentially "This child has died as a result of salt poisoning - it is now up to the defence to show how this could have happened other than as a deliberate act by the accused". This was basically an attempt to extend the civil law concept of "res ipsa loquitur" into the criminal law, for which it was never designed. The CPS I think need to look hard and long at the basis on which the original decision to prosecute was taken.

Cough, splutter.

Are cars getting too clever for their own good - or more to the point, for our good? The days have long gone when it was useful to have a basic knowledge of how to change your plugs, dismantle your carburetor and clean your points or disconnect your fuel line and clear a blockage. Today, as we have seen, a slight variation in the chemical makeup of your fuel can result in a major breakdown and hundreds of pounds of damage. Something to be said for simplicity.

What school are you going to then?

Although the Department of Education (perhaps deliberately) does not keep statistics on the subject, surveys carried out suggest that, depending on which part of the country you live in, between 1 in 6 and 1 in 3 children do not get a place in the secondary school of their choice. This is a disgrace. LEA's know (or should do, the information is out there) what the likely demand for places at their various schools will be in future years, but there seems to be no planning for this, or even any acceptance that planning is required. It is as though, as far as they are concerned, children exist for the benefit of schools, rather than the other way round. It is simply not acceptable for them to sit on their hands and do nothing. They should be planning now for the 2009 and 2010 intake, but you can be sure that when those dates come around, nothing will have changed.

Pill popping.

Taking vitamin supplements increases your chance of dying earlier, says a recent report in an American medical journal. I haven't read the original article, but the way it's been reported on the news raises many questions. Perhaps the most obvious is whether any account has been taken of the probability that a fair percentage of those who take vitamin supplements are doing so because they have health problems - in other words, they are not well people to begin with. There's a common logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" where the fact that B follows A is taken as proof, or at least an indication that B has been caused by A, when in fact there may be no connection. Is that what we've got here?