Ha ha.

As someone getting on in years, whose hearing is not what it was, I liked this one -

Three old guys out walking.
First one says "Windy, isn't it?"
Second one says "No, it's Thursday"
Third one says "So am I - let's go for a pint".

Alien invaders?

It seems DEFRA are trying to come up with a scheme for controlling "invasive" species of flora and fauna coming into this country from elsewhere, and which are threatening to overwhelm native plants and animals. Why do I immediately get a mental picture of Canute commanding the tide not to come in? Isn't this the natural way of things - survival of the fittest and all that? Can't help but feel you're on a loser, mates.

Follow that cheese!

Every now and then something comes along to restore your faith in normality in this otherwise regulated-to-a-standstill world. So let's hear it for the Cooper's Hill cheese-rolling event near Gloucester which is still, despite all the health and safety nonesense, being held annually in May. Here's something where it is pretty well guaranteed that people will injure themselves, and yet it continues gloriously - and long may it go on doing so!

Weasel words.

Another fuel price protest, and the usual response from the Government that it is all down to the rising cost of crude oil, which is outside their control. Well it may be true that they have little or no control over the price of oil, but the price of petrol is another matter entirely. When you pay £1.12 for a litre of petrol - that's the price around here at the moment - about 45p of that represents the actual costs involved in getting the product to you - the other 67p is tax, and that is something which is definitely within the Government's control. Whether they're prepared to do anything about it...

The New English Dictionary

Failure (n) - definition:- reaching the quarter-finals of the FA Cup, losing finalists in the Carling Cup, runners-up in the Premiership, and losing on penalties in the European Cup final. I'm sure there will be many, many supporters out there who would join me in wishing that our team had a manager who was such a failure!

Swings and whatsits.

If house prices are going up this is seen as bad news, and if they're coming down this also it would appear is bad news!? I've never really been able to understand it - provided you haven't seriously overstretched yourself mortgage-wise, then unless you are a first-time buyer, or a last-time seller, any increase or decrease in the price of the house you are considering buying, will be matched by a proportionate increase or decrease in the price you will be able to sell your house for, so you'll be no better or worse off. Or have I missed something?

Penny and bun.

As anyone who has ever been involved in organising one will know, the very essence of a civil wedding before a Registrar is that it must be devoid of any religious connotations - you can't have any reading or music with the slightest religious connection - Elizabeth Barrett Browning's well-known and very apposite poem "How do I love thee" can't be used, for example, because - although the subject matter is not religious - it includes the word God. So given that they are performing a ceremony from which religion has been quite deliberately excluded, why should some Registrars quote their Christian faith as reason why they should not be called upon to perform same-sex partnership ceremonies. You can't have it both ways, folks!

It's under that sheet...

Have you seen the story about Manchester Museum deciding to completely cover the unwrapped bodies of Egyptian mummies, following complaints from some people that it is offensive to display them "naked". Quite apart from the fact that these bodies have apparently been on display for over 100 years with no problem, it does of course mean that the Museum now has a class of what you might call "non-exhibited-exhibits" - things which are there on display, but covered up so you can't actually see them. Very Monty Python!

It's gone to penalties...

I think most people - even those who eventually win - would agree that a penalty shoot-out is a most unsatisfactory way of deciding a match. The problem is of course that it's difficult to come up with an alternative that isn't just as unsatisfactory. So here's a idea I've been toying with for some time now - if the teams are level after 90 minutes, a 10 minute period of extra time is played, BUT both teams have to drop two players, so this extra time is played 9-a-side. If the teams are still level after that, then a further 10 minutes are played and again two players have to be dropped, so this is played 7-a-side. If they're still level, then two players are again dropped and a further 10 minutes played 5-a-side. In the (I think unlikely) event that the teams are still level after this, then they continue to play 5-a-side on the "golden goal" principle, that is, first goal ends the game. This way at least, the result will be decided on basic footballing principles, rather than on which side has the better - or should I perhaps say luckier - goalkeeper.

Come on - only another mile and a half to go...

So it's Walk To School Week - how clever of them to have organised this at this time of year, rather than in January, say. Nothing like a nice walk to school when it's freezing cold and pouring with rain. Doubtless they will claim this week as a success, and use it as a stick to beat those who take their children to school in the car with. The idea that parents who do that may have good reasons never seems to cross their minds. I've asked the question before - just who exists for whose benefit?

DNA profiling (6 - and last!)

