Difficult issue

Great admiration for Alex Salmond in his attempt to deal with "offensive behaviour" at Scottish football matches. It might seem a simple matter, but the problem is that in many cases the underlying cause has little to do with football rivalry and everything to do with religious bigotry, and therefore any attempt to deal with it could be seen as the repression of religious expression.  But at least he's had the guts to grasp the nettle.

Stating the obvous?

“In order for an obese person to lose weight - bearing in mind that most of them can't exercise because they are so overweight - all he has to do is eat less."  Lord McColl in a Lords debate on obesity.

Bad law?

I can see no sense in the Government's proposal to introduce a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving which it is proposed will carry a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment.  At present, a conviction for dangerous driving carries a maximum of two years inside.  So why doesn't it make sense?  Because it means that the length of sentence will depend on the severity of the consequences rather than the severity of the wrongdoing.  An accident caused by a really bad example of dangerous driving by a serial offender may produce just a minor injury, whereas a momentary lapse of attention by an otherwise careful driver may result in death.  The sentence should reflect the recklessness of your actions rather than your good or bad fortune regarding the outcome. 

Steve Jobs

I was never an Apple man, and perhaps because of that, I am able to assess Jobs's contribution to the tech world rather more dispassionately than some.  It was said on the news that he was the man who invented things you didn't even know you wanted, and certainly he always seemed to be ahead of the game.  Having said that, I always thought that Apple products were somewhat of a case of style over substance - they always looked good, but apparently didn't always perform up to their looks.  I remember one of my cars was a black low-slung sporty model - and I bought it on its looks - but its performance was average at best, and, although this was back in the days when Apple was still in nappies as it were, I have always thought of it as an "icar".  The other negative aspect of Apple - and I don't know whether this came from Jobs or not - was the way they sought to control the market - so if you bought their hardware you were restricted to using their software.  Indeed this was why I was never tempted to buy any of their products.  But having said all that, my kids and grandkids have ipods, iphones and ipads and swear by them.  So, Steve Jobs - visionary and astute businessman who died before his time.  Let's leave it at that.

Meeow!

Cats again.  Rather silly of the Home Secretary to have suggested that there was a case of an illegal immigrant whose deportation was blocked by the courts because he had a pet cat.  Nonsense of course - the deportation was blocked because the court accepted that he had established a family life here with his girlfriend and the existence of the cat was simply a minor piece of evidence in support of that.  Of course the way the Home Sec told it made for a better story and went down well with the party faithful who would like to see The Human Rights Act dumped, but it is a bit worrying that a Minister of the Crown should be so free and easy with the truth.

If you've got the money....

So Foxy Knoxy didn't do it?  The evidence was certainly pretty circumstantial and relied heavily on DNA finds which appear to have been discredited.  There are two worrying features here - to me anyway.  The first is that the appeal hearing seems to have focused entirely on the reliability, or otherwise of the DNA evidence, and ignored the rest of the prosecution's evidence at the original trial.  And the second is the extent to which the original trial and the appeal were subject to media pressure.  The Italian media at the original trial were baying for a conviction, and at the appeal the American media had clearly decided that Knox was innocent and were more or less demanding that she be acquitted.  So has justice been done?  What do you think?

Brmmm brmmm.

What about this idea of raising the speed limit on motorways to 80mph?  I can obviously only speak from personal experience, but surely this would just be doing no more than legitimising the status quo?  As I see it, most traffic in the fast lane is already going at 80 or faster.  And there is a theory, which may or may not be an urban myth, that you are allowed a 10% leeway on any speed limit which if true means that the current limit is really 77mph.  So is this just a PR stunt?

Begging for it!

I just couldn't resist this one - the court case against Christine Hemming has given a whole new meaning to the phrase "cat burglar" hasn't it?

A good laugh.

Have you heard of the Ig Nobel prizes?  No I hadn't either until a few days ago, despite the fact that they've been around for twenty years now.  The name is a humorous take on the word "ignoble" and the prizes are awarded for "unusual or trivial" achievements in their various fields.  This year prizes have been awarded for the discovery that a certain type of beetle will attempt to mate with a particular type of Australian beer bottle, that the quality of people's decision-making is affected (often for the better) when they have a strong desire to urinate, and research into why discus throwers become dizzy whereas hammer throwers do not.  How about that then?

I don't believe it!

Silly story of the week - at the Labour Party Conference someone was stopped by security and prevented from entering the conference hall unless they handed over a harmonica which was in their bag.  Yes - a mouth organ!  Quite what was the perceived risk is unclear.  Perhaps the threat that they might disrupt proceedings by playing something inappropriate?