What gratitude!

Going outside my remit for once, it does seem inconceivable that some of the passengers on the airliner which successfully crash-landed in the Hudson river the other week after a bird strike took out both engines are considering suing the airline. It's only down to the extraordinary skill of the pilot - an employee of the airline - that they are alive to think about taking such action. Surely they should be thanking the airline, not suing them?

Pot and kettle?

The furore over Sir Fred "The Shred" Goodwin's pension - £650,000 a year apparently, is somewhat reminiscent of Steve McClaren's £2.5m payoff after being sacked as England football manager. And the answer is the same - he is getting what he is contractually entitled to. Whether it was sensible for RBS to enter into such a contract is a different question, but they did, and Sir Fred is getting no more than his due. And if we're talking about people being paid for failure, then the politicians who presided over the whole mess are scarcely in a position to point fingers.

Who should pay?

It seems to me that there's been a big argument going on behind the scenes over the last decade or so over the extent to which services which benefit society as a whole should be paid for by all of us as taxpayers, or only by those who use the service - or maybe some combination of the two. Higher education (university top-up fees), the rail service (ticket prices) and now the postal service are currently in the spotlight, but I suppose, thinking about it, it all really started with the introduction of prescription charges back in the early 50s, which was a complete repudiation of the original concept of the NHS. Since then, there seems to have been a growing tendency towards the idea that users rather than taxpayers should foot the bill for a service - even when the service clearly benefits non-users, albeit indirectly. In great part, I suppose this is down to successive governments of both colours wishing to be seen as tax-cutters, or at the very least not as tax-increasers. Perhaps it's time we realised as a nation that we can't have top-line services unless we are all prepared to pay for them.

Grabbing at straws?

Always amuses me how, if you're famous, where you were born seems to matter so much. The town of Walsall, which is not a million miles from where I live, has always claimed Jerome K Jerome as its own "son", purely on the basis that he was born there. The fact that he left before he was one year old, and apart from a flying visit towards the end of his life to receive the freedom of the borough, never set foot there again doesn't seem to register. Mind you, Walsall hasn't got much going for it...

Don't touch that - you don't know where it's been!

Young boy near where I live is highly allergic to peanuts. He has to carry an epipen (I think it's called) around with him at all times just in case he is exposed to the slightest hint of them. So I imagine his parents will be very interested in the recent reports that there is now a way of combating the allergy by giving the sufferer very small regular doses of peanut flour. But this once again raises the question for me of where and when such allergies arose. I'm pretty sure when I was a kid that peanut allergy and dairy product allergy and so on were unheard of. When did it all start, and why? I've mentioned this before, but is it connected to our modern-day obsession with cleanliness? Do we need a certain amount of exposure to muck and dirt when we're little to prepare our bodies for what they may come up against? Is any research being done on this?

Gotta eat, ain't yer?

There seems to be some surprise that supermarkets are bucking the trend, and doing pretty well despite the "credit crunch". Seems simple enough to me - it's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs isn't it? When the chips are down, your biological needs take precedence - food, shelter, warmth and so on, and these are exactly the needs that supermarkets cater for.

Nothing to fear but fear itself?

Coincidentally, I am currently reading a thriller written by Stella Rimington, ex-head of MI5, who is very much in the news at the moment for her assertion that the Government's anti-terrorism legislation is in fact handing a victory to the terrorists. Don't want to say I got there first, but you might like to read my post of 13/10/05. The idea of protecting our liberties by curtailing them always seemed a very strange proposition.

Come on Parliament - do your job!

