Where's me glasses?

Interesting to hear that the BBC are to stop broadcasting in 3D.  They describe it as a "pause" but there are no plans for a resumption.  I was always dubious about the practicalities of 3D TV and apparently the uptake has fallen well short of expectation. Even those with 3D enabled sets don't make full use of them it seems. If they eventually manage to come up with 3D screens which do not require special glasses then that may be a game-changer, but for the present it would seem the best advice is - save your money!

Hello, I'm in the supermatket...

Story of a Sainsbury's check-out worker who refused to serve a customer until she finished her mobile 'phone call has generated a lot of comment.  So - whadya think? Yes, it was the height of rudeness on the part of the customer, and there's a lot of it about these days, but the fact of the matter is that going through a supermarket checkout is not - or at least doesn't have to be - a social interaction. There's usually no need to say anything to the checkout worker, and apart from "Do you need any help with your packing?" rarely any need for them to say anything to you. So should the checkout worker have simply ignored the customer and got on with it?

And the next gentleman...

Congratulations to Andy Murray on becoming the first British male Wimbledon winner for 77 years.  Hopefully he will have several more years at the top of his game, but the worrying thing is that I think I'm right in saying that the next best British male player is ranked something like 250 in the world.  So, post-Murray we may be in for another long, long wait.

Magic money?

Here's a brainteaser which has been around for some time, but there may be those of you who haven't come across it before -
Three people go to a restaurant for a meal.  At the end, they are presented with a bill for £30.  They decide to split the cost between them equally, so each gives the waiter £10.  He takes the money to the cashier, who realises that the bill has been incorrectly totalled, and the true figure is £25.  He therefore gives the waiter £5 to return to the diners.  The waiter realises he cannot divide £5 equally between the three of them, and anyway they don't know what the true figure is, so he simply tells them they have been overcharged, apologises and gives them each £1.  The other £2 he keeps for himself.  So now each diner has paid £9 and the waiter has £2 - a total of £29.  What happened to the other £1?  As ever, I'll give you a few days to think about it.

Today I learned...

... that the fact that in the Middle Ages the average life expectancy was around the mid-30s is highly misleading.  The crucial word here is "average", and this was at a time when infant mortality was very high, and this pulled the average down to unrepresentative levels.  In fact, if you managed to survive childhood, then you had a good chance of making your three score years and ten.

Ha ha.

This one's got hairs on it, but the old 'uns are the best -
A German walks into a bar and asks for a martini.  "Dry?" asks the bartender.  "No, just the one" replies the German.

Egypt

I was going to post about what's going on there, but I've been overtaken by events.  Some of what I was going to say is still relevant though.  Lincoln famously described democracy as government "of the people, by the people, for the people". No real problem with the first two of those, but "for the people" can cause difficulties.  What it means is that governments are elected to govern for the whole country, not merely those who voted them in.  And this is at the root of the country's problems, with a clear feeling that, despite there being no question of its legitimacy, the government was proceeding on ideological rather than democratic lines.  It's difficult to see any resolution though.  It seems clear that the country is divided, with 50% or so seeking an Islamic state, and much the same proportion wanting a secular one.  So whoever ends up as top dog when the dust settles, is going to be facing the same problem, and I've got this horrible feeling that in twelve months time we may well be back here again.

Constitutional Law 101.

You would think that the Prime Minister of all people would be up to speed on constitutional law, but it appears not.  He is seeking to get a Bill passed which would guarantee that there would be a referendum on our continuing membership of the EU before the end of 2017 - that is, well into the next Parliament.  This completely ignores one of the fundamental principles of constitutional law, that "Parliament cannot bind its successor".  This means that any decision taken by this Parliament can be countermanded by the next one - or indeed by this one if they later change their minds.  So it can be seen as an expression of intent - of wishful thinking perhaps - but nothing more.

Déjà vu?

Back in the 1980s the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, ordered an independent review into MPs pay.  To her horror, the review concluded that MPs were woefully underpaid and should get an immediate payrise of massive proportions. Realising there was no way this could be sold to the country, she and the Chancellor decided that MPs should get a small payrise, but they should be given a generous expenses system and be advised to take full advantage of it. Thus were the seeds of the "expenses scandal" sown.  And now?  The question of MP's pay has been put into the hands of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, who it is rumoured are about to say that they should get a £10,000 increase.  So here we go again??

What a cop-out!

It was around this time last year that I raised the question of what would constitute consummation of a same-sex marriage.  I suggested that this would cause difficulties, but I wasn't prepared for the official answer, which is, it appears, that there is to be no such thing as consummation of a same-sex marriage, nor indeed will there be any question of adultery in such a marriage with someone of the same sex.  The practical difficulties are such that it has been decided to simply ignore the problem.  You can still commit adultery with a member of the opposite sex but a relationship with someone of the same sex would only found a petition for divorce in a same-sex marriage if it could be brought under the "unreasonable behaviour" provision.  Of course, there has long been an argument that as far as "straight" marriages are concerned, the grounds of adultery and desertion are superfluous, as both would inevitably amount to unreasonable behaviour.  Perhaps a side-effect of all these discussions about gay marriage may be a helpful reappraisal of traditional divorce law.