I fail to see how anyone, other than those who stand to lose out financially, (of whom more in due course), could disagree with Lord Justice Leveson when he suggests that suspects who admit their guilt at the earliest opportunity - i.e. whilst being interviewed at a police station - should receive a more significant discount on their eventual sentence than those who admit their guilt later in the process.
Doesn't such an admission at least suggest a degree of genuine contrition on behalf of the offender, rather than the confected version put forward on their behalf by a lawyer who has convinced his client to plead guilty because of the overwhelming weight of the evidence against him (or her)?
And shouldn't that genuine contrition, or remorse; whatever you want to call it, be rewarded in a real and tangible fashion?
I think that it most certainly should.
But then, as the article goes on to say, there are other eminent voices, such as Paul Mendelle QC, the Chairman of the Bar Council, who are vehemently opposed to the very idea.
Call me cynical, but I suspect that there may be just the slightest hint of self interest lying behind his remarks; because more early guilty pleas and fewer Crown Court trials would mean less business (money, to be vulgar) for him and his colleagues at the Bar.
And that aside, remember this: in the vast majority of cases, those under arrest on suspicion of committing a crime know full well whether they are guilty or not when they are sitting in the interview room and it is disingenuous in the extreme to pretend otherwise.
For those who are genuinely innocent of the accusation they face, or for those tiny few who simply cannot remember whether they are or not, due process of law, backed up by the all-important presumption of innocence is there to protect them.
I can't see a downside to this.
There again, I'm not a defence lawyer with one eye on a potentially shrinking practise...
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Beautiful England (3)
Regular visitors will know that every now and again, I like to post images of the English countryside in all its glory.
I took this one in a clearing in the middle of a heavily wooded area just outside Great Harwood town centre, of all places.
I'm not too sure this photo does the view justice; it really is a beautiful place, even though it's no more than two hundred yards from one of the roads that connects the town to its larger neighbour, Blackburn.
That's one of the best aspects of Lancashire: wherever you are - and the county has is share of urban blight - you are never far away from outstanding natural beauty such as this...
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Two very lucky men and other knuckle-draggers...
I'm endebted to my local paper, the Lancashire Telegraph, for this story concerning the conviction of two men, cousins Azeem and Tabassum Shah from Nelson, for abducting three tipsy fourteen and fifteen year-old-girls, who they drove to a hotel twenty miles from their home town.
A further charge of 'engaging in sexual activity' with one of the girls against Azeem Shah was allowed to lie on the file.
Interesting expression, that; here's what it actually means, according to the CJS online database:
An offence not admitted to by a defendant may be allowed to lie on file if the
judge agrees that there is sufficient evidence, but it is not in the public interest to
have a trial, as the defendant has admitted other offences, and a further
conviction would make a difference to the sentence.
As you will have read, neither man was jailed, irrespective of the fact that the maximum penalty for child abduction - for that is what these girls were, vulnerable children - is seven years' imprisonment.
Bearing in mind the 'qualifying' criteria for an offence to lie on the file, are we to understand that HHJ Newell would not have jailed Azeem Shah on conviction for 'engaging in sexual activity', whatever that euphemism means, with one of them?
The comments attached to the Telegraph's story are highly critical of the lenient sentences these men received, probably because they strongly suspect that the only reason these two men - one of whom is a married father of two children, for goodness' sake - took the girls to that hotel twenty miles from their homes on an August evening because, in that charmingly innocent, but simultaneously damning phrase, they intended to 'engage in sexual activity' with them.
I think that the Shahs can count themselves very lucky indeed not to be in jail tonight, and if I were involved in conducting this prosecution, I would be busily preparing my appeal against this unduly lenient sentence even as I type.
But to conclude, irresepective of the fact that I think Judge Newell got this sentencing exercise quite badly wrong, too many of those condemning him for his leniency in the comments section lapse into nakedly racist language in doing so.
Shame on them; (if they are familiar with the concept) because not only do they reveal their ignorance, they also serve to undermine the very cause they are purporting to support, because anyone with a modicum of decency will simply ignore their rantings as the howling of knuckle dragging imbeciles.
A further charge of 'engaging in sexual activity' with one of the girls against Azeem Shah was allowed to lie on the file.
Interesting expression, that; here's what it actually means, according to the CJS online database:
An offence not admitted to by a defendant may be allowed to lie on file if the
judge agrees that there is sufficient evidence, but it is not in the public interest to
have a trial, as the defendant has admitted other offences, and a further
conviction would make a difference to the sentence.