The latest episode in the Debbie Purdy saga (see post of 31/10/08) just reinforces what a mess the whole business is. The DPP has sort of said that he will not prosecute where it would not be in the public interest to do so, and the Lord Chief Justice has now stated that even were the DPP to prosecute the courts had the power not to impose a penal sanction if they felt it was not justified. But that really doesn't answer the basic problem, which is that anyone who assists someone to take their own life is at the whim of others over whether or not they will find themselves in trouble with the law, and this can't be right. The Appeal Judges referred to the "dreadful predicament" and "impossible dilemma" in which Mrs Purdy and her husband find themselves, but made it clear (rightly in my view) that it is for Parliament to sort it out. Unfortunately it would seem that neither Gordon Brown as Prime Minister nor Jack Straw as Justice Secretary sees anything wrong with things as they are. There's none so blind...

I live here - no, here.

The Home Secretary is under scrutiny regarding her claims for expenses relating to her living arrangements. I doubt that she has actually breached the rules relating to such expenses - indeed, given her position, it would be inconceivable if she had, but the question that does need to be asked is whether she has exploited the rules for her personal enrichment. This is not so much a question of law, as one of morality. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean that you should do it.

A life, and death, in the media spotlight.

I can't believe that some people are criticising Jade Goody for selling the story of her final days to the media. Let's face it, if you knew you were going to die within the next few weeks or months, and would be leaving two young children behind, wouldn't you do everything in your power to try and see that they were properly provided for financially? Come on, cut the girl some slack for goodness sake!

Going down...?

So deflation is a bad thing? Not for us pensioners, it isn't. Lower prices? - Bring 'em on! Apparently it's bad news for borrowers - well tough! Everything so far has been for their benefit, so if deflation redresses the balance somewhat, that's fine with me. Of course, it appears that it's not in the best interests of the country as a whole, so the Government probably won't let it happen...

Book post

(see post dated 18/11/06)

Here are my latest ten -

Matthew Reilly - Seven Ancient Wonders - 7.5
Raymond Khoury - The Sanctuary - 8
Michael Palmer - The Fifth Vial - 7
Kathy Reichs - Bones to Ashes - 9
David Baldacci - Stone Cold - 9
James Rollins - The Judas Strain - 6
Steve Berry - The Romanov Prophecy - 6.5
Jeffery Deaver - The Cold Moon - 7
Robert Goddard - Name to a Face - 8.5
Alexander McCall Smith - The Good Husband of Zebra Drive - 8

Eye for an eye?

This business with Ronnie Biggs highlights once again the question of what prison is for. On what basis do we lock people up? Unless there are things we are not being told, it would seem unlikely that a sick 79-year-old man poses any real risk to society, so the only reason for keeping him in prison would seem to be revenge, retribution - choose your own word. And you would then have to ask if this is a reasonable and proper use of public money.

Blossom Dearie.

They're all falling off the twig one by one, aren't they? Goodbye my dear and thank you for the pleasure your singing has given me over the years. Thank the Lord your talent lives on in your recordings - and yes, you were always hip!

Compare and contrast.

The main charge against those "wicked bankers" seems to be not simply that they took unjustifiable financial risks, but that they took unjustifiable financial risks with other people's money. And that got me thinking (always a dangerous thing!). I would imagine that there are very few people who honestly believe that we can achieve any sort of military success in Afghanistan. The eventual solution (or more likely, accommodation) there will come through negotiation, through talking to the "enemy". And given this is so, and we are prepared to demonise the bankers for taking unjustifiable risks with other people's money, what do we say about a Government which is taking unjustifiable risks with other people's lives?

What freedom?

The Geert Wilders business has focused attention on our so-called "freedom of speech". I say so-called because like most of what we call our "rights" this freedom is residual - that is to say it only exists where it does not conflict with the law. Of course the problem is that the law is far from clear. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act starts by asserting that everybody has "... the right of freedom of expression... freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority". Pretty good, yes? But then it goes on to say (and I'm afraid that to get the full effect I need to quote the whole thing) that this freedom "...may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." So go on, pick the bones out of that! This is such a wide-ranging cop-out that it means that if the powers that be don't like what you are saying, they can almost certainly bring it under one of those exclusions and therefore stop you. So we're only as free as they allow us to be - sort of grace and favour freedom really.

