Ha ha

Latest joke -

A man was driving down a country lane on his way to a hotel when his car suddenly cut out and rolled to a halt. He got out and looked under the bonnet but couldn't see anything wrong. He was just about to phone the AA when a horse stuck its head over the hedge and said "I bet it's the distributor". So the man checked and sure enough the distributor cap was not on properly, and after he'd fixed it, the car started OK and he drove on to his hotel, which was just down the road. He told the hotel manager about what had happened, and the manager said "Was it a black horse?". "Yes it was as a matter of fact" said the man. "Good job it wasn't the white one" said the manager "he knows nothing about engines".

Mottos (or should that be motti?)

Gordon Brown has stated that he will be governed by his old school motto, which he gave as "I will try my utmost". I assume this is how he remembers it being told to him when he was at school, but the motto is actually "usque conabor", which my (admittedly very rusty) recollection of latin suggests actually means something like "always try hard" or "strive to the end". Just to confuse the issue, the school themselves render it these days as "working together to improve". Don't quite see where they get that from though!

Take the rough with the smooth

My wife was wont to refer to the area around here as "the arsehole of the country", particularly when we were returning from a nice holiday in the countryside or by the sea, and coming back up the M5 and suddenly seeing the smog and grime of the Black Country laid out before us. A bit harsh, I always thought, but there's no doubt that if you're looking for pretty scenery or a peaceful, laid-back ambiance, then you wouldn't choose here. On the other hand, it does have its advantages. You're right in the middle of things, with easy access to innumerable theatres, cinemas, restaurants, art galleries, museums, leisure centres and so on. Then there are so many shops and other retail outlets in such a concentrated area that competition is cutthroat and prices just about as cheap as anywhere. And - very pertinent at the moment - we are relatively high up and so don't get serious flooding!

What a movie!

You won't often find me recommending a film, but last night I watched "Pleasantville" on Sky, and for anyone who hasn't already seen it, I urge you to do so. It's brilliant - not perfect by any means, but brilliant. I'm still trying to come to terms with its many-layered meanings. And if all this makes it sound heavy and serious, it isn't - it's basically a fantasy comedy, for all that it carries some seriously deep messages. Just see it if you can.

Not just a miscarriage...

Very troubling news about the Lockerbie trial, where it appears that the Libyan convicted back in 2001 will almost certainly be cleared on appeal. The worrying aspect is the suspicion that this wasn't just a matter of the court getting it wrong, but rather that the evidence was deliberately tampered with when it became clear that things were starting to point to countries who, at the time, we did not wish to offend, and Libya was chosen as the fall-guy. This could turn into something really bad.

Site of the month.

Did you see Gordon Brown wriggling uncomfortably when being interviewed the other day on the question of tax - being forced to accept that the tax burden had risen under this government, although what he wanted to concentrate on was the fact that the standard rate of income tax had fallen. And this is one of the major problems with tax for the man in the street - there are so many taxes, it is difficult to get a grip on just how much we are paying in total, and whether it is going up or down. So have a look at www.adamsmith.org and take the link to "Tax Freedom Day" which calculates (and has done for years) just what proportion of the year we spend working for the taxman. I have to warn you though, it makes for pretty sobering reading!

I think I know...

Somebody mentioned that quote from Donald Rumsfeld the other day - you know the one, about known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. And I got to thinking - can you have an unknown unknown? Can there be things which you don't know you don't know? As far as I can make out only a third party can make such a statement. I could say "This person does not know about the Theory of Relativity. Further, they don't know that such a theory exists, and therefore don't know that they don't know about it". So from my perspective, that is an unknown unknown for that person. But as far as the person is concerned, they cannot not know they don't know about it, until they know about it! Only then, in retrospect, can they say "Ah yes, there was that period when I didn't know I didn't know about it". And my head hurts!

Shooting yourself in the foot?

The Royal Mail's postal services are losing business at a dramatic rate. If it were a private concern, it would have gone out of business years ago. So the decision by the postal workers' union to take strike action is very much a matter of turkeys voting for Christmas.

Are you all agreed.....?

The decision to allow Barry George a fresh appeal (see post dated 8/9/06) has turned apparently solely on the reliability of the forensic evidence, but for me what also needs considering - though not necessarily by the Court of Appeal - is the question of whether majority verdicts should be accepted in criminal trials as a matter of course. Although the Act which introduced them makes no mention of it, one of the the main considerations which was in the mind of Parliament at the time was clearly the possibility of a juror being "nobbled", either by bribery or intimidation, and as a result holding out for a not-guilty verdict and so producing a hung jury. Remember this was back in the 1960s when criminal gangs and families had considerable influence, particularly in the big cities. But this was a problem very much of its time, and we've moved on (at least I hope we have) since then. So is it satisfactory today that a person should be found guilty of what might be a very serious offence, when nearly 20% of the jury are unconvinced of their guilt? Has the time perhaps come to require the prosecution to make a formal application for a "majority direction" from the judge where it appears that the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict, and to do so on the basis of producing some reasonable evidence that this is an appropriate case for such a direction? And in the case of a charge of murder- the most serious on the calendar - perhaps there should be a rebuttable presumption that such a direction should not be given.

