Name association.

I know you're supposed not to speak ill of the dead, and it's probably a generational thing, but when I heard of Senator Edward Kennedy's death, the first things which immediately popped into my mind were Chappaquiddick and the IRA. Perhaps others will see it differently, and maybe he did enough good in his later years to compensate, but for me he was always somebody not to be trusted.

A card is not just for Christmas...

My wife always reckoned that the best time to buy your Christmas cards was in the first few weeks of January, when the shops were selling off the stock they hadn't managed to shift in December. Sensible girl my wife (God, how I miss her), but her approach wouldn't have found favour with an organisation calling itself the Movement for the Containment of Xmas who would like to see the sale of Christmas cards banned before November 1st, and who have threatened to superglue shut the locks of any shops who do put Christmas cards on display before that date. Here we go again - I don't like this therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Get a life folks!

Cutting the Gordian knot?

It's often said that the difference between a bloke and a girl is that the bloke understands the offside rule. But it's most likely that neither the bloke nor the girl really have a clue about the intricacies of the LBW law. Once again, a simple concept - that the batsman can only protect his wicket with his bat, and not with his body - has been turned into a tortuous law depending on such things as where the ball pitched, whether the batsman was offering a stroke, how big a stride forward he had taken, and so on. I suggested some time ago that we should go back to the basic offside rule, and forget all this stupidity about active and non-active players, and perhaps the time has come to do the same thing with the LBW law - if the ball is prevented from hitting the stumps by anything other that the batsman's bat, then that's LBW, and if that's considered too draconian, then maybe give the batsman three lives - if it happens three times, he's out.

Seeing the wood for the trees?

It seems more and more parents are taking their children out of school during term time without permission to take advantage of the cheaper cost of holidays at those times. All political parties have united to deplore such behaviour, and to demand that such parents be held to account. Classic case of treating the symptom as though it were the disease. They should be concentrating their attention on the tour companies and holiday industry generally and asking them how they can justify the identical holiday on a particular week costing anything up to double what it did the week before, simply because the week in question is a school holiday week.

Don't make 'em like they used to!

Have you seen the story of the British-made steam-powered car which has set a new world speed record for steam-powered cars of just under 140mph. What struck me was that the old world record, set just over 100 years ago was 127.7mph. So with all the developments in technology over the last century, like carbon-fibre for the body, light-weight aluminium for the frame and state of the art steam turbines, we've only managed an increase of just over 10mph. Which to my way of thinking shows just how good the old record was.

Smile for the camera.

After you've been writing a blog like this for a while, you find that certain themes keep cropping up regularly, and one of these is CCTV cameras. Apparently we are one of the most monitored countries in the world with about one camera for every 15 of us. Of course, what we want to know is how effective these cameras are - most of us would accept a certain loss of privacy if it meant we were safer, or less likely to be the victim of a crime. I've already commented on the efficacy - or rather lack of it - of speed cameras on roads, and now we have an official report which reveals that street CCTV cameras are pretty useless at solving crime or catching criminals. The figures show that - at least in London - about one crime a year is solved thanks to CCTV evidence for every 1000 cameras. Most often, when they might be useful, they are either not working, pointing the wrong way, or by the time the police get around to looking at them, the data has been overwritten. And they're not cheap. So is it time for a rethink?

Ashes.

So what is there to talk about other than England's magnificent victory over Australia? Great, terrific, super, smashing and all that. I just wish I felt more positive about it. For the most part, it was a roller-coaster series, with both sides alternatively playing very well or very poorly. You certainly couldn't say that either side was ever dominant, and as Ricky Ponting has correctly pointed out, by most statistical measures Australia were superior. In the end it all came down to the luck of the toss, and the fact that their bad patches came at more crucial moments than ours - particularly their batting in the first innings of the final test. So yes, great, terrific etc. but don't let's get carried away - we aren't world-beaters yet by any means.

Battle of the sexes.

There was a rather tongue-in-cheek article in my Sunday paper suggesting that we could solve this problem of gender testing and all that by simply doing away with separate sex sporting competitions - men and women compete together. Like I say, I don't think it was meant to be taken in any way seriously. But it did get me thinking - there are obviously sports (using the word in its widest meaning) where physical ability is paramount, and here clearly men would be at a distinct advantage over women, but there are sports where men and women do not compete against each other despite there being no physical dimension - snooker and darts immediately spring to mind. Why not? Is this simply a hangover from the days when women (or at least "well brought up" women) did not indulge in such activities? Or is there a sort of male protectionism here - the thought of being beaten by a women being too horrible to contemplate?

