Terminal 5

Okay, so Mrs S-E and I have survived our first trip through the 'largest free standing building in Europe'.  More impressively, our luggage made it through as well.

So good things - the overall place seems well designed and the BA lounge is nice (although the music is too loud).

Bad things - the bookshops - there is a small Smiths and a couple of the Irish chain "Hughes and Hughes".  They are too small and the selection is uniformly terrible - absolutely useless. Stanstead is much better served, for example, with its larger Smiths and a Borders land-side and air-side.

Is there really a "banking crisis"?

Okay, a bit of a foolish title. Northern Crock, Bear Stearns, damn nearly Société Générale. There is certainly a problem but a crisis?

I'll admit that I am not trying to refinance my mortgage just now but I got my RBS Final Dividend cheque through the post a few minutes ago. This was a bit unexpected as I was expecting shares but there we go - I probably forgot to post some form or other. It was more of a surprise when I looked at the value - just under a fifth of what they want from me (but are not going to get) in the rights issue. Remember that that is diluting the share capital by 11/18^ths, albeit discounted - and that there is also an interim share dividend (about 1/3 of the total).

So, all in all, this emergency £12 billion cash injection is on the order of 3 years customer dividend. Lots of money, indeed, but, hardly, considering how many companies don't pay a divi, the crisis some are making it out to be.

Friday Triviatics

Via RFS, that scourge of the obese faux-socialist, "Are You A Republican?"

I am: 50% Republican.

"Congratulations, you're a swing voter. When they say 'Nascar Dad', they mean you. Every Republican ad on the TV set was made just for your viewing pleasure. Don't you feel special?"

Are You A Republican?

Nice to see I am maintaining my middle-of-the-road credentials (when it comes to Yank-o-centric fun polls)!

From the same site and with due reference to Wednesday's discussion of crappy sci-fi (as per Scientology), "Which Science Fiction Writer Are You?":

I am: Samuel R. "Chip" Delany Few have had such broad commercial success with aggressively experimental prose techniques.

Which science fiction writer are you?

Not one of my favourite authors, certainly, and a quick check of the library and Amazon doesn't provide me with any confidence I own any of his books (clearly, I had heard of 'Nova'). I wonder if the Welsh Tourist Board book is by the same guy!

And, trying it again, I couldn't make myself come out as Hubbard - the nearest I could do was (the non-scamming) Jerry Pournelle:

I am: Jerry Pournelle This old-fashioned writer may be the most unapologetic capitalist in the field. He has also been influential in many other fields, from space policy to the computer industry.

The real Jerry Pournelle once took this quiz, and it told him he was Robert Heinlen (sic).

:)

They call on the Celts: "Rise Up and Vote Labour!"

Annabel Goldie and her merry band of inadequates are under attack from all sides. From Labour for voting for the Government (SNP) budget and from the SNP for claiming some credit for supporting the popular work for what used to be the Scottish Executive.

The latter is reasonable if somewhat cheeky (Ed notes: sorry, pay for link). The Tories had no part in the SNP manifesto and the main policy of the SNP remains independence for Scotland - this is opposed (although hardly the main policy) of the Tories. However, in a minority administration, it is the role of the smaller parties or blocs to support those bits of the main work of the government they do not fundamentally disagree with, in return for government support for bits of their manifesto or more recent commitments. This is politics as normal - somewhat different from the craven submission of the Lib-Dems to the previous nu-Lab brawl.

However, why the attacks from the Labour?

Labour, never mind reeling from the blast at Crewe, can do electoral maths. If they wish to keep their rotting pseudopods on power at Westminster, they need MPs from the Celtic fringe. The threat here isn't really the Tories (although they are doing much, much better) - it is the Nationalists and, especially, in Scotland where wee Alec has not made fools of himself or his team (unlike Wendy, and her uncertain relationship with the GCF). If the SNP can convince the red-rosette sheeple that they have successfully run those parts of Scotland they control, then Labour could be wiped out as a force in Scottish politics. There are Tories here - anti-European, governmental minimalists, social conservatives, economically prudent - there are (what call themselves but aren't) Liberals under rocks everywhere - pro-Europe, bansturbationary, a paler shade of green; but the fight for the heartland, the socialist and wedded-to-it (as well as paid by it) vote is between the SNP and the peculiarly Lanarkshire flavour of nu-Labour.

Just look at the venom put out by those epitomes of Jock-Lab bloggery, the Kellys - attack, after attack, on the SNP (and Kezia is, although obviously less grotesquely obnoxious, really^* not much better!) Whether this is organised (or just encouraged) corporately, it is clear that Scottish Labour are running scared. Really scared of being cornered into irrelevance by a properly left-wing, competent and populist SNP, with no monocular cretin in Number 10 to drag them down.

It may well be fun to watch, in a rather sick way, from a libertarian and unionist distance.

* At time of writing, she has 6 posts on her front page - one is pro-Obama, one is pro-choice, the other four are, or contain, attacks on the SNP.

Regionalised Aid

Martin Jacques (h/t Mr E), writing on "Cretinous & Feeble", has produced considerable dissent with his "Hands Off Independent Myanmar, You Evil Imperialist Swine" diatribe. Not surprisingly, given his communist politics and work profile, he hasn't exactly made many friends.

More surprisingly, once you dig under the "I hate the West, the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, and all it stands for¹" nonsense, there are actually some limited but valid points there.

I believe that aid should, where possible, be provided from within the local region. Immediately neighbouring countries may not be entirely practical - regional enmities may make a wider focus more appealing but, as Martin states, there is ASEAN². There are clear advantages with local culture, local food (remember American maize flour, from yellow maize, being rejected in Africa because it was so different from the local white maize - never mind US rejection of British emergency rations in the aftermath of Katrina, due to BSE concerns³ and, to localise it - the inappropriateness of possibly meat-based European rations in a largely Buddhist community) or merely not being white (let's be honest, the colonial record, whether we are British, Spanish, French, American or, especially, Belgian, is quite reasonably held against us in many parts of the world.)

He, among others, also has a point regarding the "invade and distribute" idiots. Burma is a military dictatorship - their Army may not be doing much on the disaster relief front but they seem to be doing a reasonable job at catching journalists and, I'm sure, could make any invasion quite a difficult proposition. And, given the success we are having at 'Military Aid to the Civil Power' in Iraq and Afghanistan (as opposed to simple military success against conventional or near-conventional opposition), recent history suggests that we would make such a great job of it.

Except, there is one important factor, for local aid to work, the local organisations or countries need to be able to provide it. Often, although it wasn't too bad in the specific case of Burma and Cyclone Nargis, they have suffered from the same disaster as the poster-child country. Very often, they also are poor and need the food, equipment and skilled people for their own projects and issues. And when they can deploy, they don't come up to standard. African (OAS) troops for African conflicts hasn't worked well. Third World troops on UN deployments have done the remarkable and worsened the reputation of the light blue beret / helmet.

The ICRC was founded in Geneva, Oxfam in Oxford, Médecins Sans Frontières in France. Aid, at the moment, means either the UN or the West. And the UN has all the problems of any large bureaucracy. The people of Burma need aid. The West should and should be both allowed and encouraged to provide it. And if that offends a Burmese General or two? Fuck them with a schiltron full of 15 foot pikes (either the not-quite-a-spear or the fish, I don't care!)


1. Except Marx and Stalin, of course, and, even then Mao and 'Brother No 1' did it better.

2. Go on, why .org? This sort of organisation is exactly what the .int domain is for. And it's even free!

3. Not fit for starving Yanks, therefore foisted on to the developing world - the mind-boggling (lack of) ethics of aid!

1 Down, 350 to Go.*

I suspect there will be an awful lot of very nervous Nu-Lab politicians conspiring over their lattes this morning. This was a result entirely deserved by the Great Clunking Fist and his troupe of barely-trained media baboons. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to see the 17.6% swing reflected in a General Election but this is giving formal notice that the normal people of the UK are now completely sick of them, their spin, their taxes and their horridly statist mismanagement of this country, its economy and our freedom.

The Tories threw it away in 1997, by in-fighting, corruption and the arrogance of being in office for so long. Gordon is throwing it away now because that is all he is capable of doing.

What a lovely morning!

* And, it should go without saying, all 78 UK MEPs (or the 72 we'll have to appoint to their sinecure next time round.)

Preaching from Ignorance

Johann Hari, from Monday's 'Independent':

More amazingly still, Britain's weapons do not have a secret launch code. They can be fired or detonated by the commander in charge of them simply by opening them up manually and turning some switches and buttons. Every other nuclear power has an authorisation code known only to the country's leader, which has to be read out to the soldiers in charge of the weapon before it can be used. Not us. Whenever the British government has tried to introduce this basic safety procedure, the Navy has got huffy and refused to participate, saying it is "tantamount" to claiming their officers are not "true gentlemen".

Now, I have to be careful here because, unlike Johann, I actually know what I am talking about, so all this is open source material:

• Johann is not talking about a "secret launch code" - of course these exist (and change, regularly), he is talking about 'Permissive Action Links' - PALs - in American parlance. These don't stop the weapons being launched or dropped - they are part of the warhead interlocks and stop them going bang. And, it must be admitted, some countries have them fitted on their warheads and the UK doesn't.
• "Every other nuclear power" - just utter bollocks. Israel, India and Pakistan? I doubt it. I don't think the French have them either.
  
• "known only to the country's leader" - Nope. The Soviets had them known to the Political Officers (Zampolit) - not just to the President. In the USA, although the President is the "National Command Authority" when alive, the "National Airborne Operations Centre" (formerly known as the "National Airborne Emergency Command Post" - less formally as 'Kneecap' and before that as 'Looking Glass') is available to take over in the event of mass untimely death^* of politicians by means various. They have the codes available.
• Part of the role of the submarine deterrent force, regardless of which country it belongs to is 'retaliatory strike'. This means that if you attack us with Weapons of Mass Destruction, we will rain buckets of instant sunshine down on you, even if you have killed all of the political leadership. As Jonty Powis (more famous for his part in the rescue of the crew of a Russian mini-sub) pithily but inaccurately put it (I believe on television), we listen to the Today programme and, if we don't hear it, we get worried. Without the expense of NAOC and Airforce One (remember the 'Blairforce 1' farce - and the 'Queen's Flight' is not appropriately equipped), you cannot use PALs in that context.
• Gentlemen? I believe (and was certainly indoctrinated) that Naval Officers are not considered to be gentlemen anyway. Something to do with Queen Victoria and us hanging a load of mutineers after promising them we wouldn't. Hence the carried swords (as opposed to the Royal Marines and the Army who have them on hangers or on a Sam Browne) etc, etc.
• And the killer: "They can be fired or detonated by the commander in charge of them simply by opening them up manually and turning some switches and buttons." Utter, utter crap. While not actually requiring everybody on the submarine to take an active part, missile launch requires many people to co-operate, has numerous interlocks and specifically requires keys held under '2-man control'. And that is just the rockets. The warheads themselves have additional safety features.

Hari, you are an utter fucking cretin.


* Is this actually possible? Or, walking away from the nuclear option, would 'timely' for our political classes be 'three score years and ten' (i.e. McCain is well up for it), as opposed to piano-wire garrottes, candiru fish and sharpened cockroaches at the hands of a riotous mob of libertarian bloggers? Just musing.

Yes, it is! No, it's not!

Scientology? A cult? Hmm - but, despite the opinions of a couple of my betters, I really don't think so.

You see, the term 'religion' is not the only rational alternative to the term 'cult'. And Scientology certainly isn't a religion. It is a deeply unpleasant con-trick, which splits families apart,and was designed by a crappy writer in order to make money more easily than selling books. Which it does do - extremely well. And well enough to pay for lots of lawyers.

It isn't well written sci-fi, either (as you would entirely expect from Hubbard, whose ouvre, frankly, sucks. When you consider that some of the greats of the genre were writing around that time - Asimov, Clarke, Dick, Haldeman - apologies to the rest of the alphabet - or even entirely competent and readable journeymen such as Herbert, Heinlein or 'Doc' Smith - how did Hubbard ever get published?)

However, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the appellation, City of London Police are not doing the job they are expected to. Back to Peel's Principles, Mr Mayor?

Updated to add: The Germans, unusually, have entirely the right idea about how Cruise, his fellow inmates and their criminal warders should be dealt with.

Update 2: H/t to John B who pointed out that it is the Corporation of the City of London, hence the Lord Mayor rather than 'BoJo', who are nominally in charge of these jokers.

What an utterly stupid woman

I don't normally post on the rantings of Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, 'blogger without comments', and "Mad Nad" to her many fans.  This is not because I agree with her but because Ben, Unity and John do a far better job of it (and can be bothered to go and look up the correct statistics).

She may be a wonderful constituency MP but, as far as pretending to govern the country is concerned, she is a one-trick pony.   She doesn't like abortion.  Of itself, not a dishonourable position to hold.  However, instead of campaigning for an outright or an 'except in these special circumstances' ban, she is mendaciously trying to force through salami slicing reductions in the maximum permissible foetal age for terminations.  

