The horrific flooding experienced this week in South Yorkshire, the Midlands, and other parts of Britain has been described by some as an "Act of God". It is no such thing. It is an Act of Man. For decades we encouraged farmers (with financial grants and subsidies) to rip out hedgerows to make bigger fields, and to put in subsoil land drainage systems.

Result? Faster rainwater run-off.

At the same time the River Boards of the 1960s and 1970s went on a mad spree of environmental destruction in the interests of Land Drainage, turning meandering river systems into straight, vegetation-free, drainage canals resembling aquatic motorways.

Result? Faster movement of flood water from A to B.

Whilst all this agricultrual mayhem was going on, town and country planners were merrily permitting housing and industrial development in flood plains, against the advice (in earlier days) of the same River Boards that were destroying the rivers' natural ability to balance the discharge of flood waters, and against the advice (in more recent times) of the Environment Agency.

In the older suburbs of our major towns and cities that were built before the age of mass car ownership you will also find people rooting up their front gardens and converting them into paved areas to accommodate one, two, or sometimes three cars.

Result? Additional surface water run-off to overload inadequate storm drainage systems.

At last, though somewhat too late I fear, farmers are considering the re-planting of hedgerows, and the Environment Agency talks about the desirability of allowing agricultural grassland to be given over to floodwater balancing. More voices are being raised by politicians and others about the need to take seriously the matter of building houses, factories and offices in areas known to be prone to flooding.

We have only ourselves to blame for many of our so-called environmental disasters.
30th June 2007

Unfinished Devolution

I'm all in favour of devolved government to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the Blair Government has made a complete pig's ear of the exercise by totally ignoring the gaping hole in their scheme which is ENGLAND!

The English are a fairly laid-back kind of people who are prepared to be kicked about a bit, but only up to a point. Take them beyond that point and they turn up the heat. I believe that we are fast approaching that "tipping point".

Already we have one sore point regarding medical prescription charges: in Wales prescriptions are free. If you live just on the English side of the border you pay the normal charges; if you live on the Welsh side you pay nothing.

Then there's the question of university tuition fees - in England students pay them and get into debt; in Scotland they don't.

Now the Scottish Executive is conducting a review of medical prescription charges, and they have also recently proposed that the size of primary school classes should be reduced.

All this is perfectly fine, and in many ways I have always found the Scottish approach to social affairs to be generally more agreeable than the English, and in any case with devolved government one expects there to be some diversity of political actions across the UK. So far so good. What I object to is the fact that England has no such devolved government; we are controlled by the UK's Westminster Government, and what makes that so unfair is that the MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland sitting in the House of Commons exercise their votes on legislation covering English domestic affairs whilst English MPs have no say whatsoever over equivalent matters in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Then we should also consider that much of the devolved administrations' social programmes are made possible by the fact that they are receiving significant subsidies from the UK government, which means that social benefits being enjoyed by the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish are partly paid for out of taxes paid by the English.

I am heartily sick of this half-baked devolution, and at the next General Election I am going to cast my vote for any candidate who supports the notion of (ideally) an English Parliament, or (at the very least) a restriction on MPs from outside England voting on our affairs.

If Labour gets re-elected, I wonder what chance there will be of Prime Minister Gordon Brown (who is a Scot representing a Scottish Constituency) addressing this issue. I am guessing, not much. Is there a case for hoping that David Cameron's Conservatives might be more sympathetic, considering the Conservative Party in Scotland is almost wiped out these days?
(20th June 2007)

A Big Surprise in Northern Ireland

Political events are normally so depressing these days, so recent developments in Northern Ireland have provided a pleasant surprise not just for me, but all those people who have spent most of their lives despairing about the sectarian divide in the Province: the hate-filled rhetoric, the shootings, the bombings, the knee-cappings, the terrorist acts perpetrated on British cities, the control of whole communities by self-styled armed militia belonging both to the Republican/Nationalist communities in pursuit of a united Ireland and the Unionist communities in pursuit of remaining firmly entrenched as a part of Britain.

In the middle of all this there were so-called "moderates" represented by the Social & Democratic Labour Party, the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionists, but their efforts in conjunction with the UK Government over 40 years or more came to nothing. It is ironic that in the end it took the figureheads from the two most extreme wings of the political spectrum to walk the thorny path from armed struggle to the ballot box: on the IRA side, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness (acknowledged past terrorists) of Sinn Fein; on the unionist side, Dr Ian Paisley (hell fire & brimstone protestant preacher) of the Democratic Ulster Unionists.

Credit where credit is due - the last Conservative Prime Minister, John Major took the courageous step of starting behind-the-scenes talks with the IRA. We didn't know it at the time, but the IRA were already coming to the conclusion that the armed struggle was not actually yielding results. When Tony Blair swept to power in 1997 he took up where Major had left off and he and his colleagues relentlessly pursued the goal of a peaceful settlement.

Now at last, and almost unbelievably, we have seen Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley (representing the two largest Parties in Northern Ireland after the last Norther Ireland Assembly elections) sitting at the same table and acknowledging they had signed an agreement to work jointly in a new devolved Northern Ireland Government with effect from 8th May this year.

Sorry to be slighly cynical, but I have to point out that a few weeks back, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain, laid down an ultimatum for the politicians across the water: if agreeement could not be reached, the Assembly would be closed down, the Province would be ruled directly from London for the forseeable future, and - here's the rub - all payment of salaries to elected members would be stopped.

Wonderful what can be achieved by threatening the pocket! I also suspect that Dr Paisley - for so long considered to be such a religious and unionist extremist - also relishes the imminent prospect of becoming Northern Ireland's First Minister to such an extent that he might have been prepared to sit at the same table with anyone!

