Prescott has job

They've found John Prescott a new job. Instead of trying to legitimise England's toadish regional assemblies he's going to go down the micro-management route:

John Prescott has unveiled a five year plan that he hopes will see more people getting involved in their communities.

The deputy prime minister hopes involving voters in local "democratic life" will help drive deprived areas out of poverty.

Yes. Yes, I can see how that would work.

He's going to spend five million quid on guides to help local people and their councils spend resources more effectively. Presumably point one of the guide would be something along the lines of don't waste 10 million pounds pushing personal agendas like Mr. Prescott did recently in the North East England referendum hoo-haa.

Prescott says:

"We want people to help share the local public services they receive and we want them to become more involved in the democratic life of their community."

"In this way, local people, working with local councillors, can play their part in creating sustainable communities."

Yay. But honestly, it's like reading the Guardian.

A reader writes - continuing the gun culture debate

I've received an email from Frank regarding my recent articles on gun culture. He goes into quite a bit of detail which readers may find interesting and takes exception at the idea that continuity of ownership is a requirement for the existence of a positive gun culture (as I suggested).

I include most of Frank's mail here and also respond to the continuity issue.

Dear John.

I write in response to your postings re gun culture. I agree with some of what you say and disagree with some, which I point out below. I also ask how are we to get to your stage one? So have a read and let me know your thoughts. This may appear disjointed, but it started as comments, but then I thought an email would be better and have produced something that is not fully at ease as either.

"I stand by much of what I wrote on the subject, particularly the reasons why gun culture has all but vanished (though no one has really called me out on that one yet)"

I believe you’ve hit it on the head as to why gun culture has all but vanished as you say:

"Then the state broke it. By degrees.

Gun culture was strangled to the point where continuity was lost and it is because of that loss that my full support for the liberalisation of gun ownership in the general populace is not forthcoming. I blame the state."

A key (I believe) point I will take issue with is the necessity of continuity you say:

"This culture was a learnt one. It required a continuity of ownership and the sharing of knowledge over each generation."

I agree the culture was learnt, I agree that it had continuity of ownership and the sharing of knowledge over each generation, and I agree that these are desirable and valuable aspects. I would disagree that continuity of ownership is required. I believe that people have the innate capacity to learn and develop in response to changing circumstances and environment, if it were not so we would never have coped with any technologies ever.

Of course, I agree with Frank here. There is no doubt that people are perfectly capable of learning all that is necessary to re-introduce a beneficial gun culture to the UK. Continuity of ownership, as he points out, is not a pre-requisite. What I was trying to express, very badly, is that continuity of ownership positively encouraged the gun culture that prevailed to continue to do so. It's a bit self fulfilling I know, but breaking that continuity (and the benefits it provided) was a great deal easier than creating it again will be.

If you are a government, or an anti-gun organisation, your biggest enemy is public perception. If that perception is that guns are useful tools then you are on a hiding to nothing. That positive perception of guns is often built through experience and observation and, I think, it is more likely that these things will occur if continuity is maintained across generations. You will be brought up experiencing the positive aspects of gun ownership and your perception will be that opposing views (guns are the cause of gun crime etc) will appear odd.

Frank was right to bring me up on the continuity issue. It is not a pre-requisite as such.

So from my point of view I do have a problem with the idea that gun culture that requires a continuity of ownership, but that is irrelevant because the issue for me is more liberal gun laws coupled with responsible gun ownership.

Quite clearly regardless of my personal view any campaign or practical attempt to change the gun laws will need to set out its goals and those goals have to be sensible and achievable. The idea of a no licence required, simple criminal check at point of sale as I believe might be advocated by some American commentators is simply unachievable in this country at present; and without criticising anyone because we’re all different, I think that scenario might frighten a lot of people. So when you say:

"Let’s say the state, as stage one, began to issue licenses for gun ownership on the pre-requisite that prospective owners passed a proficiency test. This is an example of the kind of structured approach I would support."

I say excellent I’d be happy with that. When you continue on and talk of the state never subscribing to measures that will help re-introduce a beneficial gun culture we part company again somewhat. If we take your scenario, the big difficulty will be in getting the state to change the law; if we were to campaign for a liberalisation of the gun laws, it could only win public support with the likes of a proficiency test. Once that law change was in place there would be no need of state intervention for either the training or the test (although it may be considered desirable for the actual test to be carried out say by a police officer, if that is so it shall be catered for in the legislation, and the state will have to do it); basically the free market will take over, people will either join existing clubs, form new clubs, trainers either working with or retired from the army/police would become available via the free market mechanisms to offer that training. If it were a popular measure, chances are the police and army will find their trainers haemorrhaging to the private sector in the short term.

I think it is important that the law in our country is changed and I don’t think we can ever get the culture back without first getting the gun ownership back; but as you rightly point out we wont simply be able to put the clock back to the 19th Century when people could simply walk into an ironmongers and buy a gun (I believe that scenario would work (from a practical viewpoint), and if I read you correctly you do not, but as I don’t believe that scenario can be successfully fought for (from a political viewpoint) and not for say 50 years minimum, the sensible route for me is the scenario you suggest) . It could even be that a goal like that (to return to 19th century gun liberalisation) is simply impossible and it could even be undesirable.

Moving forward I think the gun culture we need would develop from your stage one proposal. So I’m going to be cheeky and ask: "How do we get to stage one?"

My view is that in the first instance there is the need to set up a campaigning organisation that will need to develop a sensible detailed policy proposal (probably along the lines of your stage one) and go out and campaign for it. Whilst I accept that the likelihood of short-term success is remote, unless and until a group is putting out a sensible message on gun legislation it simply will not happen. I accept that any such organisation is unlikely to have funds to hire professional staff and advertising, but even if it could start to put the case it might succeed in raising public awareness. Obviously if it is something the public have no interest in then it’s never going to get anywhere anyway, but at least it might be able to get people thinking about the idea.

I’m tempted to ask if I may, if you would be prepared to put on your website a request for expressions of interest in joining and helping to run such a group, just to see if such a thing might be feasible. I’m not actually asking you to do this at this stage, but within me I feel it is something worth campaigning for, and such group is worth setting up.

I know I've jumped the gun here a little by posting Frank's request but I have done so because I believe some organisations may already exist in the UK with this agenda. The one I do know of is Cybershooters which exists

To distribute information which is relevant to the campaign against unreasonable UK and world-wide gun controls; to provide a co-ordination forum for UK and overseas shooters and shooting organisations; to disseminate other information of general interest to shooters and gun owners.

