Suarez and that bite

I just can't get worked up over Suarez biting the Italian Chiellini. I actually think it was very funny and one of the highlights of the World Cup so far. Now poor old Suarez has been sent home in disgrace and banned from playing any professional football for yonks. Why? I mean what was his crime? It can't surely be 'bringing the gamer into disrepute' otherwise the entire board of FIFA would be banned for ever. So what makes 'biting' so much worse than all the other examples of 'professional' fouls, arm wrestling, shirt pulling, hugging, diving, acting hurt and other practises none of which seem to have much to do with football.

Also if biting Chiellini is really deemed to bring the game into disrepute what about Chiellini's attitude. If Suarez bit me in the shoulder my immediate reaction would be to flatten him - end of story. But not that drip Chiellini - who burst into tears and ran around looking for his Mummy.  How pathetic is that? and how bad an example to the hundreds of millions watching.

But then -frankly - that is what one might expect from an Italian I am afraid. Brought up as I was on a diet of historical  novels by the likes of G A Henty it is nice to know that the prejudices which he and other so deftly implanted into my young mind still hold good today. Europeans, especially Southern ones,  do not fight like men with their fists but like girls biting ,scratching and kicking and, when they lose, or get hurt, blub and run to Mummy.            

Magna Carta and British Values

I am thrilled that David Cameron thinks knowledge of Magna Carta is a key element in the make up of 'British Values. I would though be even more thrilled if I thought he had ever read it, in particular that he had read and absorbed Clause 2.

For this clause is the one about Inheritance Tax.  Yes -I suspect very few people know that Inheritance tax (IHT) was alive and well in 13th century England, but it's true.  In the medieval world all land was technically owned by the king and only held by a baron or knight for his life. I say technically because the custom had grown that the king would always grant the land back to the deceased baron's heir providing he paid a 'relief' or 'fine' -in effect a medieval form of IHT.

King John had abused this custom by upping the customary amount paid by heirs to unheard of levels and it was this high rate of IHT which had incensed many barons who, just like most people today, wanted to be able to pass on their house or estate to their heirs.

The actual clause reads as follows:

If any of our earls or barons holding from us in chief by knights service dies, and at his death his heir be of full age and owes relief he shall have his inheritance on payment of the old relief , namely the heir or heirs of an earl £100 for a whole earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a baron £100 for the whole barony, the heir or heirs of a knight 100 shillings (£5) at the most for a whole knights fee; and he who owes less shall give less according to the ancient usage of the fief 

Our Defence - too important to be left to an accountant

About the only public institution still held in high regard by the British public are our Armed Services. So it is not surprising that the Minister of Defence - an accountant called Philip Hammond (where does the Conservative party find them?) wants to address this issue. It must, after all, be galling to be a member of a profession (politics) which is universally despised -but in charge of one which is universally admired. The solution is obvious - do something to further weaken the Armed Forces ability to do the job it is good at - which is killing our enemies.

Hammond you see is worried - not about the cuts to the Defence budget - needed to fund Cameron's pet Overseas Aid expenditure- nor about whether our severely reduced Armed Forces are effective, or about aggressive Russian posturing on the Ukraine. No he is concerned about something far , far  more important than that. Something so critical to our defence that he thought he ought to make a key note speech about and this is what he said:

" We have, frankly, a big problem. There is a big gap between what our society looks like and what our Armed Forces look like. The image of the military, I think, is still a macho image, the last bastion of male chauvinism. the reality is very different."

Yes Hammond thinks the time has come for women to serve in the 'teeth arms' of the army - namely the cavalry and the infantry.  Well that is an interesting idea but if he had cared to ask anyone in the Ministry of Defence they might have told him that at the behest of the last labour government trials of mixed sex units where carried out and the results where  absolutely conclusive - it didn't work.  

Garden cities - a mistake

In order to house all the immigrants this and the last government have let into this country three new 'garden cities' are being planned for 'middle England.'  

Now why 'garden cities?' and what exactly is a 'garden city?' and is a 'garden city' a good idea anyway?

Let's answer the first question first because it is easy - if you are planning to cover tens of thousands of acres of land in little boxes why not choose a 'sounds good' 'sound bite' name for them and 'Garden City' fits that bill perfectly.

So what is a Garden City? Well, surprise,surprise the government doesn't actually know! The government apparently; ".... does not wish to impose any definition of what garden cities are."   You couldn't make that up could you.  You announce you are planning to build 'garden cities' but then admit that you actually don't know what a garden city is - even for this government that takes some beating. However Mr Clegg does think that perhaps a garden city might have 'biodiversity rich public parks' what incidentally is a 'bio diversity rich public park?' and how does that differ from say Hyde Park in London? - the answers is of course it doesn't it is just 'sound bite' civil service crap.

So the verbiage goes on but let's address the question of whether a garden city - whatever that means -is a good idea. I suspect most of us would think that a garden city will have a lower density of housing per acre than a normal city - obvious really - the more gardens you have the less houses you can get to an acre. But oddly I wonder if that is what people really want. Often I hanker city life. Being able, of a morning, to get up walk to a shop buy a newspaper and some milk and then wander back for breakfast.  Or, of an evening, being able to say to my wife; 'there's nothing on telly tonight let's walk to the cinema and then have dinner out.'  But garden cities are too spread out to offer you these advantages of city life instead Mr Clegg hopes you will get into your car and drive to your allotment which he thinks every garden city should provide for its residents.

