Suis-je Charlie?

So, how do we see this massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris? Disgusting, indefensible, yes - no question.  I've gone on record more times than I care to remember saying that freedom of speech, if it is to mean anything, must include the right to offend, but I've equally gone on record to say that you have to take responsibility for your own actions.  And here, it seems to me, the two themes conflict.  The magazine - as I see it - didn't just offend.  It's whole raison d'être was to offend. It set out to offend - and not just to offend Islam.  It carried some scurrilous cartoons about the Catholic Church, among others.  So that leads us to the second string - if you set out deliberately to offend, do you have to accept that those offended against may seek to strike back - and their methods may be - shall we say, a little extreme? So, I'm Charlie - or am I?

Today is December the 32nd....

Remember all the fuss about the Y2K bug?  For those who don't, this was the theory that computers would not be able to cope with the changeover from the last day of 1999 to the first of January 2000 and would crash - with possible disasterous results. Bit of a storm in a teacup in the end, although what might have happened if nobody had thought about it is anybody's guess.  Anyway, this came to mind the other day when I learned that NASA steered clear of shuttle launches towards the end of a year, because the onboard computers didn't automatically recognise the change from one year to the next and might malfunction.  All those millions of dollars and they couldn't come up with a decent software calendar?

Villains??

Am I the only one to think that those who left this dog at a Scottish railway station tied up with a suitcase containing his possessions should be - if not applauded - then at the very least not demonised.  Yes, they could have dumped the dog outside the RSPA premises.  Yes. they could have 'phoned the authorities to arrange a pick up. But it seems to me that they took the course which was most likely to result in the dog being discovered quickly with maximum publicity, which would result in it being speedily found a good home.  Given that, for whatever reason, they felt unable to keep the dog themselves, I feel they did their best for it.

It's the paying punters that count.

The case of the convicted rapist footballer raises its head again (see post of 22/10/14).  His attempts to resume his career are being blocked by those who think he should never be allowed to play football again.  On the other side of the argument are those (including it would seem, the footballers' trade union) who take the view that he has paid his dues to society and should be allowed to get on with his life.  I think the problem is that, as a footballer, he is involved in the entertainment business, and that business - whether you are putting on a football match, or a pantomime, or an historical re-enactment or whatever - is all about putting bums on seats - or more precisely getting people to pay you for the privilege of putting their bum on a seat. And if, for whatever reason, people don't want to come and see what you are putting on then you are stuffed.  If he were an office clerk, or a van driver, the problem would not arise. So it's really not about justice, or fairness or giving somebody a second chance, or anything like that - it's a simple matter of economics.

How much???

Seen the advert for "Build Your Own Star Wars Millennium Falcon Scale Model"?  It comes, piece by piece, together with a glossy magazine.  And the price?  Well therein lies the rub - the advert tells you loudly and clearly that the first edition of the magazine is "in newsagents now" for £2.99.  What it doesn't tell you is that this is a one-off special price - future editions will cost £8.99 and there will be at least 100 of them before you have all the pieces to make the model.  So, £900+ for a model of the Millennium Falcon - good value for money?  You decide, but don't be taken in by the advert.

Remember "The Few"

In general I try to use this blog to comment on things I feel are worthy of comment and occasionally to ride a few hobby-horses of mine.  But for once, I am going to use it to implore you to support a cause.  I'm ex-RAF (National Service) and maybe that is why I feel so strongly, but surely everybody knows that, had it not been for the fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain, we would probably have lost the war - or at the very least had to sue for peace.  So - there's a chapel at Biggin Hill in Kent, where there was a Battle of Britain airfield.  It was built shortly after the war, and is dedicated to the pilots who fought - and died - in that conflict.  It was intended as a permanent memorial.  It costs apparently some £50,000 a year to maintain - chump change in the great scheme of things.  But it seems the Ministry of Defence considers this an "inappropriate use of resources" and is looking to close it down. There is a petition to keep it open on the Government's site at epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/73191. Please sign it.

Too loooong!

Funny how something which seemed so right at the time can turn out to have a really bad side.  I was very much in favour of the idea of fixed parliaments.  It always seemed so unfair that the Prime Minister of the day should be able to choose when to call a general election - obviously choosing the most propitious moment for himself and his party.  Much better to take it out of his hands, yes?  And yet, here's the other side of the coin - because everybody knows when the next general election will be (7th May for anybody unsure) we are now going to have to endure months of electioneering - indeed it's already underway.  Before, especially when the Prime Minister caught everybody on the hop, there would only be about a month between the dissolution of parliament and the election.  And I know which I would prefer!

Sweaty jocks?

I know nothing about Katie Hopkins, other than that she clearly makes a living out of being controversial - offensive even.  The question seems to be - how far can she go without falling foul of the law?  You might think (and I do think) that Twitter should be seen for what it is - idle chit-chat - and that the law should keep out of it.  But apparently there are those who not only take offense at what she says, but are demanding that the police take action.  Can't decide who is the sadder - Ms Hopkins or those who rise to her bait?

Still looking...

People don't become senior judges without having an incisive, analytical mind, so it's always worth listening to what they have to say.  Lady Butler-Sloss has made a very good point about the inquiry into historic child abuse of which, for a very short time, she was chairman.  She quit because she was seen as too "establishment" and too close to people who might have been involved.  But are we now in danger of swinging too far the other way?  The perceived problem is that if the inquiry is seen as being run by the establishment, the eventual report will be seen by many as saying what the establishment wants it to say. But isn't there an equal danger that if the inquiry is effectively "run" by the victims, in the same way the report will be seen as saying what the victims want it to say?  Either way, one side or the other is going to have no faith in the outcome.  Where you find an "honest broker" I don't know, but it has been suggested that you look outside these islands.

Tick, tock...

Lots of football matches over the Christmas period with lots of opportunities for managers to complain about the referees and specifically the amount of time they added on at the end of the game - or didn't as the case might be.  And yet there's an answer to this - an answer that's been around for as long as I can remember. The Game Clock.  This is a clock which stops every time the game stops - so you get an undisputed period of real play.  No arguments, no guesses.  Every time the ball goes out of play, the clock stops.  Every time the referee blows his whistle, the clock stops. The idea is so simple.  The only thing you would have to decide is - how long should a match last given that it represents real playing time with all the stoppages removed? Thirty minutes each way, perhaps?