It's that time of year again when, for the last two years at least, I have traditionally gazed into the Throne's murky crystal ball in an effort to predict the positions in which all twenty Premier League football teams will find themselves at the end of the season.
Well, all good things come to an end, and instead of attempting to predict the position that each and every club will find itself in - an enterprise in which, if I say it myself, I was more successful than the newspaper pundits who are paid to do so - I propose to predict only the most important matters, which I will entitle the Winners and the Losers.
It wouldn't take a Philedelphia lawyer to work out that the Winners group will include the League Champions, the remainder of the 'top four' who will thereby qualify for the Champions League and a further three clubs who will qualify for the Europa League, always assuming that seventh palce will be good enough to do so.
The Losers, of course will be the three clubs that I envisage kicking off the 2011 - 2012 season in the Championship.
So here goes, starting with the Winners:
Champions: Chelsea.
Rest of the top four (in no particular order): Manchester United, Arsenal and Manchester City.
Europa League (again in no particular order): Liverpool, Everton and Tottenham Hotspur.
Moving on to the Losers, and with apologies to the supporters of the clubs concerned: Blackpool, West Brom and Wolves.
I had considered both Stoke City and Birmingham for places in the Europa League positions and whilst I eventually selected 'safer' choices, I would not be surprised to see either of them force their way into that select club, unlike Aston Villa, where I foresee a mid-table finish at best, following a season of rebuilding and recovery after their recent losses.
So there we are.
As usual, following the last games of the season mext May (doesn't that seem a long way off!), I'll be back to assess my predictions against what actually happened, and open myself up to the usual ridicule if the crystal ball has misled me...
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Could Bamber be innocent after all?
As something of a student of these things, I have to say that, irresepective of my now oft-repeated support for the presumption of innocence, I had always thought that the jury in the Jeremy Bamber trial got the verdict right, even if it was by the tightest possible margin of 10 - 2.
However, this article in today's Daily Telegraph gives me cause to reconsider that position.
If, as it would appear, Bamber's father telephoned the police on the night of the murders, suggesting that his daughter had gone 'berserk' and stolen one of his guns, it throws a second call, made to the police ten minutes later by Jeremy Bamber himself, into even sharper focus than before.
Because in that call, Jeremy Bamber told police that he had just spoken to his father, and went on to recount an almost identical account to that allegedly contained in the newly-uncovered call made by his father.
As the article goes on to say, the legitimacy or otherwise of that call was to play a vital role in the jury's deliberations, as the judge himself described the matter as pivotal to the case.
Unfortunately, the jury were not made aware of either the existence, or the content of the earlier alleged call from Bamber's father, a call which on any reading of the facts of this troubling case, would have strengthened his son's defence immeasurably if its contents are as they have been reported.
All that said, there is still an amount of evidence which points to Jeremy Bamber's guilt: his mention of the potential inheritance of £426,000 were all his relatives to perish, the existence of certain forensic evidence linking him to the murder weapon and the alleged discussion with a former girlfriend of the possibilty of hiring a hit-man to kill them, to name but three of the most compelling.
But that is to avoid a fundamental issue.
The jury responsible for convicting him - by the thinnest of margins, remember - were never told of the existence of the newly reported phone call from Bamber's father; a call which if it, at the risk of sounding repetetive, actually happened and was as has been reported, undoubtedly lends credibility to Bamber's account that his father had in fact phoned him; an issue described, remember, as one about which the entire case turned.
I see that the case is back with the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Good.
If this evidence actually exists, it has the capacity to cast doubt on the safety of Bamber's conviction and the matter ought to be brought back before the Court of Appeal as quickly as it can be.
Bamber might just be innocent, and if this new evidence is credible, a new jury in possession of all the facts, must be allowed to consider that possibility.
However, this article in today's Daily Telegraph gives me cause to reconsider that position.
If, as it would appear, Bamber's father telephoned the police on the night of the murders, suggesting that his daughter had gone 'berserk' and stolen one of his guns, it throws a second call, made to the police ten minutes later by Jeremy Bamber himself, into even sharper focus than before.
Because in that call, Jeremy Bamber told police that he had just spoken to his father, and went on to recount an almost identical account to that allegedly contained in the newly-uncovered call made by his father.
As the article goes on to say, the legitimacy or otherwise of that call was to play a vital role in the jury's deliberations, as the judge himself described the matter as pivotal to the case.
Unfortunately, the jury were not made aware of either the existence, or the content of the earlier alleged call from Bamber's father, a call which on any reading of the facts of this troubling case, would have strengthened his son's defence immeasurably if its contents are as they have been reported.
All that said, there is still an amount of evidence which points to Jeremy Bamber's guilt: his mention of the potential inheritance of £426,000 were all his relatives to perish, the existence of certain forensic evidence linking him to the murder weapon and the alleged discussion with a former girlfriend of the possibilty of hiring a hit-man to kill them, to name but three of the most compelling.
But that is to avoid a fundamental issue.
The jury responsible for convicting him - by the thinnest of margins, remember - were never told of the existence of the newly reported phone call from Bamber's father; a call which if it, at the risk of sounding repetetive, actually happened and was as has been reported, undoubtedly lends credibility to Bamber's account that his father had in fact phoned him; an issue described, remember, as one about which the entire case turned.
I see that the case is back with the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Good.
If this evidence actually exists, it has the capacity to cast doubt on the safety of Bamber's conviction and the matter ought to be brought back before the Court of Appeal as quickly as it can be.
Bamber might just be innocent, and if this new evidence is credible, a new jury in possession of all the facts, must be allowed to consider that possibility.
Kevin Myers and a question for the Guardian...
In this article, the ever excellent Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent, asks the publishers of the Guardian why they saw fit to hire a defeated terrorist warlord to act as a moral arbiter over the actions of the British Army in Afghanistan.
Written with his usual searing disregard for reputations - in this case, those of a dissembling murderer and his naive self-hating paymasters - I think he's got it spot on; but what do you think?
Written with his usual searing disregard for reputations - in this case, those of a dissembling murderer and his naive self-hating paymasters - I think he's got it spot on; but what do you think?
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Don't bandy words with your betters...
Just read this on Theo Spark's site and having laughed out loud, I thought I would share it with my admittedly tiny readership:
Irish Railway.........
The following is an exchange of correspondence between a customer and the Irish Railway.
Gentlemen,
I have been riding trains daily for the last two years, and the service on your line seems to be getting worse every day. I am tired of standing in the aisle all the time on a 14-mile trip. I think the transportation system is worse than that enjoyed by people 2,000 years ago.
Yours truly,
Patrick Finnegan
Dear Mr. Finnegan,
We received your letter with reference to the shortcomings of our service and believe you are somewhat confused in your history. The only mode of transportation 2,000 years ago was by foot.
