Thanks, Phil

Thanks for nothing!

Phil Banyard of the EDP has taken it upon himself to create a controversy in local cricket. He hasn't done it all by himself – but, it appears, he is the prime mover. With help from Norfolk's own version of Victor Meldrew, John Murrell, he seeks to upset everyone he can.

We've had three weeks of stories about plans to expand the Norfolk Alliance at the expense of the feeder leagues. It's obvious, various people are not happy.

The title of “Chief Whinger” surely goes to John Murrell of Sprowston C.C. It's a shame to personalise what should be a serious debate about cricket, but when John is involved – it's difficult no too!

John exhibits all the characteristics of a real “Nimby-Jobsworth”. He thinks he's on a mission and the rest of the world is out to get him. We see this every year at the Annual General Meeting of the Norfolk Cricket League. First, John puts forward umpteen amendments – the purpose of which is to make the Norfolk League more like the Alliance – we spend a long time reading them and trying to make sense of his poorly constructed proposals, and then they are all rejected by an overwhelming majority.

Like all good Jobsworth's this does not really deter John.

So, this year he has run to the Alliance Committee and persuaded them to back an expansion of their league. In other words, what he can not get by democratic means he seeks to impose. There's a word for this, and I think it's fascist.

What is it exactly he wants? Under the guise of raising standards he wants to resurrect the Alliance closed shop that the ECB did away with when the pyramid structure was set up some years ago. The rest is just window dressing.

To do so, he has resurrected a document “Norfolk Cricket Board – Feeder Leagues Proposed Standards for 2005”. There is much to be commended in this document. Unfortunately, John has chosen to focus on what I describe as the “toilet and twaddle” parts of the document. Whereas the focus should be on item one: good playing surface”, John has ranted on about showers and toilets and separate changing rooms.

I resist the temptation to ascribe motive to his concerns.

Let's be clear, the aims expressed in this document are good. But, in trying to beat his fellow cricketers to death with the minutiae, John just makes himself look foolish.

It's a shame that Phil Banyard has chosen to give him a mouthpiece.

Blogged with Flock

The Americanisation of England

Small World - isn't it!

A bumper issue of the Sunday Times this week provides a thematically interesting perspective on some current issues.

First, on page one is the story, “Children's oath to Queen”. Lord Goldsmith thinks that this kind of procedure might strengthen the understanding of children as to what it means to be British. The article goes on to equate this proposed oath to the Pledge of Allegiance, which is a very common way of starting the day in American schools.

I can recite it by heart: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, under God with liberty and justice for all.

Actually, I, apparently, got it a bit wrong. Here's the words Wikipedia thinks are correct:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Perhaps the “under God and indivisible” have switched places in modern times. I believe the indivisible was traditionally first because of the Civil War – but I could be wrong. Either way, since I was last in school over 40 years ago - I didn't do too bad in the “anti-Alzheimers” stakes!

The point is that the Pledge of Allegiance is relevant to Americans every day. It hearkens back to the time when all Americans were resisting European ideas of government. It reminds citizens in a moving kind of way that their birthright and heritage are still relevant today.

I'm not sure this “Americanism” would transfer very well to the U.K. Because the U.K. pledge would be to the Monarch, it is too personal. People who didn't like the Queen or any future Monarch would object.

My view: it's another government gimmick.

Page 4 informs us that the U.K. armed forces are to get Purple Hearts for wounds received in battle. The government would like to see the public's support of the Armed Services be affirmed and be made more visible. Reacting, perhaps, to news that personnel at RAF Wittering are told not to wear their uniforms in Peterborough, the government's response it to call for more public award ceremonies to present medals to soldiers. America is held up as a model of how a nation should honour those who serve in the Forces.

If a week is a long time in politics, then a generation is a life time in honouring soldiers. The government should remember how the American public's condemnation of the Vietnam war and the soldiers who fought in it nearly tore the country apart and, it can be convincingly be argued, gave us Nixon's paranoia and Watergate.

Looks like the government floating an idea in response to what it perceives as a real public concern. Not working for me.

Lastly, we have the article, “Earth's secrets kept in lunar ark”. It's Arthur C. Clarke and 2001 all over. This time it's the European Parliament who are trying to outdo the Americans. Let's bury an obelisk on the Moon and fill it with Earth's secrets. All we have to do is persuade NASA to play ball and we can get the whole thing under way soon.

What happens when the “future apes” eventually evolve to take our place – in 8 to 10 million years or so, and whose job it will be to repopulate the planet after we destroy it discover the thing buried on the Moon? I would love to be around to see that one!

Because we will have archived all the old films we won't need a HAL 9000 computer to work out the answer!

Blogged with Flock

Loans

Premiership bandits.

No, this is nothing to do with the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

This is about the ridiculous loan arrangements in the football league.

By the football league, I mean to include the Premier League – which is essentially a bandit organisation which has (somehow) managed to remain a part of the FA.

How does the loan system work?

“Premier League clubs have almost complete freedom to sign whatever number and category of players they wish. There is no team or individual salary cap, no squad size limit, no age restrictions other than those applied by general employment law, no restrictions on the overall number of foreign players, and few restrictions on individual foreign players — all players with EU nationality, including those able to claim an EU passport through a parent or grandparent, are eligible to play, and top players from outside the EU are able to obtain UK work permits.”

This is the policy of the madhouse!

Try applying this to the rest of society. Imagine that (say) airline pilots had the same working arrangements. So, Virgin Atlantic – awash with Branson's extra billions – decides to sign all the airline pilots to long-term contacts. This, by the way, would cost less than signing Premiership footballers!