English as she is spoke.

Big discussion on local television the other day about how to pronounce the word lido - is it lee-do or lie-do? A straw poll seemed to suggest that people are split around 50-50. But surely as it comes directly from the Italian (it's the name of a popular resort off the coast of Venice) it has to be leedo?

R.I.P.

I wasn't a tremendous fan of Bernard Manning as a comedian, but in this world of smarmy, two-faced hypocrites, I admired him enormously for being a straight-forward, honest man who told it as he saw it, and was not prepared to bow the knee even at the expense of his career. He might have made us feel uncomfortable at times, but we surely could do with more of his sort.

To every thing there is a season....

My wife was always loathe to throw good clothes away just because they had gone out of fashion - "Wait long enough" she used to say "and they'll come round again." I thought of this when I saw a report in the paper that Leeds is to re-introduce the trolley-bus. I doubt whether many of you remember them - I don't think there have been any in service in this country since the early 70s - but I used to travel on them daily to and from school. They were quiet and clean and in many continental countries they have continued to be used. So if you wait long enough.....

Sword of Damocles

Although I do have a legal background, it is now somewhat out of date, and in any event, was concerned mainly with the civil law, so my understanding of police procedure and the criminal law is sketchy. The recent arrest of Michael Barrymore and two others in connection with a death at his property some years ago has therefore raised questions in my mind. Recent reports say that all three men have been "released without charge". So far, so good, but a deeper reading reveals that, although they have indeed not been charged, they have been released on police bail. So what does that mean - as far as I have been able to find out, it means that they are under a legal obligation to return for further questioning as and when required. So the Police are in fact saying "You can go, but we haven't finished with you". And it would appear that this situation can continue for as long as the Police wish it to. So where's the finality? These men are in effect in limbo, as it were, neither charged nor properly released, and to my simplistic mind that somehow doesn't seem right.

The Iron Lady

It's a sobering thought that you've got to be knocking 30 to have any real memory of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister. Frankly, she scared the living daylights out of me, and many people round here - including my late wife - would hold her pretty well solely responsible for the destruction of the Midlands as the industrial heartland of the nation. Whatever, the one quote which you hear more often than any other attributed to her is "there is no such thing as society", and this is invariably put forward as indicative of her hard and uncaring attitude. But if ever a quote was taken out of context, then it's this one. What she actually said was - "I think ... too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it ... They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first..." And that was simply telling it as it is, and forever will be.

Ow we spaik round ear

I thought perhaps, for those not from this neck of the woods, I should explain that the expression "doh spile" which I used the other day is local dialect for "doesn't spoil (i.e. go bad)". There are those who know far more about this than me, who maintain that the Black Country dialect is the closest to how English would have been spoken in Chaucer's day. Whatever, it contains some very idiosyncratic words and pronunciations. Here are just a few...

Ar = yes
As lief = rather, as soon as (e.g. I'd as lief....")
Bin, bist = am, are
Bostin = excellent
Cagmag = cheap meat (or other foodstuff) of dubious quality
Cor = can't
Day = didn't
Fun = found
Gawk = stare (e.g. "Wot yow gawkin' at?")
Ile = oil
Jiffy = brief moment (e.g. 'e woh be a jiffy")
Myther = bother, irritate (e.g. "doh myther the babby")
Okud = awkward
Ommer = hammer
Oss road = street (e.g. "stay out the oss road")
Purler = a fall (e.g. "cum a purler")
Reasty = dirty or gone off (food)
(Tacky)bonk = pit mound
Waggin, on the wag = playing truant (e.g. "Am yow on the wag?")
Wum = home (e.g. "Ah'm gooin' wum")
Yampy = Many meanings - useless, mad, easily upset, hyperactive......

I've got this rash....

One of my Gran's sayings was "You've got to eat a peck of dirt before you die". It was usually trotted out when my Mum expressed horror at me coming home filthy dirty after a day playing in the nearby fields (which are now all housing estates!). I was reminded of this the other day when one of TV's resident doctors was discussing the fact that so many people - children particularly - are plagued these days by allergies. The suggestion is that there may well be a connection with our current obsession with cleanliness - daft though it may seem, this may result in our bodies' natural defensive systems not getting enough early "practice" in developing resistance to potential allergens, so that when we are eventually exposed to them, we get the type of extreme reaction which causes problems. More words of wisdom from Gran?

Unbelievable!

