Author: Chris Snuggs

Perkins and “The Daily Mail”

Transcripts from our bug in the Ministry of Misinformation, Whitehall, London

Morning, Perkins! … Good grief, man! What’s that under your arm?

It’s today’s “Daily Mail“, Sir.

“Daily Mail”! What on earth are you doing with that?

Well, I thought I’d check it out, Sir.

Check it out?

Yes Sir. People have been attacking it.

Attacking it?

You keep repeating me, Sir …

I’m just stunned Perkins! Why on earth would anyone sane want to “check it out”?

Well, I’ve always been suspicious of situations where the establishment and so-called cognoscenti collectively attack something, Sir.

Why on earth is that, Perkins?

Well, they could have an ulterior motive, Sir.

Ulterior motive?”

You’re doing it again, Sir.

Look Perkins, the Mail is a ghastly, sensationalist rag.

When did you last read it, Sir?

Goodness me, Perkins. I have better things to do with my time.

How can you be sure then that you’re not just baying the mindless mantra of your peers?

Look Perkins. I don’t read the Mail because it appeals to the mob and has no analysis.

But “the mob” are the mass of the people, Sir.

Exactly, Perkins. Now you’re on the right track.

So you don’t believe in democracy, Sir?

Don’t ask silly questions, Perkins. Of course I do, just as long as the people don’t get their hands on government. But seriously, the Mail has little analysis; just a crude statement of facts.

But why are you so attached to “analysis”, Sir? Surely it’s the facts that are most important?

Well if you don’t have analysis then how do you know what’s really going on? You need analysis to explain the headlines.

But surely any analysis depends on the spin of the author? Why can’t people be given the facts and allowed to make up their own minds?

“Make up their own minds?” Be serious, Perkins. The mob hasn’t got a mind to make up; that’s why it’s called “the mob”.

I think you’ll find it was the mob that fought and died in two World Wars to protect freedom and democracy in Britain, Sir.

Aha! That proves my point! You don’t need to understand much to pop your head over the top and get it shot off, do you! The mob is ideally suited to it.

But “analysis” is overrated, Sir. People should be encouraged to think for themselves.

“Think for themselves!” Now Perkins, those who went to public school can be expected to think for themselves, but as for the rest …

I’m sorry, Sir; there is in fact too much analysis. I was put off at school at an early age. No sooner had we opened a Shakespeare play than we had FR Leavis shoved down our throats telling us what to think about it rather than being allowed to interpret and analyze it ourselves.

I’m sorry your education seems to have gone so seriously wrong, Perkins. Did you in fact go to a public school?

Only a poor man’s one, Sir …. but analysis in the press just seems to me a clever way of trying to tell people what they should think. I believe Goebbels was very good at analysis, and of course Tony Blair …

Now Perkins, analysis is all that differentiates us from unthinking morons who cannot understand the law.

You mean British MPs and their expense accounts, Sir?

No … errm …. perhaps I should rephrase that … but really Perkins, this “Defend the Mail” crusade is really a bit OTT, isn’t it?

Perhaps, Sir, but it’s because it is so heavily attacked by verbal diarrhoearists who support totalitarianism. My principle is that your enemy’s enemy is your friend, so to speak. If someone who supports dictatorship attacks it at every chance then it can’t be all bad, sort of thing.

I’m sorry, Perkins. I don’t think I will ever be able to follow the tortured meanderings of your mind.

I think that’s because deep down I identify with “the mob”, Sir, or as I prefer to call them; “the people” ……..

Hmm …… if I were you Perkins I wouldn’t go trumpeting that too loudly round Whitehall. It could put an end to a promising career.

By Chris Snuggs

Three buses arrive at once ….

Hang on, folks. We have some good news!

It is a sad and lonely vigil that we who long for good news sometimes keep. But now and again, like London buses, it does arrive in welcome batches, and so it has proved this week.

US Health Care

First of all, our faith in Obama has been somewhat resurrected from what had become – in my case at least – a depressingly-comatose condition. For he has managed to squeeze his

money-band-aid — Band-aid or long-term fix?

health bill through Congress, which is more than the glamorous Clinton duo managed the last time it was tried.

