Monday 30 April 2012

366/121 - Bath

Click here for today's water themed Project 366!

BBC Olympic torch trailer

There will be cynics who don't like it, who aren't behind the build up to the Olympic Games, but I think this BBC Olympic torch trailer, with it's tease of the specially commissioned Elbow track that will be used as their Olympic coverage theme tune, is genuinely inspiring.



What do you think?

OPINION: Roy Hodgson to be England manager

The F.A. never fails to amaze with its decisions. Everyone was expecting Harry Redknapp to be announced as the next England manager, but yesterday, it was announced that they were in discussions with Roy Hodgson and that he was the only person they had approached.


The announcement didn't go down well with many who wanted to see Redknapp at the helm for Euro 2012 and beyond.

But wait a second...

Roy Hodgson is a much better choice. The F.A. have, for once, made the right decision.

Not only is Hodgson more experienced than Redknapp, with successful times managing national teams and managing a major European club side (all things that Redknapp hasn't done), he's won more trophies than Harry and is a safe pair of hands, with no allegations against him.

I think Roy Hodgson could be the ideal manager but, it must be remembered, he is 64 and the F.A. must start planning now for who will follow him.

Sunday 29 April 2012

COMMENT: Dwain Chambers should not be selected for the Olympics

Tomorrow's pre-announced decision from the Court of Arbitration for Sport is fundamentally flawed. Cheats like Dwain Chambers and David Millar should never be selected to represent their country again.


While we have national selection, it should be up to each nation to set its own criteria but, surely, when someone has been proven to blatantly cheat for financial gain, has wrecked other competitors careers and hasn't named names they should never be allowed to compete again, let alone be selected to represent a nation at high profile, and, ultimately, profitable events like the Olympics.

Let's be honest, if Dwain Chambers wins the 100m gold will anyone be pleased? Will anyone, even the most patriotic, feel it is good for the country? And will I be the only one wondering whether he is genuinely clean?

The likes of Chambers and Millar, and Ben Johnson, and Linford Christie, and Chrustine for that matter, knew what the rules were. They chose to break them. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a spots stadium ever again, and they certainly shoukdnt be allows anywhere near young athletes.

The British Olympic Assiciation's stance is good and should be lauded. Their upholding of anti drug cheat laws should be the gold standard to which all nations should aspire. The BOA shouldn't be forced to lower their standards to those of other countries.

Cheats are cheats. They made a choice. The CAS decision is a travesty of justice.

366/120 - chilli jar

Click here for today's fiery Project 366!

Bring back "SONG FOR EUROPE"

It's nearly that time of year again when the nation, and probably the rest of Europe, get divided by those who love and those who loathe the Eurovision Song Contest.


I'm very much in the love camp. It's a great event, a fantastic show, an exchange of cultures and a lot of fun. Sure, there may be some strange outing patterns, but I think they're overstressed by the nations who lose.

One thing, however, that does concern me is the way that the UK entry is selected.

In the past we had Song for Europe in which shortlisted songs and acts ompeted against each other to win the public's vote and, ultimately, the chance to represent the UK at Eurovision, which this year is being held in Baku, Azerbaijan.



Some years, the performer was ore-selected and songwriters wrote songs for that performer. I liked that. t put the emphasis on the songwriting because, after all, this is meant o be a songwriting competition.

Then we had the song imposed on us and chose wo would sing it. This, I thought, really wasn't in the spirit of Eurovision and, even with songwriters as eminent as Andrew Lloyd Webber chosen to write the song, missed the point.

And now we have a situation whereby there is no public vote, no selection process, no home of song and no choice of performer, It's all decided by a small group of music industry people in a darkened room.



This year's song is ok but, in my opinion, fails to really make the best use of Englebert Humperdinck's voice. It will probably do ok but I'd be amazed if it won, but the biggest problem is that the public haven't had the chance to have their say about it. They haven't invested in it in any way. They aren't part of the journey.

It's time that Song for Europe was bought back and the public choice the song. With Internet voting the long list of entries could be quite long before being whittled down to a shortlist of finalists, but it's important that we return to entering a songwriting contest, not just a celebrity singing contest, or, worse still, an X Factor karaoke night.

COMMENT: Cardinal Keith O'Brien is a hypocrite

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in the United Kingdom,has criticised the Prime Minister and the coalition government of acting immorally by favouring the wealthy over ordinary people.


Cardinal O'Brien also expressed support for a "Robin Hood" tax on financial transactions.

Now there is much that is wrong with the policies of the coalition government but it seems particularly amusing for the Catholic church to be lecturing the Tory party on economic morality.

It is time that the Catholic church, along with all other religious bodies, paid their fair share of tax as international corporations. The churches avoid and evade paying tax on their annual profits which run to billions of pounds each year.

The Catholic church uses large amounts of donations, given to support the world's poorest and most vulnerable, to, instead, support senior clergy in affluent lifestyles and, of course, to cover up the many child abuse cases that have rocked the church.

The Papacy, with its own state, is a tax haven, and is one of the most offensive places on earth for displaying wealth - and all the while their priests preach about fairness and equality.

As for the "Robin Hood" tax - this clearly demonstrates that the church is acting without conscience, and the Cardinal speaks without morality. Most people agree that the banks and other financial institutions have acted illegally, but, instead of stopping these bad practises and bringing things back to fair, just and legal, the "Robin Hood" tax merely taxes the illegal activity. It makes the state complicit in the wrongful acts.

Jesus, had he existed, would have been a communist. The Pope is no different from a Ceaușescu or Louis XVI.

It is time or the Catholic church to look at itself in the mirror - a disgraced organisation, harbouring paedophiles, giving senior clerics a life of luxury while ordinary people suffer, with policies on contraception that have caused the deaths of hundreds if nous ands worldwide, and with a disposable tax record - before criticising others.

How to build an ark...

I looked out of the window this morning and wondered whether my car would be up to the journey I have to make.



Then I looked up How to Build an Ark, and this seems to be the recommended method:

1. The first step is to get your hands on a large quantity of gopherwood (if you don't have gopherwood handy try another wood that doesn't easily rot).

2. Prepare a framework for your ark.

3. At 300 cubits (450 feet) by 50 cubits (75 feet), this titanic structure (hopefully there won't be icebergs) could take weeks to build. So don't delay!

4. Attach planking to the outer hull.

5. Use several coats of pitch to seal any gaps.

6. Remember, you'll be living in your ark for 40 days with no television or broadband, so pack some cards and maybe a board game or two.

7. Round up family (optional) and pairs of animals, them wait to float!



Good luck and Bon voyage!

Thursday 26 April 2012

Children of the Rainbow - singing to oppose terrorism

Earlier today around 40,000 people gathered in an Oslo square to sing Children of the Rainbow , a popular peace song which mass killer Anders Breivik has condemned during his trial.




Breivik had accused Lillebjoern Nilsen, the singer of Children of the Rainbow, of being a Marxist intent on brainwashing children with his music.

366/117 - Rylands Methodist Church

Click here for today's Project 366 which includes an orchestral medley of hits by Steps!

COMMENT: Independent daze

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The laws of the land are made by political parties and so they will be made to help political parties.

That's all well and good - until you have an independent candidate standing.


Siobhan Benita is an independent candidate in the election for London mayor. She is a fresh new face, unlike the 3 candidates from the major parties, all who were around four years ago. And Siobhan is doing very well, considering she doesn't have the weight of one of the monolithic parties behind her. Currently, according to opinion polls she is standing fourth - behind Labour, Tory and Lib Dem candidates, but ahead of the Green, BNP and UKIP candidates.

