Formula 1

Well, last year my assessment of the season was "boring".  This year, the word which springs to mind is "depressing".  The drivers' championship was won by a Brit, which was nice.  The question of who would win it went down to the wire, which created some interest, but once again, for the - how many years in a row now? - one make of car has dominated, and therefore its drivers have dominated. Whereas in recent past years it has been Red Bull and Vettel, this year it's Mercedes and Hamilton/Rosberg. The names may be different, but the effect is the same - a turn-off.  It seems to me that the problem is that F1 suffers from a split personality. It's trying to be two different and mutually incompatible things. Bernie Ecclestone and his lot wants to present it as an exciting spectator sport, but the constructors, as I see it, are just interested in producing the fastest car - and being miles ahead of the competition is something to be desired.  The fact that this will deny the watching public any sort of thrilling competition just doesn't enter their thinking. Anyway -
Hamilton - no question the best man won.  Would have been somewhat of a travesty if he had been beaten by someone who had only won half as many races.
Rosberg - the fact that he ended up such a close second was more down to his good and Hamilton's bad fortune than anything else.  Showed himself to be a good racer though.
Ricciardo - where did he come from?  Mr Consistency in an underperforming Red Bull (and certainly put Vettel in his place).  One to watch.
I just hope next season will produce better entertainment.

Over there...

I don't normally comment on matters outside these islands, but so many people have asked me for my views on the shooting in Ferguson USA, that I've decided to put my thoughts on record.  Obviously I don't live there and so am looking on matters as an outsider, but I don't know which disturbs me the most - that a policeman (and I think it is important to remember that he is in fact a member of the police force - protect and serve and all that) could shoot and kill an unarmed civilian simply because he felt physically threatened by him, or that the American public, through their grand jury system, have effectively said that such behaviour is acceptable.  I repeat, I don't live there and maybe if I did I would see things differently, but I hope I wouldn't.

Opening mouth before putting brain in gear?

Difficult to see the sense in the government's pledge to cut net migration into this country to "tens of thousands" - a target which they have finally admitted they have no hope of reaching - when everybody knows that the concept of free movement of people within the EU means that they have no say over the number of EU citizens coming here - or for that matter, leaving here.  Why pledge to do something over which you have no control?  Crazy!

What did I tell you??

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that the cost of benefits for pensioners is getting more and more expensive as there are more and more of us, and that we have been sheltered from the worst of the austerity cuts which the government has made over recent years.  Their report says that this is a problem we will have to face and there are only three answers - cutting the benefits we pensioners get, cutting the benefits and services that everybody else gets, or increasing taxation. Well, you read it here first - see my post of 4/7/08.

How fresh is fresh?

Article in the press about fish being sold in supermarkets as "fresh" which is anything up to 15 days old.  Dreadful. yes?  But perfectly legal - apparently you can officially call fish fresh provided it has been kept on ice since it was caught.  Can't help remembering when I had fish and chips once when on holiday by the seaside and was blown away by how delicious the fish tasted - I reckon it had been swimming in the sea just a few hours earlier!  Where I live is about as far away from the sea as you can get in this country, so I suppose we have to be glad of what we can get. 

When is too young?

There is a suggestion that a law will be passed making it an offence to leave a young child alone - only question seems to be at what age and for how long?  I'll put my cards on the table - I regularly leave my 9-year-old granddaughter alone in the house while I go to pick up another granddaughter from school - a 10 or so minute trip.  She (the 9-year-old) is a sensible child and knows not to answer the door or answer the 'phone, and although I lock her in, she knows where the front door key is should she need to get out of the house for any reason, and in those circumstances to go round next door.  So I feel I have covered all the bases.  You may ask why I don't take her with me, and the answer is I ask her every time, but she prefers to stay in the house. But it may be that I shall have to rethink this if indeed it becomes illegal to do what I do.  So when is too young, and how long is too long?  Once again we seem to be looking for a "one size fits all" solution to what is definitely not a one size fits all problem.  So much depends on the child - I reckon my 9-year-old could run rings round many kids three and four years older than she.  But she has a schoolfriend of the same age (slightly older in fact) who I most definitely would not trust to be on her own - a completely different character who would probably end up burning the house down or something!  And therein lies the problem with passing laws like this - in order to do good for what is probably a small minority you have to interfere with the lives of the majority who are not in fact those you are seeking to affect.  As somebody-or-other said "God save us from people who mean well"!