As you will have read, neither man was jailed, irrespective of the fact that the maximum penalty for child abduction - for that is what these girls were, vulnerable children - is seven years' imprisonment.
Bearing in mind the 'qualifying' criteria for an offence to lie on the file, are we to understand that HHJ Newell would not have jailed Azeem Shah on conviction for 'engaging in sexual activity', whatever that euphemism means, with one of them?
The comments attached to the Telegraph's story are highly critical of the lenient sentences these men received, probably because they strongly suspect that the only reason these two men - one of whom is a married father of two children, for goodness' sake - took the girls to that hotel twenty miles from their homes on an August evening because, in that charmingly innocent, but simultaneously damning phrase, they intended to 'engage in sexual activity' with them.
I think that the Shahs can count themselves very lucky indeed not to be in jail tonight, and if I were involved in conducting this prosecution, I would be busily preparing my appeal against this unduly lenient sentence even as I type.
But to conclude, irresepective of the fact that I think Judge Newell got this sentencing exercise quite badly wrong, too many of those condemning him for his leniency in the comments section lapse into nakedly racist language in doing so.
Shame on them; (if they are familiar with the concept) because not only do they reveal their ignorance, they also serve to undermine the very cause they are purporting to support, because anyone with a modicum of decency will simply ignore their rantings as the howling of knuckle dragging imbeciles.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
The Cumbria killings...
Inappropriate (how I despair of the capture of that word by the forces of ‘liberal progressiveness’) though it might be, with the details of the shootings in Cumbria only just beginning to unfold, I have a few observations to make about the enquiry which I suspect is just beginning to crank up in the county.
In doing so, I am conscious that the investigation into the thirteen deaths (remember, the murderer died too) is now a matter for HM Coroner for the area and in no way do I presume to trespass on his jurisdiction, or the police enquiry.
That said, I am bound to say that I am convinced that someone, or some institution, will eventually be blamed for ‘allowing’ or ‘failing to prevent’ taxi driver Derrick Bird from setting out on his murderous campaign; because as a society we seem to need a whipping boy to take the flak for every disaster, whether natural or human in origin.
So, a few areas I suspect will receive very close scrutiny:
1. Were the firearms Bird used ( reports suggest they were shotguns) lawfully held by either him or someone else?
2. If so, when was his licence last renewed and by whom.
3. Did the person who visited his home examine his firearms cabinet?
4. If they were not lawfully held, to whom are they registered?
5. How did Bird come to be in possession of both the weapons and a significant – enough to kill thirteen people and injure twenty-five more - amount of ammunition?
6. Had the guns been reported stolen?
7. Had any information been forwarded to the police, or any other body, suggesting that Bird was suffering a mental breakdown of any sort?
8. Was he undergoing any form of treatment for an illness which would have rendered his possession of firearms either dangerous or unwise?
9. Had any information or intelligence been forwarded to the police suggesting that Bird was planning any sort of criminality?
10. Was there some sort of index incident which prompted him to act as he did, out of anger, despair, jealousy or any other powerful human emotion?
These are, of course, but a few of the hundreds of potential questions which the enquiry will seek to answer.
I just hope that those answers stand up to what will rightly be the white heat of public and official scrutiny; because if they don’t, someone is for the high jump.
That's as maybe. For now, the thoughts of the Throne are with the families of Bird's innocent, apparently randomly chosen,victims; no doubt we'll find out the truth of what happened to them and why, in the fullness of time...
In doing so, I am conscious that the investigation into the thirteen deaths (remember, the murderer died too) is now a matter for HM Coroner for the area and in no way do I presume to trespass on his jurisdiction, or the police enquiry.
That said, I am bound to say that I am convinced that someone, or some institution, will eventually be blamed for ‘allowing’ or ‘failing to prevent’ taxi driver Derrick Bird from setting out on his murderous campaign; because as a society we seem to need a whipping boy to take the flak for every disaster, whether natural or human in origin.
So, a few areas I suspect will receive very close scrutiny:
1. Were the firearms Bird used ( reports suggest they were shotguns) lawfully held by either him or someone else?
2. If so, when was his licence last renewed and by whom.
3. Did the person who visited his home examine his firearms cabinet?
4. If they were not lawfully held, to whom are they registered?
5. How did Bird come to be in possession of both the weapons and a significant – enough to kill thirteen people and injure twenty-five more - amount of ammunition?
6. Had the guns been reported stolen?
7. Had any information been forwarded to the police, or any other body, suggesting that Bird was suffering a mental breakdown of any sort?
