November 2008 Archives

Now is it just me or does anyone else think that the Human Rights Act is the new name for Equitable Life, you know, the old lawyer's pension fund that went into freefall.

Your future's safe with the Human Rights Act, guaranteed pay outs with Government backing. Lawyers must be the only people on earth who think that legal aid is some form of tax credit to boost the earnings of solicitors and barristers

We have these two lads who are accused of murdering British soldiers who were captured and being held as prisoners of war at the start of the somewhat ill-considered Iraq War in 2003.

Now the alleged offences were committed by Iraqis in Iraq and the Iraq government wants to try them which all seems fairly simple and straightforward, all that is needed is for the British authorities who are holding them, in Iraq, to hand them over to the appropriate authorities who are, like everything else in this case, in Iraq. Done and dusted you might think except of course it means that those bastions of graft, the great British legal profession, who can make a fraud case into a career and a Government Bloody Sunday inquiry into a dynasty, would not be able to stick their ample snouts in to the trough.

So it is reported that Public Immunity Lawyers, which seems to be another name for Birmingham's very own Public Interest Lawyers, have squeezed a few grand from the taxpayers, me and you, for a judicial review claiming that the Iraqis who are accused of committing a crime in Iraq might not get a fair trial, in Iraq, because the court where the men will be tried has been "politicised". Get real lads.

Whether these Iraqis are innocent or guilty or indeed whether the court where they will be tried is run by Solomon or kangaroos matters not one jot. What does matter though is where in a world that has not lost its marbles do we have any sort of responsibility to ensure nationals of another supposedly sovereign state receive a fair trail in their own country for offences committed in that country?

How on earth can Iraqis who are accused of committing a crime under one régime in Iraq and now are wanted by the current legal and recognised Government in Iraq for trial for those crimes even be considered for legal aid in British courts? Where on earth can we possibly have any jurisdiction? It might be different if we wanted them out of Iraq for trial here but it is Iraq which wants to try them. They are not British, don't live here and their lawyers should be arguing their case in Baghdad not the Strand. But I suppose that little argument is the one that ensures our hard working lawyers are ensured merry Christmas bonus . . . possibly for years to come.

I am sure that the lawyers are not working for minimum wage so it has already cost us a fair bob or two and no doubt if they lose they will already by planning appeal after appeal, all on legal aid. Meanwhile the accused will avoid standing trial.

If the lawyers win and the men are tried in this country and found guilty then no doubt we will be picking up the expensive bill for their defence as well as the cost of their incarceration. If, on the other hand, they lose and are tried in Baghdad, where I suspect there is no bottomless pit of legal aid, then I will bet a pound to a penny that they will be on their own, no matter how unfair the trial is supposed to be.

And while we are at it, who in the lawyer's benevolent fund that is legal aid, approved this meritless payment and on what grounds?

Christmas can always be relied on to give us an attack of apostrophes as shops battle for the festive shilling.

We all have a laugh at the local greengrocer and his hand written signs offering collyflower's and spud's, my favourite was some years ago when I spotted 'Cox's apple's - loverly heaters', but surely national chains must have someone on their staff who can claim literacy among their attributes when it comes round to the annual appraisals? Apparently not.

Thus Boots are telling us about offers on 1000's of gifts while Currys Digital implore us to save £££'s. What it actually is of £££ that needs saving is not made clear. It must be very confusing for their marketing and advertising departments though, what with plural and possessive both starting with P, but then again so does that other fine word . . . prat.

Let's hear it for Tamryn Savage. For those who don't know she is the Bristol head teacher who has banned her kids bringing in home made cakes to sell to each other for Children in Need on 'elf n' safety grounds.

She has decided that the home made buns might not adhere to strict hygiene standards and carried the risk of sparking allergic reactions among pupils who might have wheat, nut or who knows what else allergies. I might add that they might also be inedible, solid, delicious, tiny, huge or more akin to synthetic rocks but that is all part of the fun.

The fact that this has apparently been going on for 28 years at the school and the number of deaths from icing poisoning or bunbolic plague has remained fairly steady through the years at zero seems to matter not one jot. If there is the remotest chance of a risk then ban it.

The school kitchen instead will make scores of uniform fairy cakes which, one hopes, or, in the case of those with a refined sense of irony, perhaps not, will cause no gastric excitement among the pupils. It is the nanny school and takes away all the effort and personal achievement of fund raising.

Our Tamryn is not the first nor will she be the last person to prove that perhaps they are the last person who should be in a position of authority and I am sure she is even now having sleepless night about how sharp some of those pens and pencils and as for a geometry compass . . . pass the smelling salts.

If we are not careful we will breed a generation who are so frightened of the most ridiculous risk of risk that we will never be able to coax them from the womb.

Now don't get me wrong. I am no fan of binge drinking. I will admit to the odd bender in my lifetime - drinking vintage port from a flower vase is one hazy recollection - but we are now a society out of control.

