Unbelievable!

I am constantly surprised by the inability of local bureaucrats to see what's under their noses.  I've posted before about diversions due to roadworks creating traffic chaos because no-one has thought through the consequences of the diversion and taken the appropriate steps to ease the situation.  Now here's another one.  We have a children's playground - swings and slides and such - and the local authority has decided to upgrade and extend it, and to this end it has to be temporarily fenced off.  So far, so good, but when did they decide to schedule this work?  You've guessed it - in the six weeks' holiday!!

Go on the "B" of Bang?

So the new false-start rule denied us the chance to see Usain Bolt in the 100 metres final at the World Championships, and not surprisingly there have been calls for the rule to be looked at again.  This is I think the third different rule we've had in the last ten years or so, which gives some indication of how difficult it is to come up with a rule which satisfactorily penalises false-starters while not spoiling the race as a spectacle.  Can I suggest that one possibility could be that the penalty is directed more to the outcome?  If a false-starter was allowed to run, but was penalised one place (or maybe in the 100 metres, say a tenth of a second) for any false start, then you could still have the race run as intended - just the outcome would be adjusted to take account of any false starts.

I have a round thing with a hole in the middle - is this a record?

It seems that the film industry and High Street outlets like HMV are bemoaning a fall in the number of people buying DVDs.  Partly I think this is due to the industry not moving with the times, and partly because DVDs are scandalously overpriced.  But I think it's more a matter of not moving with the times.  The days when people amassed libraries of films on DVD have long gone - after all it's not many films you watch more than once.  And with all the movie channels about, most recent films are available to watch on TV, and even more can be downloaded or streamed to your PC.  So why would you go out and buy something which is going to be watched once, and then sit around cluttering up your shelves, when you don't have to.  HMV seem to have accepted that the audio CD has pretty well had it's day, and I think they are going to have to do the same with the DVD.  Time marches on...

Och aye, the noo!

I hope my friends north of the border will not take offence if I suggest that Scottish football is not only second rate at the moment, but that, with a few notable one-off exceptions, it has always been second rate?  Just look at their record in the World and European Cups.  There are continual calls for the top Scottish sides - certainly Celtic and Rangers - to play in the Premiership, but the harsh truth is that they would probably struggle to maintain a place in the top half of the table.  It has always seemed to me that the Scots have a very inflated sense of their own worth when it comes to football - perhaps the money isn't there, perhaps the talent is too thinly spread, but the record speaks for itself.

Ha ha

As a follow up to yesterday's post, here's a Yorkshire joke - 

A Yorkshireman walks into a vets and says, "I've come about t'cat". The vet says, "Is it a tom?".
And the Yorkshireman replies, "No it's down here in t'basket".

Ey up lass!

Anne Hathaway's attempt at a Yorkshire accent in the film "One Day" has come in for much criticism and ridicule.  I haven't seen the film, but I bet most of us in this country who live outside Yorkshire would struggle to imitate the accent.  The question is of course, why did they choose an American actress for the part - I'm sure there must be many actresses born and bred in Yorkshire who could have filled the role.  Is this another example of the American public not taking a film seriously unless there is an American actor or actress playing a lead?  Remember the way the story of "The Great Escape" from Stalag Luft III had to be rewritten for the film so that an American (Steve McQueen) could take a completely fictitious central role?

English as she is spoke.

List in the paper the other day of words which have been left out of the latest edition of the dictionary as not being in common usage anymore.  I was sad to see that among them was "charabanc" - I don't know about other parts of the country, but certainly round here we still talk about "catching the sharra" when we go on a trip.

Yes it is - no it isn't.

Has the time come when news programmes should come with some sort of health warning?  Recently - and in particular concerning the goings-on in Libya - a lot of speculation and rumour has been presented as fact, only to need a retraction - within hours in some cases.  I appreciate that you can hardly have a news bulletin which starts "There's something going on in Tripoli, but we're not quite sure just what..."  but I think it should be made clear which statements can be substantiated, and which can't.

Why did it happen?

