Where was your crystal ball?

No serious flooding round here, thank goodness, but it's not that far away that they've had it (and indeed for many, still continue to have it) really bad. The media don't seem to know just how to approach this, and at times appear to be wanting to have their cake and eat it. On the one hand, they report that the flooding was "extreme", "exceptional", "unprecedented" and so on, and yet in the next breath they are critical of the Environment Agency for not being better prepared. When you think about it, by its very nature, you can't prepare for an exceptional or unprecedented event, can you? I think the Environment Agency are taking some rather unfair flak.

Book post

(See post dated 18/11/06)

Here are my latest ten -

Greg Iles - Turning Angel - 8
Tess Gerritsen - Vanish - 9
Simon Beckett - The Chemistry of Death - 8.5
Stephen Booth - The Dead Place - 7
Natasha Cooper - A Greater Evil - 7
Dick Francis - Bolt - 8
Chris Kuzneski - Sign of the Cross - 7.5
Carol Smith - Vanishing Point - 6
David Hewson - The Sacred Cut - 7
Ed McBain - Fiddlers - 8

Are you saved?

Jehovah's Witnesses (at least I think that's what they are) seem to have targeted our estate for some reason or other. Scarcely a week goes by lately without seeing a group of them wandering up and down people's drives and knocking on doors - indeed, as today is Sunday, I wouldn't be surprised to see them again. I ignore them, and indeed there has developed a sort of early warning system amongst some of us, whereby when they are spotted we ring each other up so as not to be caught out. I'm sure they are well-meaning people, but I wonder if they ever stop to think how unwelcome, disruptive and possibly upsetting their visits may be. They seem to be so full of their own importance - or I'm sure they would say, the importance of the message they bring - that they are oblivious to any other considerations. So my message to them would be - don't call us, we'll call you.

We've just landed - see you in about an hour...

Following the death of my wife, it is unlikely that I shall go abroad again, but when she was alive we flew regularly to various destinations in the Med and the Canaries. We were always struck by the fundamental difference in the way we were treated by airports abroad, and our own dear Birmingham International. We put it down to the fact that airports in holiday destinations have a vested interest in keeping their customers sweet, whereas Birmingham couldn't care less. It was always painfully obvious that Birmingham Airport was run for the benefit of Birmingham Airport, and definitely not for the benefit of the travelling public. And now it seems things are going to get a whole lot worse with the new security checks. So perhaps on the whole it's just as well my travelling days are over.

Shambo.

Whatever one may think about the idea of treating a bull as sacred, I would rather like to know more about just why it was decided that the animal should be slaughtered. As I understand it, it was effectively quarantined, and would have remained so. So what precisely was the risk? I don't pretend to know anything about the matter, but I think the Department of the Environment, or whoever (you see, I don't even know just who was responsible for the decision), should put their cards on the table and make their case - if indeed they have one.

What did they expect?

I've waffled on before about targets, and about how they can take on a life of their own, and distort what's really going on. Article in the press the other day saying that there is evidence that schools are pushing pupils into taking the "easier" subjects in order to inflate the number of A and A* results they get. Pretty obvious really, isn't it?

With apologies to A. A. Milne.

In-joke for those of you between the ages of 60 and 69, who like me (I just creep in) have doubtless received one of these Bowel Cancer Screening Programme kits. Gives a whole new perspective to the phrase "pooh-sticks", eh?

Whither Auntie?

The role of the BBC is coming under the microscope again after the recent revelations concerning premium rate phone quizzes. I think the BBC lost its way decades ago when it decided that its job was to compete with commercial television for viewer ratings. This was a fundamental mistake. Commercial TV depends on advertising revenue, which in turn means that it depends on maximising the number of people watching it, which in turn means that it has to put on programmes which will achieve this end. The BBC doesn't have to do this, and in my opinion its role should be to provide a positive alternative to what the commercial channels are putting out. In other words, minority interest programming. Of course, this means that it has to be made clear that the BBC is not chasing ratings, and must not be judged on that basis. At present we have what is in effect a commercial channel funded by licence money which can't be right.

Words, words, words.

One of the things which really gets up my nose is the sight, following a General Election, of the Prime-Minister-In-Waiting, whoever it might be, addressing us all and claiming that the result has given him and his party a "mandate" to pursue their manifesto policies - completely oblivious to the fact that they almost certainly have received significantly less than half of the votes cast. OK, no question they've won under our electoral rules, but a mandate? This came to mind yesterday when I listened to Lord Levy saying that the CPS decision not to bring any prosecutions in the "cash for honours" business had "exonerated" him. Really? The CPS statement says that they had decided that "...there is insufficient evidence to support proceedings against any individual...". Not, you will notice, no evidence, but insufficient evidence. So be relieved, be pleased, by all means, but exonerated?