The fact that any visitor to Britain who finds himself in any city centre after dark could be forgiven for thinking we are a nation populated by foul mouthed yobs and yobettes is a national disgrace.

Sadly though, anyone who has experienced the delights of tripping daintily around the pools of vomit, missing drunks urinating in doorways and avoiding eye contact with any of the sub-species which seem to populate night time Britain would know it is an easy mistake to make.

So what do our MPs, bless them, come up with to end the culture of mindless drinking? Ban happy hours in pubs and ban cheap booze in supermarkets and no doubt next on the agenda, when we have been softened up a bit, will be an increase in duty for our own good.

I have said it before and I will say it again, in the rest of Europe booze is cheaper then we can even dream of - why else would people still be taking Trannies over to Calais on booze cruises? Bars are open all day long and in most city centres you can walk through late at night and find them populated by ordinary people enjoying the evening.

They are not drunk, fighting, spewing, swearing, shouting mindless abuse and the women do not look as if they either could not afford a full set of clothes or have lost their price list.

Happy hour was a marketing ploy to boost custom on slow nights but cheap alcohol in supermarkets hits everyone who enjoys a drink from families to pensioners. Force increases in prices and the rest of us have to suffer for the few - while of course the supermarkets and brewers coin in extra profits. The latter and its tax potential, I am sure, not going unnoticed by the treasury as it tries to raise the cash for all Gordon's promises.

Perhaps if MPs really wanted to do something to help they could start by asking themselves how it is that we have produced a generation of uneducated, uncouth drunks while the rest of Europe manages to maintain a society which has communities, families and a social structure.

They also have a visible police presence which nips any signs of trouble in the bud without worrying about political correctness, human rights or the Chief Constable's New Labour credentials.

If our MPs look hard enough they could well find the answer lies with the 646 people around them and forty years of social meddling.

It seems there is a disagreement going on in the old art world about a couple of paintings by American artist Mark Rothko which were donated to the Tate Modern just before he committed suicide in 1970.

The paintings from the Black on Maroon series seem to consist of thick red stripes on a dark maroon background and the dispute centres on whether the stripes should be vertical or horizontal and, once that is decided, which way up they should it be.

Some authorities say that the signature dictates which way the paintings should be hung on the basis old Mark probably signing the works the right way round, which seems logical. Others though say he changed his mind after signing them and there are fears that the paintings could . . . horror of horrors . . . be hung upside down.

Now, I know I am a bit of a Philistine, well a lot of one really, but if no one can really decide which way up the paintings should be does it really matter how you hang them? Will anyone really notice? Mona Lisa balanced on her head, Degas' dancers pole dancing on the ceiling or Van Gogh's sunflowers about to spill water all over the Cyril Lord (a reference for older readers) and we might spot that someone has dropped a bit of a clanger - but stripes that no one is sure which way up they go? Put them on a swivel like a Catherine wheel and turn them 90 degrees every couple of hours and that will keep everyone happy.

Oh dear, oh dear. It seems we are not all singing from the same hymn sheet, at least as far as Salisbury's forward thinking council is concerned.

It seems the state's guardians of the mother tongue Wiltshire branch have banned that particular phrase, about singing from hymn sheets, preferably the same one, on the basis it could be offensive to atheists.

I suppose in the same way saying 'reading off the same page' would be deemed offensive to illiterates or even some poor soul suffering from bibliophobia - that's fear of books by the way - and I suppose soul is out as that opens up a whole can of worms.

Salisbury's watchers of wicked words should be careful though. I am sure that out there someone will find offence in the term atheist, preferring belief deprived or religiously challenged or some other such clanking definition, while those championing illiterates would probably prefer the term 'unencumbered by the written form of communication', which slips of the tongue so easily.

Except of course that that might offend anyone who had relatives who had their tongue ripped out in the Spanish inquisition, which in turn would offend Spaniards and so on.

I could understand it if some official or other had just asked staff to be more original, use less clichés, be a bit more creative - but don't say it because it might upset atheists? Should they really have been put in charge of anything more important than winding treacle on bobbins?

In the mad world we live in we have had coffee shops refusing to serve black coffee because it is deemed racist with customers instead having to order coffee without milk. Then there was the council I heard of who sought to ban Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms in its town lest they offend non-Christians and there was even a pirate day for kids where eye patches and hooks were banned in case it upset the disabled.

Now I am sure it will come as no surprise to anyone when I say that I don't do politically correct. As a student I was once described as someone who not only calls a spade a spade but calls it an effing spade. I just tell it like it is using words we all understand which have sufficed for centuries. If they were good enough for Shakespeare, Wilde, Dickens and the like they are certainly good enough for me.

If you want to find something that is really offensive though, then look no further than the mealy mouthed jobsworths who tire of counting paper clips and look for other ways to interfere in everyone's lives proving for all to see that they have not got one of their own.

