A plague on both...

I suppose I should say something about the current contest for the leadership of the Conservative party.  Except that I can't find anything worthwhile to say.  It looks as though we're going to get Boris, like it or not, but I'm not that taken with Hunt either,  My choice would have been Sajid Javid - purely on the basis that I think a Muslim (even a non-practicing one) Prime Minister would have sent a very strong and significant signal to the country, and indeed to the world.  Ah, well....

Compare and contrast

There are those who don't want Donald Trump here.  The counter-argument is that he is here, not as Donald Trump, but as President of the United States, and as such should be afforded the honour and dignity appropriate to that office.  So - Jeremy Corbyn is not to everybody's taste but he is also the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition and, as with Trump, we (and he) should keep the man and the office separate.  So in my book, he should have attended the Royal Banquet given for the President, not as Jeremy Corbyn, but in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition.  His absence was thus doubly dishonorable.

Ha ha

Liked this one from my pensioner's magazine -

When a husband and wife who worked for a circus went to an adoption agency, the social workers raised doubts about their suitability.

The couple then produced photos of their 50-foot motor home which was clean and well maintained and equipped with a beautiful nursery.

The social workers then raised concerns about the education and extraneous influences the child would receive whilst in the couple's care. "We've arranged for a full-time tutor" said the couple, "who will teach the child all the usual subjects along with French, Mandarin and computer skills"

Then the social workers again expressed concern about a child being raised in a circus environment.  "We shall employ a nanny" said the couple "who will be a certified expert in pediatric care, welfare and diet"

Finally the social workers, satisfied at last, asked  "So what age and sex of child are you looking for?"

"It doesn't really matter" said the couple. "as long as they fit in the cannon"

Ooh, you can't say THAT!

Did you know that "rooster" as a name for an adult male chicken was invented by 18th century puritans in America, so they didn't have to say "cock"?

Freedom of speech?

You may remember that, some ten years ago, I posted about a street preacher - I think it was in Wolverhampton - who was arrested for telling his audience that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin.  And the point of that post was that he was simply telling the truth - that's what the Bible says.  And now we have an Australian rugby player who has been disciplined for saying much the same thing on a social media site, and an English rugby player who has been censured for simply "liking" the Australian's post.  So, what's the problem?  Both the Australian and English rugby authorities consider that what these players have done brings the game into disrepute, and therefore they are within their rights in disciplining them.  But as far as I can see, neither person did what they did as rugby players, but simply as devout Christians (who happened to be rugby players) with an unquestioning belief in the Bible as the word of God.  And therein lies the problem - the Bible says.  I for one do not accept the Bible - particularly the New Testament - as the word of God.  It is very much the work of men who wished to promote a particular narrative, for whatever reason, and carefully chose what they would include and what they would exclude.  But that's me - I have no problem with those who see it differently.  So should these rugby players have been disciplined?  Difficult, but on balance I think not.

Tiger Woods

I don't really follow golf, and can't get excited about the way American sportsmen dominate this and other sports, but remembering the shitty (and I really do think that is the appropriate word) way the media treated him during his "troubles", I think he's entitled to his moment of glory.

Words

I always thought "feral" meant "wild" but apparently not so.  A wild animal is wild, is wild, and evermore shall be so.  A feral animal, on the other hand, is living wild, but can become domesticated.  Anybody who has been on holiday in Spain or the Balearics has almost certainly come across those scrawny cats that tend to congregate in the grounds of hotels and complexes and beg for food and, perhaps to a lesser extent, affection.  Well, they're feral. Anybody though of putting one in their bag and bringing it back home? I have.

Quids In!

So Tiger Roll did the bizzie and came home at 4/1.  Looking back, this is the 9th year I've given you my silly system pick for the National, and we've had two winners - Ballabriggs (14/1 in 2011) and yesterday's Tiger Roll.  So at a level £1 bet that puts us £11 to the good.  Not bad.

Grand National

Afraid my silly system has rather disappointed this year.  It's come up with Tiger Roll, who was last year's winner and looks like starting as a short priced favourite.  Is it worth a punt?  Down to you.

Err...can I come in?

I've posted before about the very real difference between the city of London and the City of London (see 18/5/16).  One fascinating fact is that the Queen has to have permission to enter the City.  It all goes back to her namesake Elizabeth I, and today it's more of a tradition than a rule, but she will still stop at Temple Bar (the entrance to the City) and await the Lord Mayor's invitation before entering.