What's the point?

Strange move by the Conservatives, who are promising to pass a law prohibiting any rise in Income tax, VAT or National Insurance over the next parliament.  This of course is if they form the next government - but why?  Firstly as has been said before, the basic constitutional position is that parliament cannot bind itself - anything parliament can do, parliament can subsequently undo, so does it really mean anything?  And then why paint yourself into a corner?  Suppose we have another Lehman Brothers situation coming out of the blue - if you can't raise taxes and you are opposed in principle to borrowing, how are you going to deal with that?  Smacks a bit of meaningless posturing I think.

Can't be too careful?

You know those brightly-coloured plastic guns that fire sorbo-rubber darts?  Kids love 'em.  But there's a time and place for everything.  A four-year-old boy going on holiday with his parents was stopped by security at East Midlands airport when such an article was found in his hand luggage.  It was confiscated and he was subjected to a body search.  So was this, as the parents maintained, a pathetic over-reaction by the security personnel, or was it an act of stupidity by the parents in allowing their son to attempt to take such an article onto a plane.  Bit of both, I think...

Sounds good, but...

We have to accept that the urge to regulate is hard-wired into Labour's DNA.  The problem is that if you give advance warning of how you intend to regulate what, you are simply giving those that will be regulated the opportunity to get ahead of the game.  We've seen it with the promise to freeze energy prices, which has resulted in consumers not getting anywhere near the full benefit of falling oil prices, because energy firms are wary of cutting their prices and then finding that they can't increase them when the price of oil recovers - as it will.  And now we have this idea of capping the amount by which landlords can increase rents - which of course will simply mean that landlords will factor that into the rent they charge initially, which will inevitably be higher that it otherwise would have been.  People aren't stupid!

Put your dolly down, we need to talk...

There's a story of a nursery school (note that - nursery school) in London where would-be pupils must sign (again I stress, this is a nursery - 3 and 4-year-olds) a document promising not to use racist or homophobic or transphobic language in school.  So, two things - do the school powers-that-be really think children of that age are capable of understanding such concepts?  As one mother put it "How am I meant to explain to my three-year-old that he must sign on the dotted line not to do something which he is not even aware exists when he can barely hold a crayon?" Crazy, yes??  But I have another issue which goes beyond the stupidity of this particular school, and it's this use of the suffix "-phobia" to mean something which it doesn't mean.  Phobia is the fear of something whereas its use in words like "homophobia" has little or nothing to do with fear, but is meant to indicate dislike or even hatred.  Sloppy use of language, and given that "homo" means "same" (see 10/1/07) if homophobia means anything at all it means - fear of the same.  And where the hell did "transphobia" come from? Fear of the beyond??  Is this simply a case of disguising a shameful and unpleasant concept behind impenetrable language?

The things that you're liable to read in the Bible...

Friday's post reminded me of another "fascinating fact" about the Garden of Eden story.  Did you know that, according to some versions of the Book of Genesis, Eve was Adam's second wife?  This version of the story has God originally creating man and woman simultaneously out of the dust and the woman's name was Lilith.  But Adam and Lilith didn't get on and were continually rowing - not least about having sex.  Lilith objected to Adam's contention that the only "proper" way to do it was in the missionary position, which she felt smacked of subservience (the original feminist?).  Eventually she got fed up and left, and this is the point at which Adam asked God for "an help meet" and God created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs.  I'm sure there's a moral there somewhere!

Doing the wrong thing for the right reason?

Last October I expressed my agreement with our government's decision to stop supporting the rescue operations in the Med - the theory being that if they knew there was less chance of rescue if they got into trouble, the would-be migrants wouldn't be so keen to set off.  Well, we got that wrong, didn't we?  So what do we do now?  It's been suggested that we destroy the smugglers' boats - but I think that may be simply repeating our mistake.  If these people are so desperate to leave Africa and get to Europe then they're going to use whatever means they can - so maybe this would simply mean forcing them onto even less seaworthy craft with an even greater probability of dying at sea.  The problem of course lies with the conditions from which they are seeking to escape in their native countries, but whether we can do anything about that is doubtful - certainly not in the short term.  It's a real mess!

Naughty Eve!

Did you know that nowhere in the Bible does it say that the "forbidden fruit" which Adam and Eve ate, and which resulted in them being expelled from the Garden of Eden, was an apple? Indeed at one point in the Genesis story God tells Adam that he can eat the fruit of any tree which has seeds in it, and apples of course have seeds. So how did it become an apple in common mythology?  Well, probably a translator's error.  The tree is described as being The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and in Latin, evil is malum and apple is (you've guessed it) also malum.  And there you have it.

A rare bit?

Whilst on holiday we went for a pub lunch, and on the menu was Welsh Rarebit, and that got me thinking,  Firstly, when I was a lad it was called Welsh Rabbit - where did rarebit come from? And of course it's just a variant of cheese on toast so why rabbit? There don't seem to be any definitive answers, although it seems that it was indeed originally rabbit and rarebit is a sort of "gentrification" of the name.  The suggestion is that at one time "Welsh" was used to mean inferior, second-class and so Welsh Rabbit was something you could eat when the real thing - rabbit - wasn't available.  And then the Welsh have always had a thing for cheese, it seems. There's a story that Heaven was becoming overcrowded, so St Peter went outside and shouted "caws pobi" (welsh for toasted cheese) whereupon all the Welsh dashed outside and St Peter locked the gates shutting them outside. Anyway. Welsh Rabbit or rarebit is made with a thick sauce of cheese, butter, mustard, flour and beer which is poured over slices of toast and grilled, and is delicious.

Tick tock - more info.

Back in January I mentioned the idea of a game clock for football matches - a clock which measures actual play time, so there would be no point in dilly-dallying about taking that goal kick or throw-in because the clock wouldn't start running again until you did put the ball back in to play.  The question I left in the air was - how long should a match governed by a game clock last?  Well I came across an American site recently which has done some research on this and found that in football (soccer) you get about 33 minutes actual play for every hour that passes.   So that would suggest a game clock match should last about 25 minutes each way.  It is of course an American site but I can't imagine their matches differ much from ours.  The statistic on that site which really did surprise me is that in tennis according to them you only get about 10 minutes actual action per hour!

Music Man

At the beginning of every year Classic FM ask their listeners to choose their three favourite pieces of music and send them in.  They then count and collate what they have been sent, and produce their "Hall Of Fame" which is broadcast around the Easter weekend.  And this year, as last year, the Number One slot has gone to "The Lark Ascending" by Vaughan Williams.  And this year, as last year, I have to confess to being somewhat baffled at the choice.  I'm not knocking the piece or the composer - although as I think I've mentioned before, I find it difficult to warm to Vaughan Williams - but other than as "music to iron by" I just can't see why this piece is so popular.  As I once heard someone down London way say "That lark don't 'arf take a bleedin' long time to ascend!"  And that's it really - the music doesn't seem to go anywhere.  Nice enough, but nothing to stir the blood.  

Damned clever, these Scots!

You have to bear in mind that the main objective of the SNP - their raison d'être - is an independent Scotland.  Having failed to achieve that by means of a referendum of the Scottish people, their clear plan it seems to me is now to so irritate and provoke the English (and perhaps to a lesser extent the Welsh) that we decide to cast them adrift - so attaining their goal by the back door as it were. And if that's how it works out, it will at least have been our decision.

I can say yes, but not no?

In Cardiff, it seems, posters have started to appear saying "Don't vote".  They are aimed at Muslims, and their premise is that "none have the right to legislate except Allah" and that therefore voting offends against the tenets of  Islam.  The council have said they will remove them - why??  The fact that I - and I imagine most people - do not agree with the sentiments being expressed is really neither here nor there.  If I can put up a poster saying "Vote for Joe Bloggs", then why not a poster saying "Don't vote at all"?  Unless there is something in election law that I am unaware of, I can't see the distinction.  Just because I - or you - disapprove of something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Cheryl's birthday (see 15th April)

OK - here we go.  Remember, Albert knows what month it is and Bernard knows what date it is. Albert's first statement is that he doesn't know her birthday, but he knows that Bernard doesn't know either.  This tells Bernard that the month cannot be May or June - because as far as Albert knows, Bernard may have been given the 18th or 19th as the date.  It therefore follows that the month is July or August. So Bernard (who knows the date) now declares he knows her birthday.  Albert (who knows the month) can now work out that the date can't be the 14th (because if it was, Bernard wouldn't know if it was July 14th or August 14th) so her birthday must be July 16th. Easy when you know how, isn't it - or is it??

Ha ha.

A photon walks into a hotel and books a room.  The receptionist gives him his room-key and says "Can we help you with your luggage?"  "No, thank you" says the photon "I'm travelling light".