Election law stipulates how much media coverage the candidates receive and makes sure things are fair.

But it isn't fair.

Election broadcasts, and specifically the quantity of them, are based on performance at previous elections by each party. In the election for London mayor the big 3 parties have all had multiple broadcasts, and the smaller parties have all be allowed a broadcast too.

But Siobhan isn't allowed one.

As a newbie, without electoral history personally, and without the weight of history provided by an established party, she's not allowed an election broadcast - and her position in the opinion polls counts for nothing.

So the racists of the BNP and UKIP get to flaunt their distasteful policies on television and radio, Labour's Jen Livingstone, with his various unpleasant views and dubious tax arrangements, gets some, the standing mayor is allowed to defend his record, even Brian Paddick is allowed airtime to try to pretend his party hasn't been subsumed into the Tory Party...

... but Siobhan Benita, a woman whose message many are turning to, isn't allowed an election broadcast because the parties have stitched up the law about election broadcasts.

It is undemocratic. It is blatantly wrong and unjust. It's a situation that must be changed.

REVIEW: Beautiful Minds - Richard Dawkins

Everyone knows Richard Dawkins. Most people have an opinion about Richard Dawkins. Christians, and those of other faiths, hate that he highlights the nonsense in their posturing. Many atheists seem to hold him up as, well, a God!


This BBC4 programme, the last in a series about eminent contemporary scientists, explored Dawkins the man, and what made him into the cult figure he now is.

Dawkins is, by trade, a zoologist but his mark was made, back in the 1970s, with his book, The Selfish Gene.

He has always had an ability to explain complex things in a straightforward and clear, some might say populist, way, but, of course, there are many, mostly opponents, who claim he is too preachy.

Of course, Dawkins would be nobody without Darwin, and the programme explained how he first got into biology via his parents interests interest in the natural world and then an inspirational teacher at Oundle School.

I've not seen the other programmes in the series, though I know others who have, but I thoroughly enjoyed the way this showed how Dawkins developed his thoughts. It was fascinating to see someone who wasn't a child genius but grew into the subject and developed an understanding that, eventually, made him, arguably, the most important person in his field of his generation.

A great programme, definitely worth watching (still on iPlayer).

baked

This is a short piece for solo piano.

The tune at about 2'08" uses the musical letters from the word baked (B,A,E,D).

baked is a new bakery and cafe opening in Derby on May 5th 2012 and I had just been reading their tweets (@bakedderby) which gave me the idea for the piece!

For more information about baked: http://www.baked-derby.com/

Wednesday 25 April 2012

366/116 - Tesco, Beeston

Click here for today's shopping themed Project 366.

COMMENT: Jeremy Hunt and the Murdochs

Yesterday was a truly amazing day at the Leveson inquiry.

James Murdoch, Rupert's son, initially seemed to be struggling with the questions and, apparently, was unable to recall various things, or said that something wasn't his recollection.


Then he dumped on Jeremy Hunt, the Culture secretary. He dumped on him from a very big height.

Hunt's behaviour, leaking information, having excessive meetings with the Murdochs, phoning them with secret information, etc. clearly suggests he is unfit for office, and I don't just mean to be a Secretary of State, I mean as an MP.

However, I don't think he should resign, or, preferably, be sacked just yet despite calls from Labour and many anti-Murdoch newspapers. It is right that Hunt has his day at the inquiry and, indeed, that we wait for Leveson's findings and report.

The evidence seems damning, and other MPs, on both sides of the House, are likely to be sweating rather more today, but to call for heads before the inquiry is complete is premature.

Yes, if Jeremy Hunt feels his position is now untenable then he should resign, but, if he thinks his position is untenable, he should stand down as an MP. It is not sufficient to stand down from senior office because of dodgy dealings and practises. Such dishonesty must be removed from parliament.

I await Rupert Murdoch's evidence today. I wonder if he will tighten the noose currently hanging limply around David Cameron's neck. Whatever he says, I'm sure it will be the most humble day of his life!

Tuesday 24 April 2012

366/115 - Clock

Click here for today's clock themed Project 366!

Dorries calls Cameron an "over-educated posh boy"

Nadine Dorries' criticism of her own party leader, David Cameron, as being an "over-educated posh boy" takes politics to a new low.


Nadine Dorries is, of course, well known for regularly saying stupid, badly thought through and, often, objectionable things, but to criticise someone for being well-educated seems particularly ridiculous. Would she prefer that there was a limit of, say, 5 GCSEs to be an MP. If you get more, or higher, qualifications you can't stand? Truly idiotic and, surely, a further example that Dorries' mouth works separate from her brain.

Then she called him a "posh boy". Would she criticise John Prescott for his working class background? Would she criticise you and me because of decisions our patents and grandparents made? Doesn't this show that Nadine Dorries' is out of touch with society?

What next? Her comments aren't that far from criticising the disabled for being disabled or black people for the colour of their skin.

Dorries needs to spend some more time thinking about what she says or, hopefully, the electorate will remove this two-faced bigot from Westminster at the earliest possible opportunity.

Claire Squires' charity donations pilfered by Just Giving

When Claire Squires collapsed and died on Birdcage Walk at the end of the London Marathon, she became the first woman in the event's 31 year history, to do so.


She was raising money for The Samaritans and collecting donations, like many others, via a Just Giving page.

Since her tragic death, donations to her chosen cause, via the page have kept on going and, in fact, have increased dramatically with monies coming from all around the world. Currently the total stands at about £200,000.

The Samaritans would, I'm sure, love to get that £200,000 to put towards the various good works they do .... but they won't get all of it.

Just Giving, unlike other similar charity collection websites such as Virgin Money Giving, will take a cut of all the donations made to go into their own coffers.

Yes, every time you donate to a charity via Just Giving they take a percentage from your donation.

This may be legal, it may be in the small print that everyone signs up to, but it feels like piracy on charity donations.

This seems bad enough as a matter of course, but to pilfer the donations made to Claire Squires, a woman who died whilst trying to help others, seems obscene.

Will Just Giving make an exception and waive their cut from the charity donations? Sadly I doubt it.

In the meantime, if you want to make a donation to Claire Squires charity appeal and want all the money to go to The Samaritans, I'd suggest bypassing Just Giving and donate directly to The Samaritans.

Monday 23 April 2012

366/114 - World Book Night

Click here for today's World Book Night Project 366 posting.

World Book Night 2012

World Book Night is a celebration of the written held annually on 23rd April - Shakespeare's birthday.


The idea is simple.

This evening 1,000,000 books will be given away for free by people who have chosen a book that means something to them from a list.

I'm at Derby QUAD, sitting in the café drinking a hot chocolate, waiting for the book give away to begin at about 7pm.

I know what I'm getting, a copy of The Damned United (David Peace's account of Brian Clough's tumultuous time as manager of Leeds United) because I follow the person doing the giving away on Twitter.

All the books are softback special editions of well-known books - some classics alongside more contemporary fare - and the idea is to help promote reading in society by taking it out of libraries and book stores and putting it in unusual places, and, by having interested people give away the books, it's hoped that their enthusiasm will rub off on others.

It's a novel approach (yes, that was deliberate) and a great idea.

Who knows, maybe in years to come I can write a book that's given away at a future World Book Night.

