What a load of......

Go on - it's April 1st isn't it? It must be - have you seen that article in the paper giving examples of the questions in the citizenship exam which immigrants have to pass before they will be considered for British citizenship? For starters, what relevance do questions such as "What percentage of Christians in the UK are Roman Catholic?" have to one's suitability to become a citizen of this country? The questions are so obscure and immaterial as to be laughable. And at least one of them is totally wrong. The question posed is "What year did women in the UK gain the right to divorce their husband", and the multiple choice answers are (a) 1810 (b) 1857 (c) 1901 (d) 1945. The correct answer is given as (b). Wrong - completely and utterly wrong! Whatever the practicalities, the law has never made any distinction between husbands and wives in as far as the basic right to bring divorce proceedings is concerned. It is true that the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 made it much easier for wives, but the idea that it gave them a right which they didn't have before is utterly false. This just happens to be a subject I know about, but it does make me wonder what other inaccuracies there might be.

Whither weather?

So forecasters are predicting that this winter is going to be a cold one. Presumably these are the same forecasters who told us that this summer would be another scorcher, like 2006? Mind you, last winter was so mild that they're on fairly safe ground in predicting that this one will be colder.

You can't hit me - I'm a burgler!

Jack Straw is to seek a review of the law which allows you to use "reasonable force" in self-defence. This is a tricky area. At the moment there is little doubt that most people think it has swung too far towards penalising those who "have a go", but the danger is that at the other end of the scale are cases like one which happened in the US some years ago where a couple of men who got lost in the suburbs of a city in the early hours of the morning saw lights still on at a house, and one of them went and knocked the door to seek directions. The house owner - as he later told a court, assuming that anyone knocking his door at that hour must be up to no good - took a gun, opened the door and shot the man dead. The jury agreed with him and he was acquitted of murder. So rather than tinker with the "reasonable force" law, I think it would be more constructive to consider the other side of the coin. I think it is proper to suggest that anyone engaged in an unlawful activity, by that very fact, loses any legal rights they may have in relation to that activity. So if you break into my house, steal from my shop, set upon me in the street, or whatever, I can use whatever force is necessary to restore the status quo - that is, to eject you, retrieve what you have stolen, stop you from assaulting me, and so on. My actions would be judged more by the result achieved than by the amount of force used.

The bins still need emptying

Troops who have served at least 6 months in either Iraq or Afganistan are to get a payment of £140 towards their council tax. Why? I have the greatest admiration for our troops, but cannot see the connection between what they do and council tax. Indeed, I as the sole person now living in my property, get a council tax rebate, which is just as illogical. The council still do as much (or as little) for me as they did when my wife was alive, so although the rebate is welcome, I cannot see the reasoning behind it. This payment to the troops simply smacks of an empty political "gesture", designed to deflect recent criticism of the way the armed forces are treated generally.

Blue tongue

I don't think I am particularly thick, but I do find it difficult to make sense of Defra's approach to this problem. News reports state that the infected animal has been culled to try and prevent the spread of the disease, and yet in the next breath we are told that the disease is not contagious, but is transmitted by the bite of midges carrying the virus. So does this make sense? There may have been other good reasons for slaughtering the animal - humanitarian perhaps - but it would seem that to have any effect on the probability of the disease spreading, it's the midges you need to target.

Time to give the red card the red card?

I do try not to repeat myself, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to. Turned on the TV on Sunday to watch Man U v Chelsea. I support neither team and was simply looking forward to a close and entertaining match. And for just over 30 minutes, that's what I got, but then the whole thing was spoiled when a man was sent off. The fact that it was a Chelsea man, and that the decision was highly debateable was neither here nor there - it wouldn't have made any difference who it was or how clear-cut the decision was - the fact is that from that moment on, the match as a sporting spectacle was over. Given that football relies heavily on the money it gets for its TV rights, and that that in turn relies heavily on people like me paying our subcriptions to the sports channels, I think we deserve more consideration. I effectively didn't get to watch what I had paid good money to watch.

Ageism?