When I was a child....

What on earth is all this fuss about the Home Secretary having smoked cannabis when she was at University? I'm sure all of us did things when we were younger which we now look back on with bewilderment, embarrassment or shame - I certainly did. When I think about those things, it's as though I am looking back at a different person. I've changed, and for that matter am still changing. That's how life works. Get real!

Don't go out alone, Jimmy.

If we accept the Government's statistics (and the very fact that I have to make that caveat speaks volumes) overall crime figures are falling, and yet the public perception is that we feel less safe than ever. Most parents today wouldn't give their children a tenth of the freedom I enjoyed as a child. And yet is a child wandering around on their own any more at risk today than 60 years ago? The statistics (same caveat) say no. So just what's going on? It seems to me it's all down to the power of information. When I was a kid, if a child was abducted in Brighton, let's say, then unless you lived in Brighton, you were unlikely to hear about it. It would probably make the local press, but not the nationals. Today it would be headline news in all the papers and on TV. So it may well be that children, and indeed all of us, are no more at risk today than back then - maybe even less at risk - but thanks to the media we are more aware today of just what that risk is. Ignorance is bliss, goes the saying, and that I think is the essential difference between our perception of safety today and what it was in the past.

All of me, why not take all of me?

As I'm coming up to 70, I have had to renew my driving licence. On the application form was an opportunity to register myself as an organ donor. I did so. But thinking about this, it seems to me that it should not be me making that decision, but my children. After all, if the question does arise, I shall be dead, so what do I care? Those who are left behind, on the other hand, may care very much. The problem, as I understand it, is that to be of any use, organs need to be removed as soon as possible after death, or better still, while the heart is still beating. This means that the body has to be rushed to an operating theatre immediately after death, or kept "alive" on a respirator. Either way, I can see this causing considerable distress to any close relatives who may be present. I think it should be their consent that should be looked for rather than mine. Equally, the current debate about everybody being considered as a donor unless they opt out should equally be considered from the point of view of those who will be left behind.

Your move...

Britain and Russia engaged in somewhat of a hissy fit over the Litvinenko affair. Not that it isn't a serious matter, but the man himself and his death seem to have taken second place to macho posturing between the two countries. And to what end? Assuming we're not being told lies, it seems the Russian constitution forbids the extradition of its nationals, so we're asking for the impossible. Further, what would be our response if the situation were reversed? Would we be prepared to extradite a British citizen to stand trial in Russia on a charge relating to a contentious murder with considerable political overtones? I doubt it. I fear the unfortunate Mr Litvinenko has now simply become a pawn in a political chess game.

Life beyond Watford.

A report commissioned by the RAC has found that "we are just as dependent on our cars as we were more than a decade ago". Well, surprise me! I've been on this hobby-horse before, but the suggestion that public transport provides a reasonable alternative to the car is, at least for those of us who live out here in the real world, so much baloney. Our thinking - or rather, the thinking of our lords and masters - tends to be very London-centric. It may well be that in the capital, with its wealth of buses and the Underground, these provide a quick and attractive way of getting round - particularly now that travel by car means having to pay the congestion charge. But most of us don't live in London, and out here in the sticks, buses are unreliable, dirty and unpleasant, and anything but a quick way of getting from A to B. I wish the policy makers would realise there is a big world out there beyond the M25, and that you can't extrapolate from a London experience to a nationwide one.

Come promenade with me.

So the Proms season is on us again. Chances are that if that means anything to you at all, then you associate it with the name of Henry Wood, and indeed it is his bust which has pride of place in the Albert Hall, and is decorated with a wreath on the Last Night. And yet, although Henry Wood was very important in the development of the Proms, the man who deserves the credit for coming up with the original concept was not him at all, but one Robert Newman. It was he who had the idea of presenting classical music concerts for the masses at an affordable price and in an informal atmosphere where people could walk around, eat, drink and smoke. These days, the Proms have become more of an institution - even, dare one say, an anachronism in an age where access to classical music is easily available to all. So have they any place in today's world? You bet they have!

Why??

