What were the chances?

Well - what a co-incidence!  When I published yesterday's post (which was actually written a few days ago) I did not know about the case of the Guardian journalist's friend who was held for nine hours at Heathrow under the authority of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, but it just goes to show, doesn't it?  What makes that case even more deplorable is that, if I read it right, this man was not seeking to enter the country (which is what Schedule 7 was designed to cover) but was simply passing through - in transit between one flight and another.  I really hope his unfortunate experience results in a fundamental rethink of the law - but I'm not holding my breath.

Big Brother? Meet even Bigger Brother!

If you're a regular reader of this blog (are there any?) you will know that I am critical of the way the police use (or I would say, misuse) their right to search your property and examine your computer, mobile 'phone etc. following your arrest.  But at least they have to arrest you first and (at least in theory) have to have reasonable grounds for suspecting you of having committed some offence in order to do so.  So you can imagine my horror on finding out about Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which gives the same powers to those policing our borders, but without any need for an arrest, or indeed any need for suspicion, reasonable or otherwise, that you are a "wrong 'un".  So you can be searched, your belongings can be searched, your computer and 'phone can be examined and the contents downloaded and copied, all because some border control officer is having a bad day, or doesn't like the way you looked at them, or even just on a random basis. Welcome to Great Britain!

Which is worse?

I wonder which the inhabitants of the sleepy little West Sussex village of Balcombe find the more disturbing - the fact that they have an exploratory drilling site in their back garden as it were, or the fact that the village has been over-run by Rent-A-Mob protesters from outside intent on disrupting said drilling.  Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. 

Ha ha

You probably need to know something about computer programming  to appreciate this one -
                A computer programmer's wife sends him to the corner shop - she tells him to get a loaf of bread, and if they've got any eggs to get half a dozen.  He comes back with six loaves of bread.  "Why have you bought six loaves?" she asks him.  "They had eggs" he replies.

E or not-E?

Electronic cigarettes have been banned on many trains and also in Wetherspoon's pubs it seems.  Well, it was only a matter of time, wasn't it?  Firstly, there are those who object to the idea of people getting pleasure from the ingestion of nicotine, however obtained, and maintain that it must pose a health risk to others, but I think the main problem is that it is difficult to tell - particularly from a distance - whether someone is smoking an e-cigarette or a real one - so do you challenge them and risk making a fool of yourself, or let it go and become complicit in a breach of the law? I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think there needs to be some way of being able to positively identify an e-cigarette and then most of the problem goes away.

Couldn't make it up.

For the benefit of my mate from Mars, a "99" is an ice-cream cone with a chocolate flake stuck in it - very popular. So the story is that an ice-cream kiosk owner in Bognor Regis has been told by the council that he can't sell 99s because this would breach the terms of his lease.  He can sell ordinary ice-cream cones, but not with a flake in them. This is not perhaps as petty as might first appear, as the council have to have regard to the rights of the other shop and kiosk owners in the town and try and establish a balance between what is sold where.  But what makes this a "couldn't make it up" candidate, is that he is allowed within the terms of his lease to sell chocolate flakes - so he can't sell you a 99, but he can sell you a cone of ice-cream, and then separately sell you a flake, which you can then stick in yourself!

More number fun

Just remembered another of my maths teacher's little tricks (he was a really good teacher who always kept us interested).  How to prove that 0.9999... (the dots mean the 9s go on for ever) = 1.

x = 0.9999...

10x = 9.9999...

10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999....

9x = 9

x = 1

So there you are - or are you?  You may remember the reductio ad absurdum approach which says that if you come up with an absurd or impossible result, then there must be something wrong with your reasoning.  And the tendency is to say that x cannot be both 0.999... and 1 and therefore there must be something wrong.  But in fact this is just a quirk of the way our number system works - irrational numbers (like 0.999...) don't behave the same as "ordinary" numbers and if you do "ordinary" maths with them you are likely to get apparently weird results.

Is it an advert?

So what's your take on this van with the "In the UK illegally? Go home or face arrest" billboard on the side which has been touring immigrant areas of London. The Advertising Standards Authority (why them of all people?) are considering whether it breaches any laws or regulations, after receiving 60 complaints.  I would have thought that, given the number of people who must have seen it, 60 is a very small number, but there you are.  I find it useful when considering anything of this nature, to turn it round and look at it the other way.  So what are these complainants saying?  If they are saying that the "go home or face arrest" statement is somehow wrong or unacceptable, they are presumably saying that those immigrants who are here illegally should (a) be allowed to stay - i.e. not go home, and (b) not face arrest.  So like I say - what's your take?

It's black or it's white - no greys.

It seems to me that we in this country are undergoing a subtle shift in attitude, moving from an American-inspired "compensation culture" (if something bad happens to me, someone must pay) more towards a "victim culture" (if something bad happens to me, someone must be to blame). Those few voices suggesting that people should take at least some responsibility for their own actions are being shouted down by those who have a mind-set which is not interested in anything other than a simplistic predator-prey relationship.

Who's for Mickey Mouse on the fiver?

Perhaps I live a sheltered life, but I find it hard to understand why anybody would get worked up over whose picture appears - or doesn't - on a banknote.  But if you are such a person, then you would do well to remember Newton's third law - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  If you don't want to get trolled (I understand that's the technical term) then don't provide the ammunition. On the other hand, if you feel strongly about something and make your views public, accept that there will be those who will object to what you say - and maybe won't be too polite about it.