The Quizzical Observer

A tentative test

2022-04-09T17:30:00.002+01:00

Well, this is strange. Haven't been here for years. The old place doesn't look like it used to...

Green light to build

2013-11-14T22:51:00.000+00:00

Having finished studying prawn recipes, I was intrigued to Observe the Huffington Post story claiming that golf courses take up 'twice as much land as housing'.
Well, surely this is the best news of the week. At one stroke (geddit?) we could free up a lot of land for desperately needed housing, at the same time as removing a lot of middle-aged white boys with seriously bad dress sense from otherwise attractive landscape.

It's made of win. Women should be right behind this notion, as we all know how much golf clubs like women. Not a lot. The Royal Burgess, for example — the oldest golf club in the world — doesn't allow women to enjoy their hallowed acres. Heaven knows what catastrophe might ensue.

Meanwhile, housing is in very short supply, and we see the younger generation loading themselves down with enormous debt to get on the housing ladder. Like they haven't got enough debt, what with university fees and all. No, we need affordable housing more than we need playgrounds for balding bigots in BMWs. We will rise up, led by the Bollocks-Finder Generals, and take back the lost leys. We may have to shoot some of the most vocal protestors, but I like to think of it as a cleansing of the gene pool. We will, in a spirit of fairness, gift parcels of currently unused brownfield land to the golf clubs by way of compensation, and I hereby present a compelling vision of the future for them.

Clearly, this is the sort of environment that chaps who like pastel polo shirts, strange trousers and one glove really belong in. They can still do business deals, network like rutting ferrets and get some fresh air. They will give a little badly needed amusement to inner-city residents and perhaps even boost the local economy (by way of stolen BMWs). The occasional golf-ball through a window will be a fair price to pay.

Women, being sensible creatures, won't mind being excluded from this scenario, as they wouldn't want to be seen dead there. It's made of win, people.

Nottingham Town

2013-10-25T21:08:00.001+01:00

There's definitely something individual about this city. I give you three headlines from the local news, all datelined 25 October 2013:

Carlton man with aquarium in his living room features on Channel 4 show

Nottinghamshire folk are among friendliest in Europe - it's official

Father-of-four threw lizard at man in revenge attack outside Beeston pub

It'll tell you something about Nottingham if I say that I grinned at all of those but wasn't very surprised by any of them.

My bad

2013-10-22T23:08:00.000+01:00

So the Government scorns Ed Miliband's idea of a 20-month energy price freeze while signing a deal for the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset (to be built by French and Chinese interests) that guarantees a fixed price – double today's price – for its electricity for 35 years.

No, I don't get it. I expect I'm missing some subtle detail.

Meanwhile, Facebook are again allowing videos of people being decapitated, although they're still apparently banning videos of women breast-feeding their babies.

No, don't get that either. Lacking in insight, me.

Someone wants shooting

2013-10-18T22:41:00.004+01:00

See, this is what comes of spending a year in silent meditation, studying prawn recipes. Where to start?

A while ago, I offered up the concept of the Bollocks-Finder General. If we had them in office now, they'd have serious work to do. I'll have to be posting quite frequently to cover it all. Let's get under way.

The badger cull.
Anyone who remembers the foot & mouth epidemic and the official response to it will know that politicians have no idea whatsoever about farming, wildlife, the countryside or the relevant science and statistics. But bless them, they're politicians, they're not supposed to know too much about anything. They'd be dangerous if they did.

However, Defra (the Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs) should know something about all those things. More precisely, those paid by the taxpayer to work at Defra should know something about all those things, and should be able to offer sensible guidance to our politicians, much as those lovely Golden Labradors steer the blind around. But it turns out that Defra are more like Red Setters, the most notoriously bouncy, loopy, braindead dogs ever. One step ahead of the politicians, admittedly, but you take my point.

So we have a problem with bovine TB. The Guvmint feel it's become necessary to be seen to do something. Defra advise that some options are troublesome: vaccination of cows (illegal for various arcane reasons, most of them to do with money); vaccination of badgers (tricky, as they're not good at keeping appointments at the surgery); culling of dairy farmers (generally felt at Westminster to be a temptingly obvious answer, but the PR wonks were uneasy about how to present it).

So Defra concludes that the only option is to shoot the badgers. Those bastards wander round the countryside breathing on cows, you see. In trial areas 'trained marksmen' are encouraged to go and knock them off, following strict rules laid down by those nice people at Natural England. After a tense period during which lads with shotguns on zero-hours contracts (aka 'trained marksmen') are blundering around at night pursued by anti-cull activists with torches, the badgers move the goalposts. Although it seems a rather small number of badgers have been knocked off, that's OK, as according to Owen Paterson (Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Fuck-ups) it's now believed that there weren't that many badgers there to start with, so they've got the right percentage. Only just in case, they're going to extend the cull period so the lads might be able to knock off more of the badgers they don't need to.

That's right. They have no idea what they're doing.

At this point, a Bollocks-Finder General would be hitting the doors of Defra HQ. If you were standing outside, as it might be quietly sipping a cup of coffee, you would after a few minutes hear a lot of shouting and a few gunshots. And maybe after that we might get some clarity of thinking on the whole subject.

But don't hold your breath. Unless you're a cow near a badger, of course.

