Ey up lass!

Anne Hathaway's attempt at a Yorkshire accent in the film "One Day" has come in for much criticism and ridicule.  I haven't seen the film, but I bet most of us in this country who live outside Yorkshire would struggle to imitate the accent.  The question is of course, why did they choose an American actress for the part - I'm sure there must be many actresses born and bred in Yorkshire who could have filled the role.  Is this another example of the American public not taking a film seriously unless there is an American actor or actress playing a lead?  Remember the way the story of "The Great Escape" from Stalag Luft III had to be rewritten for the film so that an American (Steve McQueen) could take a completely fictitious central role?

English as she is spoke.

List in the paper the other day of words which have been left out of the latest edition of the dictionary as not being in common usage anymore.  I was sad to see that among them was "charabanc" - I don't know about other parts of the country, but certainly round here we still talk about "catching the sharra" when we go on a trip.

Yes it is - no it isn't.

Has the time come when news programmes should come with some sort of health warning?  Recently - and in particular concerning the goings-on in Libya - a lot of speculation and rumour has been presented as fact, only to need a retraction - within hours in some cases.  I appreciate that you can hardly have a news bulletin which starts "There's something going on in Tripoli, but we're not quite sure just what..."  but I think it should be made clear which statements can be substantiated, and which can't.

Why did it happen?

I've had my say about the causes of the recent street riots, but it's interesting to see what the politicians are making of it.  David Cameron sees it as evidence of a general "moral decline", Ed Miliband says it is all down to "social deprivation" whereas Tony Blair blames specific families who, as he sees it, have deliberately chosen to live "outside the pale".  I think that Cameron and Blair are in fact saying much the same thing in two different ways, whereas Miliband is simply trotting out the traditional Labour line that anything bad must be the result of social inequality.  The problem with the Cameron/Blair argument is that it presupposes that there is such a thing as morality (Cameron) or defined norms of behaviour (Blair).  We last seriously had this argument in the late 50s over the question of whether to decriminalise homosexual activity between consenting adults.  Lord Devlin (the most articulate Law Lord there's ever been) and Professor Hart slugged it out in print, and the generally accepted outcome was that there was really no such thing as a completely shared morality or any fundamentally accepted ways of behaving, and that there will always be those who see things differently.  Of course, how they choose to express their "difference" is what is at the root of the problem.

Taxing problem

Vince Cable has this thing about a "mansion tax" doesn't he - keeps coming back to it.  Problem is - and this is a bit strange coming from a LibDem - that such a tax takes no account of the ability to pay.  You can live in a big house worth a lot of money, and still be hard up financially.  A better idea which I heard suggested the other day, would be to make the sale of property subject to capital gains tax on any gain of say over £100,000.  Not sure whether the amount it would raise would be worth the cost of administering it, mind.

Two sides to every coin.

I've posted before about the fact that nothing is all good or all bad - every good thing has the potential to be bad (religion?) and every bad thing the potential to do good.  Ecstasy (bad drug) - or more specifically, a modified version - has now been shown to be able to kill cancer cells, at least in test tubes, and is being touted as a significant development in the fight against cancer.  Several years away yet, but scientists are describing it as "a genuinely exciting proposition".

Ha ha.

This from the net -
One day, there was a catastrophic event that caused all humans on earth to die. To sort things out, everyone went to Heaven. God came in and said,
"I want the men to make two lines. One line for the men who ruled their women on earth and the other line for the men who were ruled by their women. Also, I want all the women to go with St. Peter." With that, the next time God looked, the women were gone and there were two lines.
The line of men who were ruled by their women was 1000 miles long, and in the line of men who ruled their women, there was only one man.
God became angry and said, "You men should be ashamed of yourselves. I created you in my image and you were all whipped by your mates. Look at the only one of my sons who stood up and made me proud. Learn from him!" 
"Tell them, my son, how did you manage to be the only one in this line?"
The man replied, "I don't know, my wife told me to stand here."

Students - oh, they're just a necessary evil!

I frequently get on my high horse about the fact that insufficient (or in fact, no) provision is made to ensure that children leaving primary school get a place at the secondary school of their (or their parents') choice.  We now seem to have a similar situation regarding university places.  The question of how and by whom universities should be funded is a matter for debate, but if you have somebody who wants to go to university, has reasonable grades and is prepared to meet the cost, whatever it may be, it seems to me to be scandalous that they are prevented from going simply because there is no place available for them.  Once again, you get the impression that students exist for the benefit of schools and universities, rather than the other way round, as it should be.

Not how we do it here.

We seem to be getting perilously close to trial by media over the 'phone-hacking business don't we?  This latest letter to be revealed from the NoW's ex-royal correspondent seems to be being taken as proof positive that Andy Coulson was in on the whole affair.  This of course presupposes that the contents of the letter are true - maybe they are, maybe they're not, but bear in mind that this was a letter written by a disgruntled ex-employee incensed that, as he saw it, he had been made the fall-guy, and that the paper had reneged on a promise they had made regarding his future employment.  And a fundamental principle of English law is audi alterem partem (hear the other side) so let's wait until we have, eh?

Who calls the shots?

Police chiefs responding to criticism about their handling of the recent rioting and looting are queuing up to assure us that they are "accountable".  But accountable to whom?  Certainly not to us - we do not elect them, and have no power to dismiss them (and I wouldn't want it to be so - I've posted before about elected officials being more interested in their re-election prospects than in doing the right thing).  But I've always assumed that they are accountable to the Home Secretary - and yet it now appears that perhaps that is not so.  They are equally queuing up to criticise her for, as they see it, meddling in their affairs, and telling them what they should and should not do.  So just how are they accountable, and to whom?