No place to hide.

It's been a really bad week for my meagre investments, all thanks to America playing silly buggers over their debt reduction plan - or rather lack of one.  Why should their stupid games affect my pathetic savings?  Oh, the joys of being part of a global economy!

Read all about it.

Headlines in most of the papers yesterday were along the lines of "News of the World targeted Sara Payne". Well, did they?  When you read the small print as it were, it seems that Sara Payne's mobile 'phone number was among those found in the notes of Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator at the heart of the 'phone-hacking business.  There is absolutely no evidence that her 'phone was indeed hacked.  And when you read further you find that the 'phone in question was in fact given to her by the NoW as part of the "Sarah's Law" campaign that she was running in conjunction with the paper, and therefore there was no secret about it as far as they were concerned.  So were these headlines just unwarranted sensationalism?

Red and yellow and pink and green...

Why on earth would the England Rugby Union side choose to play in black?  OK, so it's only their "change" strip, to be worn when their white shirts would otherwise not contrast sufficiently with what their opponents are wearing, but have they no sense of history?  Black is the New Zealand colour and always has been - indeed they are known as the "All-Blacks".  It almost smacks of disrespect, I feel.

At the third stroke...

Amazingly the "speaking clock" still gets an average of over 80,000 calls a day.  And these days you have to pay for it - I remember when it was a free service, and very useful it was in the days before computers, digital timepieces and mobile 'phones.  Today it is difficult to understand why anybody would have a need for it - but clearly there are people who do!

Starter for ten.

The death of actress Linda Christian has brought to mind a favourite pub-quiz question - who was the first actor to play James Bond?  And the answer is not, as you might imagine, Sean Connery, but Barry Nelson who predated Connery by some eight years when he played Bond (as "Jimmy Bond" for heaven's sake!) in an American TV adaptation of "Casino Royale".  And Linda Christian?  She played the love interest, and was therefore the first "Bond girl".

C to F.

Had a sort of argument with my youngest grandson the other day about converting Centigrade (or Celsius if you insist - see post dated 3/2/06) temperatures into Fahrenheit.  He had been given the "double it and add 30" formula, which is reasonably accurate for temperatures in the mid-teens, but becomes progressively less accurate the higher or lower you go.  Here's how to do it properly.  Double the temperature in C, deduct a rounded 10% and add 32.  So for example - 23C doubled is 46, ten percent of that is 4.6 so round it up to 5 (.5 and above, round up, .4 and below round down).  Take 5 off 46 which gives you 41, and add 32 to that giving you 73 which is the correct Fahrenheit equivalent.  Using the "double it and add 30" method would give you 76 which is way too high.

R.I.P.

Amy Winehouse's music and singing was not to my taste, but I am unreservedly prepared to accept my grandchildren's assessment that she was a major talent in popular music.  In any event it is always a tragedy when someone dies at such a young age in such circumstances.  Even if - again according to my grandchildren - "you could see it coming a mile off". 

Good - or not so good?

So the man who stabbed to death a burglar who was in his house armed with a machete will not be charged.  That's good, isn't it - another example of common-sense prevailing?  Yes but..... he was arrested - I don't know how long he was held in custody banged up in a cell, but doubtless his fingerprints were taken, together with his DNA, and almost certainly his house and possessions were searched.  So I doubt whether he feels particularly happy about things.  He found himself in this situation through no choice of his own, and yet has been treated like a criminal up to the point when the decision not to prosecute was taken.  Somehow we've still not got the balance right here.

Up, up and away.

Now that the Space Shuttle program has finished, is it time to look at whether this whole business of going into space is in any way cost-effective?  It all started of course as a macho-posturing exercise between the USA and the USSR in the Cold War days - remember JFK's famous speech when he said "We choose to go to the moon....".  The crucial word of course is "choose" - they didn't have to, and it's debatable whether it brought any great benefits - other of course than giving the USA the bragging rights.  The Shuttle program was conceived and indeed started while the Cold War was still active, and once started it developed its own unstoppable momentum.  There's no doubt that it has achieved much in the scientific field  - the space station, the Hubble telescope - but all this has been at a tremendous cost, and it's arguable that even in the field of the advancement of science, the money could have been better spent.  So do we need a Shuttle replacement?  Or has the time come to turn the page, and leave the exploration of space to the sci-fi writers?

Well said.

Seen on a T-shirt worn by a protester against a recent execution in the United States - "Why do we go on killing people to show that killing people is wrong?".

Don't hold your breath!

Barack Obama has been landed with a £120 fine for not paying London congestion charges for his motorcade on his recent State Visit.  Mind you, the American Embassy already owe over £7million in unpaid congestion fees (see post 19/8/09), so I think our chances of seeing the money are slim to none.