I've had my say about the causes of the recent street riots, but it's interesting to see what the politicians are making of it.  David Cameron sees it as evidence of a general "moral decline", Ed Miliband says it is all down to "social deprivation" whereas Tony Blair blames specific families who, as he sees it, have deliberately chosen to live "outside the pale".  I think that Cameron and Blair are in fact saying much the same thing in two different ways, whereas Miliband is simply trotting out the traditional Labour line that anything bad must be the result of social inequality.  The problem with the Cameron/Blair argument is that it presupposes that there is such a thing as morality (Cameron) or defined norms of behaviour (Blair).  We last seriously had this argument in the late 50s over the question of whether to decriminalise homosexual activity between consenting adults.  Lord Devlin (the most articulate Law Lord there's ever been) and Professor Hart slugged it out in print, and the generally accepted outcome was that there was really no such thing as a completely shared morality or any fundamentally accepted ways of behaving, and that there will always be those who see things differently.  Of course, how they choose to express their "difference" is what is at the root of the problem.

Taxing problem

Vince Cable has this thing about a "mansion tax" doesn't he - keeps coming back to it.  Problem is - and this is a bit strange coming from a LibDem - that such a tax takes no account of the ability to pay.  You can live in a big house worth a lot of money, and still be hard up financially.  A better idea which I heard suggested the other day, would be to make the sale of property subject to capital gains tax on any gain of say over £100,000.  Not sure whether the amount it would raise would be worth the cost of administering it, mind.

Two sides to every coin.

I've posted before about the fact that nothing is all good or all bad - every good thing has the potential to be bad (religion?) and every bad thing the potential to do good.  Ecstasy (bad drug) - or more specifically, a modified version - has now been shown to be able to kill cancer cells, at least in test tubes, and is being touted as a significant development in the fight against cancer.  Several years away yet, but scientists are describing it as "a genuinely exciting proposition".

Ha ha.

This from the net -
One day, there was a catastrophic event that caused all humans on earth to die. To sort things out, everyone went to Heaven. God came in and said,
"I want the men to make two lines. One line for the men who ruled their women on earth and the other line for the men who were ruled by their women. Also, I want all the women to go with St. Peter." With that, the next time God looked, the women were gone and there were two lines.
The line of men who were ruled by their women was 1000 miles long, and in the line of men who ruled their women, there was only one man.
God became angry and said, "You men should be ashamed of yourselves. I created you in my image and you were all whipped by your mates. Look at the only one of my sons who stood up and made me proud. Learn from him!" 
"Tell them, my son, how did you manage to be the only one in this line?"
The man replied, "I don't know, my wife told me to stand here."

Students - oh, they're just a necessary evil!

I frequently get on my high horse about the fact that insufficient (or in fact, no) provision is made to ensure that children leaving primary school get a place at the secondary school of their (or their parents') choice.  We now seem to have a similar situation regarding university places.  The question of how and by whom universities should be funded is a matter for debate, but if you have somebody who wants to go to university, has reasonable grades and is prepared to meet the cost, whatever it may be, it seems to me to be scandalous that they are prevented from going simply because there is no place available for them.  Once again, you get the impression that students exist for the benefit of schools and universities, rather than the other way round, as it should be.

Not how we do it here.

We seem to be getting perilously close to trial by media over the 'phone-hacking business don't we?  This latest letter to be revealed from the NoW's ex-royal correspondent seems to be being taken as proof positive that Andy Coulson was in on the whole affair.  This of course presupposes that the contents of the letter are true - maybe they are, maybe they're not, but bear in mind that this was a letter written by a disgruntled ex-employee incensed that, as he saw it, he had been made the fall-guy, and that the paper had reneged on a promise they had made regarding his future employment.  And a fundamental principle of English law is audi alterem partem (hear the other side) so let's wait until we have, eh?

Who calls the shots?

Police chiefs responding to criticism about their handling of the recent rioting and looting are queuing up to assure us that they are "accountable".  But accountable to whom?  Certainly not to us - we do not elect them, and have no power to dismiss them (and I wouldn't want it to be so - I've posted before about elected officials being more interested in their re-election prospects than in doing the right thing).  But I've always assumed that they are accountable to the Home Secretary - and yet it now appears that perhaps that is not so.  They are equally queuing up to criticise her for, as they see it, meddling in their affairs, and telling them what they should and should not do.  So just how are they accountable, and to whom?

Have I got it right?

