Ha ha.

Here's an old one-

The Rev. Ian Paisley was seated next to President Clinton on a flight to Ireland. Once the plane was airborne, the flight attendant came round for drinks orders. The President asked for a whisky and soda, which was brought and placed before him. The attendant then asked the minister if he would also like a drink. The Rev. Paisley replied in disgust "Madam, I'd rather be savagely raped by a brazen whore than let liquor touch these lips." The President handed his drink back to the attendant and said "I'm sorry, I didn't realise there was a choice..."

Ireland's call?

Watching the sport on television yesterday, my grandson asked why Ireland play rugby as one team, but football as two. Good question and I'm not sure there's a definitive answer. Both association and rugby football of course well predate the partition of Ireland and therefore originally both codes would have had Ireland playing as a single entity. So perhaps the question is not so much why do they play as a single team at rugby, as why don't they at soccer? And the answer seems to be that whereas there was no real enmity in the pre-partition years between the rugby sides of north and south, there was as far as association football was concerned, and so following partition they took the opportunity to form two separate organisations, whereas rugby didn't bother.

Quick - where's the blacksmith?

As a follow up to yesterday's post, the Marriage Act of 1753 stated, among other things, that if you wished to get married under the age of majority - which was then 21 - you needed the consent of your parents. The law did not apply however in Scotland, where boys could marry at 14 and girls at 12. Further in Scotland all that was needed for a valid marriage was the exchange of vows before a person of some standing (not necessarily a minister) in the presence of two witnesses. This led to an exodus of under-age couples wishing to marry to Scotland, and as the first place the stage-coach would stop over the border was Gretna, this quickly became the Las Vegas of its day. Subsequent legislation made marriage there progressively more difficult but Gretna retains its mystique as a place of romantic love to this day.

Shh - don't tell anyone...

I overheard somebody the other day refer to a couple as "living over the brush". I hadn't heard that expression for a long, long time. What it means of course is that they are living together but not married. Today that's not exceptional, but not that long age it wasn't something you talked openly about. Where does the expression come from? Prior to 1753 and the Marriage Act of that year, there were no specific laws about how you got married. A marriage in Church would be recognised as legal without question, but it cost, and a lot of people couldn't afford it. So in many people's eyes if a man and a woman accepted each other as husband and wife, that was all that was needed. But how was this acceptance to be evidenced? And somehow the tradition arose that one way they could do this was by holding hands and stepping over a broomstick laid on the ground. And there you are.

Bank charges.

Sorry, but I welcome the Supreme Court's ruling that - effectively - banks are entitled to charge what they like to customers who go overdrawn without prior authorisation. What's the alternative? Why should people like me, who manage their finances properly and never knowingly go overdrawn, subsidise those who don't? If you know you haven't got the funds in your account to meet your immediate liabilities, then you approach the bank and ask for an agreed overdraft facility - and if you don't, then on your own head be it. Take responsibility for your own actions, for goodness sake!

Glasses, ref!

Interesting suggestion in a letter to my paper the other day that controversy is part of the very soul of football, and that bringing in more officials, with or without technological aids, would change the essence of the game fundamentally. Would we really want a game where every decision is spot on, and correct beyond any shadow of a doubt? What would there be to talk and argue about in the pub afterwards? Personally I don't think there is any real danger of that - even with the benefit of slow-motion replays, more often than not there is an element of uncertainty. Did he dive or didn't he? Just where was he tripped - inside the penalty area or outside? Was he level with the last defender or offside? Certainly given the standard of technology we have today, there would still be arguments. I think having more officials is a good idea though.

Remember, remember.

Last Saturday was the 35th anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombings. One of the worst atrocities of the IRA's campaign on the British mainland, 21 people were killed and many more injured when bombs went off in two city centre pubs - The Mulberry Bush and The Tavern in the Town. The Mulberry Bush has long since been demolished, but The Tavern in the Town is still there - now called The Yard of Ale. I often wonder if any of the people who pass by its fairly anonymous front door every day realise its history. Of course the incident was equally notorious for the fitting up by the police of six innocent men for the crime. The real culprits have never been brought to justice although several names are in the public domain as having been involved.