Then, in a gesture of extreme hubris, Branson decides to loan some of the pilots (he chooses which ones!) to British Airways – but only on the strict condition that they don't fly any aircraft to cities served by Virgin and that BA pay all of the pilots inflated salaries and provide medical cover, training, etc. Also, as a prerequisite for receiving “loan pilots” BA must agree to give them priority in the flying roster to ensure that their skills are developed – to the extreme benefit of Virgin.

Sound good? Like to be a passenger on one of Branson's planes – piloted by a “loan-star”? I didn't think so.

The football loan system is a sham which works only to advantage the already super-advantaged Premiership. They have all the players and use the rest of the league to hone their skills. They refuse to part with the “fringe” players, not because they want them, but because they don't want any of their rivals to get them. They only loan them to Championship teams in order to reap any benefits without having to take any of the risks.

If the loan player “flops” at the Championship club – so what? Now they know he's not good enough for the Premiership. What have they lost? Nothing.

What's the solution?

Twofold. First, limit on size of all football squads. Premiership teams should only be allowed to have, say 27 professionals on their books. That's two teams and a bit to allow for reserve team games and injuries. The transfer window should be abolished. Let the Premiership teams wheel and deal to maintain squads if and when they want.

Second, limit the number of loan players a club may field to one. Footballers should want to play football. If they want to play, let them play for the team which owns their registration.

The loan system is yet another shameless scam which distorts the already shameless game of football and should be stopped or severely restricted.

Blogged with Flock

Ipswich Murders - A Conclusion?

Inevitability

Because the Suffolk murders stopped when Steve Wright was arrested and charged with the murder of five prostitutes in Ipswich in December 2006, it was always going to be difficult for his defence team to “prove” that he was not guilty.

In the juries mind the lack of any further murders after his arrest was always going to be crucial.

His defence? I was with all the girls – as a paying customer – but didn't harm them in any way.

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it plausible? Less than yes.

Is it likely? Not really and that is why he is facing the rest of his life in prison.

A better question might be – is it possible that someone else killed the girls?

Yes, it is.

At the heart of the case is the forensic evidence. This is not surprising as murders are rarely committed in the daylight of publicity. By its very nature, murder is a private crime and eye witnesses are seldom available.

So, Wright's assertion that he picked up the girls for sex is plausible.

How do the authorities prove he killed them?

Truth is they can't – except by the process of logical deduction.

You might think that the police have him on CCTV dumping the bodies. No. You might think he was seen by someone who can testify it was he who dumped a body? No. You might think he told someone about the murders? No You might think his family and/or partner had serious concerns about his guilt and turned him in? No.

All the police had was Wright's DNA proving he had been with the girls – a fact he never disputed – and some fibres that belonged to the girls clothes, hair, etc., found in his home and car.

The Crown simply asks the jury to consider if it is more likely that someone else killed the girls. They obviously didn't and voted to convict him. I'm only surprised it took eight hours to reach a verdict? Was someone unconvinced?

The odds are that a very sick and very dangerous man has been removed from the body politic for a very long time. The contention that he will never be released is just pandering to the public's need for revenge. It may or may not happen.

More worrying still is the possibility that Wright is innocent. The real killer may be still out there. It's possible.

The mos useful function of a case of this type is its ability to refute the crazy calls for the reintroduction of the death penalty. Steve Wright's punishment, if he is indeed guilty, is worse than death. he may spend 40 or 50 years locked away.

If this is a miscarriage of justice, his death would only reinforce Parliament's reluctance to condone state sponsored murder.

Blogged with Flock

Archbishops

Scimitared

Rowan Williams seems a nice guy. He is, by all accounts, very clever and very godly. These are qualities that make him eminently qualified to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

They are not qualities needed to be a wise political operator.

His attempt to open a debate about how the Muslim Sharia law might be accommodated into the UK system of jurisprudence has resulted in damage to both the CofE and the Muslim community in the UK. That much is certain.

I watched the Bishop of Hume on BBC Questiontime last night manfully trying to explain and justify the Archbishop's remarks on Sharia. He was struggling!! Struggling big time!!

This is not altogether surprising as most of the general public associate Muslims with terrorists and Sharia law with cutting people's hands off and beheading criminals. This is clearly a distortion. Where do these ideas come from?

I know one place.

Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves. Remember it? What an exciting adventure, romance tale – starring Kevin Costner (when he was still on top of the acting tree), Morgan Freeman (before he became the mega-star he is today) and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio – when she was an up-and-coming actress.

Ok, got it?

Now, remember the contrived way Morgan Freeman was brought into the Robin Hood legend? After all, there were many black people in Sherwood Forest, surely?

Robin and his mate (Marion's brother) are stuck in a Muslim prison. Robin volunteers to have his hand cut off (for stealing – notice the nice Sharia hysteria side-plot) ) instead of the hand of his boyhood friend and fellow Crusader. Robin cleverly escapes – helped by his new-found Muslim friend, Azeem, played by Freeman. How else would you get a black man into medieval England? Even then he's described as a Moor. So was Othello – and Othello was surely black.

The point?

I contend that most of what the general population ( general here, sadly, includes most of the readers for the Daily Mail – or the Daily Fascist to give it its proper name ) know about Sharia law and indeed Muslims in general is brought to them by the popular press and the entertainment media.

When the Archbishop tries to open a debate about the relationship between various ethnic, religious and social groups in Britain, he's on a hiding to nothing.

No matter how scholarly the approach – he's going to be scimitared in the popular press.

Why? Because only the enlightened few will remember that at the time of the Crusades the Muslim World almost single-handedly kept the light of learning alive in the Western Hemisphere. When London was a hovel, Damascus was a metropolitan paradise.

Unfortunately, when the twin towers collapsed so did any chance of avoiding the rampant Islama-phobia we see today. A brave attempt by the Archbishop to engineer an enlightened debate was always destined to fail.