Crazy!!

Ofsted examined a primary school in Lincolnshire.  It got top marks all down the line, but Ofsted failed to give it an "outstanding" rating.  Why?  Because it was all white! There were no children there from any other culture.  No suggestion that this was in any way the school's fault, and its intake merely reflected the area it was in, but as Ofsted saw it the children there were denied "first-hand interaction with counterparts from different backgrounds", and this was sufficient to deny them the highest rating. So being white British is now somehow not good enough?

Most influential...

Somebody has created a list of the films and programmes that are said to have changed the world.  It may be a generational thing, but nowhere did I see "Cathy come home" which must be one of the most hard-hitting plays ever aired on television.  Instrumental in the creation of the charities Crisis and Shelter, it completely changed the public perception of homelessness.  Truly groundbreaking.

Elementary

A couple of years ago I was a little scathing about the above programme, which is the US's attempt to update Sherlock Holmes - and comparisons with our "Sherlock" were obvious.  Well I've been watching it regularly - it's now in its third season - and I have to say I really enjoy it.  The point is that it does not in fact put itself forward as any sort of rival to "Sherlock", but as something completely different. Its genius is that it decided to make "Watson" a woman - thus introducing an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two main characters.  Because American TV series tend to be much longer than ours - often upwards of 20 episodes - this relationship has had time to develop and has become the main driver of the programme.  I apologise - I was wrong.  It's really good.

Panic stations!

I don't know how to tell you this, but we're eating chocolate faster than it's being produced!  Yes, that's right - chocolate is running out and at the present rate in another five years or so, there'll be precious little to be had, and what there is will be ruinously expensive.  In fact, the signs are already there - have you noticed how those nice Christmas tins of chocolate sweets cost the same - or maybe a little more - than last year, but weigh less?  Thin end of the wedge, folks!

Ha ha

The inventor of predictive text has died.
His funfair will be hello on Sundial.

Made me smile!

Sliding...

The Financial Conduct Authority has taken steps to curb the perceived excesses of Wonga (see post dated 17/10/12) and their like.  So that's got to be a good thing, right?  Well, maybe, maybe not.  Those with some sort of credit rating - however poor - will be able to find alternative lenders, but for the desperate, the hopeless, where do they now go?  And the danger is that they will be forced to go down the pub to see "that bloke" who knows somebody...  And that bloke and his mate are most definitely not regulated by anybody. So would that be a move for the better?

Och aye!

Anybody else getting a bit fed up with Scotland?  They always did have an inflated sense of their own importance, but it's all becoming a bit much, isn't it?  And the thought of the SNP holding the balance of power at Westminster is truly disturbing!

Die Frau sagt "ja"

You know the flashing green man that tells you when it's safe to cross the road? Well Dortmund in Germany have decided that on the grounds of gender equality 50% of their green men should be replaced by green women.  What do you think?  Where does this go?  What about age equality, disability equality and of course race equality? How about having a picture of an old stooped man with a walking stick, a man or woman in a wheelchair, or a green figure with a brown face?  Stupid you may think - but is it any more stupid than what they intend to do?

Salt and vinegar?

Yesterday's post reminded me of another war story - WWII this time.  Don't know if it's true but I was told it by someone who was definitely part of the D-Day landings. He told me that it was accepted that in the immediate aftermath of the landings, there would be chaos and confusion, and so in order to be able to distinguish between friend and foe, you would shout out "fish".  If you got the response "chips" you would know you were safe - at least temporarily.