Aargh!!

There's still three weeks to go, and I am thoroughly sick of all the pre-election posturing and back-biting that's going on.  Every day someone makes some arrogant self-serving speech or says something really nasty about some other party.  I'm fed up with it all. I decided my voting strategy months ago and I cannot think of anything that anyone could (or perhaps more to the point, is likely to) say now which would change that. It's getting to the stage where I think twice before turning the television on.  I wish I could hibernate for the next three weeks!

Happy birthday...?

Have you seen this question which was set in an exam for 14-year-olds in Singapore? It goes like this-

Albert and Bernard just became friends with Cheryl, and they want to know when her birthday is. Cheryl gives them a list of 10 possible dates.

May 15 May 16 May 19

June 17 June 18

July 14 July 16

August 14 August 15 August 17

Cheryl then tells Albert and Bernard separately the month and the day of her birthday respectively.

Albert: I don’t know when Cheryl’s birthday is, but I know that Bernard does not know too.

Bernard: At first I didn’t know when Cheryl’s birthday is, but I know now.

Albert: Then I also know when Cheryl’s birthday is.

So when is Cheryl’s birthday?

This is for 14-year-olds??!  See if you can work it out.

Ouch!!

One of those things which "everybody knows" is that if a bee stings you, it dies. And like most of the things which "everybody knows" it ain't so.  Unless you're a bee-keeper, or live close to someone who is, when you think "bee" you almost certainly picture the fat, fuzzy black and yellow creature which you see flitting from flower to flower in your garden.  This is a bumblebee and this can sting you with no ill-effects to itself.  If you do live close to any hives, you may see what you might think is a wasp - a thinner, longer black and orange striped creature.  This is a honey bee, which as the name suggests spends most of its life in the hive making honey. This is the one which, if it stings you, will leave the sting, together with some of its innards in you as it flies away, and will die.  By the way, only females sting!

Depends on which way you look at it...

Brighton and Hove council have a plan to reduce their parking charges during the summer on rainy days.  A welcome approach even if one can foresee significant practical problems.  But what was the headline in one of the papers?  "Tourists to be charged more for parking on sunny days"!!

Oh dear!

Shame about Rocky Creek - silly system it may be, but I thought it had come up with a real possibility this time - certainly with bookies paying for up to fifth place, I would have expected an each-way bet to show some dividend.  Oh well, on to next year...

Ho hi, ho hi...

...we're back.  Good week weatherwise and a nice property in Cromer a spit away from the seafront. Drank too much, but that's holiday, isn't it?  Cromer very much an old-fashioned seaside resort - no McDonalds, no Starbucks, no KFC - makes a nice change. And my crazy system pick for today's Grand National is Rocky Creek.  Good luck everybody.

Hi ho, hi ho...

...off for our usual Easter holiday.  See you in a week.

Are you working today?

Zero-hours contracts in the news at the moment due to Labour having somewhat demonised them as part of their pre-election strategy.  So - good or bad?  Or both?? Three of my grandchildren are currently doing work on a zero-hours basis, and they find it a useful way of earning some money whilst continuing at school, or in one case University.  Nothing new there - kids have been doing "Saturday jobs" or "holiday jobs" since forever - calling them zero-hours contracts doesn't alter the basic idea. Of course if you're an adult working to support yourself - or even more so, a family - things might look very different.  But as one such said to me recently "A zero-hours job is better than no job at all".  And yet someone else retorted "At least on the dole you have a regular 'income' - there's nothing worse than not knowing when the next pay packet will be or how much it will be".  So there's two different viewpoints. What I do think is bad is when employers take people on on a zero-hours exclusivity contract - where you can't do work for anybody else and where when they want you to work you are bound to comply or get the sack.  That I think goes too far and I would be in favour of outlawing those, but otherwise I wouldn't interfere - it's a matter for individuals to decide for themselves if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, or vice versa.

Appropriate or what??

I really liked this one - David Warren, the Australian who developed the "black box" flight recorders which all commercial aircraft now carry, was buried in a coffin which bore a label saying "Flight Recorder Inventor.  Do Not Open."

They're potatoes, aren't they?

"One in 20 parents mistakenly believe that a packet of crisps counts towards their kids' 'five-a-day' items of fruit or veg, reveals a new survey."  Oh, come on - of course they do!  It's like snacks don't count if you eat them standing up, or you don't count the calories of anything you eat off someone else's plate.  Everybody knows that!!