Sincerely,
Larnrod Eireann
Gentlemen,
I am in receipt of your letter, and I think you are the ones who are confused in your history. If you will refer to the Bible, Book of Numbers, 22nd Chapter, you will find that Balaam rode to town on his ass. That, gentlemen, is something I have not been able to do on your train in the last two years!
Patrick Finnegan
Class.
Irish Railway.........
The following is an exchange of correspondence between a customer and the Irish Railway.
Gentlemen,
I have been riding trains daily for the last two years, and the service on your line seems to be getting worse every day. I am tired of standing in the aisle all the time on a 14-mile trip. I think the transportation system is worse than that enjoyed by people 2,000 years ago.
Yours truly,
Patrick Finnegan
Dear Mr. Finnegan,
We received your letter with reference to the shortcomings of our service and believe you are somewhat confused in your history. The only mode of transportation 2,000 years ago was by foot.
Sincerely,
Larnrod Eireann
Gentlemen,
I am in receipt of your letter, and I think you are the ones who are confused in your history. If you will refer to the Bible, Book of Numbers, 22nd Chapter, you will find that Balaam rode to town on his ass. That, gentlemen, is something I have not been able to do on your train in the last two years!
Patrick Finnegan
Class.
Monday, July 19, 2010
More excuses...
Just a very quick missive to explain my lengthy absence from the Blogosphere.
I'm afraid a very intense and busy period professionally, coupled with a sudden and unexpected, increase in grandfatherly responsibilities have combined to deprive me of sufficient spare time to write any posts worthy of the name.
I hope to resume my normal level of productivity from about the start of August or so...
I'm afraid a very intense and busy period professionally, coupled with a sudden and unexpected, increase in grandfatherly responsibilities have combined to deprive me of sufficient spare time to write any posts worthy of the name.
I hope to resume my normal level of productivity from about the start of August or so...
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Missed your six month check up Mark?
Watching the news this evening, I saw an interview with Mark Serwotka, the General Secretary of the PCS union, who was expressing his outrage at the suggestion of 40% cuts in some Whitehall budgets; but that’s not the point of this post.
Forgive me for being personal, but what struck me was the state of his teeth; because he’d either been eating liquorice (and large amounts of it) minutes before his interview, or he has shockingly neglected his dental health for some years.
Unfortunately, I can’t find a picture of him which adequately shows the state of his teeth, but from what I saw of him on the television, his mouth resembled the inside of an Eccles cake.
Quite the worst set of railings I've seen for many a year.
No wonder the Americans have a thing about the poor state of ‘English’ teeth, even though Serwotka is actually Welsh...
Forgive me for being personal, but what struck me was the state of his teeth; because he’d either been eating liquorice (and large amounts of it) minutes before his interview, or he has shockingly neglected his dental health for some years.
Unfortunately, I can’t find a picture of him which adequately shows the state of his teeth, but from what I saw of him on the television, his mouth resembled the inside of an Eccles cake.
Quite the worst set of railings I've seen for many a year.
No wonder the Americans have a thing about the poor state of ‘English’ teeth, even though Serwotka is actually Welsh...
Happy birthday, USA...
May I take this opportunity wish my American readers, or any of your compatriots who accidentally happen across the Throne, a very happy Independence Day.
Enjoy your party, and to get you in the mood, here's a refrain with which I have no doubt you will all be very familiar...
My country,' tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing; land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrims' pride, from every mountainside let freedom ring!
My native country, thee, land of the noble free, thy name I love; I love thy rocks and rills, thy woods and templed hills; my heart with rapture thrills, like that above.
Let music swell the breeze, and ring from all the trees sweet freedom's song; let mortal tongues awake; let all that breathe partake; let rocks their silence break, the sound prolong.
Our fathers' God, to thee, author of liberty, to thee we sing; long may our land be bright with freedom's holy light; protect us by thy might, great God, our King.
Now where have I heard that tune before...
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Gout: The curse has returned...
And yes, I've heard all the 'jokes' about it being a 'rich man's' condition and 'drinking too much port', blah, blah, blah - oh how I laughed - but Im afraid I have had something of a sense of humour failure about this attack, coming as it has in the middle of an exceptionally busy period of work; and before you think it, no, going off sick simply isn't an option for me, so I'll limp through it feeling, probably looking and certainly behaving, like a bear with a sore head (or paw, as the case may be).
But it's not just the timing of this attack, it's a little bit more than that. For instance, when the attack began, I didn't have any medication left, having given my last few tablets to a fellow sufferer who was in agony a few months ago. And yes, I know that was my own fault, but bear with me.
As someone who has suffered from the condition on and very much off for the last twenty years, I know when I'm having an attack: believe me, only first-timers don't know*, so rather than book an appointment with my GP, I thought the more sensible course was to free up his time and order a repeat prescription on-line instead.
So, yesterday morning, I emailed my request to the surgery, expecting the prescription to be ready at 3 o'clock this afternoon, after which treatment could commence immediately, or sooner, if possible. Imagine my
Just remind me why I didn't book an appointment and waste five minutes of GP surgery time writing out that prescription...
But there's more: this is an excerpt from the website I linked to at the top of this post, offering advice as to how to reduce you chances of suffering further attacks:
'Lifestyle factors may reduce the risk of having gout attacks. These include losing weight (if overweight), eating a healthy diet, not drinking too much alcohol or sugar sweetened soft drinks. If gout attacks recur, then taking vitamin C supplements and/or allopurinol each day can prevent attacks.'
Dealing with them in order: I am not overweight, even according to the ridiculous BMI 'standard'; perhaps not surprisingly, given the fact that I am not overweight, I eat a healthy diet, I never drink sugar-laden soft drinks and I take 500mg of vitamin C every day. Regular readers will know that I do like a drink every now and then, but to put that into context, I have not had a drop since last Friday evening and then I only had four bottles of Magners' cider; so I hardly qualify as a sot. Lastly, and for the uninitiated, allopurinol is a medication given to gout sufferers to reduce their production of uric acid, which is the root cause of the problem. However, it is only given to those who have regular attacks (i.e. every couple of months or so),which thankfully, I have not had to endure and my GP has never recommended it to me.
So why me? I'm fit, strong, relatively athletically built, eat sensibly, supplement appropriately and don't drink to excess.
Probably because my father had it and I'm told that there is a very strong familial link to the condition; for instance, my elder brother is also a sufferer and he is on allopurinol. As (bad) luck would have it, my brother-in-law is another victim and as my son wrily observed earlier on tonight, given that combination, he is firmly in the cross hairs, too.
Rant over. Time for me to hop back over to my easy chair and put my foot up.
(* The first time I suffered an attack, I went to casualty, because I was convinced I had broken my foot, the pain was that bad).
