Have you been waiting your whole life?

Tags: Eagles Long Road Out Of Eden new album long wait

"Have you been waiting your whole life for that album?" asked the assistant in HMV today as I handed over my copy of the Eagles' new album, Long Road Out of Eden.

"Not quite" I replied. "About six years."

I saw the Eagles live at Hampden Park in Glasgow in the summer of 2001. They announced on stage that they were back in the recording studio, and that a new album would be out "in November". Obviously, they neglected to mention which year that November would be...

When Hole in the World was released as a single in 2003, I was excited. The album was just a little delayed, no problem, this is the first single from it. But despite this release, no album was forthcoming.

Finally, finally, it is here. So not my whole life. Just a fifth of it.

But in a sense, I have been waiting my whole life for this album. I've been an Eagles fan for as long as I can remember. The last album of original material from the Eagles was The Long Run in 1979, the same year I was born. Since then there had been various live albums, and greatest hits collections, but no studio album, no original songs. Hell Freezes Over in 1994 had 4 original album tracks, and Eagles Selected Works 1972-1999 had a variety of never before heard tracks, but again, not enough to be called a "new album".

So throughout my life, there has never been a new Eagles album. Until now.

Excuse while I put the album on, kick back, and Take It Easy...

It must be true, a friend of a friend told me...

Tags: Red Arrows false rumour 2012 Olympics friend of a friend story false authority syndrome check your sources

The Red Arrows are banned from flying at the Olympic Games in 2012. The Government banned them because they are "too British" and "too triumphalistic". It would be "culturally insensitive" because they are part of our military. Bloody government. It's political correctness gone mad. You should sign the petition, that'll learn them.

And it must be true, I got an e-mail about it from someone I trust. I suspect you did too. You know, your mate who sends e-mails with photos of kittens in them, and countless hints on how to get gas/petrol prices to fall, and about being careful when people flash their lights at you, because it is a gang initiation, and you'll be killed. Your friends are never wrong, after all.

Except they are wrong. The Red Arrows were never banned from the Olympics in 2012. This story ought to have been killed at the start of October, but it was raised in Parliament on Monday. Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell had to confirm to the house that there was not one scintilla of truth in the rumour. The Red Arrows had not even been asked to take part at the stage these rumours started flying (if you'll forgive the pun). The Red Arrows only plan their shows about a year in advance, so 2012 is still a little early for them to be thinking of.

As anybody who had bothered to check with the Red Arrows themselves would have found out - Red Arrows - Don't believe Everything you read in the newspapers!

This rumour spread because of a conflation of three elements.

Firstly is the friend of a friend (FOAF) story. Your information source is at least one person removed from you, a friend of a friend. You trust your friend to be correct, and they trust their friend to be correct, so the story must be correct. Except your friend only heard it themself from a friend of a friend, who only heard it from a friend of a friend, and so on, until you realise the story has no reliable source.

Secondly is "False Authority Syndrome". The story comes from a "reliable source". Perhaps a newspaper. Or a TV bulletin. So you accept it unquestioningly. But what if they are wrong? A local newspaper hears a rumour and reports it as fact. A regional paper picks the story up. It gets on to the AP wire. Several nationals then get the story, and because it comes from AP they don't bother to verify the facts, they assume that it must be accurate. False authority syndrome at work. As the Urban Legends Reference Pages so neatly puts it:

No single truth purveyor, no matter how reliable, should be considered an infallible font of accurate information.... It's just as much a mistake to look to a usually-reliable source to do all of the thinking, judging, and weighing as it was to unquestioningly believe every unsigned e-mail that came along.

When you hear the story from people you know and trust, when seemingly reliable authorities confirm it, what else are you supposed to believe. Especially when the third element falls into place.

We have such a poor opinion of the Government of this country that this kind of thing is PRECISELY what we have come to expect from them.

The elements combine to conform to our prejudices about the apparatus of State, and the rumour becomes an unshakable truth. It is self-evident. We know it is true because it stands to reason.

Yet all this self-evidence, all these "reliable" sources crumble under the harsh light of truth. As with all things, ask the people actually involved. Those who were there.

In this case, it didn't take much effort to check with the Red Arrows themselves. They weren't banned. They hadn't even been invited by that point. And it was too far in the future for them to have anything more than the vaguest inclinations towards.

A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact.

Once is unfortunate, twice looks like carelessness

Tags: Shahid Malik MP detained Department of Homeland Security Dulles

Britain's first Muslim MP, Shahid Malik, was detained at JFK Airport in New York last year under anti-terrorism measures. Despite having been invited to the US by the Department of Homeland Security to discuss tackling extremism and defeating terrorism. Still, he got profuse apologies from the Department of Homeland Security. And it's not like it was going to happen again...