Were you as gob-smacked as I was by Tony Blair's comments about the media the other day? I've been searching my brain for a the appropriate word, but can't find it - hypocrisy is as close as I have come, but that isn't quite right. What I want is an expression which covers sticking the knife into somebody whose talents and influence you have deliberately used for your own advantage, but who now doesn't want to play anymore. There's no doubt that 24-hour news has created a situation where the air-time has to be filled with something, and scandal, gossip and comment which previously wouldn't have seen the light of day is now all grist to the mill (I have previously mentioned Bill Turnbull's exploits on "Strictly Come Dancing" featuring in BBC news bulletins), but it ill-behoves someone who has made a career out of the deliberate manipulation of the media to now start whinging because they are saying things he doesn't like. He who lives by the sword, Tony...........

See it for what it is.

The so-called "honour killing" of a young Kurdish lady has made the headlines mainly because she had told the Police several times that she believed her life to be in danger, but it appears little if any action was taken. Not surprisingly, this has resulted in calls for "more to be done" to stop this sort of thing happening. But what, precisely? We don't live in a "Minority Report" type world, where you can be arrested for a crime which you have not yet committed - much less, for a crime which you only might commit. We already have procedures for dealing with domestic violence - and that's essentially what this is, although the violence usually comes from parents or siblings rather than from the spouse. It seems errors of judgment were probably made in this case, but I don't think we should get hung up over the cultural aspect - if people have a mind-set that thinks in terms of dishonour and such, there's little the law can do about it. On the other hand, there's plenty of legislation already in place to provide a degree of protection for potential victims of domestic violence. At the end of the day, however, the Police have to deal with many incidents where people report threats of varying severity, and they have the difficult job of assessing just what the actual level of risk is, and I think we have to accept that they won't always get it right.

Cheap and cheerful.

It occurred to me, on re-reading Sunday's post, that I had failed to mention Aldi and Lidl. I don't know why, but I don't tend to think of them as supermarkets, although I don't know what else you would call them. Anyway, I regularly patronise both, and they both give amazingly good value for money - no pretensions, no frills, just "pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap", and as far as I am concerned, although for the most part they're brands you've never heard of, I've never come across any rubbish. I've not tried Netto, as there isn't one anywhere nearby, but I have no reason to believe that they are not just as good. If you're on a tight budget and haven't already discovered them, give them a try - I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Smoke without fire?

Went out for a pub lunch the other day - at least half of those in the pub, who appeared to be regulars, and indeed the man behind the bar, were smoking. So I wondered what would happen come July 1st, when smoking in such places becomes illegal. I suppose during the summer months people will simply take their drinks to the tables outside and smoke there, but come the cold weather? It may well be that the pub, which is in a lovely but somewhat remote spot, and has been there a long, long time, will lose its custom and have to close. Seems a shame. So what about passive smoking - is it really such a health hazard? I, like I imagine most of my generation, was brought up in a smoking household, went to work in a smoking office and found my entertainment in smoke-filled cinemas, restaurants and pubs - so you would imagine that we ought to be dropping like flies now from various respiratory ailments - but I don't see any evidence of that. Could this all simply be a matter of people seeking to ban that which they personally find distasteful? I've mentioned before that I'm a one-time smoker, and I think it would be better if people didn't smoke, but I think this idea of "I don't like it, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it" goes rather too far.

Speak as you find.

According to these regular surveys which are carried out, the cheapest supermarket is either Asda or Tesco. When I first retired, I carried out a survey of my own over several months, and came to the clear conclusion that Morrisons was the cheapest - not by much, to be sure, but definitely the cheapest. Official figures however consistently put Morrisons in third place behind the big two. So who's right? I suppose it all depends on the "shopping basket" you are using for comparison, but I wonder if the official surveys take account of special offers and BOGOFs. Provided it's something which, to use a local expression "doh spile", if I see a BOGOF or 3 for 2 offer on something I use, I buy a load and store them for later use. Perhaps that's where my savings come in? I do occasionally go to Asda or Tesco (and for that matter, Sainsbury's and Waitrose), if there's something specific I want from there, but for me Morrisons is the place.

The power of words.

Oh Lord, Big Brother's at it again! As I've said before, I don't watch it, and have no desire to watch it, but the grandchildren currently talk about nothing else, so I'm drawn into it whether I want to or not. It seems a (white) contestant has been peremptorily evicted for using what I must apparently refer to as "the n word" to another (black) contestant. Channel 4 deemed this to be unacceptable and offensive - but offensive to whom? If the transcripts of the exchange I have read are accurate, the black contestant seemed more shocked by the fact that the word had been used than offended by it. And it seems from various posts to newsgroups that the word is common currency among young black people themselves. So the interesting question which springs to my mind is - if a black contestant had used this word to another black contestant, would Channel 4 have taken the same stance - and if not, isn't what they did racist? I've said it before and I'll say it again - isn't it about time we all grew up?

