Have I got it right?

I have been challenged by my grandchildren over my post of last Sunday - OK they say, if the causes of the recent riots are so obvious, what are they, according to you?  Well, firstly, I only maintained the causes are pretty obvious - that doesn't mean I have any answers.  Secondly, it's difficult to talk about this without resorting to clichés.  "Lack of discipline" is a cliché, but that is the underlying cause as I see it - or maybe lack of self-discipline would be nearer the mark.  Each generation rebels against authority and its elders - that's human nature, but at one time there was a acceptance - however reluctant - that while you were home, your parents made the rules; while you were at school, the teachers were in charge, and when you were out and about, you deferred to the police.  And that is what has changed.  Today many parents daren't say "boo" to their children; in many schools pupils effectively rule the classrooms, and police no longer command any respect on the streets.  Why this has happened is perhaps open to argument, and like I say, I don't claim to have any answers as to how things can be changed, but the main reason for what has gone on seems to me to be blindingly obvious.

Cricket

So we are now the number one test side in the world?  I think I would feel more positive about this if the opposition in the current series had not been so weak.  We've certainly got a good side now - good solid batting all the way down the list, and a potent bowling attack able to deal with pretty well any conditions, but I would really like to see us tested against first-class opposition - which I am afraid the current Indian team are not.  It's an old truism that you can only deal with the opponent you are presented with, but I've got this nasty feeling that our present exalted status is more down to the poor quality of international cricket generally than to any superhuman feats on our part.

Knee-jerk reaction?

Understandable, but basically foolish calls for a "public inquiry" into the recent riots and looting in London and elsewhere.  It would just be spending a large amount of public money (which we can ill afford in the present circumstances) to prove the obvious.  We all know the causes.  We don't need a drawn-out and expensive inquiry to tell us.  Spend the money on something more useful.

The clue is in the name.

The publication by the Ministry of Defence of their files on UFO sightings has reignited the debate about whether or not UFOs exist.  And the answer is, of course they do - if you see something in the sky and nobody can identify it, then it's an Unidentified Flying Object isn't it?  Simple.  The question of whether it's being flown by little green men from Mars or wherever is a separate issue - and indeed if it could be proved that it was, it would no longer be a UFO, would it?

I stand in awe.

Quote of the week - maybe the month, maybe the year, maybe of all time.  This from a father whose son had just been killed in the Birmingham riots, addressing an angry crowd considering revenge - "I have lost my son - if you want to lose yours step forward, otherwise calm down and go home."  Nobel peace prize, anyone?

What's happening - continued.

We do not have a large, armed police force - as many other countries do.  Our police can only police by consent - that is, they can only police effectively if the population is prepared to be policed.  If that consent is not there - for whatever reason, or indeed for no reason - then the police are in trouble.  At present there are clearly sections of the population who are not willing to be policed, and that is the root of the present disturbances. Whether this is just natural adolescent rebellion against authority or something more is open to question but until the "rioters" accept that the police are there for the good of us all - whether we like them or not - and that the alternative is that none of us are safe, including those who are rioting, then this mayhem is likely to continue.  The looting - although the most serious aspect of all this from society's point of view - is I think just opportunism piggy-backing onto the general disturbances.

What's happening?

Much talk about anarchy as a result of what has been going on in London and elsewhere.  What exactly does it mean?  Well it comes from the Greek: a- being a general negative prefix, and arkhos meaning ruler.  So anarchy strictly speaking is a social system where there is no ruler, and therefore no rules.  So it's every man for himself, or to quote Aleister Crowley "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".  So it's not so much a breakdown of law and order, but more a situation where there is no such concept as law and order.  What's been going on recently is mob rule, which is something quite different.

What's in a name?

What do you call that country on the other side of the North Sea - Holland?  Yes, me too, but I was surprised to find that that was wrong.  I've always assumed that Holland and the Netherlands were just two names for the same place, but now I've learned that Holland (or more specifically North Holland and South Holland) are just two out of the twelve provinces that make up the Netherlands.  So to most of the Dutch, calling it Holland is somewhat of an insult - as someone put it - "a bit like calling England Yorkshire".

Oh no, you can't have that week.

When I ran an office, emergencies aside, I and my deputy were never away at the same time - simple common sense.  And yet the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are all on holiday at the same time?  It's bad luck that this state of affairs has coincided with a major financial crisis, but surely it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place?  All it needs is for somebody to be in charge of a simple holiday calendar.

Minority rules??

We've heard a lot recently about these e-petitions, whereby if they attract more than 100,000 votes they are considered for discussion in Parliament.  But do the maths - the population of this country is some 60 million, which makes 100,000 equivalent to about one-sixth of one per cent!  Even if we just restrict it to those registered to vote it is still only about a quarter of a percent.  So this minute fraction of the population holding a particular view is enough to trigger Parliamentary debate?  Where did that idea come from?