Oops!

Dulles Airport in Washington DC this time around. Baggage searched for explosives this time.

Oh, and once again the reason he was in the US was that he was invited to discuss tackling terrorism. Tackling, not committing. There is a difference!

Love it or leave it...

Tags: Scotland England union devolution Conservatives Malcolm Rifkind

We're revisiting an old post of mine, from way back in March: The State of the Union - 300 Years. That post was written in honour of the 300th anniversary of the Union of Scotland and England. And, despite the fact that in that post I pointed out how much I, as a Scot, wanted devolution to apply to England as well, despite how much I pointed out the inherent unfairness of allowing Scottish MPs to vote on matters of purely English concern (the "West Lothian Question"), despite my fervent support of the cause of English devolution, if not independence...

...yeah, I still got the living shit kicked out of me on a certain forum I won't mention, but who will no doubt link to me AGAIN in order to give abuse to someone who is in full support of them. But such is life. The last time I logged in there, things seemed to have calmed down though - they now have Scottish and Welsh nationalist members who made the eminently sensible point that if you are an English nationalist who wants devolution/independence, your enemies are not the Scots or the Welsh, but the Unionists, so energy would be better directed at arguing against Unionists, not Scottish and Welsh people who actually support your cause.

But I digress...

The reason I bring that post back up is that the subject matter is back in the news. It is not often I find myself in agreement with Conservatives (David Cameron is setting a worrying trend here) but I found myself nodding in agreement with Malcolm Rifkind when I heard him on the news yesterday. To a point.

He was discussing Conservative plans to prevent Scottish (and presumably Welsh) MPs from sitting in Parliament when devolved matters pertaining exclusively to England were being discussed. This is eminently sensible, fair, and would at a stroke prevent the West Lothian Question from arising. As such, it was instantly dismissed by the Labour government as a threat that could "tear the Union apart". No, if anything threatens to tear the Union apart it is the prospect of Scottish MPs being used to push through legislation that applies only to England.

***IMPORTANT CAVEAT*** - By "Scottish" I mean MPs who sit in Scottish constituencies, not people who happen to be Scottish.***

This hasn't happened yet, but if it should, it would be a constitutional difficulty that could make or break a government. I find it ironic that the Conservatives are the ones to raise this, since English MPs forcing unwanted legislation that only affected Scotland was the experience of Scotland under the last Conservative government, but at that stage there was no devolution, and a colourable argument could be made about unitary government.

I do however have some quibbles with Mr Rifkind, but they are not so much about the Conservative proposals as they are about possible outcomes, and the opinions of those he is appealing to.

Firstly, this "English Grand Committee" or whatever it is going to be called, that will be composed exclusively of English MPs when the subject matter is exclusively pertaining to England. What if the Cabinet minister responsible sits in a Scottish seat: - would they be allowed to direct the debate, on the understanding they have no vote? Or is the aim that no Scottish MP should have a cabinet position that exclusively deals with English matters, in which case why aren't the Conservatives pushing for a devolved Parliament for England? Having a "Grand Committee" rather than a fully-fledged devolved English Parliament seems more than a little insulting to the English in my opinion, as if their affairs are somehow not worthy of a dedicated assembly.

Secondly, Mr Rifkind stated that the reason the Union worked for 300 years was that it was "fair" to everyone. OK Mr Rifkind. If it was "fair" to everyone, could you get your base of support in the South of England to stop whining about how "unfair" it is to subsidise Scotland? That argument has slightly more weight since devolution (money goes to Scotland, but with no say as to how it is applied), but pre-devolution the South of England made the same argument. That was the consequence of Union, and the argument about "subsidising" Scotland has about as much weight as the Scottish nationalists who keep carping on about "Scottish oil money". Either both arguments are nonsense, or they are both equally valid, but Scottish nationalists moan about the oil money and deny there is an issue over the Barnett Formula, and the South of England moan about the Barnett Formula whilst still feeling entitled to the oil money. Neither can have it both ways. We either pool our common resources (oil found in Scotland managed from London, money from the UK pot going to places of most need) or we don't (in which case independence beckons).

Where am I going in this post? I don't know, and I think that matches the confusion in the two main parties. Labour want devolution for everyone except England. The Conservatives want the consequences of devolution for England without going so far as calling it devolution. The only main political party in favour of English devolution and an English Parliament is the Scottish Nationalist Party - which is surprising to some, but a natural consequence of their political stance. Everyone is complaining, failing to realise that their complaint is matched by an equally valid but opposite complaint, but nobody wants to take the brave decisions. We really only have a few options.

