Ha ha.

Here's an old one-

The Rev. Ian Paisley was seated next to President Clinton on a flight to Ireland. Once the plane was airborne, the flight attendant came round for drinks orders. The President asked for a whisky and soda, which was brought and placed before him. The attendant then asked the minister if he would also like a drink. The Rev. Paisley replied in disgust "Madam, I'd rather be savagely raped by a brazen whore than let liquor touch these lips." The President handed his drink back to the attendant and said "I'm sorry, I didn't realise there was a choice..."

Ireland's call?

Watching the sport on television yesterday, my grandson asked why Ireland play rugby as one team, but football as two. Good question and I'm not sure there's a definitive answer. Both association and rugby football of course well predate the partition of Ireland and therefore originally both codes would have had Ireland playing as a single entity. So perhaps the question is not so much why do they play as a single team at rugby, as why don't they at soccer? And the answer seems to be that whereas there was no real enmity in the pre-partition years between the rugby sides of north and south, there was as far as association football was concerned, and so following partition they took the opportunity to form two separate organisations, whereas rugby didn't bother.

Quick - where's the blacksmith?

As a follow up to yesterday's post, the Marriage Act of 1753 stated, among other things, that if you wished to get married under the age of majority - which was then 21 - you needed the consent of your parents. The law did not apply however in Scotland, where boys could marry at 14 and girls at 12. Further in Scotland all that was needed for a valid marriage was the exchange of vows before a person of some standing (not necessarily a minister) in the presence of two witnesses. This led to an exodus of under-age couples wishing to marry to Scotland, and as the first place the stage-coach would stop over the border was Gretna, this quickly became the Las Vegas of its day. Subsequent legislation made marriage there progressively more difficult but Gretna retains its mystique as a place of romantic love to this day.

Shh - don't tell anyone...

I overheard somebody the other day refer to a couple as "living over the brush". I hadn't heard that expression for a long, long time. What it means of course is that they are living together but not married. Today that's not exceptional, but not that long age it wasn't something you talked openly about. Where does the expression come from? Prior to 1753 and the Marriage Act of that year, there were no specific laws about how you got married. A marriage in Church would be recognised as legal without question, but it cost, and a lot of people couldn't afford it. So in many people's eyes if a man and a woman accepted each other as husband and wife, that was all that was needed. But how was this acceptance to be evidenced? And somehow the tradition arose that one way they could do this was by holding hands and stepping over a broomstick laid on the ground. And there you are.

Bank charges.

Sorry, but I welcome the Supreme Court's ruling that - effectively - banks are entitled to charge what they like to customers who go overdrawn without prior authorisation. What's the alternative? Why should people like me, who manage their finances properly and never knowingly go overdrawn, subsidise those who don't? If you know you haven't got the funds in your account to meet your immediate liabilities, then you approach the bank and ask for an agreed overdraft facility - and if you don't, then on your own head be it. Take responsibility for your own actions, for goodness sake!

Glasses, ref!

Interesting suggestion in a letter to my paper the other day that controversy is part of the very soul of football, and that bringing in more officials, with or without technological aids, would change the essence of the game fundamentally. Would we really want a game where every decision is spot on, and correct beyond any shadow of a doubt? What would there be to talk and argue about in the pub afterwards? Personally I don't think there is any real danger of that - even with the benefit of slow-motion replays, more often than not there is an element of uncertainty. Did he dive or didn't he? Just where was he tripped - inside the penalty area or outside? Was he level with the last defender or offside? Certainly given the standard of technology we have today, there would still be arguments. I think having more officials is a good idea though.

Remember, remember.

Last Saturday was the 35th anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombings. One of the worst atrocities of the IRA's campaign on the British mainland, 21 people were killed and many more injured when bombs went off in two city centre pubs - The Mulberry Bush and The Tavern in the Town. The Mulberry Bush has long since been demolished, but The Tavern in the Town is still there - now called The Yard of Ale. I often wonder if any of the people who pass by its fairly anonymous front door every day realise its history. Of course the incident was equally notorious for the fitting up by the police of six innocent men for the crime. The real culprits have never been brought to justice although several names are in the public domain as having been involved.

Automatism.

The tragic story of the man who strangled his wife in his sleep took me back getting on for thirty years to when I was studying for a law degree. This very situation was discussed in theoretical terms as part of our study of the common law on crime. To be guilty of a crime at common law, it is necessary that you committed an unlawful act (the "actus reus") but also that you did so in an unlawful frame of mind ("mens rea"). Just what amounts to the necessary unlawful frame of mind will vary from crime to crime. But the essence of the situation under discussion is that there could be no mens rea because quite simply there was no mens. You were not under the direction of your conscious mind. Given that there is considerable material on this subject in various text-books, all of which are unanimous that in these circumstances no crime has been committed, the surprise is that a prosecution was brought in the first place.

Put a sixpence in...

Today is "Stir-up Sunday" when you are supposed to make your Christmas pudding, with every member of the family taking a turn at stirring the mixture, and making a wish. And you must stir it in a clockwise direction. The reason for the name comes from the collect for the day in The Book of Common Prayer, which starts "Stir up, we beseech Thee, O Lord..." And of course it gives time for all the flavours to come together so that it is perfect come Christmas.

It's just not right...

As a sort of carry-over from yesterday's post, it never ceases to amaze me how many people complain about something without offering any viable alternative. It's always up to "them" to do something about "it" - whoever they may be, and whatever it is. At the moment there are people getting into a lather over the fact that there are a dozen or so oil tankers anchored off the Devon coast. The perception (probably correct) is that the owners are banking on the price of oil increasing, and that therefore they stand to make more money by waiting rather than bringing their cargo into port now. This is portrayed as "greedy oil barons hammering the poor consumer". But what exactly do they expect, and what do they think can or should be done about it? Ah no, that's for someone else ("them") to sort out. After all, let's be realistic. Oil companies are in it for the profit - they're not charities or part of social services. And what's the alternative? Some sort of Government regulation - and how exactly would that work? And would you really want the price of petrol determined by Government diktat rather than by market forces? It would spell the end of supermarket price-wars for starters. If you've got ideas, then let's hear them - but don't just whinge.