For more information:www.worldbooknight.org

IN PRAISE OF ... Man v. Food

I know that, on one level, it is truly gross and, as a vegetarian, I should be appalled by it but I absolutely love Man v. Food. It's my guilty secret. If you've not seen it you must.


Originally a Travel Channel programme, it's currently being aired on Dave in the UK.

Beginning in 2008, Adam Richman has now had four seasons of eating his way around America's favourite "pig out" joints - finding out about the food, how it's prepared and, at the end of each show, taking on an eating challenge.

The eating challenges vary. Some are sheer quantity (huge platefuls of meat or seafood, a 12 patty burger, etc.) while some are because of the number of super hot chillies in the food. Always, the task is incredible and most, but not all, of the time Adam succeeds in defeating Food!


It's all very macho and you could easily think he's talking about sports or cars, but Richman genuinely loves food and, in this slightly gross out way, the programme is a celebration of food.

It ought to be awful and cringeworthy but, because Adam
Is both likeable and knowledgable, as well as being a good presenter, it is compelling television.

Man v. Food makes Gordon Ramsey's approach to cooking and presentation seem very timid and effete.

I'm sure there are dieticians and doctors appalled by the size of platters that get devoured, and I dread to think what the calorie count is on each show, but it's not like it's every meal, and he's not saying that it's good to just stuff your face. Indeed, he visits the kitchens and sees the food being prepared with love and care.

I'd love there to be a European edition, or a worldwide series, but, sadly, the most international Man v. Food has got so far is to cross the Northern border into Canada!

Premier League Manager of the Season

The football season (soccer!) is coming to an end and, alongside who will win various trophies or be relegated or promoted, the question has to be:

Who should be the Manager of the Year?

More often than not it's an accolade that's been awarded to the manager of the team who wins the Premier League and, while that seems logical, it doesn't necessarily say who has been the best.

Yes, it's a great achievement to win the Premier League but whether it's Mancini's Manchester City or Ferguson's Manchester United they will have done it with established Premier League squads, packed full of internationals all on huge salaries and with an enormous budget to support and add to their current players.

Alex Ferguson has had a mixed season with notable failures along the road - not only was Man U's first half of the season poor on their own terms, but their exits from various cup competitions, including Borg European trophies, suggests a manager who is no past his best. Surely, Ferguson's days at Okd Trafford are numbered?


Roberto Mancini has continued to transform the blue side of Manchester under great pressure and expectation from the wealthy owners. He has assembled an impressive squad who have made advances on previous seasons but his position is still under threat and, unless they do win the Premier League in the next few weeks, he has failed to win any cups of make an impact in Europe.

Harry Redknapp was having an amazing season with Spurs, right up until the point when Capello left the England job and he became the red hot favourite to take over the national team. Spurs could still finish in the top 4 and qualify for next season's Champions' League, which is an amazing achievement, but, I think it's fair to say, they have back pedalled this season and there must be many who are now less certain at the prospect of Harry being the England manager.

Arsene Wenger's season has been too mixed, with, at some points, fans calling for his head on a silver platter. Kenny Dalglish's domestic cup success has been eclipsed by a cataclysmic descent in league form. Roberto di Matteo has done well but only been in charge for a small proportion of the season.

That leaves one serious candidate, and my choice as Manager of the Season...

Newcastle United have exceeded all but the most most die-hard of fans expectations and have played with style and flair. They've certainly qualified for Europe and, as I write, have a very good chance of qualifying for the Champions' League. They have sustained their performances throughout the season and, while their cup performances weren't good, their league form has gone from strength to strength despite limited finances and continued uncertainty about the ownership of the club. This is only their second season back in the top flight, and Pardew's only been in charge for a year and a half. A fantastic achievement. I just hope the FA steer clear and don't try to lure him to Wembley...

My manager of the year, by a long way, has to be:

ALAN PARDEW

COMMENT: St. George's Day - a national disgrace

Today, 23rd April, is St. George's Day - the feast day of the patron saint of England and the day when the English celebrate their nationalism.


It should just be a silly nonsense - an heroic myth, taken up by a religion and attached to a country he never visited, but, instead, it has become an absolute disgrace that is now more a celebration of nasty right-wing jingoism and an opportunity fir Neanderthals to flaunt their xenophobia and racism.

Today, the cross of St. George is rightly regarded as a symbol of extremism and, specifically, of racists, belonging to the likes of the BNP, UKIP and EDL. In a recent survey a quarter of English people think it is a symbol of extremism, and yet some supposedly well meaning campaigners argue that it is harmless and want an English anthem, an English parliament... they seem to think that England (a country that hasn't existed in any meaningful form for over 200 years) needs to divide itself off from others at a time when political union, co-operation and integration are clearly the way forward.

George, if he was a real person at all, never visited England and, of course, never fought a dragon. He was fom Turkey or Lebanon (nobody's too sure) and used violence to support and impose his religious faith on others, but, despite this , the Catholic church don't recognise his feast day any more.

So why do we bother with such nonsense? St. George's Day is, at best, a pointless frippery but, at worst, and more often, is an outright affront to civilised society. It is about belief in a supernatural big buddy. It is about dividing the UK. It is about nasty jingoism and evil. St. George's Day is, today, a celebration for stupid people to display their lack of education.

St. George's Day has no place in the modern world, and its message is bad for society. We don't need a patron saint and we don't need a day that enables racists and xenophobes to highlight and celebrate their beliefs.

Sunday 22 April 2012

366/113 - Wrap

Click here for April 22nd Project 366.

Why do people take popular music so seriously?

I do find it strange that so many take popular music so seriously.


No, don't worry, this isn't going to be a snobby and elitist blog post about why classical music is better, and why only stupid people like pop music. I like pop music, in all (well, nearly all) it's many incarnations. In my time, I've bought albums by Steps and Coldplay, Bananarama and Kylie, The Beatles, Abba, Meat Loaf, Human League... the list goes on.

I like pop music (I'll be using that to mean all popular music styles and not just those songs of a particular style or chart success), and I admire the craft that goes into producing many a perfect pop song.

But it's just a pop song!

However great a piece of pop music is, however well structured or crafted it is, however much the music and lyrics work together in perfect harmony, in the end it is just a pop song - it is, and always will be, ephemera - it is all part of the popular culture detritus that every generation leaves behind.

In the art world, nobody believes that the paintings of Jack Vettriano or the recently deceased Thomas Kinkade are worthy of much merit. They are pleasant pieces of art that put no demands on the viewer and are intended for a commercial market place. I'm sure the artists are well aware that they will almost certainly have no long lasting legacy. They are creating images for money and money alone.

In the theatre, nobody makes out that pantomime and farces are anything more than simple entertainment, and while the best of them can be memorable and bring a smile to the audience I very much doubt that it is scripts of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" that will be the scripts from our time that are remembered in generations to come.

In the world of literature, many love and devour the works of Dan Brown, Jackie Collins or J.K.Rowling but only the most die-hard of fans would suggest they are anything more than good yarns. If the start of the third millennium is remembered for the "Da Vinci Code" and the Harry Potter books the world will have gone mad.

In the movie world, everyone knows that the vast majority of the big blockbusters are there for entertainment but do nothing to advance the art of movie making and are produced as a means to get you to part with your ticket money. They have no pretensions to being art.

In all these other arts people seem happy to accept that there is nothing wrong with popularity or commercialism. They don't seem to care that the book that they are reading is nothing more than a good story to occupy their time and wash over them but has no lasting worth - so why do people take pop music so seriously?