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Come home England...
I didn't get to see very much of today's game against the Germans due to pressure of work, but ironically, the five minutes I did manage to catch encompassed our given-goal and the-one-that-never-was from the boot of the unlucky Frank Lampard.But, irrespective of that clear injustice, what is an average German side simply swept us aside, scoring four goals in the process. I understand that it could easily have been many more.
I suppose in the final analysis the problem can be summed up in five words: we're just not good enough.
End of.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Daily Fail...
Compare and contrast these two articles, both of which purport to report the details of the case brought by the Candy brothers against Qatari Diar Real Estate over the collapse of the proposed development at site of the former Chelsea Barracks.
This one, from the increasingly shrill and irritating Daily Mail, would have us believe that the trial judge, Mr Justice Vos, personally 'admonished' the Prince of Wales for his 'unexpected and unwelcome' interference in the deal.
Really?
Let's have a look at this one from the far more reliable Daily Telegraph. As you will have seen, this article actually quotes the words used by Mr Justice Vos, which were " [the partners in the development] were faced with a very difficult position once the Prince of Wales intervened in the planning process".
"His intervention was, no doubt, unexpected and unwelcome."
You will appreciate the difference without the need for my emphasis. The judge wasn't personally calling the Prince's intervention "unexpected and unwelcome", he was paraphrasing what he saw as the attitude of those who had seen their hopes of a deal with the Qataris dashed.
More deliberate misrepresentation of the truth, in my view from the idle sensationalists at the Mail.
Why does anyone buy it any more?
Update
Half an hour after publishing this post, I read this, similarly inaccurate, drivel on the BBC news page. More lazy and dishonest journalism in search of a cheap headline. I'm just sorry I wasted a couple of minutes of my life reading it.
This one, from the increasingly shrill and irritating Daily Mail, would have us believe that the trial judge, Mr Justice Vos, personally 'admonished' the Prince of Wales for his 'unexpected and unwelcome' interference in the deal.
Really?
Let's have a look at this one from the far more reliable Daily Telegraph. As you will have seen, this article actually quotes the words used by Mr Justice Vos, which were " [the partners in the development] were faced with a very difficult position once the Prince of Wales intervened in the planning process".
"His intervention was, no doubt, unexpected and unwelcome."
You will appreciate the difference without the need for my emphasis. The judge wasn't personally calling the Prince's intervention "unexpected and unwelcome", he was paraphrasing what he saw as the attitude of those who had seen their hopes of a deal with the Qataris dashed.
More deliberate misrepresentation of the truth, in my view from the idle sensationalists at the Mail.
Why does anyone buy it any more?
Update
Half an hour after publishing this post, I read this, similarly inaccurate, drivel on the BBC news page. More lazy and dishonest journalism in search of a cheap headline. I'm just sorry I wasted a couple of minutes of my life reading it.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Come on England (3)
Unfortunately, I didn't get to see any of England's final game against Slovenia due to pressure of work (we have a very important presentation to manage next week and a large new project to deal with at the same time).Perhaps, for the good of the nation, I should arrange to go in to work on Sunday and avoid even glancing at a television set between three and five o'clock that aftenoon, in the hope that my absence may inspire the team to overcome the Germans.
Worth considering, I suppose!
Friday, June 18, 2010
Here we go again. Come on England!
Well there's about ten minutes to go before kick off in the England versus Algeria game.
Once again, the magners is chilled, the ice is ready and I've developed a respectable thirst.
Here's to a better performance than last Saturday evening and a much needed morale boosting win.
Come on England!
Inebriation permitting, I'll be back after the game with an update...
Update 9.30pm
Very disappointing, I'm afraid. Let's be honest with ourselves, we weren't good enough - and nor did we deserve - to beat Algeria, did we.
Oh dear. Not a very happy birthday for Fabio, all in all...
Kevin Myers, the Paras and Lord Saville...
I have studiously avoided commenting on the publication of the Saville Report earlier this week for a number of reasons, chief amongst which is that I don't know enough about the events of what has become known as 'Bloody Sunday' to offer an opinion worthy of posting.
However, having lived and reported through them from the bullet and blood stained streets of Northern Ireland, Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent knows a great deal more about the history of 'The Troubles' than the vast majority of people on either side of the Irish Sea. As such, here is his slightly tangential take on the events of this week, insofar as they relate to the events in (London*)Derry in late January 1972.
I think you might agree that he doesn't spare either set of protagonists: the British Army (especially the Parachute Regiment) or Sinn Fein Ira.
Kevin Myers is clerly not a man who would hide his views in the hope of courting popularity...
(*Delete as appropriate, or as to taste).
However, having lived and reported through them from the bullet and blood stained streets of Northern Ireland, Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent knows a great deal more about the history of 'The Troubles' than the vast majority of people on either side of the Irish Sea. As such, here is his slightly tangential take on the events of this week, insofar as they relate to the events in (London*)Derry in late January 1972.
I think you might agree that he doesn't spare either set of protagonists: the British Army (especially the Parachute Regiment) or Sinn Fein Ira.
Kevin Myers is clerly not a man who would hide his views in the hope of courting popularity...
(*Delete as appropriate, or as to taste).
Monday, June 14, 2010
Like the man said: It would appear they haven't gone away after all...
The potential implications for the 'Peace Process' in the north of ireland if the subject matter discussed in this story from Sunday's Irish Independent are massive; because, as I'm sure you will recall, Sinn Fein with their former IRA commanders to the fore, were only admitted to the 'government' of Northern Ireland on the basis that the IRA had permanently given up both its weapons and its wholsale criminal activities.
Well, if this story bears any resemblance to the truth, they have failed to live up to that requirement and by doing so would disqualify themselves from office.
That said, I'll repeat the Throne's stance as regards the position of the six-counties for the benefit of those unfamiliar with it. In my view, the time has come for the English - and I do mean the English, albeit in the form of the British government - to completely withdraw from the north of Ireland at our earliest convenience, allowing the people of the Province (or former Province) to choose for themselves whether to join the other twenty-six counties in an all-Ireland state, or attempt to go it alone as a small, semi-detatched statelet.
Quite what they would choose to do, I don't know and would not presume to advise them about, because I don't consider it any of my business, which is precisely the position I adopt as regards these allegations.
What I do find interesting, though, is that, as far as I can tell, none of the major newspapers or other broadcast media in this country has picked up on the story itself , even to the extent of plagiarising (or is that 'quoting') the Indo.
I wonder why?
Is it because the story is inconvenient in terms of their editorial stance (i.e. that nice, jovial Mr McGuinness can do no wrong), or because Kevin Myers was right all along in asserting that the vast majority of English people couldn't give two hoots about what happens in Ireland?
