A plague on both...

I suppose I should say something about the current contest for the leadership of the Conservative party.  Except that I can't find anything worthwhile to say.  It looks as though we're going to get Boris, like it or not, but I'm not that taken with Hunt either,  My choice would have been Sajid Javid - purely on the basis that I think a Muslim (even a non-practicing one) Prime Minister would have sent a very strong and significant signal to the country, and indeed to the world.  Ah, well....

Compare and contrast

There are those who don't want Donald Trump here.  The counter-argument is that he is here, not as Donald Trump, but as President of the United States, and as such should be afforded the honour and dignity appropriate to that office.  So - Jeremy Corbyn is not to everybody's taste but he is also the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition and, as with Trump, we (and he) should keep the man and the office separate.  So in my book, he should have attended the Royal Banquet given for the President, not as Jeremy Corbyn, but in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition.  His absence was thus doubly dishonorable.

Ha ha

Liked this one from my pensioner's magazine -

When a husband and wife who worked for a circus went to an adoption agency, the social workers raised doubts about their suitability.

The couple then produced photos of their 50-foot motor home which was clean and well maintained and equipped with a beautiful nursery.

The social workers then raised concerns about the education and extraneous influences the child would receive whilst in the couple's care. "We've arranged for a full-time tutor" said the couple, "who will teach the child all the usual subjects along with French, Mandarin and computer skills"

Then the social workers again expressed concern about a child being raised in a circus environment.  "We shall employ a nanny" said the couple "who will be a certified expert in pediatric care, welfare and diet"

Finally the social workers, satisfied at last, asked  "So what age and sex of child are you looking for?"

"It doesn't really matter" said the couple. "as long as they fit in the cannon"

Ooh, you can't say THAT!

Did you know that "rooster" as a name for an adult male chicken was invented by 18th century puritans in America, so they didn't have to say "cock"?

Freedom of speech?

You may remember that, some ten years ago, I posted about a street preacher - I think it was in Wolverhampton - who was arrested for telling his audience that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.  And the point of that post was that he was simply telling the truth - that's what the Bible says.  And now we have an Australian rugby player who has been disciplined for saying much the same thing on a social media site, and an English rugby player who has been censured for simply "liking" the Australian's post.  So, what's the problem?  Both the Australian and English rugby authorities consider that what these players have done brings the game into disrepute, and therefore they are within their rights in disciplining them.  But as far as I can see, neither person did what they did as rugby players, but simply as devout Christians (who happened to be rugby players) with an unquestioning belief in the Bible as the word of God.  And therein lies the problem - the Bible says.  I for one do not accept the Bible - particularly the New Testament - as the word of God.  It is very much the work of men who wished to promote a particular narrative, for whatever reason, and carefully chose what they would include and what they would exclude.  But that's me - I have no problem with those who see it differently.  So should these rugby players have been disciplined?  Difficult, but on balance I think not.

Tiger Woods

I don't really follow golf, and can't get excited about the way American sportsmen dominate this and other sports, but remembering the shitty (and I really do think that is the appropriate word) way the media treated him during his "troubles", I think he's entitled to his moment of glory.

Words

I always thought "feral" meant "wild" but apparently not so.  A wild animal is wild, is wild, and evermore shall be so.  A feral animal, on the other hand, is living wild, but can become domesticated.  Anybody who has been on holiday in Spain or the Balearics has almost certainly come across those scrawny cats that tend to congregate in the grounds of hotels and complexes and beg for food and, perhaps to a lesser extent, affection.  Well, they're feral. Anybody though of putting one in their bag and bringing it back home? I have.

Quids In!

So Tiger Roll did the bizzie and came home at 4/1.  Looking back, this is the 9th year I've given you my silly system pick for the National, and we've had two winners - Ballabriggs (14/1 in 2011) and yesterday's Tiger Roll.  So at a level £1 bet that puts us £11 to the good.  Not bad.

Grand National

Afraid my silly system has rather disappointed this year.  It's come up with Tiger Roll, who was last year's winner and looks like starting as a short priced favourite.  Is it worth a punt?  Down to you.

Err...can I come in?

I've posted before about the very real difference between the city of London and the City of London (see 18/5/16).  One fascinating fact is that the Queen has to have permission to enter the City.  It all goes back to her namesake Elizabeth I, and today it's more of a tradition than a rule, but she will still stop at Temple Bar (the entrance to the City) and await the Lord Mayor's invitation before entering.

Rugby Union

Having watched the Six Nations, anybody else feel that the game is in danger of turning into a sort of team sumo-wrestling contest?  It all seems to depend on which side can push the other backwards furthest and more often.  One looks in vain lately for flair and guile.

Is it in yet?

Whilst on the subject of Newton's laws of motion. the third law says that for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction.  Apparently this will make sex in zero gravity somewhat problematical!

Whose law is it anyway?