So you're doing your shopping in the supermarket - Morrisons in my case - and that recorded message comes over the tannoy saying they have this policy on selling alcohol, and not to be offended if you look under 21 and are asked to prove your age, and you think - right, I would be tickled pink if somebody thought I looked under 21! Well, small snippet in the paper over the weekend about a 72-year-old man who Morrisons in West Kirby refused to sell two bottles of wine to, because he refused to provide proof of his age! Mind you, I did my square-bashing in West Kirby 52 years ago and it was a strange place then - seems it hasn't changed.

Passing by on the other side.

Remember the post about the fireman who faced disciplinary proceedings for jumping into the water to save a drowning woman? Well now we have the other side of the coin - two community support officers who attended a lake where they knew a boy had got into difficulties and disappeared under the water, but did nothing other than radio for assistance. By the time the boy was found, he was dead. Much has been made of the fact that they were members of the police force, and indeed the local Assistant Chief Constable has felt the need to justify their actions, but for me that is not the issue. Assuming they could swim, surely common humanity required them to do all they could to rescue the boy, whoever they were? The ACC said that "they acted correctly" - well, maybe they did, but I wonder how many of you would have stood by and done nothing?

The special one.

No big surprise - to me at least - that Mourinho and Chelsea have parted company, but a big surprise that it has happened now. The timing seems weird, particularly as, by the look of things, there was no Plan A - or even, it would seem, a Plan B. It seems impossible to believe that this bloke Grant was meant to take over. It may, in the event, prove to be an inspired appointment, but he has no CV worthy of the name, and if Abramovich, as reported, is looking for someone who will produce an expansive and entertaining side, then on the basis of his stint as manager of the Israeli national team, this would not seem to be the man. It all has the feel of crisis management, and the danger is that some players who Mourinho has nurtured and who feel they owe him, may now look to leave the club as well.

Pixel power.

There used to be an old joke that by the time you were old enough to have accumulated enough money to buy a really good hi-fi set-up, your hearing had deteriorated to the point where you couldn't appreciate what you had paid for. I wonder if the same considerations apply to sight? I've been looking at these high definition televisions, which still cost a lot of money, albeit they are coming down, and frankly I am hard pushed to see the difference between them and ordinary sets. My eyesight is not what it was, and perhaps that's the answer, but certainly at the moment I can't see the point in paying the extra for what at best - for me - is a marginal improvement in picture quality.

Withdrawal or rout?

So how do you categorise what we have done in Iraq? It appears that the Americans are not pleased with what they see as a retreat if not an acceptance of defeat. But what was our objective? As I understood it, it was to stabilise the situation, and then hand over to the Iraqis themselves - and that is exactly what we have done. The American problem is that they do not approve of the people to whom we have handed over. I'm afraid we're back to the old business of the US definition of democracy not being the will of the people, but being what suits the US. I think we have done, and are doing exactly the right thing. Given that there's no cohesive central government, if the southern Iraqis want to have close links with Iran, that's their business and nobody else's.

Through the round window...

Not sure about this EU ruling on Microsoft. On the one hand, my natural reaction is to say "hooray for the underdog", but on the other hand, my experience of the relatively recent rush to widen consumer choice is that it brings uncertainty and confusion into the market place, and far from being of automatic benefit to the consumer, can actually cause stress, anxiety and disappointment. A lot of people have switched suppliers of things like gas, electricity, telephones and the internet only to find that, despite assurances to the contrary, cheaper prices mean a much inferior service. And some people have even lost money when their new supplier has gone out of business. So the idea that this judgment means that there will be more consumer choice in the computer software market does not fill me with as much enthusiasm as it might once have done. I tend to stick with what I have got, provided I am happy with it, and will probably continue to do so.

...and a hard place

I have no money with Northern Rock, but if I did, would I be there queuing with the rest of them to get it out? I really don't know. My head says no, it's perfectly safe, but my heart says...? It is perhaps ironic that the "don't panic" statements by the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, far from making me feel more secure, would have quite the opposite effect - think of the number of times we have been assured by those in power that there was no cause for concern, only for future events to prove that they were not only wrong, but knew they were wrong when they made those statements. So yes, chances are that I'd probably be in the queue!

Got any gum, chum?

Non-stick chewing gum - whatever next? Mind you, it's the bane of the street-cleaner's life. My local town recently repaved its central area, and within days the new paving was dotted with grey-white splodges - which are still there and multiplying. If this helps eradicate the problem then I'm all for it, although perhaps more emphasis should be put on stopping people dropping the stuff in the first place.

Just popping out for a drag.

Little snippet in a news item today - the indoor smoking ban seems to have resulted in an apparent increase in smokers in some workplaces. The reason of course is that now you can no longer smoke on the job, having a cigarette necessitates taking a break from work, and is thus an attractive proposition for many. Funny how things often have unforeseen consequences, isn't it?

Tuna chunks - warning, contains fish.

The Plain English people have been having a go at silly and unnecessary warning signs - their argument apparently being not only that they are a waste of time and money but also that we are bombarded with so many of them that we are likely to miss or ignore one that really matters - sort of like the little boy who cried wolf. You certainly wonder sometimes about the intelligence of the people who come up with these signs - or perhaps how unintelligent they think we are. A warning on a packet of sleeping tablets stating "may cause drowsiness" for example, or a fold-up push chair which warns you to remove the baby before folding it up. Is this down to stupidity or the fear of litigation?

Money, money,money.

The Wanless report on the NHS makes for thought-provoking reading - not so much for what it says about the NHS, but for what it says about this (and to a certain extent, the previous) Government's philosophy on the spending of public money. League tables, consumer choice, targets and payment by result means inevitably that those who are judged to be successful get more money and become more popular (though not necessarily better) and those who don't are doomed to a downward slide into failure. When you think about it, this so-called "market forces" philosophy is totally unsuitable for the delivery of a public service - be it health, education or whatever. An awful lot of money has been pumped into the NHS over the last few years, but thanks to this misguided approach, has produced proportionately little improvement. If Sir Derek Wanless can see this, why can't the politicians?

454 grams of potatoes, please.....

Thank goodness the EU has finally seen sense and abandoned its attempts to force metrication on the UK. I have posted before that I am sure, as my generation die out, metrication will take over - it's what's been taught in schools for decades now, and for many young people, the only system they are familiar with. But it should be for this country to decide if, when and how the change should be made, and this apparently is what the EU have finally recognised.

Shopping £3.40, parking £4.50.

A Conservative policy review is to suggest that supermarkets should be obliged to charge customers for parking. What a nerve! But wait - the review stresses that "charges would be no greater than the amount people would pay in the nearest town centre". So that's all right then - just an arm and a leg! This connects somewhat with yesterday's post - there's an increasing tendency these days for politicians to use the concept of being "green" to interfere more and more in how we live our lives - and I for one don't like it.

Tuck box police?

OK, too much junk food is bad for kids, but just how far should official policy go in discouraging it? Apparently plans are afoot here in the Midlands to give Heads of schools authority to ban sweets and crisps from school lunch boxes and to remove the temptation to go down the local chippie by preventing students from leaving the school premises at lunchtime. Methinks this goes too far. I would certainly be incensed as a parent if the contents of my child's lunch box was being censored. And what's going to happen anyway? If they're that way inclined, they're going to fill up with crisps and sweets when they get home, aren't they? And what's he matter with the odd bag of crisps anyway? Things have come to a pretty pass when you can't give your kids the occasional treat. It seems to be one of those things where the many are being punished for the sins of the few.

Update, anyone?

This time last year I was posting about the alleged plot to blow up aircraft with "liquid bombs" which resulted in airport chaos, disrupted travel plans for tens of thousands of people, and still to this day restrictions on what you are allowed to take on board. But whatever happened to those arrested? Was the threat ever realistic - there were and still are those who are experts in this field saying that it was just not a practical proposition. Isn't it funny how following the initial hysteria, it all goes quiet? Does anybody have any up-to-date info?

What's the buzz?

Have you seen these stories about bees disappearing? Everything from mobile phones through global warming and pesticides to alien abduction has been suggested, although the most likely reason is rather more prosaic - some sort of virus or parasite. Honey prices may well rise as a result, but of course the more serious consequence will be the effect on pollination, which could impact on food production generally. I think this is a matter which needs rather more attention paid to it.

None shall sleep....

Doubtless, in the manner of most things these days, the life and work of Luciano Pavarotti will be deconstructed over the next few months, and his failings - of which there were many - will be mercilessly highlighted. But for today, let us just remember the voice - certainly in his prime (say twenty or so years ago) among the greatest tenor voices of all times. Thank goodness that we are left with a treasury of his recordings. He was a big man in all senses.