As well as her blog article linked above, she also appears in today's Torygraph^*, reported as saying:

I think this report insults the intelligence of the public and MPs alike.  No improvement in neonatal care in 12 years?  Really?  So where has all the money pumped into neonatal services gone?  This report is the most desperate piece of tosh produced by the pro-choice lobby.

Referring, of course, to the University of Leicester report, lead by Prof David Field, into 12 years of premature births & survival rates in the Trent health region. 

I have a number of basic points to make:

• Judging by recent history, I do not think it is possible to insult the intelligence of MPs.
• You seem to believe in the managerialist politicians' delusion that throwing money at a problem must result in improvements.  It 'should' but, especially in the public sector, it rarely does.
• You ignore, in your insistence that the only important group of neonates are those born before 24 weeks - those which further your cause, the 30% increase in the survival rate for babies born at 24 weeks - clearly a valuable improvement.  The fact that such an improvement was achieved without any statistically significant improvement for your preferred group, is actually quite telling.

Let's be honest here or, at least, I will be, because you seem to be constitutionally incapable of it.  With your utter pig-headed refusal to recognise facts, your mendacious twisting of scientific evidence and your clear inability to accept criticism, an invitation to join Gordo's Government of all the Talentless must be just around the corner.

* The Telegraph's search engine is crap - I actually initially couldn't find this online then got it as link 3 when googling David Field. The mind boggles.

And the bloody Torygraph

Who is Mary Riddell? What is a fan of the great clunking fist doing writing in Telegraph Comment? I mean:

When did decency become the mark of Cain on an honest politican?

is a reasonable enough question. But asked of our inglorious Prime Minister, the Great Ditherer himself? Hero of the War on the Low Paid?  Decent and honest? Damn fool of a cretinous and credulous hack. Get back to ghost writing for Terry, I say.

Ed notes: She's actually a columnist for those well known conservative and (classically) liberal journals, the Observer and the New Statesman.  And a professional quango-crat leach:

Outside journalism, she sits on a number of commissions and advisory boards for organisations advancing justice and liberty, including Smart Justice and Rethinking Crime and Punishment. She is also a patron of the Children’s Rights Alliance for England.

Get thee hence, foul witch!

A note for "London Lite"

Folks,

Your front page headline, yesterday, is crap: no matter how well trained, a drunk with a shotgun is not a "sniper".

Sniper implies long range (not achievable with a shotgun) and accurate (although a small amount of an appropriate sedative may improve accuracy, alcohol is unlikely to be the cheat's choice - the blurring of your distance vision really does your grouping no good at all.)

Oh, what a glorious morning!

Well done Boris, well done James, well done all 3154 (ish - Sky has it at 3156) of the councillors, new and old. Well done everybody who voted for them (actually, well done everybody who voted.)

Matthew Parris, constrained by the politesse of the "Times of London", considers voters telling the monocular spiv and his cronies to "push off". I don't think so.

There is some vaguely appalling film^* being advertised on the Underground at the moment with a picture of a large club with rusty iron spikes driven through it - a common man's mace (no, this not this). What voters have told the bunch of statist control freaks is to fuck off, right now, or we will anally rape you with as close as we can make to such a device before the (new-traditional) candiru fish, spectacular group bondingage exercises, quick trips to France, or, bluff old traditionalist that I am, the piano wire comes out.

* Updated to add: "Doomsday" - apparently made with £300k of public money. Nice 'work' if you can get it.

Grovelling Apology

In recompense for my recent appalling behaviour on Our Hero's blog, as chronicled on TerryWatch, may I direct you to a beautifully civilised rant in today's Torygraph, by Andrew Roberts on the egregious Vera Baird:

It is also worth contemplating Mrs Baird's typical New Labour arrogance in dismissing the Royal Family for not already being part of "the human race".

She obviously considers herself to be a functioning member of it, despite having been a lawyer for 33 years and a Labour MP for seven, two professions that the public regards as about as cut off from reality as it is possible to be in modern Britain.

I would be prepared to wager that every single member of the Royal Family in receipt of the Civil List - even those in their eighties - has in the past year visited more hospitals, met more ordinary people, travelled the country more and generally proved their membership of the human race far better than Mrs Vera Baird QC, MP.