Nurse, he's out of bed again...

2013-09-12T22:43:00.000+01:00

Oh my. I settled down with a bag of prawn crackers and a glass of decent brandy, with a white cat on my lap, and look what happened. More than a year has passed.

The world seems strangely altered. There is much dust on my html console. My fingernails have grown rather extravagantly and my beard is unkempt. I'm not sure where the cat has gone. All of this may take some time to comprehend. Bear with me, won't you?

Olympic fail

2012-07-11T20:48:00.007+01:00

Apologies for the long lacuna – life has been a bit hectic.

Here at the Observatory, we thought the Olympics coming to London was an embuggerance that could only have been surpassed by the Olympics coming to our own much fairer city. Howsomever, our electorally anointed ones (of all flavours) have pushed on with the idea, so we have to make the best of the multi-billion shindig.

When it comes to the engineering and construction side, we seem to have done pretty well. Very well, in fact. It's some of the soft stuff that's going pear-shaped. I give you, exempli gratia, the question of security personnel. The Guvmint having pimped itself once again to G4S for £300 million ("thanks, darling, same time next year?"), it seems there won't be enough trained personnel on hand. G4S have, it seems, "... encountered some issues in relation to workforce supply". Despite enormously high unemployment, and notoriously low pay for security staff, G4S have managed not to be able to fulfil this contracted undertaking. So the armed forces will have to step in. Well, it's not as if they have anything to do, there being only a couple of wars on. So that's all right.

Moving swiftly to Heathrow. OK, that's just my little joke – as if anyone could move swiftly to or from Heathrow – but moving on. Will we be able to get our foreign friends into the country to see the Olympics?

It seems that today a long queue waiting to get through border control at Heathrow started a slow hand-clap by way of weary comment at the more than two hour delay. Your man on the BBC report appeared to be American. Well, we accept his point; that kind of wait isn't acceptable, and it all bodes ill for the Olympic influx. That said, trying to enter America has become notoriously difficult even for people who don't look swarthy and have beards. Let's imagine the chances of anyone starting a slow hand-clap in the border control queue getting into the US of A? Lightning would strike first, I suggest.

Police and Crime Commissioners

2012-03-06T20:50:00.007+00:00

I must apologise for the lack of recent activity. My analysis of who really runs the world evidently ruffled a few feathers – or should I say 'antennae' – and I had to spend the whole of February avoiding several large and threatening prawns. Fortunately for me, Mrs QO's countering tactics involving a wok and some hoi-sin sauce seemed to deter them, and I think I can safely put my head above the parapet to discuss the question of who will, after 25 November, really run your local police force.

If you haven't really noticed that in November you will be offered the chance to vote for a Police and Crime Commissioner, you aren't alone – some three-quarters of the electorate haven't twigged either. Your PCC will have the power to hire and fire the Chief Constable, set the police precept (a lovely word, isn't it? Much nicer than 'tax') and generally throw his or her weight around, setting policing priorities for the area. And receive between £60,000 and £100,000 a year, depending on the size of the local police force. And have a nice office, staff and an expense account.

Now, you may think this is A Good Thing. Popular accountability, my chance to influence policing in my patch, the democratic Dibble at last... well, that's certainly the Conservative line. They were hoping that some splendid candidates would spring forward, giants of community leadership, famous faces, big beasts of entrepreneurship, "... those who have built and led large organisations" as Nick Herbert MP said. And the cost of this bright new policing world is surely a snip at a mere £75 million.

Well, now. The Conservatives and Labour are intending to field party candidates in most if not all areas. So they'll be 'acceptable' politically, i.e., won't have an original thought in their head, will be great at kissing babies and doing the rubber chicken circuit, and won't have a proper big job to do anywhere else. The vast majority of candidates so far are local councillors, the lads and lasses with dodgy dress style who've been on the old-fashioned police authorities all these years, salivating at the thought of a much bigger payoff. Genuinely able independents are either busy running their large organisations, or appalled at the thought of having to kiss babies and do the rubber chicken circuit rather than get the job on merit, and are probably earning a sight more than is on offer. You can see who's up for it here, if you're interested. But I'm guessing mostly you're not.

But perhaps you should be. Policing in the UK is in something of a crisis. Morale is low among rank and file officers, resources are being significantly cut (except among Diversity Managers and PR departments), there's still a huge target culture despite what Kitten Heels says, and to this already toxic mix the Government is introducing political control and increased privatisation. Does that sound promising to you?

It may help if I summarise your options:
1. You get what you've already got, only it'll cost more.
2. You get something radically different which will probably be worse.

In either event, as far as the Guvmint is concerned, it will be your fault. You voted for the twat.

So have a think about your options come November, and have a look at your candidates. The good people of Humberside, by the way, have as one of their candidates one of the very few big names to have emerged so far, and I show him below discussing local affairs with a member of the public. Yeah, it's a cheap shot, I know, but it just seems emblematic of how this bright idea is likely to pan out.

Scottish independence – the way forward

2012-01-24T21:07:00.004+00:00

As we're nearly at Burns Night, some thoughts on Scottish independence. Having read a good deal of argument on either side, part of the interest for me has been seeing the panic among some Scots at the notion of not being part of the UK, and another part has been the amount of enthusiasm for the idea among the English. Cynics might say that the latter is partly out of jealousy – sod off with your better healthcare, your free university places, and so on – and partly due to the perception that money is currently flowing from England to Scotland, and it would help England to stop this transfer.