I have been challenged by my grandchildren over my post of last Sunday - OK they say, if the causes of the recent riots are so obvious, what are they, according to you?  Well, firstly, I only maintained the causes are pretty obvious - that doesn't mean I have any answers.  Secondly, it's difficult to talk about this without resorting to clichés.  "Lack of discipline" is a cliché, but that is the underlying cause as I see it - or maybe lack of self-discipline would be nearer the mark.  Each generation rebels against authority and its elders - that's human nature, but at one time there was a acceptance - however reluctant - that while you were home, your parents made the rules; while you were at school, the teachers were in charge, and when you were out and about, you deferred to the police.  And that is what has changed.  Today many parents daren't say "boo" to their children; in many schools pupils effectively rule the classrooms, and police no longer command any respect on the streets.  Why this has happened is perhaps open to argument, and like I say, I don't claim to have any answers as to how things can be changed, but the main reason for what has gone on seems to me to be blindingly obvious.

Cricket

So we are now the number one test side in the world?  I think I would feel more positive about this if the opposition in the current series had not been so weak.  We've certainly got a good side now - good solid batting all the way down the list, and a potent bowling attack able to deal with pretty well any conditions, but I would really like to see us tested against first-class opposition - which I am afraid the current Indian team are not.  It's an old truism that you can only deal with the opponent you are presented with, but I've got this nasty feeling that our present exalted status is more down to the poor quality of international cricket generally than to any superhuman feats on our part.

Knee-jerk reaction?

Understandable, but basically foolish calls for a "public inquiry" into the recent riots and looting in London and elsewhere.  It would just be spending a large amount of public money (which we can ill afford in the present circumstances) to prove the obvious.  We all know the causes.  We don't need a drawn-out and expensive inquiry to tell us.  Spend the money on something more useful.

The clue is in the name.

The publication by the Ministry of Defence of their files on UFO sightings has reignited the debate about whether or not UFOs exist.  And the answer is, of course they do - if you see something in the sky and nobody can identify it, then it's an Unidentified Flying Object isn't it?  Simple.  The question of whether it's being flown by little green men from Mars or wherever is a separate issue - and indeed if it could be proved that it was, it would no longer be a UFO, would it?

I stand in awe.

Quote of the week - maybe the month, maybe the year, maybe of all time.  This from a father whose son had just been killed in the Birmingham riots, addressing an angry crowd considering revenge - "I have lost my son - if you want to lose yours step forward, otherwise calm down and go home."  Nobel peace prize, anyone?

What's happening - continued.

We do not have a large, armed police force - as many other countries do.  Our police can only police by consent - that is, they can only police effectively if the population is prepared to be policed.  If that consent is not there - for whatever reason, or indeed for no reason - then the police are in trouble.  At present there are clearly sections of the population who are not willing to be policed, and that is the root of the present disturbances. Whether this is just natural adolescent rebellion against authority or something more is open to question but until the "rioters" accept that the police are there for the good of us all - whether we like them or not - and that the alternative is that none of us are safe, including those who are rioting, then this mayhem is likely to continue.  The looting - although the most serious aspect of all this from society's point of view - is I think just opportunism piggy-backing onto the general disturbances.

What's happening?

Much talk about anarchy as a result of what has been going on in London and elsewhere.  What exactly does it mean?  Well it comes from the Greek: a- being a general negative prefix, and arkhos meaning ruler.  So anarchy strictly speaking is a social system where there is no ruler, and therefore no rules.  So it's every man for himself, or to quote Aleister Crowley "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".  So it's not so much a breakdown of law and order, but more a situation where there is no such concept as law and order.  What's been going on recently is mob rule, which is something quite different.

What's in a name?

What do you call that country on the other side of the North Sea - Holland?  Yes, me too, but I was surprised to find that that was wrong.  I've always assumed that Holland and the Netherlands were just two names for the same place, but now I've learned that Holland (or more specifically North Holland and South Holland) are just two out of the twelve provinces that make up the Netherlands.  So to most of the Dutch, calling it Holland is somewhat of an insult - as someone put it - "a bit like calling England Yorkshire".

Oh no, you can't have that week.

When I ran an office, emergencies aside, I and my deputy were never away at the same time - simple common sense.  And yet the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are all on holiday at the same time?  It's bad luck that this state of affairs has coincided with a major financial crisis, but surely it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place?  All it needs is for somebody to be in charge of a simple holiday calendar.