I believe that Sinn Fein will ultimately achieve their stated aims, since their popular support at the ballot box has been steadily increasing with every election held, and I suspect that their core support, being staunchly Roman Catholic will tend to increase over time merely by virtue of their particular take on birth control. The time may well come when they form a majority and so can re-unite the "Six Counties" with the Republic of Ireland.

I have no feeling about that one way or other so long as the end result is reached by democratic means and represents a majority view.

Tony Blair will be not a little pleased and relieved to have a large-scale positive achievement attached to his legacy to counter the Iraq millstone around his neck.

Let us hope this is a new dawn for Northern Ireland.

Patriotic Nuts

21st November 2006

I recently wrote in my BLOG about religious nuts. The other nuts that drive me bonkers are the patriotic nuts. The “my country right or wrong” brigade. There’s nothing wrong with patriotism but the best kind is that which acknowledges faults and endeavours to put them right for the good of the country in which one purports to believe. Personally I believe patriotism runs a persistent danger of over-spilling into pernicious nationalism – an altogether different species of patriotism to the noble kind.

Here is an example – one of those pernicious, smug little messages that circulate around the internet vie e-mail groups. It was sent to me the other day … I was going to copy and paste it here but have just discovered I’ve deleted it. Anyway the gist of it was “I encountered a guy with a ‘I hate America’ kind of placard, and I told him that my grandfather died in the 2nd World War, my father died in Korea, and my brother died in Vietnam. They all died so that you could stand here and protest. If I had an umbrella I’d stick it up your arse and open it. God bless America.”

What struck me about this, and so many other anecdotes like it, is how factually incorrect it is: the bit about the 2nd World War is right – this was the last major conflict in which the USA fought from the moral high ground and helped defeat the odious Nazis. But as for Korea and Vietnam – they are totally irrelevant to this argument. What did all those American deaths achieve? Communist North Korea still exists, and Communist Vietnam still exists. Indeed the Vietnam war ended with an ignominious American retreat. Finally, you have to laugh (or get very angry) at someone who in one phrase wishes to stick un umbrella up someone’s arse, then in the next phrase invokes the name of God. It’s priceless loony stuff!

Sick Society

16th July 2006

Last week a vicar was told to resign as a primary school governor and have nothing further to do with the school. Why? Because at a school prize giving ceremony after presenting a little girl with a certificate for outstanding work in mathematics he gave her a kiss on the cheek.

What have we come to when a universally recognised form of greeting or affection is turned into a criminal act? The complaint against the vicar was made by the girl's mother. This stupid, stupid woman - who clearly is unfit to be a mother - saw this as some kind of assault on her child.

The Police and the Church Authorities investigated and concluded there was no case to answer, but nevertheless advised the vicar to sever all connections with the school. This makes me incandescent with rage. For God's sake, this action took place in front of a hall full of people, not in the potting shed behind the vicarage. I'm sick of the brainless 'thought police', the 'PC brigade', the sad idiots who see paedophilia wherever they look.

There used to be a time someone could say "I love children" but say it now and as like as not you'll be regarded as some kind of pervert by brainless idiots who can't see the difference between normal affection and sexual depravity.

I'm the first to insist that we lock away the disgusting people who see children as objects of sexual desire, but for God's sake let the rest of us lead normal lives.

Disunited Kingdom

30th June 2006
I am becoming increasingly agitated by the negative effects of devolution. When Blair's government devolved power to Scotland and Wales a few years back I was all in favour. The reason I am no longer favouring it is because of the cack-handed way it has been done - specifically, the complete absence of any consideration of similar treatment for England.

Our politicians seem unable (or unwilling) to recognise that devolving domestic matters in Scotland to a Scottish Executive overseen by a Scottish Parliament (and similar, though less, powers to a Welsh Assemby) leaves a glaring and visible gap in the affairs of England. They stupidly thought that setting up Regional Assemblies in England would fill that gap - but they are not directly elected, constitute another level of bureacracy and nobody likes them.

The case for an English Parliament is obvious. Of course, since the UK Parliament in Westminster is already located in England it would seem prudent to use the existing House of Commons but with suitable changes to procedures.

It is ludicrous that Scotland returns MPs to the Westminster Parliament who then vote on legislation affecting England, sometimes creating laws, regulations and practices which their own Scottish Parliament would never implement for Scotland. Often the Prime Minister has to rely upon the votes of his Scottish MPs to get through unpopular legislation on, for example, university student fees, whilst Scotland is unaffected, since it has its own legislative body for domestic affairs. Westminster MPs representing Scottish seats should NOT be voting on matters exclusive to England.

This kind of thing leads to increasing frustration and resentment which runs the risk of destabilising our society. It is possible that we shall soon have a Prime Minister who is a Scot, representing a Scottish constituency. It's interesting to note that public support for Gordon Brown is beginning to wane. I fear that we are reaching the point where the answer to the question, What part of the phrase "United Kingdom" don't you understand will be the word"United".

Signs of the Times

30th December 2005
As we put the festive season behind us, write thank-you letters for novelty wine stoppers, and drag ourselves into 2006 I feel inspired to don my “grumpy old man” hat and launch into a good rant about the seemingly unstoppable production of road signs by those County Council people who are in receipt of such generous salaries via our Council Tax payments. Indeed it is not just the people behind the road signs on whom we should concentrate, it is also the highway engineers who working like demented things trying to engineer road safety into our highways and byways.