They take a pro-self defence stance on gun ownership. It's not about sport only.

Perhaps readers in the know might like to suggest others and/or, perhaps, comment further upon this debate.

[Comments open]

1952 Committee - New members

Hard one to categorise this because, basically, it's an opposition party. Or part of one if you will. I'd like to welcome the Ex Tories at UKIP Bournemouth West to the Committee. I've given them membership in Spirit because, well, they're not bloggers for one thing. As I've said before, were inclusive round these parts.

Tragically that's more than I can say for the Tory party these days. More conservatism, less blah blah; that's my advice.

Reasonable Force - a letter from the local paper

This is a scan of a letter which appeared in the most recent copy of my local newspaper. I include it here because it relates to issues recently discussed on this site. It is the first time I have seen a letter in the local paper that suggests firearms can be anything other than tools for the wicked.

A toad and a hawk

An old toad, sitting late one night by its pond, looked up and regarded the moon. Ssshhhh, said one of the other toads that had gathered around to hear him speak. I think he's going to say something. The other toads shuffled forward. Hush, hush, said some. I can't see him properly said others. All of them, however, quietened down as the old toad dropped its gaze and regarded them with its soft, glistening eyes. With a song in its voice and content within its heart the old toad drew himself up and said:

The point of the EU is that some sovereignty is best exercised collectively.

A passing hawk, flying home late after a hard days work, heard what the toad had said. What utter tosh he thought to himself. Swooping down so that all the toads might hear him better the hawk squawked:

I realise that you need to believe that in order to be able to cash your pay cheque each month.

Click here to continue reading this story.

And with one word of truth or treachery, he will save or damn the Earth

Ur-viles. Kresh. Haruchai. Waynhim. Mithil Stonedown. Do these words mean nothing to you?

Berek Halfhand? The Despiser? Linden Avery? Oh come on!

Thomas Covenant? Yes? Finally.

I’ve been wading into the newest book in the Thomas Covenant Chronicles series by Stephen Donalsdon, The Runes of the Earth, and I’m enjoying it very much.

It tastes exactly the same as the previous books written all those years ago. A little over descriptive, almost as depressing, suddenly exciting and simply wonderful. The Despiser is up to his old tricks again. A few words here, a little counsel there and things are turning out pretty well for the old rogue. The Arch of Time is in some seriously deep shit, Kevin’s Dirt is all over the place, and the Haruchai peeps are going all Ministry of Information on everyone.

You know that Staff of Law that everyone was on about in the previous books? Yeah, well, it’s gone all New Labour over in the Land and the Staff is as absent over there as it is over here. I blame unbalanced minds.

If you’ve not read any of this series and you are a fantasy fan then you are missing a treat. Buy the lot.

PS. Someone has knocked up a web site.

1952 Committee - new members

Two new members join the committee today. Dan, from Jackalope Pursuivant takes membership in spirit and Paul from Not Proud of Britain takes standard membership.

Conservatives yes, Tories no. Let's hope that the new Conservative Civil Liberties Group, which Tory MP Boris Johnson popped in on, actually has some influence. Yeah, I know, not with Howard banging away, but perhaps when he returns to his cellar.

Welsh assembly could help the Welsh

In an apparent piece of shocking political chicanery Lord Elis Thomas, the Welsh Assembly's presiding officer, said that it could be possible for the Welsh to amend the part of the Hunting Bill that list exceptions to allow Welsh dogs to be used to flush foxes residing in Wales from inaccessible areas like Welsh forests so that they can be safely shot.

English dogs are expected to support their Welsh counterparts but one dog, Rufus of West Sussex, remarked:

I expect a few foxes to cross the border from Wales into England if the Assembly actually acts on this. I mean cripes. If this ever gets out, you know, that England is a soft touch on vermin well, where will it end? Cats, squirrels, rats, hand in hand, streaming into the Shires. I'm not speciesist, but honestly, who's representing us honest working English dogs these days? Poppy, she's my bitch, is livid.

From here to there - continuing with gun culture

Ah ha! I wondered how long it would take Mr. Gun Culture himself to blog me about the head with his own posting on my Gun Culture and how we might get it back musings.

I stand by much of what I wrote on the subject, particularly the reasons why gun culture has all but vanished (though no one has really called me out on that one yet) but there do seem to be a number of areas of contention.

The central theme to my position can be summed up by this one sentence in my posting:

I think that people do have the innate right to have guns for self defence but I do not believe that, in general, the population is prepared for it.

I stand by that. If it were down to me and I could flick a switch that would allow anyone (without a criminal record lets say for arguments sake and also, say, at or over the age of 18 or 21) to go out and buy a gun and keep it at home or carry it about in public would I flick that switch? No. I don’t think I would.

The thrust of my article then went on with the theme of how people might become prepared.

I said:

A structured approach to the rebuilding of a gun culture in the UK would get my support and a gradual re-introduction of general firearms ownership might well be possible but I do not think that this is something the state will ever subscribe to.

To elaborate on this let’s consider a situation where the state, due to political pressure from the people decide to embark upon a structured approach to general gun ownership by those who would choose to take up arms for the purposes of self defence (basically the politicians are persuaded that there is political capital in supporting the re-introduction of a gun culture). Let’s say the state, as stage one, began to issue licenses for gun ownership on the pre-requisite that prospective owners passed a proficiency test. This is an example of the kind of structured approach I would support. More than this, I would endeavour to get qualified to join any training team and do my bit.

Remember, the issue that I have is that it is my opinion that the general population (of course with exceptions) is not prepared for ownership not that I don’t believe in the actual concept of general ownership. As Giles in the comments said, it’s all about how we get from here to there.

I do not think that this is something the state will ever subscribe to I said. Anyone who would agree with this particular statement is left with a dilemma.

If the state does not subscribe to practical measures that would re-introduce a beneficial gun culture ie a preparedness to own firearms then what else will?

My suggestion that the only alternative is the shooting sports is a bleak one. I fully accept that. If it is the only alternative I do not expect it to work out, but I wrote that it might:

What might do it is sporting shooting.

How might it? If it ever became really big business perhaps, but who really knows.

The real killer for me was when I wrote this:

A consistent increase in the use of firearms for sporting purposes is, in my opinion, the only way that a gun culture can ever be reintroduced into the UK.

If one accepts that the state will never subscribe to a re-introduction then I believe this to be true. I would like to hear of any other suggestions given that as a premise. I never said that it is likely to succeed.