Might as well try to reintroduce stoning for prostitutes – and I think you'll find that in the Bible – not the Koran.

Blogged with Flock

Super Bowl - It's a wrap!!

Fans are the winners!

Fans of my blog will already know that I predicted the Giants to win Super Bowl XLII.

After coming down from the clouds with my reputation restored and a big fat wallet courtesy of the bookies, I've spent the intervening week analysing just why the Patriots flopped and the Giants prospered.

The most cogent explanation I found was on the Chiefs website and I'm happy to acknowledge that this is a quotation and not my own work:

“The Giants are champions because they played Stone Age football, and their furious pass rush took away Tom Brady’s greatest weapon – time to throw. Suddenly, one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history had to rush his throws or eat the ball while averaging a measly 5.5 yards per attempt. His running game averaged 2.8 yards per rush. No wonder the highest-scoring offence in league history was outscored 17-14.”

The rest of this article extolled the virtue of great defence. And how true it is. It is the defence that usually wins Super Bowls. Forty-two was no different.

It was my prediction that the NY pass rush would nullify Tom Brady – and it mostly did. I thought the Giants would be able to run on the Pats - and they did, though I admit not to the extent that I had thought they would.

Truth is: except for falling apart on the last NY drive, in no small part due to some excellent throws by Manning and excellent receptions by the NY receivers, the New Englanders might have won – and deserved to.

The Giants just about deserved their win. The Patriots were just about unlucky. The fans were the winners in what was actually quite a good game for the neutral observer to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

One commentator's view should be of particular interest to the Chiefs fans. The Giants won by playing their young players throughout the season. They gave youth a chance.

This makes good sense – particularly at the “monster” positions – offensive guards and tackles. Chiefs must beef up these area in the draft. Chiefs must avoid taking a marquee player early who may, or (worst case scenario) may not be able to contribute to the team for five years!!

Time for the Chiefs to avoid highly paid free agents and develop some players of their own. That's the noises that are coming out of Arrowhead.

When we see who's available as a free agent and whether the Chiefs can resist the temptation to go for an expensive quick-fix, we'll be a long way towards learning whether the Chiefs front office is serious about building a team – or just blowing smoke.

My abiding memory of the Super Bowl was the banged-up and inexperienced Giants secondary shutting out Brady and his receivers. Chiefs can do the same in 09!

Blogged with Flock

Bail

Magna Carta

Gary Weddell was out on bail and he (apparently) used this opportunity to kill his mother-in-law and then commit suicide.

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3282898.ece for a good summary of this tragic case.

The ensuing outrage resembles a witch-hunt against the Judge involved and calls into question the whole relationship between suspect, police and judiciary.

First, let's see what the law says, or as much of the law as can be understood by we commoners. Magna Carta is a good starting point.

Found in: Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with an Historical Introduction > CHAPTER THIRTY–SIX. > paragraph 1221

As trial by combat became rapidly obsolete, the original purpose of the writ was forgotten, and its once subsidiary object became more prominent. Before Bracton’s day, this change had taken place: the writ had come to be viewed primarily as an expedient for releasing upon bail homicides per infortunium or se defendendo. Bracton, in giving the form of the writ,2 declares it to be iniquitous that innocent men should be long detained in prison: therefore, he tells us, an inquisition is wont to be made, at the request of sorrowful friends, whether the accusation is bona fide or has been brought de odio et atia. This pleasing picture of a king moved to pity by tearful friends of accused men scarcely applies to John, who listened only to suitors with long purses: the writs that liberated homicides had become a valuable source of revenue. Sheriffs were reprimanded for releasing prisoners on bail without the King’s warrant, but, in spite of heavy amercements, they continued their irregularities. Thus, in 1207, Peter of Scudimore paid to the exchequer 10 marks for setting homicides free upon pledges, without warrant from the King.3 In that year, John repeated his orders, strictly forbidding manslayers to be set free upon bail until they had received judgment in presence of the King’s justices.4

The barons were fed up with the King pocketing all the cash just so the accused could get out of jail whilst proper inquiries were made. So, they grabbed their chance in the Great Charter to try to force the King to grant bail even in capital cases (my italics).

The U.S. Constitution seems to guarantee the accused bail under the provisions of the Eight Amendment. But, as the following article points out, this is not usually available in capital cases.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-08/01-excessive-bail.html

Just to make things even more complicated, the European Court now has a say!

(2)

The requirement for “trial within a reasonable period or release pending

trial” is in fact two distinct and cumulative requirements. A detainee must

be tried within a reasonable period and has a qualified right to release

pending trial. The former need be of no concern.

23

In respect of the latter, the Court must be satisfied that there were

reasonable grounds for continued detention before a denial of bail can be

compliant. To determine the question, the Court concentrates on the

actual decision making process in the national court. Potentially good

grounds for denying bail include that

(a)

there is a danger that the defendant would fail to attend trial,

interfere with evidence or witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice, or

commit a serious offence;

(b)

it is necessary for the purposes of the investigation;

(c)

the defendant’s release would disturb public order; and

(d)

detention is necessary for the defendant’s own protection.

24

(3)

Release can be conditional on “guarantees to appear for trial”.

2

The ominous point here is (b) “for the purposes of the investigation”. D seems more than a bit subjective as well.

The summation is rather problematical. I remember attending a session at the Royal Courts of Justice with my father-in-law, who was a probation officer. This was many years ago, yet I believe the experience hasn't changed much!

What struck me as more than odd were the bail arrangements – or lack of them if you prefer. The Crown would read the charges against the defendant and then the judge would ask if the defence would like to make any applications? The defence would invariably apply for bail. The Judge would ask for a police report. The police would outline how many time the defendant had been arrested and charged with whatever.

That's arrested and charged – not convicted!