Automatism.

The tragic story of the man who strangled his wife in his sleep took me back getting on for thirty years to when I was studying for a law degree. This very situation was discussed in theoretical terms as part of our study of the common law on crime. To be guilty of a crime at common law, it is necessary that you committed an unlawful act (the "actus reus") but also that you did so in an unlawful frame of mind ("mens rea"). Just what amounts to the necessary unlawful frame of mind will vary from crime to crime. But the essence of the situation under discussion is that there could be no mens rea because quite simply there was no mens. You were not under the direction of your conscious mind. Given that there is considerable material on this subject in various text-books, all of which are unanimous that in these circumstances no crime has been committed, the surprise is that a prosecution was brought in the first place.

Put a sixpence in...

Today is "Stir-up Sunday" when you are supposed to make your Christmas pudding, with every member of the family taking a turn at stirring the mixture, and making a wish. And you must stir it in a clockwise direction. The reason for the name comes from the collect for the day in The Book of Common Prayer, which starts "Stir up, we beseech Thee, O Lord..." And of course it gives time for all the flavours to come together so that it is perfect come Christmas.

It's just not right...

As a sort of carry-over from yesterday's post, it never ceases to amaze me how many people complain about something without offering any viable alternative. It's always up to "them" to do something about "it" - whoever they may be, and whatever it is. At the moment there are people getting into a lather over the fact that there are a dozen or so oil tankers anchored off the Devon coast. The perception (probably correct) is that the owners are banking on the price of oil increasing, and that therefore they stand to make more money by waiting rather than bringing their cargo into port now. This is portrayed as "greedy oil barons hammering the poor consumer". But what exactly do they expect, and what do they think can or should be done about it? Ah no, that's for someone else ("them") to sort out. After all, let's be realistic. Oil companies are in it for the profit - they're not charities or part of social services. And what's the alternative? Some sort of Government regulation - and how exactly would that work? And would you really want the price of petrol determined by Government diktat rather than by market forces? It would spell the end of supermarket price-wars for starters. If you've got ideas, then let's hear them - but don't just whinge.

Sir, I wish to complain...

The Advertising Standards Authority is considering whether to investigate the M & S Christmas advert currently running on television. What's the story? - well, I'm not sure just how many people will have seen that advert, but it surely must run into hundreds of thousands, probably millions. Why is the ASA considering acting? Because it has received eight - count 'em, eight - complaints. Which makes me wonder just what their threshold is - just how many complaints, or perhaps more to the point, what proportion of complaints are enough to galvanise them into action. Given that, as I have commented before more than once, there are people out there who will complain about anything, and who actively seek out reasons to be outraged, I would have thought eight complaints trivial in the extreme.

Send for a plumber...

I was tickled to read a report in the paper that the "Great Drain" which takes the water from the Roman baths in Bath down to the river Avon is in need of repair - not because of any problems with the part built by the Romans, which is still doing sterling service despite being nearly 2000 years old. No, it's the modern extension, only built about 40 years ago which has collapsed. A real testament to British workmanship!

Sorry??

Once again the question arises over whether it is meaningful for someone to apologise for something which happened in the past, and which they had no part in. We've discussed this before in relation to slavery, and now the Prime Minister will apparently offer an official apology for the policy of sending some children who had been taken into care to the colonies - mainly Australia - supposedly for a better life over there. In reality many were badly treated and abused. At least this is something relatively recent - it was still going on in the 60s - but the problem still is how can you apologise for something which was nothing to do with you? You can certainly accept that it was wrong and bad and promise - to the extent that it is within your power - that it will never happen again, but you can really only apologise for something which was your own fault. Once again, I have the nasty feeling that the word which really lies at the bottom of all this is "compensation".

R.I.P.