8. Was he undergoing any form of treatment for an illness which would have rendered his possession of firearms either dangerous or unwise?
9. Had any information or intelligence been forwarded to the police suggesting that Bird was planning any sort of criminality?
10. Was there some sort of index incident which prompted him to act as he did, out of anger, despair, jealousy or any other powerful human emotion?
These are, of course, but a few of the hundreds of potential questions which the enquiry will seek to answer.
I just hope that those answers stand up to what will rightly be the white heat of public and official scrutiny; because if they don’t, someone is for the high jump.
That's as maybe. For now, the thoughts of the Throne are with the families of Bird's innocent, apparently randomly chosen,victims; no doubt we'll find out the truth of what happened to them and why, in the fullness of time...
Kevin Myers asks why the English are universally disliked...
Regular, or even semi-regular visitors will have gathered that I haven't posted for well over a week. Once again, I'm afraid the twin conspirators of work, both formal and domestic have combined to deprive me of the necessary time to compose even my rambling and structureless.
However, not for the first time, my favourite columnist, Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent, has ridden to the rescue with another one of his neatly observed articles, in which he discusses the antipathy towards England and the English not just by his fellow Irishmen, but by virtually every other nation on earth, even our so called 'special' friends.
Hits the nail squarely on the head, in my view; but what do you think?
However, not for the first time, my favourite columnist, Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent, has ridden to the rescue with another one of his neatly observed articles, in which he discusses the antipathy towards England and the English not just by his fellow Irishmen, but by virtually every other nation on earth, even our so called 'special' friends.
Hits the nail squarely on the head, in my view; but what do you think?
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Sea, Sea, Seasiders!
Little did I imagine when I wrote this post on the demise of Burnley Football Club less than a month ago, that they would be immediately replaced in the Premier League by their Lancashire neighbours, Blackpool, who won a sparkling Championship play-off match with Cardiff City this afternoon at Wembley.
So, clubs based within the County Palatine once again comprise 40% of the teams making up the Premier League.
Many congratulations to Ian Holloway and his team. I suspect they will be partying even harder than usual in Blackpool tonight; and that's saying something...
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Football predictions...How did I do 2009-2010?
Before I venture into the murkier waters of the General Election, it’s time for me to hold my self-styled football pundit status up to potential public ridicule once again.
I posted this article last August 18th, giving my assessment of who would finish in which position in the English Premier League at the end of the 2009 – 2010 football season.
I have reproduced my predictions below, and put the actual positions the teams finished in alongside them in red, for ease of comparison.
Starting with the good (for me) news, I’m pleased to see that I correctly called that Chelsea would win this year’s title, closely followed by United in second place and that I also correctly called three out of the top four, with Arsenal who I had finishing fourth, actually finished third.
I also correctly called two out of the three teams to be relegated, having put the hex on both Burnley and Portsmouth. I didn’t get their final positions exactly right, but, as Meatloaf observed, two out of three ain’t bad; particularly when the third team I tipped for the drop, Wolves, only just survived, whilst Hull, who I thought would survive, disappeared through the relegation trap door by a relatively narrow margin.
Other than that, I was spot on with Man City in fifth, one out (either way) with the final positions I predicted for four clubs (Wigan, Bolton, Fulham and Portsmouth), two out (for better or worse) with five other clubs (Blackburn, Burnley, Villa, Hull and Everton) and three out with how I thought Spurs would do (for the better in their case) and Sunderland (for the worse in theirs).
Not too dusty then, so far…
But then I haven’t mentioned my wildly inaccurate predictions for Birmingham, who finished seven places above the one I thought they’d finish in, West Ham, who finished eight places lower, narrowly avoiding relegation, and Liverpool, in respect of whom I was over generous by four places.
Anyway, here is the evidence: judge fo yourself…
1. Chelsea Chelsea
2. Manchester Utd Manchester Utd
3. Liverpool Arsenal
4. Arsenal Spurs
5. Manchester City Manchester City
6. Everton Aston Villa
7. Spurs Liverpool
8. Aston Villa Everton
9. West Ham Birmingham
10. Sunderland Blackburn Rovers
11. Fulham Stoke
12. Blackburn Rovers Fulham
13. Bolton Wanderers Sunderland
14. Stoke City Bolton
15. Wigan Athletic Wolves
16. Birmingham City Wigan
17. Hull City West Ham
18. Wolves Burnley
19. Portsmouth Hull City
20. Burnley Portsmouth
I'm sure the non-football fans amongst you (those who are still actually reading!) will be ecstatic to learn that I'll be back to this subject in August, to do it all over again for the 2010-11 season...