I think the real area of contention, the very core of the issue is how pessimistic or optimistic you are about the likelihood of the state deciding that the public should be armed for reasons of self defence. Currently I am pessimistic. This led me to look for an alternative method of reintroducing gun culture. That does not say that I would not do what I can to alter that likelihood. I will still, on occasion, write about how this or that persons life could have been saved if they had a gun or, perhaps, another sufficient item of self defence. My position is not, I think, incompatible with that. Again, it’s about how we get from here to there. Perhaps, some time in the future, and perhaps with continued contribution by bloggers, writers in the Telegraph, authors and anyone else who catches the groove I will become more optimistic. Who knows? Don’t confuse pessimism with a lack of desire to contribute to the debate and, perhaps, help make sunshine where there is none at present.

Lurch at gunculture.net ends his post with:

To summarise; I believe that sporting shooting is doomed in the UK and no amount of good behaviour will change this. The recognition that self defence is the most basic human right that there is and that a firearm is the best tool for this is the only thing which can possibly save private firearm ownership. Not just in the UK but across the globe.

He may well be right.

If pessimism were a duck, we’d all be spitting lead shot.

Royal Mail propose a ban on the carriage of firearms and ammunition

I've just received the following from Steve over at Cybershooters:

Postcomm are currently considering a proposal from the Royal Mail to ban carriage of firearms and ammunition and anything else that resembles a firearm or ammunition.

You can download the consultation document from:

here [pdf]

As those of you who have ever attempted to use another company for carriage can probably attest to, if this proposal goes through it will be an utter disaster for shooting in this country, because most other carriers won't carry firearms or ammunition either. As far as I can see, if it goes through, Parcel Force would be the only option to many places - if Parcel Force won't do it, you're stuffed.

The whole thing is predicated on a "request" from ACPO that the Royal Mail should notify them if they find firearms in the post, which is screwing up the whole distribution chain. Obviously such a request has no real basis in law, and ACPO are not a law enforcement agency.

However, regardless of that, the total lack of alternatives to many destinations makes it absolutely paramount that changes are made to this proposal. My suggestion would be to have trained postal inspectors who could tell the difference between something lawful and unlawful going through the post, which would negate the need to call the police immediately, as the package could be held back until the police can get there.

I'm sure there are other ways to solve the problem though.

It is VITAL that people make submissions. I'd especially concentrate on explaining your experiences with other carriers (try phoning a few and asking, if you haven't got any) and how unworkable the proposal is on that basis. I'll post my submission on the website once I've written it.

As Steve says, it's vital that shooters take part in this consultation process and I urge all of you to make a submission.

Melting....melting.......

The glue that is:

A Welsh football club which answered an advert by an English businessman offering free shirts was turned down because Wales "is a foreign country".

Of course, this is the kind of thing that happens when people feel disenfranchised from a system of government. It's unfair they cry, and if no one listens this kind of thing is sure to follow. The Welshman, pointing out that they were all part of the UK, was stunned when he received the reply:

UK ended when the Labour government made Wales independent.

...

"For the state of the union ask the Labour government - they created your assembly three years ago [the assembly was actually set up in 1999].

Something is amok within the union.

Modified anti-terrorism laws

The Home Secretary has stated in the Commons that he is extending the modified anti-terrorism laws to include British citizens (BBC R4 just now).

Obviously British citizens detained without trial (house arrest or whatever) do not have the same option as foreigners of being sent back to their country of origin.

That's the government's answer to the Law Lord ruling on the liberty of people detained without trial; to further impact upon liberty in Britain. Agree with the government on this issue or not, there is no denying that as a result.

I've got to say, I love the title from this post from the Honourable Fiend: Tough on human rights, tough on the causes of human rights. Tee hee.

Neil, gone? But where?

Neil A[rmstrong], from German for Beginners has vanished, or is vanishing. His web log is not responding at the moment, which may be intentional, because he has bid us his farewell:

Last night on the phone, my mother, who has obviously been playing with her new computer, mentioned "this blowging thing you go on about....". She didn't say anything specific about this blog, but that was, for me, the final warning after a series of "incidents". I've taken the blog offline, I enjoy this blogging malarky, want to carry on, but I want to do it better and that (for me) means a bit more anonymously. I will (knowledge of PHP and MySQL permitting) start a new blog, it won't be called German For Beginners (which will slice 90% off my "visitors from google" tally), and it will be under some kind of pen name in no way related to the Apollo program.

He leaves us with a challenge:

No, I'm not linking to it from here, however, I'm sure regular readers will find it eventually. Yes you will, you're mostly smart and clever.

I fear that he overestimates us. If any readers do eventually stumble upon his new blog please be sure to let me know.

I’ve been to www.iwalkedonthemoon.com but there’s nothing there.

ID news

Two interesting bits of news from the latest NO2ID newsletter catch my eye. Firstly they have set up some discussion forums. Secondly they have a small piece up on the abolition of ID cards in 1952. Apparently, back in those days, ID cards and the National Registration Act tended "to turn law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs.". Those crazy olden day people.

Well, if you don't take an interest in local affairs...

Limeypundit, among many others, brings this to my attention:

The European Commission threatened last night to block Michael Howard's programme of tough immigration controls if the Tories win the election.

Why? Because the British state has entered into agreements with other multinational organisations. No news yet on how that affects any agreement that a British government might have with the voters of Britain.

Further:

Europe's intervention in what has become a major issue in the election campaign took Westminster aback. MPs and officials were unaware of how much national sovereignty on immigration and asylum had been transferred to Brussels.

It took them aback. They were surprised.

I bet a few of them even raised an eyebrow or two.

No matter what you think of the Tory policy you have to wonder why MPs and officials were surprised and what other issues are now likely to be ‘surprisingly’ seen as EU business by EU officials? What do you mean you didn’t know? It was on display in a disused lavatory behind a sign saying “beware of the leopard”. Perhaps an enquiry would leave Westminster in a permanent state of mild astonishment.

You’d also be forgiven for wondering a little about the credibility of any of these amazed MPs and officials if they were, for instance, ever to suggest that the public need educating on the benefit of EU membership. I mean, benefit can only really be measured if all the drawbacks are also on the table. It’s a Ying Yang thing and I bet there are many more Yangs waiting to reveal themselves to our unsurprisingly unaware ‘local representatives’.

In victory, magnanimity

Try the BBC's Churchill quote quiz here.