Stille Nacht...

The Sainsbury's Christmas advert is based on the story of how soldiers from both sides in World War I at Christmas time declared an unofficial truce and met in no-man's-land to exchange greetings and even to play a football match.  Gives you a good warm glow doesn't it?  So it might come as a bit of a shock to find that this was looked on with something like horror by the high commands of both sides. The idea of any sort of fraternisation with the enemy was seen in the official mind as somewhat akin to treason, and orders went out that there was to be no repeat of this type of behaviour.  Somewhat diminishes that good warm glow, doesn't it?

En garde!

What a funny to-do!  Go to Paris during the day, and you can take as many pictures of the Eiffel Tower from as many angles as you like.  But go back at night and you are not allowed to photograph it.  Why not?  Well the Tower itself is what is known as "in the public domain" and therefore fair game for anyone who wants to take its picture. But at night it is lit up, and this illumination constitutes an artistic work which cannot be reproduced (e.g. by photographing it) without the permission of the artist.  Of course this is theory - it is unlikely that you will be hauled off to be en taule just for taking a personal snap, but you have been warned!

What the....???!

So as anybody who follows this blog will know, I am an elderly man, on my own (sadly) and I don't go out much, but would have thought that if and when I do, I would not be seen as posing any sort of danger or threat.  But it appears that this is not so. A (private) park near Weston-super-Mare that caters for families has a policy of not admitting single adults - male or female.  This apparently is for fear of admitting paedophiles.  I would have assumed that this is just the extremist view of this particular park, but to my astonishment the director, in defending their policy, said that what they do is "in line with all other parks".  So this is a general thing? What a sad world we live in - and isn't this discrimination and quite possibly illegal?

Tricky...

Somewhat disturbing case involving a council who are seeking a payout from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in respect of a disabled child in their care. There seems little doubt that the child was born disabled as a result of the mother drinking heavily during pregnancy.  The council argue that this amounted to a crime under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 and therefore compensation is justified.  But English law has long held that an unborn child is not a "person" until it obtains an existence independent of the mother, and therefore cannot be offended against.  Few people I think would have much sympathy for the mother here, but the point is that, had she not been pregnant, she would have committed no offence by drinking as she did - so are we to have different laws for pregnant women?  Is behaviour which is generally accepted as OK to become criminal if you are pregnant? What about abortion??  And what if you don't know you're pregnant???

Lest we forget.

Particular poignancy this year as we commemorate the centenary of the start of World War One. Have you ever wondered just why the poppy is the symbol of remembrance for the war dead?  And you may be surprised to learn that although we make such a big thing of it, it didn't originate here. The inspiration came from a poem written in 1915 by a Canadian surgeon - I'm sure you all know the opening line - In Flanders fields the poppies blow between the crosses, row on row, that mark our place...  And after the war this prompted an American lady in 1920 to persuade the American Legion to adopt the poppy as their symbol of remembrance.  From there the idea spread to France and thence to here.  The Flanders poppy thrives on disturbed earth, and so was about the only plant to survive the destruction of the battlefields.

Leave us be!

I posted the other week about how the Black Country and Birmingham see themselves as fundamentally different from each other.  And now, shock horror, there is this idea of bundling the two together - and even including Solihull and Coventry - and calling the whole thing "Greater Birmingham".  Can't see that going down well. And to what end?  We already have the West Midlands which covers much the same area.  The argument seems to be that when you're dealing with people abroad, the Black Country means nothing to them, whereas they know about Birmingham.  But is that worth losing our identity for?  Surely what matters is the quality of what is produced, rather than where it is produced?

Pigeons roosting?