I can't answer that, but I would be very surprised if the DUP don't raise the matter with David Cameron this Wednesday lunchtime
Well, if this story bears any resemblance to the truth, they have failed to live up to that requirement and by doing so would disqualify themselves from office.
That said, I'll repeat the Throne's stance as regards the position of the six-counties for the benefit of those unfamiliar with it. In my view, the time has come for the English - and I do mean the English, albeit in the form of the British government - to completely withdraw from the north of Ireland at our earliest convenience, allowing the people of the Province (or former Province) to choose for themselves whether to join the other twenty-six counties in an all-Ireland state, or attempt to go it alone as a small, semi-detatched statelet.
Quite what they would choose to do, I don't know and would not presume to advise them about, because I don't consider it any of my business, which is precisely the position I adopt as regards these allegations.
What I do find interesting, though, is that, as far as I can tell, none of the major newspapers or other broadcast media in this country has picked up on the story itself , even to the extent of plagiarising (or is that 'quoting') the Indo.
I wonder why?
Is it because the story is inconvenient in terms of their editorial stance (i.e. that nice, jovial Mr McGuinness can do no wrong), or because Kevin Myers was right all along in asserting that the vast majority of English people couldn't give two hoots about what happens in Ireland?
I can't answer that, but I would be very surprised if the DUP don't raise the matter with David Cameron this Wednesday lunchtime
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Come on England!
Like many of you, I suspect, I'm just settling down to watch England take on the footballing might of the USA in the first game of our World Cup campaign.
I am going to stick my neck out here and predict an English victory, either two nil, or possibly two - one.
I'll be back after the final whistle has blown to update my assessment. Unfortunately, whatever I write will probably be utter drivel (no change there then, I hear you all intone as one) because by that time, I will have put myself on the outside of about a gallon of Mr Magner's finest carbonated apple juice...
Come on England!
Update 9.30pm
Hmmm. Could have won it; probably should have won it, but we didn't convert our chances; then again, neither did the Americans. If this had been boxing match we'd have shaded it on points, but it isn't, so well done USA and well played Bob Bradley.
I think we can all agree that we'll have to improve if we want to stay in the competition for longer than a fortnight.
Anyway, back to my evening with Mr Magner...
What has she done to deserve it?
I have no particular antipathy towards Catherine Zeta Jones, but I have to say I'm puzzled by the fact that she has been awarded the CBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours list.
I say that because although Welsh by birth and upbringing, she has lived in Califonia with her American husband since 1996 - more than a third of her life - has two American children and herself effects something of an American accent.
I'm sure she'll be delighted to receive the honour and to take her husband to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen; but what has she actually done here, in this country, to actually deserve the honour? Because last time I checked, being born in Wales, being attractive and landing a rich husband about the same age as your father, weren't amongst the qualifying criteria; especially for an honour which is only one step down from a knighthood, or in the case of a female recipient, a damehood.
Dame Catherine?
Makes as much sense to me as Catherine Zeta-Jones CBE.
I also note that England's Puritan-in-Chief, Professor Ian Gilmore, has been knighted, too. He may be an illiberal killjoy, but he is also the president of the Royal College of Physicians, and as such his award is understandable and - though I say it through gritted teeth - deserved.
But Catherine Zeta-Jones?
I say that because although Welsh by birth and upbringing, she has lived in Califonia with her American husband since 1996 - more than a third of her life - has two American children and herself effects something of an American accent.
I'm sure she'll be delighted to receive the honour and to take her husband to Buckingham Palace to meet the Queen; but what has she actually done here, in this country, to actually deserve the honour? Because last time I checked, being born in Wales, being attractive and landing a rich husband about the same age as your father, weren't amongst the qualifying criteria; especially for an honour which is only one step down from a knighthood, or in the case of a female recipient, a damehood.
Dame Catherine?
Makes as much sense to me as Catherine Zeta-Jones CBE.
I also note that England's Puritan-in-Chief, Professor Ian Gilmore, has been knighted, too. He may be an illiberal killjoy, but he is also the president of the Royal College of Physicians, and as such his award is understandable and - though I say it through gritted teeth - deserved.
But Catherine Zeta-Jones?
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Credit for early guilty pleas...
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...
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...
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 cuairteoirà ó Éirinn. Tá súil agam tú taitneamh as do lá.
Lá Tá áthas ar Fhéile Pádraig ar bith cuairteoirà 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?
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The Battle of Bosworth Field and inevitability...
My regular reader will probably know that I am something of a history buff; not quite in Ana's league, I would happily concede; more of an enthusiastic amateur with an abiding interest in the history of medieval England, which is why this story from last Friday's Times (I've been a bit busy lately!) caught my eye.
I'm sure many of you will have read or heard about the new research, suggesting that the Battle of Bosworth Field, fought in 1485, actually took place a couple of miles from the location in which it was previously believed to have occurred.
So far, so good: despite the fact that the battlefield visitor centre was built in the 'wrong' place, it is still close enough to be of service and in some ways, doesn't actually sully the ground on which our last Plantagenet king, Richard III, lost his life and his crown to the future Henry VII.
But what I found particularly thought provoking about Ben Hoyle's article (I can only assume he is not an historian -he is billed as the paper's Arts correspondent) is the content of this paragraph:
In those few frenzied moments the future of England — and by extension much of the world — changed course. Bosworth became the bridge that links the Middle Ages to modern Britain and ushered in the dynasty of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. If Richard had killed Henry there might have been no English Reformation, no Church of England and no Elizabethan golden age to inspire artists, explorers and empire builders.
Yes, in those few moments, the future of England changed; the dynasty that had provide the country with fourteen kings in an unbroken chain from 1154 until that moment, was unseated and a new one, the Tudors, took their throne; that much is unarguable. It is the suggestion of inevitability contained in the sentence "If Richard had killed Henry there might have been no English Reformation and no Elizabethan golden age to inspire artists, explorers and empire builders."
Did Richard's defeat, deposition and death really inevitably lead to those eventualities? Or, is all history - including this section of it - essentially the outcome of a series of sometimes random, often unplanned and unforeseeable events?
Let me use the accession of the Tudors and their developing history to illustrate my point.
As many of you will know, the future Henry VIII was not his father's eldest son and was not, therefore, born to be king. That role initially went to his elder brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales, who died aged only fifteen in 1502, seven years before his father. Arthur was (famously and subsequently) married to Catherine of Aragon, who was to become his younger brother Henry's wife after his death.
Imagine, as was entirely possible, that Arthur had lived to maturity and that he and Catherine had produced children. The man we now know as Henry VIII would never have become king and would have been known to history as a mere royal duke; a footnote at the bottom of a page.