But before I finally sign off on my prognostications for this season, let me offer one more thought. Sadly, England won't win the World Cup this summer; anyone care to differ?
I posted this article last August 18th, giving my assessment of who would finish in which position in the English Premier League at the end of the 2009 – 2010 football season.
I have reproduced my predictions below, and put the actual positions the teams finished in alongside them in red, for ease of comparison.
Starting with the good (for me) news, I’m pleased to see that I correctly called that Chelsea would win this year’s title, closely followed by United in second place and that I also correctly called three out of the top four, with Arsenal who I had finishing fourth, actually finished third.
I also correctly called two out of the three teams to be relegated, having put the hex on both Burnley and Portsmouth. I didn’t get their final positions exactly right, but, as Meatloaf observed, two out of three ain’t bad; particularly when the third team I tipped for the drop, Wolves, only just survived, whilst Hull, who I thought would survive, disappeared through the relegation trap door by a relatively narrow margin.
Other than that, I was spot on with Man City in fifth, one out (either way) with the final positions I predicted for four clubs (Wigan, Bolton, Fulham and Portsmouth), two out (for better or worse) with five other clubs (Blackburn, Burnley, Villa, Hull and Everton) and three out with how I thought Spurs would do (for the better in their case) and Sunderland (for the worse in theirs).
Not too dusty then, so far…
But then I haven’t mentioned my wildly inaccurate predictions for Birmingham, who finished seven places above the one I thought they’d finish in, West Ham, who finished eight places lower, narrowly avoiding relegation, and Liverpool, in respect of whom I was over generous by four places.
Anyway, here is the evidence: judge fo yourself…
1. Chelsea Chelsea
2. Manchester Utd Manchester Utd
3. Liverpool Arsenal
4. Arsenal Spurs
5. Manchester City Manchester City
6. Everton Aston Villa
7. Spurs Liverpool
8. Aston Villa Everton
9. West Ham Birmingham
10. Sunderland Blackburn Rovers
11. Fulham Stoke
12. Blackburn Rovers Fulham
13. Bolton Wanderers Sunderland
14. Stoke City Bolton
15. Wigan Athletic Wolves
16. Birmingham City Wigan
17. Hull City West Ham
18. Wolves Burnley
19. Portsmouth Hull City
20. Burnley Portsmouth
I'm sure the non-football fans amongst you (those who are still actually reading!) will be ecstatic to learn that I'll be back to this subject in August, to do it all over again for the 2010-11 season...
But before I finally sign off on my prognostications for this season, let me offer one more thought. Sadly, England won't win the World Cup this summer; anyone care to differ?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Burnley FC: Good bye-ee, don't cry-ee...
Without blowing my own trumpet too loudly, but as I predicted last August, Burnley Football Club has been relegated from the Premier League this afternoon, with the coup de grace being administered in some style by Liverpool.
That result will not have gone unnoticed a few miles down the road at Wigan, whose top-tier status has been guaranteed for another year with Hull City, now their nearest challengers, unable to match the Latics' current 35 points.
The only question now to be resolved at the bottom of the table is whether it is Hull themselves, or West Ham Utd who follow Burnley and the benighted Portsmouth into the Championship. Bearing in mind the fact that West Ham have a six-point advantage over their Yorkshire rivals with two games to play, to say nothing of a goal difference twenty-three goals better than the Tigers', it would take a quite unbelievabe series of results to see West Ham take the drop.
So it looks like Hull City will return from whence they came only two seasons ago.
Meanwhile, following Burnley's demise, which without being unkind I believe they had all but accepted when they appointed Brian Laws to replace Owen Coyle when the latter jumped ship to Bolton in January, Lancashire will now have only 35% of the clubs in the Premier League next season.
And to add insult to their injury, they also lost to their arch rivals Blackburn Rovers, both home and away. Knowing some Burnley supporters, they would have accepted relegation with a certain equanimity had those results been reversed, but it wasn't to be and in the end, the Clarets simply weren't good enough, it's as simple as that.
As promised last August, I will be reviewing my full list of predictions for this season when the final games have been played in a fortnight
That result will not have gone unnoticed a few miles down the road at Wigan, whose top-tier status has been guaranteed for another year with Hull City, now their nearest challengers, unable to match the Latics' current 35 points.
The only question now to be resolved at the bottom of the table is whether it is Hull themselves, or West Ham Utd who follow Burnley and the benighted Portsmouth into the Championship. Bearing in mind the fact that West Ham have a six-point advantage over their Yorkshire rivals with two games to play, to say nothing of a goal difference twenty-three goals better than the Tigers', it would take a quite unbelievabe series of results to see West Ham take the drop.