Why do so many people treat simple formulaic songs as if they are the greatest thing ever created by mankind?

And why do normally sensible and serious newspapers give so much coverage to what, in food terms, is little more than an unhealthy take away?

Yes, pop music is fab, pop music is fun, pop music can lift your spirits, but it Is just pop music. However hungry you are you wouldn't eat a Big Mac and fries and think it was the best meal in the world, worthy of Michelin stars. But that is just what loads of people do with pop music.

Now I've made it clear, I like pop music. Sure, as I get older I find myself getting more picky and selective. There is very little Hip Hop or R'n'B that I like, and I find jazz often just ends up rambling, but I'll listen to most things, and I have my favourites.

But, were I to be stranded on the BBC's Desert Island and asked to select just 8 pieces of music to keep me company, I doubt, very much, that the final list would have many pop songs on the list.

Pop music is instant aural gratification. Pop songs are crafted by very able songwriters who know exactly how to tug on the heart strings of the listener, but they are not art.

By their very definition and purpose a pop song cannot be art.

Let's get some things straight:

Eminem is NOT the modern day equivalent of Shakespeare. His amusing, and often crude, rhyming couplets bare no reasonable comparison to the works of what many would argue is the greatest writer in the English language ever.

Lennon & McCartney wrote some very effective songs and stretched what was acceptable in a pop song (thanks, in no small part, to the influence and input of George Martin) but their output is mere flotsam and jetsom compared to the works of the truly great composers. Any number of perfect 4-minute pop songs don't compare to the symphonies and operas and sonatas and string quartets of the genuine musical geniuses.

•If Mozart were alive today it is highly unlikely he'd have been writing chart hits. If he were alive today I'm not sure what Wolfgang would be doing but I suspect he might be writing Sondheim-like pieces of music theatre, or fantastic movie scores, or sticking to classical music and doing that brilliantly.

•However much time and effort is put into the production of a pop record is irrelevant to the composition. Songs, of all styles, stand, or fall, by the quality of the composition and not the production or the video. In a ideal world all these elements work together, combining to give the listener the best product, but the vast majority of pop songwriters, and all of those with any sense of proportion, realise their track will disappear with them, or probably long before them, save for a few PRSeRning plays on retro/gold radio stations.

Pop music is great, but let's not pretend it has any worth or longevity. The Beatles won't be remembered in anything more than an interesting footnote in 200 years and it's time that arts editors stopped pretending that they, and the rest of pop music, are anything more important than that.

When I ran a marathon...

It was 1983. I was studying for my A-levels at Cricklade College in Andover. I was young, fit and healthy but I wasn't a runner.


During the summer holidays after the exams, the Performing Arts faculty were going in a month long tour of North East USA, taking music, drama and dance shows with us. We'd been fundraising for months and, in a moment of madness, I had agreed to run the Basingstoke Marathon to raise more sponsorship.

I did very little to prepare for the race. As I say, I was young and fit but, since leaving secondary school two years before, I wasn't doing any regular sporting activity. I did a couple of jogs around the fields near my parents' house but that was it.

The race began at Basingstoke Rugby Club where, as a little 'un, I'd been taught how to play rugby by Reg Hurley, Kiz Hurley's father.

I was nervous but excited. I can't remember how many competitors there were but this was the height of jogging mania. The London Marathon had begun a couple of years earlier and every medium-sized town now had its own marathon.

I started well and did the first five miles in about 45 minutes. Yes, that was way too fast.

I remember being cheered on by various mates along the route and each time it gave md a huge burst, but it got harder and harder and my legs got heavier and heavier. After a while I could have probably walked faster - but I kept going.

I was just about at the back of all the runners. I was in agony, and there were still miles to go. The ambulance sweeping up the strugglers drive along just behind me, but I kept going.

I arrived back at the rugby club to find virtually nobody there. Most people had gone home.

I decided to sprint to the finish. Summoning up my final burst of energy, I began a 385 yards sprint to the finish line...

I didn't finish last, but in that that final sprint I was overtaken by a man running with a dog (I'm not sure whether the dog had run the whole 26 miles) AND a blind man being lead around by someone else.

5 hours 23 minutes 49 seconds

Absolutely knackered.

My parents had gone home - they assumed I'd stopped somewhere out on the course.

I spent most of the evening in a hot bath soaking my aching legs. The following morning, a Monday, I had an exam. It took me 20 minutes to walk to the bus stop - normally it took 3 or 4 minutes.

The following Saturdat I played my friend Steve at tennis but, even a week later, I had to stand and stretch to reach balls as I was still in a lot of pain!

One day it would be great to run another marathon but I suspect that now my 1983 time would be just a dream!

COMMENT: Debating with the BNP

It's been announced that both Labour's candidate for London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, and the Green Party's candidate, Jenny Jones, have pulled out of a BBC London mayoral debate because the BNP candidate is taking part and they refuse to share a platform with them.

Aren't they being undemocratic?


Yes, there is much to object to in the BNP's policies, and, yes, I find those views unacceptable in the modern world. Quite how the BNP's blatantly racist policies could work in London, arguably the world's most multi-cultural city, is beyond me, but the BNP is a legal political party and are standing for election.

Why not debate with the BNP and show how ridiculous, divisive and objectionable they are?

Surely, as part of an election process, the best thing to do is engage all the parties so that the electorate can decide between them on the power if their argument and the strength of their policies?

Are Labour and the Green Party worried that their own policies aren't strong enough?

I can see many reasons why Ken Livingstone might want to avoid any public debate. He mustbe desperate to swerve further investigation of his income tax payments and he has many questions to answer about various racist, sexist and anti-semite comments he himself has made. Maybe Ken fears he would find himself agreeing with the BNP candidate too much?

I think there are many who find sharing a platform with Ken Livingstone highly objectionable.

I'm particularly disappointed that Jenny Jones has opted to pull out if the debate. In doing so I feel she has brought the Green Party, one of the most liberal and democratic parties in the country, into disrepute. I hope she changes her mind and debates like a grown up.

After all, the GLA will have representatives from a wide range of parties, and whoever is elected Mayor will have to work with them all. Would Ken and Jenny not work with an elected official if they were from a party which they objected to?

Another issue is that many of the BNP policies aren't that different from those of UKIP and the Tories. Some of the right-wing of the Tory party may as well be in the BNP.

So what should happen?

Ken Livingstone and Jenny Jones need to grow up and act like adults. They need to respect the democracy of the UK, and if they don't they should lose their right to take part in all remaining debates. They shouldn't be picking and choosing.

Saturday 21 April 2012

COMMENT: F1 Bahrain Grand Prix

So it looks like the Bahrain Grand Prix will go ahead tomorrow despite protests in the country itself continuing and an increasingly vociferous opposition from human rights groups and left wing political parties. 


I still can't decide what would be the right thing. 

Yes, Bahrain has an oppressive monarchy that has violently squashed opposition and, yes, the Bahrain government is guilty of all sorts of human rights violations but should that mean a car race, organised by a private company and not representing any national teams, be stopped? I still don't understand the double standards of those opposed to the Bahrain Grand Prix.

Why speak out against Bahrain hosting a race but not China? To be taken seriously surely there has to be a consistency in outcry?

How many countries are without human rights violations?

I mean, should a nation that has beaten and kettles protestors, had five days of riots last summer during which the police lost control of many city centres, and have a proven record of institutional racism in the police be allowed to hold a Grand Prix?