Continuing that thought process, had Arthur not died prematurely and he and Catherine had produced children, there would have been no split with Rome (at least when it actually happened), England would have remained as it had hitherto always been: firmly and devoutly Roman Catholic and the Dissolution of the Monasteries may have been unheard of even today.
So much for inevitability.
But Arthur did die, Henry did become king and went on to marry his brother's widow. Their union was blessed with only one surviving child, Mary (the future Mary I); but the couple also had a son, Henry, Duke of Cornwall, who catastrophically died aged less than two months in 1511.
Returning to the concepts of randomness versus inevitability, what if baby Henry had lived to become Henry IX of England? Given his obsession with securing a male heir, the very obsession which subsequently led to his divorce from Catherine and his cataclysmc split with Rome, is it not entirely likely that Henry VIII would have remained happily married to his first queen, as his son and heir grew up, married and had children himself?
Such an eventuality would have meant that Anne Boleyn may have never graced the pages of our national history, other than possibly becoming Countess of Northumberland. A similarly anonymous fate would have befallen Jane Seymour and as a consequence, neither the future Edward VI or, crucially, Elizabeth I, would have been born, still less occupy the Throne in their own rights.
I could go on; what if Mary had not died without issue from her marriage to Philip of Spain, what if Edward VI had lived to adulthood and had children - both eventualities would have meant that Elizabeth would never have ascended the Throne; but I think my point is made.
There is nothing inevitable about the course history takes; it is entirely random and subject to the vagaries of life, death and even human fertility.
I'm sure Ben Hoyle was only using his assertion as a convenient journalistic vehicle in order to illustrate the importance of the discovery of the real Bosorth Field and I am grateful to him for doing so, for prompting me to write this post.
By the way, can anyone else spot any similarities between this related story, also written by Ben Hoyle and published in the Times in September 2009 and the one which I link to above?
Cut and paste journalism in the Times? Perish the thought...
I'm sure many of you will have read or heard about the new research, suggesting that the Battle of Bosworth Field, fought in 1485, actually took place a couple of miles from the location in which it was previously believed to have occurred.
So far, so good: despite the fact that the battlefield visitor centre was built in the 'wrong' place, it is still close enough to be of service and in some ways, doesn't actually sully the ground on which our last Plantagenet king, Richard III, lost his life and his crown to the future Henry VII.
But what I found particularly thought provoking about Ben Hoyle's article (I can only assume he is not an historian -he is billed as the paper's Arts correspondent) is the content of this paragraph:
In those few frenzied moments the future of England — and by extension much of the world — changed course. Bosworth became the bridge that links the Middle Ages to modern Britain and ushered in the dynasty of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. If Richard had killed Henry there might have been no English Reformation, no Church of England and no Elizabethan golden age to inspire artists, explorers and empire builders.
Yes, in those few moments, the future of England changed; the dynasty that had provide the country with fourteen kings in an unbroken chain from 1154 until that moment, was unseated and a new one, the Tudors, took their throne; that much is unarguable. It is the suggestion of inevitability contained in the sentence "If Richard had killed Henry there might have been no English Reformation and no Elizabethan golden age to inspire artists, explorers and empire builders."
Did Richard's defeat, deposition and death really inevitably lead to those eventualities? Or, is all history - including this section of it - essentially the outcome of a series of sometimes random, often unplanned and unforeseeable events?
Let me use the accession of the Tudors and their developing history to illustrate my point.
As many of you will know, the future Henry VIII was not his father's eldest son and was not, therefore, born to be king. That role initially went to his elder brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales, who died aged only fifteen in 1502, seven years before his father. Arthur was (famously and subsequently) married to Catherine of Aragon, who was to become his younger brother Henry's wife after his death.
Imagine, as was entirely possible, that Arthur had lived to maturity and that he and Catherine had produced children. The man we now know as Henry VIII would never have become king and would have been known to history as a mere royal duke; a footnote at the bottom of a page.
Continuing that thought process, had Arthur not died prematurely and he and Catherine had produced children, there would have been no split with Rome (at least when it actually happened), England would have remained as it had hitherto always been: firmly and devoutly Roman Catholic and the Dissolution of the Monasteries may have been unheard of even today.
So much for inevitability.
But Arthur did die, Henry did become king and went on to marry his brother's widow. Their union was blessed with only one surviving child, Mary (the future Mary I); but the couple also had a son, Henry, Duke of Cornwall, who catastrophically died aged less than two months in 1511.
Returning to the concepts of randomness versus inevitability, what if baby Henry had lived to become Henry IX of England? Given his obsession with securing a male heir, the very obsession which subsequently led to his divorce from Catherine and his cataclysmc split with Rome, is it not entirely likely that Henry VIII would have remained happily married to his first queen, as his son and heir grew up, married and had children himself?
Such an eventuality would have meant that Anne Boleyn may have never graced the pages of our national history, other than possibly becoming Countess of Northumberland. A similarly anonymous fate would have befallen Jane Seymour and as a consequence, neither the future Edward VI or, crucially, Elizabeth I, would have been born, still less occupy the Throne in their own rights.
I could go on; what if Mary had not died without issue from her marriage to Philip of Spain, what if Edward VI had lived to adulthood and had children - both eventualities would have meant that Elizabeth would never have ascended the Throne; but I think my point is made.
There is nothing inevitable about the course history takes; it is entirely random and subject to the vagaries of life, death and even human fertility.
I'm sure Ben Hoyle was only using his assertion as a convenient journalistic vehicle in order to illustrate the importance of the discovery of the real Bosorth Field and I am grateful to him for doing so, for prompting me to write this post.
By the way, can anyone else spot any similarities between this related story, also written by Ben Hoyle and published in the Times in September 2009 and the one which I link to above?
Cut and paste journalism in the Times? Perish the thought...
Friday, February 19, 2010
Weather watch...
Whilst it might be a very pretty sight, this photograph, taken about fifty yards from my front door about 8.30 this morning serves to illustrate the sheer inaccuracy of our weather forecasting service, as provided by the Met Office.
During last night's local evening news programme, the weather forecast made no reference to the possibility of snow in the Ribble Valley, or anywhere else in Lancashire, for that matter, whilst the earlier national version warned of potentially heavy falls on the Eastern side of the country.
So, it was with weary resignation that I looked through the window an hour later and saw a scene more reminiscent of Ice Station Zebra, than a small corner of northern England.
However, my fundamental point is this; if the Met Office are really only providing us with what is little more than their best - and often inaccurate - guess as to what the weather is going to do, what is the point of spending so much money on it.
We'd be as well served going to the local wise woman and asking her to divine the forthcoming weather by a skilled examination of freshly slaughtered chicken intestines.
It is a nice picture, though...
The Telegraph on top form...
Monday, February 15, 2010
St George he was for England...