It's Europe vs. America!

And it has something to do with coffee. In short, Europeans create caffeine artefacts instead of cups of coffee. They are nicer to each other. They live longer and have cleverer children. Also, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Election songs

Andrew asks us for our election campaign song nominations.

Tory party – Wherever I lay my hat - Paul Young.
New Labour – Ironfist - Motorhead.
Lib Dem - Wherever I lay my hat - Marvin Gaye.
Kilroy Silk - Wherever I lay my hat - Instrumental.
UKIP - Swords of a Thousand Men - Tenpole Tudor
Respect - The Closest Thing To Crazy - Katie Melua

Who broke gun culture and how might we get it back?

It has come to my attention that some fellow bloggers consider me a Libertarian. I’m not sure that this is true. I would certainly describe myself as someone who is distinctly pro-freedom but my pro-freedom stance has boundaries and it may be that some of those boundaries would exclude me from holding the Libertarian mantle. For instance I do not believe in the legalisation of all drugs. I do believe in immigration control. Also, and this may come as a shock to some, I do not yet believe in the liberalisation of gun laws to the extent that all and sundry should be able to have them for self defence.

Considering the last of these points, which I am sure is the most shocking of my few revelations and I have to say is a relatively recent position, this is not because I do not believe in the principle of self defence or that guns (often hand guns) are not the best tool for the job. On the contrary, I believe in the use of lethal force where necessary to protect ones own life, family, friends, strangers and, if necessary, property. My inability to “go the whole way” on this issue is based on what I believe is the un-preparedness of our society for a more liberalised approach to firearm ownership.

Firstly let me make some declarations. I believe that the handgun ban in this country was a knee-jerk reaction; it should never have taken place. I believe that the laws governing the ownership of rifles and other section one firearms are too draconian. I believe that the laws governing the ownership of shotguns is too restrictive (for instance the list of acceptable signatories, or people of good character who can support an application, is too limited). I believe that at home storage and security requirements are too high. I believe that the only restriction on replica weapons should be that they are not carried openly in public (unless they are toys carried by kiddies playing cowboys and Indians and the like; and yes, I am aware that the area of definition in these circumstances is fraught with danger; this is the kind of thing that parents are for). I believe that anyone should be able to carry an airgun from their home to their shooting club as long as the airguns are carried unloaded in closed and securely fastened cases or gun slips. This is not an exhaustive list.

What I do not believe in is that all have the right to firearm ownership unless it can be proven that they are not suitable and I am not just talking about criminals or those with recent or serious criminal records. Actually, that’s not quite true (and this is the point where I would get a little evasive and shady if we were to be chatting about this down the pub) I think that people do have the innate right to have guns for self defence but I do not believe that, in general, the population is prepared for it.

Yes, it’s a prejudice. 100% unadulterated prejudice and I accept and recognise that completely. However, I believe that it is a practical prejudice.

In this recent article in the Telegraph the author, Richard Munday, almost gets it. He correctly states that Britain has much less of a “gun culture" now than it did approximately 100 years ago:

A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns: there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials". Conan Doyle's Dr Watson, dropping a revolver in his pocket before going out about town, illustrates a real commonplace of that time. Beatrix Potter's journal records a discussion at a small country hotel in Yorkshire, where it turned out that only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver.

What he misses here, and the thing that is central to my current position of practical prejudice is that gun culture is not about guns; it is about peoples attitude to guns, and more importantly, their respect of firearms in general and their ability to treat and use guns in a responsible manner. The gun culture that permitted wide ranging license free gun ownership in this country without significant and disastrous consequence was one of understanding. People understood firearms. They grew up in households that had always had them. They were taught from an early age how to treat them and use them. They were fully aware of what they could do and were fully prepared to take on the responsibilities of what firearms ownership entailed.

This culture was a learnt one. It required a continuity of ownership and the sharing of knowledge over each generation. There were no public training videos, no TV ads, no school indoctrination on the responsibilities of firearms ownership and yet the culture was there. It was there because children learnt it from their parents and/or from other adults. The culture was maintained and passed on and persisted and it allowed for common gun ownership without disastrous affects. In general, everyone (except criminals) benefited from it.

Then the state broke it. By degrees.

Gun culture was strangled to the point where continuity was lost and it is because of that loss that my full support for the liberalisation of gun ownership in the general populace is not forthcoming. I blame the state.

This is not to say that there are not many, many people out there who are not perfectly capable of owning all manner of weaponry. Even those that have never held a gun before could be perfectly responsible gun owners with a little training. We see it often in the sport, with new people becoming shooters (predominantly shotgun) because they have tried it and liked it. Generally, they also recognise the fact that they need training and seek it out (shotgun ownership is indeed up and continues to rise steadily).

It is the notion that suddenly all and sundry should be permitted to own guns or are indeed capable of responsible gun ownership and use that I cannot accept. Hah, look, there is a man that does not trust his fellow citizens (subjects, whatever). Indeed, true to some extent.

The gun culture I refer to does still exist in some small respect but it is no longer a wide culture. It is now limited to a significantly smaller number of families and wider associations. You know who you are and probably still use one or two of your father’s (and, dare I say it, mother’s) shotguns or rifles.

As I have said though, the wider culture has been interrupted by the state and we are all now reaping the whirlwind to some extent for their actions.

A structured approach to the rebuilding of a gun culture in the UK would get my support and a gradual re-introduction of general firearms ownership might well be possible but I do not think that this is something the state will ever subscribe to.

What might do it is sporting shooting. A consistent increase in the use of firearms for sporting purposes is, in my opinion, the only way that a gun culture can ever be reintroduced into the UK. There may come a time where a tipping point is reached. A time where a few million shooters manage to rebuild enough of the continuity that such a culture might be reborn.

Deriding sporting shooters for their approach to gun ownership (ie for sport and not for the principles of self defence and the rights and freedoms of the individual) might be fun for some but they might be the only possible way that these rights and freedoms will ever be reintroduced.

Who else will rebuild the continuity and the culture that I think is necessary?

Over at his place Kim writes:

John's suggestion that the shooting sports will head a revival of the gun culture is heartening, but not entirely correct. Because, let's be honest, the tools of hunting are mostly shotguns and rifles -- remember, no one "needs" to hunt with an "assault rifle", and even less so with a handgun.

At best, using John's prescription, gun ownership will belong to an ever-dwindling group of people, until it finally disappears like a candle burning out.