Most of what I've had to say about DNA profiling over this series of posts has been negative, which may have led you to think that I am opposed to it. But nothing could be further from the truth - DNA profiling is a very useful evidential tool, provided it is used responsibly. And it's those last five words that are important. It is not the magic wand which the public are encouraged to believe it is, and which many police and prosecutors have convinced themselves that it is. It is far from unusual to (1) get a false match and (2) recover traces of a person's DNA from somewhere they have never been. And of course like any other physical evidence, DNA can be "planted". And then, for jurors, the question they should be asking themselves is not how unlikely is it that this DNA profile would be obtained from an innocent person, but how likely is it that a person who has this DNA profile is innocent? If we take all these caveats on board, then DNA profiling is an important addition to the evidentiary armory of the forces of law and order. But it's important that we don't get carried away and try to over-egg the pudding.

To each his - or her - own.

Parliament are discussing abortion - why? To my simplistic mind, the decision to seek an abortion should be a matter solely for the woman involved, and the reasons for seeking it also solely a matter for her. Equally whether a doctor or surgeon is prepared to assist in such an abortion should be for them to decide. Morals are essentially a personal matter, and should remain such - this is not an area for regulation or legislation.

It's all my fault!

As a person of ample proportions (i.e. fat) I am always interested in articles about obesity. Not too keen on the latest ones however which suggest that we are partly responsible for global warming. Apparently the production and transportation of the extra calories we consume (though I maintain I don't!) adds significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. Hey, ho...

Take the blinkers off.

Causation is a complex issue, and can easily be taken to silly extremes. You know the sort of thing - if Hitler's parents had not met, he would not have been born, so they (the parents) caused the Second World War and all the nasties that went with it. But sometimes it's just as silly to look at the effect and ignore the causes. There have been one or two articles recently deploring the fact that people are tarmacing or slabbing over their front gardens so as to be able to park their cars there, and this has been held responsible for things as varied as creating an increased risk of flooding, and a decrease in various types of flora and fauna. But what nobody seems to ask is why do people do that? It's because they haven't got anywhere to park - bloody obvious isn't it? So perhaps rather than bemoaning the fact that this is happening, we ought to be looking at, and seeking to remedy the cause???

All rise...

I was talking the other week about the need to distinguish between the person and the office he or she holds, and now the question has arisen again with this discussion about whether or not judges should continue to wear wigs and traditional robes, or go for something more modern and trendy. I remember a judge saying "when I robe and put my wig on, I cease to be me, and become The Law". A little pompous perhaps, but there's more than a grain of truth in what he said. The wig and gown represent the office of judge and the dignity and respect which go along with it. I think we dispense with that at our peril.

What rubbish!

I'm riding another hobby-horse again - sorry! The story of a council who refused to empty a 96-year-old man's bin because he'd unwittingly put some recyclable stuff in there is pathetic in the extreme, but it's symptomatic of the general attitude of councils over refuse collection. What they don't seem to realise is that for most people, the bin men are the public face of the council and what we pay our council tax for. So if you want to keep the council taxpayers onside, the last thing you want to do is antagonise them with petty regulations over refuse collection. Lids not fully down (what does it matter?), bins out too early (what if you have to leave for work before the permitted time?) or stuff in the wrong bin (why not take it out and put it in the right bin?). The majority of people agree with recycling, and want to do their bit, but instead of helping and encouraging them, many councils seem to put as many obstacles in their way as possible. Actually, compared to some of these stories in the papers, my council doesn't seem too bad, but come on folks, we're all supposed to be on the same team aren't we? What happened to the idea that refuse collection was a service for which we pay? Give people power and it tends to go to their heads.

DNA profiling (5)

A crime has been committed. DNA has been found at the scene and it is accepted that it belongs to the perpetrator. A man whose profile matches this DNA has been arrested and put on trial. You are a member of the jury. The prosecutor calls an expert who tells you that the probability that a person, chosen from the general public at random, would fit this profile is 1 in a billion. The prosecutor asks you to accept that this is such a minute chance that it makes it virtually inevitable that the accused man is guilty. What should you make of this? Well, let's suppose that the population of the world is 7 billion (it nearly is), or to make it simpler, let's make it 7 billion and 1. Somewhere in the world is the person who committed this crime. The other 7 billion are innocent (of this crime at least). The prosecution's case is that the probability of finding this profile from an innocent person (i.e. one of the 7 billion) is 1 in a billion. In other words, using D for the DNA profile, and I for an innocent person, they have given you P(D│I) - the probability that you would get this profile, given that the person is innocent. But what you as jurors should be concerned with is P(I│D) - in other words what is the probability that a person is innocent, given that they have produced this profile? Now even if the odds really are 1 in a billion (highly debatable as we have seen) that means that there are probably something like 7 people somewhere in the world who would fit this profile, which means that the man in the dock is one of around 7 people - 6 of whom are innocent, and that make P(I│D) something like 85%! Next time we'll try and draw all these threads together.