On the A64 from York to Scarborough, just as you are approaching the end of the dual carriageway and the turn-off for Castle Howard, you are confronted by at least seventeen signs of one description or another. (I hasten to add that I was a car passenger when I counted them!) Sorry Council Guys, but this is more than our stressed-out brains can take in whilst travelling at 60 m.p.h.!

There used to be a time when most of us could understand a simple road sign imparting essential information. Now, it seems the bureaucrats treat us like children who need to have everything explained in as many ways as possible in the hope that we shall understand at least one of them.

In Pickering, North Yorkshire (as in many other countless towns across the land) 20 m.p.h. speed limits are being introduced in the vicinity of Primary Schools, backed up with the ubiquitous speed humps. Quite right (though not sure about the humps) - I have no quarrel with that. But, dear bureaucrats, all we need is a simple 20 speed limit sign. So what do we get? In addition to the “20” sign we get signs with kiddie pictures on them asking, “How slow can you go?” Then, when we get to the end of this zone it reverts to the regular 30 m.p.h. speed limit and, naturally enough there is a “30” sign. Fine. But oh, dear God, there’s an additional sign saying, “End of 20 m.p.h. zone”.Well, lucky that’s there then … otherwise I’d never have guessed that a “30” sign meant the “20” sign no longer applied!

It get worse. As you approach this zone, with its “20” limit and its speed humps, the street furniture fiends have seen fit to erect an additional sign with the invaluable information that this is a “Traffic Calmed Area”. And there was I foolishly thinking that “20” and a load of speed humps indicated an unrestricted race track.

Main roads approaching villages now have central refuges that increase the chances of people being knocked off their bikes because frequently there is no room for a car and bike together; then there are the large patches of red before the village speed limit which start to wear out soon after they’ve been laid down; then there are the rumble strips just in case we haven’t noticed the speed limit signs and the large red patches; then there are the additional signs below the speed limit signs advising that Boggleham-in-the-Willows Welcomes Careful Drivers.

There’s a sign on the A15 entering the City of Lincoln prohibiting cars carrying explosive materials. (What’s all that about, and who is checking?)

I’ll come to the end of this rant back on the A64 between York and Scarborough. Only part of it is Dual Carriageway. For the past 40 years local worthies have been trying without success to get government approval for the whole route to be “dualled”. The road is choked with industrial traffic struggling in and out of the Scarborough industrial areas, and the summer vacation traffic brings the whole route to a standstill. So what do the highway engineers do to reduce accidents? They paint lines and cross-hatching, build central refuges, and engage in all manner of subterfuge to make the road appear narrower than it is really is. They seem to have a theory that if all the traffic is nose to tail and nobody can overtake anyone else then it becomes safer. The theory works if all the traffic is moving at 55-60 m.p.h., but the one thing they’ve failed to notice is that in this agricultural area there are tractors, trailers, and combine harvesters all over the place, and buses that stop at bus stops. The result in summertime is total log-jam, followed closely by road rage, impatience, and stupidly dangerous actions. Is this what we pay you for, County Council engineers?

Let's not forget those OTHER Terrorists!

26th August 2005
Whilst we are preoccupied with the subject of terrorism, let us not forget the bunch of terrorists that have been in our midst for decades: they call themsevles animal rights activisits.

A large well-run UK farm breeding guinea pigs for important and serious medical research has just announced it's closing down after decades of violent intimidation of the owners, their staff, and relatives. Many other research centres have been closed and new developments put on hold because of the illegal activities of these lunatics.

These people who profess to care for animals have no feelings for humans. What values are they trying to uphold? Whilst telling us we are wrong to use animals in this way, their actions demonstrate that - apparently - it's OK to throw bricks at people, issue death threats, and even go into a churchyard to dig up the corpse of someone's grandmother and hide the body parts.

They represent nobody but themselves. They are self-appointed guardians of a bizarre set of values, and they are dangerous. What the hell are the Police doing about them? Not much, it seems.

If any of these losers find themselves seriously ill in hospital and discover the only way their life might be saved is through a treatment developed through animal experiments, can we be confident that they will refuse treatment and discharge themselves to go away and die in some corner? I don't think so.

Virtually Useless Bureaucratic Brains

25th June 2004
You know those "speed humps" that have springing up in roads all over the country? They are designed to bring about "traffic calming" - a euphemism for speed reduction. I'm not sure if they calm traffic but they enrage drivers. They also damage vehicles, slow down the emergency services, and shake up dangerously ill patients in ambulances.

Now let me introduce you to a new piece of bureaucratic lunacy … the VIRTUAL speed hump! I kid you not, dear readers - in south-west London, Richmond-on-Thames Borough Council have started introducing them. What is a "virtual" speed hump? Well, it looks exactly like a real one, i.e., the big square raised cushion variety, but it's just the way it's been painted. It's an optical illusion. In reality it is as flat as the road. What am I saying? It IS the road!

Obviously it never occurred to the tiny little brain that thought this one up that within a week everyone using the road would know it was flat. There's one of these things outside my sister's house in Teddington. I was there recently, looking out of the front window watching all the traffic hurtling past at a furious rate. Now just what, I ask myself, has been achieved by spending public money on such an absurdity?

From Moral High Ground to Moral Swamp in One Year

12th May 2004
Two so-called Christian and Democratic countries invade a (mainly) Muslim country that poses no immediate threat, on the trumped up supposition that this other country is about to unleash nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry on its neighbours, on Europe and on the USA. They march into this country and "liberate" it from a tyrannical regime. The regime (which was indeed tyrannical) is removed, and it is replaced by the military might of the "liberators" who then become "occupiers" in double-quick time.