• Complete Union. Scrap devolution, we are all one country, stop moaning about Barnett Formula/oil money.
  
  
• Devolution for all Home Nations. Scottish, English, Welsh, Norther Irish. Each has a devolved Parliament dealing with their own concerns, with equal powers. The UK Parliament remains for matters of UK-wide, non-devolved issues. It doesn't need to be Federal, but it would certainly make things easier.
  
  
• Total Independence. We all go our separate ways. That way no-one is voting on issues that don't concern them, the English don't need to begrudge giving money under the Barnett Formula, and the Scottish can keep what little oil is left under the North Sea.

Best to sort this out now, while we're still on speaking terms with each other, because the longer this goes unresolved, the uglier this debate is going to become. Soon it will not be about the constitution, democracy, distribution of power etc. It will eventually boil down to pure hatred based on whether you are Scottish or English. Some papers and pundits (*cough*Mail *cough*Express *cough*Littlejohn*cough*) are doing their damnedest to make it a racial issue. I'm not even going to depress myself by looking at the BBC Have Your Say site - given the "strident" (ie lunatic) views expressed their on other issues, I'm sure that the majority of the posts are Scots being anti-English, English being anti-Scottish, people taking comments the wrong way, and nobody getting along.

We all live on the same damn island people, we've been through two World Wars together. Can we perhaps forget what happened in the 13th, 14th and 18th Centuries, and discuss this like rational people?

An error or a fix?

Tags: BBC National Lottery In It To Win It error fraud Western Australia

I was watching the tail end of the BBC show "The National Lottery: In It To Win It".

A contestant called David Williamson was asked the following question:

Which is the largest Australian State, covering approximately one third of the country?"

(A) New South Wales (B) Queensland (C) Western Australia

The contestant answered "Queensland". However, just before he answered, a voice was clearly audible on the broadcast saying "Western Australia".

Dale Winton asked if he wanted that answer accepted as his final answer. The contestant changed his mind, and opted for "Western Australia". The correct answer. And it was an answer that one him a substantial sum of money.

Now, perhaps it was a coincidence. Perhaps a stray microphone picked up someone in the audience. Perhaps it was only audible to the home audience. Perhaps Mr Williamson had a sudden change of mind, remembered some long forgotten bit of knowledge about Australia.

Or perhaps the whispered answer wasn't only audible to the home audience. Perhaps Mr Williamson heard it. Perhaps the answer came through an earpiece, and was picked up by a microphone. Perhaps the original "wrong" answer was given in order to ramp up the dramatic tension. Perhaps Mr Williamson is not a real contestant.

Dale made a comment when handing him his winner's cheque about "the world of acting" beckoning. Given the recent scandals about planted contestants in phone-ins and other contests on the BBC and other channels, can you blame me for wondering?

I have put this point to the BBC, and await their response. I wonder if anyone else heard this too?

More quiet than usual...

Tags: NaNoWriMo blogging podcast

I'm back from my holiday now, but that doesn't mean a triumphant return to blogging, as it is not very long until November, and November is National Novel Writing Month which I am taking part in for the very first time this year.

NaNoWriMo is a challenge to write a novel of at least 50,000 words in the space of one month. This is the motivational kick in the pants I need to get ideas out of my head and on to (virtual) paper. As such, NaNoWriMo and associated items will be my main focus over the next few weeks, so this blog will be very rarely updated.

To keep up with my life in November head on over to my writing blog which will have updates on how I'm doing plus excerpts from the novel. You might also be interested in my podcast Clamouring to become audible... - if you're lucky I'll be moaning about writer's block. If you're unlucky I'll be reading from my work!

Normal service to be resumed in December - hope nothing interesting happens before then!

Photos!

When I'm not getting a kicking over my personal/legal/political opinions, I appear to get a hell of a lot of stick from people for not having a photo, only an avatar.

Fine, for those morbidly curious, here I am...

Paul and his legion of adoring fans, aka the students of Sweetwater High School, Texas, cheering for their high school (American) football team.

Mean and moody shot - if you like the leather cowboy hat, you should see the long leather coat that goes with it...

On holiday...

I'm on holiday at the moment, and like a good blogger I still can't leave the laptop at home!

However, I've been good and I'm not doing any blog posts. Sadly, this also means I have neither the time nor the inclination to put up a rebuttal post to recent comments and e-mails I have received. The rebuttal will include a complete point by point refutation of Mr Justice Burton's nine so-called "errors", and some further thoughts on the lack of legal substance to the decision.

