Education, education....

Conservatives getting into something of a tizz over Grammar Schools, which have always been seen as one of the major philosophical divisions between Conservatives and Labour. Funny really, because Labour (old Labour, that is) were never against Grammar Schools per se - what they were against was the 11+, that is the existence of a one-off selection process which determined a child's education for the rest of its school life. Comprehensive schools were supposed to change all that. The archetypal comprehensive school was meant to be a grammar school and a secondary modern school all under one roof, with the ability to move children between them at any time, as and when appropriate. So what went wrong? My wife was among the first generation to go to a comprehensive school, and her theory always was that the problem was not with the schools, or with the pupils, but with the teaching. As she saw it, what happened was that the good teachers ended up teaching the worst pupils, and the not-so-good teachers ended up teaching - or trying to teach - the brightest pupils. Result? The good teachers lost motivation, and the brightest pupils were not stretched, and lost interest. So everybody lost out. Lessons to be learned?

Ihre Papiere, bitte!

A lot of people are getting up in arms about proposals to give the Police the power to stop and question you as to your identity and movements. At present, provided they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that you're up to no good, they have the right to stop and search you, but you are under no legal obligation to answer any questions they might put to you. The suggestion is that "stop and question" may be seen as less intrusive and confrontational than "stop and search", but to me, the crucial word is "stop". Provided I'm not breaking the law, the idea that the Police should be able to require me to stop what I'm doing or where I'm going - whatever follows - is totally unacceptable, particularly if, as has been suggested, they can do this on a purely random basis, for no particular reason. Police state, here we come!

Panorama.

It must be difficult to keep coming up with new topics for the BBC's "Panorama" programme, but they do seem to be scrobbling about a bit lately. First it was their "investigation" into Scientology, which did little except prove the obvious - that it's based on some rather strange ideas, and that its members do not take kindly to criticism. And then we had this programme on wi-fi, where some pretty dubious science was put forward to suggest that such networks in schools present a danger to pupils. This was very much a case of "begging the question" - that is, seeking to prove that something is so by taking as your starting point that it is so, and then arguing from there. Pity, because when "Panorama" is good, it's very very good, but perhaps, rather than forcing it into a regular schedule, which they then have to fill by finding something to report on, it should be kept as an occasional programme to be aired when it has something really worth saying.

Pomp and Circumstance.

Apparently there are moves afoot to rethink the last night of the Proms, and in particular "Land of Hope and Glory" is coming under attack as being too jingoistic and bombastic for modern tastes. Well, apparently Elgar himself wasn't too happy about the words which had been set to his music, but aren't we in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath-water? Why can't we accept it as the bloody good tune it is, and, if thought necessary, come up with some new words? That's what the Germans did with their national anthem after all. Come on Andrew Motion, show us what you can do.

Ha ha

I'm running out of good jokes, but here's one I heard the other day, which tickled me after a working life dealing with lawyers.


You remember that anti-drug advert they ran on TV a few months ago where there's a futuristic shop selling new brains? Well, a bloke goes into the shop and enquires about the cost. "We sell by weight and it all depends on the type of brain" says the shopkeeper "we have engineers' brains at £3 an ounce, computer programmers' brains at £5 an ounce, doctors' brains at £10 an ounce, and lawyers' brains at £1000 an ounce". "Why are the lawyers' brains so much more expensive?" asks the man. "Have you any idea how many lawyers it takes to get an ounce of brain?" replies the shopkeeper.

Junk...

McDonald's are getting their knickers in a twist about the inclusion in the OED of the term "McJob" which it defines essentially as a crap job with no prospects. I can understand them being somewhat upset and insulted by this, but what they seem to fail to understand is that dictionaries are simply mirrors reflecting the way language is used. If people are using that word in that way, then that's not the dictionary's fault. Perhaps McDonald's should be asking themselves why it is that working for them is perceived like that, rather than seeking to shoot the messenger.

What's in a name?

The top prize at the Chelsea Flower Show has been awarded to a garden with virtually no flowers in it. Am I missing something?

Walk on.................