I don't think Alex Salmond is thinking big enough.

Here's what he – and Scotland – should be arguing for: not just independence for Scotland as it currently stands, but an independent and enlarged Scotland. Here's the map as I would suggest it.

Note that the new border runs roughly from the Mersey to the Wash, such that the new most southerly Scottish cities would be Stoke, Derby and Nottingham. To the existing Scottish economy would be added a good number of people and the great cities mentioned above along with Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle... and of course Carlisle and Berwick-upon-Tweed would return once more to the motherland.

The character and temperament of these parts of England would fit much better with Scotland than with the Shires and the Home Counties. All of the areas going to Scotland under my modest proposal are marked by their citizens being stroppy, argumentative, up for a drink and a ruck (or either), and distrustful of politicians, especially Oxbridge toffs who've never been north of Watford Gap. The blood flowing in the veins of the 'English' above the new border is a heady mix of the ancient British, the Anglo-Saxons and the Scandinavian invaders; by contrast the Southron Londoners (and they're all Londoners up as far as Leicester, let's face it) are mostly French types and therefore only fit for sitting around in poncey winebars talking bolleaux.

Clearly there would be some adjustments to make for we 'New Scottish', but I already like whisky, so I'm not too concerned. I haven't been in the habit of drinking it much before lunch, I must admit, but this would be a small price to pay for the benefits of belonging to a new, forward-looking and dynamic Greater Scotland.

So, Mr Salmond, there you have it. Think big. Be bold. Dream of a new Hadrian's Wall along the Trent. You know it makes sense.

Merry and bright

2011-12-24T23:48:00.003+00:00

Since Mrs QO and I don't have children, and since we're fortunate enough to be close enough to walk to my sister's tomorrow to spend the day with the family, we haven't had too much to do today. Which is nice. There has been time to take the Aggravatingly Fit Elder Parent out for a beery lunch, to fit in an afternoon sleep, and to watch a soppy film tonight. And drink a little brandy.

And in a few days' time we will be heading into the north country to spend a week with Super-disreputable Friend and his appalling wife, with whom we've spent the last 25 New Years. And I fear that once again there will be far too much merriment and alcohol. An awful prospect, I'm sure you'll agree.

And so at two minutes till midnight (here on good old-fashioned Greeenwich Mean Time), I wish you all a very Merry Christmas, be blessed and peaceful, and all good things in the year to come.

Who really runs the world?

2011-12-13T20:40:00.009+00:00

This is a question that many are asking in the light of the financial crisis. The 'Comment is Free' part of the Guardian website is particularly rich in speculation at the moment, with what seems to this Observer to be a preponderance of opinion in favour of a cartel of international financiers determined to bleed the ordinary working peasant dry so as to keep the financiers in private jets and yachts and other cool stuff.

My brain works at such a pace that I have to give it a couple of hours cooling-off time after lunch, and while preparing myself today for this inconvenient but necessary hiatus, settling into the old armchair in the study and pulling up the blanket, I dedicated the last 30 seconds or so of mental processing time to considering the question of who really runs the world. I hereby present the results.

In no particular order, let's ponder the chief candidates and award scores for likelihood.

1. God (singular, albeit in various flavours) – the obvious choice for many, but a moment's reflection questions the notion. A Creator capable of bringing into existence the Universe we see around us could not possibly do so bad a job of running just one tiny bit of it. For example, we know from various books written, translated and edited by men a long time ago that the Judeo-Christian God is perfect and omnipotent. However, a brief look at, say, Wolverhampton, suggests powerfully that there's no such divinity on the job. There is, though, an argument (also in the books written, translated and edited by men) that God is testing us through hardship to see what will happen. Wolverhampton is what has happened, so the theory is just barely tenable, and we will therefore, with a certain reluctance, put a positive score on this option: 3/10.

2. Gods (plural, various flavours, sizes and colour schemes) – Greek and Roman myths in particular offer a whole shedload of gods, mostly quarrelsome, arbitrary, illogical and downright unpredictable. They were known to favour some humans, pick on others, have fights with their sibling deities, sometimes even coming down to earth for a bit of trans-species naughty fun. In other words, just like us only more so (even the trans-species bit, but let's not drag the Welsh into it right now). This is indeed a tempting notion, but Occam's Razor says that if something like humans is running the world, the most likely candidate is humans. So despite having a rather rusty and blunt Occam's Razor, to diverse deities we award: 1/10.

3. A secret world organisation – well, as I said above, plenty of these are being suggested as candidates at the moment. Opus Dei, the Illuminati, Freemasons, the Bilderberg Group, SMERSH – take your pick. In every case, the secret organisation in question ('it is said... it is rumoured... some believe that...') meets from time to time, usually in a mountainous, remote region, and the members sit around smoking cigars, sipping expensive liquor, and making their fiendish plans to control all the world's money and keep everyone else working for a pittance to fund their insane plans for world domination. (Some of them are even said to stroke white long-haired cats while doing so, the evil bastards.) Now this idea really has some serious legs, though we do have to ask ourselves: 'If this bunch is running the world to make money which they want for themselves, how come they're doing such a crap job of it?' Presumably such a group would have to include top bankers, as they're the ones with their hands on the money at one point or another; if the world really is run by people like Sir Fred Goodwin, we might as bend over and kiss our arses goodbye, because we're seriously fucked. So I think we can discard this notion... excuse me a moment...

