Update, anyone?

This time last year I was posting about the alleged plot to blow up aircraft with "liquid bombs" which resulted in airport chaos, disrupted travel plans for tens of thousands of people, and still to this day restrictions on what you are allowed to take on board. But whatever happened to those arrested? Was the threat ever realistic - there were and still are those who are experts in this field saying that it was just not a practical proposition. Isn't it funny how following the initial hysteria, it all goes quiet? Does anybody have any up-to-date info?

What's the buzz?

Have you seen these stories about bees disappearing? Everything from mobile phones through global warming and pesticides to alien abduction has been suggested, although the most likely reason is rather more prosaic - some sort of virus or parasite. Honey prices may well rise as a result, but of course the more serious consequence will be the effect on pollination, which could impact on food production generally. I think this is a matter which needs rather more attention paid to it.

None shall sleep....

Doubtless, in the manner of most things these days, the life and work of Luciano Pavarotti will be deconstructed over the next few months, and his failings - of which there were many - will be mercilessly highlighted. But for today, let us just remember the voice - certainly in his prime (say twenty or so years ago) among the greatest tenor voices of all times. Thank goodness that we are left with a treasury of his recordings. He was a big man in all senses.

Sit down for goodness sake!

So now it's official - blue smarties did make you hyper. And, it would now seem, not just blue smarties, but anything containing E 102, 104, 110, 122, 124, 129 or 211 - which seems to cover most sweets, cakes, biscuits and soft drinks - just the sort of stuff kids love. Mind you, if your kid isn't zipping around all over the place, you start thinking they must be coming down with something, don't you?

Rules of the game.

Football season is with us again, and for want of anything else to watch on TV, have been following the opening matches. What always strikes me is the extent to which some of the basic rules of the game are ignored, both by the players, and more importantly, by the referee, who is supposed to be there to see that the rules are observed. Consider for instance -
Law 8 - procedure for a kick-off. "All players are in their own half of the field". You scarcely ever see a kick-off these days where one of the players on the kicking-of side is not standing on the wrong side of the half-way line.
Law 15 - the throw in. To be taken from "the point where [the ball] crosses the touch line". You must be joking - more often than not it's several yards further upfield.
Law 12 - a direct free kick is to be awarded if a player "holds an opponent". If this law were observed properly, the game would consist almost entirely of a series of free kicks.
So does the game have rules, or doesn't it?

Please come and collect Timothy...

It seems that parents are to be held legally responsible for keeping children who are excluded from school at home and off the streets - and very right and proper too, is my immediate response. But there is an unwritten assumption here that parents are able to leave whatever they are doing and get time off work at the drop of a hat in order to deal with such an incident, and I don't think this necessarily follows - particularly as regards the sort of parents who are most likely to find themselves in that position. I'm afraid it is symptomatic of the way that parents of schoolchildren are treated generally these days - whatever happened to the concept that schools were in loco parentis?

Boom....

There have been a couple of blockbuster films in the last few years about asteroids on a collision course with the earth, and Bruce Willis or some other megastar saving the day, but it now appears that it might happen for real in 2036. Certainly scientists are taking the possibility seriously enough to develop contingency plans for dealing with the situation, should it arise. The really spooky thing is the date given for it to happen, if indeed it does, is April 13th! Thank goodness I should be long gone by then.

Theory and practice.

Feature on the breakfast programme this morning about the new extended written test for learner drivers. As an exercise, the programme makers had one of their reporters - a driver for more than 20 years with no points on his licence - sit the test. He failed. This caused some embarrassment and consternation on his part, but am I alone in thinking that what it calls far more into question is what relevance the test has to the real world of driving a car?

The old 'uns are the best.

Article about people in London renting out their drives for other people to park on, thus avoiding for them the problem of having to find a parking space, vandalism, exhorbitant parking fees etc., reminded me of an old joke about Lord Archer -

Jeffrey Archer goes to see his bank manager, and explains that he needs to borrow £100 for a couple of weeks.
“O.K.” says the manager “but in view of your current difficulties, I’m going to have to charge you 10% interest, and ask for some security”.
“Well” says Archer “I’ve got my Rolls outside. Suppose I leave that with you until I pay the money back. Will that do?”
“Fine” says the manager, and Archer hands over the keys, takes his £100 and leaves.
A fortnight later, he returns, pays the manager £110 and reclaims his car.
“I hope you don’t mind me asking” says the manager “but why on earth should a person with all your money need to borrow £100?”
“Look at it this way” says Archer “I was going out of the country for a couple of weeks. Where else could I have got secure parking for my Rolls for a tenner?”

Spend, spend, spend.

There's been a discussion on a website I read recently about whether, if money is credited to your bank account in error, you can go ahead and spend it or not. The answer - in law at least - seems to hinge on the legal definition of theft, which requires you to be acting "dishonestly". One of the classic examples always given is if I walk out of a restaurant with someone else's umbrella, say. If I honestly believe it to be my umbrella, then that's not theft. So it would seem that if I believe the money to be mine, or simply don't notice it, and spend it, then that's not theft - although the rightful owner may well be able to sue me for its return. What this means of course is that it may well pay you to be one of those people who simply file their bank statements without looking at them - that way you are more likely to be able to convince the Police that you never noticed that money had been credited to which you weren't entitled, rather than if you were someone, like me, who balances their books to the penny. Sloppiness might well pay, you see.