Don't understand.

It is obviously right and proper that Shaker Aamer, who has finally been released from Guantanamo Bay after being imprisoned there without charge or trial for nearly 14 years, should receive compensation for what he's been through.  But why should it be the British taxpayer who foots the bill?  As I understand it, he was captured, arrested or whatever by the Americans, Guantanamo Bay is an American prison and it is solely down to the Americans that he has not been released until now.  So why are we paying?  

Ha ha

Why do Marxists only drink horrible tea?
- because all proper tea is theft!

Ve haf vays...??

The make-up of police forces should reflect the communities they serve, says the Home Secretary.  In particular, she says that the number of black officers is "simply not good enough".  But there's an underlying assumption there that people can be forced into particular jobs.  If black and Asian people don't want to become police officers in sufficient numbers to satisfy whatever quota is acceptable to the Home Secretary, what then?

G & T in peril!

Bad news for us drinkers - a fungal disease is killing off juniper plants in Scotland.  A 2015 report has found that something like 80% of plants are in a bad way.  Why the concern? Well Juniper plants produce juniper berries, and juniper berries are what gives gin its distinctive flavour.  You can get the berries from elsewhere in the world, but aficionados reckon Scottish berries are best.   

Rules of the game?

When I was at school we played "rugger" ('cause we had pretensions to being a "posh" school), but we did at times play football, and my recollection is that we were taught that the only physical contact allowed above the waist was a shoulder to shoulder charge.  So why was Coloccini sent off in the Sunderland v Newcastle match at the weekend for shoulder-charging an opponent?  Have they changed the rules, or what?  And just to be clear - I have no interest in either team and thus no axe to grind.  Regular readers will know I support Wolves (Gawd 'elp me).

Sorry??

It is said that Tony Blair has finally apologised for the Iraq war.  But has he?  It's all to do with an interview which he has given to CNN in America.  The interview has not yet been aired, but a transcript of it has been put out.  He's said that he's sorry "for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong".  And yet, that's not the question that I at least want him to address.  The question is - did he know (or even suspect) that it was wrong?  Did he mislead Parliament - and us - by presenting as fact things that he knew to be untrue, or at best dodgy?  And his apology comes nowhere near to answering that question.

Can you work it out?

For various reasons I needed to know when half-term week would be in October next year.  And I had a thought - I picked a holiday cottage at random from a well-known site and looked at the prices for a week in October 2016.  Here's what I found -
W/B 3rd October - £846
W/B 10th October - £845
W/B 17th October - £825
W/B 24th October - £1387
W/B 31st October - £836
I wonder which is half-term week??

There you are - see?

So a Subway foot-long is now going to be a genuine 12 inches (see post dated 27/1/13) and apparently the counter-staff are going to be provided with rulers to prove it, if necessary.

Well I never!!

I think we should inaugurate a prize for the most "un-news" news story - that is to say a story which is doing no more than telling us what everybody already knows - stating the bleedin' obvious as it were.  So, I offer this as a starter for ten - "Bookmakers are refusing to take bets from successful gamblers".  Yeh, and Queen Victoria's dead.

Rugby Union

Do we feel sorry for the Scots, who were leading Australia in a World Cup quarter-final with a couple of minutes to go only to be undone by a dodgy penalty decision which resulted in a one-point victory for the Aussies?  Oh, come on - they're Scots!!  But were they robbed, as some of them insist? The late great Bill McLaren (himself a Scot), who was the BBC commentator on rugby matches from the 1950s right through until the turn of the century was wont, when referring to a controversial decision, to recite Law 6.A.4.(a) of the rules of the game: "The referee is the sole judge of fact", or as it has otherwise been put - the referee is always right, even when he's wrong. So no, they weren't robbed - just unlucky,

Bizniz in't it?