The Judge would always say the same thing. Application denied.

Things must have radically changed for Mr Weddell to have received bail so easily.

Or, have they? Perhaps, is this yet another case of the “Establishment” looking after one of its own?

Here we have Mr Weddell, an ex-police officer, out on bail after being charged with murder. I'd like to know how many others who face similar charges were bailed last year? Then we might be able to make a convincing case for justice one way or the other.

And, where are the statistics for prisoners having bail applications approved from various socio-economic groups? Must you be an upstanding member of the community or an ex-police officer to get bail?

It's possible we haven't really made much progress since King John.

People who are on remand for months and years awaiting trial are longing for Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act to get them bailed.

They wait in vain. In light of this case it's likely that the government will make it even more difficult to get bail.

Let's hope you and I don't get arrested by mistake.

Blogged with Flock

Bail

Magna Carta

Gary Weddell was out on bail and he (apparently) used this opportunity to kill his mother-in-law and then commit suicide.

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3282898.ece for a good summary of this tragic case.

The ensuing outrage resembles a witch-hunt against the Judge involved and calls into question the whole relationship between suspect, police and judiciary.

First, let's see what the law says, or as much of the law as can be understood by we commoners. Magna Carta is a good starting point.

Found in: Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with an Historical Introduction > CHAPTER THIRTY–SIX. > paragraph 1221

As trial by combat became rapidly obsolete, the original purpose of the writ was forgotten, and its once subsidiary object became more prominent. Before Bracton’s day, this change had taken place: the writ had come to be viewed primarily as an expedient for releasing upon bail homicides per infortunium or se defendendo. Bracton, in giving the form of the writ,2 declares it to be iniquitous that innocent men should be long detained in prison: therefore, he tells us, an inquisition is wont to be made, at the request of sorrowful friends, whether the accusation is bona fide or has been brought de odio et atia. This pleasing picture of a king moved to pity by tearful friends of accused men scarcely applies to John, who listened only to suitors with long purses: the writs that liberated homicides had become a valuable source of revenue. Sheriffs were reprimanded for releasing prisoners on bail without the King’s warrant, but, in spite of heavy amercements, they continued their irregularities. Thus, in 1207, Peter of Scudimore paid to the exchequer 10 marks for setting homicides free upon pledges, without warrant from the King.3 In that year, John repeated his orders, strictly forbidding manslayers to be set free upon bail until they had received judgment in presence of the King’s justices.4

The barons were fed up with the King pocketing all the cash just so the accused could get out of jail whilst proper inquiries were made. So, they grabbed their chance in the Great Charter to try to force the King to grant bail even in capital cases (my italics).

The U.S. Constitution seems to guarantee the accused bail under the provisions of the Eight Amendment. But, as the following article points out, this is not usually available in capital cases.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-08/01-excessive-bail.html

Just to make things even more complicated, the European Court now has a say!

(2)

The requirement for “trial within a reasonable period or release pending

trial” is in fact two distinct and cumulative requirements. A detainee must

be tried within a reasonable period and has a qualified right to release

pending trial. The former need be of no concern.

23

In respect of the latter, the Court must be satisfied that there were

reasonable grounds for continued detention before a denial of bail can be

compliant. To determine the question, the Court concentrates on the

actual decision making process in the national court. Potentially good

grounds for denying bail include that

(a)

there is a danger that the defendant would fail to attend trial,

interfere with evidence or witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice, or

commit a serious offence;

(b)

it is necessary for the purposes of the investigation;

(c)

the defendant’s release would disturb public order; and

(d)

detention is necessary for the defendant’s own protection.

24

(3)

Release can be conditional on “guarantees to appear for trial”.

2

The ominous point here is (b) “for the purposes of the investigation”. D seems more than a bit subjective as well.

The summation is rather problematical. I remember attending a session at the Royal Courts of Justice with my father-in-law, who was a probation officer. This was many years ago, yet I believe the experience hasn't changed much!

What struck me as more than odd were the bail arrangements – or lack of them if you prefer. The Crown would read the charges against the defendant and then the judge would ask if the defence would like to make any applications? The defence would invariably apply for bail. The Judge would ask for a police report. The police would outline how many time the defendant had been arrested and charged with whatever.

That's arrested and charged – not convicted!

The Judge would always say the same thing. Application denied.

Things must have radically changed for Mr Weddell to have received bail so easily.

Or, have they? Perhaps, is this yet another case of the “Establishment” looking after one of its own?

Here we have Mr Weddell, an ex-police officer, out on bail after being charged with murder. I'd like to know how many others who face similar charges were bailed last year? Then we might be able to make a convincing case for justice one way or the other.

And, where are the statistics for prisoners having bail applications approved from various socio-economic groups? Must you be an upstanding member of the community or an ex-police officer to get bail?

It's possible we haven't really made much progress since King John.

People who are on remand for months and years awaiting trial are longing for Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act to get them bailed.

They wait in vain. In light of this case it's likely that the government will make it even more difficult to get bail.

Let's hope you and I don't get arrested by mistake.

Blogged with Flock

Doh! Independence Imprudens

Crazy - or what?

I like to keep in touch with what's happening in the old home town, Independence, Missouri. It makes me feel closer to home and to that end the internet is a god-send. No better way to keep in touch has yet been invented!

I read the local paper, The Independence Examiner, which, in my boyhood I threw on folks' porches, on-line. And, all from the comfort of my chair.

One of the best bits is the weekly poll of on-line readers. You have to choose answers to questions of topical interest and vote for your favourite answer. I always vote and always check to see what the result of last week's poll was.

I love it when I'm in-step with my “homies”!

Unfortunately, it doesn't happen often.

A bit like my old mate and neighbour Bill Bryson I find that reports from my countrymen that I am really dead are greatly exaggerated. I just don't got home enough to know what the good folks of independence are thinking.