Yes, in an ideal world sport should be able to operate outside of politics, particularly when the teams competing are private rather than national, but, of course, the world isn't ideal and politics circles sports events like a pack of rabid hyenas. 

I guess my biggest fear, after the idiot at the Boat Race, is that a protestor will have an "Emily Davison" moment during tomorrow's race.  Where would that leave Formula One, international sport and, consequently, this summer's Olympics?

366/112 - Devonshire Dome, Buxton

Click here for my Saturday morning Project 366.

Wednesday 18 April 2012

366/109 - Penny farthing

Click here for today's photo, music and word.

100 Days to the London Olympics

Today marks 100 days until the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games in London.


To me, the Olympics are a tremendous event, something which is inspirational, something which will be remembered for a lifetime, and something which will have a physical and emotional legacy on future generations.

Yes, I accept there are issues about the Olympics.

Some point to the cost of staging the games, whilst ignoring the increased tourism they will bring.

Some point to the potential for terrorism, or to what they consider to be OTT restrictions on civil rights during the Games - but i'd rather the Games went off without incident with everyone safe.

Some point to the corporate sponsors and say that a few of the companies giving money to the Games have questionable backgrounds and records - and I, for one, have some sympathy for their view. I wish it wasn't necessary to have any corporate sponsorship at all. I wish that fast food and confectionary companies couldn't link their names with sports events. I wish that companies with bad human rights records couldn't try to make themselves look good by linking to the Games. It is an unfortunate by-product of the economic system the West has chosen.

Some point to the transportation delays possible during the Games but ignore that there's been plenty of warning and it's up to individuals to make sensible arrangements. Remember, it is only for a couple of weeks.

Some dismiss the sportsmen and women as over paid prima donnas and mostly drug cheats. Yes, that may be the case for a few, and the Okympucs need to look seriously at whether drugs cheats are ever allowed to compete again, but the vast majority are examples of humanity excelling in sporting endeavours.

Some, including me, are hoping the Olympics doesn't become a tasteless orgy if nationalistic jingoism - but fear that our tabloid press will fuel such unpleasant fervour.

But, even if all of those things were true, even if all of them were as bad as they could get, I think the Olympic Games is a fantastic event and one which the UK, an historically important sporting nation, should be looking forward to hosting.

Monday 16 April 2012

366/107 - pill popping

Click here for today's photo, music and word!

BAD GIRLS GO TO HELL - for string quartet (or string orchestra)

Bad Girls Go To Hell is a fast and furious piece for string quartet (or string orchestra)

It would make a tremendous finale to a concert, or, perhaps, an encore



CLICK HERE to download a pdf of the score

Please message me if you're interested in performing the piece and require parts.

Paul Nicholls shows how horse racing is out of touch

Paul Nicholls, the owner of the winning horse at last Saturday's controversial Grand National, thinks that it wads "fantastic race" and that critics of the race, which saw two horses being killed, should "grow up".


He also called for the media to focus more on the positives of the race.

Paul Nicholls is one of horse racing's most successful owners, and, while he's not a spokesperson for the horse racing industry, it's fair to say that his views are typical of those within the racing fraternity - a "sport" which sees around 420 horses killed at racecourses annually and many more killed away from race days.

Mr. Nicholls went on to say that everyone knows the risks but that it is the Grand National. He ignored the fact that do many horses die in less high profile races throughout the year.

Paul Nicholls outburst shows our of touch with the public mood the horse racing industry is and why restrictions need to be placed on future races and the risks involved.

Breivik's Nazi salute

As he entered the court room to face charges of murdering 77 people in Oslo last summer, Anders Breivik gave a Nazi salute before saying he did not accept the court had jurisdiction over him.



Click here for background facts about the trial.

COMMENT: Too many minute silences

At yesterday's F.A. Cup semi-final at Wembley a small group of Chelsea fans disrupted the pre-kick off minute's silence. This has re-ignites the debate about respect in society and, specifically, the behaviour of football fans.


But doesn't that miss the point, to some extent?

In recent years there has been a massive proliferation of minute silences for all sorts of things. Increasingly the reason for the minute silence isn't known or understood, and, increasingly, the minute silence has no relevance to the fans.

Yesterday, for instance, the minute silence was to mark the 23rd anniversary (hardly a significant one) of the Hillsborough disaster - a match that was between two completely different teams, the most affected of which, Liverpool, is a fierce rival of the two teams playing.

Sure, I get the point that it is polite to respect a minute silence whenever it is done and for whatever purpose. In an ideal world that would be the case but, as far as I can see, there are now do many minute silences at sporting events that they have been made insignificant. There currency is now worthless

To me there are two solutions:

1) Restrict minute silences to truly significant memorials, and, on the whole, only ones that the teams playing are affected by

2) Have more minute of applause when that is appropriate - I accept it isn't always appropriate but when it is it is vastly preferable.

Sunday 15 April 2012

COMMENT: Video technology - why not?

Why on earth FIFA, or UEFA, or even just the FA, hasn't introduced video technology is beyond me. This evening the FA Cup Semi-Final became a nonsense after Chelsea were awarded a goal that despite the fact that the ball hadn't crossed the line.


It's been a bad weekend for British sport, what with the bloodbath that was the Grand National and now goals being awarded that clearly weren't goals, and in both instances it's the authorities who are to blame.

Ok, so the ref was unsighted - it happens - and apparently neither if his assistants could see either - I guess that can happen - but despite not seeing the ball cross the line the ref still awarded the goal. Why? What made him decide that the Chelsea celebrations were more genuine than the Spurs players' protests? Surely, if he didn't see it he shouldn't award it?

And what of the Chelsea players who did see that the goal hadn't crossed the line, but still celebrated as if a goal had been scored? I do hope that the FA take action against these cheats. John Terry, in particular, should never be chosen as England captain again and, I'd go as far as to say, he shouldn't be selected for the national team ever again. Today he blatantly cheated to ruin an important match. If there was any justice he should be banned for life from all football - his cheating was as bad as Ben Johnson or Dwayne Chambers drug offences. He is morally corrupt and his prescience on any football field again is unwelcome.

So what should happen?

The FA should order an immediate re-match. The ref should be struck off - you can it award something you didn't see. And the Chelsea cheats should be banned for life.

I know it won't happen. The football authorities don't act in the interest of fair play. After all, they upheld Shaun Derry's red card for QPR against Manchester United last week, when everyone who saw the replay clearly saw that Ashley Young cheated by taking a dive. This weekend the same cheat took a dive in the match against Aston Villa, again resulting on a penalty for Man U - he shouldn't even have been on the pitch.

Football must weed out the cheats. They subvert the sport, they ruin the game, they make a mockery of the rules of the game. Ashley Young, along with John Terry, should be banned for life.

And then video technology has to be introduced. It happens on cricket and rugby, why not football? The delay, at crucial moments, is a matter of seconds, but it ensures fairness, justice and the correct result.

If Chelsea win the FA Cup, Manchester United win the league, and John Terry represents the national team they may as well insist that, in future, all players wear a red nose and have a squirty flower.

366/106 - car flower

Click here for day 106 of my Project 366.

Saturday 14 April 2012

"Eskimo kisses" - 3 miniatures for solo piano

This evening I couldn't face watching the normal rubbish TV so I write these little miniatures instead.

If you'd like a copy of the sheet music do message me.

