Magna Carta: yours for $21,321,000 (£10.6M);
Tales of Beedle the Bard: £1,950,000 ($4M)
Of course tha latter may be a more useful guide to one’s liberties in New Britain ™
|
|||||
Magna Carta: yours for $21,321,000 (£10.6M); Tales of Beedle the Bard: £1,950,000 ($4M) Of course tha latter may be a more useful guide to one’s liberties in New Britain ™ I am feeling rather groggy after a wonderful party yesterday – I also watched the excellent Barbarians-South Africa match in a pub – but this item on a website called Sharp as a Marble is an instant hangover cure. Good heavens – the stuff you can find on the web. Here are some wonderfully good photographs, ideal browsing for a grey Sunday afternoon. The Sunday Times carries the story that two men have been remanded to await trial on charges of blackmailing a member of the royal family. They are said to have demanded £50,000 not to publicise stories about sex and drugs. Haven’t the perpetrators missed the point of blackmail? Surely if they had anything that would stick, they could get many times that amount from the world’s tabloids? The point of blackmail is to take advantage of the embarrassment of the person concerned for gain. They seem to have attempted to do it for loss. Phone conversation just now with Alex Singleton:
Alex will be the main speaker at the Libertarian Alliance Conference dinner tomorrow evening at the National Liberal Club, in other words the star speaker of the entire event. An excellent choice for this task stroke honour, I think, and I am looking forward to hearing him very much. Mick Hartley quoted at some length the other day from this TimesOnline piece by Sarah Baxter, but I have only just read the thing itself. The first few paragraphs, which Mick Hartley did not recycle, are particularly choice, and I do quote them here, now:
LOL indeed. I am actually quite optimistic that at least some (more) lefties will wake up, as time goes by, to the absurdity of them being in alliance with radical Islamists. The only rationale for this otherwise ridiculous arrangement is (see above) that the enemy of your enemy (the USA) is your friend, no matter what. If you really do think that the USA is the biggest baddest thing in the world and that curbing its power is the only thing that matters (think Hitler Churchill Stalin), then this alliance makes a kind of primitive sense. Although even if you do think that, encouraging the development of rampant capitalism everywhere except in the USA would make a lot more sense. That really would reduce the USA to the margins of history. But, if you think that lefty-ism is anything at all to do with positive support for civilisation, decency, freedom, female (in particular) emancipation, life being nice even if you do not submit to Islam etc., then you should surely turn your back on all such alliances. Meanwhile, I cannot help noticing and rejoicing that those Islamists have such a genius for pissing off their potential allies. From what I have been reading, they have achieved this same feat in the last year or two with the people of Iraq, no less. Compared to that momentous own goal, if own goal it turns out to be, pissing off the Guevaras is small potatoes indeed. Unless of course millions of lefties around the world read of this outrage and exclaim with one voice: “That does it. Not the Guevaras. How dare they silence these hereditary paragons of revolutionary virtue. We will now support the USA against the Islamists until the Islamists are utterly crushed. Then we will sort out the USA.” That would change things a bit. If you are opening (say) a chain of casual clothing stores in Portugal, and you want to give them an English name that you hope provides an image of stylish people driving fast cars, you might want to check with a number of native English speakers whether the word you choose might not have other meanings or connotations in English. As a minimum, I cannot see Throttleman conquering the world in the way that other clothing labels from cities nearby have been known to, and however good their supply chain management appears to be (Zara of course are masters of this). I have considered over the last couple of days whether or not to write about an event. I feared, and still fear, that many people will either think I am making the whole thing up or that, at least, I am exaggerating to make a more ‘entertaining’ story. I am not making this event up, and I am not exaggerating – but I have no way to prove this. Anyway here goes… On Tuesday I went to an event ‘East Midlands Expo’ organized by the ‘East Midlands Region’ government. These ‘Regional’ governments are not desired by the public – but they are forced to pay for them anyway. The event was supposed to be about the ‘environment’. It was held in the buildings that form part of the Rockingham Speedway. This is sporting facility that is on the outskirts of the town of Corby in Northamptonshire. Why this site was chosen I do not know. If the public were intended to attend this event it was a very bad choice of site – but if the event, and the cost of it, was meant to be hidden from the public it was a good choice of site. I overheard someone pointing to the helicopters that seemed to be flying round the site and saying “they are to keep the public out” – but I do not believe that to be true (it was just a coincidence). There were some members of the public at the event. Some confused looking children, some in yellow helmets, were led around to various places. A few of these children were brought in to be photographed when a government person presented a cheque [pdf document] to two women dressed as ‘Eco-Pixies’. However, nearly everyone at the event was either a councillor, a Local Government Officer, or a representative of a commercial