The big yawn

I do try not to keep banging on about the same old things, but I have to say "thank you" to Kevin Keegan for saying what I've been saying for about the last five years or more - well before this blog started - that the Premiership is boring, at least for those of us who are not supporters of the major teams. Just ask yourself - if you went to your bookie's now, what odds do you think you could get about the Premiership next season not being won by either Manchester United, Arsenal or Chelsea - 1,000 to 1 maybe? And it's not just about having the money to buy the top players - there's only a finite pool of such players, and so by snapping them up you are also denying the other clubs the chance of getting them. We all know that the top clubs have players on their books who rarely if ever get a first team game, who other clubs would give their eye teeth to have. I don't know what the answer is, but I really think we need one.

Music Man

The standard of musicianship in the BBC's "Young Musician of the Year" was as high as ever. I wish I could say the same about the standard of the programming. Firstly, the semi-finals, as it were, were put out on BBC4, which is unavailable to those who have not yet gone digital. And then the whole thing has been cursed with this modern trend for "personalisation" - where the people become more important than the product. We learned an awful lot about the contestants, their families and friends, their hobbies and so forth, but heard precious little of their abilities on their instruments. Even the final was "bitty". In the past the BBC have been content to let the music speak for itself - can we go back to that please?

It's not what you know...

I see that Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both got their young children into their first-choice schools - now there's a surprise!

It's a wonderful life....

Bloke may or may not have dropped an apple core in the street - he says he didn't, community support officer says he did. Whatever, he refused to give his name and address to the community support officer (which, as far as I am aware is not in itself an offence - and it certainly shouldn't be if you claim you have done nothing wrong). So what happened? Five (count them - five!) policemen turned up to arrest him and take him to the local nick, where he was banged up for 18 hours, during which time his fingerprints and DNA were taken. All this because he refused to give his details - but then, if you maintain you've done nothing wrong (and we do still work on the presumption of innocence, don't we?) why should you? We get closer to a Police State every day.

Sorry, it's orff!

Can't agree with this idea of Gordon Ramsey that restaurants should be fined for using ingredients which are not in season in this country. Presumably, if this were ever introduced, it would be only a matter of time before there were calls for it to be extended to supermarkets not being allowed to sell such items. Quite apart from my natural dislike for anyone in any walk of life who says "I don't like this, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it", do we really want to go back to the days when you stuffed yourself silly with strawberries for three or four weeks around the end of June and beginning of July, because you knew it would be a year before you would see any again? One of the delights of the modern era is that it is now possible to get just about any foodstuff at any time of year - you may have to pay for the privilege, but it'll be there somewhere. As one who remembers when this wasn't so, I wouldn't want to give it up. Mr. Ramsey is entitled to his opinion - but then, so am I.

Here is the news - or is it?

I know I've been on this hobby-horse before, but just who decides what constitutes news, and how the various stories are ranked. I ask because BBC's breakfast news yesterday had as its top story some research which indicated that around £10b of perfectly good and usable food is thrown away by families every year. And I thought "yes, and....?" - and I was waiting for the punch line, but there wasn't one - that was the story. So what was the point? If people choose to throw money in the waste bin, what relevance does that have to anyone other than them? It was really no more than an "Oh, fancy that" story, which, if it deserved to be in the news bulletin at all, should have come right at the end. There's a major humanitarian crisis going on in Burma, and a worrying story about foreign workers with criminal records being able to get jobs working airside at airports, but this non-story took precedence. Like I say, who makes these decisions and on what criteria?

DNA profiling (4)

To understand the prosecutor's fallacy, we need to understand conditional probability. Conditional probability is the probability of something given that a certain set of circumstances already exist. Simple example - I shuffle a pack of cards and turn over the top one. What's the probability that it's an Ace? Answer 4/52 (52 cards in the pack, and 4 of them are Aces). I now turn over the next card off the top. What's the probability that this card is an Ace? A moment's thought will tell you that this depends on (is conditional upon) what the first card was. There are only 51 cards it can be and, depending on whether the first card was an Ace or not, there are 3 or 4 Aces still in the pack, so the answer is 3/51 (if the first card was an Ace) or 4/51 (if it wasn't). In probability maths we write P(A│B) to mean - the probability of A given that B is so.
The prosecutor's fallacy involves confusing P(A│B) with P(B│A), and we'll look at that next time.

Ha ha.