Now I am sure Learning from Dogs has many American friends – at least, I hope so. And they are surely better-qualified to give an objective view of exactly what has been achieved. To listen to the Republicans, you’d think the end of the world had arrived, yet it is surely surreal that “the greatest country in the world” should NOT have universal health care, isn’t it?

As far as I understand, another 32 million Americans will now have health cover, even if that still – apparently – leaves some outside the fold. Well, let’s not quibble; it’s a major step forward. How even the reddest-necked Republicans could accept poor Cuba having better overall health care for their poorest citizens than the mighty USA was always a mystery to me. So, let’s chalk it up and celebrate.

Palestine

Secondly, the Obama-Clinton team is AT LAST standing up to Israel. Now this is a major topic, and beyond the scope of one post, but if you empathize – as I feel one should – then from a Palestinian’s point of view, the Israelis are occupying their territory by force. And they are not alone in this belief; the international community has long considered the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem to be illegal. Yes, Israeli supporters may find ways of rationalizing their presence there, but the facts speak for themselves.

“Whom the Gods seek to destroy, they first make mad.” Well, Netanyahu may not quite be mad, but he was certainly very silly – in my opinion – to so impudently announce more building in Jerusalem just as efforts to restart serious negotiations were under way. How he could imagine this would not be a major slap in the face to the US is a mystery. Perhaps he was just seeing how much he could get away with? Well, he seems to have found out, and for once – after nearly a year of pussy-footing about with Israel – the USA is moving closer to the international community’s position.

The world – let alone the Palestinians – needs a permanent solution to the problem, and that will not be achieved by Netanyahu prattling on about Jerusalem “belonging to Israel”. It is obvious to any outsider that the city has to be shared. As with Berlin, what will no doubt be a divided city for some time will eventually – through the force of position and logic – become a united one. WITHOUT goodwill (and there has been precious little in recent years from victorious Israel) this running sore will only come back to bite the Israelis time and time again. Friends of Israel – as I count myself in fact – should make this point more strongly.

However, the only friend that really counts is the USA, and we need them to keep up the pressure. Can and will Obama tough this one out in the face of the very powerful Israeli lobby? I believe Obama has said that he would prefer to be a one-term President if it meant he could get some real reforms through, and this is a welcome change from the “I’ll do anything to stay in office” syndrome that we seem to be seeing in Britain right now. Let’s hope he can live up to this promise. It is after all now nearly a decade since 9/11, after which there was so much talk about “finding a solution” that has – so far – come to little.

Google & China

Finally, we hear from Asia that China is cross with Google for removing filters from its search engines. Now we have got used to cosying up to China, to the point where the west imports a VAST quantity of cheap goods that have helped China’s economy to make a real leap forward, and of course pay for a vast increase in their military spending.

Yet the truth remains the truth, no matter how you dress it up. It remains a Communist dictatorship.

That Google even tolerated acquiescence in the fascist suppression of free speech in the first place was a disgrace, but they seem now to be moving to a more defensible position. What was sad about their original move into China was that they are big and powerful enough to have made a stand before. All over that vast country, individuals are trying to stand up to a fascist state, so how must they have felt when a vast, rich and powerful organisation from the west (Statue of Liberty and all that) got into bed with their oppressors?

Well, perhaps those little people will feel a bit better now. Predictably, the Chinese are now making threats against other “partners” of Google, saying that they “must obey its laws”. Well, we’ll see how this plays, but united we stand, divided we fall, and is it moral to respect immoral laws?

Yes, it will irritate the Chinese Communist Party leaders (I won’t be losing any sleep there …) and No, it won’t make a vast practical difference in the short-term; the Chinese have their OWN search engines, but it is a symbol, and symbols count. Sooner or later, the Chinese will join the modern world; but every now and then the free world needs to give it a prod in the right direction.

By Chris Snuggs

[Explanation of title to our non-UK readers. Londoners are so used to waiting in the cold for a bus to arrive and then having three arrive at once, that the phrase has become a little bit of English folklaw! Ed.]