Sit down for goodness sake!

So now it's official - blue smarties did make you hyper. And, it would now seem, not just blue smarties, but anything containing E 102, 104, 110, 122, 124, 129 or 211 - which seems to cover most sweets, cakes, biscuits and soft drinks - just the sort of stuff kids love. Mind you, if your kid isn't zipping around all over the place, you start thinking they must be coming down with something, don't you?

Rules of the game.

Football season is with us again, and for want of anything else to watch on TV, have been following the opening matches. What always strikes me is the extent to which some of the basic rules of the game are ignored, both by the players, and more importantly, by the referee, who is supposed to be there to see that the rules are observed. Consider for instance -
Law 8 - procedure for a kick-off. "All players are in their own half of the field". You scarcely ever see a kick-off these days where one of the players on the kicking-of side is not standing on the wrong side of the half-way line.
Law 15 - the throw in. To be taken from "the point where [the ball] crosses the touch line". You must be joking - more often than not it's several yards further upfield.
Law 12 - a direct free kick is to be awarded if a player "holds an opponent". If this law were observed properly, the game would consist almost entirely of a series of free kicks.
So does the game have rules, or doesn't it?

Please come and collect Timothy...

It seems that parents are to be held legally responsible for keeping children who are excluded from school at home and off the streets - and very right and proper too, is my immediate response. But there is an unwritten assumption here that parents are able to leave whatever they are doing and get time off work at the drop of a hat in order to deal with such an incident, and I don't think this necessarily follows - particularly as regards the sort of parents who are most likely to find themselves in that position. I'm afraid it is symptomatic of the way that parents of schoolchildren are treated generally these days - whatever happened to the concept that schools were in loco parentis?

Boom....

There have been a couple of blockbuster films in the last few years about asteroids on a collision course with the earth, and Bruce Willis or some other megastar saving the day, but it now appears that it might happen for real in 2036. Certainly scientists are taking the possibility seriously enough to develop contingency plans for dealing with the situation, should it arise. The really spooky thing is the date given for it to happen, if indeed it does, is April 13th! Thank goodness I should be long gone by then.

Theory and practice.

Feature on the breakfast programme this morning about the new extended written test for learner drivers. As an exercise, the programme makers had one of their reporters - a driver for more than 20 years with no points on his licence - sit the test. He failed. This caused some embarrassment and consternation on his part, but am I alone in thinking that what it calls far more into question is what relevance the test has to the real world of driving a car?

The old 'uns are the best.

Article about people in London renting out their drives for other people to park on, thus avoiding for them the problem of having to find a parking space, vandalism, exhorbitant parking fees etc., reminded me of an old joke about Lord Archer -

Jeffrey Archer goes to see his bank manager, and explains that he needs to borrow £100 for a couple of weeks.
“O.K.” says the manager “but in view of your current difficulties, I’m going to have to charge you 10% interest, and ask for some security”.
“Well” says Archer “I’ve got my Rolls outside. Suppose I leave that with you until I pay the money back. Will that do?”
“Fine” says the manager, and Archer hands over the keys, takes his £100 and leaves.
A fortnight later, he returns, pays the manager £110 and reclaims his car.
“I hope you don’t mind me asking” says the manager “but why on earth should a person with all your money need to borrow £100?”
“Look at it this way” says Archer “I was going out of the country for a couple of weeks. Where else could I have got secure parking for my Rolls for a tenner?”

Spend, spend, spend.

There's been a discussion on a website I read recently about whether, if money is credited to your bank account in error, you can go ahead and spend it or not. The answer - in law at least - seems to hinge on the legal definition of theft, which requires you to be acting "dishonestly". One of the classic examples always given is if I walk out of a restaurant with someone else's umbrella, say. If I honestly believe it to be my umbrella, then that's not theft. So it would seem that if I believe the money to be mine, or simply don't notice it, and spend it, then that's not theft - although the rightful owner may well be able to sue me for its return. What this means of course is that it may well pay you to be one of those people who simply file their bank statements without looking at them - that way you are more likely to be able to convince the Police that you never noticed that money had been credited to which you weren't entitled, rather than if you were someone, like me, who balances their books to the penny. Sloppiness might well pay, you see.