True Black Country humour is gentle and warm-hearted. Here's a story I remember being told a good many years ago -

Old Jack was dying. He'd had a good life, and liked his drink. He'd never been a church-goer, but none-the-less his family sent for the local Vicar, who was also known for downing the odd glass or three of whisky. The Vicar came and did those things which Vicars do in those circumstances, and then asked Jack if there was anything else he could do for him. "Well, Padre" said Jack "perhaps you could read to me - something from the Good Book maybe - there's that 23rd Psalm, isn't there." So the Vicar - sensing perhaps a last-minute conversion - leaned close to him and started to read - you know the one: "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want...." When he'd finished, Old Jack, now clearly fading fast, said "Again Padre", and so the Vicar recited the Psalm again. And then he thought he ought to ask Old Jack why that particular reading - was it something he remembered from childhood perhaps, or from some memorable occasion in his life? "No Padre", Old Jack whispered " 'twouldn't have much mattered what you read - but your breath, it do smell good".

A bridge too far...

The latest idiocy from the Health and Safety people is the closure of a traditional log bridge over a stream on Dartmoor. Doesn't comply with current regulations it would appear. The fact that there has been a bridge of this type at this spot for hundreds - maybe a thousand or more - years with no recorded problem... But need I go on? The expression "big girl's blouse" springs to mind.

Loveliest of trees.....

This is my favourite time of year, when the blossom trees are full out. They're such a wonderful sight - particularly the flowering cherries with their almost luminous pink flowers. The only shame is that they only last a couple or three weeks, and then for the rest of the year they're just boring green trees. So, as A.E. Housman so wisely said, get out and enjoy them while you can.

Stupidity, or ego - or both?

You have to be of a certain age - or perhaps live in Sunderland - to remember the name of Len Shackleton, who was a star player for that town's football club back in the 50's. Apart from his exploits on the field, he is remembered mainly for one chapter in his autobiography. The title was "The Average Director's Knowledge of Football" - and it consisted of a single blank page! Perhaps - with the change of one word - a copy should be sent to Thaksin Shinawatra, the owner of Manchester City, who apparently has sacked - or is about to sack - Sven-Goran Eriksson as manager, despite his performing a minor miracle with the team this season, including home and away victories over that other Manchester side. Whatever is going on, it seems to have little to do with football.

A dose of reality?

Just how fast are prices rising? The Government will tell you that the figure is between 2½ and 4 per cent a year, depending on which price index you consult. And yet it feels much more than that, doesn't it? You see, it all depends on just what you mean by prices. The Government look at a whole range of things, including many non-essential or even plain luxury items. Many of these - particularly technological things like computers, TVs and so on - are actually coming down in price, and this is why the Government's figure doesn't appear to accord with what's actually going on out there. If you look at essentials, like food, heating and lighting, mortgage or rent, council tax and the cost of travel for example - the things you have no choice but to fork out for in order to live and work - then you come up with a figure well in excess of 10%. What we could do with is a price index which concentrates on the real genuine "cost of living".

DNA profiling (3)

We've seen that it is dangerous to automatically assume that a match between a DNA sample and a person's profile proves the sample to be that person's. But even if we accept that it is, there are other factors to be considered. DNA profiling is often referred to as "genetic fingerprinting" but there's one important distinction between fingerprinting and profiling. If my fingerprint is found at a certain place, or on a certain object then, in the absence of any jiggery-pokery, that is evidence that I was at that place, or touched that object. But DNA is transferable - it can end up in places where you've never been, or on objects that you've never touched. If I go into a shop and pick up a piece of pottery, say, and then put it back and leave the shop, and then someone else comes into that shop and picks up the same piece of pottery, there's a chance that my DNA will be transferred to their hands, and if they then go into another shop, where I've never been, and touch something there, my DNA may end up in that other shop. So apart from the question of false matches, we also have the problem of transference. And then there's the "prosecutor's fallacy" - but we'll leave that for next time.

Lollipop lollipop - oh, lolli lolli lolli....

Seen this thing about crossing wardens being equipped with cameras in their lollipop sticks to record drivers who don't stop for them, or who are abusive towards them? Whilst in no way condoning such behaviour, there is an unstated assumption here that it is always the motorist who is at fault. As the one who does the school run, I meet my fair share of crossing wardens, and whilst the overwhelming majority of them do a good job, you do come across a few who get on your tits - to use a technical expression. Firstly there's the waverer (usually but not exclusively female) - the one who stands dithering on the edge of the kerb creating a will-she-won't-she situation. I always make their minds up for them by stopping, but if I were in a hurry, I might well not. Then at the other end of the scale we have the Little Hitlers - the ones who leap out in front of your wheels with no regard for anything other than imposing their power over you - they'll even do it if the road behind you is clear! And then there are the anticipators, who stop the traffic even though the nearest child is still 10 yards or so away - and these are also the ones who tend to cross each child individually, rather than wait until they have a group. Like I say, they are the exceptions, but I can imagine that if you are in a rush you might very well be inclined to make your feelings known. So perhaps we should have cameras monitoring the crossing wardens as well?