So it looks like Hull City will return from whence they came only two seasons ago.
Meanwhile, following Burnley's demise, which without being unkind I believe they had all but accepted when they appointed Brian Laws to replace Owen Coyle when the latter jumped ship to Bolton in January, Lancashire will now have only 35% of the clubs in the Premier League next season.
And to add insult to their injury, they also lost to their arch rivals Blackburn Rovers, both home and away. Knowing some Burnley supporters, they would have accepted relegation with a certain equanimity had those results been reversed, but it wasn't to be and in the end, the Clarets simply weren't good enough, it's as simple as that.
As promised last August, I will be reviewing my full list of predictions for this season when the final games have been played in a fortnight
Friday, April 23, 2010
And you, good yeoman, whose limbs were made in England...
May I take this opportunity to wish all my fellow Englishmen and women a very happy St George's Day. But in addition, it is also the anniversary of both the birth and death of perhaps the greatest Englishman who ever lived: William Shakespeare. And so, in tribute to him, I hope you enjoy this small section of the speech made by Henry V before the Battle of Agincourt:
And you, good yeoman
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start.
The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'
Majestic.
As you might expect, I'm going to celebrate in my usual way later on, so before I do, here are two more appropriately English-themed poems by the great GK Chesterton for you to enjoy:
The Englishman
St George he was for England.
And before he killed the dragon
He drank a pint of English ale
Out of an English flagon.
For though he fast right readily
In hair-shirt or in mail.
It isn't safe to give him cakes
Unless you give him ale.
St George he was for England,
And right gallantly set free
The lady left for dragon's meat
And tied up to a tree;
But since he stood for England
And knew what England means,
Unless you give him bacon
You mustn't give him beans.
St George he is for England,
And shall wear the shield he wore
When we go out in armour
With the battle-cross before.
But though he is jolly company
And very pleased to dine,
It isn't safe to give him nuts
Unless you give him wine.
Or, quite appropriately and pointedly as the General Election looms...
Elegy in a Country Churchyard
THE men that worked for England
They have their graves at home:
And birds and bees of England
About the cross can roam.
But they that fought for England,
Following a falling star,
Alas, alas for England
They have their graves afar.
And they that rule in England,
In stately conclave met,
Alas, alas for England
They have no graves as yet.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Guess the location, anyone?
I had thought of introducing this post by posing the question 'can anyone identify the stretch of river depicted in this photograph', thinking that some may have thought it was in Scotland, Wales or rural Northumberland.
I decided against doing so, because I suspect that anyone who has visited the Throne will have automatically - and accurately - assumed that it is actually in Lancashire.
In point of fact, it is a section of the River Ribble which runs through Dinckley in the Ribble Valley and, as I'm sure you'll agree, strikingly beautiful it is, too.
Possibly more surprising is the fact that this rural idyll is only seven miles from the centre of Blackburn. I'm not a gambler, but I'd have laid good money against anyone suggesting that!
St George he was for England...
This photograph depicts part of King Street in Whalley, which, as you can see, has been liberally decked out with the Cross of St George in anticipation of their celebration of our patron saint's day next Friday.
In point of fact, every business premises on the road was sporting our national flag, creating a parade of red and white about a quarter of a mile long.
Looks like the people of Whalley intend to take their St George's Day celebrations seriously this year; not too strenuous a proposition even for the most athletically challenged, given that there are four pubs within a fifty-yard radius of the spot from which I took this shot, alarming the two men in it in the process, I suspect...
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Another excellent blog...
As I've written here on a couple of occasions previously, not only have I never smoked a single cigarette in my life, I've never even held a lit one to my lips, and what's more, I'm absolutely certain that I will never do, either.
That said, I'm becoming increasingly irritated by the militant 'health' lobby, who not content with turning smokers into pariahs, doomed to huddle outdoors in all weathers to enjoy their admittedly dangerous habit, are now training their guns on the overweight, those of us who 'fail' to take enough exercise (neither of which applies to me) and those who - whisper it dark - have the temerity to enjoy drinking alcohol (of whom I'm most certainly one).
My take on them is that, far from being concerned about improving the health of the nation, their chief driver is the wish to control the very minutiae of our lives; nothing more, nothing less.