The point about the Kaiser, as well as many others, is also beautifully made. My day would have seemed less damp if I had got to page 21 at breakfast rather than before bed.

For the Want of a Nail

It seems that the downfall of Lee Jasper, the world guru of PC and yet another example of the encouraging truism that the only qualification for seeking political office (even his pre-fall un-elected status) in London is excessive and extra-marital shagging, was brought about by one of the axiomatic failures of personal information security - the password on the post-it note.

If you had wondered how the Evening Standard got hold of the emails, the answer is in today's Indefensible.

Bigwigs at City Hall, paranoid about the leak that led to Jasper's messages reaching the journalist Andrew Gilligan, held an inquiry to find the culprit. The police would have been called had illegal hacking activity been unearthed. The inquiry was short. It soon established that Jasper kept his email log-in password on a Post-it note near his computer, so a temp could check his mail.

More fool him.

What Aren't They Saying?

Have a look at this very interesting response, from the less than universally popular Government of the People's Republic of China, to this Businessweek article:

After saying that, I should say that the Chinese government has on various occasions expounded its position on this global issue of cyber intrusion or hacking. The Chinese Government always opposes and forbids any cyber crimes including "hacking" that undermine the security of computer networks. Chinese laws and regulations are explicit in this regard.

As it is, China's cyber space and internet systems are frequently intruded and attacked by hackers from certain countries. As a victim of hacking attacks, China attaches great importance to cracking down on various cyber crimes including hacking activities.

China follows a path of peaceful development, and unswervingly adopts a national defense policy which is defensive in nature. China would never do anything to harm sovereignty or security of other countries. In conformity with such national policies, the Chinese government has never employed, nor will it employ so-called civilian hackers in collecting information or intelligence of other countries. Allegations against China in this respect are totally unwarranted, which only reflect the dark mentality of certain people who always regard China as a threat. Of course, there are some other people who are misled into believing that China is engaged in hacking activities, which is more than wrong.

(My italics.)

Now, I have worked in the past with the good people at CN-CERT/CC, the official computer incident co-ordinating centre for the PRC and they are keen and helpful when you are trying to knock out fraudulent web-sites and I am sure they are just as helpful in other similar circumstances.  But ...

Although it is not unknown for Intelligence Agencies to outsource the gathering of sensitive information to 'so-called civilian hackers', it is much more common for them to employ the appropriate resource directly - either via the military or as government employees.  Which may be, as well as having some of their billion-plus population being up to no good entirely on their own cognisance, how some of all these APNIC IP addresses are appearing in people's security logs.

Or, there are another couple of alternatives.  The "Press Counselor & Spokesperson Of the Chinese Embassy to the United States" may not have a complete picture of his government's intelligence activities or, and I know this may come as a complete shock, may be knowingly telling a slight fib.

Security Shitstorm

While I am perfectly happy that it appears unlikely that Poole Council passed the necessary tests in S.28(3) of RIPA for the authorisation of directed surveillance (see al-Beeb, the Torygraph and the Gruniad):

(3) An authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—

(a) in the interests of national security;

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;

(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;

(d) in the interests of public safety;

(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;

(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department; or

(g) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.

unless the evil shits that run this country have made an Order defining school entrance as so enabling, I must object to the tenor of the BBC coverage this morning and the other journalistic nonsense.  RIPA is not just for terrorists (as the mother apparently alleges) and serious crime - it covers many, many things.  For example, there has been directed surveillance for years by the DWP and its predecessors checking that invalidity benefit (and its predecessors) claimants are not working on the side, running marathons, entering martial arts competitions, etc.

Note that this is not interception (S3, 4 & 5) or 'intrusive surveillance' in S32, which aside from the limited exceptions for interception (consent, the owner of a private system etc), the requirements for justifying both of which are more severe.

While I agree with Liberty that this may be disproportionate (I am not sure using your current address on a school application and then later moving a mile counts as criminal, whatever Tim Martin thinks) but the challenge has to be on that basis, not that 'it isn't terrorism'.

Phorm, for example, mendacious charlatans that they may be, are not 'terrorists', and we certainly want RIPA to apply to them.

Sacreligious Publishing

Okay, I guess that unlike the 25,000¹ ravening bigots whipped into a fury of "peace and tolerance for their fellow man"^(TM), I have watched 'Fitna' and read 'Infidel'. There is some utter crap² around concerning these.