COMMENT: More variety, fewer contests

For the past decade primetime TV schedules have been dominated by celebrities doing things out of their natural comfort zone and non-entities competing in talent shows.

I guess, if that's what the public want, then why not...

Except, where are the opportunities for all those who are successful in talent shows to pursue their career?


Back in the 70s, when I was a kid, there were talent shows like Opportunity Knocks and New Faces, in the same way that today we have X Factor and Britain's Got Talent, but there were also shows on which the more successful acts could continue and develop their career.

1970s style Variety shows and comedy shows might seem rather dated now, but surely there's a place for a modern version? Surely the investment initially put into lots of performers via talent shows warrants a place where they can continue to work as an artist?

Wouldn't it be good to have a prime time show, maybe like Sunday Night at the London Palladium where we were entertained by good and experienced acts rather than having to suffer so many no-hopers for the sake of the occasional success?

366/105 - Yucca (specially for Howard)

Click here for today's plant-themed Project 366!

2012 Grand National - the result

And so the 2012 Grand National has happened. Before it was run it was billed as the safest Grand National ever, with changes having been made to several of the historic jumps, and the media has been full of reassuring statements about how things had been improved this year after two horses were killed last year.


40 horses started.

16 horses fell on the first lap - 40% of those that started.

Use of the whip was excessive by many riders in the final run-in.

Only 15 horses finished - that's just 38% of the starting line- up.

Two horses were killed and a third is being treated on the course

So much for it being safer. So much for the horse race industry caring about animals. The BBC commentators ignored the atrocities.

The Grand National is the single biggest gambling event in the UK with something in excess of £200,000,000 being staked on the race today. Clearly there are many who put the chance of winning a few quid above the safety of horses and, even, jockeys. There is no such thing as a harmless flutter. Every person who placed a bet is partly responsible for the deaths and injuries.

It's time for the Grand National to be stopped but, more than that, it is time for all horse racing to be thoroughly investigated. I fear it will only be the death of a jockey that will bring the horse racing industry to change their ways.

Last year's Grand National...



Don't forget your Grand National Sweepstake for this year's race!

IN PRAISE OF ... Keith Floyd

Watching Saturday Kitchen on BBC1 this morning and they've just shown an ancient clip of Keith Floyd.


I liked Keith Floyd. Unlike so many television cooks today, his food knowledge is genuine and broad. He knows what he's doing and is engaging without being arrogant or shouty or purely flippant.

And unlike so many tv chefs, his recipes all look possible to make and edible - nothing overly pretentious or silly.

I only met him once, at BBC Radio Devon in Plymouth. I was there to promote a touring show and he had just been interviewed. He was drunk, very drunk, and, in the end, they had to have him removed from the premises. A shame.

I wish more television chefs looked back at Keith Floyd's shows and realised that a knowledgable enthusiasm is what's needed rather than silly gimmicks and catchphrases.

Oslo's Trial of the Century - some facts about the trial of Anders Breivik

Anders Breivik's trial for killing 77 people and injuring a further 151 on July 22nd last year is due to start in he next few days in Oslo, Norway.


*Both the Justice Minister and the Chief of Security Services were forced to resign following heavy criticism of the way they had handled the terror attacks.

*The police, security services and the Prime Minister apologised about the mis-handling of the case in March.

*Police errors on the day is are under investigation and will form a substantial part of the independent public inquiry due to be published in August.

*Oslo District Court has built a new, custom-made courtroom specially for Breivik's trial.

*The new courtroom is No. 250.

*Additionally, they have refurbished 2 floors to for the media and other affected parties to follow the trial.

*The trial is estimated to cost around £10m (12.1m euros, $15.9m), according to Geir Engebretsen, President of the Court.

*Between 1,000-1,400 people will be in the court building for each day of the trial.

*There are only 190 seats in the main courtroom and these will be reserved for the victims and members of the press.

*2,500 people will follow the trial via video link in 18 local courts around Norway.

*Breivik will be protected in court by a bulletproof screen as he has received a number of death threats whilst in prison awaiting trial.

*There will be a panel of five judges instead of a jury.

*The five judges will include two professional judges and three lay judges (general members of the public).

*The trial is expected to end on 22 June.

*The verdict will not be heard for several weeks after that, and could be appealed.


*The trial will start with the indictment read by the prosecution.

*Breivik is expected to take several days to testify beginning on Tuesday 17 April when he will take the stand.

*The prosecution will call more than 90 witnesses.

*The defence will call around 40 witnesses including a prolific far-right Norwegian blogger, Fjordman.

*Also expected to be called are members of the Labour Party and Progress Party, terrorism experts and psychiatrists. Several public figures have said they will refuse to appear.

*Breivik's dwarning has warned that his client is likely to say things many will find offensive and shocking.

*Breivik has said: "I am not sorry and I would do the same thing all over again."

*Two psychiatric reports ordered by the court came up with opposite conclusions. The first report (November 2011) concluded that Breivik was a paranoid schizophrenic and was psychotic at the time of the crime. The second report (April 2012) concluded that Breivik was sane and showed no signs of psychosis.

*Breivik considers himself a political activist and a soldier trying to save Norway and Europe from being taken over by Islam.

Friday 13 April 2012

366/104 - Derby Market Hall

Click here for today's market themed Project 366!

Grand National Sweepstake!!!

Here's your sweepstake kit for this year's Grand National.

Simply print this page and cut out the individual numbered tickets.

Everyone gets to pick a number.

If a horse dies, or is killed, during the Grand National by the method listed on your ticket YOU WIN!


CONGRATULATIONS - AND HAVE FUN!

1 Broke down - destroyed

2 Fell - fatally injured

3 Collapsed and died after winning race

4 Fatal fall

5 Collapsed and died during race

6 Pulled up - broke front leg - destroyed

7 Collapsed and died after race

8 Fell - broke elbow - destroyed

9 Broke leg - destroyed

10 Pulled up lame - destroyed

11 Broke Hind Leg - destroyed

12 Fell - injured - destroyed

13 Fell - broke foreleg - destroyed

14 Fatally injured

15 Lost action -injured - destroyed

16 Fell - broke neck - dead

17 Stumbled and fell on bend - fatally injured

18 Heart attack during race

19 Leg injury - destroyed

20 Collapsed during race - dead

21 Slipped landing over jump - injured neck - destroyed

22 Broke down - fatally injured

23 Tendon injury - destroyed at later date

24 Broke hind leg - destroy

25 Fractured pelvis - destroyed

26 Collapsed during race - fatally injured

27 Fell - Broke Shoulder - destroyed

28 Pulled up - fatal injury

29 Ran loose - heart attack

30 Fell - Broke Foreleg - destroyed

31 Collapsed and died after race

32 Fractured knee - destroyed

33 Pulled up lame - destroyed

34 Struck into - destroyed

35 Injured in race - fractured pelvis - bled to death in horsebox

36 Broke Cannon Bone - destroyed

37 Broke leg after finishing line - destroyed

38 Broke fetlock - destroyed

39 Slipped up on bend - injured - destroyed

40 Hit fence and nearly fell - broke leg - destroyed

These are all ways that horses have been killed as a result of races in the past year. Approximately 420 are killed at race courses every year but many more are disposed of during training, often because they are a financial burden.

Horse Death Watch

REVIEW: Delicacy (La Délicatesse) (12A)

I like French movies. They tend to avoid the same mistakes as Hollywood moves (or even British movies) by not getting fixated with special effects and pampering to the egos of superstars. Instead, and I know this is a massive generalisation, they focus on storytelling, the narrative and character development. Maybe it's because they are made in much smaller budgets, or maybe they still care about the art of movie making and less the effect of it.