'Waiter! Another glass of the Hennessy Paradis Extra Rare Cognac, a hand-rolled Romeo y Julieta and a dish of caviare for Tiddles here. Oh, and pass the word... Goodwin is to be disposed of quietly by next Thursday. Off you go.'

So, as I was saying, we can put this ridiculous idea right out of our heads, not even worth considering. 0/10.

4. Aliens – well, David Icke thinks so, which is a very strong argument against. Still, it's a big universe, there may be another species out there coveting Wolverhampton and its lovely womenfolk. And I was brought up on Captain Scarlet fighting the Mysterons, and I'm not entirely convinced they've gone away, so let's give this one: 4/10.

5. Our elected representatives – ha ha ha ha! Yes, I know, quite unthinkable, but I wanted an excuse to post that pic, to be honest: 0/10.

6. Happenstance and natural selection – by far my favourite option. Every time we consider a candidate for an agency actually running the world, we bump into the problem of 'well, why is it so crap and random, then?' I suspect what we take for organisation is no more than an emergent property of chaos (much like me trying to tidy my desk every January), and that all our attempts to ascribe purposed direction of the world are no more than a comforting rationalisation in the face of something entirely out of our control (much like my desk for eleven months of the year). We are no more in charge of the world than the prawns are in charge of the Atlantic. We are not rational, logical beings, we do what we do out of ancient instincts, and what seems to work, mostly, at the time, for most people, is what tends to be carried forward. Okay, this doesn't really explain Wolverhampton, and I'm minded to leave that to David Icke, but it's got the rest of it sewn up: 9/10.

So there you have it. No big conspiracy, but no comforting 'well, at least someone's in charge even if I know it's not me' either. Frightening, or liberating? You choose. It won't matter what you choose, but go ahead anyway.

Workplace parking levy

2011-11-21T21:43:00.011+00:00

For those who don't live in Nottingham — or those who do live in Nottingham but haven't been paying attention — the good folk at Nottingham City Council are bringing in a 'workplace parking levy'. All businesses within the City administrative boundary must register all the parking places they provide; those providing more than 10 (excluding those for Blue Badge holders) have to cough up an estimated £279 per place as of April Fools Day, 2012. I say 'estimated', as the council don't seem quite sure yet, but they do seem sure that it will rise fairly sharply thereafter. (No surprises there, then.) The proceeds from the levy, say the council, "...must be invested into improving local transport for Nottingham. The WPL will provide funding for NET Phase Two, the extensions to the existing tram system, as well the redevelopment of Nottingham Railway Station (the Hub project) and is also intended to support the popular Link bus network. "

The employer is the one who has to cough up, and there will — of course — be council monitoring and enforcement. The employer also has to decide whether or not to pass the levy on to the employees, in full or in part. That's going to be a tricky decision.

Commuters approaching Trent Bridge from south of the city, followed by a Nottm City Council parking levy enforcement officer

I'm fascinated by how this is going to play out. As I don't live or work within the City boundary, it's not going to cost me diddly-squat, but I'm very far from disinterested. I've blogged before about cities being for people, not cars, and being all for public transport. And we're going to have to face it some time soon — most of us won't be able to afford to run cars for any distance on a regular basis, so we might do well to start rebalancing our economy towards a model in which people tend to live closer to work than they do at the moment, and ensuring that good public transport is available for them. And we know from experience that people won't give up their car unless they're hit in the pocket. So as far as all that goes, the WPL looks like A Good Thing. And, moreover, the plan was clearly laid out before the last council elections, so there's a democratic mandate for it.

And yet... and yet... unemployment in Nottingham is severe, and the last thing the city needs is for businesses to decide to move elsewhere, or for potential new employers to decide not to come after all. A Nottingham business with 50 employees for whom parking is provided is looking at a new tax of £15,000 a year unless they pass it on to the employees; many depressed areas are offering significant financial incentives to employers to move into their areas, and perhaps in some cases the WPL will prove the last straw and provoke a move out of the city. That would not be A Good Thing at all.

I suspect that whether or not the WPL is seen as a success or a failure will depend on two factors. Firstly, the ability of local employers to pass on the levy to their employees. If they can do this in full, or substantially, then it becomes something of an administrative headache, but no more, and probably won't result in many decamping. In these times of high unemployment, with people fearful for their jobs, employers are probably well placed to pass on the levy. If so, all might be well from a business point of view, albeit a pain in the arse for the employees concerned.

The other big factor is what will other local authorities do? If everyone followed Nottingham's lead promptly, there evidently wouldn't be any incentive for employers to move out to escape the levy here. But I bet everyone else is waiting to see what happens with great interest, but will let Nottingham take the initial brunt of complaints, bad publicity, challenges in domestic and European courts, etc.

So to summarise: Nottingham City Council's move is certainly brave. Whether it's wise remains to be seen. Meanwhile, here's a few predictions.