Now, it has to be said that all religions have their utter wackos. Ask any family planning clinic in the US 'Bible Belt'. Or somebody after a drink (or a game of golf) on the Western Isles on a Sunday. However, modern Islam does have its nutters more than a wee bit closer both to the mainstream and to the hairy edge than, for example, Tibetan Buddhists. (Ed notes: And a happy non-violent continuing anti-Olympic protest beating to you in the gulag near Lhasa! And best of British for your protest in SanFran - you ought to have a more favourable policing atmosphere than you did in the Euro-statist capitals of Paris or London.)

Well, Infidel was not a nice story. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has not had a quiet and easy life. An impoverished upbringing of tribal brutality in exile. A violent mother out of place in modern³ society. Endless misogyny and female circumcision⁴. Much of this seemed to be post hoc justified in Islam - but like just the burka, these are tribal customs enforced through female acquiescence to patriarchal stupidity. I was cured of this by reading Germaine at a suitably impressionable age. Islam didn't come out of her childhood too badly - her adults came out appallingly - mother, grandmother (especially) father, brother - a fairly uniform bunch of oxygen thieves. Now, once she was a free adult in the Netherlands, then the 'Religion of Peace' showed its real (ugly) form. It is a good, albeit fundamentally disturbing (especially, I suspect, if you are a sexually active female) book - buy it or borrow it, but read it. If it doesn't make you think then you are probably a nu-Lab PPS.

'Fitna' was a damp squib. Nothing new, nothing particularly interesting. A simple documentary on fundamentalist extremism in Europe would have done the trick, without the political kudos. No mention of Saudi (although I did spot at least one Saudi sheik amongst the rabid), Salafism or Wahabbi. 15 minutes of the best of the Quran, the successful amongst Islamist terrorists and crowds incited to foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Semitism. We get that on the news - even al-Beeb carries that sort of hysteria. Watch it - just because people want to ban it and that is, of itself, a bad thing⁵. Many thanks to Liveleak for carrying it - I appreciate the sheer aggro you went through with all the mindless nut-jobs and the intimidation.

The last word.



1. It's nice to see there are some commonalities in modern policing - 100,000 according to the organisers.

2. Exodus, Samuel, Psalms. And this is an angry response about Christians. Well educated in the 'good book', then. New covenant, anybody? 'Sermon on the Mount', going cheap?

3. Geek moment. Mine is /was an AS400 Sysadmin. Zero cool points for the Tux generation!

4. This is the wrong word. Male 'circumcision' involves removing a small bit of skin on the end of your knob that, frankly (and I speak as one with one) doesn't seem to serve that much of a purpose. And I get the hygiene point. As opposed to removing the clitoris, the labia (various) and whatever else gets in the way of the knife. 'Castration' isn't the right word either. But it's closer.

5. I've read 'Mein Kampf'. It's a terrible book - huge, turgid and vile. The 'John Prescott' of literature. But it is an important book - it shaped a large part of the last century and is still significant now. Which is why it should be available to be read. Along with "Animal Farm', 'One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich'. Both of which are (much) shorter and (vastly) better written.

Random News

The good, the bad and the ugly.

Oh, and the 'no surprises there, then' and the downright wierd.

New Coins

I am, in my (very limited) richer moments a non-obsessive collector of UK coins. And I like these new ones:



I think the idea is good, I think the use of the traditional heraldry is good (although there clearly should be a Scottish version with the proper arrangement of the Royal Arms for use in Scotland - this being different from the Royal Arms of Scotland). And I will buy a set, when they come out in silver Piedfort.

And for those bemoaning the loss of Britannia, can I please direct you to the 2008 design:



Update: Got the Royal Mint catalogue through this morning. £11k for the two (old & new) sets in platinum. A mere £6k for the new lot. :) My dearly beloved thinks not.

An Early Christmas

Remember "Santa's Little Helper"? The tangerine hero of Protestantism?

Well, we now know his real name. Not Charles Clarke, not even John Parker. It is (why is the blink tag depreciated the one time you really need it?):

Diamond Dan the Orangeman

After rejecting "Sash Gordon" and "the Boyne Wonder", you really have to worry about these bigots. Especially at 7 years old. I suppose we should congratulate Mr and Mrs Mitchell for bringing up young Steven in the best traditions of warped Christianity, religious intolerance and mindless stupidity your island is so famous for. Possibly a year-out scholarship at a Taliban madrassa beckons once he can grow enough bum fluff for an acceptable beard?