The Delusions of Leadership

The British ‘silly season’ approaches!

gordon-brown1 — The current British Prime Minister

Well, this is election season in Britain, or as near as it gets ….. no doubt British PM Gordon Brown will wait to the last possible moment in the hope that either oil in vast quantities will be struck on Salisbury Plain or that David Cameron will be found wandering around near the men’s toilets on Wandsworth Common late one night.

But Gordon-Brown’s procrastination has almost reached its consume-by date and everyone expects an announcement soon for an election on May 6th.

This will be a momentous election. As it seems that British politics has evolved into mammoth-long parliamentary stints – a bit like Japan – the government of the next 15 years could be up for grabs. Will we stagger along under the camel-breaking weight of turgid bureaucracy, overspending and debt under Labour or emerge post-election into the great entrepreneurial leap forward à la Maggie Thatcher Mark II? (this is a slight over-simplification for newcomers to British politics).

We’ll see, but one of the most fascinating aspects of general elections is always to listen to what politicians say. On rare occasions we may be inspired and amazed by their vision and rhetoric, but unfortunately one’s reaction is more often one of total disbelief. I had one of the latter yesterday when I read the following in the Guardian:

“I will continue as Labour leader even if I lose election, “Gordon Brown says.

Now nobody pretends being British PM is easy, but one does at least hope that one’s leader – the one with the finger on the nuclear button after all – will not lose touch with reality. And the idea that Brown could soldier on after a defeat is surreal.

He was never actually elected by his party in the first place, nor of course as PM by the British Public. He has already nearly been thrown out a couple of times by his own party so what possible justification could there be for trying to stay on in defeat? Is the following a justification?

“I owe it to people to continue and complete the work we have started of taking this country out of the most difficult global financial recession.” (Reuters)

Does he really think that NOBODY ELSE can save Britain? Megalomaniac delusions, I fear. And IF he loses the election, the Labour Party could face another 15 years in opposition. The idea of Brown staggering on until he drops is rather sobering.

Mr Brown didn’t NEED to say what he did; the usual politician’s deviousness would have sufficed: “no point speculating about hypothetical situations …. ” and so on …. the fact that he cannot seem to imagine NOT being leader after so many years of playing sulky bridesmaid to the slick and charismatic Tony Blair is pathetic in the true sense of the word.

In sport, business, love and politics, there comes a time when you have to give up, and leading your party to defeat at an election is one of them ……..

PS Of course, he could WIN the election! Oh dear …… pass me the Glenfiddich …..

By Chris Snuggs

Celibacy in the Church

Is this a need for change that will become unstoppable for the Catholic Church?

I approach this subject with some hesitation. It’s a free world, and how people choose to organise themselves is basically their affair; freedom of association and all that. However, all freedoms are both a personal matter and an absolute right as long as they do not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. So, in for a penny ……

The Catholic Church’s insistence on celibacy for their priests’ is obviously absurd. It is all very well in theory – “they can then concentrate on serving God” – if you (somewhat bizarrely in my opinion) choose to make that argument. The problem is that Man is NOT a theoretical animal. Sexual abstinence is alien to most models of Homo Sapiens that roll off the production line. It may be the preferred CHOICE that works for some, or even many, but forcing it on priests just DOES NOT WORK.

In recent years, there have been endless scandals in the Catholic Church about the abuse of children by priests, to the point where their policy in fact makes a total mockery of the vast edifice and bureaucracy that their Church is.

There was (or rather is) the dreadful case of the abuse in Ireland going on for decades and involving the most appalling abuse covered up at the highest levels. Now there is an on-going crisis in Germany, with churches and priests all over the country suspected of child-abuse. There are plenty of other examples we know about, and no doubt many we don’t.

And the word “cover-up” is deadly, of course. As soon as an organism evolves – and I find an amoeba, the Church, a company, a political party all alike in this respect – its first instinct is to survive and multiply. And so we have today the grisly spectacle of a Bishop apologising for covering up a priest’s paedophilia. The (usually wrongly) perceived needs of the organism almost ALWAYS take precedence over the law, humanity and decency. Rather than deal effectively and openly (and THAT is what this Blog is all about) with a real problem, the Church very often sweeps the problem under the carpet in the hope that it will go away.