A common theme in all these puerile PC definitions and ludicrous attempts to manipulate language for political ends is that no one who is supposedly the victim of these word crimes has ever complained and usually, to a man . . . woman . . . person . . . whatever . . . cannot understand the stupidity of the small minded clique who have the arrogance to stand up unasked and unwanted and make banal noises on their behalf.

The deaf, blind, illiterate, ethnic minorities, women, disabled, tall, short, fat, thin and everyone in between up to those even claiming to be more or less normal, actually have a sense of humour and a much greater grasp of language that the humourless officials who want to control their words, thoughts and deeds. We all know we will be cheered, hurt, touched, offended, lifted, amused, annoyed and even loved or hated by words during our lifetime and that will happen no matter how many cack handed attempts to re-write the English language to sound like a DWP benefit claim form the pen pushers and thought monitors come up with.

So Salisbury, put that in your pipe and smoke it, if smokers, non-smokers, non-pipe smokers, salmon, mackerel and haddock are not too offended.

As a footnote it appears Salisbury's deputy council leader, Steve Fear, has claimed he has no idea where the advice originally came from but added helpfully: "Perhaps it was consultants."

Need anyone say more . . . the mere word is offensive to just about everyone still drawing breath.

I have just written the review on Katie Melua at the NEC, who was very good incidentally and, actually started on time, which, as anyone who frequents concerts, is not that common among those touched by even the slightest hint of fame.

As usual though we had the normal charade of the band and star taking a bow and then everyone troops off stage while the crowd whoop, yell and whistle for an encore.

The late John Denver always claimed he played a game when he ended a set whereby he used to leave the stage run and touch the back wall and see if he could get back before the clapping stopped.

Stephen Stills, who is less mobile than he was after an operation for prostrate cancer, is a bit more open about it. The band go off and do the 'if you cheer loud enough we will come back and sing another' bit while he just turns and watches them go, wanders over to the piano for a drink of water, pretending he is not there, then turns back to the audience when the band return 30 seconds or so later.

Katie Melua and her band seemed to have gone for a tour of the NEC, perhaps taking in an exhibition or two, before they returned but as long as the light's don't go on you know they are coming back.

Now one day, when some unsuspecting band go off for their mock exit, why don't we all sneak out so they come wandering back to an empty auditorium?

Am I missing something here. As we seem to have pretty well bought out the banks to save them going belly up, should we not be telling them to cut interest rates to reflect the fall in base rate rather than our Gordon just telling them he would be ever so grateful if they would. He who pays the piper and all that . . .

Nice to the see the BBC are not letting anything a silly as public opinion or common sense get in the way of their US election coverage with a staff of 175 racking up the expenses on our money to cover an election in which we have no say or vote. And that does not include flying guests out for a BBC election night party in the land of the free (which relates to enslavement rather than cost) and home of the brave (which is the attribute needed to sign the bills). I suspect they will not be sitting in the Ryanair £8 seats for their journey - pass the canapes please . . .

As with the Olympics, when just about everything short of Saturday Kitchen was beamed from Beijing, the Beeb are always willing to grab a few handfuls of licence-payers dosh from their piggy bank and send as many people as possible off on what is a jolly.

I am not quite sure if the news has more gravatus read from Washington rather than Wood Lane but it does make you wonder about the BBC's view of news. We already know that anything that happens in Britain outside London is of secondary importance at best and it now appears a US election is more important than anything that could possibly happen at home. I suppose it helps to justify the President of a US TV Channel-style salaries our BBC leaders have engineered for themselves.

The fact that most of our well educated, politically aware British public would struggle to name more than a couple of cabinet ministers and many would struggle even on who Gordon Brown is - which is not a philosophical question - should give some indication of the general interest in US politics. I suspect we even have a frighteningly large part of the population who think Matt Santos took over from Jed Bartlet at the White House.

But that hardly matters. Why let a little thing like interest get in the way of a cracking trip to New York or Washington or anywhere else in the US of A we can think off that sounds fun.

Don't get me wrong. Whoever ends up in the Oval Office will have an influence on the world for the next eight years but that will depend more upon the shady characters in the shadows who have bankrolled the campaigns than the mouthpiece extolling the state of the nation. Whichever piper wins the tune has already been bought and paid for, with some of the same names, almost certainly, appearing on both receipts. Big business only backs winners - even it means a couple of billion each way on every horse in the race.

But I digress. Back to the old BBC where all the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments about moving Question Time to Glasgow seem to be forgotten as the production team rush off stateside for a programme with as much relevance as sitting in on an a Melbourne planning committee meeting. And as for the rest, the coverage, if you dismiss News 24, which , let us be honest, most people do, hardly warrants the numbers we are paying for to enjoy a free holiday with a bit of early Christmas shopping thrown in..

I see the England players and Cricket got exactly the same as each other out of the Stanford Circus in Antigua.