Simple but effective?

Am I missing something? This business about accelerators in Toyota cars sticking - recent story about a motorist in America who pressed the accelerator to overtake another vehicle and then found it had stuck and he couldn't slow down, so what did he do? He slammed the brake pedal to the floor, yanked on the handbrake and that didn't work, but eventually, thanks to going up a hill and the help of a Highway patrol car that got in front of him and slowly backed up into him he came to a stop. So - scary situation, but the obvious question is - why didn't he just put the car in neutral and/or turn off the engine? Like I say, am I missing something?

Prescience?

I've mentioned before the rather spooky way that things I post about have a habit of cropping up in the news some time later. Have a look at my post of 14/11/08 concerning Yorkshire puddings - and lo and behold there is now a move afoot for a law to say that they can't be called that unless they have been made in Yorkshire!

Oh dear, oh dear...

I used the word "depressing" about Tony Blair's appearance before the Iraq Inquiry the other week - so what adjective do I use for Gordon Brown's performance? Evasive and dissembling immediately spring to mind, but they're not quite right. It was in fact a minor master-class in appearing to answer the question whilst in reality giving little or nothing away. It was a combination of pleading ignorance, dealing in generalities and avoiding specifics and hiding behind statistics. After four hours, we had learned precious little - which I'm sure was the purpose of the exercise as far as Brown was concerned. Perhaps the most telling comment he made was that as he saw it the justification for going to war with Iraq was not the fear of weapons of mass destruction, nor even regime change, but to punish Iraq for failing to comply with UN resolutions. I assume therefore that, even as we speak, plans are in hand to invade Israel, whose decades-long policy of disobeying or ignoring UN resolutions puts Saddam's in the shade? Or is it, as I suspect, one law for our friends and another for everybody else?

What did you expect?

What on earth was the point of the referendum held in Iceland on whether or not they should pay compensation to Britain and the Netherlands over the collapse of the Icesave bank at the height of the banking crisis. Big "no" vote apparently. Big surprise - turkeys don't vote for Christmas!

The need to know...?

Why these almost hysterical demands to know what Jon Venables (or whatever his name now is) has done to have his licence revoked and to be returned to prison? Much talk of the public's "right to know" - but why? The assumption is that he has committed another offence, in which case the whole matter is sub judice as it would be with anyone else who had been arrested and charged. The fact that it's a revocation of licence doesn't alter the situation. Let the law take its course.

R.I.P.

Michael Foot - that rarest of beings, an honest and principled politician. Didn't agree with his politics, but you knew where you stood with him, and he was true to his ideals, even when it became clear that he was ploughing a lone furrow. Compare that with today's lot whose policies are more shaped by what they think will be popular rather than what they believe in or know to be right. One of a kind, I rather think.

Holy smoke!

How about this then - a town in Germany is putting the potholes in its roads up for sale. You can buy one for €50 and the town will then repair it, and put a personal message on the surface. What a brilliant idea!

What goes round...

When I was a lad, if you kept a dog, you had to have a licence to do so. I seem to remember the cost was fairly minimal, but it did put you on the official record as the dog's owner, and perhaps made you think about your responsibilities as such. The idea is being resurrected it seems, mainly due to the modern trend of people keeping "attack dogs" as a status symbol or a means of defence. The suggestion is that you will not only need a licence, but also insurance against your dog causing any damage to anyone else, and you will need to convince the authorities that you can keep your dog under control. Not sure whether this will really solve he problem it seeks to address - unless it is rigorously policed, the danger is that the dog owners who are really causing the problem will just ignore it.

Cheap and nasty - but cheap!

Every year, just before Christmas, I get a £250 winter fuel payment. Very welcome, but if I'm honest I don't really need it - I have no real problem paying my fuel bills. There must be many like me, so perhaps it is not surprising that there are constant calls for it to be means tested. But would this in fact save money? Because it is paid automatically to every pensioner, the cost of administering it is virtually nil. If you means test it on the other hand, administration costs become significant. You have to have - and pay for - the staff to assess everybody on an individual basis and decide whether they meet the criteria or not, to make sure that those who are entitled to it get it, and those that aren't, don't. And then you have to set up an appeals procedure to deal with those who have been refused and are not happy about it. And these costs are ongoing because people's circumstances are continually changing. As is often the case in matters like this, the "universal" approach is often the cheapest.

Couldn't make it up.

This story has a certain resonance with the one about Asda the other week. A father took a picture of his son on a ride at a shopping centre, and was then challenged by a security guard who insisted that he delete the picture as he might be a paedophile. When told the child was his son, the security guard asked him to prove it - which of course he couldn't, there on the spot. Tempers flared, the police were called and eventually everyone went on their way. So what's bad about all this? Firstly, it's part of this modern approach of turning the burden of proof on its head - it's now more often than not up to you to prove you're innocent. And secondly, as with the Asda story, legislation has produced a climate of fear in which organisations are terrified of making a mistake and being pilloried for it, so they tend to go over the top and lose their sense of proportion.