Back in 2005 on what was then my separate blog for matters musical, I posted about the dangers of Radio 3 trying to ape Classic FM.  I suggested that, as a non-commercial station, they should not see ratings as the be-all and end-all, but should concentrate on giving their core audience what they wanted.  Well, it doesn't seem they listened, because their audience figures are falling, and they are being accused of "dumbing down" their output.  Perhaps they're just going through a bad patch but it would be a tragedy if Radio 3 were to be seen as failing.  I'm a Classic FM listener personally, but classical music gets little enough airtime anyway and it covers a wide spectrum which extends well beyond the Classic FM output, and I'm sure there are plenty of those who are into the heavyweight and avant-garde stuff and it is to them that Radio 3 should be speaking.

Remember, remember (conclusion)

The gunpowder is there (some of it had decayed but was replaced), and Guy Fawkes is there ready to light it, so why didn't it work?  Well one Lord Monteagle received an anonymous letter advising him not to attend the opening of parliament because "God and man hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time" and "they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament".  Monteagle passed the letter on to Robert Cecil - the King's spymaster, who had already heared rumours of a plot.  As a result the buildings around parliament were searched and Fawkes and the gunpowder discovered, But the idea that he was discovered match in hand as it were is false. When he was found he first spun the soldiers some sort of yarn and they went away for further instructions. At this point it seems Fawkes could have made his escape, but stayed at his post and was eventually arrested when a search party returned. The rest as they say is history, except a little known fact is that when Fawkes was taken to the gallows to be hanged drawn and quartered, he threw himself headlong off the scaffold and the fall broke his neck thus saving himself the agony which he would have had to endure.  It was never discovered who wrote the "Monteagle letter" and modern thought is that it was probably written by Cecil himself to justify investigating people who he was already suspicious of being Catholic conspirators. To this day the cellars under the Houses of Parliament are ceremonially searched before the State Opening.

Remember, remember (continued)

So James is on the throne, and in general English Catholics are pleased.  The hope was that he would - if not actually break his promise - at least sympathise with their cause.  And at least initially it seemed that was how it was going to be.  Early Catholic plotters were pardoned and exiled rather than executed.  But James (who remember was also King of Scotland) became more involved with the possibility of a union between the two countries and less concerned with purely English politics.  It wasn't long before Catholics were once again being persecuted as badly - if not worse - than before. What was to become the Gunpowder Plot had its origins in a meeting at Robert Catesby's house in London in February 1604 (James had been on the throne for less than 12 months at this time) where the possibility of blowing up the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament was discussed. At what point it developed from discussion into intent is not clear but three months later at a further meeting at a London pub, the conspirators swore a sacred oath and started making plans. The idea was that if James and the majority of the Lords were killed, the conspirators could put James's 9-year-old daughter Elizabeth on the throne and effectively reign as her regents.  They amassed a large quantity of gunpowder which they stockpiled in a room they had rented which was right underneath the House of Lords and engaged Guy Fawkes (who, despite being known as Guido, was in fact English) to do the deed.  What could possibly go wrong?  That's for part 3.

Remember, remember...

So Guy Fawkes night - we all know the story.  Or do we??  It seems to me that what I was taught as a child, and it seems what schoolchildren are still being taught, is a very simplified and to a certain extent, sanitised version of what took place.  This may take more than one post, so here goes - part 1. It's all down to Queen Elizabeth The First - the "virgin queen".  Most unlikely that she was a virgin, but she certainly never married and died childless (at least officially) so on her death, the throne of England would be up for grabs.  The memory of her predecessor's reign (Mary I, known as Bloody Mary for her persecution of Protestants) was still fresh in many people's minds, and so the fact that all three of the obvious contenders for the throne were Catholics (or at the very least Catholic sympathisers) was a problem - to put it mildly. Arguably the one with the best claim was James, son of Mary, Queen of Scots, who was Elizabeth's cousin and would have been the obvious successor, had she not been executed for treason years earlier.  In the months before Elizabeth died, the government negotiated with James, and apparently got assurances from him that he would reign as religiously neutral, and leave such matters to parliament to deal with. On this basis he was offered the throne. He was already King of Scotland - then an independent country - so he became James I of England, whilst still being James VI of Scotland,  And here endeth part 1.