Only of course (like the toxic effects of sub-prime insanity) a serious problem does NOT usually self-heal. Would the Bishop try out this policy with a toothache? I doubt it; he’s know it would only get worse and whack him in the midriff at some stage. So WHY do they do it with abuse cases in their own Church?

No, as long as you have this absurd dogma in the Catholic Church, you will have abuse. And the point is, as soon as you get abuse, it concerns us ALL. We then DO have a right to stick our nose into the Catholic Church’s affairs, or so I maintain. No man is an island ……

Unfortunately, the larger the institution and especially where it concerns beliefs, creeds or whatever (and companies are often similar) the more difficult it is to give up a long-held shibboleth even in the face of the most overwhelming evidence that it is time to “move on”.

If the Pope thinks that all this is helping his particular organism to survive, he is – I believe – sorely mistaken. Celibacy is unnatural – period. Man is HUMAN (sorry to state the obvious). Sex is an integral part of humanity (for the vast majority). But all that is theory and opinion; the point is, the policy JUST DOES NOT WORK, thus leading to multiple and repeated cases of abuse. There may be hand-wrenching, apologies, investigations and promises to put the house in order, but as long as the Pope insists on celibacy, there will be abuse.

And what for? It is all so POINTLESS! Is the Catholic Church maintaining that , for example, the Church of England (CofE) is in some way heretical? If marriage for priests works OK for the CofE, then why not for Catholics? In reality, this dogmatism is only the dead-weight of centuries of tradition, but we should cast off dead weights in the interests of innocent children – and of course (they are human, too) of priests themselves.

Though not a believer, I also sometimes wonder what God would think. In fact, trying to empathize with God is one of my favourite pastimes. Looking down on all this, wouldn’t he be inclined to think the Catholic Church is barmy? How could he POSSIBLY (if he is the God I think he must be) want his humanly-frail priests to be celibate if it means (AS IT DOES) the regular and repeated abuse of children?

By Chris Snuggs

EMF? No thanks ….

The politics of monetary funds

Will Europe snub the IMF and set up its own “Monetary Fund”. Is this yet another “magic pill” that is supposed to solve the sort of problems seen with Greece recently?

The proposed EMF would function as a European equivalent to the IMF; a lender of last resort to financially troubled eurozone governments to ensure the stability of the euro and global markets. Under the direction of the other members of the eurozone, the EMF would dictate fiscal policy to the offending government in return for a bailout.

Its main benefit would be to free the eurozone of the ‘outside’ involvement of the IMF and thus maintain confidence in the ability of Europe to set its own house in order.

(Quoted from here)

I like this bit: “dictate fiscal policy”. The Greeks seem unwilling to accept their own government’s dictates on fiscal policy, so why they would accept anyone else’s is a puzzle.

“maintain confidence in the ability of Europe to set its own house in order” is also very good spin. Just look the language! maintain; confidence;order – all such positive buzzwords.

In fact, what will DEEP DOWN, LONG TERM maintain confidence is doing the right things that you can afford, not lending ever vaster sums and putting a slick gloss on the conditions. “Conditions”? There’s a laugh! There were “conditions” put on Greece’s entry to the EU in the first place. Unfortunately, only lip-service was ever paid to them. Why should anyone believe it will be different in the future?

The last thing we need is yet another vast, Euro-Quango. The IMF is there if required, even if it is a bit tainted through being “international” and a bit too American for some people’s taste. What advantage (apart from vainglory) is there in Europe having its OWN Fund? And LENDING ever more money isn’t the answer; doing the right things IS. For this, you don’t need an EMF.

And what happens when (or is it if?) we get a sustained “boom”? The EMF is still there, doing nothing, waiting for the next BUST. All its highly-paid officials will still be paid for years on end to do nothing – another vast bureaucracy sucking our taxes up like some great cosmic, vacuum cleaner.

Still, if it does come to pass, think of all the extra taxpayer-funded jobs and power that will accrue to Brussels! Thanks a bundle Greece. Thanks to your humungous over-spending, corruption and general lack of the right stuff we are ALL likely to be lumbered with yet another expensive European cash-gobbling monster institution round our necks.