He may well be right and I am far from convinced that the shooting sports in the UK will achieve any significant revival of a positive gun culture. However there is practically nothing else on the horizon, other than a growing familiarity with guns for sport, that acts as an educator on the subject in this country.

Continued here.

Disgrace

I can barely believe my eyes:

BRITISH Muslims are to boycott this week’s commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz because they claim it is not racially inclusive and does not commemorate the victims of the Palestinian conflict.

Sure, it's a legitimate wish that the victims of other conflicts are commemorated but to refuse participation in one commemorative event on the basis that it doesn't include a certain (and self defined) subset of other issues is not a tenable position and is a blatant admission of extreme prejudice.

Luckily one of our political masters wades in with this:

This weekend the boycott by the leaders of Britain’s 1.2m Muslims was condemned by Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Birmingham Perry Barr. “I’m proud to be a Muslim. But if people are boycotting this then I think it’s a mistake. People who were exterminated in the Holocaust were not just Jews. There were Romany gypsies as well. Anybody who is interested in human rights should support this remembrance.

Well, that's alright then.

Hat tip Mark.

Windows background - American P-51 Mustang

I've modified one of the pictures I took at the RAF museum in Hendon, London so that it would be better suited as my Windows background and thought that I might as well share it.

Here is a small version of the image:

I've faded out the edges of the picture so that desktop icons are easier to see if, like me, you arrange them around the edges of the screen.

To use the full size image click on the link below and right-click then select "Set as wallpaper".

View image

Making it up as they go along

Some politicians are so out of touch with reality that you have to wonder whether they are still in possession of all their faculties. The way they see things and they way that they interpret what goes on around them differs so vastly from the reality of the situation that you are left little choice but to doubt their very sanity.

Take Newt Boy, Ken Livingstone for instance.

I’m not a very sophisticated man

I can prove it in two words: woof, woof!

Mrs. England Project would like me to point out how very, very sorry I am.

What's all this then?

From The Guardian:

The Conservatives have dealt a blow to Labour in the east London stronghold that saw Tony Blair's baptism into the party.

Tragically:

Of possibly ominous significance to Labour in east London is the fact that the 291 votes polled in Queensbridge by rebel MP George Galloway's Respect Unity Coalition easily exceeds the Tory majority.

Tragic because I suspect very few of these 291 Galloway supporters actually know what they are lending their support to.

Unsuitable for the Tory party

Citizen Stuart follows up the story of Ex-Conservative PPC Robert Oulds who has been dismissed for having his picture taken with a variety of sporting equipment. His dismissal has something to do with the fact that the equipment or his relationship with it is inherently evil or a danger to public safety. Or, perhaps, that owners of such equipment are considered unsuitable material for such active membership of the Tory party. Or, perhaps, even people that touch such equipment are not good enough. Or, perhaps, something to do with the Internet and photographs. Who knows.

Anyhow, it turns out that Robert Oulds is the director of the anti-EU Bruges group. I hereby accuse the Tory party of deliberately expelling Mr. Oulds on the basis that his anti-EU line is not compatible with the softer Tory line on European integration.

Hey, what do you mean I'm full of crap? It makes more sense than any other reason I've read about.

If I were still a member of the party I would cut my card in half and return it to head office with a covering letter saying that I admit that I have a picture of myself holding a firearm and, consequently, am expelling myself from the party as unsuitable material.

I might join again just to do that.

Welcome, your Majesty

Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry reveals The Law West of Ealing Broadway. There, I am sure, is a perfectly unique sentence.

The latter link will take you to a promising looking blog penned by a magistrate.

Nationalism

I’m not really sure what nationalism is. Are there many types of nationalism? Can it be good as well as bad? How does it relate to the concept of the nation? Does nationalism define a nation or can a nation exist and continue to do so without a nationalistic element? More questions. Consider this an admission that my education is lacking in this respect.

I ask for a few reasons.

Firstly, due to a blog ad run by the chaps over at The Campaign for an English Parliament I have been made aware of a certain lack of parity or symmetry in Britain. In this response to Austin Mitchell (MP for Grimsby) Phil Evans wrote:

We had a constitutional settlement before Devolution which over-represented Scotland and Wales in a broadly acceptable system of 'asymmetry'. The Scots elected to change the status quo and opted for a Parliament. This shifted the degree of imbalance to an unacceptable extent and created unworkable anomalies such as the 'West Lothian' question. An English Parliament addresses these anomalies in a fair and democratic way. The stated aim of the CEP is to establish an English Parliament with powers similar to those already granted to Scotland.
…
Mitchell and his ilk obstinately refuse to accept that it is Scottish and Welsh devolution that has already undermined the viability of the UK by rendering the previous 'asymmetry' unworkable. They must now reconcile themselves to the English dimension; they have no choice if they wish to maintain the Union.

The issues raised by the CEP seem reasonable to me. The lack of parliamentary representation for the English as a nation bugs me enough that I have written about it on occasion and have given my support to the campaign cause. Does this make me a nationalist?

Secondly I am anti-EU. The reasons for this are varied and my opposition was initially through instinct. I don’t like the fact that I have not been asked to vote specifically on the question of further unification. I don’t like the lack of accountability to me as a voter. I don’t see it as necessary and think we can do perfectly well with generally open trade agreements. I am completely unconvinced about the political and much of the legislative aspects of the project. I tend to see it as another manifestation of The Conspiracy of the Toads. I don’t think, however, that all nationalists are inherently anti-EU but is nationalism a pre-requisite for being so? To ask in another way, can you be anti-EU but not a nationalist? I think you can be, for instance if you think the EU is corrupt or a breeding ground for corruption and corruption is one of your bug bears. Or, perhaps, you see it as an inefficient way of doing business.

Thirdly because I have read, on occasion, a number of writers/bloggers that I respect state that they have contempt for or a dislike of nationalism. As recently as yesterday Perry de Havilland wrote that he shares Einstein's distain [sic?] for nationalism. Laban Tall once wrote Nationalism, that force which is so evil in a Western nation…. I understand that nationalism can be used as a force for evil. History has shown how true this can be. But is it generally the case? Can nationalism be a force for good? Does it come in different calibres?