There's a corner-shop I regularly visit.  I'm not that keen on the family that run it, for various reasons. I certainly wouldn't fancy them as next-door neighbours, but as shopkeepers they are the bees' knees. Can't ask for the wrong thing and if they haven't got it, they will get it for you, and their prices are lower than most of the competition.  Why am I telling you this?  Well the government is coming under fire for cosying up to China - we want to make them one of our main trading partners, but of course their "human rights" record leaves a lot to be desired, and in many people's opinion this means that we should have nothing to do with them.  But should I stop patronising that corner-shop because those running it are not particularly nice people (as I see it anyway).  Should I go elsewhere and pay more for an inferior service?  No - their worth as traders and their worth as human beings are quite separate.  I often find in arguments such as these that it pays to look at the situation the other way round - if a delightful family were to open a shop charging over the odds and with a "sorry, we don't stock that" approach, would I shop there just because they are so nice?  Let's be serious - if trading with China is advantageous, let's go for it - we don't have to be best friends.

Each to his own.

I think I've mentioned before that, many years ago, I took a course in Indian cookery, and one of the recurring ingredients was coriander.  I used to get it in bunches from a local Asian supermarket, and my wife and I would spend a happy half-hour or so at the kitchen table stripping the leaves from the stems ready for use. But it appears that everybody is not a fan - there are those it seems who have a particular genetic mutation which means that for them the herb taste nasty - somewhat like soap.  Pret A Manger, the high street sandwich shop has come under fire for its liberal use of what is described by these people as "the devil's herb".  The Americans of course call it cilantro, but I don't think that helps.  You either like it or you don't.  Presumably the Indians do?

Hmmm...

I still think on balance that we are better off inside the EU than we would be if we left it, but for me the margin is getting narrower.  In particular, the shambolic response (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, lack of response) to the problem of all these immigrants seeking to enter the EU calls into question the extent to which there is any real "unity" in the Union.  It's turned into an "every country for itself" situation. Where's the leadership?  Where's the policy?  Perhaps we're not in the best position to be critical, given that we deliberately opted out of the Schengen Agreement, but you have to start asking what is the point of the European Union if the countries it comprises can go their own way when it suits them. 

Sauce for the goose?

The DPP is coming in for heavy criticism over "Operation Elveden" - this was an investigation into journalists (almost all from the Sun and the now-defunct News of the World) paying public officials for confidential information which was then used to publish "exclusives" in their papers.  Why the criticism?  Well of the 29 prosecutions brought against journalists, only one resulted in a conviction, so she is being accused of wasting a significant amount of public money pursuing journalists who, as they saw it, were merely "doing their job". But at the same time, 26 public officials have been convicted under essentially the same evidence for taking the money.  And I find it difficult to get my head round the idea that accepting money for confidential information is an offence, but offering that money is not.  Surely inciting someone to break the law is itself an offence?  Or are journalists somehow a special case?

Explanation

For those who didn't get Wednesday's joke, I refer you to my post under the title "Why 10 isn't really a number" on 2nd December 2014.

Just have to deal with it...

So it's finally happened - 5p for a supermarket plastic bag.  I've had my say about that, and I won't bore you by repeating what I think about it.  Some people have taken to nicking baskets or even trollies - can't really see that these would be much use to them in the long run, so I think it must be people just doing it to get their own back on the supermarkets - which is a bit silly as it's not the supermarkets' fault.  In fact I was talking to a checkout operator the other day who said that they're not that happy about it - it's causing them a lot of hassle, and slowing down the whole checkout procedure while customers sort out the bags they've brought with them.  Ah well, it was just a matter of time...

Far too sensible!

One of the repeating themes on this blog is the absurdity of the so-called "war on drugs", which costs big money, ties up a lot of law-enforcement manpower, and has little effect on the extent of the supply and consumption of drugs.  All it does is make it a more profitable enterprise for the criminals who control the supply and distribution chain.  And now we have an official Treasury report saying that legalising and regulating cannabis would save millions of pounds in court costs and police time, and potentially raise millions more in revenue.  Will anybody listen?  What do you think?

Ha ha

There are only 10 types of people in this world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Hello, titch!

So Pluto is very much in the news at the moment following the pictures and data provided by the NASA space probe New Horizons.  But is it a planet?  It was considered so when it was first discovered in 1930, but in 2006 the International Astronomical Union reclassified it as a "dwarf planet" - a category which had not existed before then,  But why did they do it?  It seemed a bit mean-spirited at the time I seem to remember.  However it is now clear that the decision was taken on purely practical grounds.  Advances in space detection meant that new bodies were regularly being discovered in the outer reaches of the solar system, many of which were as big, or bigger than Pluto. And of course if Pluto was to be considered as a planet, these would also have to be similarly classified.  And it's bad enough having to remember eight planets - imagine having to cope with three or four times that number!  So by designating these as dwarf planets, it keeps the number of "proper" planets within reasonable bounds. 