Fine words spew forth from the White House and from 10 Downing Street about morality, freedom, democracy, civilisation, liberation. People in the "liberated" country who either appear to be supporters of the deposed regime, or have little interest in being democratised, become uncooperative and start shooting and bombing the "liberators". Hundreds are rounded up and imprisoned by the "liberators", and are then subjected to disorientation techniques, humiliated, ridiculed, tortured and sometimes killed. Photographs are taken showing terrified detainees being subjected to disgusting treatments by grinning guards (from the "Christian Democracies").

The men and women who initiated the invasion, and those who now inflict this degradation on the lucky liberated country, from the President and the Prime Minister, down through the Secretaries of Defence, to the military personnel and their contractors, for the most part call themselves Christians - upholders of the doctrines of Jesus Christ - the meek shall inherit the earth - love they neighbour - turn the other cheek - rich men, camels and the eye of a needle, etc. etc. The President of the USA calls himself a Christian. The UK Prime Minister calls himself a Christian.

But I don't buy this. They are not Christians. They just like to think they are. A man with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other is not an acceptable concept.

Meanwhile, the people who flew airliners into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the people who blew up a Bali night club, the people who blew up trains in Madrid, the people who cut the throat of an Italian working in Iraq, the people who beheaded an American civilian working in Iraq, the people who start street battles in which hundreds of their own innocent men, women and children finish up dead, call themselves Muslims.

But I don't buy this. They are not Muslims. They just like to think they are. A man with the Koran in one hand and a gun in the other is not an acceptable concept.

How did it come to this? What are we to say to our children? That this is acceptable behaviour? No. It is not acceptable behaviour, in the confines of our home, in our village or town, or on an international scale.

The people who commit these atrocities on both sides degrade themselves as human beings and they degrade the rest of us by association.

We invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction which were not there. We made ourselves feel better about it by saying we had liberated people from a tyrannical dictator. There is no clear evidence that Iraqis are yearning for American-style or British-style democracy. Our job is done. We are not occupying the moral high ground, we are sloshing around in a moral swamp. Hand the place over to the Iraqis and get the hell out of there. We have no business to be there. Follow the Spanish.

Lionel beck - 12th May 2004

New Year' Honours

Tim Berners-Lee

2nd January 2004
I am not a great fan of the British Honours system, mainly because of the opaqueness of the system, and the various gradations of the awards, all harking back to British Empire days. But it is becoming more transparent, with more nominations being accepted by the public, and there is also a promise by the Government to review the whole system.

This year there were many instances of the awards being well deserved and popular with the general public, for example the MBEs awarded to the entire England World Cup Rugby team.

But since you are reading this within the environment of the Internet, I thought I would make special mention of the well-deserved Knighthood awarded to the British Scientist Tim Berners-Lee, without whose technical creativity and generous spirit you would not be visiting this Website - or indeed any other (more useful and superior) Websites.

There can't be many people around who are unaware of the existence of the Internet and the World Wide Web. Unfortunately, those of us who are intimately acquainted with these are not always clear about the distinction between the two, and carelessly interchange the "internet" with the "web" indiscriminately.

The Internet is the hardware, i.e., the computers and telephone networks that link them, and until 1989 was the exclusive domain of serious computer geeks and the Military (for whom it was originally developed). The World Wide Web is the software system by which the Internet can be used to write, view and exchange documents containing readable text and images, and it is all down to (now Sir) Tim Berners-Lee. We have him to thank for the development of the language and the Web Browsers with which to read it. Moreover, having created the system, rather than patent it and make a great packet of money out of it, he freely distributed it.

So, thank you, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, for revolutionising our view of the world, for making so much information readily available to us on a global scale, and for extending the scope for international friendship.

And I have to confess it's good to know this important contribution to the computer revolution is British!

Bitter-Sweet Justice for HOLLY WELLS & JESSICA CHAPMAN

Ian Huntley gets what he deserves, but what a Police Cock-up!

17th December 2003
After several days deliberation by the Jury, Ian Huntley (school caretaker) was found guilty by an 11 to 1 majority of murdering the school girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman last year. The Judge sentenced him to Life Imprisonment twice. His girlfriend, Maxine Carr, was found not guilty of aiding a crime, but guilty of perverting the course of justice. She received three and a half years.

Whilst congratulating the Police in bringing this investigation to a successful conclusion, it's worth remembering that if Police Records in Cambridgeshire and Humberside had been up to scratch these two little girls would still be with us. It transpires that Ian Huntley had been well known to the Police in both Humberside and Cambridgeshire with regard to a whole string of allegations and complaints about burglary, sex with under-age girls, and rape. Yet when he applied for the school caretaker's job the usual checks made with Police and Social Services produced nothing but a big fat CLEARANCE.

The school's horrified head teacher stated that on the subject of burglary alone (never mind anything else) he would not have been employed. The first line of the caretaker's job description refers to school SECURITY.

I look forward to the Police explanations for their dilatory system of record handling. I work with young children, and I am subject to regular checks via the North Yorkshire authorities and the Criminal Records Bureau. It is to be hoped that parents in my part of the country can have some faith in the system which declares that I am indeed fit to be working with children.

Identity Crisis

12th October 2003
The UK Government has recently been making efforts to soften us up for the prospect of introducing Identity Cards. Not unexpectedly this has aroused dismay and anger in a section of the population who see such a thing as grossly intrusive into their private lives and rights to liberty, and so on.

I count myself in the other section of the population who can see the obvious benefits, accepting that the battle for personal privacy was lost long ago. After all, just consider the amount of personal information about us sloshing around out there in such diverse institutions as the Criminal Records Bureau, the Inland Revenue, our Banks, our Credit Card Companies, our Utility Companies, our Local Authorities, the Passport Office, and even Department Stores and Supermarkets, and you will realise that there is hardly a thing about us that someone doesn't already know. In addition, those of us who have reached the State retiring age are already carrying a little card from the Department of Pensions confirming that we are entitled to a State Pension, not to mention another little piece of plastic allowing us free bus travel (if we are lucky) or at least half price bus fares (if we live in a less generous local authority area).

The obvious arguments against an Identity Card include the prospects of theft and fraud, and more importantly the quality and quantity of information included specifically for the advantage of Government departments. But as technology constantly improves the ability to manufacture fraud-proof cards with an intelligent chip inside deals to some extent with that objection. So far as the amount of information included this should be no more than is necessary to put the right face with the right name, together with a date of birth and a National Insurance Number.

The obvious advantages of such an Identity Card include the ability to show with a single piece of evidence that we who we say we are when we want to borrow money, get some kind of licence, satisfy a police enquiry, obtain a bus pass, claim state benefits, etc., instead of having to go through the dreary business of producing a driving licence, or a utility bill, or a birth certificate or some other document that enters into the imagination of the enquiring authority.

Considering the general level of disquiet currently being expressed about illegal immigrants, fraudulent benefit claims, and the level of crime in general, then I would welcome the introduction of an Identity Card which no law-abiding citizen should need to fear. It has already been stated by the Government that if a high-tech ID card were to be introduced it would not be incumbent upon us to carry it around with us all the time, i.e., there would be no offence committed by not being in possession of one's ID Card. It would be sufficient that you would be able to produce it for a competent authority within a reasonable time period (much in the same way as now we may be required to present our driving licence and car insurance certificate - should we not have them immediately to hand - to the local police station). Another of it's uses would be to act as an "entitlement card" so far as any state or local benefits are concerned.

So, let's get the design, the technology, and the type of information right, and then lets bring it on. The sooner the better, I say.

PRIDE (American) & PREJUDICE (British)
Removal of the Former & Acceptance of the Latter

29th September 2003
There's almost a case for making international travel compulsory, as a means of encouraging greater understanding between peoples and the removal of prejudice.

My wife and I have just returned from a two week vacation in Canada & the USA, avoiding the usual tourist trails (with the notable exceptions of Toronto & Niagara Falls). I knew little about Canada and thought it was probably boring and of little interest. Wrong! Polite people, nice cities, and great food.

As for the USA, I have been openly critical of them on this site - but critical of the Bush Administration, not the people, and I'll probably continue to annoy the "neo-cons" in the future. My assessment of the Americans, (based on meeting and talking to bank staff, shop assistants, restaurant staff, gas station attendants, internet friends and their families, and - it has to be said - even Customs & Immigration Officers!) is that they are some of the most kind, hospitable, generous, courteous, and entertaining people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. I would like to thank our American internet friends for treating us so well on our recent visit, and turning "virtual" friendships into "real" ones.

Save the Bali Bomber!

8th August 2003
Hold on! Before you close me down in disgust at my heading, just read on for a few minutes. On 7th August the Indonesian judges trying the case of the Bali bomber known as Amrozi handed down the most ridiculous sentence on him, namely death by firing squad. People in the Court cheered at the sentence, without pausing to reflect on the fact that the judges were in fact doing this grinning religious lunatic a massive favour. He was obviously delighted at being offered what he wanted all along - martyrdom. To him, the death sentence is no punishment at all - it is a reward.

This poor apology for a Moslem, linked to the dangerous and fanatical group "Jemaah Islamiyah" is one of those idiots who thinks he can yell "God is great" but finds no contradiction between that statement and his conviction that he has the right to kill innocent people in the name of God. These people make me sick. He is reported to have said that he was sorry some people who should not have been killed lost their lives; he had apparently nothing against the Australians, his target had been Americans and Jews. I see, so that's all right then.

No - what is really needed in his case, is not the death sentence, but incarceration for life in solitary confinement. To this religious fanatic, such a sentence would be a punishment indeed. I am pleased to see that some families of British victims of this outrage in Bali are actually going to lodge an Appeal against this death sentence, for the same reasons I've outlined above. I wish them success.

Blair-faced Lies

21st July 2003
There is a head of steam building up for UK Prime Minister Blair's resignation. I never thought I would hear myself say this, but I am beginning to feel there is a strong case for Blair to go. He has, I am sad to say, outlived his usefulness to the Labour Party. All credit to him for reforming the Labour Party and facilitating its re-birth as a potential government in the years leading up to their landslide victory in 1997, but things have gone strangely wrong in the run up to the Iraq war.

His two terms in Government have not turned out to be as exciting or useful as they could have been, though they have been infinitely preferable to the preceding eighteen years of Tory government. Self-government in varying degrees for Scotland and Wales, a National Minimum Wage, improved rights for part-time workers, limits on working hours, more money into the National Health Service and into Education, more women and people from ethnic minorities in government, are all things one could never have hoped for under the Tories.

It all went awry when Blair became enthralled by the prospect of cuddling up to the super-power across the Atlantic, which one might have understood in the days of the Clinton / Democratic Administration, but Blair and the party he leads are so far to the left of George Bush's Republicans and neo-Conservatives that it has been difficult to see many areas of common ground, and indeed this has led to a great deal of friction between Blair and his MPs.

Factor in the Bush Administration's disdain for a number of international treaties, including the Kyoto accord, and the British people become even more puzzled, especially when they learn this month that Bush is now trying to wriggle out of agreements on the production and use of CFCs - the chemicals responsible for the worrying destruction of the ozone layer. The revelations about the "intelligence" that led to war has finally pulled the pin out of the grenade that Blair's been carrying around with him in recent months and now he's holding on to it in fear of his political life.