The hardest word?

What exactly are we after from these top bankers - or ex-bankers actually - who are appearing before the Treasury Select Committee? They've all said they're sorry - more than once - but apparently that's not enough. What are we looking for? That they should stand in the stocks and be pelted with rotten fruit and veg? That they should get down on their hands and knees and lick our boots? Just what? Clearly with the benefit of hindsight, they made mistakes. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - I imagine most of you, looking back, can identify things which you wish you'd done differently. I certainly can. But the question is, were the decisions we took back then clearly bad or wrong at the time - and I would guess that the answer to that would be no. And that's what we have to look at where these bankers are concerned. Should they have known better at the time? And I didn't really hear that avenue explored - it was all "how do you feel about it now?" which to my mind doesn't really achieve anything useful.

Double standards?

The head of the Advisory Council on Drugs Misuse has found himself in hot water for suggesting that taking ecstasy is no more likely to be harmful than riding a horse. The Home Secretary, who seems to be more and more interested these days in producing sound-bites than doing her basic job, has pitched into him with some venom. Well, what about it? This is a classic case of selective editing. If you read his article in full, you will see that what he was talking about was the general question of why we penalise certain actions on the apparent ground of the risk associated with them while we quite cheerfully allow other actions despite them having similar, if not greater, risks attached to them. In other words, why do we criminalise drug-taking, on the grounds of its risks to health, whereas we allow people to buy and ride motorcycles for example, which carries a far greater degree of risk to life and limb. And that strikes me as being an interesting and perfectly reasonable question to ask.

Bonuses.

I must confess that, as an ex-Civil Servant, I've never understood bonuses. I had a friend who worked in the banking industry, and he happened to mention to me one day that he'd just had his bonus, and I said "What's that then?" and he said "It's a lump sum payment I get on top of my salary" and I said "What for?" and he said "For doing my job well" and I thought "But that's what they pay you for!". The idea of being paid extra for doing what you should be doing anyway always struck me as slightly crazy. And now it seems that you can get them without even doing a good job - no understandee!

A tangled web.

I've been thinking about this business of Carol Thatcher and that word. And what I keep coming up against is - who decides (or more to the point, is entitled to decide) what is offensive and on what basis? If I decide for whatever reason, that I find the word "sheep" offensive, does that mean that nobody should be allowed to use that word in my hearing, or - even more bizarrely - in circumstances where I am not present, but might hear about it? Obviously basic good manners says that you should not say something which you know will offend someone within earshot - but what if you don't know that it would offend them, or you are later accused of offending someone who wasn't even there? As far as I am aware from what I have read, the only person present who took exception to what was said was Jo Brand (and there's irony, if you like!) and the people who are now jumping on the bandwagon are those who have simply heard about it. Which of course also raises the question of who leaked this into the public domain, and what responsibility they bear for the consequences. Obvious parallels have been drawn with the Jonathan Ross incident, and it was amusing to see the BBC trying to justify a distinction in the way the two were treated. All down to apologies, apparently. Well sorry but my cynical mind says it's far more likely to be down to ratings. The Beeb couldn't afford to sack Jonathan Ross because he gets them big audience figures, whereas Carol Thatcher doesn't so she can safely be thrown to the wolves.

Ha ha.

Once again, I have to thank my Civil Service retirement magazine for the following, which are apparently genuine answers to a school science test -

Q. Name the four seasons
A. Salt, pepper, mustard and vinegar.

Q. How can you delay milk turning sour?
A. Keep it in the cow.

Q. What are steroids?
A. Things for keeping carpets still on the stairs.

Q. What is puberty?
A. It's when a boy says goodbye to his childhood, and looks forward to his adultery.

Q. What is artificial insemination?
A. It's when the farmer does it to the bull instead of the cow.

Two pints and half an ounce, please.