Miroslav Hroch defines has this to say about the nation:

Now the 'nation is not, of course, an eternal category, but was the product of a long and complicated process of historical development in Europe. For our purposes, let us define it at the outset as a large social group integrated not by one but by a combination of several kinds of objective relationships (economic, political, linguistic, cultural, religious, geographical, historical), and their subjective reflection in collective consciousness. Many of these ties could be mutually substituable - some playing a particularly important role in one nation-building process, and no more than a subidiary part in others. But among them, three stand out as irreplaceable: (1) a 'memory' of some common past, treated as a 'destiny' of the group - or at least of its core constituents; (2) a density of linguistic or cultural ties enabling a higher degree of social communication within the group than beyond it; (3) a conception of the equality of all members of the group organized as a civil society.

If you believe and support these ties and objective relationships does this make you a nationalist and, perhaps to some, worthy of distain?

The complexity of the issue of nationalism can be born out, I suspect, by the amount that has been written about it. The Nationalism Project carries some of this material.

This blog is called The England Project not specifically because it is about England. It often isn’t. It is, I suppose, named after me. I am The England Project. Like I have said before, my mother is Italian and my father is a Greek Cypriot and I was born in London. I should be more European than any political project can ever pretend to be. Having said that I have turned out to be more a product of my environment than one of my ancestry and that environment is England. Its affect on me and my willingness to allow it to affect me, what with the other cultural injections I get from family, is the project. If you were to meet some of my English born cousins you would be in no doubt that they are (or consider themselves to be) Italian. However, I feel English. The project has worked out differently for me than it has for the more well dressed and stylish members of my family.

I suspect that I am a nationalist by some definitions of the concept but quite possible not by others. For instance there are concepts that I believe in passionately that I would not give up for the idea of the nation. I would not give my unconditional support to England under all circumstances, though it has usually been forthcoming.

There is a lot here to think about and, perhaps, others might like to wade in. For this reason I once again leave comments open.

In the comments Gareth points to this (Understanding Patriotism and Nationalism) which contains this attempt at a brief and easy to understand explanation:

The ordinate principle of nationalism is simply belief in the concept of "the nation".

There is nothing else implied politically by the term "nationalism".

To be a nationalist does not imply any particular political point of view other than a belief in the nation as a fundamental organising principle in politics.

If true then I find it even harder to comprehend any disdain in general for nationalism. Nationalism is as nationalism does the article says.

O'er the broad face of England

The blog Loose the Delusion, in a post titled In your English faces says:

...the loudest and most vociferous opponents of the EU are most usually to be found in England. You can see this clearly in the blogosphere. Apart from the dedicated Eurosceptic sites, it is interesting that a number of the other 'British' blogs that rant and rave about Europe seem to have the word English prominently displayed in the title.

Anyway, I have always wondered how these English Eurosceptics, who seem to adore the British union, would respond when faced with the same arguments from Scots or Welsh nationalists as they deploy against Europe.

You need to read the rest of the post but there are a number of issues it raises that I might as well address here from my own personal perspective.

Firstly the presumption that the the loudest and most vociferous opponents of the EU are most usually to be found in England. If we accept that this is indeed the case all we can say is that it is a legitimate observation of British bloggers and the English in general. What we cannot yet say is why this might be the case. For instance, there are tens of millions more people living in England than in each of the remaining parts of Britain and this significantly larger population may be the reason. I am guessing that there are more English blogs than there are blogs of Scottish or Welsh persuasion. I don’t see any evidence that the English (ignoring the excesses of some football fans who I do not think are representative) are more nationalistic (and hence more anti-EU) than the Scots or the Welsh at this time (indeed in the case of the Scots I think exactly the opposite might be true), so doubt this could be the cause if indeed the original presumption is correct, which it might not be.

Having said that I do think that the English will become (and are becoming) more nationalistic as time goes by and I put that down to a better understanding by the English of what has been happening to them and their culture over the past few decades. I am talking about unbalanced devolution, regionalisation, lack of proper political representation and the way English national identity is being ignored on the petty day to day level. Examples being the Keep Scotland Tidy, Keep Wales Beautiful and Keep Britain Tidy campaigns (no Keep England……); no English nationality on Census forms; BBC Scotland but no BBC England etc. Petty, but people notice and these things pile up.

Another issue is this adoration of Britain which English Eurosceptics are apparently adorned with. I personally have a high regard for Britain, though not quite as high ever since devolution started working its solvent magic on the glue that holds Britain together. My adoration of Britain is not as strong as one might think, though I hope that the return of the correct symmetry of the Union with the introduction of an English Parliament might one day fix that.

Having said that, I do not think it particularly meaningful to compare a person’s affinity to an old and well established union and that persons affinity to a new and larger current process of union. One might as well rubbish ones affinity to England, a union in itself. How far back do we want to go?

Loose the Delusion muses:

Anyway, I have always wondered how these English Eurosceptics, who seem to adore the British union, would respond when faced with the same arguments from Scots or Welsh nationalists as they deploy against Europe: the right to exercise national sovereignty, the right to rule themselves, the lack of democracy, the imposition of regulations from outside, etc.

We know already that the Scottish are over-represented in the Union. They have their own parliament over which the English have no real authority and they also have significant voice in the UK parliament. I would say that the Scots could not really use quite the same arguments as we deploy against the EUropean project. They have never had it so good and have done well for themselves over the past few years; I wish them luck. However, if either the people of Scotland or Wales made it clear that they wished to be independent and break away from British union I would support them 100%. The union, such as it is, is nothing without the willing participation of the people that make it up.

Let's see how well the loons can fight their own arguments!

I’d pay to watch that.

As an aside I would be keen to see some more of these blogs with English prominently displayed in the title. I know of very few: Campaign for an English Parliament (a movement that do not comment upon European Union policy), English Democrat Blog (which may comment, though I don’t recall anything) and possibly An Englishman’s Castle and The Edge of England’s Sword (which do comment on the EU – and I gave those for free given that they do not strictly speaking qualify given their titles).

Does anyone take liberty seriously anymore?

The conservative party baffle me often these days. For instance, did you know that they can suspend you as a candidate if you are pictured holding various legal and legitimate items of private property?

A Conservative Parliamentary candidate has been suspended after he was pictured on the internet with a range of guns, rifles and a hunting knife.

Sheesh, I guess that would exclude me from ever being a candidate (not that that's going to happen any time soon).

Get your facts straight

The Times reports :

As part of its campaign to improve flagging confidence in the European Union, it has set up a website giving detailed rebuttal of stories that it complains leaves readers with a “picture of the EU as a bunch of mad “eurocrats”.

They don't provide a link to the site but I believe it is this one here.

I would also welcome a similar easy to read web site that highlights EU regulation for which the British and the British Government have not identified a need. Something called "Stuff that costs us time and money that we could quite easily do without".

