Apr 222012
 

Today’s Grand Prix in Bahrain is mired in controversy because of the race going ahead when the political protesters want it cancelled. Those associated with Formula 1 are claiming that the race should go ahead because it is totally separate from the political issues in Bahrain.

That is one point of view. Although it is more in the nature of wishful thinking – perfectly understandable as the Formula 1 organisers who undertook to race in Bahrain are hardly responsible for what is happening there on the political scene.

The protesters claim that the race going ahead legitimises the Bahrain regime by adding international credibility.

That is another point of view with rather more weight to it.

But it could well be wrong – it may well be that having the race go ahead brings more attention to the political instability in Bahrain. Most normal people may well not have been aware of the political trouble in Bahrain; at least not recently. By having the race go ahead, the amount of coverage of the political issues has gone up through the roof. Whilst cancelling the race would have increased the coverage slightly, it is likely that it would have resulted in nowhere near as much coverage as we are seeing.

Apr 032012
 

A few days ago now, a report came out indicating that today only 50% of children know the Lord’s Prayer off by heart whereas in 1972 the rate was 90%. Shock horror!

Before worrying about whether this matters or not, does this survey actually say what we think it does ? In 1972, there was a far greater expectation for children to memorise things and that is less so now. Ignoring whether this is good or bad, it may well be that children in 1972 would claim to know the Lord’s Prayer when they didn’t quite. And children today are perhaps less likely to exaggerate their knowledge.

As an example (although I’m long past the age where I can claim to be a child), I’m not likely to claim I know the Lord’s Prayer off by heart, but if I find myself in the sort of surroundings where the Lord’s Prayer is solemnly chanted, the words are likely to come back to me.

And does it matter ?

Well, a child who goes to church to plead with their god is going to pick it up pretty quickly anyway (at least if it’s a christian church of the persuasion that believes in the Lord’s Prayer), so there is no worry about that point.

As to establishing the cultural tradition of the UK, it seems to me that knowing the Lord’s Prayer is less important than knowing Beowulf or Gray’s Elegy yet how many people know either off by heart ? Or have even read it ? Being aware of (and having read) all three is much more important than having memorised any.

Mar 312012
 

No of course it doesn’t.

Despite the claims of the media who like to imply that the government is to blame for the injury of someone who tried decanting petrol in her kitchen. However stupid the government advice was, they did not suggest people keep petrol in their kitchen in inappropriate containers. They explicitly mentioned “jerry cans” – being the generic name for appropriate petrol containers.

To steal a title from Pink Floyd, what is to blame here is a “momentary lapse of reason” by the woman herself. It is the kind of thing that can happen to anyone – not so much general stupidity, but a temporary ability to disregard the stupidity of some action. We all have been known to do it – you, me, and that daft bloke down the street.

Try to claim otherwise and I’ll laugh at you.

And sometimes that stupidity can have drastic consequences.

It is possible that the government’s rather stupid advise to top up cars and jerry cans has led to an increase in stupid and nasty accidents, but that is no reason to blame the government for accidents. If the government has to avoid issuing advice on matters involving dangerous substances because of the potential for accidents, we need an alternative “government” who will issue such advise.

Of course what the government is responsible for is issuing advise that encouraged panic buying. They obviously paid so little attention to the potential for panic buying that you have to suspect whether it was deliberate – did they want fuel shortages in the middle of the working week rather than during the Easter weekend ? Did they want people blaming the Unite union for causing woes?

Probably not. Even though the “scheme” backfired, the conspiracy theory would credit the government with too much in the way of brains to be possibly true. When issuing advice in such matters the government needs to :-

  1. Get the timing right so that if there is panic buying, it occurs at the least damaging time. Easter (despite the pain of not being able to go away) is better than in the middle of the week.
  2. Phrase advice so that panic buying is less likely.
  3. Point out that diesel or petrol are dangerous substances where a “momentary lapse of reason” can have drastic consequences.
Mar 242012
 

Or at least he should.

In a bizarre and alarming incident illustrating the stupidity of the US attitude to guns and gun law, George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin in “self defence”. And then the police took his word at face value, and did not arrest him.

There a whole bunch of really strange about this issue :-

  1. Zimmerman was apparently running around as a self-appointed “neighbourhood” watch guard. Now I’m not sure what the attitude towards people like that is in the US, but I would label such a person as a “vigilante” and say that his behaviour is a clear indication of his lack of fitness to carry a gun. That’s not to criticise real neighbourhood watch volunteers – just that someone who runs around who is not part of such an organisation but acts as though he is.
  2. He wasn’t arrested. Whatever the legal situation is, it seems to me that anyone who kills someone – even a policeman who kills the neighbourhood serial killer in the act – should be arrested. Killing someone is always wrong; it may sometimes be less wrong than the alternative, but there’s no getting around the fact that killing someone is always wrong.
  3. The self-defence argument is interesting because it is entirely possible that Treyvon Martin could also quite legitimately make a self-defence claim if he had killed George Zimmerman. After all from his point of view, he was followed and then apparent confronted by this “strange man” when he was going about his legitimate business. Perfectly entitled to some self-defence there.
  4. The whole self-defence argument is a little weak though – it has been implied that in Florida killing is perfectly legal if the perpetrator believes it was necessary for his or her self-defence. Where is the “reasonable” in that ? To illustrate this, I might believe it is necessary for my self-defence to kill you because I’m unhinged – that does not make it reasonable however. Of course the sensible way of testing the self-defence argument is through the old-fashioned method of letting juries decide using their common sense.
On that last point, it only seems to be unreasonable to let a jury decide if Zimmerman acted in self-defence because our present legal systems grind away so slowly. Ignoring the issue of time, it seems perfectly sensible to put Zimmerman on trial to let a community of his peers determine if he acted in self-defence … or not.
Mar 222012
 

You know anyone would think the media isn’t capable of adding up to more than 10 without taking their socks off given all the fuss about the so-called “granny tax”. By which they mean the gradual elimination of the increased tax allowance that older people get once the increased personal allowance reaches that level.

Either the complaint is that pensioners are paying the same level of tax as working people, or that the tax allowance for pensioners is not going to go up by the level of inflation for a couple of years. Neither are exactly catastrophic for pensioners – the poorest pensioners are not going to reach that level of income anyway, and those that will be effected will hardly notice the difference.

After all there is no guarantee that the tax personal allowance will increase by the level of inflation every year … neither the normal personal allowance nor the “bonus” allowances that older people get on top of their personal allowance. And why should older people get a special taxation allowance merely for being older ?

Eliminating that special case will make the taxation system just a little bit simpler – something to be encouraged.

I’m more likely than most to throw rocks at the Tories and their policies, but I don’t see this as being worth picking up a rock for. There’s quite a few other things about the recent budget to get excited about.

Like reducing the income tax rate for the wealthy from 50% to 45%; whilst the Tories are quite possibly right about it not being a great revenue raiser, it sends out the message that the Tories are on the side of the wealthy. Whilst they have also done a bit of tinkering with tax avoidance, and added a top rate of stamp duty (on residential property purchases), reducing the income tax rate for the top earners feels wrong.

So why is the media making more fuss about the non-issue that is the “granny tax” ? Someone more suspicious than me might suspect that the media is deliberately drawing attention away from the income tax issue – just how much do these journalists earn anyway ?