In the months leading up to the Iraq war, and during the conflict, I made it clear many times on this Website that the war was an illegitimate pre-emptive action against a sovereign state that posed no immediate threat either to the US or the UK. I doubted the veracity of claims that weapons of mass destruction existed, and I thought the exercise was a dangerous distraction from the real fight against international terrorist networks.

My comments provoked a number of Americans to write to me in aggressive and insulting terms, e.g., I was "Narrow-minded and ill-informed", and "Please don't visit my country because you would not be welcome". I was, however, heartened by the fact that an equal number of Americans either agreed with me, or even if they didn't, accepted that I had a right to express a point of view that was different to their's. Some people compared Bush and Blair with Winston Churchill who refused to appease Adolph Hitler, but in my view the comparison was wholly false, because in the 1930s Hitler was rampaging around Europe with a large army and a declaration of racial superiority. The threat to our liberty was both real and obvious.

I have said that I was prepared to eat large portions of humble pie and parts of my hat if I was going to be proved wrong over Iraq. Well, I've put the humble pie back in the freezer and I'm still wearing my hat.

Blair lied to the British people about the threat Saddam Hussein posed, and committed our servicemen and women (many of whom have been killed) to an illegitimate pre-emptive action. A pre-emptive strike against a country that shows every sign of attacking you is justifiable, but in this case the threat was manufactured to fall into line with a decision that had already been made to go to war. Now an internationally respected biological weapons expert, Dr Kelly, who had the temerity to express an opinion publicly that Saddam had been no threat, has taken his own life as a result of the pressures put on him by - in his own words - "dark people playing games".

Blair has made a huge error of judgement, emptying our reservoir of trust in him. He should go. I can think of two or three eminently suitable people who could take his place.

Throwing Money in the Gutter

Every so often our local Council sends round a mechanical road sweeper to clean the gutters. What a monumental waste of money! Whichever street it comes down, if it is a street where parking is allowed, then the machine spends all its time weaving in and out of parked cars. Consequently only a small percentage of the roadside gutter actually gets cleaned.

We should import a piece of common sense from Italy. I noticed on my travels there that in many towns there is a specific day of the week designated for street cleaning, and on that day parking is strictly prohibited. The street gets properly cleaned.

Our practice of sending mechanical road sweepers down roads littered with parked cars is replicated all over Britain. Just what is the point of it all?

Living with America

On the American side, this fact lays upon them some heavy responsibilities, because such power can be used for good or evil. So how are those responsibilities being exercised, and more to the point, how does the rest of the world perceive the USA's actions?

On 17th June 2003 BBC TV showed an interesting program … check it out on http://www.bbc.co.uk/america … which attempted to answer these questions, with the help of some high-profile studio guests from a dozen or so countries, coupled with the results and analysis of polls taken in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Russia, S Korea, the UK and the USA.

The polls dealt with questions about a whole range of issues, which included general attitudes, the President, policies, world issues, commodities, military power, benevolence, religion, and (of course) the war against Iraq.

American readers will be pleased to know that on a scale from plus 100 down through zero and then down to minus 100 the overall general attitude towards America averaged out at 10 points into the "positive", and the biggest three contributors to this result were the Americans themselves (no surprise there), Canada, and the UK, followed by Israel, Australia, S Korea and Russia. The four countries dipping into the negative were (in order of negativity) France, Indonesia, Brazil and Jordan. To be fair to France, they were only just into the negative.

But there were some interesting anomalies and ambivalence. Whilst America's biggest neighbour, Canada, saw the US generally as a country with a political and economic system to be envied and copied, their approval rating of George W Bush was almost (but not quite) into the negative zone! And the UK mirrors the Canadian result, though with less approval than Canada for the country, and an even greater disapproval of the President. (I count myself in with the Canadians and those of my British fellow countrymen who think positively about America as a whole, though disapproving of their President and his "Neo-Conservative" Administration.)

In fact this position on President George W Bush is most peculiar, for the only two countries coming out with a favourable attitude to the President are the Americans themselves and the Israelis. Outright disapproval of Bush came from Australia, the UK, S Korea, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, France, and Jordan.

So we have a country that, on balance, receives the benefit of the doubt from the world community, but that same country has a President attracting disapproval from almost everyone outside the US. (It got me thinking back to the time of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the UK., where this phenomenon worked in reverse. The "Iron Lady", towards the latter part of her tenure attracted swathes of British hate, yet she was admired and respected by other countries, especially by America.)

There seems to be something about the Atlantic Ocean that reverses the polarity of political opinion between the UK and the USA. In the time of Ronald Reagan (one of Thatcher's admirers) he enjoyed the widespread support of Americans, yet in Britain he was just seen as a joke. At the other end of the spectrum many Americans regarded Bill Clinton as a joke, but the British (conveniently ignoring his sexual peccadilloes and strange habits with cigars) held him in rather higher regard.

A few countries make disparaging noises about American food, films, and music but even so you continue to find the McDonald's restaurants full, copious amounts of Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola being consumed, and Hollywood movies and American pop music continue to entertain, (and this is even true in France - the country most critical of the US in these regards, being the most jealous of its own culinary expertise, musical heritage and its language.)

Returning to those international polls, American policies on the spread of AIDS receives overall approval, as they do also on their policies against the threat of terrorism. But approval turns to disapproval when moving on to American policies on world poverty, global warming, nuclear proliferation, and the problem of Israel and Palestine.