Too much information?

Apparently I am to get a personalised breakdown of how what I pay in tax is used - as indeed are all of you.  I think the idea is that being told that we as a country spend (say) £500bn a year on something or other just goes straight over most people's heads, whereas we can relate better to being told that we personally have spent (say) £273 over the last year on the same thing.  But is this asking for trouble?  You may remember at the height of the CND movement's popularity, many people tried to withhold part of their tax on the basis that they shouldn't have to pay towards something (nuclear armament) of which they personally disapproved. The establishment's counter-argument was that you didn't pay tax for specific purposes - you paid tax, full stop, and it was up to the government of the day to decide how it should be used.  So are we now in danger of people looking at these personal tax statements and saying something like "I pay £150 a year for (here insert your personal bête noire)!!?  Well, not any more I'm not!

Pay me, pay me.

I refer back to my post of 28th May and the idea which found favour with the European Court that those who work on commission should be paid "theoretical" commission when they are on holiday.  I suggested that it was a barmy idea, but it has now turned into a dangerous one.  There are two cases pending before Industrial Tribunals where workers who regularly work overtime, or who get extra pay for working unsocial hours are now claiming that when they are on holiday they should continue to be paid the same as when they are at work - in other words paid for overtime which they don't do or unsocial hours which they don't work - and the tribunals may well feel they are bound by the European Court judgment and find in their favour.  So stupidity breeds stupidity!

Real??

A statue called "A Real Birmingham Family" has been unveiled outside the city's new library.  It portrays two young women - one of them heavily pregnant - each holding a child by the hand.  It is based on a pair of real sisters, who are single mothers, and their respective sons.  The sculptor, a Turner prize-winner, says that her intention was to show that "a nuclear family is one reality but it is one of many and this work celebrates the idea that what constitutes a family should not be fixed."  I am in two minds about it - first of all let me say that it's a good piece of work - it's a good likeness of the sisters and their children, and she (the sculptor) has resisted the temptation to do something pretentious or clever-clever which so often seems to be the norm for works of art these days.  But - but, but, but...  is this in fact just a feminist statement?  Is it saying that dads don't count, don't matter? If it had been called A Birmingham Family I would have no issue with it, but A Real Birmingham Family?  I suppose the argument would be that such families do exist and therefore it is simply reflecting reality, but the word Real in the title seems to me to be implying that a family without a father is somehow more worthwhile, more commendable and that I find disturbing.  

They seek him (or her) here...

So first it was Baroness Butler-Sloss who was hounded out as the head of the inquiry into "historical child sex abuse" and now her replacement Fiona Woolf has gone the same way.  Is this, as many would have it, a Home Office shambles, or is it rather more that those representing the purported victims are so insistent that there has been an organised cover-up that nobody with any sort of connection to the "establishment" - past or present - will satisfy them?  In which case, it will be difficult to come up with anyone of sufficient status and dignity such as will be necessary to give the eventual report credence who will not be seen as an establishment figure, or who will not have had some contact with someone which might be considered as calling into question their impartiality.  So good luck with that!

Sooner or later...

Once again we have an official report saying that dragging drug-users before the courts and fining or imprisoning them is a waste of money and has little or no effect on levels of addiction, and that drug-taking should be treated as a health issue - not as a crime.  And once again the government - as successive governments have done in the past - is trying to push the issue into the long grass, in the hope that it will eventually go away.  I've had my say - I believe you could pretty well eliminate drug-related crime "at a stroke" by making drugs freely available - yes, the number of people using drugs might increase as a result, but the advantages to society would massively outweigh any problems this might cause.  I'm afraid this is one of those areas where fear of the Daily-Mail-readers-backlash has been allowed to trump common sense.