My regular reader will not be surprised to see me expressing my delight that the people of Darwen, a small market town in Lancashire (for the geographers and town planners amongst you, a classic example of ribbon-development) have decided to hold a week-long celebration to mark St George’s Day on and around 23rd April this year.
Here’s hoping that other towns and cities decide to do likewise and follow the example set by my fellow Lancastrians.
Here’s hoping that other towns and cities decide to do likewise and follow the example set by my fellow Lancastrians.
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Philistines of Sussex...
I have to confess that it was the headline of this article from today’s Daily Telegraph which first caught my eye and, as an historian, made my hackles rise, even if the article itself didn’t quite live up to its sensationalist billing.
Notwithstanding the fact that the article was mostly sizzle and very little sausage, it still concerns me greatly that Sussex University is proposing to withdraw from “research, and research-led teaching, in English social history before 1700 and the history of continental Europe before 1900”.
Unlike the seventeen Sussex-educated historians who wrote to the paper condemning the move, and the proposal to withdraw from the teaching of the history of continental Europe before 1900 in particular, however, I am more concerned with the suggestion that henceforth at that university 1700 will represent year zero as regards English social history.
I note at this point, that the article refers quite clearly to English social history and not its political cousin (my ‘discipline’, as it happens) and I take that reference to mean that the politcal history of England will still be researched, lectured on and taught there.
I certainly hope so, and I will return to my reason for saying so in due course.
However, returning to the original quote as to the university’s intentons, and at the risk of being accused of wanting the cake and the ha’penny, it would appear that henceforth, according to Sussex University, prior to the dawning of the twentieth century, nothing of any consequence occurred througout continental Europe.
Notwithstanding the fact that the article was mostly sizzle and very little sausage, it still concerns me greatly that Sussex University is proposing to withdraw from “research, and research-led teaching, in English social history before 1700 and the history of continental Europe before 1900”.
Unlike the seventeen Sussex-educated historians who wrote to the paper condemning the move, and the proposal to withdraw from the teaching of the history of continental Europe before 1900 in particular, however, I am more concerned with the suggestion that henceforth at that university 1700 will represent year zero as regards English social history.
I note at this point, that the article refers quite clearly to English social history and not its political cousin (my ‘discipline’, as it happens) and I take that reference to mean that the politcal history of England will still be researched, lectured on and taught there.
I certainly hope so, and I will return to my reason for saying so in due course.
However, returning to the original quote as to the university’s intentons, and at the risk of being accused of wanting the cake and the ha’penny, it would appear that henceforth, according to Sussex University, prior to the dawning of the twentieth century, nothing of any consequence occurred througout continental Europe.
By doing so, as the article suggests, they clearly think that events of such seminal importance as the French Revolution are not worthy of research or study.
Or, come to think of it any of the following, which I in list in no particular order, either chronological or as to my personal perception of their importance: The Napoleonic Wars, The Renaissance, The Thirty-Years War and the life and works of Martin Luther, one of the fathers of the Protestant Reformation, after whom the great American Civil Rights activist Martin Luther King - another towering figure - was named.*
I could go on, but shortage of prevents me from doing so; and in any event, I suspect my point is made: for a university history department to abandon the study of European (or indeed any history) before an arbitrary date - one which is, in historical terms, relatively recent - is to abandon the subject as a serious academic discipline, in direct contradiction of its raison d'etre.
Returning to the prospect of the university 'starting' English (social) history in 1700 (only seven years before England was subsumed into the kingdom of Great Britain by the passage of the Act of union with Scotland) is also, in my submission, to ignore the importance to that subject of a number of significant events in our political history.
I don't propose to link to these on the basis that a) my reader is more than likely to be already familiar with them or b) that in the event that they are not so familiar, but are still reading this increasingly lengthy piece, they will more than likely be sufficiently interested in the subjects I cite to research them separately.
That explanation aside, these are just some of the political events or processes occurring in England prior to 1700, which I suggest had a significant impact on our social history:
1. The Norman Conquest of 1066 - which essentially removed the old, Anglo-Saxon ruling class and replaced it with invading Normans.
2. The signing of the Magna Carta (which I reproduce in the picture above) by King John in 1215, enshrining a large number of the rights of which our current leaders are so assiduously stripping us, into English law.
3. The Great Plagues of the Fourteenth Century, which went a long way to ending feudalism.
4. The Civil War of 1642 - 1649, which saw England become a republic for the first (and hopefully only) time in its history.
Once again, I could go on; but again, I think I've made my point: English social history did not begin in 1700, and to pretend that events before that date are of insufficient relevance to warrant further study, is to abandon even the pretence of academic rigour.
Defending the university's stance, the deputy vice-chancellor, Professor Paul Layzell said: “The history degree at Sussex, as befits a programme offered by one of the top 20 departments in the country, will continue to be broad based and intellectually challenging.”
I would conclude with this observation, professor. I rather suspect that given the proposed vandalism you propose to inflict, your claim to be 'one of the top twenty [history] departments in the country', will soon be ringing somewhat hollow.
You should hang your head in shame.
* Forgive the continued links to Wikipedia; they simply provide the shortest thumbnail sketch of the events in question, for ease of reference.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Kevin Myers and 'the English out of Ireland'...
Another post, another link to an article by Kevin Myers in the Irish Independent.
For once, I would take issue with some of his assertions - primarily written for an Irish audience as they may be. For instance, my regular reader cannot be unaware that this Englishman most definitely does take more than a passing interest in Irish history and Irish politics; I would, however, have to concede that I may be in something of a minority amongst my countrymen in that particular regard.
That said, I agree wholeheartedly that it is high time that we (in this instance the government of Britain, not England, as he deliberately misprepresents the case, presumably for effect) withdrew from any future role in the governance of the northern part of the island of Ireland.
I have been of that opinion for some time now, and I am in the process of formulating a post - probably quite a lengthy one, I suspect - to outline my position.
For once, I would take issue with some of his assertions - primarily written for an Irish audience as they may be. For instance, my regular reader cannot be unaware that this Englishman most definitely does take more than a passing interest in Irish history and Irish politics; I would, however, have to concede that I may be in something of a minority amongst my countrymen in that particular regard.
That said, I agree wholeheartedly that it is high time that we (in this instance the government of Britain, not England, as he deliberately misprepresents the case, presumably for effect) withdrew from any future role in the governance of the northern part of the island of Ireland.
I have been of that opinion for some time now, and I am in the process of formulating a post - probably quite a lengthy one, I suspect - to outline my position.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Is that thing sharp?
Apologies for the even thinner than usual level of posting; I'm recuperating from what I like to describe as minor (and elective) abdominal surgery.
More when I can it at my keyboard a little longer...