So, the straw poll of readers of the Examiner should enable us to get a handle on Middle America.

A recent Examiner poll asked readers to rank the causes of a weakening economy in America. 14% of respondents told the rest of us to chill out – there is nothing to worry about! Only 1% were seriously concerned by the recent stock market woes and the prospect of a Wall Street melt down. 19% were appalled by the lack of “good jobs” - whatever that means? A truly staggering 19% were apoplectic about the national debt.

The killer? 28% were pretty much ready to start a war to remove the American dependence on foreign oil – citing its consequential effect on “high” gas prices.

If women are from Venus and men from Mars, the good residents of Independence are from Planet Dumbo.

Where did they get this idea from?

These are the same folks who are convinced that JFK wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. They instinctively know that Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were probably victims of some great, unknown and un-knowable conspiracy. They firmly believe that Genesis is 100% word-perfect. A large proportion of them voted for Ol' Dubbya. They are disciples of anyone who will assuage their righteous indignation by shifting the reality of dwindling oil supplies and over-consumption onto some conspiracy by the rest of the world to rob them of what they see as their God-given right to drive monster trucks and live in a house the size of a cathedral.

They are and have been poorly served by their politicians.

Disregarding the Global Warming debate, it is still a fundamental truth that America is not so much addicted to oil and they are addicted to cheap gas.

In Independence, the price of gas has taken on a significance far beyond its true level of importance. Politicians can just as well be in favour of Islamist fundamentalism as they can be of high gas prices.

The result is a nonsense of misinformation and illogical thinking.

It's time the Examiner readers, and the rest of America, were dragged (screaming if need be) into the real world. Oil is a finite resource. It's running out. Therefore, you can't buck the market. In the home of free enterprise capitalism this lesson should not be too hard to learn. But, in Missouri we have saying: before you can teach a Missouri mule anything you have to get his attention by hitting him over the head with a two-by-four.

If'n I was you folks, I'd start learning to duck large bits of wood!

Blogged with Flock

Least Favourite Meals

Schools make a dog's dinner.

Some philosophers are born, some are made and some just happen. I may have just made that up – though it is, of course, a paraphrase of a famous diktat.

My old mate and part-time philosopher, The Chef, had his Unified Theory of the Least Favourite Meal to fall back on when either the time or the meat was ripe. It goes something like this.

If you ask any group of school children what is their least favourite school dinner and remove that meal from the menu, all that happens is the next least favourite meal simply “moves up” to take its place. Eventually you'd be having fish fingers and chips every day until the kids were thoroughly sick of them!

Simple. Logical. Works. But, not from the Jamie Oliver School of Nutritious School Dinners.

It occurs to me that this insightful dictum can be applied to all sorts of things – things far more important than little Johnnie's lunch-time nosh. How about Johnnie's school for instance?

This is what was happening on BBC Question Time last evening. The Unified Theory of the Least Favourite Meal had morphed into the General Theory of the Least Favourite School.

The debate focused on the advantages, real or perceived, of faith schools and the dastardly tricks some parents will go to in order to obtain places for their children at these”good” schools.

Parents take the view that faith schools are better than non-faith. In individual cases, this may be correct. As a generalisation: it's a generalisation.

What was most interesting was the methods some parents use in order to place their children in a faith school – even though they are, strictly speaking, not of that faith. I suppose this does do some good in swelling the pews on a Sunday morning, but I'd be surprised if these phoney attempts to convince the local vicar you are a devout Christian really work.

An example. I started school as a bright-eyed five year old at a Catholic School on the south-side of Chicago. In those days, all white children went to the Catholic school because there were black children in the local maintained school. Therefore, about 25% of my school was Catholic and at least the same number were Jewish. This made for interesting education!

Even as a five year old I can distinctly remember the nuns being very angry on Jewish holidays! Al the Jewish kids stayed home!

While this anecdote may say more about race relations in Chicago in the 50's than it does about faith schools, it does resonate with the parents of today who think that their children should get an advantage (more perceived than real I would argue) simply by pretending to qualify for state-aided religious education.

The summing up was from the Labour Party spokesman who blithely informed the audience that, in any event, it would be impossible to do anything about faith schools – or independent schools for that matter – because the European Court would surely strike down any attempt to limit their existence as impinging on the parents rights to choose education for their children.

What we need are smarter parents

Until that happens, we're stuck with the least favourite meal. Bon apetit!

Blogged with Flock

Super Bowl Forty-Two

Giants Win?

Well, it's official. Super Bowl 42 will be between the New England Patriots and the New York Giants. The Pats will be big favourites.

They will also be going for an unprecedented undefeated season.

I'm picking the Giants.

Am I crazy? Or, just stupid?

Maybe both, but I'm still counting on the Giants to upset the apple cart and ruin what should be a historic victory by the New Englanders. I was very sceptical until I saw the Conference Championship game at Green Bay. The Pack had lost only twice in the post-season at Lambeau Field and were consensus favourites to send New York packing. The game was going according to plan, though still tight, when I got too tired and went to bed.

I was surprised in the morning to find that the Packers had lost. Watching the highlights was surreal. Even though I knew the score, I still expected Favre to engineer a last quarter comeback. It never happened. Even with a banged-up secondary the Giant's defence was beyond excellent.

If they can replicate this defensive performance in the Super Bowl, they will have a chance.

What's happening on the other side of the ball is also swinging my vote towards The Big Apple. Eli Manning is doing what needs to be done to win. He has excellent protection in the pocket. He has been making good decisions. He has been making excellent throws, putting the ball where only his guy can catch it. The Giants can test the Patriots' defence.