La Délicatesse is a delightful movie, full of emotion, and heart warming moments, as well as many moments of gent,e humour, and a great soundtrack that includes everything from rock and roll to faux Steve Reich minimalism.



Nathalie (played by Audrey Tautou)is a beautiful and successful business executive in Paris. Her life is just perfect, happily married to her soul mate. but then, suddenly she is widowed. She struggles to cope with her loss and, to the dismay of her friends and family, submerges herself into her work.

One day, though, she finds a new spark for life, from a most unexpected quarter - her rather awkward and plain looking office junior, Markus (François Damiens).


Markus is initially stunned at Nathalie's interest and, over time, their relationship moves from awkward to loving, but they have a bigger battle - dealing with the reaction of others to their romance.

Markus starts off seeming odd, peculiar, and, perhaps, even a little creepy. He is unused to female attention but the affection the two characters develop is delightful and charming.


Yes, it's subtitled, and if you don't like reading subtitles there's no easy way round that (unless you happen to be fluent in French, of course!), but I think it's definitely worth the effort of reading them. This is a good movie that develops characters you care about and that are believable. No explosions, no monsters and no mega budget blockbuster but a lovely movie to while away a couple of hours and give you hope for the human spirit.

One final word of praise has to be for the QUAD in Derby where I went to watch this movie - probably the best cinema in the East Midlands and with a great café bar too.

COMMENT: There is no such thing as a harmless flutter

Yesterday, in a minor race not even run over the big Grand National fences, a horse was killed at Aintree.


Between the Cheltenham Festival and Aintree's Grand National meeting, a period of less than a month, 8 horses were killed on British racecourses across the country.

Every bet, every single flutter that people have contributes to this carnage.

The horse racing indistry don't care about horses - if they did they would end their barbaric business, or, at the very least, do more towards caring for horses, but instead, of the millions the horse racing charity raises annually 0.05% is put into caring for retired horses. The rest are massacred because they are just a financial burden.

Tomorrow, instead of your flutter on the Grand National, why not put that money to better use?

Thursday 12 April 2012

REVIEW: Derek (Ricky Gervais - Channel Four)

Ricky Gervais isn't one to shy away from controversy. Some might suggest he seems to deliberately court controversy because it helps viewing figures and ticket sales.


I'll be honest: I'm not sure about him. He has produced some undeniably brilliant work (The Office), and, in his role as Master of Ceremonies at the Golden Globes he popped many an over inflated Hollywood ego with some incisive wit and some simple insults, but, sadly, he does seem rather hit and miss, and, worst of all, he seems to have fallen hook, line and sinker for his own publicity guff.

Yes, he is successful - there is no denying that - and, yes, he is almost certainly worth a fortune as a result of the huge success The Office has had in its American version, plus some movies which have done well - but his arrogance is, at times, infuriating and detracts from the good things he has done.

Derek is his latest project. At the moment it's a one-off hour-long comedy drama but, I wouldn't be surprised if, assuming viewing figures are high enough, he turns it into another cash cow. Having said that, I think it's fair to say that it's unlikely that the programme would ever have hit our screens without Ricky Gervais' involvement - and, boy, is he involved - he does just about everything in the show except make tea for the cast.



Derek works in an old folks' home, with Doogie (played by Gervais' friend Karl Pilkington). Both Derek and Doogie are what you might politely call simpletons.

Some have been "outraged" at the portrayal of someone who clearly has a learning disability, and, there's no denying it, it is awkward and cringeworthy, but I feel it is our reaction to those with a learning disability that is being questioned more than Derek being laughed at.


I wonder if those who are "outraged" by Derek complained about the portrayal by Ardal O'Hanlan Fr. Dougal in Father Ted, or felt that Fawlty Towers' Manuel took the mickey out of people with learning disabilities too much? I would suggest that simpletons have been used as the butt of comedy since time in memorial - but does that make it right?

It's an odd debate that will dominate reviews of Derek and, as a result, the genuine heart of this comedy drama will be lost. What Gervais highlights is how awful it is to be in an old folks' home for the rest of your days, just waiting for death.

It's a shame that Gervais' natural inclination to shock has got in the way of what could have been a touching and humorous look at life as an old person in modern Britain.

Still, Mr. Gervais will have done what he wanted - got people talking about him, and I'm sure it won't do his bank balance any harm. Sadly, though, Derek just isn't very good and lacks any lines that are actually funny.

2 Broke Girls - preview

Anyone seen it? It starts in the UK next weeks (on E4) - is it any good?

Dear Rowan Williams...

Dear Rowan Williams,

As I'm sure you know, you have just over six months left as Archbishop of Canterbury and I'd like to suggest a couple of things that you could do that could transform your time as Primate of All England from a disappointing waste of time and opportunity to One of the most important periods in the history of the Church of England.


First. I think it's time to state categorically that homosexuality is natural and to prejudice against anyone who is homosexual is ill-informed, ignorant bigotry and has no place in any part of modern society, and that includes within the Christian church.

Second. It's time that the Church of England decided to come clean about its wealth, its finances and, in particular, it's tax status. If, as many if us suspect, the church has been avoiding, and, indeed, evading paying its fair share if tax then things need to be changed. A good Christian, and a good Christian church, should be proud to pay its taxes and contribute to the wider society.

Third. It is vital that you go on the record to say that the Pope's anti-condom statements are wrong and dangerous. You need to say that he, and his predecessor, are responsible for many thousands of deaths, particularly in Africa, that make the Church in Rome as evil as many dictators and oppressive regimes.

Fourth. I think it is time that you accepted that charging admission to historic buildings, most of which have received substantial grants and benefits from tax payers, is just wrong. Historic buildings belong to us all - unless you are prepared to pay full rates and taxes related to them being businesses.

Fifth. It is time to end the nonsense of having over seventy unelected bishops in the House of Lords. In a democracy Christians are as free to stand for election as anybody else. To have such a substantial number of votes reserved for one sect of one religion is unfair and unreasonable, and it is unrepresentative of our modern society. Why no reserved seats for Muslim leaders, or Hindus, or Seikhs. And let's not forget that, in practise, the majority of modern society are either agnostic or atheist - maybe the British Humanist Siciety should have guaranteed votes in the House of Lords, or the National Secular Society?

Sixth. I call on you to end the nonsense about "militant atheism" or "creeping secularism". I know it has helped you, and the likes of Baroness Warsi (really, you should choose your metaphorical bed partners rather better) to gain easy headlines but the truth is that religions are failing because education has shown them to be inaccurate and, basically, a pack of lies. You, as an intelligent man, and one going into academe as your next step, should be pleased that education is gradually winning over and that common sense and reason are winning through.

Seventh. Although it has served the Church of England well over the centuries, we both know that an established church is just daft in the 21st century. I guess the legislation would take longer than the amount of time you have left in Lambeth Palace, but you really should set the wheels in motion for the disestablishment of the Church. To give privilege and power to one faith group, particularly when only a small percentage if the population are actually practical adherents to that faith, needs to end.

Eighth and final. I realise this will be the hardest for you to do, but, if you want to be taken seriously in the academic world, and you want to be seen as having any intellectual integrity, you need to make it clear that there is, in fact, absolutely no contemporaneous evidence for any of the Bew Testament stories about Jesus, that the stories weren't written down for at least two generations and then by non-eye witnesses in different parts if the world, and that, with very little research, it is easy to see where the various stories have all been borrowed and stolen from. Fine, if you still want to believe they are true that's your choice, but, please, tell the truth about the historicity of the New Teatament stories.