That's a lo-o-o-o-ng time!

Question - why, when talking about radio-active material decaying, do we refer to "half-life"?  Why half??  Well, do you remember when we were discussing Zeno's paradoxes?  It's a bit like that - suppose you have 100g of uranium 235, which has a half-life of 700 million years.  This means that in 700 million years time there will only be 50g of it still active.  Another 700 million years after that, it will be down to 25g and so on.  And of course Zeno tells us that halving the amount like this every 700 million years means that we shall never reach zero - there is no such thing in decay terms as a "full-life", or more to the point, the time it will take our uranium 235 to completely decay is infinite.

No more money?

Yet another "NHS crisis" - we seem to stagger from one to the next.  We've talked about this before - the NHS is a financial black hole.  However much money you give it, it will never be enough.  As the overall health of the nation improves, so we expect more from our health service.  And then, we are living longer with all the health implications which go with that.  I've said it before - I think we need to decide just how much money we are prepared to give the NHS, just what they can provide with that money, and we have to accept that that is all we can expect unless we are prepared to take out private insurance to cover anything extra.  Not easy - not easy at all, but the much-vaunted "free at the point of delivery" mantra cannot disguise the fact that the NHS costs, and costs massively.  I think sometimes that tends to be forgotten.

If s/he said it, it must be true??

If I go into a police station and make an allegation - of historic sexual abuse or anything else - should I be believed? Not automatically, no!  I should be listened to, and what I say should be noted but at this stage my allegations are just that.  The police should then investigate what I have told them and look for evidence which either supports my claims or contradicts them.  But this idea that anyone who comes forward with allegations of historic sexual abuse must be assumed to be telling the truth is just plain wrong.  It isn't a question of belief or non-belief - it's a question of evidence, or the lack of it.  Policemen are human and will have their own prejudices and form their own conclusions, but if they're doing their job properly they should keep these to themselves and carry out an unbiased investigation.

Farewell to...

...New Tricks.  As it was apparently the last ever, I watched it last Monday.  Bit like going to see an old friend on his death-bed. I hardly recognised him and we hadn't got much to say to each other. And I felt really down.  So many good memories and so many regrets.  Sad...

Papaya!

Believe it or not, there is a village in Cornwall called Minions.  Too good an opportunity to miss, eh? Universal Studios, who produced the film of that name paid to have the roadsign announcing that you were entering the village redone so that it featured some of the Minions characters and had the village's name spelled out in the font used to advertise the film.  The council have now taken it down and replaced it with the old standard sign, maintaining that it was only ever meant to be temporary. Some of the villagers - particularly those reliant on visitors - are demanding its reinstatement.  Given that Cornwall relies so heavily on tourism, I would have though this was a no-brainer, but the council have quoted (surprise, surprise) health and safety issues caused by motorists stopping to have their pictures taken by the sign.  I would have thought that a compromise would be to erect the sign somewhere else in the village where it would not be a hazard, and people could still come and see it and have their pictures taken.  Will commonsense prevail?

Will they accept a bus pass?

Prostitution is a risky and potentially dangerous business these days, so ten out of ten for ingenuity to a group of ladies who conduct their business in a motorhome which tours around in the Manchester area.  Keeps them dry and warm and relatively safe - everyone's a winner?

I was on holiday, for heaven's sake!

Unless you are teetotal, I imagine most of you, when on holiday like to have a few drinks- probably more than you would have had at home.  I certainly do.  So it comes as a shock to find that some travel insurance policies are starting to appear with clauses that state that if the insured is drunk at the time of the incident giving rise to a claim, they will not pay out.  Of course the problem is - define drunk.  It's obviously aimed at the Magaluf types who get paralytic and then fall over and hurt themselves, but it could just as easily catch out the holiday maker who's had a few glasses of wine and has a completely unrelated accident.  Just to compound the problem, these clauses about drink most often appear in the "small print" so you can be blissfully unaware of them until your claim is refused.  If insurance companies are going to do this sort of thing, then they should be required to highlight it so that any prospective client who accepts the policy does so in the full knowledge that such a restriction applies.