• Businesses currently providing 10 parking spaces, and wanting to employ more people, will be paying far more attention to the 'address' bit on job applications. "Well, Ms Smith hasn't got quite the qualifications, but obviously she could get here on the bus..."

• There will be job opportunities at the Council for those who would enjoy spending their day waving their badges at people and taking photographs of who's parking where.

• The market in forged Blue Badges (which I happen to know is already healthy) is going to explode. It would be nice to think that the job market for genuine Blue Badge holders would improve, but let's not be silly.

Gloomy thoughts on a dark evening

2011-11-18T21:53:00.005+00:00

Friday evening isn't the best time to do any sort of analysis of the state of the country. Too tired, one too many glasses of wine. But then this isn't the best blog in the world, so I'm just going to go for it, but don't you be expecting any sharp insights, OK?

It used to be the case that parents would cajole their children into staying with education, and more or less behaving themselves, by way of the promise of a good job if you stayed the course through school, and ideally go on to get your A-levels and perhaps even a degree. Hang on in there, they would say, and the good times will follow. You can get a car, a house, enough income to enjoy a good standard of living and money quietly going away into a pension fund that would grow substantially. A long-term deal which was demonstrably paying off for those parents, who'd followed exactly that course.

I have no idea of the average age of the three regular readers of this blog, but let's all imagine that we're in our teens or early 20s. What prospects do we see? That's right - sod all. While the Observer generation is now hitting a wall of unemployment, at least in most cases the deal paid off pretty well for 30 years, and early retirement is at least partially successful for many. But for the young?

You can, if you wish, take on a debt amounting to several tens of thousands of pounds to get a degree. When you finish, there will be enormous competition for a job, and graduates - complete with huge debt - may get work stacking shelves or training to serve burgers. Even the 'better' jobs will be in sectors very vulnerable to economic ups and downs, and difficult to build into a life-long career. Buying a house will be out of the question. Pension contributions will be terribly difficult to make, and will buy very little even over the long term.

And whose fault is all this? Mum & Dad, that's who. Or your Uncle Observer, or whatever other twat repeatedly voted for the politicians that allowed - encouraged - this country to rack up such enormous debts payable by the next generation.

"They fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do."

I've no idea how this will play out. At the moment we see young people protesting against the establishment by way of pitching tents in public spaces and being touchingly earnest and well behaved. This is of course going to have zero effect on the establishment, other than a few meaningless resignations among the clergy, who don't, let's face it, have much impact on the running of the economy.

I suspect it may be that our young people eventually read up on how young French people did it in 1968, and then things will get a bit sweaty.

A modest proposal

2011-10-31T21:50:00.005+00:00

For some time now, I've been looking at the lunacies of the world and thinking about how we might mitigate them somewhat.

You may have heard of the 17th century Witchfinder General? If not, have a quick refresher here.

I propose that we institute a new office of Bollocks-Finder General. A carefully selected body of men and women will be employed by we, the people, to wander round the country investigating anything that catches their eye. I have in mind the sort of people who you'd find as senior NCOs, old-style hospital matrons, experienced construction engineers, passenger liner captains and the like - the sort of people accustomed to taking on huge responsibilities, getting big things done and making life-and-death decisions. (But not, please note, so high in any corporate structure that they get too far up their own arse.) Where appropriate - and it will surely be often - they will cry: "Hang on, this is bollocks!"

Our Bollocks-Finders General will have rather extensive powers, much as you might expect senior military types to have in wartime. (Let's face it, the War against Terror is never going to be won, but we might make headway in the War against Bollocks.) They will be able to issue summary commands to all and sundry, backed up by civil and military authorities where required. They will have administrative and judicial powers, and may well be armed. There will be no appeal, other than by way of an outraged populace stringing them up if they get it wrong too often. I suspect that, on the contrary, they will be well loved by ordinary people, though hated by bureaucrats, corporate bandits, politicians and other lowlives.

Here are some examples of where the Bollocks-Finder General might usefully step in, along with the actions that might well be taken.

Imagine if we'd had a B-FG way back in 2002 when the Government announced the National Programme for IT for the NHS. This was, in theory, going to make patient records centrally available. There would, shortly after the announcement, have been an interview along these lines:

B-FG: "So exactly which doctors and hospitals have asked for this?"
Bureaucrat: "Ah... well, it's more of a government initiative."
B-FG: "So nobody who's looking after patients actually wants it?"
Bureaucrat: "Well, we're sure it will be jolly useful, and it won't cost more than £6.2 billion to have all the patient records in one place, accessible to all doctors and nurses everywhere."
B-FG: "So how often, exactly, would that be better than just picking up the telephone or sending an email? And how will it speed up patient care or save money?"
Bureaucrat: "Oh, well, we haven't looked into that in great detail... but it will be jolly good, we're quite sure..."
B-FG: "No. This is complete bollocks. You're fired. And so is whoever employed you."

See? That would have saved over £11 billion in the end.

Another example - the Millennium Dome.

Tony Blair: "So, we'll have this huge big tent and we'll fill it with all sorts of interesting stuff."
B-FG: "Like what?"
Tony Blair: "Erm... well, really interesting stuff. It'll be iconic."
B-FG: "So in other words you have no idea?"
Tony Blair: "Well, look, I think we should focus on the real point here..."
B-FG: "Bollocks. Not going to happen. Try and focus on not getting us into any more wars, eh?"