It would appear - unless he is successful on appeal - that Conrad Black will go to prison. This is an American matter and as such not one I would normally comment on, but I'm sure that had the trial been in this country, he would equally be looking at a gaol sentence. What's the point? His crime was economic, and common sense would suggest that his punishment should also be economic. What will be served by locking him up, other than retribution? Justice would be better served, I would suggest, by requiring him to work to reimburse and recompense all those he has been convicted of defrauding.

Sort yourselves out.

There was a report on the Beeb the other day about problems with teenagers hanging around on the streets in the evenings and at weekends in some small sleepy market town. When some of these young people were interviewed, they came up with the usual "there's nothing to do" comments. And I wondered what had become of initiative - whatever happened to making your own entertainment? We seem to have got into a mindset these days where we look to - and expect - other people to sort our lives out for us. It's always down to "them" to provide a solution. We're back to Maggie Thatcher's famous "there is no such thing as society" speech again, aren't we (see post dated 17th June).

What's next - book burning?

The Belgian author Hergé (Georges Remi) wrote a book back around 1930 featuring his famous boy-detective Tintin. It reflected 1930 society and views - it could hardly have done otherwise. Many of those views have radically changed over the last 70-odd years, and some of them are now seen as offensive. The Commission for Racial Equality want this book banned. Presumably it's only a matter of time before they also call for the banning of Dickens's "Oliver Twist" and Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice", both of which portray a stereotype of Jews which I'm sure many of them find offensive. Surely we accept books as mirroring the time in which they were written? What about the many books written during the cold war, which portrayed all those behind the Iron Curtain as duplicitous villains? All rather childish I feel - and with uncomfortable echoes of the "Satanic Verses" business.

Blimey!

Have to admit I didn't realise that these "civil partnerships" which same-sex couples can now enter into have much the same legal force as marriage, and as such carry many of the same rights and responsibilities. So it came as a bit of a shock to read about the woman who entered into such a partnership with another woman whilst still married to her husband, and who has now been charged with bigamy. Strange world we live in these days.

Joined up thinking - again!

It's the carnival season. Our village had theirs last weekend - funfair, car boot sale, marching bands, competitions, the works. So there would be crowds, yes? And among other things, many of these people would get hungry, and indeed there were several fast-food stalls set up specifically to meet the demand - not to mention the local takeaways and fish and chip shop. And all this would generate a great deal of rubbish. So, did the powers that be think about this and provide extra rubbish bins around the place? What do you think? You can just imagine what the village looked like on the morning after!

Easy when you know how.

So, how does the the age trick which I posted about on July 5th work? Well, if you really wanted to know someone's age, and didn't want to ask them straight out, the easy way would be to find out their year of birth and then deduct that from 2007 - or 2006 if they haven't yet had their birthday this year.

So, we start with a number between 1 and 9 - we don't know what it is, so call it N.
Double it, so it becomes 2N
Add 5, so it is now 2N+5
Multiply by 50, so it becomes 50(2N+5) = 100N+250
Add 1757 or 1756, depending on whether or not you've had your birthday this year so we now have 100N+ 2007 or 100N + 2006
Deducting your year of birth gives us 100N + your age.

Et voilà!

Oh, well played Sir!

Big sporting weekend just gone - or perhaps I should say a big weekend of sports, because I see precious little sporting attitude among competitors these days. When Stephen Potter wrote a book just after the war entitled "Gamesmanship: The Art of Winning Games Without Actually Cheating" he wrote it and meant it as humour, but in fact it now seems to be taken as a blueprint for success, whatever the game being played. Just notice how often Potter's Rule No. 1 - "Break the flow of the opponent's play" is utilised. The old mantra that "it's not the winning, but the taking part that counts" now just produces looks of incredulity. Has sportsmanship gone the way of chivalry - or in fact did either of them truly exist? Am I simply seeing things through my old man's rose-coloured spectacles?

Pint of snake-oil, anyone?

Basic law of physics - you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in. Indeed, you can't even get the same amount out as you put in (the "entropy" principle). So perpetual motion machines can't work - even less can you have a machine which produces energy from nowhere. This hasn't stopped an Irish firm from insisting that they have developed a machine which does just that - they have called it Orbo and it was supposed to have been unveiled in London a few days ago, but (surprise, surprise) due to "technical difficulties" this has now been delayed until further notice. Watch this space? Suggest you don't bother!

777.