Monday, January 11, 2010
Ali Dizaei: the high-stakes 'game' is afoot...
The 'game of high stakes' I wrote about here is now most definitely afoot.
I await developments in the case with interest...
I await developments in the case with interest...
Monday, January 04, 2010
Why Bolton, Owen?
I have to say, both as a football fan generally and a Lancastrian one in particular, that if it actually comes to pass, this story surprises me greatly.
Why on earth would Owen Coyle - an unqualified success as manager of Burnley, a club he steered into the Premier League last May - want to swap the hot seat at Turf Moor for the one at the Reebok Stadium as manager of Bolton Wanderers?
Whilst Bolton is a far bigger town than Burnley, the Trotters' (Bolton, to the uninititated) fan base is not much bigger than the Clarets', given the proximity to Bolton of the two giant Manchester clubs.
Furthermore, the Trotters are also in a worse league position than Burnley right now and therefore, theoretically at least, at greater risk of relegation to the Chumpionship.
More unusually still, it is widely known that following his success in returning Burnley to the top division of English football for the first time for more than thirty years, Coyle, a Glaswegian, was offered the manager's job at Celtic, an opportunity he turned down to guide the Clarets into the Premier League.
Let's just pause there for a minute.
Owen Coyle, a sensible, well-spoken, intelligent, tee-total Glaswegian Celtic fan turned down the chance to manage the club he supported as a boy, to remain loyal to Burnley. He chose to stay in Lancashire, battling against what were then (and still are) steep odds to keep a mill-town club with average home gates around the 20,000 mark, in the English Premier League, rather than assume command of one of the biggest clubs in these islands, with a virtual guarantee of Champions League football every year, to say nothing of Scottish League and cup titles and the unswerving loyalty of 55,000 fans every week.
Curious.
The only explanation I can come up with are that Burnley matched the salary on offer in Scotland, plus Coyle's commendable loyalty and his desire to compete week in and week out against the best teams in the country - not something on offer in Scotland, it has to be said. It might also be the case that as a relatively young man, he has a young family who are settled in their schools and together with his wife, he chose (sensibly) not to uproot them unnecessarily.
But why consider a move to Bolton, and why now?
Bolton, Burnley, Wigan and Blackburn Rovers, the four 'small' Lancashire Premier League clubs are all much of a muchness, it seems to me, in terms of their potential, although I did tip the Clarets for relegation at the start of the season.
Unless I'm missing something here, such as Burnley's chairman refusing to back him in the transfer market, or worse, planning for relegation, I can't see what a shrewd and excellent young manager like Owen Coyle has to gain by moving the twenty miles or so from Burnley to Bolton.
I suppose we may find out, if and when he holds his first press conference as manager of the Trotters, but until then, I'm scratching my head, frankly...
Why on earth would Owen Coyle - an unqualified success as manager of Burnley, a club he steered into the Premier League last May - want to swap the hot seat at Turf Moor for the one at the Reebok Stadium as manager of Bolton Wanderers?
Whilst Bolton is a far bigger town than Burnley, the Trotters' (Bolton, to the uninititated) fan base is not much bigger than the Clarets', given the proximity to Bolton of the two giant Manchester clubs.
Furthermore, the Trotters are also in a worse league position than Burnley right now and therefore, theoretically at least, at greater risk of relegation to the Chumpionship.
More unusually still, it is widely known that following his success in returning Burnley to the top division of English football for the first time for more than thirty years, Coyle, a Glaswegian, was offered the manager's job at Celtic, an opportunity he turned down to guide the Clarets into the Premier League.
Let's just pause there for a minute.
Owen Coyle, a sensible, well-spoken, intelligent, tee-total Glaswegian Celtic fan turned down the chance to manage the club he supported as a boy, to remain loyal to Burnley. He chose to stay in Lancashire, battling against what were then (and still are) steep odds to keep a mill-town club with average home gates around the 20,000 mark, in the English Premier League, rather than assume command of one of the biggest clubs in these islands, with a virtual guarantee of Champions League football every year, to say nothing of Scottish League and cup titles and the unswerving loyalty of 55,000 fans every week.
Curious.
The only explanation I can come up with are that Burnley matched the salary on offer in Scotland, plus Coyle's commendable loyalty and his desire to compete week in and week out against the best teams in the country - not something on offer in Scotland, it has to be said. It might also be the case that as a relatively young man, he has a young family who are settled in their schools and together with his wife, he chose (sensibly) not to uproot them unnecessarily.
But why consider a move to Bolton, and why now?
Bolton, Burnley, Wigan and Blackburn Rovers, the four 'small' Lancashire Premier League clubs are all much of a muchness, it seems to me, in terms of their potential, although I did tip the Clarets for relegation at the start of the season.
Unless I'm missing something here, such as Burnley's chairman refusing to back him in the transfer market, or worse, planning for relegation, I can't see what a shrewd and excellent young manager like Owen Coyle has to gain by moving the twenty miles or so from Burnley to Bolton.
I suppose we may find out, if and when he holds his first press conference as manager of the Trotters, but until then, I'm scratching my head, frankly...
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow...
Well actually, I'd rather it didn't really; because living on a hill as we do, it makes getting around more than a little difficult.
That sensible, if rather joyless observation aside, I have to concede that when there is, in the continued words of the song 'simply no place to go', at least, in my case, until Monday morning, it can make for a very pretty picture, such as the one to the left of this post, which I took just before four o' clock this afternoon, no more than fifty yards from my front door.
I just hope it melts sufficiently by Monday morning for me to get the car out...
Eat, drink and be merry?
As those of you who have been visiting the Throne for some time may recall, I exercise regularly, watch what I eat (though not slavishly) and drink in what I would describe as moderate (whilst others would not) quantities. As a result, twenty-seven years on, I weigh the same amount as I did as a twenty-one year old, with a waistline to match.
So, you may imagine that I would heartily welcome this story in today's Telegraph, warning us all in near-apocalyptic terms, that deaths from obesity have doubled in a decade.
Actually, I don't; quite the reverse.
Ignore for a moment the claim (correct or otherwise) that the number of deaths has doubled and instead concentrate on the total number of deaths involved. Let me quote directly from the article:
"The official figures disclose that in 2000, just 25 people aged between 46 and 55 died “where obesity was the underlying cause of death”. By 2005, the number has increased to 51 and last year it was 70.
The “number of deaths where obesity was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate” rose from 121 in 2000 to 257 last year for the same age group. Similar increases were also recorded for those aged between 34 and 45 and 56-65."
A little research shows that in the thirteen years from 1993 and 2005, between 513,000 and 580,000 died in England and Wales each year. Having no reason to suppose that the figures vary greatly from the end of that period to the present day, let's agree (rather unscientifically, I concede) that the average number of deaths every year in England and Wales averages out at 550,000.