Edward Woodward.
Showing my age, but for me he will always be Callan - the swinging naked light bulb, the haunting theme tune - one of the seminal shows of my youth (OK, young middle-age). What perhaps is not so well known is that he also had a fine singing voice and made several records as well as appearing on the TV music-hall programme "The Good Old Days". A consummate professional.

Brnng, brnng

There is a suggestion that a great many deaths and injuries could be prevented by allowing cyclists to officially ride on the pavements. I would go along with this, with one proviso - that it is made clear that pedestrians have the right of way. I get really annoyed when I have to leap out of the way of someone cycling on the pavement who makes no attempt to avoid me but carries on merrily in a straight line. I would also make it obligatory for all cycles to have bells, and for it to be a legal requirement that a cyclist coming up behind a pedestrian must ring their bell to warn them. Subject to this, seems a sensible suggestion.

It ain't half hot Mum !

A poll reveals that many people do not believe that climate change is down to human activity. I wouldn't go that far myself, and I think that reducing the amount of CO2 and methane and stuff that we put into the atmosphere is a worthy endeavour in its own right, but what bothers me is that suppose the doubters are right, and that climate change is going to happen anyway - what (if any) plans are we putting in place to deal with the consequences? Our whole strategy seems to be based on the idea that we can stop it happening, but suppose we can't? Shouldn't at least some of our effort and resources be being put towards preparing for what we will then have to deal with?

Crime? What crime?

One of my abiding memories from my schooldays was something a very good teacher we had was wont to say from time to time, when he felt we needed a dose of reality. "You can pin a note on an elephant saying - this is a giraffe" he would say, "but it don't make it so". The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority have agreed to pay out compensation to the family of a three-year-old child who was attacked and badly hurt by another three-year-old. I'm OK with the fact that they are getting compensation but not that they are getting it from this Authority. A three-year-old child is statutorily incapable of committing a crime - therefore there was and could be no crime, and therefore payment of compensation does not fall within the remit of the Authority. Of course, it is always open to Parliament to change the Authority's terms of reference, but until and unless they do this is another case, I'm afraid, of hard cases making bad law.

Book post

(see post dated 18/11/06)

My latest ten reads -

Dick Francis (and Felix Francis) - Silks - 8
Robert Harris - Ghost - 8.5
Scott Mariani - The Doomsday Prophecy - 8
Steve Jackson - The Judas - 7
Paul Doherty - The Poison Maiden - 6
Andrew Gross - Don't Look Twice - 6.5

Natasha Cooper - A Poisoned Mind - 7
Nicci French - Catch Me When I Fall - 6
Michael Connelly - The Brass Verdict - 8
Sam Bourne - The Last Testament - 6.5

Bhabhi

I was talking to my daughter-in-law about my post of 31st October and why the loser of the card game should be called "sister-in-law". She said it's difficult to understand without a knowledge of traditional Sikh culture. Firstly, only men would play cards, and secondly the choice of sister-in-law as the derogatory title for the loser carries no particular significance - it's being called by a woman's name that is the put-down - any female name would do. She likened it to me being called a "big girl's blouse", or Del Boy's famous belittling of Rodney - "Shut up you tart".

We will remember them

When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say,
For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today

Epitaph on the 2nd British Division War Memorial at Kohima in Northern India

Kick a man when he's down?

I hold no brief for Gordon Brown, who I consider to be the worst Prime Minister of modern times, but the criticism of him in the press over the hand-written letter he sent to the mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan does I feel go too far. So his handwriting is not that good - neither is mine. So he made what might be considered a few spelling mistakes (not sure that some of them were, actually - more a matter that his writing is difficult to read) but at least he did take the time and trouble to write the letter himself - the temptation must have been to simply sign a type-written letter. As discussed the other day, the mother is entitled to grieve in her own way, and clearly she found the letter distressing, but for the press to latch onto it in the way they have is distasteful, to say the least.