Is the USA a force for good in the world? Well, the Americans think so, as do Canada, Israel, Australia and the UK. But S Korea, France, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia and Jordan thought less favourably.

One of the most intriguing responses was to the question "Does America scare you?" Brazil and S Korea tended towards "Yes" to this question, whilst everyone else registered largely "No". The Korean response is a little weird, considering they are relying upon US military power to protect them from North Korea. Indeed on another question at least half the S Koreans thought America was more dangerous than North Korea!

Is America "reaping the thorns planted in the world by its rulers?" There is an overwhelming "Yes" to this question (with the single exception of the American respondents) and it turns out to be a particularly galling "trick question" inasmuch as that particular quote comes from none other than one Saddam Hussein.

Does America feel it is the only superpower in the world and can do what they like? Overall the answer is YES, with Indonesia, Brazil and of course the USA demurring.

So how do we perceive Americans? These are the percentages who agree with the following description of Americans (all countries) …

Finally, and most topically, the question that raises no surprises whatsoever … "Do you think America was right or wrong to invade Iraq?" Well, the top enthusiast for the American action is Israel, followed closely by the Americans themselves. Australia and the UK narrowly come out as a majority in favour, but all the rest disapprove, with the biggest disapproval messages coming from Brazil, Indonesia, Russia and Jordan (in order of increasing disapproval).

I have not dealt with all the questions, nor have I remarked on comments made by international studio guests, but my overall impression is that the general balance just tips in the USA's favour. The most antagonist country of those taking part is undoubtedly Jordan, no doubt influenced both by the Iraq adventure and the Israeli-Palestinian question.

I'm slightly puzzled by the adverse opinions of Brazil and S Korea. In spite of the Bush Administration's attempts to demonise France, even that country is far more charitably disposed towards America than they are given credit for. Israel is clearly the most uncritical of all the countries, on some questions being more sympathetic than even the Americans themselves!

Curried Egg on Major's Face

In 1997 the UK Conservative suffered a landslide defeat, giving way to the first Labour Government for 18 years, and one of the driving forces behind their amazing demise - apart from their disastrous policies that were hurting so many people - was the widespread perception that they had become a Party of Sleaze. Prime Minister John Major used to extol the virtues of basic family values, whilst presiding over a succession of Ministers resigning or being sacked either through dishonesty and corruption, or through inappropriate sexual dalliances whilst maintaining a public face of blissful wedlock.

While all this was going on, John Major was widely regarded as a somewhat grey and uninteresting man, but whose saving grace was his gentlemanly politeness and general "niceness" (for the want of a better word). As a leader he was so uninspiring that one well-remembered sketch in the satirical puppet show "Spitting Image" habitually had an ashen-grey John Major sitting at the dinner table with his long-suffering wife, Norma, and observing, "These peas are nice and round, Dear."

Now it would seem, thanks to the recently published memoirs of Mrs Edwina Currie - another cringingly unlikeable Tory Minister of the time -

that she had had a torrid four-year affair with the grey man. He was, by her account, a superb lover who could go on for hours! They used to be at it whenever there was time in the House of Commons between crucial votes. So now the truth is out about this exponent of traditional family values - he not only presided over a total collapse of morality in his Cabinet, but he was himself a master of collapsed morality! At the bottom right of Edwina's website picture it says "Enter..." - John Major did!

Currie's revelations - unfortunately for the Conservatives - were made public just before the start of this year's Conservative Party Annual Conference. It was a well-timed reminder to the rest of us as to why New Labour have been given two resounding election victories since that time.

9th October 2002

Archer off target again

9th October 2002
Another reminder of our glorious Conservative past came to light at about the same time as Edwina Currie was spilling the beans on sex-bomb John Major, and that was the revelation that the one-time darling of the Tory Party, Jeffrey Archer (I refuse to use his title of "Lord" when referring to this loathsome little man) - currently in prison for committing perjury in a court case concerning his association with a prostitute - has now published his prison diaries, in which he not only talks about conditions inside Bellmarsh Prison, and the things people in it get up to, but he has revealed names of certain prison staff and inmates, thus breaking prison regulations. This is in addition to another recent breach of regulations in his current "open" prison, by attending a party on one of his home leave periods.

He has also been seen dining out in restaurants with police and prison officers. I hope that, for his troubles, he will find himself banged up again in a secure prison, and have privileges withdrawn. Anything to take the smug grin off his face. This man has lied and cheated his way through life right from his university days. But he was very good at raising money for the Conservative Party and became one of their favourite sons (hence the peerage).

I have to ask, why does someone who is convicted of crimes and sent to prison, retain the title of "Lord". It's a farce. He'll always be just Jeffrey Archer to me.

Update - 21st July 2003 ... Archer came out prison today, having served two years of his four year sentence. There are rumours he will try and return to his place in the House of Lords. There appears to be no way of stopping this. We are all waiting to see whether he will continue his old life of lies, deceipt and fantasy. One thing is for sure - he is unlikely to avoid publicity - he thrives on it.

Food for Thought

A year or two back an American friend of mine confessed to being confused by my use of the phrase "eating my tea". She thought that tea was a drink (which of course it is).

I thought that this month I would help those of you who are confused by British eating habits and put you out of your misery. It's all perfectly simple really.