In the meantime, I shall leave you with the following quote from a BBC news story:
UK Scientists Defend Gore Film

They [Professor Chris Rapley, head of the Science Museum (and also a Gore science adviser) and Professor John Shepherd from the National Oceanography Centre] say in general Gore's film presented an exceptionally high standard of scientific accuracy. And they warn that the judge himself expressed unwarranted confidence on several issues subject to considerable scientific uncertainty.

Professor Rapley, former head of the British Antarctic Survey, told BBC News that the atmosphere over climate science was so confrontational that some scientists were reluctant to discuss uncertainties in their work for fear that they would be seized on by others anxious to discredit the whole theory of manmade climate change.

Gore's film is advocacy, and as such it presented the worst case scenario - however, this was the worst case scenario based on the unambiguous data. Have you looked at the best case scenarios, based on the same data? They are still pretty damn bad. This was advocacy, but advocacy supported by the science.

Mr Dimmock objected that this was a "shockumentary". Yes, yes it was, because it is now so late in the game that shocking people into action is the last chance we have. Should educational films about the dangers of drink driving be banned when they show death and injury? We know that statistically speaking only a minority of drink drivers will ever kill people. Should films that portray death as a result of drink driving be banned because they twist the truth? Should we view drink driving as something that is not really a problem, because the majority of drink drivers don't have accidents?

Hmm, turned into a longer rant than I thought. Guess it must be because I'm currently surrounded by people who find their professional opinions and results consistently misrepresented on a daily basis by the climate change denial camp. Better here than with the ostriches though.

An idiot has his day in court, "wins", but still loses...

Tech Tags: An Inconvenient Truth Stewart Dimmock another dumb climate change denier scientific illiteracy goes to court

A scientifically illiterate fool sticks his head in the sand and wastes everyone's time in order to have his day in court over the issue, fails to achieve his aim, and claims it is victory.

Stewart Dimmock of Dover, a truck driver (which qualification means his opinion is worth far more than that of the entire scientific community) from Dover, challenged the showing of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (the truth of which was too inconvenient for his liking) under the Education Act 2006.

Showing the film is not in breach of the Act. The updated guidance that accompanies it brings it in line with the requirements of the act.

Mr Justice Burton's opinion reads as follows: "I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act."

For those who haven't done law, let me translate that statement. What Mr Justice Burton said was that if it weren't for the fact that they were complying with the law, they would be breaking the law.

Ironic. Kind of like saying "I conclude that, but for the fact that they lost, New Zealand would have won against France." Mr Justice Burton is speculating on a situation that simply wasn't the case. This is what we call opinio juris, the part of a legal decision where the judge gets to engage in hypotheticals and show of his massive legal brain. Most importantly for our purposes however, is the fact that the opinio is not legally binding.

The bit of the case that is binding however, the bit that sets precedent, is the ratio decidendi. And the ratio in this case is that, so long as the film is show in accordance with the education guidelines, then it breaches no law.

Mr Dimmock says "If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would still be being indoctrinated with this political spin." Sorry Mr Dimmock, it is still going to get shown. The truth will continue to out. All truths are greeted with derision, then suppression. The truth about climate change has been derided by those who cannot understand it, and suppressed by those threatened by it.

Mr Dimmock's truck driving may be threatened by climate change, but more likely I suspect he is a creationist, and this is yet another attempt at the "thin edge of the wedge" tactic to have creationism not only taught, but taught to the exclusion of science, in our schools.

I am sorry, but NO. Creationism has no place in our schools. And if you think it does, then which Creationism do YOU support. If you want the lie that God created the world in 6,000 years taught in schools, then I object - I want EVERY OTHER CREATION MYTH taught. Because each has as much "evidence" as the other. Creationists whine "but we're not trying to teach Christian creation, only point out the flaws in evolution". Fine then. Let's teach the Hindu version of creation exclusively shall we? Since it isn't about Christianity, you won't have any problem with an alternative creation story that disagrees with evolution...

Except they will. Because this isn't about science. This is about fundamentalism. This is about a fanatical perversion of religion that cannot tolerate dissent, because it knows that if people are allowed to think for themselves, they will no longer be controlled. Ironic that Christian fundamentalists bitch and moan about other fundamentalist religions, and the dangers they pose. At the moment, the threat of the occasional bomb is not nearly as dangerous as the subversion of an entire generation, and the suppression of scientific knowledge.

In many respects, I wish Mr Dimmock was right. I would love to live in a world where I am being fooled by the scientists, and manipulated by the politicians into thinking something was happening that wasn't true. I would rather be a gullible fool than live on a planet on the edge of destruction.