Mixed message?

Rather strange to hear Jeremy Corbyn say in his speech to the Labour Party's Conference that "you don't have to take what you're given", because under a government run by him, that's exactly what you would have to do. A Corbyn government would be all about control, nationalisation, five-year plans and the like. Socialism is based on the principle that the government decides what's what, and the public has no choice but to go along with it.  Indeed, choice is somewhat of a dirty word as far as socialism is concerned - decisions should be made on the basis of what is deemed to be best for society as a whole, rather than on individual preferences.  I wonder if he appreciated the irony?

Pick a card, any card...

Take a pack of cards and shuffle it.  Just an ordinary, everyday activity, and yet you've probably just made history.  The particular arrangement of cards you've ended up with has almost certainly never been seen before.  What am I on about? Well refer back to my posts under the title "How many?" in November and  December 2008 and you will I hope see that the number of ways a pack of cards can end up after a random shuffle is 52! - that is, factorial 52.  Now that's an enormous number
 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 to be exact.  And this is far, far greater than the number of seconds since the earth came into being, so you can see why every shuffle can be considered unique.  In fact, it's not quite as simple as that, because the way most people shuffle cards (the riffle shuffle) is not really random, but will still produce at least 4,503,599,627,370,496 different results and doing it more than once, as most of us do, will quickly produce a number greater than the age of the earth. So like I say, you've almost certainly made history.

Back to British Rail?

Difficult to understand how anyone old enough - as Jeremy Corbyn is - to remember when the railways were nationalised, would want to go back to that system.  Not that privatisation has been an unqualified success, but it's certainly an improvement, if only marginally, on what went before. The problem with nationalisation is that when you take something into public ownership so that theoretically it belongs to all of us, the reality is that everybody leaves worrying about the running of it to everybody else (or more accurately, to the government, who have usually more pressing things on their mind) with the result that nothing much gets done and whatever it is just bumbles along in the most inefficient way - at least with privatisation, there are shareholders with a vested financial interest to kick up a fuss if things are not going well.

A nice place to live.

There's a lovely little curiosity not far from where I live - the village of Bournville. Yes, I'm sure you associate the name with Cadbury's chocolate, and you're right. Back in the late 1800s, George Cadbury, one of two brothers running the chocolate factory founded by his father was so appalled by the slum conditions many of his workers were living in in Birmingham that he decided to build houses for them in the countryside outside the city, and Bournville was born.  So it is a "model" village - planned from the word go and as such has developed a very closed community feel. There is a Village Trust which exercises quite close control over what residents can and can't do.  You won't see TV aerials there for instance - they're banned.  I remember many years ago visiting relatives of my wife who lived there, and asking what the strange black box next to their television was, to be told that it was their cable connection to the village's one and only aerial.  Cable TV years before the expression became commonplace!  I often wonder how these days they cope with the question of satellite dishes.  The other big thing is that, as the Cadbury family were Quakers, there are no pubs, and indeed the sale of alcohol is banned within the village.  There have been several attempts to change this, but it appears that those who live there rather like the fact that they're different and want to keep it that way. They can, of course, buy their booze outside the village and drink it at home.

Gotcha??

How do the police get away with flouting the law?  Seems incredible, doesn't it? What's brought this on? Well Humberside police have started using handheld speed cameras concealed in tractors and horseboxes and such on a particular stretch of road where there have been a lot of accidents involving motorcycles..  The Department of Transport say that "vehicles from which mobile speed cameras are deployed should be liveried and clearly identifiable as an enforcement vehicle."  You can argue that what the police are doing is in the interests of road safety, but what about the DoT regulations?  And here's the catch - the police maintain that what the Department put out are merely "guidelines" which they are at liberty to ignore if they wish.  Of course we've been down this line before, more than once in fact - what should be the purpose of enforcement cameras, to catch those breaking the law, or by advertising their presence, prevent them doing so?  Answers on a postcard - to Humberside police.