Watched Liverpool get beaten in a not-very-inspiring European Cup Final by A C Milan. Have to say that I have never been a fan of Liverpool - mainly down to their supporters' continual murdering of that lovely song "You'll Never Walk Alone". It's all basically down to Gerry and the Pacemakers in the 60's, but it really grates with me, and anybody who can slaughter a good tune like that does, I'm afraid, deserve everything they get.

Let's be clear.....

The House of Commons have voted to exclude their correspondence from the Freedom of Information Act. This has produced cries of outrage and accusations of hypocrisy. MPs say it is to protect the confidentiality of constituency correspondence. You know me - I'm a cynic, and I find it difficult to accept that their motives are purely altruistic, but the suggestion made by some of their critics that correspondence from constituents is already sufficiently protected by the Data Protection Act fails, I fear, to differentiate between punishment and protection. The Data Protection Act is there to punish those who misuse data which falls within its ambit, but the crucial word there is "misuse" - in other words for the Act to be called into aid, the data has to have been used, which means that from a privacy or confidentiality point of view it's very much a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Excluding that data from the Freedom of Information Act, on the other hand, means that you can't misuse the data, because you can't get hold of it in the first place, and whatever their motives, that's what MPs voted for the other day.

Reminiscences.

The Police have been called in by a local hospital following the discovery that some oxygen cylinders have been tampered with. Serious matter, and I don't wish to trivialise it, but what immediately sprang to my mind on reading about it was that superb 1940's film "Green For Danger" starring Alastair Sim - surely one of the most under-rated actors this country has ever produced. He was the definitive Ebeneezer Scrooge, and who can forget him in drag as the headmistress of St. Trinian's. And then there's my particular favourite, ranking alongside "Green For Danger" as the eponymous Inspector in "An Inspector Calls". They sure broke the mould.......

Queen Victoria's dead!

The Deputy Chief Constable of Hampshire has said that the proliferation of CCTV cameras is turning Britain into an Orwellian society. Well yes, and it's nice to hear a senior policemen saying so, but where's he been for the last 10-15 years? Talk about stating the obvious!

...and they pay people to do that?

Alongside my "you couldn't make it up" collection, I'm also intrigued by the increasing number of studies and surveys carried out which appear to be designed to do no more than prove the obvious. For example, a study has now shown that men like looking at pictures of scantily-clad, beautiful women - well, goodness gracious me!

Rob-dogs!!

Well I've bought my friend his bottle of Scotch, thank goodness (see post dated 19/2/07), but it's a rather sobering thought that what I paid for that bottle would scarcely buy me a burger and beer at the match itself, and would only just cover the cost of a programme. Isn't it amazing how costs increase when you've got a captive audience? I can well understand why some of the fans are up in arms.

Not a lot of people.....

Did you know that the wife of the new French Prime Minister is Welsh?

Sitting on the fence?

What do you think of this decision by the Home Secretary to arm more police officers with Taser stun guns? I see it in two ways. If it means that there will be less use by the Police of fire-arms, with a consequent saving of life, then that must be a good thing. My concern however is that, knowing they have (at least theoretically) a non-lethal weapon, officers will be more likely to use it. That certainly appears to be the situation over in the States, and as we know, what happens over there usually ends up happening over here. So on balance, I approve, but with reservations.

Never mind the quality, feel the width.

I can absolutely empathise with the Police Federation who complain that arrest targets are getting in the way of real policing. I too had to work in a target-orientated system, though it didn't start out that way. The idea of targets seems superficially sound - and indeed it is provided they are used sensibly. But what tends to happen - in fact, what always seems to happen - is that the targets take over. Provided you can send in your monthly or whatever statistical return, and tick all the right boxes, nobody really pays any attention to, or cares about what is actually happening on the ground. Targets become an end in themselves, and the meeting of targets becomes more important than doing the job properly. Been there, seen it, done it, got the T-shirt!

The alternative table

Thought it might be interesting to see how the Premiership would have worked out under the handicap system I talked about the other day, so here it is -

Manchester United - 93 points (goal difference 56)
Reading - 93 (5)
Portsmouth - 88
Chelsea - 83
Aston Villa - 82
Everton - 80
Arsenal - 76 (28)
Sheffield United - 76 (-23)
Liverpool - 74 (30)
Middlesbrough - 74(-5)
Bolton - 72 (-5)
Manchester City - 72 (-15)
Tottenham Hotspur - 70
Watford - 66
Blackburn - 64
Fulham - 63
Charlton - 60
West Ham - 59
Wigan - 58
Newcastle - 57

Of course, this supposes that the results would have all been the same - Man U and Reading for example might have put a bit more into Sunday's matches had the title really been up for grabs.