Newton's first law of motion - which says a body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion at a constant velocity in a straight line unless acted upon by a force - was published in 1687.  So?  Well, although it is known throughout the world as Newton's First Law, the self-same rule had been published some forty years earlier in a book by René Decartes (he of the "I think, therefore I am" fame - see post dated 6/9/10).

What a mistake-a to make-a!

I know he got a generally lukewarm press back then, but I personally liked George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and thought he would have made a very good long-term replacement for Sean Connery as James Bond and was rather disappointed when he was replaced after only the one film.  I now learn that in fact he was offered a contract to do a further six films as James Bond, but was talked out of it by his agent, who convinced him that there was no future in secret agent films.

The Doomsday Rule

This rule says that the following dates - 

January 3rd (or 4th in a leap year)

Last day in February

April 4th (4/4)

June 6th (6/6)

August 8th (8/8)

October 10th (10/10)

December 12th (12/12)

will always fall on the same day of the week.  This is a very simplified version - the full rule also covers the odd-numbered months, but even this stripped-down version will enable you to calculate the day of the week any given date will fall on, provided you know the key day for the year.  The rule also tells you how to find this out, but it's a bit long-winded to explain.  Suffice to say that for this year - 2019 - the key day is Thursday.  So, try it out.  Today is the 4th of March. We know that the last day in February was a Thursday, so four days on means today must be Monday.  Well, what do you know?

Whatever next - mixed keepie-uppie?

Breakdancing at the Olympics?  Say it isn't so!  I've posted about this before, but I would ban any so-called "sport" which relies on scores given by some sort of expert jury.  So out would go gymnastics, out would go diving, out would go ice-dancing and so on.  Let these activities have their own competitions, and good luck to them, but let's have the Olympics decided on the empirical bases of citius, altius, fortius as it was always meant to be. 

Size does matter

Just had sardines on toast for lunch - lovely. But did you know that there's no recognised definition of a sardine?  It's just a small member of the herring family, and what makes it a sardine, is its size.  Here in the UK, if it's less than around 6" it's classed as a sardine, and if it's longer than that, it's a pilchard.  So if it stays in the ocean, it will eventually grow from a sardine into a pilchard - same fish, and also nice on toast.

Whither now?

Lots of calls for some time to "take a no-deal Brexit off the table".  But how do you do that?  It always strikes me as like trying to prove a negative.  But then, I think the problem is that there are two types of a no-deal exit - what I have labelled an accidental no-deal exit and a deliberate no-deal exit.  If we leave on March 29th (which by the way I think is definitely an "if") and we haven't managed to strike a deal, then that would be an accidental no-deal exit.  On the other hand, there are those - and always have been - who simply want to leave, and are not interested in whether or not there is any deal.  Leaving on their terms would be a deliberate no-deal exit.  And I think it is this latter scenario which can be "taken off the table".  In other words, we can set our face against intentionally leaving with no deal, but leaving having tried and failed to strike a deal is - Parliament having rejected the only deal available - outside our control.

R.I.P.

Gordon Banks (the first Banksey).  A great goalkeeper and a great human being.

Hello there

Sorry for the hiatus - my computer threw its teddies out of the pram, and it's taken a long time to get it functioning again.  I have to say that the break has not been all bad news - I've really enjoyed not having to scrabble about every day finding something to post about, so in future I think I shall not post unless it's really something I think is worth saying.  So don't expect daily posts from now on.  Anyway - I'm back!

Explanation

The titles to the last couple of posts may resonate with readers who remember the last war.  There were lots of shortages back then and a cartoon character called "Mr Chadd" started to appear as graffiti chalked all over the place.  It depicted a bald-headed man peering over a wall with a question-mark over his head.  Underneath would be written "Wot - no [whatever shortage the cartoonist wished to highlight]?  

Wot - no fish?

As a follow-up to yesterday's post, and in a sort of "I'll see you and raise you" move, Waitrose are introducing vegan "Fishless Fingers".  Made from seaweed - as the name suggests, they mimic fish fingers.  Whatever next?

Wot - no sausage?

In what could be described as a seismic shift, Greggs are to introduce a vegan-friendly (whatever that means) sausage roll.  Presumably this is in response to public pressure, although whether this is general public pressure, or pressure from Greggs' own customers is not clear.  I imagine that the acid test will be the effect on sales.

Won one, lost one.

I'm sure we all know that Shakespeare wrote a play called Love's Labours Lost, but did you know that he is also reputed to have written another play, entitled Love's Labours Won - which is lost?

Personal

A happy New Year to you all.  We don't make such a big thing out of the changing of the year as they do in Scotland, where yesterday is known as Hogmanay, and such are the celebrations up there that they have two Bank Holidays to get over it - today and tomorrow are both public holidays in Scotland.  So they celebrate the ending of the old year, whereas we make more of a thing about the beginning of the new one.  Either way, I hope 2019 brings you joy and good fortune.