Unfortunately for the likes of Mr Dimmock, I think the science will, as ever, be the one proven right.

The only people being lied to, the only victims of indoctrination and spin, are those taken in by the Christian fundamentalists and the creationists.

Sorry, this is about legal rights...

Tech Tags: wills Dr Christine Gill RSPCA Inheritance Act 1975

I have some sympathy for Dr Christine Gill. Helping your parents out at weekends and during holidays, and ultimately giving up your academic position ten years ago to help run the family farm shows quite some dedication.

However, I have a problem with the statement she made: "They had no moral right to make that will".

No, they had every moral right to make whatever will they wished to make. That's the point of testamentary dispositions. It is meant to reflect the wishes of the decedent. Now, you can question whether or not the parents were being unkind, cruel etc to not leave the farm to their daughter, but the fact remains they had every moral right to dispose of their property as they saw fit.

You cannot challenge a will on the grounds that you feel you somehow "morally" deserved more. Legally, now that's another matter altogether.

As for whether they had the legal right to make that will, a few questions need to be answered. When the will was made, were the parents of sufficient state of mind that they were competent to make the will? If so, then the presumption has to be in favour of the will being valid. Did the RSPCA exert undue influence on them to leave the estate to them? Highly unlikely (a corporate entity may not legally be able to do that anyway) but again it comes down to competence.

The only other ground of challenge would be, as is happening in this case, a challenge under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. But unless Dr Gill relied upon her parents for financial support, it would be supremely difficult to overturn the will on the grounds that she had not been provided for.

A person may not like the way a relative made their will, but it was theirs to make. If we retroactively attempt to overturn wills because someone feels they have not had what they "morally" deserve, then the courts would never be clear of people challenging wills, indeed we may as well ask what the point of a will is - let the relatives descend on the estate like a cloud of locusts and fight for whatever they want.

Seriously? This is the best?

Tech Tags: Transport for London public transport TripAdvisor best city for public transport London

According to a survey conducted by holiday review site TripAdvisor, world travellers have voted London the best city for public transport, and the second year running to boot.

My only question is how can that be remotely possible??? Have all those people who voted ever even BEEN to London? Or any other city??? London's public transport system is dirty, overcrowded and unreliable. In this past week alone I have been made late by Transport for London on 6 separate occasions. The excuse has invariably been "due to the late running of this train, we are taking it out of service". So, passengers who weren't late became late. Passengers already late became even later. Overcrowded tube-loads of people had to somehow cram onto another tube train, itself already overcrowded, resulting in doors that couldn't close, a tube train that could not leave, and a further delay to the service. Why not just let the late train continue on to the terminus, instead of withdrawing it from service? Instead platforms and trains are getting dangerously overcrowded, and passengers are getting increasingly aggressive with each other. Something is going to give, and people are going to get hurt.

And can someone from Transport for London please explain to me why late running engineering works between the final two stations at one end of a line can cause there to be only one train every 30 minutes at the other end of the line? Especially considering the frequency of the trains from the opposite direction (which you would expect to be worse hit) was far greater.

These are not exceptional instances - this is the common level of service on London's public transport system. If this is "the best in the world" then what the hell is everyone else putting up with?

About the only thing the survey got right was that we are the most expensive in the world. I have to laugh at the quote from Michelle Perry, communications director for TripAdvisor - "It's proof that even when it comes to riding a bus or a subway, you get what you pay for." Umm, no. We pay a hell of a lot of money, for lousy service in return.

Take a trip in Paris. Try the Netherlands. Tokyo. Barcelona. Dublin. London is easily blown out of the water in regards to cleanliness, punctuality and cost. The only thing we've got going for us is accessibility, in that tube stations, overland, buses and taxis are ubiquitous, but even then, part of this city is seriously let down by public transport.

If you live/work "south of the river", try taking the tube. Or getting a taxi. And good luck to you, because there are damn few tube lines that extend south of the river, and the later it gets at night, the harder it is to get a taxi to take you there, which needlessly puts people at risk. Given the huge campaign TfL and the Mayor have run about the dangers of unlicensed minicabs, perhaps they should have a word with the licensed minicab drivers and get them to be a little more charitable about getting people home safely.

All I can say is thank goodness for LateTube, a website that campaigns to improve our dire underground system. If your journey is delayed, you are entitled to claim a refund on your journey. LateTube makes that process simple for you. I would strongly urge every passenger in London to sign up for it, and hit TfL where it hurts - in their profit margin. We get the service we pay for - if we got a good service then I wouldn't object to it being so expensive. But we don't get what we pay for, and it's about bloody time that we did.

Rant over.