The case of the milkman who was supplying his elderly customers with cannabis on the side to aid their aches and pains highlights the absurdity of the current law which allows morphine - a class A drug - to be supplied on prescription, but bans altogether the supply of cannabis, which, whatever the legal position, is now de facto a sort of class C+/B- drug. There are many people suffering from conditions ranging from arthritis to multiple sclerosis who find they get relief from their pain and discomfort by taking cannabis and to deny them this relief, or to force them into illegality in order to get it, is cruel and unconscionable.

Is it fair?

As a pensioner who relies (thankfully not exclusively) on income generated by my savings, I would like to add my voice to those complaining about the way we who have acted responsibly and saved rather than borrowed are now being penalised by low interest rates designed to help those who have acted irresponsibly and borrowed rather than saved. Makes you wonder why you bothered, doesn't it?

Golly gosh (can I say that?)

It would appear that the little rag doll that I, and I imagine most of my generation had when we were kids, and which was ubiquitous on the labels of jars of jam and marmalade, is now persona non grata (Sigh...)

Snow - what snow?

Two inches of snow, and everything grinds to a halt - we've heard it time and again over the last couple of days, and we've had sound-bites and letters from people who have lived in Canada and Scandinavia and Russia and so on laughing at our inability to cope with, what to them, would be no more than a sprinkling of snow. Well of course, we could cope with it if we chose to do so, but the cost - initial and ongoing - would be significant, and you have to ask whether that would be a sensible use of resources for something which would be used for just a few days every decade or so. What I think would be more sensible, would be to have a regional or national plan for dealing with these occasional events. We could simply have declared a regional "non-day" for yesterday for example, and then nobody would have had to consider struggling to get to work - which many didn't manage anyway. We already do this sort of thing for schools - it's just an extension of the same idea.

IT - trouble again.

There's a theory prevalent in the Civil Service - and maybe other places too - that in order to manage, you don't need to know anything about the particular process you are managing. Management is an art unto itself, goes the thinking. As far as I am concerned, this is utter twaddle. It certainly does not follow that just because you have come up from the shop-floor you will be a good manager, but certainly if you haven't come up from the shop-floor then it's very unlikely that you will be a good manager. I was reminded of this in reading a story about Government's IT projects being way over schedule and way over budget. I've commented on this before, and I'm sure that a big part of the problem is that these projects are being managed by people who have no experience of computers and computer programming. If you don't know how it works at nuts and bolts level, then how the hell are you supposed to make sensible decisions? You are thrown back on relying on the advice of "experts" who almost certainly have a different agenda from you. You'd think we would have learned by now!

Remember the mnemonic - A=OK, E=evil.

I despair, I really do. Jack Straw, who is the current Lord Chancellor, despite not being a Lord or a judge, is to bring forward proposals to penalise members of the House of Lords who "avoid paying tax". This may be a slip of the tongue, but given his position, he should know better. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. It involves no more than arranging your affairs so as to minimise the amount of tax you have to pay. I assume what he really meant was to refer to those who "evade paying tax", that is fail to pay the taxes which are due from them. Sloppy, Lord Chancellor, sloppy.

What druid?

Storm in a teacup around here over Birmingham City Council's decision to omit all apostrophes from street signs - so St Paul's Square will now be signed St Pauls Square for example. Although I'm a bit of a pedant myself who still writes 'phone rather than phone, it seems to me to be much ado about nothing. And in many respects it simply reveals misunderstandings about place names. Should it be Druid's Heath or Druids' Heath for instance. Answer - neither. It's got nothing to do with druids - singular or plural. The name in fact refers back to the Drews family who were farmers there 150 or so years ago. As far as the general matter of apostrophes on signs is concerned, I think we need to remember that language is our slave, and not our master. It is there to do a job, and provided it does that job satisfactorily, that's all that matters. If we are looking for a certain place or street, then provided the sign sufficiently identifies it, the presence or absence of an apostrophe is pretty immaterial.