If only we'd had B-FGs here in Nottingham in the '60s. Imagine one of them wandering into the town planning meetings:

Town planners: "So, we're agreed. Get rid of the cobbled streets and Georgian buildings, and have a six-lane highway and lots of concrete high-rise buildings. That's what we'll do."
B-FG: "Will you bollocks. You're all fired."
Outraged Councillor: "You can't fire me - I was democratically elected!"
B-FG: "Good point. I'll just have to shoot you, then."

Think of the crass stupidity we could avoid. The Bollocks-Finders General would have plenty to say (and would probably use up a fair bit of ammunition) about such things as The X-Factor, Tescos in everybody's back garden, councils banning conker fights, CCTV on every streetlamp, Harriet Harman, alcopops, PCSOs, merchant bankers, travellers who don't, the European Agricultural Policy (and much else from Brussels), Graham Norton, the railways, wind turbines... the list is long.

You're probably thinking that I'd like to be a Bollocks-Finder General myself. Well, yes, I have to admit, I would, but I lack the self-control required. I'd shoot everyone instead of just firing them. A sense of perspective is required, after all.

Down on Dale Farm

2011-10-19T23:19:00.000+01:00

I hesitate to comment on this, as I don't think I can add anything to the debate. But I need practice with this new Blogger system...

I will never take much satisfaction at the sight of riot police forcing people out of their homes. And I have a good deal of sympathy with the lot of the Roma. However, in the case of Dale Farm there has been, frankly, an awful lot of bollocks about "ethnic cleansing" and the like.

Fundamentally, it's quite simple. Even if you own a piece of land, you can't necessarily build on it. In the case of many of the Dale Farm plots now facing action, the land is owned by fairly wealthy absentee landlords from the Irish Travelling community. But it's Green Belt, and no planning permission has been granted for permanent buildings. Basildon Council are therefore entitled - in fact, obliged - to take action to clear illegal structures from the area. Those residents affected have been offered alternative accommodation, with some advantage over many already on the council housing waiting list, but have instead gambled on their media and legal campaign to see them through. That gamble has failed, and it was inevitable that the bailiffs and police would go in. And in my view it was right.

The whole point about a 'common law' is that it treats all people the same: without fear or favour, prejudice or ill-will. As soon as any minority is given special exemptions - because of their own chosen lifestyles - things break down very quickly. I could go on to discuss the distinction that might usefully be made between the Roma and the Irish Travellers, but that's a whole other can of worms which I feel too tired to open. To close, here's something that may reinforce some prejudices, or may cause some reappraisal. Either way, it's one of Ewan MacColl's finest songs, quite beautifully performed.

The challenge of change

2011-10-10T20:45:00.000+01:00

Well, looky here. I take a little while out from blogging and come back to find lots of changes. Can't possibly work out what's going on after the red wine with supper, so the blog may look a little strange for a while. It may also look different from one minute to the next as I experiment with the new range of templates. When I say 'experiment' I do of course mean 'click on them at random and see what happens'. I'm sure we'll all settle down before long. In the meantime, here's just a few snapshots of what Mrs QO and I have been doing over the last few weeks.

Time deficit

2011-09-07T21:22:00.002+01:00

Life has been very full over the last two or three weeks, and although there have been plenty of Observations, there has been too little time to write them up. Mrs QO and I are currently girding our loins and folding our tents to head to Bromyard Folk Festival - the last of the year for us - and so tonight I will have to content both myself and you with this link and a story about a strong contender for the QO's F***wit of the Year. Do feel free to suggest other candidates.

For contemplation

2011-08-31T21:29:00.000+01:00

Lifting the veil

2011-08-25T20:53:00.009+01:00

Three stories have caught my eye the last few days, prompting some musing around the theme of privacy, secrecy and freedom of information.

The Guvmint - or perhaps more accurately the Civil Service - are probably already regretting setting up this e-petition thing. The BBC made a Freedom of Information request to the Government asking for Cabinet papers relating to the Hillsborough disaster 20 years ago. Was our Guvmint happy and eager to release these papers? You guessed it. The FoI Commissioner had to step in and rule in the BBC's favour, and the Guvmint were minded to appeal - until the e-petition on the subject soared above the 100,000 signature mark, thus potentially earning the matter a Parliamentary debate, not to mention getting it well onto the media/blogger/Twitter radar.

It seems the resistance to releasing the papers was from the Cabinet Office rather than our elected ~~tools~~ members. Sir Humphrey clearly doesn't like the punters knowing any more than is good for them, which is virtually nothing.

The second story in this little collection was the report of the website on which people post pictures of men they fancy that they've spotted on the London Tube and have surreptitiously photographed. Turns out that there's nothing illegal about this, since the Tube is deemed a public place, and only a tiny number of men have asked to have their pix removed.

The question arises: are we now fairly relaxed about the idea that our picture might be taken and posted without our knowledge or permission on the intertubes, for the whole world to see? Evidently quite a few British men are, and the idea has crossed the big pond and is taking off in the US of A too.