Book Post

(see post 18/11/06)


Bernard Cornwell - Sharpe's Trafalgar - 7
Sue Grafton - "I" is for Innocent - 7
Steven Savile - Silver - 6.5 
L. C. Tyler - Ten Little Herrings - 7.5
Robert Goddard - Long Time Coming - 7.5 
Gordon Ferris - The Hanging Shed - 9
C. J. Sansom - Dark Fire - 8.5
Michael Connelly - Nine Dragons - 8
Simon Brett - The Stabbing in the Stables - 7
Lee Child - Die Trying - 7

Pass the sick-bag, Mabel

I am getting heartily fed up with Ed Milliband's sycophantic pronouncements on the News of the World business, and specifically Cameron's appointment of Andy Coulson.  I suppose you can't blame him for seeking to make party political capital out of it all, but his smug, self-satisfied holier-than-thou sound bites are really getting on my wick.  As to Coulson, the only question which matters as far as I am concerned is - was he the right man for the job?  And if you were looking for someone to handle your relationships with - mainly - the press, then it's difficult to imagine anyone more qualified.  Remember that old adage "set a thief to catch a thief"?  And by all accounts he did a good job while he was there, which is surely more germane to his fitness for the job than anything he may or may not have done in the past.  Milliband's premise seems to be that no-one should be allowed into the Palace of Westminster unless they are squeaky-clean and have never done anything underhand - which I would imagine would immediately rule out 95% or more of all MPs and their advisers.  If Labour's hands were clean in relation to their dealings with Murdoch and the tabloid press, I might be more prepared to give some weight to what he says, but they are not, and I am not.  So shut up Ed and do something useful.

The lady vanishes

R.I.P Googie Withers - every inch a lady.

Take him down.

To what extent is it proper for a court to use its sentencing power to "send a message" by making an example of a particular defendant?  The question arises because of the apparently draconian sentence of sixteen months' imprisonment meted out to a young man of previously good character who joined the demonstration against tuition fees, and got tanked up and behaved in a disgraceful manner for which he subsequently apologised.  It is difficult to see how the sentence is justified on any other ground than that of laying down a marker for others to take note of.  Which brings us back to the original question - is that a proper basis for sentencing?

Don't mess with Parliament !

The latest episode in the News of the World saga serves to remind us that Parliament was originally, and still is a court of law.  Indeed, the highest court in the land.  As such it can summon people to appear before it and can fine, imprison and even theoretically execute them.  The power has traditionally been exercised mainly by the House of Lords, but Parliament is a single entity, so the Commons has equal authority.

Rats and sinking ships?

Anybody else sense a whiff of hypocrisy in the way Parliament is turning on Rupert Murdoch and News International?  All parties have been prepared to try and use him - or more to the point, the influence of his papers - when it suited them.  Remember "It's The Sun Wot Won It"?  Mostly hubris to be sure, but there was more than a grain of truth in there - a lot of people read The Sun and many of them take their lead from the stance it takes on politics among other things.  So having The Sun on your side sure helps and successive leaders of all parties have been careful to get in Rupert Murdoch's good books - or at the very least, not to be in his bad books.   It will be interesting to see how he reacts to the way they are now treating him - he could well take the approach of "a plague on all your houses" and use his papers to advise people not to bother to vote at all.  That would be interesting!

Good news

Cheques have had a reprieve (see post of 17th June).  The powers that be have decided that they should not be phased out after all.  So it seems that common sense has prevailed.  Bit worrying really - if we're going to start making decisions on a common-sense basis, who knows where that might lead?  This blog may have to close down for starters - there would be nothing worth writing about!

Bad - and worse?

Can't get away from this 'phone-hacking business can you?  Mind you, that to me is not the most serious aspect of the revelations that are coming out virtually daily at present.  After all, newspapers have engaged in dubious - if not downright illegal - practices in order to get one over on their rivals since forever.  Doesn't make it right, but it really shouldn't surprise us that much.  What concerns me far more is the allegation that the police - or some members of the police - are prepared to accept money for information.  We have always prided ourselves on being one of the few countries in the world with an incorruptible police force, and if as a result of the current hoo-hah this proves not to be so, that for me would be a matter of major concern.

Well I never!

Did you know there is a robot football World Cup?  Took place in Istanbul over the weekend apparently.  Needless to say we (UK) went out in the group stages!  China won by the way.

Where's it all gone?

So how do I feel about the News of the World closing? Sad really - firstly because it means that a lot of people are potentially being put out of work through no fault of their own, and secondly because it's part of my history.  I don't take it now, but I remember back when I was at school, and it was still a broadsheet paper, we used to buy it every Sunday (it was a boarding school) and eagerly devour all the latest smut and gossip.  I can't remember the name, but they were serialising some bodice-ripper type book which was pretty racy for its time and we couldn't wait to read the latest instalment - it would include phrases like "heaving bosom" which was quite sufficient back then to set our hearts racing!  So it's a bit like Woolworth closing down - I've lost part of my back-story, and at my age, that's not trivial.