Nul points!

Family get-together Saturday night to watch the Eurovision song contest. It's been several years since I last watched it, and I was amazed at how it had changed. I'm not greatly into modern pop music, so the songs to my ear were pretty dire - but then they always were. But now it seems - in common with so many things these days - that style matters more than substance. The performance counts for more than the song. And the voting!! As far as I could see all pretence of voting for a song - or even a performance - has gone out of the window. Now it appears you vote on political lines, giving good marks to countries you approve of, or wish to keep in with, and bad marks to those you don't like. Thank God for Terry Wogan, who at least was telling it like it is, and treating it as the pathetic circus it was. I think next year I shall suggest that we watch the test card instead!

Do me a favour!

Papers today full of stories about the new caring-sharing Gordon Brown, and of how he is distancing himself from the Blair era (of which he conveniently ignores the fact that he was a big part) and hinting at a different approach under his leadership. Sorry, but the cynic in me says we've seen this all before. Remember "Things can only get better"? And they went on being much the same. I've probably mentioned before that I'm coming up 70, and I've seen 'em come and go, and apart perhaps from the early Thatcher years, little changes. I reckon we're losing a good Chancellor, and getting a poorer Prime Minister, but as regards the nitty-gritty of real life I don't expect to see any major difference.

Book post

Here are the most recent ten books I have read, and how I rated them. For an explanation of my scoring system, see the post dated 18/11/06.

James Patterson & Andrew Gross - The Jester - 9
Kathy Reichs - Cross Bones - 8
Lisa Gardner - Alone - 9
John Sandford - Broken Prey - 6.5
Stephen Leather - Soft Target - 7
J. D. Robb - Origin in Death - 6
Meg Gardiner - Crosscut - 7
James Siegel - Derailed - 7
David Baldacci - The Collectors - 8
David Baldacci - The Camel Club - 8

Secrets and lies.

Big, big question - how do you square representative democracy with secrecy? If we elect a government to work on our behalf, what right have they to conceal what they are doing from us? As an ex Civil Servant, I know all about the Official Secrets Act, and I'm well aware that, despite its title, its main use (mostly as a threat) is to protect the Government and Civil Service from potentially embarrassing revelations. So spare a thought for David Keogh, who was so appalled by the contents of the minutes of a meeting between Blair and Bush that he felt Parliament should know what had been discussed, and to that end ensured that a copy of the minutes was seen by an MP. He has now been jailed for 6 months for his trouble. I don't know what was in the minutes any more than you do, but I reckon we can both make a good guess at the sort of thing which so disturbed Mr Keogh, and to my mind he should be applauded for what he did (or rather, tried to do) rather than punished. Like I say, if Blair is purporting to act on my behalf, why should I be prevented from knowing what he's doing?

Eeny-meeny........

Given the vast number of individual elections held last week, it was I suppose inevitable that there would be a few where two candidates tied with the same number of votes. Electoral law says that in such cases the winner should be decided by the drawing of lots. Just how this is to be done, however, seems to be left to the discretion of the returning officer. The most obvious way, which is most often used is to toss a coin, but sometimes more bizarre methods are employed. In St Albans for example, two tying candidates were invited to draw straws - well pencils actually - the winner being the one who picked to longer one.

Not quite so boring?

After posting yesterday's effort, I was thinking about what I said, and came up with this idea - how about running the Premiership on a handicap basis? Every team, other than the champions, gets a start based on where they finished last season - the three new promoted teams get 38 points each, and the other teams, up to the runner-up, get points equivalent to double the position they finished in.....or something like that. Or alternatively, but rather more complicated, instead of a standard three points for a win and one for a draw, teams are awarded more or less points based on who they beat or draw with - so for example one of the bottom clubs beating one of the top clubs would be worth more points than them beating a fellow struggler. And I'm struggling here - just anything to add a little interest to what has become, for me at least, a rather dreary oh-God-not-them-again business.