Anyway, I realise it'll be a busy six months for you, what with the Jubilee, Olympics (did you get any tickets?) and starting to pack up your ornaments and nick backs ready for the removal firm, but still, please, seriously consider my suggestions of ways to improve British society and, if such things matter to you, make yourself a bit of a name.

Thanks, and have a great time in Canbridge,

Rob Steadman

COMMENT: Christians to run anti-gay adverts on London buses

How can it be, in 2012, that anything as ill-informed and bigotted as an anti-gay advert to be run on the side of London buses can be permitted by law?


But that's exactly what's about to happen because London buses have been booked to carry a Christian advertising campaign starting next week.

The ad will claim that the power of therapy can change the sexual orientation of gay people.

The ads, which will read "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!", are backed by the Core Issues Trust whose leader has said that "homoerotic behaviour is sinful".

The charity (yes, they have charitable status despite running ignorant and bigotted hate campaigns) funds "reparative therapy" for Christians who believe they have homosexual feelings and want to become straight.

Another group backing the campaign is Anglican Mainstream, an orthodox Anglican group who have equated homosexuality with alcoholism.

How can such bigotry and ignorance be tolerated in the modern world?

Not only should London Transport refuse to carry these adverts (surely they break various advertising laws anyway?) but the two groups backing the campaign need to be investigated and have their charitable statuses removed.

There is no place for ill-informed, prejudice and bigotry in any civilised society. Christianity, which has such bigotry at its very core, needs to adapt or have all state funding, subsidies and tax breaks removed from it.

I wonder if the Mayoral candidates will have anything to say, it will they fear losing the Christian vote?

366/103 - Beeston's Beekeeper

Click here for today's flying insect themed Project 366!!

And so the Grand National meeting begins...

The Grand National might not be until Saturday afternoon, but the Aintree meeting starts today.


To keep up to date with the latest news from the course: CLICK HERE.

It's worth a look through at how many horses die at racecourses and go, largely, unreported. Since the Cheltenham Festival, only one month ago, 8 horses have been killed at British racecourses.

Why does the West insist on acting like the world's police?

Over the past quarter of a century, Western powers have increasingly taken on the role of being the world's police - either through political pressure and threats of possible military action or, in some cases, direct action that has resulted in the overthrow of national governments.


But why? What makes the USA and the UK feel they have a moral duty to interfere in the internal machinations of other countries? Why is it that we think our political systems and way of life are right, while those employed by other nations are wrong?

The other issue is the rather selective way that the USA/UK chooses the nations it feels necessary to interfere with.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to the 9/11 atrocities in New York and Washington D.C. It was based on "intelligence" that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in the mountains there - he wasn't. And the invasion, and ensuing war, involved the overthrow of a sovereign government just because "we" wanted to, as far as I can see.

Yes, there was much to dislike about the Taliban regime, but let's not forget that 20 years earlier, as the Mujahideen, they had been allies of the West, and freedom fighters standing up to Soviet imperialism. They had the same unpalatable beliefs, so what had changed?

The reasons, and legality, of why the USA/UK invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein has been debated long and hard. Clearly, the excuse that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be fired within 45 minutes was untrue and it would be possible to debate for weeks whether this was a misunderstanding or deliberate, but comments from Tony Blair, British PM at the time of the Iraq invasion, has suggested that regime change was at the heart of his reasons for taking action.

Again, it is undeniable that Saddam was an evil and oppressive dictator who made the lives if many of citizens a living hell. But what right did the USA/UK have to interfere in the internal politics of a sovereign nation?

Why did we invade Iraq, for instance, when there are so many other evil and oppressive regimes around the world including Zimbabwe, North Korea, China and any number of the Arabian nations.

Sure, it's very easy to say that the Iraq war (BOTH Iraq wars) was really about oil. Even if that was the case, the question still has to be, does it justify our involvement in a war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians?

So what should we do? Just sit back and let evil dictators do whatever they want?

During the 1930s and 1940s the rest of the world did nothing about the concentration and death camps that the Nazis had built, and where they were sending Jews. There was as much, if not more, evidence for these camps as there was for WMDs in Iraq but the USA/UK did nothing to stop the mass killing of Jews by the Nazis. Instead, when war was finally declared, it was to defend a treaty protecting the sovereignty of Poland. Where were the morals of the West?

I think the line has to be drawn when dictators and oppressive regimes are harming their people. Sure, we might not like a political system, we might not agree with the lack of freedoms that women or homosexuals have. We might disagree with rigged elections and want democracy to happen in other countries. But those things aren't sufficient for military intervention.

Military intervention must only be used when a regime is physically harming or killing its citizens - and such intervention should be truly international and not the preserve if one it two nations imposing their will in others.

I guess I see an international force as being more of an International Rescue group than a traditional army.

Similarly, all international arms sales must be made illegal or, if, say, a Middle Eastern dictator uses British weapons against its people then Britain stands just as guilty.

So, the West should have stepped into Syria months ago, they should have taken action against Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and they should do whatever is needed to protect human life whenever there is suffering. But political change must be made by education, empowerment, pressure, campaigning and the will of the people - not because we disagree with it.

Wednesday 11 April 2012

Is evil always insane?

When, in July 2011, Anders Breivik killed 77 people and injured a further 151, many wondered whether he would ever face trial because they assumed that he would be declared insane and locked up in a secure mental hospital for the rest of his life.


This week, however, he has been declared sane - a surprise ruling which overturned an earlier medical assessment of him. This means, of course, that he is now able to stand trial for his crimes and, in all likelihood, as he doesn't deny that he did the crimes, he will then be found guilty and then be sent to jail for the rest of his life.

Evil is a word that gets overused, particularly in the media, but, surely, it fits Breivik's actions perfectly. If he isn't evil them I'd suggest nobody is.

What I find interesting, though, is a wide spread assumption that someone who is evil has to be insane.

Is it not possible to do evil things but be perfectly sane?

When you think of all the world's dictators and the number of atrocities they carried out in the name of their particular ideology, were they all insane, or is it just that their beliefs are just so out of kilter with those of the rest of society that they get labelled as mad simply out of laziness?

And if the dictator was insane, what about all those who followed their orders and carried out their wishes?

I suspect that many who carry out mass killings are insane but I don't think they have to be. If, for instance, a particular political or religious ideology is so heartfelt that a person they have to do something appalling they aren't necessarily insane if they carry those things through. They might, simply, have a deep, strong conviction that makes them different from the rest of society, but that doesn't mean they should be sent to a mental hospital for the rest of their life.

In many ways, I'm glad that Breivik will stand trial for his crimes, though I do fear that he will try to use his day in court to promote his extreme far right ideology. The judge needs to be very wary of any attempts to use the court room
as a way to attract publicity for what most people consider to be a truly evil ideology.

I suspect there are as many, if not more, people who I would class as evil in our society as are actually insane, and while we protect ourselves from the insane by locking them up in secure hospitals, the question has to be asked whether we should be locking up all those we consider to be evil in order to prevent further atrocities like the ones in Oslo last July, or in any other form that the criminal decides upon.

There are many, myself included, who would argue that a lot of the Pope's teachings ate evil. Should he be locked up to protect the rest of society?