Linked to the BBC story hotlinked above was an older story in which an academic made this interesting comment: "If you look at privacy in law, one important concept is a reasonable expectation of privacy. As more private lives are exported online, reasonable expectations are diminishing."

If he's right, as many of us put more and more information about ourselves online - or permit it to be put there by others - the old norms of an expected degree of privacy and the legal rights to it will diminish.

Thirdly, Sally Bercow, wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons, entered the Big Brother house, prompting a fair old storm of comment. Critics accuse her of being a media junky, demeaning the office that her husband holds and generally making an undignifed prat of herself. Supporters point out that she's giving a large proportion of her fee to charity, and repeat her own comment that she may be the Speaker's wife but she isn't the Speaker and is thus free to do whatever she wants. You will doubtless make up your own mind on this point.

Point of order...

Big Brother is by design and definition an almost total loss of privacy and secrecy, willingly accepted by the participants. While this was once shocking, and made the show a runaway hit, it's lost much of its impact as that loss of privacy doesn't carry the same weight any more.

So what do we Observers weave from these threads?

It seems to me that loss of privacy for the individual is inevitable given the increasing link between life and the internet. What will be interesting is to what extent society will demand a concomitant loss of State secrecy. My generation grew up behind lace curtains and D-notices, in the shadow of the Cold War with memories of the Second World War very much alive. Although automatic deference to authority was waning rapidly, there was still a fairly wide acceptance of the need for authority to have secrets. Times have changed. Young people today seem to be comfortable with less personal security, far more ready to put information about themselves out there online. But with that comes far less ingrained, unthinking respect for 'national security' and a 'need to know' attitude from authority. Given that our political parties are now so closely aligned in much of their thinking, I suspect that a party's willingness to really live and work under 'open government', rather than lip-service to that concept, could make a real difference to their electoral chances. Their biggest challenge may be taking the Civil Service along with them. "Knowledge is power" goes the old adage, so perhaps it's time for mature democracies to share a bit more of it.

I still like to draw the curtains, and I run this blog anonymously, but it could well be that we're moving in a healthy direction. Much of the above could of course apply equally to most of the West, and the Arab Spring suggests that the same could be true over much more of the world. If we hide less from each other, and our governments hide less from us, it might be that we all find we have more in common than we think; and where there are differences, they're better understood. I like to believe so, anyway.

And on that optimistic if alcohol-fuelled note, I bid you goodnight.

Everybody off the outrage bus, please

2011-08-16T22:07:00.004+01:00

I wish to register a complaint.

Given the riots, the phone-tapping and the economic crisis, you'd think that our tabloids would have better things to report on than the case of Moira Pearce and her request for charitable donations to help her look after her ten children.

The Sun, the Mirror and the Daily Mail have all, with tedious predictability, made much of the fact that Ms Pearce (34) lives entirely on benefits. Her State-provided income amounts - if the reports can be trusted - to somewhat over £30,000 a year, and her housing is provided free too. They poke fun at the fact that her ten children have been procreated by four different fathers, none of whom appears to be helping financially (or indeed in any other way). They make mockery, too, of the children's names: Kayleigh, Jamie, Chloe, Tyler, Shania, Blade, Shonna, Candice, Chardonnaie and Maxy-Jane (sic). The heartless reporters also point out that Ms Pearce's latest boyfriend is 18.

This all makes me tired. We should be celebrating this fine example of British fecundity, tirelessly turning out new citizens for Gillingham. Only four of them were planned, she said, which makes her achievement even more admirable, and let's give her credit for her modesty. So what if she's called one of her girls 'Chloe'? The lass can always change her name to something more suitable when she's of an age, for heaven's sake.

As for her living entirely on benefits, I can set the record straight by pointing out that she does live entirely on benefits, but that includes her job-seeker's allowance. So she's evidently seeking a job, and if only employers were a little more imaginative they could see how having to look after 10 children and do a day's work wouldn't be that much of a problem.

And what of it, if she has a boyfriend about half her age and only a year older than her eldest child? Many women would like one like that, even if he doesn't have a job. Anyway, I think we can trust Ms Pearce's judgement of men, since she's evidently known a few. The real tragedy is that on medical advice Ms Pearce has had to be sterilised. I think the other women of Gillingham - and indeed the rest of this country - need to step up to the mark now. Ms Pearce has surely done her bit.

Switch off politicians during riots, say social networkers

2011-08-13T23:00:00.003+01:00

Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger users were united today in calling for politicians to be switched off during periods of civil unrest.

"These politicians just hamper efforts to restore order on the streets, innit" said Twitter user MizzeeFab17, adding "lol #braindead".

A Facebook poll which promptly went viral asked users to vote on what had been most effective in bringing the London riots to an end, with the following results:

1. David Cameron saying "Let us be absolutely clear on this" = 0.001%
2. 16,000 pissed-off police officers with batons = 99.999%

Media executives backed the call, saying that politicians were of little use during the riots. "Obviously when we're looking for sex and sleaze stories, we need Members of Parliament, as there are only so many professional footballers around. But let's face it, when it comes to a choice between burning buildings and Hazel Blears, it's a no-brainer."

Meanwhile senior police officers complained that politicians consumed valuable oxygen that was badly needed by exhausted officers running after thieving scrotes.