There'll be another along in a minute.

Some years ago there was a company not far away from where I live who were in the business of disposing of industrial waste.  Justifiably or not, they got a bad reputation, and local residents picketed their premises with placards, and wrote angry letters to the local press.  So the company closed down, and the protesters hailed victory and put their placards away and went back home.  Less than twelve months later with no publicity a new company started up on the same premises doing exactly the same job - it was of course the same people - they'd just changed the name.  What do you bet that within a short period News International introduce a new Sunday newspaper - it will be the News of the World reborn, it will just have a different name.

Too close to home?

So the News of the World is to close.  Apparently its own readership was turning against it.  I think the tipping point was the revelation that the list of people whose 'phones may have been hacked went well beyond the rich and famous and included many ordinary people who just happened for whatever reason to be potentially newsworthy, if only temporarily (remember Andy Warhol's "fifteen minutes of fame"?).  It's a bit hypocritical, but as long as the paper's "exposés" were of politicians, sportspersons and other celebrities, then that was OK but as soon as the readership realised that they themselves could well end up being victims, they started to jump ship.

Doh!

Am I getting thick?  I've had two things through my letterbox in recent days which I have found difficult to understand.  The first was a pamphlet about the imminent switch-over to digital TV and how it would or might affect me.  I've read through it a couple of times and I'm still not quite sure I've got my head round it.  And then I've had a letter from my bank saying that they are introducing a new security system for on-line banking and directing me to a web-site which would explain all.  Well I visited the site and watched the video, and I am now completely confused!  I've always regarded myself as reasonably intelligent, but I'm beginning to wonder if old age is catching up on me!

An uncomfortable truth.

All this to-do about 'phone hacking - just who are the bad guys?  The News of the World, this private investigator bloke, the journalists who employed him, Rupert Murdoch??  Can I suggest that the real bad guys are us - you and I?  There's a parallel here with the super injunction thread which we've been following over the last few months.  Newspapers are in business to sell newspapers, and to do that, they have to give their readers what they want - and if what they want are salacious stories about "celebrities" or the latest gossip about a disappearance or a high profile murder case, then that's what the papers will do their utmost to give them, and if that means bending or breaking the law, then so be it.  So let's be clear - if we were content to just accept the statements the police put out and in general mind our own business and let others get on with theirs, there would be no call for this sort of reporting, and it wouldn't happen.  So if you want to know who the bad guys really are - look in the mirror!

The Narey Report.

I have been reading the above report on adoption.  I was involved for much of my working life with adoption - admittedly a long long time ago - so I was interested in his conclusions.  I found myself somewhat at variance with him over the question of the taking of children into care.  I have to bow to his far wider breadth of experience, but my feeling always was that taking a child into care should be the last, the very last resort.  There will always be bad parents, but at least there is always the possibility that bad parents may become, if not good parents, then at least less bad parents, whereas once a child is in care, that's it - they are on a one-way train with no turning back, and their chances of a good outcome are at best slim.  Where I do agree whole-heartedly with Narey is that once a child is in care it is imperative that they are adopted - or at the very least placed in a stable long-term fostering situation - as soon as possible.  In general, once a child is about three years old, if they are not already in such a relationship, there are almost certainly going to be problems.  It's a very difficult area, and as Narey says, it badly needs sorting out.

Sure an' it was just a rumble.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland has said that the recent outbreaks of violence in Belfast had "no paramilitary involvement".  So that's OK then??

Rip off?

Oil prices have been coming down steadily now for the last three months.  Seen any significant decrease in the price of petrol?  No, me neither.  Funny how pump prices rise pretty immediately when crude oil prices do, but it doesn't seem to work the other way round. 

Déjà vu?

Ah well - another Wimbledon, another semi-final exit for Murray.  I sort of got the feeling that half-way through the second set he suddenly thought "Hang on, this isn't supposed to happen like this - I'm supposed to lose" and from then on it was all one way down.

Round and round.

Apparently we've exported the concept of the roundabout to America.  Many American towns and cities are finding that roundabouts work better than traditional traffic lights at intersections, as well as being aesthetically more pleasing.  So you might ask why the town of Walsall here in the West Midlands has spent an obscene amount of money and caused months of traffic disruption in replacing a perfectly serviceable roundabout with a complex set of traffic lights. Perhaps the Americans could export the idea back to us?

Sword of Damocles - part II

I talked about this business of police bail back in 2007 in relation to Michael Barrymore.  The recent decision that the police have only 96 hours to charge a suspect or release him/her, and this applies whether they are in custody or out on police bail, is almost certainly going to be overturned - either on appeal, or by new legislation, but it does I think highlight the need for there to be a definitive limit on how long the police can keep people dangling on this piece of string called police bail.  There's too much of this idea of "we'll arrest you now, and hope to find the evidence later" and open-ended police bail is all part of this invidious approach.