The EUREALIST has noticed the EU's anti-mad eurocrat list.

You know, I can't help thinking that there is potential for this to go badly for the EU. I mean, can we now assume that anything that is not on its rebuttal list is endorsed as the truth by the EU? Hmmm, I don't know about that but someone somewhere must surely come up with something embarrassingly contrary, hosted at its own nice URL (the mind boggles with all the possible domain names).

As EU-Serf says in the comments on the post by the EUREALIST:

Like you say, they want to focus on Euromyths and keep the discussion away from real issues. We can not let them get away with this.

Future fun to be had by all.

NO2ID set phasers to "disintegrate"

The folks over at the NO2ID campaign disintegrate the government's response to the NO2ID online petition.

Who do they think they are kidding?

You know those figures about the number of householders prosecuted for hurting burglars? Yes, the ones you heard on the TV on the weekend. Well it turns out that they don’t actually mean very much:

"There are no statistical details of these cases - they aren't kept. It is not a particularly accurate list and we never said it was. It is quite possible that there are other cases."

The Telegraph found another 7 cases in an hour. Still not very high but that is not the point. The point is that it was known that the statistics provided were not a true and factual representation of the picture and yet the lie was used on TV, on the radio, in the papers and in the halls and chambers of Westminster by the few to justify their position on the law affecting the many.

Why would they do such a thing?

Couple the rubbishing of these statistics with the fact that the prosecution of householders is not the only measure to consider and we see that the government’s position is not as credible as they would like us to believe.

On the question of trust and the social contract we have with the state to protect us this is a backward step. On the subject of self defence in the home some, if not many, members of the public feel disadvantaged. The government’s answer to this is to trot out things that can kindly be described as half-truths and to state that householders are confused.

This weekend we were subjected to a TV programme showing dramatisations of legitimate householder defence. In one dramatisation a burglar is stabbed to death while rifling a draw in a kitchen. The householder, hearing the noise, grabs a knife which he has been keeping under his bed, creeps downstairs and stabs the burglar in the back without warning. The experts told us how this was perfectly legal.

Another showed a burglar running from a house with an armful of booty. The householder shouts at the guy and then chases him out onto the street, smacking him on the back of the head using a golf club (was it a one iron? I think it might well have been). He collapses. The experts tell us again that this was a legitimate use of force to protect property.

Yet we know from what we have seen and heard with our own eyes that such actions have been the beginning of long, hard and often ruinous periods of threatened and actual litigation by the state upon householders that have done very similar or exact same things.

They try to address our confusion with facts and scenarios that are so obviously not true that we have to question their motivation. What do they like so much about the current situation? Why do their fear actually empowering the householder? Why do they come out of this looking more confused than the rest of us?

Dear human of the future, I am resentful of you and your kind

The Cassini program is an international cooperative effort involving NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Italian space agency, Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI), as well as several separate European academic and industrial contributors.

The wonderful success to-date of this mission gives some reason to feel proud to be a European.

I don’t personally take this little European approach to the project and remind readers that, once again, the USA proves itself capable of the most wonderful achievements in technology, planning, timing, brave risk taking (anyone else fancy flying through Saturn’s rings?), sharing and pin-point accuracy at huge distances while the Europeans manage to fall out of the skies.

Ok, that’s significantly unfair and, in truth, I also feel proud of ESAs achievement. However my pride is, more generally speaking, in us. People. Human people. We can be pretty gross sometimes but are also capable of things that are so mind bogglingly brilliant that one can’t help but gasp at the sheer magnificence of it all.

To think that it was not all that long ago that things like this were cutting edge and just about as cool as the human race could possibly be at the time, well, it certainly gives one reason to be hopeful for the future.

Hopeful and also resentful. I mean look; just over 100 years ago powered (heavier than air) flight was nothing but a pipe dream. Now we are hitting the moons of Saturn with probes. In another 100 years times we might be achieving things so phenomenally fantastic that they would leave a man of today shaking in awe and admiration. I’m pretty damn resentful that I won’t get to see any of that future goodness.

Damn future humans with their interstellar drives and purple hair.

Slow-fit fitter

As I said earlier, I would be under the motor this weekend fixing up the brakes on the front end. Here is some photographic evidence for you disbelievers:

Old disc

New disc

The job took longer than I expected because I had to pop out a couple of times to pick up some extra tools. Particularly difficult was pushing back the brake calliper piston on the near side (which you need to do to allow room for the new thicker brake pads). Much cursing and venting was finally solved by the purchase and use of a rather large and manly vice.

Anyhow, 'tis done. Let's hope they work.

And it will solve what exactly?

Oh for pity’s sake.

Crime is down, but there are more criminals somehow

So now Judges should avoid jailing criminals if prisons are considered overcrowded. Colour me surprised.

I wonder what other solutions might be available other than the swapping of a prison sentence with a community sentence, fine or motor sport day trip? Perhaps someone in the building trade might have an answer?

More interesting is the following little snippet:

The jail population at present is 73,085 but longer-term projections expect it to be between 93,000 and 109,000 by 2009.

I thought that the government said that crime was down and that we were just scaring ourselves rather than being scared of any actual, you know, real life crime.

Less crime, more criminals. I'm not good at statistics so someone help me please but does this not mean that one or more of the following are true:

1. Criminals are generally being given longer sentences for the usual crimes.
2. More serious crimes are being committed hence longer sentences.
3. There are more criminals but less crime because each criminal is now committing fewer offences.
4. Something to do with a general increase in the population (stop having criminal babies, ok).
5. Someone is telling porkies.

You can't get bitter about a kwik-fit fitter

There is something amok with the little Japanese sports car. How do I know this? There’s this peddle see, the middle one, which no longer functions as it once did. Previously, when I had occasion to depress this peddle the car would lose a considerable amount of forward momentum. Now it just makes an odd grinding noise somewhat similar to the noise generated by rubbing two pieces of rough metal together. Interesting as the sound is I think I preferred the previous behaviour.

I pride myself in knowing a great deal about cars. For instance I knew instantly that the problem was likely to have something to do with the braking system. I also thought I knew exactly how the problem could be solved. I phoned my local Kwik-Fit centre which, I understand, have some expertise in this exact kind of problem.

Hello, yes, I need the front brakes on my car fixed.

- Phooooo, hmmmm, could be tricky. You need to bring it in for a full brake diagnostic.

Can’t you just replace the front brake pads?