Who pays?

What do we do about child maintenance? Can I suggest a radical (and probably unwelcome) approach? Basic question - who is responsible for the problem? The easy answer is the non-custodial parent who is failing to pay, but aren't we in danger of treating the symptom as if it were the disease? Society, through its various governments over the years has created a climate in which the break-up of families through divorce is seen as a perfectly acceptable consequence of the collapse of a personal relationship. So shouldn't society face up to its responsibilities and pick up the tab? In other words, shouldn't child maintenance be paid through general taxation by all of us? And if this is an unwelcome solution, then perhaps we should take a step - or several steps - backwards, and make marriage more difficult to get into, and - if children are involved - far more difficult to get out of. It's all too easy to wash our hands of a problem which is mainly of our own making.

Ve haf vays (or do we?)

Can you legislate for people's behaviour? Clearly certain Ministers believe you can. They are calling for a raft of measures designed to make us all act and feel more "British". This includes the idea of having a national "Britain Day". I remain to be convinced that this is anything more than meaningless sound-bite politics. For starters - just what do they mean by Britishness? As far as I can see, the measures they are proposing have simply to do with a sense of common community - nothing to do with Britain as such. Which brings us to the basic question - can you make people behave in a certain way through legislation? I suppose you could point to race relations and sex equality as being two areas where this has succeeded - or has it? Has it actually altered the way people think - and rather than behaviour, that really is the problem here. The London bombers, as far as I can see, behaved pretty well as good, upright citizens. It's what they were thinking that mattered, and I cannot see that what is proposed would have any effect on that.

Other side of the coin

Isn't it funny that how you see something depends on where you're looking from (and isn't that the basis of relativity?). The US got really uptight at the thought of the (then) USSR siting missiles in Cuba back in the early 60s, and rightly so. Now Putin is getting equally uptight about the thought of the US siting missiles on his doorstep in Eastern Europe and, in my view, equally rightly so. Of course, the US would argue that the Cuban missiles were intended to be offensive, whereas its own plan is purely defensive, but like I say, it all depends on where you are looking from - remember that old saying: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?

What's in a number?

The Police have now gone on record as saying that they have "no confidence" in the current vehicle registration system. But hang on a minute - wasn't it the Police who were mainly instrumental in the present system being introduced some six years ago? So what's going on? The problem of course is that the incidence of number plate theft and cloning has massively increased over the last few years, and the reason for this is simple enough to understand - it's down to the equally massive increase in the extent to which our driving lives these days are dominated by camera systems which rely on number plate recognition. As most of these systems are revenue collectors - whether it be speeding fines, congestion charges or catching people who drive off without paying for their petrol - it obviously becomes worth people's while to look for ways of avoiding recognition. It's a simple matter of economics - if the financial penalties were not there, cloning and theft would virtually disappear overnight.

Please Miss!

So the age-old tradition of schoolchildren putting their hands up to answer a teacher's question is now coming under review as favouring the pushy attention-seeker over the more shy, self-effacing child. I must confess that I came to the conclusion quite early on in my school life that I would learn more and stand less chance of making a fool of myself if I hung back and let others stick their hands up. Worked for me.

Zzzzzz...

Is there something fundamentally screwy about our fire services? You may recall the recent post about a fireman who faces disciplinary proceedings for jumping into the water to rescue a drowning woman - now we have an unbelievable story about firemen in Manchester who face being disciplined for using sleeping bags on the floor to take their authorised rest breaks, rather than the reclining chairs provided. "Involvement in the use of unauthorised rest facilities" is the charge apparently. Has the world gone mad?

How do you think?

Apparently, somewhere in America, they've opened up a museum based on Creationist theories, according to which the Earth is only about 6,000 or so years old and man (that is, Adam and Eve) was there from the word go - or more precisely, from the sixth day. Now people have a perfect right to believe that if they so wish, but what it does highlight is the basic difference between an approach to history (or anything else for that matter) based on logic, and one based on belief. The logical approach is to examine what you find and what you can see, and then develop a theory based on that. If subsequent finds or observations contradict that theory, then you amend the theory accordingly. A belief-based approach on the other hand has the belief as its central core - this never changes, and facts and observations have to be fitted around it. If they cannot, they are either massaged until they do, or simply ignored. It's a matter of choice, but I know which approach I favour.

Be a good boy..

Any regular readers of this blog will know that I am against fixed penalty fines on principle, but given that we have them, I cannot see what all the fuss is about regarding the current proposals to write off the fine if the offender keeps a promise not to re-offend for a given length of time - three months or more is suggested. For surely this is exactly the equivalent of the old Magistrates' power to "bind over to keep the peace"? In both cases it means that the offence which has brought them to court, or attracted the fine as the case may be, will be wiped off provided they agree to keep their nose clean for a set length of time.