I despise their dishonest, holier-than-thou sanctimoniousness and their nauseatingly judgemental finger pointing. Indeed, in my view, their increasingly strident triumphalism leaves people whose lifestyle choices they disapprove of - the 'fat', 'incorrigible' smokers, and 'problem' (i.e. all) drinkers - just one short step from the tumbrel in which they would be dragged around for the 'righteous' to harangue and disparage.
Anyway, enough from me; but all of the foregoing, and the excellent writing, are just some of the reasons I am linking to this excellent blog, both in this post and in my sidebar.
Please give him a visit: I'm sure you'll enjoy his jottings as much as I do...
That said, I'm becoming increasingly irritated by the militant 'health' lobby, who not content with turning smokers into pariahs, doomed to huddle outdoors in all weathers to enjoy their admittedly dangerous habit, are now training their guns on the overweight, those of us who 'fail' to take enough exercise (neither of which applies to me) and those who - whisper it dark - have the temerity to enjoy drinking alcohol (of whom I'm most certainly one).
My take on them is that, far from being concerned about improving the health of the nation, their chief driver is the wish to control the very minutiae of our lives; nothing more, nothing less.
I despise their dishonest, holier-than-thou sanctimoniousness and their nauseatingly judgemental finger pointing. Indeed, in my view, their increasingly strident triumphalism leaves people whose lifestyle choices they disapprove of - the 'fat', 'incorrigible' smokers, and 'problem' (i.e. all) drinkers - just one short step from the tumbrel in which they would be dragged around for the 'righteous' to harangue and disparage.
Anyway, enough from me; but all of the foregoing, and the excellent writing, are just some of the reasons I am linking to this excellent blog, both in this post and in my sidebar.
Please give him a visit: I'm sure you'll enjoy his jottings as much as I do...
Monday, April 05, 2010
How sharper than a serpent's tooth...
Apparently, Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice has let it be known that her younger sister, Her Royal Highness the Princess Eugenie is a 'reluctant royal' who would apparently 'give it all up tomorrow', adding that if she could choose any other life, then it woud be one without the public duties and, to paraphrase slightly, the sacrifices which come with the suffocating blanket of royal status. Furthermore, it is clear from her comments that she has a good deal of sympathy with her younger sister's position vis-a-vis the difficulties of being a princess.
Well, I have a solution for the two of them, and it is one wrought not too far away from their own gilded cage, by their aunt Anne. Her children by Capt. Mark Phillips, Mr Peter Phillips and his sister Zara, are, as the Queen's grandchildren, every bit as Royal as Beatrice and Eugenie; but as you will have noticed, neither of them prefaces their name with the title of His or Her Royal Highness and nor are they styled Prince Peter or Princess Zara either.
I think you may see where I'm going with this, and to reinforce my point still further before I even make it, barring an absolute disaster, these two girls, fifth and sixth in line to the throne respectively, will never be called upon to serve the country as its queen.
As such, and bearing in mind their status as 'reluctant' royals, why don't they both simply renounce their titles and divest themselves of the encumbrance of royal nomenclature in the process? I'm sure the appropriate paperwork to facilitate such a process could be drawn up in very short order. Their renunuciations would then be publicised with a strongly worded request to the press and media in general to apply a self-denying ordinance as regards publishing any other material either identifying them, or discussing their lives, from that point on.
Hands up anyone who thinks that these two really rather ordinary-looking and clearly spoilt young women would actively consider adopting such a course for more than a nano-second.
No, I didn't think so.
All this outburst has served to demonstrate is that both Beatrice and Eugenie (or should that be Beattie and Jean in their new, egalitarian world?) want the cake of wealth and prestige of Royal status, whilst simultaneously and childishly resenting having to pay the ha'penny of scrutiny which is its inevitable corollary.
As I have written here many times before, the Throne is an unapologetic supporter of the English monarchy, both as an institution and in the person of the present incumbent; but I'm afraid that stories such as this are manna from Heaven for the abolishionists, and I dare say, extremely irritating for their grandmother, a life-long paragon of duty and self-sacrifice.
Shame on them, their childishness and their nauseating self-pity: and may I wish them the very obscurity they both so richly deserve.
Post script:
As soon as I posted this story, the link to the article in the Daily Mail was disabled, sorry. there again, you've probably got the gist of it anyway...
Well, I have a solution for the two of them, and it is one wrought not too far away from their own gilded cage, by their aunt Anne. Her children by Capt. Mark Phillips, Mr Peter Phillips and his sister Zara, are, as the Queen's grandchildren, every bit as Royal as Beatrice and Eugenie; but as you will have noticed, neither of them prefaces their name with the title of His or Her Royal Highness and nor are they styled Prince Peter or Princess Zara either.