- We need to check it over sir, could take up to an hour.

And then you’ll fix it?

- We’ll need to order the parts first sir, might arrive the very next day. We’re very busy but could probably squeeze you in a day or so after.

I’ll bring it in on my way home from work for the check. I’ve got to go by you anyway to get home which I’m going to try and do without using my brakes.

- Phoooooo, we may be able to squeeze you in for the check but we can’t make any promises. What car is it sir?

An MX5.

Flick, flick, flick.

- Pads aren’t listed sir but the discs are, we’ll need to take a look to see what kind of pads are needed.

Pads aren’t listed?

- No sir.

It’s an MX5, the most popular sports car in the world.

- I’m sure the pads won’t be a problem sir, we’ll just take a look and order them.

It’s an import.

- Phoooooo, might be tricky. All the parts are different on those. We’ve have no end of trouble with them.

The brake parts are the same. I think only the thickness of the windscreen is an issue on the imports, though there is some doubt about that.

- I’ve had a lot of trouble with imports sir. Lots of parts are different.

Riiiight…..Can you give me a rough estimate on parts, you know, and labour and the like?

- Standard front discs are £132 for 2 as a rough estimate. Pads are usually £60 to £80 for both front brakes on most makes.

And you might not be able to fit me in for the check tonight?

- No sir.

And the parts will take a day or two to order?

- Yes sir, if we can find the parts for an import.

And you might not be able to fit me in for a couple of days after that to fix the problem.

- Exactly sir.

Contrary to popular government opinion, I need my car on a daily basis. Kwik-fit were clearly not up to the task (or too busy or caught up in scare mongering about identical cars driven in Japan and in England) to satisfy my needs as a consumer. Also the cost of the parts seemed a little excessive to me so my attention turned to the blessed Internet.

Two front discs - £29.99, two sets of Kevlar brake pads, £23.99 – free delivery with a 95% chance of the goods being received the next day. Pads and discs standard on all Mk1 1.6 MX5’s. Brilliant Japanese car manufacturers! Using the same parts on the same models!

This weekend, for the first time since the Triumph Spitfire was placed in the garage and covered with a dust sheet after it tried to kill me, I will be getting my hands very dirty.

Now, any ideas how to jack a car up?

It's 9:40am and the parts have arrived. I ordered them about 2pm yesterday. The company that did this for me is here. Many thanks.

Prosecuting householders is not the only measure

In this BBC report we see that Michael Howard, leader of the Tory party, accuses Tony Blair of performing U-turns over rules on using force against burglars. Expected and not particularly interesting but what did catch my eye was this little snippet in defence of current legislation by the director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald:

only 11 householders or occupiers of business premises have been prosecuted in the last 15 years.

He would say that wouldn't he, probably because he knows the figures better than most.

What he doesn't mention is the number of householders who have felt persecuted by the police after offering up violence to an intruder. Take Derek Godfrey-Brown for example who spent nine and a half months under the spectre of a trial for grievous bodily harm only to have the case dropped by the CPS a week before the trial was due.

It's not all about prosecutions.

Party poppers

This post from waiterrant puts me in mind of condoms.

Do you remember the first time you bought them? I remember my first time with acute embarrassment. So, as is par for the course out here in web space, I will recount the story for your entertainment.

Cast your mind back….no, wait, that won’t work unless you happen to be a rather attractive young girl working on the tills in my local hardware shop some years ago.

The screen shimmers and you see me as a drop dead gorgeous young lad walking into a local shop some days after landing my first sexually serious girlfriend. It was to be my first time buying the protection I was sure that I was soon to need and I was out of my depth.

The place was busy. I suspect that there were no more than about five or six shoppers, truth be told, but they seemed to be everywhere. Walking up and down with their shopping baskets. Looking and choosing and buying.

Why do shops allow more than one person in at a time?

Why can’t all these people go and buy their stuff elsewhere?

I was resigned to walking up and down the place, feigning interest in all manner of crapola waiting until the only two people in the shop were me and the till operator who, thankfully for my nerves, I had not yet clocked as a looker.

From dog food to lipstick, from shampoo to stationary, from vaguely interesting plastic toys to acne treatment, I wandered up and down. I don’t really recall how long I did this for but it felt like an age and somehow I just knew that every shopper in the place had clocked me for condom boy. Like the back of my hand is the phrase people use when they attain the knowledge and that is how I came to know the shop in the time I was there. In fact the only item I could not find were the very things I wanted.

Can I help you sir?

Not bloody likely.

I continued to shuffle about in a state of mild panic until I eventually spotted what I needed on the shelves behind the totty working the till. Just my luck. Cute, but at least I didn’t know her though I was convinced she, like all the other shoppers, knew exactly what my intentions were.

I remember the moment when my resolve hardened. It was like my blood suddenly dropped a few degrees in temperature and washed through my veins. It was now or later (never hadn’t crossed my mind given what was a stake).

I joined the queue at the checkout.

Two in front, two or three behind, all with baskets of stuff. I alone had nothing with me as I had not yet realised that on such occasions one should pick up a few things one doesn’t need before adding the item of dread to the mix.

I was either the queue's condom boy or the queue's headache boy and I was convinced everyone knew I was the former.

I could say that the ringing of the till was like the tolling of a bell but that would be over egging the story a little but let's just accept that my panic was returning with a vengeance and that an exit door had never appeared more attractive than the one I kept looking at as the queue ahead shuffled slowly to the point where it no longer protected me from the moment I was dreading.

Can I have a packet of condoms please?

There, I had said it.

I was convinced the people behind me were staring, with looks of indignation on their faces as an age seemed to pass.

The till girl wasn’t swivelling her chair to reach for what I needed.

She was simply looking at me.

Oh my God, she’s going to speak.

What size would you like?

Oh no! OH NO! Holy sweet mother of God.....

What size?! What size?! I had no idea. Why hadn't I foreseen that condoms came in different sizes? Why hadn’t I realised? It was so obvious now, suddenly, as I stood in that queue that not all men were born equal. Help me someone.

Flustered, I looked at the girl and said…

Normal size please.

Deadpan, No, what size packet? How many condoms? Six? Twelve?

Six please.

I paid, picked up my condoms and ran away.

Blogger ransacked

JacobsRoom has been violated. After you receive your crime number from the police Giles I suggest you call the pyjamahadeen head office and ask for their ninja department. Justice will be swift and factually rigorous.

Sincerely though, I hope the bottom feeders are caught and you get your kit back.