R.I.P.

Glen Campbell - very much of my generation, and his version of "Wichita Lineman" is right up there in my list of favourite songs of all time.

Giz a drag.

A photo of David Cameron with a cigarette between his fingers has re-ignited a discussion about the "evils" of smoking.  I've mentioned before that I used to smoke - pretty well everybody did back then - but I gave it up about 50 years ago.  Not that it was a matter of health - it was a matter of money.  Perhaps because of this, I've always had a soft spot for smokers.  When I worked, we had to have a designated room for smokers, and the designated room was my office!  I've never had time for the "I don't like it, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to do it" school of thought.  If you choose to smoke, knowing the risks, then as I see it, it's up to you. I've mentioned before that in my view the "second-hand smoke" argument is tenuous at best. So if Dave wants a crafty fag, I'm not going to criticise.

The Rainbow Trust?

I am a member of the National Trust.  This goes back to when my wife was alive - she was very interested in local history and enjoyed visiting historic houses, and so we became members of the Trust - and English Heritage - and when she died I maintained membership of both - partly in her memory, and partly because I thought they were both doing a good job, and worth supporting.  I have to say that I am having second thoughts about National Trust, who to my eyes seem to have lost focus on their primary purpose of protecting the landscape and historic buildings, and become more involved in politics which seem to have little or nothing to do with that purpose.  The latest example concerns Felbrigg Hall in Norfolk where volunteers (note that word) who dealt with the public were required (note that word too) to wear LGBT lanyards and badges.  The Trust's rationale was that the last owner of the property was gay (although this is disputed) and that the Trust was marking the 50th anniversary of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which partially decriminalised homosexual activity in private between consenting adults.  But so what?  What has that got to do with the price of fish?  If I visit Felbrigg Hall it is to see the property. I am not in any way bothered by or interested in the sexuality of the previous owner (even if true) and fail to see any connection between my visit and the 1967 Act.  I should perhaps mention in conclusion that the Trust have withdrawn their requirement to wear LGBT colours - it is now optional.

Go away - I live here.

I remember many years ago going on holiday for a week down in Cornwall - can't remember just where but it was a beautiful little village on the coast, and I was having a drink in a nearby pub and commenting to the locals on what a lovely place it was, "Yes" said one "it's a lovely place all right from October to April, except for the weather, but from May to September it's a pain - full of tourists, nowhere to park, roads all clogged up - you can keep it".  And that was my first intimation that actually living in the sort of place we all like going on holiday to may have its downside.  I mention this because apparently tourists in the Mediterranean - particularly Barcelona and Mallorca - are being harassed by the locals, telling them that they are not welcome.  Of course tourists bring in the money, so it's that old problem of not being able to have the penny and the bun.

A race too far?

For a few minutes last evening we were all Jamaican.  World Athletic Championships 100m final. Usain Bolt's  last appearance - got to win, yes?  But he didn't - sometimes fate doesn't give us the result we crave. We just have to live with that.  Should Gatlin (the twice-banned American who did win) have been allowed to race?  Pointless question - we don't make the rules, and those that do said yes.  The fairy tale is over - but it was wonderful while it lasted.  Let's remember that.

Sorry Grandad - you're barred!

There's a suggestion that, as there's a minimum age for voting, there should also be a maximum age - 65 is being put forward.  I can see the logic - I shall be 80 in a few weeks (Gawd 'elp me!) and statistics suggest that I probably won't see 90 (only a 30% chance).  Those of my grandchildren who are eligible to vote are in their 20s. So should our votes count the same?  In making our individual decisions about how to vote, I only have to worry about the next few years, whereas they need to consider the next few decades.  So should people's votes be "weighted" according to how long they are likely to have to live with the consequences?  I think this discussion has mainly arisen as a result of the referendum result, where it seems (and I still find this hard to understand) that the "leave" vote was mainly driven by older voters, although it is the younger generation who will have to live with the result.

Where there's a will....

Birmingham has a problem with foul odours and an increase in foxes and rats.  Yes, the binmen are on strike. This has been going on for several weeks now, and streets are becoming clogged with black sacks full of rotting rubbish.  It seems the council and the Unite union are at loggerheads, and there is no immediate prospect of the problem being solved.  Some residents are taking matters into their own hands, and a local Muslim group is doing a great job of picking up black sacks from the streets and taking them to the tip.  But clearly this is a health hazard, and quite apart from their responsibility to collect refuse, the council also have a responsibility to deal with things like offensive smells and rodent infestations, so couldn't they just bypass the bin men and their union and deal with the situation under their public health obligations?

Least worst solution?

Should we abolish the monarchy?  With the Queen and  Prince Philip clearly in the twilight of their years, the question has raised its head again.  And yet again, whatever you think about the prospect of King Charles III, the thing you have to ask yourself is - what's the alternative?  And the only possible answer is - a President. Do we really want one if those?  Look over the pond - look at recent elections for metropolitan mayors, for police commissioners - they've all been political fights ending up with a political appointee.  Do we really want a President (here fill in a Conservative or Labour appointee)? Speaking for myself, I'll take King Charles any day,

Am I bovvered?

I'm struggling to get a handle on Brexit.  I thought it was simple - we voted to leave, and it was just a matter of sorting out the hows and whens, but then the concepts of hard-Brexit and soft-Brexit began to be talked about.  And at that point, I sort of tuned out and let them all get on with it.  But now I've been looking at it again.  My understanding is that hard-Brexit holds that taking control of our borders, and who is allowed in, is paramount, and if this means accepting that the economy and our ability to trade with the rest of the world will suffer, then so be it.  Soft-Brexit is the reverse - the economy and trade must be protected at all costs, and if that means that we will have to accept limitations on our ability to control our borders - so be it. Of course, things aren't helped by the fact that there's a power struggle going on in the Government at the moment, and Brexit is being used as a cover for that.  Think I'll tune out again!!

Who - me?

I'm a racist - wasn't aware I was, and certainly would not describe myself as such, but I'm white (well, more sort of a pinky/grey actually) and therefore, according to the President of Cambridge University's Black and Minority Ethnic Society it therefore follows that I am racist  Well, thanks for that - saves me having to think for myself!