Not surprisingly, I'm in the minority. Watching and reading the American pundits you might think the Pats have only to turn up to win. American football is not that kind of a game. It is, literally, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY. If New England don't bring their “A Game” they will lose.

There were signs of this in their game against San Diego. Tom Brady threw three interceptions. San Diego moved the ball easily down the field, just did not manage to convert field goals into touchdowns. New England weren't lucky - just fortunate. On another day they could have easily lost. If they approach the Super Bowl in an over-confident mood, they will be ripe for an upset.

This is going one of two ways.

One – it's a Patriots' blow-out. Giants get stuffed on offence and can't stop Brady's short passing game. Pat's win by 20+.

Two – it's a close football game and the Giants just get the win by (say) a field goal.

I'm choosing two.

Blogged with Flock

Aussies Rule - Ok?

Sledgers

Aussie is at it again. Not content with smashing all the test playing nations on the pitch – he is intent on sinking to new levels in the sledging stakes.

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/330150.html

It wouldn't be so bad if it were not so indicative of both the Australian attitude towards cricket and (more importantly) the inability of the cricket authorities to do anything to obviate their more unacceptable practices.

Although most international teams seem to engage in sledging now-a-days, it is beyond contention that the Australians are the most abusive. When I first read about this one - I just couldn't believe it!

“If that seems over the top, it was child's play compared to comments allegedly directed at New Zealand's Chris Cairns by two Australian players. It was claimed the players had made "choo choo" noises at Cairns, whose sister had been killed in a recent train accident. The story was denied by all parties.”

This clearly isn't sledging. What it is is just plain unacceptable. Say something like this in a public bar and you might get a mouthful of teeth!

This is just about as bad!

During a WSC final at the SCG where the game had been shortened due to rain and the atmosphere was running at about 95% humidity a very exhausted Arjuna Ranatunga appealed that he had "sprained" something. He duly asked the umpire for a runner. As clear as a bell through the effects mic you heard Healey's legendary reply, "You don't get a runner for being an overweight, unfit, fat c#$%"

This is unacceptable because of the abusive language. For heaven's sake, footballers get booked for this kind of language! It should not be allowed on a cricket pitch.

Another example along the same lines

Sledging can be plain amusing. It's unlikely Merv Hughes was thinking tactically when he told a struggling English batsmen: "I'll bowl you a f***ing piano, ya Pommie pooftah. Let's see if you can play that."

This one might just be on the borderline, but only because it is a man's game and it is amusing, so the unacceptable language might be almost Ok.

Of course, sledging is not confined to cricket.

The right words can intimidate and demoralise. In 1989, a young Phil Kearns packed down opposite the All Black rough nut Sean Fitzpatrick. Amid the grinding of shoulders, Kearns became aware he was being spoken to: "What are you doing here, Kearns? You don't belong here. You're just a little boy. Why don't you go home to mummy?"

Sometimes sledging can get a reaction the perpetrator wasn't expecting!

In 1994, Allan Border told South African all-rounder Brian McMillan: "For a big bloke, you don't bowl very fast." He got no reaction - until lunch, when McMillan burst into the Australian dressing room and told Border to repeat the slur while the South African pointed a pistol at Border's head.

Last word goes to Warne, who is, by all accounts, very quick to dish it out – but can't take it?

Sledging is often personal. One reason Warne is quick to taunt Cullinan is that the South African is fond of making remarks about Warne's girth - "Leave us some lunch, fat boy" being one of his favourites. Similarly, Ian Healy once became frustrated with an overweight batsman from a South African provincial side who seemed not the least interested in scoring runs. Eventually Healy called to the bowler: "Why don't we put a Mars bar on a good length to see if we can lure him out of his crease?"

Unfortunately, the latest Aussie escapades are clearly just not on. Leaving any joking aside, the charge that they have overstepped the mark in defence of their Aboriginal player, Andrew Symonds, is a bit rich. After dishing it out on a racial basis (see the above examples) are they now saying that calling Symonds a monkey is going too far?

Actually he does look like a monkey. But, is this a racial remark? Probably not. Boxers are often tagged with the epithet of “a big gorilla”. Is this racist? If an Indian spinner is described as whirling his arms “like a dervish” - is this grounds for an inquiry?

Methinks the Aussies doth protest too much.

The real question, in my eyes, is where are the umpires in all this?

Replaced. At least Steve Bucknor was.

It's long past time that the authorities supported the umpires and put a stop to all but the obviously imaginative or humorous sledging.

It really is getting to be a joke!

Blogged with Flock

Walcheren Malaria

Things aren't always as they seem!

I like reading. I will read almost anything, but history is a particular leisure read. In the Wroxham library I found a book called, Redcoat by Richard Holmes. Richard is a well-know and well-respected writer of military history. He has made television programmes about battle and campaigns. He should know what he is talking about.

In truth it is not a very good book. In attempting to discuss the British Army from about 1750 to 1890 he jumps around, repeats himself and is trying to be too clever in the organisation. He attempts to bring the material together thematically but is not averse to dispensing with this scheme when the mood strikes him.

In any event, when discussing some minor military engagement against the French (our natural enemies) he informs the reader that during the invasion of Belgium in 1809 – the purpose of which was to remove Bonaparte from a position where he could seriously affect British naval interests and remove the French from the Belgian coast, particularly the island of Walcheren in the Scheldt estuary (the approach to the port of Antwerp); Richard writes about the disaster which ensued. Apparently the troops, after initially meeting with success, succumbed to malaria and many died, whilst the rest took ship for dear old Blighty. Not the greatest military engagement of the 19^th century. That would have to wait for 1815 and the field of Waterloo.

What struck me was the matter-of-fact way Holmes described malaria in what is, after all a Northern European country.

I didn't know that.