The first meal of the day is of course BREAKFAST and this is usually taken soon after falling out of bed, and will usually be finished between 7 and 8 a.m., except that in McDonalds it finishes at 11 a.m., and then again, some cafes serve breakfast all day. So, that's got the times sorted out. Now, what do we eat? Well, there's "The full English" which consists of any combination of fruit juice, cereal, fried eggs, scrambled eggs, poached eggs, fried bread, fried tomatoes, grilled or fried bacon, grilled or fried mushrooms, fried or grilled beef or pork sausages, black pudding, saute potatoes, hash browns, and baked beans, accompanied by lashings of English mustard (hot stuff), brown sauce or tomato ketchup, followed by white or brown toast with Marmite, honey, orange marmalade, jam, etc., all washed down with cups of tea or coffee. In other words, the full heart attack. If you are visiting Cornwall, you will be offered the full "Cornish Breakfast". If you are in Northern Ireland you'll be offered the "Ulster Fry". Having enjoyed a couple of hotel breakfasts in Dublin I can report that the "Irish Breakfast" is similar to that north of the border. (It's good to know that the Irish Republican Breakfast is united with the UlsterUnionist Breakfast!) If you are in Scotland you'll get the "Full Scottish Breakfast". In any region you happen to be in you'll get the "Full (substitute any region) Breakfast". And they are pretty well all much the same! (But of course they taste much better for sporting the regional denomination!)

There are ways of avoiding the trip in the ambulance with flashing blue lights. One is to have a piece of smoked haddock or a kipper. The other is to indulge in a "Continental Breakfast". On the European Continent, these are very good - fruit juices, fruit, cereals, delicate slices of cheese and cold meats, hot and feathery croissants, or bread, honey or jam; and of course coffee. The British Continental Breakfast (if that is not a contradiction in terms), as offered by hotels, is often a sad imitation, depending upon your hotel. Recently my wife - in "continental mood" - ordered some ham and cheese instead of the cholesterol feast on offer, and was presented with a wedge of ham you could use as a door-stop and a bloody great chunk of cheddar cheese. Heavy going, first thing in the morning. Other British versions of the "Continental" include simply a few slices of toast and marmalade. Ordering croissants in most British establishments is not to be recommended unless you need something handy to throw at the waiter.

Breakfast is followed by LUNCH and this is taken between 1 and 2 p.m., except that if you live in the northern half of the country you take it between Midday and 1 p.m. Then again, some people refer to lunch as their DINNER whereas the people who call it lunch have their dinner in the evening, and those who call it dinner call their evening meal tea. On the other hand those who eat lunch refer to tea as something you have round about 4 or 5 p.m., and this may be followed later on by dinner.

Are you getting the hang of this now?

It gets much easier as we now consider what these meals consist of.

Lunch is a 3-course hot meal, except that for some it is a 2-course or a single course hot meal. Then again, for others it is just a couple of sandwiches and a packet of crisps. (Did I mention that some people don't have lunch at all? I don't think I did - nor did I explain that those who do have it often have no breakfast.) The quintessential English Afternoon Tea is usually only taken by those who are not working, since the period between 4 and 5 p.m. will be taken up either working or travelling home from work. But for those who are retired or on holiday, they can indulge in a "Devon Cream Tea", or a "Cornish Cream Tea", or a "Yorkshire Cream Tea", or a "(Substitute any region) Cream Tea". Like the regional breakfasts, they are all pretty much identical ... sandwiches, buttered scones with jam and cream, and fancy cakes. And of course, no Tea is complete without the pot of tea and so (referring back to my American friend) we are both eating tea and drinking tea. As for making the drink of tea, if you live in Yorkshire you'll probably be buying packets of something call "Yorkshire Tea" - though I've never yet encountered a tea plantation anywhere in Yorkshire! I know there are some English vineyards, but tea plantations? No.

Those of us who don't indulge in this delicate little meal look forward to our evening DINNER which is a 2 or 3-course hot meal. Oh dear, I forgot to mention that some people call this SUPPER, with the exception of those who have a light supper just before going to bed, and those who enjoy surreal nocturnal experiences ensure that it includes plenty of cheese.

So, to sum up ...

• Breakfast is first thing in the morning, up to 11 a.m., or all day, consisting of half the farmyard or pieces of toast.
• Lunch is at midday or an hour later and it may be Dinner, consisting of a sandwich or a full hot meal.
• Tea is late afternoon and is usually accompanied by tea, consisting of delicate sandwiches, scones, and fairy cakes.
• Dinner (when it's not Lunch) is early evening and it may be Tea, consisting of a full hot meal.
• Supper is early, mid or late evening, and may be Dinner (except when it's late), and consisting of pretty well anything you care to mention.

I hope that's cleared up any confusion.

How to Calculate a 45 degree Angle

Actually this is not so much a calculation as a practical demonstration of what a 45 degree angle looks like. I have found it consistently reliable.

• Open a half-litre tin of gloss paint and hold in the left hand. (Left-handed readers please read these instructions the other way round, but not upside down). Take a paint brush in the right hand, load with paint and commencing painting something that requires concentration, e.g., a window frame.
• After about two minutes of careful painting you will notice a sticky wetness on the back of the left hand.
• At this point observe the tin of paint: it is now at an angle of 45 degrees.

3rd August 2002

English Wine

OK, so some of you may not realise we produce the stuff, and those that do know might not have drunk it because it is relatively expensive compared with French, American or Australian wines on our supermarket shelves. But much of it is really very good, and worth the extra couple of £. In Cornwall this summer I discovered a little vineyard west of Bodmin called the Camel Valley Vineyard, producing excellent Cornish Red, White, Rosé, and Sparkling Wine. The "bubbly" is produced using a procedure similar to the Champagne method (which, incidentally was invented by an Englishman several years before the French thought it up!) and it is truly superb. I had to bring a couple of bottles home with me. You can visit this vineyard on www.camelvalley.com