I think you may see where I'm going with this, and to reinforce my point still further before I even make it, barring an absolute disaster, these two girls, fifth and sixth in line to the throne respectively, will never be called upon to serve the country as its queen.
As such, and bearing in mind their status as 'reluctant' royals, why don't they both simply renounce their titles and divest themselves of the encumbrance of royal nomenclature in the process? I'm sure the appropriate paperwork to facilitate such a process could be drawn up in very short order. Their renunuciations would then be publicised with a strongly worded request to the press and media in general to apply a self-denying ordinance as regards publishing any other material either identifying them, or discussing their lives, from that point on.
Hands up anyone who thinks that these two really rather ordinary-looking and clearly spoilt young women would actively consider adopting such a course for more than a nano-second.
No, I didn't think so.
All this outburst has served to demonstrate is that both Beatrice and Eugenie (or should that be Beattie and Jean in their new, egalitarian world?) want the cake of wealth and prestige of Royal status, whilst simultaneously and childishly resenting having to pay the ha'penny of scrutiny which is its inevitable corollary.
As I have written here many times before, the Throne is an unapologetic supporter of the English monarchy, both as an institution and in the person of the present incumbent; but I'm afraid that stories such as this are manna from Heaven for the abolishionists, and I dare say, extremely irritating for their grandmother, a life-long paragon of duty and self-sacrifice.
Shame on them, their childishness and their nauseating self-pity: and may I wish them the very obscurity they both so richly deserve.
Post script:
As soon as I posted this story, the link to the article in the Daily Mail was disabled, sorry. there again, you've probably got the gist of it anyway...
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Lancashire at its best...
For those of you unfamiliar with the Red Rose county, this shot, taken once again on my trusty mobile, is of the hills surrounding Whitewell in the Forest of Bowland.
The area is best known for the inn which shares its name and I think you'll agree with me that it is a beautiful part of the world; and if my recommendation doesn't convince you, Her Majesty the Queen owns a good deal of the land in this vicinity, though the Duchy of Lancaster estate.
Recommendations don't come much higher, or more significant, than that.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Breathtaking chutzpah, Archbishop...
I'm not normally one to comment on religious stories, but I couldn't let this one pass without offering my two penn'orth. What's more, I certainly don't consider myself a religious scholar of any sort, and certainly not one in Dr Williams' league; but given the record of the Church of England on this topic over the years, I would have thought the following lines from the Gospel according to Matthew (from the beautiful King James Bible) would be more than apposite:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I am a confirmed, but seldom-attending member of the Church of England, just like upwards of ninety five percent of its members...
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I am a confirmed, but seldom-attending member of the Church of England, just like upwards of ninety five percent of its members...
Thursday, March 18, 2010
It was sixty-years ago today...
Just a very short and rather personal post this evening.
Today would have been my parents' diamond wedding anniversary.
Sadly, my father died suddenly a matter of weeks after they celebrated their silver wedding and my mother ten years later virtually to the day; so there will be no big family get together this weekend to mark the occasion, more's the pity.
As you might appreciate, I couldn't let such an important anniversary pass without comment, or without raising a glass to them this evening.
Thank you.
Today would have been my parents' diamond wedding anniversary.
Sadly, my father died suddenly a matter of weeks after they celebrated their silver wedding and my mother ten years later virtually to the day; so there will be no big family get together this weekend to mark the occasion, more's the pity.
As you might appreciate, I couldn't let such an important anniversary pass without comment, or without raising a glass to them this evening.
Thank you.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Happy St Patrick's Day to one and all...
I'm in Liverpool all day tomorrow and won't get the chance to post on the day itself. So I hope my Hibernian readers will forgive me if my Irish (or rather Google translate's) is poor, but here goes:
Lá Tá áthas ar Fhéile Pádraig ar bith cuairteoirí ó Éirinn. Tá súil agam tú taitneamh as do lá.
Lá Tá áthas ar Fhéile Pádraig ar bith cuairteoirí ó Éirinn. Tá súil agam tú taitneamh as do lá.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Ashok Kumar: Has history repeated itself?
Reading this account of the 'sudden, accidental' death of Labour MP Ashok Kumar, I am reminded of the untimely death in 1994 of another MP, Stephen Milligan, the unusual circumstances of which are still a talking point, even today.
I wonder, as respectfully as possible, if there will be similar revelations about Mr Kumar?
Of course, we will have to first await the result of the police investigation and then, possibly, that of the ensuing Inquest before we find out. But given the way the report is written, describing MrKumar as 'a single man', with 'no underlying health problems', adding that there are 'no suspicious cicumstances or third party involvement', I think it's a distinct possibility.