I think I vaguely knew that malaria was sometimes found in Southern Europe and North Africa. Sicily has had malaria. So, occasionally does Greece. So did the poor old Romans, though it didn't stop them from conquering the world.

I'm just not sure what the travel advice is: do you need to take anti-malarial precautions if you go to Greece or Sicily?

This bears investigation.

Using the internet, I found some interesting stuff!

Did you know that people in Finland suffered from malaria? Bet you didn't. Don't believe me? Check this out!

“Endemic northern malaria reached 68°N latitude (just a bit south of Murmansk in Russia or Tromso in Norway and about the latitude of the Great Bear Lake in Northern Canada) in Europe during the 19^th century, where the summer mean temperature only irregularly exceeded 16°C, the lower limit needed for sporogony of Plasmodium vivax. Because of the available historical material and little use of quinine, Finland was suitable for an analysis of endemic malaria and temperature.”

And, malaria was found in Sweden and Russia too. This is interesting, because when I first read this I thought, “Hang on a minute! Malaria is a tropical disease! If there was malaria in Northern Europe in the recent historical past, it must mean that the temperature was higher! Makes sense!”

Apparently not. For, in answering the question, “Where do mosquitoes go in the winter?”, the answer is: indoors to rest and wait for spring or summer. Makes sense when you think about it. If all the mosquitoes in Britain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Finland died every year, we wouldn't be plagued by the little stinkers every summer!

They don't. 99.99999% of them do, but a few survive by finding a warm, or warm-ish spot to hide in and re-emerge in the spring, reproduce like crazy and provide the next generation of blood-suckers.

Ain't Mother Nature wonderful!

Despite the fact that my investigation has not shed any real light on the global warming debate, as I had hoped, I intend to keep looking. I just have a feeling that malaria in Europe and North America must somehow be related to temperature. Although we know that mossies have no problem surviving in Northern Europe in the summer and breeding, what is less clear is why we no longer have outbreaks of malaria (even the much less virulent P. vivax) in Europe now.

If the planet is warming for whatever reason, it makes sense for malaria to become established again in Europe.

p.s. from our correspondent Willi in Finland:

FINLAND LOW TEMPERATURE RECORD BROKEN 27 Jan, 1999

From: "Wili"
Vora-Oravais-Maxmo Hogstadieskola, Finland
Subject: Low temp.record of the century in Finland!
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:41:33 +0200

Hi all once again. I HAVE TO send you a mail to let you know that the lowest temperature of the century in Finland has been registered in a Village in northern Finland called Kittila; -51deg C.

I just spoke to the deliverer of my Davis weather station. He had reports that due to the low temperature and the low air pressure the car tyres have "frozen" in a square form, so the cars which still run behave like rabbits or kangaroos. The temperautre here in Vora is falling all the time.

With interest we look forward to next morning!

Have a warm night!! Best Regards...........Wili, Finland

Don't look much like warming to me!!

It's a Wrap - Chiefs Hit the Wall

Looking forward to draft day!!

It's all over for the Chiefs. Whist the play-off teams ready themselves for the coming battle, the Chiefs enjoy some time off and a chance to reflect on the 4-12 season. It's not happy reading.

In a long interview, Coach Herm Edwards and GM Carl Peterson had to stand up and receive the flak from the press. Quite right. No-one likes losing and mistakes were made. Some big ones!

First, the Chiefs have cleared out some of the coaching staff. This may or may not be a good thing but it does, at least, show that they are taking the blame and doing something about it. How long before Herm and Carl are asked to fall on their swords remains to be seen. For now, the clear out has begun with coaches. Some players won't be far behind.

Second, Edwards rightly pointed out that the offence was just not good enough. They scored about 14 pts a game. They contributed greatly to a negative 11 in the turnover count. They persevered with some linemen who clearly were over the hill and they paid the price.

The defence was better.

But, it's a two-part game. If the offence can't score the defence is always under pressure. That just about sums up the Chiefs this season. Always under pressure.

So, what's to be done?

According to Herm and Carl, the draft is the key. Chiefs are picking high and have (though trade acquisitions) ten picks. Herm thinks we did well last year in getting Dwayne Bowe and there is no reason we can't significantly improve the team in key areas.

Number one is the O-line. Their analysis is probably correct in that O-linemen come in from college with not too much to learn. So, drafting high for two quality guards or tackles should really help the offence. The line-backing corps is looking a bit thin and a bit old – hopefully this will be addressed as well.

Strangely, when asked about QB's Peterson was adamant that the quality is just not coming out of college this season. He believes we should stick with Brodie Croyle. I remember Elvis Grbac!

Summing up the plan: draft long and wisely; clear out some of the old guys and dead wood; stick with Brodie Croyle; use free-agency to bolster key areas.

Well, it is, at least a feasible plan.

Trouble is: this is just about every team's plan. What counts is identifying the talent and grabbing it.

The Chief's hierarchy is correct when they point out that six of the teams that made the play-offs last year aren't there this year. It is swings and roundabouts in the NFL. Just look at the GB Packers. Could beat no-one last year. Getting set to retire Favre. Instead, there are number two seed in the NFC.

The Chiefs could do the same next year.

Hope springs eternal.

New Year's Resolutions

What's Great in '08?

Time to make some resolutions to improve things in 2008.

I have some good ideas.

One

Lose weight. Always a popular choice, but, hang on, is it really necessary? Does anyone ever ask if losing weight is really necessary or has it simply become an all-encompassing mantra? Why does everyone want to lose weight?

There is no doubt that as I have gotten older I have added a few pounds. How many? I've been checking. I've been tracking my weight religiously for about nine months now. In that time my weight has fluctuated by about 8 pounds. It started out going down and then just after Christmas it has peaked about 2 pounds more than it was in April.

