Formula 1

Well, last year my assessment of the season was "boring".  This year, the word which springs to mind is "depressing".  The drivers' championship was won by a Brit, which was nice.  The question of who would win it went down to the wire, which created some interest, but once again, for the - how many years in a row now? - one make of car has dominated, and therefore its drivers have dominated. Whereas in recent past years it has been Red Bull and Vettel, this year it's Mercedes and Hamilton/Rosberg. The names may be different, but the effect is the same - a turn-off.  It seems to me that the problem is that F1 suffers from a split personality. It's trying to be two different and mutually incompatible things. Bernie Ecclestone and his lot wants to present it as an exciting spectator sport, but the constructors, as I see it, are just interested in producing the fastest car - and being miles ahead of the competition is something to be desired.  The fact that this will deny the watching public any sort of thrilling competition just doesn't enter their thinking. Anyway -
Hamilton - no question the best man won.  Would have been somewhat of a travesty if he had been beaten by someone who had only won half as many races.
Rosberg - the fact that he ended up such a close second was more down to his good and Hamilton's bad fortune than anything else.  Showed himself to be a good racer though.
Ricciardo - where did he come from?  Mr Consistency in an underperforming Red Bull (and certainly put Vettel in his place).  One to watch.
I just hope next season will produce better entertainment.

Over there...

I don't normally comment on matters outside these islands, but so many people have asked me for my views on the shooting in Ferguson USA, that I've decided to put my thoughts on record.  Obviously I don't live there and so am looking on matters as an outsider, but I don't know which disturbs me the most - that a policeman (and I think it is important to remember that he is in fact a member of the police force - protect and serve and all that) could shoot and kill an unarmed civilian simply because he felt physically threatened by him, or that the American public, through their grand jury system, have effectively said that such behaviour is acceptable.  I repeat, I don't live there and maybe if I did I would see things differently, but I hope I wouldn't.

Opening mouth before putting brain in gear?

Difficult to see the sense in the government's pledge to cut net migration into this country to "tens of thousands" - a target which they have finally admitted they have no hope of reaching - when everybody knows that the concept of free movement of people within the EU means that they have no say over the number of EU citizens coming here - or for that matter, leaving here.  Why pledge to do something over which you have no control?  Crazy!

What did I tell you??

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that the cost of benefits for pensioners is getting more and more expensive as there are more and more of us, and that we have been sheltered from the worst of the austerity cuts which the government has made over recent years.  Their report says that this is a problem we will have to face and there are only three answers - cutting the benefits we pensioners get, cutting the benefits and services that everybody else gets, or increasing taxation. Well, you read it here first - see my post of 4/7/08.

How fresh is fresh?

Article in the press about fish being sold in supermarkets as "fresh" which is anything up to 15 days old.  Dreadful. yes?  But perfectly legal - apparently you can officially call fish fresh provided it has been kept on ice since it was caught.  Can't help remembering when I had fish and chips once when on holiday by the seaside and was blown away by how delicious the fish tasted - I reckon it had been swimming in the sea just a few hours earlier!  Where I live is about as far away from the sea as you can get in this country, so I suppose we have to be glad of what we can get. 

When is too young?

There is a suggestion that a law will be passed making it an offence to leave a young child alone - only question seems to be at what age and for how long?  I'll put my cards on the table - I regularly leave my 9-year-old granddaughter alone in the house while I go to pick up another granddaughter from school - a 10 or so minute trip.  She (the 9-year-old) is a sensible child and knows not to answer the door or answer the 'phone, and although I lock her in, she knows where the front door key is should she need to get out of the house for any reason, and in those circumstances to go round next door.  So I feel I have covered all the bases.  You may ask why I don't take her with me, and the answer is I ask her every time, but she prefers to stay in the house. But it may be that I shall have to rethink this if indeed it becomes illegal to do what I do.  So when is too young, and how long is too long?  Once again we seem to be looking for a "one size fits all" solution to what is definitely not a one size fits all problem.  So much depends on the child - I reckon my 9-year-old could run rings round many kids three and four years older than she.  But she has a schoolfriend of the same age (slightly older in fact) who I most definitely would not trust to be on her own - a completely different character who would probably end up burning the house down or something!  And therein lies the problem with passing laws like this - in order to do good for what is probably a small minority you have to interfere with the lives of the majority who are not in fact those you are seeking to affect.  As somebody-or-other said "God save us from people who mean well"!

Crazy!!

Ofsted examined a primary school in Lincolnshire.  It got top marks all down the line, but Ofsted failed to give it an "outstanding" rating.  Why?  Because it was all white! There were no children there from any other culture.  No suggestion that this was in any way the school's fault, and its intake merely reflected the area it was in, but as Ofsted saw it the children there were denied "first-hand interaction with counterparts from different backgrounds", and this was sufficient to deny them the highest rating. So being white British is now somehow not good enough?

Most influential...

Somebody has created a list of the films and programmes that are said to have changed the world.  It may be a generational thing, but nowhere did I see "Cathy come home" which must be one of the most hard-hitting plays ever aired on television.  Instrumental in the creation of the charities Crisis and Shelter, it completely changed the public perception of homelessness.  Truly groundbreaking.

Elementary

A couple of years ago I was a little scathing about the above programme, which is the US's attempt to update Sherlock Holmes - and comparisons with our "Sherlock" were obvious.  Well I've been watching it regularly - it's now in its third season - and I have to say I really enjoy it.  The point is that it does not in fact put itself forward as any sort of rival to "Sherlock", but as something completely different. Its genius is that it decided to make "Watson" a woman - thus introducing an undercurrent of sexual tension between the two main characters.  Because American TV series tend to be much longer than ours - often upwards of 20 episodes - this relationship has had time to develop and has become the main driver of the programme.  I apologise - I was wrong.  It's really good.

Panic stations!

I don't know how to tell you this, but we're eating chocolate faster than it's being produced!  Yes, that's right - chocolate is running out and at the present rate in another five years or so, there'll be precious little to be had, and what there is will be ruinously expensive.  In fact, the signs are already there - have you noticed how those nice Christmas tins of chocolate sweets cost the same - or maybe a little more - than last year, but weigh less?  Thin end of the wedge, folks!