By Chris Snuggs

Stop Flaunting Sexuality Please

Oh, this is really clever! Not!

I was stunned the other day to read this:

In the latest development in his campaign to show how dramatically the Tories have changed, David Cameron has published the party’s first-ever official list of openly gay MPs.

The Conservatives say they have 20 openly gay candidates standing in the Election. Of those, 11 told party chiefs they were ‘happy’ to be named in the first authorised list of gay Conservative candidates.

Homosexuality is no longer – thankfully – a crime. It has always existed and no doubt always will. It is therefore – logically – a normal feature of human society. Isn’t it time to accept it as such and stop flaunting it constantly in the media? Can we not keep private those parts of our lives which are private? Do heterosexuals go around flaunting their heterosexuality?

Why on earth does a potential government-forming party feel obliged to publish lists of people’s sexuality? Why do I suddenly feel as if I am bizarre in thinking that one’s sexuality should be something private? Personally I haven’t got the faintest interest in other people’s sexual inclinations. Like religion, it should be personal and not eternally flaunted in the media.

And it is all illogical. Either homosexuality is normal or it isn’t. If it is (as it is), then why the constant need to bang on about it, as for example in the Tory party? What on earth has it got to do with running the country? Are the Tories supposed to be better-qualified to run the country the more homosexuals they have? Is there a point at which having TOO MANY becomes a negative point? Would they then start to proclaim how many heterosexuals they had? On a personal level, I keep my sexuality to myself. It is nothing to do with you and certainly not with running the country.

It is analagous to sex in the media. It is overdone. The endless superficial titillation and flaunting of sexuality is demeaning of the Human Spirit. Sex is – or should be – a private matter. It’s better that way. It is more mature that way, but the media – and now the political parties – sink to the lowest denominator instead of focusing on what really matters.

Please, please give us some politicians with common-sense.

By Chris Snuggs

The EU and the European Taxpayer

Integrity? Here is your quiz question for today:

Which international, taxpayer-funded organisation has an unelected crony of the British Prime Minister in a high-level post (though not the highest) who earns more than the President of the United States and double the salary of Hillary Clinton?

Clue!

Yes, you’re right. It is the European Union. This is an organisation of member states that in principle is supposed to be

about creating a free, democratic and open market in Europe. It has turned into a proto-state (in the eyes of the Brusselocrats) which – therefore – has to have a “Foreign Minister”, in this case Baroness Ashton.

This is a person with very little knowledge of international affairs sent by Gordon Brown to Brussels because he couldn’t afford to lose Peter Mandelson or David Milliband. This is a person never elected to any public post, yet who receives a vast salary and benefits package higher than that of ANY of the Presidents and/or Prime Ministers of ANY of the member states of the EU.

As “The Daily Mail” points out, in addition to this very large salary the Foreign Minister also enjoys an extraordinary raft of other benefits:

“Her basic pay of £250,000 is double that of her U.S. counterpart, Hillary Clinton (who’s on £124,000). And on top of that, Lady Ashton is entitled to a raft of benefits including a £38,000 yearly accommodation allowance, £10,000 annual entertainment budget, two chauffeurs, plus thousands of pounds more in sundry allowances and – if she survives – a pension of £64,000 pa (three times the average salary in Britain) plus a “golden handshake” of over £450,000.”

All this goes hand-in-hand with billions spent on the new EU “diplomatic service”.

But hang on a minute! The EU is NOT A STATE!

The EU has no army! Baroness Ashton as “Foreign Minister” can decide on practically nothing that the key heads of government do not agree to. So what is going on here? Is all this vast waste of public money in a time of financial crisis either A) the bloated pretention of Brusselcrats who have a delusional idea of their own importance or B) another brick in the wall which one day WILL be a United States of Europe.

One can see how the thinking goes: “We’ll set up a “Foreign Ministry” so big and powerful that one day they will just have to agree to creating a single state to justify it. And of course the more it costs, the more important it obviously is and therefore the more powerful we ourselves will be. And naturally, the more jobs there will be for us to go to on the Brussels merry-go-round.