When I use a word...(Lewis Carroll)

"Afghanistan's presidential poll was marred by intimidation and vote fraud, but generally fair, election monitors say".

Just read that again!!

Athletics.

Why all this fuss about the young South African girl who won the 800m at the World Championships? Clearly she must be physically female - the days when the Press "sisters" could fool the world have long gone - so if she has attributes which enable her to perform better athletically than her peers, she simply joins the likes of Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt, both of whom owe their success in great part to the fact that they are not made as other men.

Give the man his due.

Neville Chamberlain is in the news following the publication of various documents -including his pocket diary - at an exhibition to mark the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of WWII. I always think Chamberlain gets a somewhat bad press. He is generally seen as at the wimp end of a spectrum of political opinion of the time, with Churchill at the other - bellicose - end. Yet this is very simplistic. Churchill did not want war any more than Chamberlain did. The horrors of the First World War were still fresh in both their minds. The difference was that while Chamberlain believed that war could be avoided, Churchill realised that it was more or less inevitable, and that the country was horribly unprepared for it. If you read the speeches he was giving in the mid 1930s, he was not advocating war, but pressing for us to arm ourselves to be able to defend ourselves if it came to it. Chamberlain's failing was to be unable to believe that anyone could think differently about war than he did, and therefore he approached his dealings with Hitler on the basis of two reasonable men trying to find a way of avoiding all-out conflict. It was Churchill who saw that as far as Hitler was concerned World War One was unfinished business. So like I say, I think Chamberlain deserves rather better treatment from history.

Ha ha.

I really like this one which I got of the net...

An American tourist in London decides to skip his tour group and explore the city on his own. He wanders around, seeing the sights, occasionally stopping at a quaint pub to soak up the local culture, chat with the locals, and have a pint of stout.
After a while, he finds himself in a very nice neighborhood with big, stately residences...no pubs, no stores, no restaurants, and worst of all no public restrooms. He really, really has to go, after all those Guinnesses. He finds a narrow side street, with high walls surrounding the adjacent buildings and decides to use the wall to solve his problem.
As he is unzipping, he is tapped on the shoulder by a London police officer, who says, "I say, sir, you simply cannot do that here, you know."
"I'm very sorry, officer," replies the American, "but I really, really have to go, and I just can't find a public restroom."
"Ah, yes," said the policeman..."Just follow me".
He leads the American to a back delivery alley to a gate, which he opens.
"In there," points the policeman. "Go ahead sir, anywhere you like."
The fellow enters and finds himself in the most beautiful garden he has ever seen. Manicured grass lawns, statuary, fountains, sculptured hedges, and huge beds of gorgeous flowers, all in perfect bloom. Since he has the policeman's blessing, he relieves himself and feels much more comfortable.
As he goes back through the gate, he says to the police officer, "That was really decent of you... is that what you call English hospitality?"
"No sir...", replied the police officer, "...that is what we call the French Embassy."

What special relationship?

I've mentioned before that I live close to the M6 Toll Road. I hardly imagine that US Embassy officials would venture this far north of Watford, but if they did, and availed themselves of the Toll Road, I would expect them to pay the toll - indeed if they didn't they would be blocked from getting on, or getting off as the case may be. America has many toll roads, and Britains, including embassy officials, have to pay to use them. So why does America (and others) insist that the London congestion charge is not a toll (which it obviously is), but a tax, and that therefore under diplomatic rules, they are exempt from paying it? Apparently, they currently owe us to the tune of some £3.5 million. Pretty shabby way of treating a supposedly friendly country, don't you think?

Look to the future?

The NHS is in the spotlight again - not necessarily because of anything happening here, but rather as a result of discussions (heated arguments?) which are going on in the US about the direction their health care provision should take. As a result of criticism coming from over the pond, everybody seems to be falling over themselves to defend the NHS and in particular its core value of being "free at the point of delivery". I'm not sure that we aren't missing the chance here to re-examine the NHS in the light of all the changes which have taken place since the 1940s, and to ask ourselves if that model is still viable in the 21st century. I have said before that I think it is only a matter of time before the NHS is reduced to a GP and A & E facility, and that as regards anything which cannot be dealt with by prescribing a pill, setting a broken bone, releasing the saucepan jammed on little Jimmy's head or is not immediately life-threatening, it will be up to us to cover those eventualities by private insurance - and if indeed that is what is going to happen, then the sooner we start talking about it, and how we are going to deal with it, the better.

