Where's yer grammar? Upstairs - were's yourn?

Apparently the go-ahead may be given for the first new grammar school for 50 years. I've had my say on this before (see 31/5/07) and I think once again we are missing the big question.  We shouldn't, in my opinion, be talking about the pro's and con's of grammar schools and the 11+ selection system. What we should be discussing is why the comprehensive model hasn't worked the way it was supposed to.  There was nothing wrong with the theory, so why has it not worked in practice? If it had, there would be no need to be talking about new grammar schools.

Statistics, statistics...

Much has been made of a comment by a BBC correspondent that the Chancellor's planned cuts would take us back to the levels of the 1930s - notorious for the Great Depression and the Jarrow March. The Prime Minister has accused the BBC of "hyperbolic" coverage.  So who's right?  Well, they both are.  The BBC are correct that the cuts announced in the Chancellor's statement would take the government's spending as a proportion of GDP to a little over 12% - the lowest since the 1930s. What of course this doesn't take into account is that GDP today is significantly different in both scale and composition to back then so you are really comparing apples and pears.  Perhaps the BBC, as a supposed neutral commentator, should have made that clearer?

Ooh - look at her!!

I would feel somewhat embarrassed and uncomfortable if I were in a restaurant and a woman nearby started to breastfeed a baby.  This does not make what she is doing in any way wrong - simply that that is the way it would affect me.  I would imagine there are a fair few people who would feel the same.  Given this, should nursing mothers give any consideration to the feelings of people like me? All this arises because a mother breastfeeding her baby in Claridge's tearooms the other day was asked by staff to cover-up with a napkin. Don't think for me the napkin would have made any difference - it's more a matter of whether this was an appropriate place for such an activity.  The danger is that this will turn into a feminist/party political issue. Nigel Farage has already come in for some stick for making what seemed to me quite reasonable off-the-cuff comments on the matter. Isn't it just a case that there are certain things which perhaps you should think twice about doing in public?  Isn't it just a case of good manners??

Read on...

Thank goodness common sense has prevailed.  The High Court have ruled that the ban on sending books to prisoners is unlawful (see post of 29th March).  Let's hope the Justice Secretary shows equal common sense by accepting the ruling and not appealing it.

Income twenty pounds, expenditure twenty pounds nought and six...

Yes Mr Micawber, it really is that simple - give out more than you're getting in and you're going to be in trouble.  I am constantly amazed that people can't see that. Following the Chancellor's Autumn Statement there have been the usual cries of "foul" from the Opposition and those who will be disadvantaged. Understandable, but what's the alternative?  And the answer is - tax rises.  Nobody wants to talk about it but that's the reality.  If we are to continue to hand out money at the present rate, then revenue will have to increase significantly to pay for it.  As I have said many times before, Government has no money of its own - what it has is what it gets from us.  So do you want to pay more in income tax, VAT, petrol duty and so on? I guess the answer is no, but if so you have to accept that government spending will have to be curtailed.  It's difficult and painful to take away from people that which they are used to getting but as Gran was wont to say, you can't have the penny and the bun!

Match and more...

I think I've mentioned that I'm a Morrisons shopper, and they've recently introduced a storecard under the above title which compares their prices with other supermarkets - including Aldi and Lidl - and gives you points for any difference which are then converted into money-off vouchers.  Now there are two ways of looking at this - my granddaughter (the 9-year-old - see post of 25th November) said "if they're trying to match their prices with Aldi and Lidl why don't they just sell their stuff at Aldi and Lidl prices?"  And that's a very good question (told you she was smart) - when you think about it, they are effectively admitting that you could shop cheaper elsewhere - which you would think is the last thing a supermarket would want to say.  But the other side of the coin is that by giving you the difference in vouchers they are ensuring that in order to get your money back you have to continue to shop with them - you can't use the vouchers anywhere else.  I'm sure they must have done their research and done the maths and reckoned that the latter aspect outweighs the former, but it's a funny do, isn't it?

Would you believe it??

Can you sexually harass someone who doesn't exist?  It appears there is at least one person who listens to the BBC who thinks you can, because they have written to the Corporation complaining about the way Samantha - who keeps the score in the radio comedy show I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue - is constantly subjected to "schoolboy sexist so-called humour".  Well, there's no doubt that she is - for example it has been said of her that she has "scored on more desks than she can remember" and that she enjoys going out to see horror films with men because she likes nothing better then "sitting in the back row and being given the willies for 90 minutes".  So - unacceptable?  The point is, of course, as any aficianado of the show is well aware, Samantha is a completely fictitious character, who simply exists to be the butt of the contestants' jokes.  Clearly the complainant (and as far as I am aware there was only the one) doesn't really appreciate what the the programme is all about.

Ha ha

This from my pensioners' magazine -

A young man was doing his shopping in the supermarket when he became aware of an elderly lady staring at him.  When he got to the checkout, he found the lady was immediately in front of him,  "I hope you didn't mind me staring" she said "but you look so like my late son".  "That's OK" he said. And then she said "I know this will sound silly, but it would mean so much to me if you would say 'Goodbye Mum' as I leave the store."  So as she was going out of the door he shouted "Bye Mum" and she smiled and waved back.  Feeling virtuous that he had brought some pleasure into her life, he went to pay for his stuff,  "That'll be £121.85" said the cashier.  "But I've only got five items" said the man.  "I know" said the cashier "but your mother said you were paying for her things too,"!

Why 10 isn't really a number...

I've mentioned before that the way we count is really down to the way we're made - we count in tens because we have ten digits.  If the Good Lord had created us like the Simpsons, with a thumb and three fingers on each hand, we would count in eights (by the way, did you know that the only character in the Simpsons with a full complement of fingers is God himself?), so counting, Simpsons-style would go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - and then what?  No, not 8 - it would be 10.  Just as, counting in tens as we do, there are (ignoring zero) only 9 digits, so in eights, there are only 7.  10 is not really a number, it simply represents one of whatever base we are counting in plus 0.  So in binary (base 2) 10 is 2 in decimal.  In hexadecimal (base 16) 10 is 16 in decimal. And in octal (base 8 - the Simpsons way) 10 is 8 in decimal.  So 10 represents a concept - not a fixed number.

Cricket, lovely cricket?

Following the tragic death of Phillip Hughes, has the time come to outlaw the head-high bouncer?  It was of course us who started it all with the (in)famous "bodyline" series against the Aussies back in the 1930s and the objective was simple - to stop Bradman scoring.  Not necessarily to get him out, you understand, but simply to try and prevent him getting runs.  And therein lies the nub of the matter - the head-high bouncer is not normally bowled with any realistic intention of getting the batsman out, but to restrict his ability to score and - more recently - simply to intimidate.  So should any ball which reaches the batsman above chest height be called a no-ball?  Of course that wouldn't necessarily stop a bowler bowling them - it might be thought worth losing a run or two to put the fear of God into a batsman - so maybe some more drastic punishment might be needed.  Or is it in fact a legitimate tactic and we need to accept the death of Hughes as just sheer bad luck?