Minority rules??

We've heard a lot recently about these e-petitions, whereby if they attract more than 100,000 votes they are considered for discussion in Parliament.  But do the maths - the population of this country is some 60 million, which makes 100,000 equivalent to about one-sixth of one per cent!  Even if we just restrict it to those registered to vote it is still only about a quarter of a percent.  So this minute fraction of the population holding a particular view is enough to trigger Parliamentary debate?  Where did that idea come from?

Oh, come on!

I'm watching "The Code" - a series running on BBC2 at present, and I have to say it strikes me as the intellectual equivalent of somebody claiming to have seen the Virgin Mary's face on a piece of toast.  To suggest - as it seems to me the programme is doing - that because the natural world can be explained in mathematical terms, it must follow that the natural world is subject to mathematical laws goes too far.  It's a bit like the chicken and egg business isn't it - which came first?  Did mathematics produce the natural world, or did the study of the natural world produce mathematics?  And when you put it that way, the answer is pretty obvious, isn't it?  Still, it's a fascinating programme.

Ah - statistics, statistics.

Statistics produced by the Foreign Office show that the number of Britons arrested abroad has fallen by more than half.  Whether this is an indication that holidaymakers are becoming better behaved is however a moot point.  It could just as easily be that fewer of us - particularly the yob element - are going abroad because we can't afford it!

Ha ha.

A salesman for a cola company is given a Middle East assignment, but he returns disappointed.
A friend asked, "Why weren't you successful with the Arabs?"
The salesman explained, "When I got posted in the Middle East, I was very confident that I would be able to make a good sales pitch as cola is virtually unknown there. But I had a problem -  I didn't know how to speak Arabic. So I planned to convey the message through 3 posters. First poster, a man crawling through the hot desert sand... totally exhausted and panting. Second poster, the man is drinking our cola and third poster, our man is now totally refreshed. Then these posters were pasted all over the place.
"That should have worked," said the friend.
The salesman replied, "Well, not only did I not speak Arabic, I also didn't realise that Arabs read from right to left".

Brother, can you spare a dime?

The news that so many charities are in financial difficulties just highlights for me the extent to which we are dependent on these voluntary organisations for things which ought properly to be the responsibility of central or local government.  They have been content to leave these things to charities when funding was not really a problem, but now money is tight are they going to be prepared to pick up the slack?  I fear not.

The morning after...

It's almost as though fate waits for me to commit myself before pulling the rug from under my feet.  Regular readers will probably have realised by now that this blog is written well after the event.  Yesterday I was bemoaning what I saw as a general lack of sportsmanship in the game of cricket, and then on Sunday we had an act of sportsmanship when India allowed an English batsman to continue even though, under the strict rules of the game he had been run out.  So three cheers, yes?  Well certainly two, maybe even two and a half, but perhaps not the full three.  Why not?  Well firstly because it wasn't so much India's decision as their response to a request by England   In other words it was reactive rather than proactive.  And then it was a decision only taken after some lengthy discussion.  Remember when footballer Paulo di Canio, presented with an open goal with the opposition goalkeeper lying injured on the ground, caught the ball rather than head it into the empty net?  Now that was sportsmanship - an instinctive feeling that that was the right thing to do.  No thinking about it.  So like I say - two, maybe two and a half cheers.

The biter bit?

The decision by the BCCI (Indian cricket authority) to veto the use of the Decision Review System in relation to LBW decisions in the current test series between England and India has come back to haunt them.  When Harbhajan Singh was given out LBW on Saturday it helped precipitate an Indian batting collapse, but had the decision been reviewed - as it surely would have been had the facility been there - it would have been overturned as slow motion clearly showed it was inside edge onto pad.  So India were the authors of their own misfortune?  Yes, up to a point, but even though the umpire missed the inside edge, what about the England cricketers - the bowler in particular?  I fear we've now reached a stage in cricket - the supposedly "gentlemen's game" - where batsmen who know perfectly well that they are out do not walk, and where fielders who equally well know that a catch has not carried, or that the ball has hit the bat before the pad, or has missed the bat altogether where a catch is claimed, now automatically hysterically appeal to the umpire in the hope that he'll make a mistake and give them the wicket.  Not the game it once was, I fear.