Boring.........

So the big chequebook has been beaten by the not-quite-so-big chequebook - in other words Man U have taken the Premiership title away from Chelsea. As one who supports neither team, I find intensely depressing the extent to which money determines success in football these days - and has indeed for the last couple or so decades. What this means of course, as I have muttered about before in these pages, is that although there are twenty teams in the Premiership, there are only four or five with enough financial clout to give them a realistic chance of taking the title. If you support one of those four or five then fine, I suppose, but for the rest of us, it's just a bit of a yawn. Can't see what you can do about it though.

Together we stand, divided......

I think it would be a great shame if Scotland seceded from the Union, but more to the point, could they legally do so? The 1707 Act of Union abolished the Scottish parliament, and the current one is a devolved parliament which acts under the authority of Westminster. It could therefore be argued that it has no power to unilaterally make any such decision. Of course, if Westminster agreed, that would be a whole different matter. But let's hope the question doesn't arise, eh?

Power to the people!

The Premier League is suing YouTube under copyright legislation - presumably for allowing clips of its matches to be shown on their site. I sincerely hope they lose. The internet is one of the best and most important things to have happened in my lifetime, particularly in regard to the way it has released us from the shackles of organised commerce. We now have access to information on all sorts of things which previously would have been unavailable to us, or only available for a fee. It's understandable that those financially affected by this will not give up without a fight, but in my view it would be a tragedy if the basic freedom of the net were to be in any way restricted at the behest of blinkered commercial luddites.

A place in the sun.

I've never been a sun-worshipper. Unlike my darling wife (who I still miss so very very much) I have always been content to admire a nice sunny day from indoors. But what do you make of this idea that if you're out in the sun you should be wearing heavy dark clothes. I can imagine what she would have said! It does seem somewhat crazy.

No-opinion poll.

Did you exercise your franchise yesterday? (Ooooh-er missus, as Frankie Howerd might have said). I bet many of you didn't. Turnout at local elections has traditionally been poor at 25-30%, and even with the (dangerous in my view) increased availability of postal voting, it is unlikely to be much better. Why the apathy? I think it's mostly down to the perception that local authorities hold so little power these days - the majority of what they do, they do because central government requires them to do it. A look at the various leaflets that have come through my door in the past few weeks lends support to this view. Sitting councillors seeking re-election are reduced to trumpeting such world shattering successes as getting a narrow pavement widened, or erecting a flag-pole on the village green. Even the level of council tax is more driven by central government demands than by local issues. So unless you have a personal axe to grind, or are a creature of habit - like me - chances are you didn't bother to vote.

May Day.

The public holiday may be next Monday, but May Day is of course May 1st. This has been a time of celebration since forever. If you take the Summer solstice (June 21st give or take) as being the middle of Summer, then Summer starts at the beginning of May, and has traditionally been marked as such. By the way, the old saying "ne'er cast a clout 'til may be out" does of course refer to the may blossom and not the month. So May Day is the beginning of Summer proper, and that is why it is treated as a special day. The association with labour and trade unions only goes back a hundred or so years, and so is a relatively modern thing.

Cost effective use of resources.

It is understandable that there are calls - particularly from the survivors and relatives of those who died - for a public enquiry into whether there were any intelligence failings regarding the London bombings, particularly now that there appears to be evidence that the bombers were (or perhaps should have been) under surveillance for some time before they struck. Like I say, understandable, but the cost of public enquiries tends to run into millions of pounds, and for what result? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and with hindsight clearly things could have been done which might have prevented that tragedy - and that is likely to be the sum total of any enquiry, however it's dressed up. I think the money could be better spent on trying to ensure there is no repetition.

Speed, bonny boat....

I've had to get used to the fact that Bombay is now Mumbai, and Peking is Beijing. But why? We still refer to Munich rather than München, and Venice not Venezia. Who decides this stuff? All this was brought to mind by a news item that the Isle of Skye is now to be known as Eilean a' Cheò, which apparently (although it seems not everybody agrees) is its Gaelic name. Hasn't got quite the same ring though, has it? And I can't see it doing much for the tourist trade they so rely on.