Why is this? It was lowest in the summer when I was eating BBQ and drinking beer. That makes no sense! Unless you factor in the increased physical activity provided by outdoor activities that are possible in the summer and not in the winter, things like sport, gardening, long walks with the dog.

Conclusion: Weight is cyclical according to the season and needs to be tracked for at least a year before any real conclusions can be drawn. Also, your weight in Jan is bound to be large, remember all that Christmas dinner!

Shakespeare usually got it right. What did he say about weight? Sir John Falstaff: “a good, portly man was he”. And we all know what a great guy Sir John was.

Let's not forget Julius!

Caesar: Let me have men about me that are fat;
Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.

Nuff said?

Two

Give up smoking. No, sorry, I already did that one. Was it hard? Yes. Can anyone do it? Yes. I wish I had given up 30 years ago! Am I sounding sanctimonious? You bet.

Three

Sneak out of Iraq. This sounds flippant, but it is not. It is not necessary to declare the withdrawal from Iraq. It would be better to just do it. Unfortunately, military operations have become almost impossible since the end of WWII. Now the generals have to announce their plans and allow them to be scrutinised by the politicians before they are attempted. This is just nutty.

Better idea – make your plan to get out, get out and then tell everyone about it later.

Works for me.

Four

Stop looking of Who's – a – ma – bin – liner. The man is irrelevant and if the military establishment couldn't find him after all these years it's not likely to happen now. Better plan. Announce that he is dead and when the inevitable video tape turns up purporting to be from him – declare that it is a fake and ignore it.

Also works for me.

Five

Throw money at Afghanistan. I actually emailed Ol Dubbya to just such affect when this mess started. Needless to say, he ignored me. It would be better for everyone if we just game the Afghans lots of money. People sitting around watching re-runs of Little Britain do not suddenly break off and plant an IUD. If you can't win the hearts and minds – buy them. That's what capitalism is all about anyway.

Last real revolution we had in the U.S. was the Whiskey rebellion of 1794 http://www.blurtit.com/q324958.html - after that we just got in the gas-guzzler and went to the store. Great for democracy.

Should work for the Afghans as well. Let's try it!

Six

Forget Global Warming and go the beach. I was astounded the other day when on TV a commentator let slip that the climate data they use to “prove” climate change is only 100 years old. Yep, that's one hundred years. It's like basing your calculations for the coming wheat harvest on the growth rate of a wheat plant in the corner of a small field in Nebraska in the last 14 seconds. It is all nonsense.

Trouble is if you question the orthodoxy of that globe-trotting, very rich eco-warrior Al Gore, people call you nutty.

Bottom line. Climate varies naturally. Right now, it's getting a bit warmer. End of analysis.

All the other nonsense is just conjecture. We have no accurate, historical climate data to base any conclusions on. There is good circumstantial evidence that the climate has changed fairly dramatically in the last 1000 years.

Witness the Vikings. Pretty tough dudes by all accounts. But, about a thousand years ago they up and sailed away to Iceland, where their descendants are still, grabbed a quick holiday to Greenland (anybody notice the name, Greenland) and mooched over to Canada - probably Labrador, not noted as a holiday destination today!!

Had they lost their marbles? Probably not. It was just a bit warmer then. And, this was nine hundred years before much fossil fuel had been burnt.

Explanation? Climate is subject to natural variations.

Learn to live with it!

Don't forget the “Mini-Ice Age” in the 18th Century!!

Of course, we all need to be responsible for husbanding the resources of the planet as well as we can. But, and this is a big but, you don't have to subscribe to the Global Warming Quasi-Religious Dogma to be a good citizen.

Stop feeling guilty and enjoy the warmer weather.

That's enough resolution for anyone!

Darwin Awards

The Bad and the Ugly

News that John Darwin, seemingly the architect of a scam to extract money from an insurance company by pretending to be dead, has been remanded in custody should come as no surprise to enlightened observers of the English legal system.

Quick recap. John and his wife have swindled an insurance company and the government out of a considerable sum of money. On the plus side – no-one has been seriously hurt. No-one is dead. No-one is ill, destitute or dying as a result of what is, at the bottom line, a fairly amateur attempt to perpetrate fraud.

John should appear very soon on the Darwin Awards web site.

The Darwin Awards http://www.darwinawards.com/ are given to folks who generously remove themselves from the gene pool in order to help promulgate the rest of the species – who are, by definition, nowhere near as stupid as the recipients.

In the meantime his case neatly demonstrates two important points regarding the English judicial system. Point one: if you are accused of a crime which involves allegations of stealing money from the state, you will be persecuted to the rigour of the law. Point two: if you are so accused, your chances of obtaining bail are nil.

Neither of these points are very sensible or very fair.

If we contrast Darwin's misdemeanors with some other of society's miscreants, it might prove instructional. For example, get drunk, mow down a few innocent pedestrians and attempt to evade arrest and you will get into trouble. How much? Depends. You might get a jail term of a few years. With good behaviour you could be out in 18 months. Most certainly you will not be remanded in custody whilst the police make inquiries.

Lose the entire DHSS data base by posting it to your granny in Inverness and you will not even be named, much less blamed. “Systemic failure” in the system will probably pick up the tab for that one.

The English have a curious ambivalence towards a “fiddle” Whilst deploring it in public, in private everyone secretly loves a rogue. Robin Hood. Alfie. John Stonehouse. George Best. The list is long.

But, when the rogue in question defrauds the state, it's another story. Just a s likely, after a long period on remand, a short trial and a swift sentence, you will find your self examining the Scrubs – from the inside and for a fairly long time.

Not only is this not very fair, it's a waste of police time, court time, my time and your time, not to mention our money. Mr Darwin, if convicted, should not go to jail. He should have to pay back the money. Turning what is a crazy human interest story into a cause celelbre' is silly – if not downright criminal.