Believe it or not...

How about this for a turn-around?  Monty Python's final show was broadcast on the Gold TV channel before the 9 o'clock watershed, and therefore the dialogue was somewhat sanitised to reflect this fact. This has produced some 30-odd complaints to Ofcom about the lack of swearing!  And Ofcom have said they are investigating...

I want best value for my pensioner's pound.

I'm a big fan of Amazon - I use them regularly and have never had anything other then prompt service and good value from them.  Apparently they are in serious dispute at the moment with a certain book publisher over the pricing of their books sold through Amazon - electronic versions in particular.  It's all about money of course, albeit that both sides are trying to claim the moral high ground.  Speaking as a consumer, as far as I am concerned a book is simply a product - no different in essence to a tin of baked beans.  I owe the author and publisher of a book no more (or less) consideration than I do to all the various people involved in the production of my beans.  It's the end product that concerns me, and how much I have to pay for it.  So to the extent that Amazon appear to be trying to keep the cost low, whereas the publishers seem to be trying to keep it high, I'm rooting for Amazon!

No hiding place

Have you seen the almost unbelievable story of how you can be eavesdropped upon using just about anything which happens to be close to you?  It goes like this - any sound causes anything nearby to vibrate, albeit microscopically in most cases.  But a sensitive enough video camera running at high speed can capture these vibrations, which can then be converted back to the sound which created them.  So there's no need to bug you by planting hidden microphones - all you need is line of sight and a good enough camera.  So be careful out there!

Ooh - you can't say THAT!!

I have to confess to being somewhat baffled by the reaction in some quarters to the reporting of the tragic death of Robin Williams earlier this week.  It seems to be seriously being suggested that the fact that he took his own life should not have been mentioned, or at the very least skirted around.  I am reminded of the time when it was said that death notices in the "posh" newspapers which included the phrase "following a short illness" was code for suicide.  Why shouldn't the full facts be published?  It seems that the fear is that the suicide of a celebrity may lead to others following suit who might otherwise not have done so.  But the phrase "tail wagging the dog" springs to mind - newspapers are there to report the news, and the fact is that he committed suicide.  Are they to be prevented from reporting this fact because it might have certain repercussions?  That's censorship surely?  It has been suggested that some of them should have treated the matter with more sensitivity and restraint - but then there's a certain section of the press who are not exactly noted for those characteristics.  So where does this end?  Are we not to be allowed to know anything which might cause somebody to harm themselves - or worse?  There are so many vulnerable and damaged people out there with such a variety of problems that it's questionable whether you would ever be able to publish anything.

More than one form of extremism?

The "trojan horse" business rumbles on (see posts of 17th April and 10th June). The Department of Education is considering the publication of regulations which will oblige all schools - including independents and academies - to "actively promote British values" - which are defined, among other things, as "respect for legally ‘protected characteristics’ such as homosexuality, religion, gender change, disability, race and marital status".  The Daily Mail blue-rinse brigade have immediately pounced on this as meaning that schools will not be able to celebrate Christmas unless they celebrate other religions' festivals to the same extent, and that teachers will not be able to use words like "husband" and "wife" when discussing marriage, because that would be discriminatory to same-sex couples. Load of round things of course, but what do we think?  Are the regulations an over-reaction? Surely all it amounts to is, as happens at my local primary (about 90%+ white), that kids should know all about Islam, Sikhism, Ramadan, Diwali and the like, and should be aware that there are families which may have two fathers or two mothers.  What's the alternative?  That they should remain ignorant of these things until they face them in real life?  What are schools for if not to prepare kids for what they may have to deal with in the future? Get a grip, folks!

Police state?

This Cliff Richard business - I find it extremely worrying that apparently a warrant can be issued to enter and search your property on the basis of an untested allegation of wrongdoing, without you having any say in the matter, or even it seems being aware that it is going on.  I've had my say before about what I see as the "we'll arrest you now and hope to find the evidence later"  approach, but this seems to take matters even a step further to "we'll skip the arrest bit, and just go straight to trawling through your stuff in the hope of finding something which we can use against you".  Cart before horse springs to mind.

And also...

Lauren Bacall,  No sadness here - she's had a good long life.  One of my childhood screen sweethearts.  And I did whistle - several times!

R.I.P.

Robin Williams - what a tragedy.  Drugs and alcohol I can accept - it pretty well goes with the territory out in La-La-Land - but depression??  How could such a funny, apparently fun-loving man get so low as to not be able to see any future for himself? Tragic, tragic, tragic. 
Nanu nanu.

Are you flying your flags?

Have you got a washing line, or do you use a tumble-dryer?  Or perhaps, like me, you have a washing line but never use it?  Yes, I tumble-dry, even though I know it costs me money.  Why?  Well firstly, I'm idle - I can't be arsed to rig up the line - in the time it takes me to do this the washing could be in the dryer, and I could be back in my comfy chair.  But also, my least favourite household task is ironing, and in my experience, washing dried on the line tends to be more crispy and creased and therefore more difficult to iron.  So I'm prepared to pay the extra for the convenience.  How about you? (good song).

Do you take sterling?

Scotland and the pound is in the news again, with Alex Salmond maintaining that it's as much Scotland's pound as England's.  It's not of course (see post dated 23rd February) but what an independent Scotland could do is continue to use the pound. Any country can use whatever currency they want providing (a) they can get hold of it, and (b) it will be unquestionably accepted by the country's shops and businesses.  There are many countries that use the (American) dollar in this way, and Scotland could use that as a model.  But it would continue to be the pound sterling, underwritten by, and at the whim of the Bank of England.  Scotland would have no say over it.  It may well be as regards currency that, in he event of a "yes" vote in the referendum, this would be the the most practical outcome - after all, the probability is that the majority of cross-border trade would be in pounds sterling, and certainly tourists (and tourism would continue to be a big source of revenue for the Scots) would be looking to spend their sterling up there.  I don't think the practicalities are as great as is being made out.