Priorities!

I don't claim to have any great knowledge of cricket, but I cannot understand why there is even any discussion about whether or not Mark Ramprakash should be included in the team for the forthcoming test match - indeed, the question is why hasn't he been there all along? How you can ignore a batsman who has a first class average this season of over 100 is beyond me.The only counter-argument would appear to be his age. But you have to decide - are you looking to build a team for the future, or are you choosing a team to win a match? To me the answer is obvious - this is the Ashes - winning this match is all that matters for the moment. Building for the future can wait.

Err...

The UK Open Memory Championships are taking place in London. I was going to drive down and take part - but I forgot where I put the car keys!

Murky waters.

Sorry to come back to the al-Megrahi case again, but the news that he has now abandoned his appeal comes as a grave disappointment, though hardly a surprise. It was always clear that the appeal had the potential to uncover facts which would have been embarrassing, to say the least, to the authorities. Although it will of course be hotly denied, I'm sure this is part of a quid pro quo for his early release. The British relatives of those who died will now press for a public inquiry and I wish them luck, but it seems clear that the Establishment are intent of covering their backs, so I don't think they've much chance. The authorities can now point to the abandonment of the appeal as a tacit admission that Mr al-Megrahi was guilty as charged, and that will be that. I just feel totally depressed by the whole business.

Divided by more than a common language?

The suggestion that the convicted Lockerbie bomber Mr al-Megrahi may be released on compassionate grounds has generated a fascinating response. In general the families of those US citizens who were killed have reacted with outrage whereas those of the UK victims have broadly been in agreement with his release. I'm not sure just what this tells us about the differences between out two cultures, but it does highlight the fact that some pretty fundamental differences do exist. We're not so close as we might believe.

Blighted high streets.

My local town - like I suspect many others - is looking rather sad these days, with many empty shops. Moves are afoot apparently to allow councils to rent such premises for community projects, like art galleries, advice centres, adult education classes and so on. Jolly good idea, but I'm not so sure about renting - putting local taxpayers' cash into the pockets of property owners doesn't strike me as particularly sensible in the present economic climate. Give the council compulsory powers to take over such premises short-term for such purposes, that would be more like it.

Don't get it.

Can't quite get my head round all the furore about the revealing of the identities of the killers of Baby P. Top story on TV and headline news in just about every paper, but why? What does it add to the sum of human knowledge? We already knew in graphic detail what happened to the poor little mite, and who was responsible, so how does giving them names, and publishing their photographs alter things? I don't know why, but I find the whole thing a little uncomfortable - sort of voyeuristic porn. And at the end of the day, if they are ever released, now they have been identified we will doubtless have to pay for them to be relocated and given new identities.

Form an orderly queue.

So if you want a drink in an Oldham pub, you may have to queue up - Post Office style - to get it, and there will be restrictions on how much you can buy once you get to the bar. All seems a bit strange, until that is you realise that this is not really the object of the exercise. These rules will only apply if the pub is selling drink at a price of less than 75p a unit, which equates to about £1.88 a pint. So what the authorities are really after is to coerce pubs into avoiding these restrictions by imposing this minimum price on their drinks - no more Happy Hour or two-for-one promotions and such like. Two questions - is it legal (price fixing and all that) and secondly, what about off licences and supermarkets? The idea is to try and combat binge drinking, but will they simply move the problem from the pubs into the street?

Feeble excuse?

Following on from yesterday's post, the Home Secretary has said that he would be "breaking the law" if he intervened to prevent Mr McKinnon's extradition to the United States to stand trial in respect of his computer hacking activities. Ignoring for the moment the fact that a law which has been made by Parliament can always be unmade by Parliament, the question which immediately springs to my mind is - whatever happened to the Royal prerogative?

Alphabet soup.

Remember the Garry McKinnon case (see post dated 4/9/08)? That seemed to be based on the legal principle that if you used a computer in country A to access a website in country B, then the legality, or otherwise, of what you had done would be settled according to the laws of country B. I suggested then that there were problems associated with such an approach, but at least it appeared to clarify what the position was. But now we are told that if you access the Camelot website, in order to buy a ticket for the Lottery, from a country where it is against the law to participate in other countries' lotteries, the ticket will be void - in other words, it is country A's law that matters, not country B's! What a mess.

To boo or not to boo?

At Edgbaston, a section of the crowd booed Ricky Ponting, the Australian captain. Was this cricket? Maybe not, but was this acceptable? After all, this was not just any old cricket match, this was a match in an Ashes series - which ranks among the most fiercely fought sporting contests in the world. And that is bound to produce partisanship. The problem is that cricket traditionally prides itself on gentlemanly behaviour - hence the expression "it's not cricket". But cricket in the last few years has undergone a revolution in an attempt to become more relevant to the ordinary man in the street, and if you're going to attract the man in the street, then you have to accept his way of doing things. As somebody wisely said the other day, in cricket the spectator is giving way to the supporter. So whether we like it or not, it is inevitable that cricket crowds will start to behave more like football crowds.

All festivals are equal, but some...

Frankly, I think that motorcyclists, by and large, are a noisy menace, but they exist and many of them are dedicated enthusiasts. The Bulldog Bash which is an annual event near Stratford-upon-Avon is a festival specifically for bikers. It does not find favour with the police, who have made several unsuccessful attempts to close it down - but why? They say that drug taking and dealing takes place - but so it does at the many music festivals which are held throughout the summer to which the police take no exception. They say that there is rivalry between biker gangs which can spill over into violence - and they are forever quoting the case of Gerry Tobin, who was shot and killed on his way home from the Bash in 2007 - but what has that got to do with the festival itself?. There was a case not long ago of a fight in a supermarket queue which resulted in a man's death, but I don't remember any calls for supermarkets to be closed down as a result. This does smack rather uncomfortably of a police vendetta.

Oh dear, what a shame!

Booksellers complaining that they're losing trade to charity shops. Perhaps not surprising in the present economic climate, but generally, as I've posted about before (see 20/10/05), the bookshops - or perhaps the publishers who supply them - should look to their own laurels first, before pointing the finger.

Great chieftain o' the puddin-race!

Well, shock horror - it appears that the haggis may not have originated in Scotland at all. Apparently the earliest reference to the dish has been found in an early 17th century ENGLISH cookbook. Not surprisingly, this has produced howls of rage and derision from Scottish haggis-makers. And yet, name any dish now associated with a particular country or region and you will almost certainly find claims that it originated somewhere else (remember all the arguments about Cornish pasties?). All a bit predictable and childish - and anyway, I thought the Scottish national dish was the deep-fried battered Mars-bar?

Shw mae?

There is some suggestion that the Welsh language is in decline - particularly among the young. I've always thought that Welsh is a lovely language, which I would dearly have liked to learn, but it proved just too tough for me. It would be a shame if it became too marginalised, but I have to say that I think part of the problem lies with the Welsh-speaking people themselves who, instead of trying to spread it by encouraging others to have a go, use it as a barrier against English speakers. I'm sure many of you have had the experience of going into a shop in Wales where you had heard English voices as you opened the door, only for those in there to immediately switch to Welsh as you entered and effectively blank you. There's a Welsh language channel on the TV - why not use that to put out language lessons?

Where have all the flowers gone...

Ironic that the inquiry into the war in Iraq opened on the same day as the funeral of Henry Allingham, the veteran of the First World War who spent the last years of his long life using his experiences to try and convince others - particularly children - of the futility of war. As he said "War's stupid. Nobody wins. You might as well talk first, you have to talk last anyway." Listen and learn - except that we don't, do we?

R.I.P.

Bobby Robson. Total respect from a Wolves supporter - and for an ex-Baggie it doesn't come much higher than that. A true gent.

You can't say that!

David Cameron has come in for some stick for using a four-letter word beginning with "t" on the radio. In my youth I was familiar with this word as meaning "a stupid person" (and I'm certain that this was the sense in which he used it) and it was only later in the Forces that I became aware that it had a secondary rude meaning. This business of obscene (or judged by some people to be obscene) words often causes me some amusement. The English language is full of words and expressions that take different meanings depending on the circumstance in which they are used - the double entendre was the stock-in-trade of the seaside postcard and the Carry On films. We are used to differentiating between the various meanings of words based upon the context, and it's only when two people perceive different contexts that a problem arises such as has been caused by the radio interview in question. It is often said that if there is any confusion in a communication then the fault must lie with the communicator as it is their job to see that the message they wish to give gets across, and I suppose on this basis Cameron must bear the blame. Problem is, there are those who set out to be offended (Mary Whitehouse?) and it's very difficult to make allowances for them. Mind you, there are also those who deliberately set out to shock or offend - I've never understood how FCUK managed to get away with that as a brand name.