Please -Prince Charles - will you do one more thing for us - give Mr Clegg a call and take him down to see Poundbury and explain to him why high density housing is so much more fun to live in that his ghastly 'garden cities are ever going to be.

  

Healthy Eating

This has been a good week for me. Yesterday the Telegraph led with a story that one cup of Earl Grey Tea -which contains a Mediterranean herb called Bergamot - is just as good for you as stuffing yourself with statins whilst today it had a headline announcing that ten portions of fruit and veg a day virtually guarantees you, if not immortality, certainly a prolonged active life. Now I am writing this whilst sipping - approximately- my fourth mug of Earl Grey Tea and having just finished my third apple of the day, on top of three - small -oranges I had with my breakfast. Admittedly I share my oranges and apples with my two black Labradors, am I alone I wonder in having dogs which don't just love apples but simply adore oranges! But the clock has only just struck five and I have still got supper to come which will have a healthy quota of vegetables with it.

On top of fruit, veg and Earl Grey Tea I also treat myself to red wine at supper and now have at least one cup of green tea a day, a habit I have been introduced to by my daughter. Finally my wife and I both love olive oil and I have a fondness for smoked salmon and mackerel -oily fish which are full of something I think called Omega.g. Eating smoked salmon is far more palatable way of getting your Omega g than a disgusting capsule of full of  Halibut oil which I was forced to take daily as a child.

The good thing really is that I LIKE healthy food - looking at what I have written I see I have left out black chocolate and walnuts - which is not because I don't love them -it's just because I love them too much and - given unrestricted access would gorge myself and become fat.

Gay Marraige - Gay Divorce

So a milestone has been reached - and now past - Gay marriage is now legal.  Now for the next milestone - the first Gay Divorce!  For it was not only in the pubs and clubs frequented by the Gay community that this historic event was greeted with celebration - it was also in the hallowed halls and lodgings of Inns of Court where dwell that most despicable breed of lawyers - divorce barristers and their jackals -divorce solicitors.

I suppose it will be at least a decade or so before we can honestly say whether gay marriages are more lasting than straight ones. Currently some 42% of heterosexual marriages end up in the divorce court and it will be interesting to see if gays do any better but, even if they do, homosexual divorce will be a feature of our law courts in the future.

The good news for the vultures of the legal profession is that gays tend to be richer as they have no children to spend money on (normally anyway) - at the same time - when it comes to dividing up the assets of the gay couple- there will also be no children complicating matters and demanding that part of the proceeds should be reserved for them. 

Now, being the cynic that I am, I cannot help thinking that rich gays may be, even as I write, having their arms twisted by penniless partners into proposing marriage which -years later -they will sorely regret as they see themselves effectively robbed by, not only their ex partner but by a phalanx of greedy lawyers.

   

the Badger cull

Last week the BBC - who else - broadcast a claim that an independent report into the recent trial Badger cull found that it was 'ineffective and inhumane.'  Why the cull in the first place? Well badgers carry - and suffer from - TB (tuberculosis) .  If a dairy cow gets TB and you drink it's milk you are in danger of yourself getting TB. So all cattle in the UK are routinely tested for TB and any found infected -or suspected of having it (the tests are not 100% effective) are slaughtered.  In 2010 over 28,000 cattle where killed as a result.  It has long been suspected that the prime reason for the spread of TB among cattle is the expansion of the badger population as infected badgers forage and dig in pasture and thus spread TB to cattle.

Enough about the background - what interests me is why people are so angry about the culling of badgers. I mean most of the population seem quite relaxed about the need to cull and control deer, foxes, rabbits, grey squirrels not to mention rats so why is Mr Badger singled out for special protection? The answer is I don't know. All I do know is that in 1992 an Act was passed making it an offence to kill badgers and that since then the badger population has exploded.

Let's tackle the 'inhumane' accusation first.  Apparently - according to the leak - up to 5% of the badgers killed (by 'expert' marksmen) took more than 5 minutes to die. Now I find that statistic not only strange but frankly unbelievable.  If you shoot any animal and you wound it you do not just hang about and wait for it to die you put another bullet in it at once. Also badgers are not exactly difficult targets, with modern night viewing devices shooting, killing a badger cleanly should be a doddle and how-incidentally - did this '5 minutes' statistic come about. Was there an independent inspector at the elbow of the marksman - and did that independent inspector refuse to allow the marksman to give the badger a second 'coup de grace shot?  Frankly it all seems very suspect to me.  As for the 'ineffective' charge.  It is a little early in the day to call a cull designed to reduce the incidence of TB in cattle 'ineffective' 

What the badger cull row highlights is the fascist tendency of  animal rights groups - and bird rights groups for that matter. By fascist tendency I mean the belief that some animals or birds are superior to others - Eugenics in wildlife. So the RSPB believes that other birds are inferior to raptors -i.e. hawks, and is prepared to see any number of song birds sacrificed rather than approve the culling of a single Sparrow Hawk. Likewise the badger lobby cares nothing for cows needlessly slaughtered but sees badgers as some sort of 'master race' of the animal kingdom whose numbers must be allowed to increase regardless of the numbers of ground nesting birds whose nest it destroys or of the cattle it infects who must be killed