Call me old-fashioned, but a blind man on a galloping horse could plainly see that deaths numbered in the hundreds from that one cause pale into statistical insignificance when compared with a total well over half a million a year.
I do not, of course, for a minute suggest that allowing yourself to become obese is a sensible thing to do; far from it as my first paragraph hopefully reinforces.
But I do wonder what a serious newspaper like the Telegraph is doing printing unsupportable rubbish such as this and if anything even more so at the involvement of Conservative politicians, such as Andrew Lansley, parroting the nannyish, infantilising NuLabour line in suggesting the imposition of warning labels on 'bad' or 'fatty' foods.
Step away from the cream cakes, Mr Lansley and put the marker pen down...
So, you may imagine that I would heartily welcome this story in today's Telegraph, warning us all in near-apocalyptic terms, that deaths from obesity have doubled in a decade.
Actually, I don't; quite the reverse.
Ignore for a moment the claim (correct or otherwise) that the number of deaths has doubled and instead concentrate on the total number of deaths involved. Let me quote directly from the article:
"The official figures disclose that in 2000, just 25 people aged between 46 and 55 died “where obesity was the underlying cause of death”. By 2005, the number has increased to 51 and last year it was 70.
The “number of deaths where obesity was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate” rose from 121 in 2000 to 257 last year for the same age group. Similar increases were also recorded for those aged between 34 and 45 and 56-65."
A little research shows that in the thirteen years from 1993 and 2005, between 513,000 and 580,000 died in England and Wales each year. Having no reason to suppose that the figures vary greatly from the end of that period to the present day, let's agree (rather unscientifically, I concede) that the average number of deaths every year in England and Wales averages out at 550,000.
Call me old-fashioned, but a blind man on a galloping horse could plainly see that deaths numbered in the hundreds from that one cause pale into statistical insignificance when compared with a total well over half a million a year.
I do not, of course, for a minute suggest that allowing yourself to become obese is a sensible thing to do; far from it as my first paragraph hopefully reinforces.
But I do wonder what a serious newspaper like the Telegraph is doing printing unsupportable rubbish such as this and if anything even more so at the involvement of Conservative politicians, such as Andrew Lansley, parroting the nannyish, infantilising NuLabour line in suggesting the imposition of warning labels on 'bad' or 'fatty' foods.
Step away from the cream cakes, Mr Lansley and put the marker pen down...
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Happy New Year...
As promised in my last post, here I am back before the new year to wish everyone all the best for 2010.
I hope the new decade brings you health, wealth and happiness.
I'm off to my brother's house tonight with Mrs RToK for a suitably modest libation and convivial company. Whatever you are doing, I hope you have fun - as I propose to do - and get home safely.
See you all next year.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas to one and all...
May I take this opportunity to wish my readers, whether regular, occasional or even accidental, a very merry Christmas. I hope it brings you everything you hope for.
I'll be back before the New Year, if only to mark that occasion, but in the meantime, all the shopping's done (well, all that's going to be done, anyway!), so it's time to have some fun, indulge myself in various different ways (mainly eating and drinking) and most importantly, to spend some time with Mrs RToK and the family.
See you all soon.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Kevin Myers on mob mentality and hypocrisy...
By way of a gentle reintroduction to my ramblings, I've once again linked to an article by the ever-excellent Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent, in which he lampoons both the bloodlust of the (Irish) mob - it could just as easily be an English one, frankly - and the hypocrisy of those criticising middle-aged white men as sexual bigots.
Spot on, as always.
Spot on, as always.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Incongruity...
This is the main gate at Her Majesty's Prison in Preston. As I was driving past it the other evening on my way home, my eye was drawn to the pictured section of it by the presence of three sets of festive lights, two of which - each easily three feet or more in height - were flashing the words 'Merry Christmas' intermittently in gaudy red neon. As far as I could ascertain, the third, central montage appeared to depict a reindeer, or something similarly seasonal.
HMP Preston is a Category B prison, situated on the periphery of the city centre. Is it just me, or is the presence of these lights, charming as they were, not just a little out of place at the front gate of a penal institution such as that?
Just a thought...
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Has Ireland been enslaved again?
Regular Thronistas and let's face it, with the numbers of links I provide to it, even casual visitors will know that I am a regular reader of the on-line version of the Irish Independent newspaper, and in particular their (in my view) star columnist, Kevin Myers.
One of the reasons I read it so often - every day, really - other than to get my regular fix of Myers' often trenchant views is that as an historian, I have a significant interest in modern (i.e. 20th Century) Irish history and as such, it intrigues me to read about current Irish politics, which are, of course the stuff of tomorrow's history lessons.
I have to confess, however, that one thing I have never been able to understand about the history of Ireland is that having struggled for eight hundred years to establish herself as an independent, sovereign country, she chose to subsume herself in a much larger European empire, in which her voice, or rather that of her population, (barely 1% of the total population of the 'EU'), is but an easily ignored whisper, easily and airily dismissed along with those of Lithuania and the like, by their new masters.
That is why the content of this unattributed editorial from today's paper, which is so good it could well have come from the keyboard of Myers himself, struck such a chord with me, because it would appear that there are well educated Irishmen whose views square entirely with my own.
And whilst I consider that a welcome validation of my outsider's view of Irish history, I wonder how it squares with the Indo's pro-Lisbon stance during the recent referendum campaign?
Is this the first expression of regret at having conceded their hard-won independence, or is it a case of the paper wanting to have both the cake and the ha'penny?
Any views, particularly from my Irish readers?
One of the reasons I read it so often - every day, really - other than to get my regular fix of Myers' often trenchant views is that as an historian, I have a significant interest in modern (i.e. 20th Century) Irish history and as such, it intrigues me to read about current Irish politics, which are, of course the stuff of tomorrow's history lessons.
I have to confess, however, that one thing I have never been able to understand about the history of Ireland is that having struggled for eight hundred years to establish herself as an independent, sovereign country, she chose to subsume herself in a much larger European empire, in which her voice, or rather that of her population, (barely 1% of the total population of the 'EU'), is but an easily ignored whisper, easily and airily dismissed along with those of Lithuania and the like, by their new masters.
That is why the content of this unattributed editorial from today's paper, which is so good it could well have come from the keyboard of Myers himself, struck such a chord with me, because it would appear that there are well educated Irishmen whose views square entirely with my own.
And whilst I consider that a welcome validation of my outsider's view of Irish history, I wonder how it squares with the Indo's pro-Lisbon stance during the recent referendum campaign?
Is this the first expression of regret at having conceded their hard-won independence, or is it a case of the paper wanting to have both the cake and the ha'penny?
Any views, particularly from my Irish readers?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