Ha ha

Man goes to his solicitor to talk about making a will. "I feel a bit awkward about this" he says "thinking about your own death is rather creepy". "Don't worry" says the solicitor "most people feel that way. Just leave everything to me". There follows a few seconds of silence, and then the man says "But I was thinking about leaving a few bob to the wife and children".

Whatever floats your boat.

Apparently there have been some raised eyebrows at the sight of the widow of a soldier killed in Afghanistan applauding as his coffin passed by. This reminded me of people who regularly write to a local paper round here complaining of flowers being placed by the roadside or attached to lampposts to mark the site of a fatal accident. And then there are those who pull a face when a pop song is played at a funeral. We all have to deal with grief in our own way and whatever gives us comfort or solace is all that matters. I did some pretty weird things in the immediate aftermath of my wife's death - although as it was in the privacy of my own home, nobody knew. It's easy to say that these people should mind their own business, but it goes deeper than that. It's not just a matter of showing respect for the dead, it's also showing respect and understanding for those who are left behind and have to pick up the pieces.

Ha ha

Liked a cartoon in the paper referring to the story that sex education is to be mandatory for all 15-year-olds. A young lad comes home from school clutching a girl by the hand. "Dad" he says "I've brought some homework back to do".

Can't have your cake and eat it too...

In all the current heartsearching over the Lisbon Treaty and the EU, you constantly hear people saying that they are fully in favour of the "common market" aspect of Europe, but dislike the idea of a political union. But the question is - can you have the one without the other? Was the seed of the EU always there in the EEC? The point is that you can't really have a free trade area without rules - the sad fact is that otherwise you will get countries pulling a fast one in their own self-interest. And if you have rules, you have to have some underlying principles on which they are based - and from there it's only a short step to agreeing policy - et voilà, the EU. I certainly think it has gone too far into intruding on matters which should be left to individual countries to decide, but I think the idea that we can have all the advantages of a European common market whilst distancing ourselves from some sort of central control is wishful thinking.

Formula 1

So - some thoughts on this season -

Button - you have to say that he is almost champion malgre lui. Did enough in the first half of the season, and it was his good fortune that when he and the car went off the boil, no one contender came to the fore, so while he was consistently picking up minor points, the major points were going here, there and everywhere, enabling him to maintain his lead. Nice to see another British champion, though.
Vettel - jury is still out I think. Clearly capable of driving a fast car well, but when the car is off the pace, did not really see any signs of a driver willing to scrap for what he could get. In the right car though, clearly a contender.
Barichello - always the bridesmaid, it would seem. Didn't do enough when Brawn were dominant I'm afraid, and thereafter despite flashes of brilliance, was inconsistent. Would like to think he'd got a championship in him because he's such a nice bloke, but fear it's probably too late.

This is a talent show?

Family get-together last Saturday and therefore forced to watch X-Factor, which I usually avoid like the plague. Just what does the "X" stand for - excruciating??

The elephant in the room

Oh Lord, here we go again! It is suggested that parents who lie in order to try and get their children into the school where they want them to go should face prosecution. I won't rehash what I've said before more than once on this subject, but how diabolical that the Government and local authorities should even think of punishing others for their own shortcomings.

Don't like the tune? Shoot the pianist!

"The truth shall set you free" so the Good Book says. Tell that to Professor David Nutt who has been peremptorily sacked from his post as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for saying - quite correctly - that cannabis, ecstasy and LSD are less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. I'm sure he didn't expect to be "set free" in quite that way! What is equally of concern is that the Council was set up to be an independent body - but apparently if it doesn't say what the Government wants to hear, they will not just ignore it, but get rid of it. Wow - just how independent can you get?

Compare and contrast.

There is a certain irony in two stories which both appear in the news today - on the one hand, you have Prince Edward making the point (perhaps somewhat clumsily) that for many young people the possibility of danger is what drives them to take part in outward-bound type activities, such as are run by the Prince's Trust, and then in another part of the news is a report that a 14-year-old Dutch girl has been forbidden by the courts from attempting a solo round-the-world yacht voyage on the grounds that it is too dangerous.