enterprise trying to sell something – via various stalls. There was one stall that did not seem to be trying to sell anything – it was from the Romania government and its function at the event seemed to be to publicise Romania. This led a Local Government Officer I talked with, to describe the event as “Eco-Pixies meet Romania” – although, as far as I know, the Eco-Pixies did not visit the Romanian government stall. There were some stalls, outside, that were selling actual products (bread, cheese and so on) but the main stalls inside the event were from various large enterprises trying to interest politicians and officials in their services (to be paid by the taxpayers). The objective seemed to be to ‘network’. Outside there was also part of a building made of straw. Not panels made of straw, just bales of straw. There were also various ‘workshops’ which were conducted in the English language – but a highly distorted form of it. As I went around talking to people and visiting stalls I found myself having difficulty in suppressing high pitched involuntary nervous laughter (what British people call “the giggles” – which is not as pleasant as it sounds) and I had to retreat to the toilet to recover – in order to avoid being rude. After I recovered I took the special bus back to Kettering. However, the events of the day had disturbed me and I went shopping, buying lots of ‘bad’ things. For example, bread and cheese, which I could have bought from the stalls outside the “Expo” – but I felt uncomfortable buying things there, I intend no disrespect to the people at the food stalls – perhaps the most honest people at the event. Bread is denounced because of carbohydrate, and cheese is denounced because of fat – especially the high fat ‘Danish Blue’ cheese that I bought. I also bought alcohol for the first time in months, partly because alcohol had just been denounced on BBC Radio 4 that morning “there is no safe lower limit” (this did not concern driving – it was meant as general health warning). The alcohol I bought was Yorkshire ‘Old Peculiar’ beer – which I thought fitted the peculiar nature of the day. My shopping the local supermarket which might be considered environmentally unsound, but many of the organizations at the ‘Expo’ were rather big so I suppose the organizers are not totally against big business. Anyway I then ate some bread and cheese and drank my beer in an effort to calm my mind – but I was not totally successful. For every rational cause you can guarantee there will be someone who tries to pursue it in a crazy and counter-productive manner. A Cambridge school caretaker has just been gaoled for sending letter bombs in protest against the surveillance state. Quite how he thought it might help is obscure; there is no Bakhuninite theory of precipitating revolution on offer, nor the intimidation/revenge motive of animal-rights terrorists. Perhaps he is a product of what the LM people identify as “therapeutic culture” and believes (compare Mr Blair) that strength of feeling is truth, and demonstrating the strength of one’s feelings by hurting others – a Big Howl – is persuasive. All of which is by way of introduction to the strangest point in the whole affair: the post trial commentary from the officer in charge of the investigation. This is becoming a standard feature of any notorious case, one which I dislike intensely. I think the job of the police is to investigate crime disinterestedly, and they should not have a say in or comment on the process of the courts, any more than they should prejudice the position of suspects beforehand. Detective Superintendent George Turner, from Thames Valley Police, said of the criminal,
Uh? Let us be clear. This is not a slip of the tongue. It is a pre-prepared statement, given out in a press release to be reproduced verbatim. How could an interest in anarchy (which does not seem to have been made out in any account I have read, and I would be grateful to be pointed to the evidence) have utility in bombing people? It might, just, provide motivation, although there are lots of pacifist anarchists and few violent nihilists, but practical assistance? And “in support of his political views”? No, quite back-to-front. His crimes were in (mistaken) pursuit of his political views. There is a worrying muddling of means and ends there. What Cooper did was wrong; it does not support his views in the slightest. The criminality is founded in his intent to damage property and injure people. But we are left with the impression that the views are the mens rea. Except I do not think he should be making it at all, I would have no quarrel with D-Supt Turner’s prepared statement had it said:
What he actually said is a disturbing glimpse of an official mind-set in which non-conformity and violence, dissent and criminality, are confounded. This is both an historical and an historiographical puzzle. It might well be true. It would be interesting if it were. I do not think it is of any consequence for current affairs or community relations whether it is true or not (and I could not give a damn what anyone thinks on that point either way). But I thought my naval history was pretty good, and I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. The BBC reports Trevor Philips speaking at an event today:
Now what is he going on about? How would one arrange that with 16th century communications? Elizabeth certainly chartered a Levant Company, and had diplomatic relations with the Ottomans. But where is the evidence? Did the Turks hold up the Armada at all? And if so did they do it by arrangement? If so, what’s the new research that “only now” gives us this information? If not, where does Mr Phillips get the idea from? |
|||||
![]()
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |