Mr Speaker.

A man much in the news at present, but just where does the title come from? Because he takes no active part in debates, it has been said that the Speaker is the only member of the House of Commons who does not speak. But this misses the point - originally, he was the member chosen by the House to speak on their behalf when such occasions arose as demanded the opinion of the House to be expressed. The concept of the office can be traced back to the 13th century, but it was in 1376 that the post first became officially recognised. Back then it was a perilous position to hold, with a very good chance that you would end up in the Tower, or even being beheaded! There has only been one woman Speaker - Betty Boothroyd in the 90s, and the current Speaker is the first Roman Catholic to hold the post for the best part of 500 years - though not for much longer it would seem.

They who live by the sword...

This must be the ultimate irony - the Fire Service's National Training College in Gloucestershire has been badly damaged - by fire!

String 'em up?

There have been calls for MPs who have claimed for what are perceived as unreasonable expenses to be prosecuted for fraud. Would such a prosecution hold water? In general, I don't think so. Provided they have stayed within the letter of the rules, then in my view this would provide an absolute defence, whatever the ethical considerations. And the problem would be of course that the rules are so vague and open to interpretation that it would have to be accepted that most of these claims could be argued as falling within their scope. There might be rather more problems for those MPs who appear to have claimed for things like interest on non-existent mortgages, but even here the prosecution would have to show that this was done with deliberate intention rather than as a result of sloppy accounting or some such. No, I think the police and CPS would do well to stay clear of this mess.

I think therefore I arrest?

The Home Office has recently released statistics on arrests under anti-terrorism legislation between 2001 and 2008. This shows that there were 1,471 such arrests. with just over one-third of those arrested ending up being charged. This in itself would be a worrying statistic for me, but the real kick in the teeth is that the report says that this is "broadly similar to the rate for all indictable offences". So it would seem that around two out of every three people arrested by the police for the more serious offences are subsequently released without charge - am I the only one to think that this is nothing short of scandalous? The rules are (or certainly were when I studied the law) that the police have to base an arrest on "reasonable suspicion", and if two out of every three arrestees subsequently walk, that really calls into question just how reasonable - and the word means governed by reason or sound thinking - the police are being.

Video of the month (of the year?)

If you've not already seen it, do have a look at "J'aime la Tour" on YouTube (or just stick Blackpool into the search box). It's brilliant, it's hilarious, and it's done more to raise the profile of Blackpool in the few days it's been on than any amount of conventional advertising. Top marks to whoever thought it up.

Personal.

I "did" Tennyson for English Lit "O" level more years ago than I care to remember. But it has taken until now, and hearing Sheila Hancock on an advert for the BBC's poetry season to realise that his poetry was hiding the perfect quote all the time -

But O for the touch of a vanish'd hand,
And the sound of a voice that is still!

Says it all.

MPs pay.

One way of approaching the question of how much you should pay people for doing a job is the "recruit and retain" principle. This says that provided you get a fair number of applicants when you advertise a post, and that people are not leaving you in droves, then you've got it about right (or maybe even are paying too much!) When discussing MPs pay, it has been pointed out that there is no shortage of applicants whenever an election is held, and that very few MPs resign before their term is out. So on that basis, it would seem that MPs are being paid enough, or maybe even more than enough. But I think this misses an important point - there may be plenty of applicants, but are we getting the right sort of applicants? This could be me and my rose-coloured spectacles again, but to my mind the standard of MPs - in terms of experience out in the real world, in terms of general intellect and in terms of their dedication to the concept of public service is not what it was, and I wonder to what extent this is because the sort of candidates we should be attracting can do better - financially - elsewhere.

Music Man - plug.

Can I add my voice to those praising the new (well recent) web site Spotify. It's yet another music streaming program, but it stands out from others in the enormous spread of music it offers, and in that it's free, provided you don't mind the occasional advert. For those of that mind, it also has a social networking aspect whereby you can share the music you enjoy with others. Long may it continue!

The road to hell is paved....

The new Equality Bill seems to me to be trying to make the world something that it isn't. We are not all equal - the level playing field just doesn't exist. Consider this - I don't know who will win the 100 metres at the 2012 Olympics, but I can tell you this - it will be a black man. If you're a white sprinter you have to accept that you have no chance of the gold medal. Men in general are physically stronger than women and therefore some tasks are more suited to them - fact. Blind people cannot see and therefore cannot do certain things - fact. Some people have more money than others and therefore can afford things that the others can't - fact. The idea that you can somehow alter these facts by legislation just doesn't hold water. The Bill is being introduced with the best of intentions, but is seeking to do the impossible.

Respect?

Following the shenanigans at the end of the Chelsea/Barcelona match last week, the question of respect for referees is once again much in the news. I think we're looking at the wrong thing - it's not respect for referees that's in issue here - it's respect for the laws of the game. And these laws say that the referee can't get it wrong - he is the sole judge of fact. The question of whether we agree with his decision or not is therefore meaningless - it's his decision and that's an end of it. Until players - and managers - accept this we will not progress. What's the alternative? Decisions by consensus? Have a free-for-all punch-up and the last man standing wins the day? Flip a coin? Phone a friend? The present situation where players and managers constantly attempt to influence the referee's decisions stem from an unwillingness to accept the basic fact that this is not like cricket where you appeal to an umpire for a decision - the referee says what's what and that's it. Criticise him by all means, but respect the laws by which the game is played.