For now, though, the Throne sends its condolences to his friends and family.
Update 16.3.10
I'm pleased to be able to say that it would appear that my suspicions about the manner of Dr Kumar's death were unfounded. Just goes to show that putting two and two together can sometimes leave you staring at five.
I wonder, as respectfully as possible, if there will be similar revelations about Mr Kumar?
Of course, we will have to first await the result of the police investigation and then, possibly, that of the ensuing Inquest before we find out. But given the way the report is written, describing MrKumar as 'a single man', with 'no underlying health problems', adding that there are 'no suspicious cicumstances or third party involvement', I think it's a distinct possibility.
For now, though, the Throne sends its condolences to his friends and family.
Update 16.3.10
I'm pleased to be able to say that it would appear that my suspicions about the manner of Dr Kumar's death were unfounded. Just goes to show that putting two and two together can sometimes leave you staring at five.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
S4C: It's all Welsh to me...
I decided some time ago that I was not going to link to any article printed in the Daily Mail, because I had grown to dislike their brand of sensationalist, rabble rousing and ultimately irresponsible journalism.
So it is with that caveat that I link to this story from today's paper, albeit supported by this one in the much more reliable Daily Telegraph.
Why on earth is the taxpayer, 84% of whom are English, remember, subsidising a Welsh language television channel to the tune of £100,000,000 a year, which is all but ignored in Wales itself?
And on any reading of the viewing figures, it is largely ignored; because as much as 22% of its output (196 out of 890 programmes, or nearly a quarter of it) receives so few viewers that they are officially zero rated. More than that, though, only 16% of its programmes receive over ten thousand viewers (139 out of 890), meaning that the remaining 62% of its output is watched by between 1,001 and 9,999 people; or to put it another way, the population of one small village.
What justification can there be for continuing to subsidise this utter failure to the tune of £100m per year?
The channel should either be closed, or required to find its funding through advertising or subscription; the English taxpayer should not be forced to subsidise an unwanted failure for the benefit of a tiny minority of Welsh-speakers any longer, threatened hunger strikes, or no threatened hunger strikes.
So it is with that caveat that I link to this story from today's paper, albeit supported by this one in the much more reliable Daily Telegraph.
Why on earth is the taxpayer, 84% of whom are English, remember, subsidising a Welsh language television channel to the tune of £100,000,000 a year, which is all but ignored in Wales itself?
And on any reading of the viewing figures, it is largely ignored; because as much as 22% of its output (196 out of 890 programmes, or nearly a quarter of it) receives so few viewers that they are officially zero rated. More than that, though, only 16% of its programmes receive over ten thousand viewers (139 out of 890), meaning that the remaining 62% of its output is watched by between 1,001 and 9,999 people; or to put it another way, the population of one small village.
What justification can there be for continuing to subsidise this utter failure to the tune of £100m per year?
The channel should either be closed, or required to find its funding through advertising or subscription; the English taxpayer should not be forced to subsidise an unwanted failure for the benefit of a tiny minority of Welsh-speakers any longer, threatened hunger strikes, or no threatened hunger strikes.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
The demise of the five pound note?
Has anyone out there been in possession of a five-pound note recently which didn't resemble the ragged specimen I picture at the top of this post?
The picture itself doesn't actually do this one justice; it is actually far tattier in the 'flesh' than it looks, to the extent that you could be forgiven for suspecting that it was a crude and artless forgery, printed on low grade tissue paper.
In fact, it reminded me very strongly of a school trip to Italy in the early seventies, when I remember being shocked by the tattiness of virtually every 500 Lire note (yes, it was a very long time ago!) I saw during excursions to places as varied as Milan, Naples, Capri, Rome, Pisa and Pompeii.
As I grew up, I began to think that the state of those Italian banknotes was symptomatic of a currency, an economy and possibly, even a country which had lost pride and faith in itself; it was a symbol of financial collapse.
Is the state of our smallest banknote a harbinger of similar things to come in England?
Or is it just that the banks won't put them in cash machines anymore, because it's not worth their while to dispense them, or more cynically, part of the softening up process required for the replacement of the five pound note with a new, shiny replacement £5 coin?
Or is it a combination of all three?
All I know is that whilst I wouldn't mind having a wheelbarrow full of ragged notes such as the one I depict, I can't remember the last time I had a crisp, relatively unscathed fiver in my pocket.
Anyone care to differ? And if so, where did you lay your hands on them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
