Wave after wave...

So are we being "swamped by migrants"?  This was the phrase used by the Defence Secretary, who I bet wishes he could go back in time and reconsider his choice of words. "Swamped" is a very emotive word, but is it justified?  Well, I could take you to places not a million miles from where I live, where you would be hard pressed to find anyone over the age of about 8 who was born here in the UK.  And I'm sure if you were to find such a person, they might well feel "swamped" by those who have come here from elsewhere. But I could equally take you just a few streets away to where just about everybody is 100% white and British.  As we've mentioned before, this is simply a case of "birds of a feather flock together" - migrants associate with their own sort as do non-migrants.  So "swamped"?  Depends where you are, doesn't it?

Negative reinforcement.

Although it seems harsh and uncaring, I think we are right to say that we will no longer assist in rescue operations for would-be immigrants who get into trouble in the Med trying to get to Italy from North Africa.  It's similar to our long-standing stance of refusing to negotiate with kidnappers.  You do not do anything to encourage behaviour of which you disapprove.  Simple as that.

Don't get it.

Sometimes difficult to understand the attitude of "experts" towards what seem to be common-sense decisions.  It has been suggested that those who are terminally ill and who agree, should be able to be treated with unproven drugs.  What's the worst that can happen?  They're dying anyway - difficult to see how things could be any worse than that, and it's possible that the drugs might be beneficial, and certainly the exercise will provide data which would otherwise be unavailable.  And yet, a respected scientist has said that such an idea is "too risky" and might end up doing harm.  To whom? Can't really see how you can do any great harm to those who are already dying. I would certainly volunteer to be a guinea-pig in such circumstances - what would I have to lose?

Rigid rules?

You do sometimes wonder, don't you?  The question of whether there should be a life-guard on duty at a beach should surely be decided on the basis of how many people are using the beach, rather than on what the date is?  Whether or not, had there been a life-guard on duty, the recent tragedy at Newquay in Cornwall might have been avoided is open to question, but there seems to be little sense in having the beach supervised up to the end of September and then ignoring the fact that half-term week falls at the end of October and that will be a popular time for surfers to go there.  Sort of smacks of the "computer says no" syndrome, doesn't it?

No - not the dance!

A story about refugees on a British base in Cyprus, whom Britain refuse to accept responsibility for, had one of them saying "we are in limbo".  So what exactly does that mean?  Well it's all to do with Catholic dogma, according to which you cannot go to heaven unless you've been baptised, and if you don't go to heaven then you automatically go to the other place.  But this produces a problem - what about all those who have lived a blameless life, but did so before Jesus was born and the (Catholic) church came into existence and therefore had no chance of being baptised? What about children who are stillborn, or who die unbaptised in very early infancy before they are capable of sin?  Are they to be condemned to Hell?  And so the concept of Limbo was born - a sort of neither here nor there place where such souls can rest easy for eternity - not accepted into Heaven, but not subjected to the torments of Hell.  

It's no secret!

I wish politicians would stop treating us like idiots.  The PM has gone into table-thumping mode over this demand by the EU that we pay an extra £1.7bn into the European kitty.  Yes, it's an eye-watering sum, and it will detrimentally affect our economy, but why the shocked surprise?  This is an exercise which is carried out by the EU every year at this time.  We knew that, and we also knew the figures that they would be working on - because it was us that provided them.  So we could work out for ourselves (and I'm sure we did) what the outcome would be.  It doesn't make things any better, but please, stop taking us for fools.

A bus stop is for _____ to ____ at.

Wolverhampton (Wolv'ram'tn) is just down the road from me and it seems that buses there are being ticketed by traffic wardens for stopping at... bus stops.  How about that then??

What's the matter with you? Well now...

What are we to make of this scheme to pay doctors £55 for each diagnosis of dementia they make? Just who gets the money?  If it's the doctor personally - that is as part of his salary - then the cynic in me says that a lot of people who are perhaps merely old and forgetful are going to be diagnosed just to get the money. And if it is going to go to the practice to help with treatment, then once again my cynical side says - is £55 really going to make any significant difference?  Can't imagine that £55 gets you much these days.  And my final thought is - should you really be paying doctors to do what they should be doing anyway?

I'm feeling peckish...

Made myself a corned beef sandwich the other day (and very nice it was too) and (I had never really thought about it before), wondered where this word "corned" came from and what it meant. Coincidentally at much the same time, I saw a recipe which called for corned mutton.  So what's the story?  A standard way of preserving meat before the days of refrigeration was by soaking it in brine - that is, salted water. "Corn" was an old English word for "grain".  Today we would refer to "a grain of salt" - back then it would more likely have been "a corn of salt".  So corned simply meant salted. The beef would be treated that way and then boiled.  In other parts of the world it is called salt-beef or bully-beef (from the French bouilli = boiled).  Ooh, I'm feeling like another sandwich!

What is justice?

And the answer is that it's one of those Humpty Dumpty words - it means whatever you want it to mean.  The question has arisen again because a professional footballer, who was convicted of rape and released from prison having served half his sentence (which is standard procedure provided you've behaved yourself whilst inside) is due to go back to playing for his club.  So "[He] gets early release and a new contract... victim gets scarred for life..." as one blogger put it.  Fair?  But that's another Humpty Dumpty word.  I imagine there are plenty of people who would like to see him have his bits chopped off and be thrown in prison for life.  On the other hand there are those who point out that the girl involved was blind drunk - indeed this is the basis of the conviction, that she was too drunk to have consented - and must accept some responsibility for getting in that condition and for anything that happened as a result. The waters are somewhat muddied by the fact that the girl, who has apparently moved away and tried to change her name, has been "outed" on the internet (no suggestion as far as I am aware that the footballer had any hand in that) and that he is appealing his conviction - which of course is his right under the law.  So - justice??  The verdict, as they say, is yours.