The Big Society

2011-08-10T22:43:00.005+01:00

Intending to lighten the doom and gloom, I chose this quintessentially cheerful, hopeful, nay damn it, British picture to introduce the post. In the midst of our broken shop windows and burning buildings, there are some good things...

Ooops. Sorry. Wrong pic.

That's better. As I was saying, there are some good things coming out of the whole riot mess.

Last night here in Nottingham, police stations had petrol bombs thrown at them. Cars were set alight, windows broken, Clarendon College badly damaged. Against that, let's consider the Forest-County match I mentioned yesterday. Before the kick-off, a statement was read to the crowd asking them to go home safely and keep away from any trouble. The crowd stood and applauded. The official police report reads:

"One of the positive highlights of the evening was the impeccably behaved crowd of 23,000 spectators at the Carling Cup football match between Nottingham Forest and Notts County. Not a single incident occurred before, during or after the game off the pitch."

Nottinghamshire police managed the night's incidents extremely well. This, despite the low morale caused by the Government's plans to cut their numbers and reduce their pay and pensions.

Twitter & Facebook campaigns urged people to go out on the streets to clear up this morning. They had little to do: the City Council's teams were out there at 4am, clearing up before dawn. Respect to both groups, and indeed to the similar community clear-up campaigns in all the affected areas. They are being tagged the 'Riot Wombles', which I think we'd all agree is splendid.

All over the blogosphere, Facebook and Twitter, unfiltered by the media, there is huge support for the police and sympathy for those whose homes, businesses and neighbourhoods have been damaged.

And today, something from Nottingham City Council leader Jon Collins (with whom I've had distinct differences of opinion via email) that all here at the Observatory wholeheartedly applaud:

"Nottingham City Council Leader, Jon Collins, and Nottingham City Homes Chief Executive, Chris Langstaff, today announce that they will seek to evict anyone who is directly involved, or whose sons or daughters have been involved in disturbances.

"Cllr Collins added: 'Parents have a responsibility to control the young people living in their home. If young people living in your home have been involved in the violence over the past few days, they are putting your tenancy at risk.

'The perpetrators of these crimes are not only causing a great deal of disturbance and criminal damage, they are also inciting fear into our local communities, and that is totally unacceptable.

'If you or your children are involved, you are putting your family home at risk - don't let that happen.'

Yes. This. Get responsibility back where it belongs.

So, good stuff coming out as the flames die down. And, let us notice, from the grassroots. The Government have done sod-all, frankly, hastily unpacking from holiday and making a few empty speeches. I note that Parliament has been recalled, and that the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill for that. You know what, Members of Parliament? Between the police and ordinary people and local government, we're coping and getting on top of it. Sod off back to Tuscany.

Low expectations

2011-08-10T14:20:00.006+01:00

Deirdre Clunge, lecturer in social studies at the University of Watford Gap Services, today said that there was a tragic lack of aspiration among some looters.

"There has clearly been an institutional failure on the part of Government to grasp the fact that there is today a culturally deprived generation of looters whose aspirations rise no further than packets of crisps from Poundland. Their lack of guidance in their formative years means that they don't even have the sense to wear hoodies so that they can't be identified from CCTV. Meanwhile, an unfairly privileged sector of more appropriately dressed and ambitious looters are able to benefit from JD Sports and Richer Sounds. A lavishly funded study is clearly necessary for me and my colleagues to identify the root causes of this terrible disconnect in our society and blame everyone except thieving scrotes out for a quick snack."

Who'd be a Notts police officer tonight?

2011-08-09T18:03:00.003+01:00

Informed rumour reaches the Observatory that the city authorities are ready for tonight. The Forest-County derby would make it a big night for the police in any event, so let's hope that anything that kicks off other than from the centre-spot at the City Ground is jumped on from a great height.

Meanwhile, by way of update to the previous post, Mr Cameron might just as well have stayed on holiday, as far as I can see. His announcement was full of the usual waffle, and Theresa May's been covering waffle pretty thoroughly already. I don't think I'll change the picture immediately above the mention of COBRA below to something more inspiring.

Riot control

2011-08-09T09:24:00.004+01:00

The Government emergency planning committee - COBRA - meets this morning, with David Cameron and Theresa May hurriedly back from their holidays. We will have to wait and see what they do before judging whether or not the Government is in control of the country.

You would have thought, having watched the news coverage of wholesale arson, burglary and criminal damage in London and elsewhere, that something more robust than supportive speeches was needed. I mean, when buildings are going up in flames and windows going in and police getting out of their vans to find bullet holes in them, then yet another sentence beginning "Let there be no doubt..." or "Let us be absolutely clear about this..." is only so much use. That is, bugger all use.

The only kind of language that will help now would be a phone call from COBRA to Tim Godwin (acting Commissioner of the Met) along the lines of: "The water cannon, baton rounds and tear gas are on their way. Use them. We take full responsibility and will announce that. If you haven't got the balls to make that order, stand down and put your next in command on the line. Tell the officers on the ground that if they go hands on with their batons, they will have our full support and immunity from prosecution. We will announce that too. We are also telling the CPS to use the highest charges they can to prosecute anyone you arrest. We will announce that too. Now go and take back the streets."