If June 6th 2006 was a date to be avoided because of its association with the Number of the Beast, it seems today is a day to be embraced as being "all the sevens". Just why seven is considered a significant, and for many a lucky number is lost in the mists of time, but just consider how often it features in our daily life and language. According to the Old Testament, God created the world in seven days, which presumably is why we have seven-day weeks, there are seven deadly sins, breaking a mirror will bring you seven years bad luck, in Snow White there are seven dwarfs, seven (at the first attempt) is a winning throw in the dice game of craps, we talk about the seven seas and seventh heaven, there are seven wonders of the world and so on. So today may be an auspicious day for doing that thing you've been meaning to do for ages!

Memories.

Article in the press about the National Archives' efforts to ensure that their data is not lost as a result of being kept in obsolete formats. I'm sure many other people apart from me can empathise with the problem. Technology moves on, and if you're not careful will leave you behind. I have a mass of photographs of my wife and myself taken just before and after we got married, but they're all on slides, which were pretty well state of the art at the time, but today it's difficult to get hold of a slide projector or slide viewer, so they are just sitting there, mouldering in their boxes. Even worse, I had some recordings of my children when they were very young, but this was on reel to reel tape, and as that was overtaken by cassettes, it became virtually impossible to get hold of a reel to reel player, unless you went way up market into professional equipment which cost an arm and a leg. So the tapes eventually got dumped, and with them the precious memories they contained. How I wish now I'd made the effort to have them transferred to another media - I'm sure it would have been possible. So learn from my mistakes!

How old are you?

I picked this up off the Net - if you have a mathematical bent (no rude comments please!), it's not too difficult to see how it works, and as set out it will only work for this year of 2007, but it's a good party trick to have up your sleeve - although you might want to have a calculator about your person to aid the arithmetically challenged. Anyway, here it is -
1. Think of a number between 1 and 9
2. Double it
3. Add 5
4. Multiply the answer by 50
5. If you've already had your birthday this year, add 1757, otherwise add 1756
6. Deduct the 4-digit year of your birth
7. You are now left with a 3-digit number - the first digit is the number you thought of, the other two digits are your age.


Now isn't that clever?

Thou shalt not...

Now here's a funny thing - one of my grandchildren asked me for some help with homework involving the Ten Commandments. So I sorted out my old Bible - the authorised version of course - and dipped into Exodus. And guess what? If by the Ten Commandments we mean the mental picture we all have of Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with them written on two tablets of stone, then they're not what we think they are! It's not a straightforward story by any means, but essentially Moses went up Mount Sinai to commune with God at least three times. The first time God sent him back down to tell the people about what we now refer to as the Commandments - but they are not called that in the Bible (Exodus 20), and at this point nothing was written down. Later Moses went up again and God gave him two stone tablets but, although it is assumed these contained the same words, the Bible is vague about this. In any event, when Moses came down with these tablets he found the people worshiping the statue of a golden calf, and smashed the tablets on the ground in disgust, so the question is moot. The third time he went up the mountain, God dictated what He wanted Moses to write down on a new set of tablets. And these are the tablets which Moses finally brought down, and are referred to specifically as the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34.28). Problem is that these contained a quite different set of rules, mainly concerned with the proper observance of feasts and ceremonies and so on. Nothing there about not killing, stealing, coveting and all that, let alone honouring your father and mother. How about that then?

Not much style, but plenty of substance.

Doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm from Manchester City fans for Sven as their next manager. The general feeling is - why would we want somebody who was failure as England manager, and yet the fact is that if you look at the stats, he was one of the most successful England managers since the war. He, Alf Ramsey, Ron Greenwood and Glen Hoddle are alone in having a 60% or better win record. He certainly didn't - and presumably still doesn't - ooze charisma, but if you're looking for someone with a proven track record, he must be high on your list.

Whatever happened to....

Life used to be so simple - the Lord Chancellor was Speaker of the House of Lords, the most senior judge, and a member of the Cabinet. Not an easy post to fill, but a crucial one in respect of the checks and balances in our unwritten constitution between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Some coped with it better than others - for my money, the best Lord Chancellor of recent times was Lord Mackay back in the 90's. But now it's all changed and the post exists today pretty well in name only, and the most recent nonsense is that the current Lord Chancellor is Jack Straw, who isn't even a lord! Life used to be so simple......

You couldn't make it up.....

Here we go again! Some lads go into a shop, pinch some stuff and run off. The shop keeper chases them. When he confronts them they set upon him, and he fights back. The result of all this? The shoplifters are given fixed penalty fines - the shopkeeper is arrested and charged with assault. His solicitor tells him that if he fights the case and loses, he faces up to six months in prison, and advises him to plead guilty, in which case he will probably only be fined. And this is what happens - he is fined £250. What a shining example of British justice!!