Of course, it is both A AND B. And how can they afford these humungous salaries? Well, because they can get away with it. In theory they are accountable, but in reality? How many people even know who their European MP is? Once you get onto the Euro Gravy Train it disappears out of sight. Nothing the voter says or does seems to stop the bloated upward creep of salaries, allowances and pretentions.

How ANY Brusselocrat can justify such a ludicrous salary for an unelected and essentially unimportant “minister” is a mystery. The main justification seems to be “self-interest”. The EU is NOT A STATE. States have Foreign Ministers.

It is dishonest and amounts to theft of public funds. But that is not the WORST of it. The saddest thing is that it damages the morale of those who – like me – used to believe in a Europe united but not “statefied”. I want a free and open market. I do NOT want a United States of Europe. But this is where they want to lead us, and – like a black hole – each year sees a tiny creep in that direction, or in the above-mentioned case, a BIG creep. I also do not want a venal, money-grabbing, bureaucratic elite in Brussels which makes 80% and rising of British law.

Once again, one wonders if delusional pretentions will bring the whole edifice crashing down and the baby go out with the bathwater …

By Chris Snuggs

Nationalist Hysteria Yet Again

Politics, history and daftness!

The Armenian “genocide” of WWI is once again in the news. The Americans seem to be on the point of recognizing what happened as genocide, much to the fury of the Turks. (though Obama is – once again – apparently wobbling ….)

To my mind, what happened WAS genocide or as near it as makes no difference, but that judgement is best left to historians and is not what interests me in this matter. No, once again it is the absolute hysteria that nationalism can provoke that intrigues me. I take hysteria to be a form of insanity; it is certainly as potentially destructive. How can most of an entire nation be insane?

The point is – but logic seems to go straight out of the window when nationalist hysteria takes over – that this happened nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. Any Turks involved are long dead. Present-day Turks cannot POSSIBLY be blamed for what their predecessors did, no more than Germans today can be blamed for Hitler or indeed today’s Mongols for Genghis Khan.

What is the POINT of Turks protesting so loudly about what was the appalling mass killings of Armenians? Nobody is going to blame TODAY’S Turks, are they?

The Turks’ current position could be described as anything from wrong through illogical to insane. For goodness sake, just admit the truth and let’s get on with the future. It happened, it wasn’t YOUR fault but THE TRUTH must be told. Without the truth, we are lost.

The irony is – and irony is never far from human experience – that one supposes the Turkish reluctance to admit that it WAS a genocide or as near as dammit is because to do so would mean they “lost face” or “were guilty”, whereas in fact what is reprehensible is the very FACT that they refuse to admit it, not the original events themselves for which THEY TODAY cannot be held responsible.

This seems to me such a self-evident truth that I truly do not understand the Turkish position. Perhaps someone else can help me here ……

As for “we must avoid damaging relations with Turkey”, I can only throw up my hands in despair. The truth is the truth, and what is the VALUE of “relations” based on lies?

As for joining the EU, forget it. There is enough hysteria within our borders already without adding another 90 million people’s worth.

PS And while we’re on the Turks and Armenia, it is time that the Japanese made a more convincing admission that their army was guilty of appalling atrocities in WWII.

By Chris Snuggs

Greece, Oh Greece!

Fancy a Greek Isle?

Germany is baulking at a Greek bailout ….. 84% of the people are opposed according to polls, and Frau Merkel is decidedly lukewarm. This is no surprise; the Germans are pretty commonsensical after all. They are going through a “spot of fiscal turbulence” themselves and hardly in a mood to bail out a feckless, tax-avoiding, economic basket case on the flaky south of the Brusselian Empire ….

Instead, they have come up with a cunning plan; the Greeks should sell some of their islands. I can see the attraction; at knock-down prices, no doubt a good many Germans themselves – short of coast in the homeland – would be only too keen to snap up a firesale bargain.

But if I were Greek I would beware of Germans with cunning ideas. After all, it could be the islands today and the Acropolis tomorrow. Selling capital assets to clear debts built up on a binge of tax-avoided short-term consumption is hardly the long-term solution, and it is remarkable how we humans do tend to go for short-term, quick-fix solutions (see my post on the Fat Pill) . Of course, in Europe at least the Sun (can I capitalize it? It is after all the source of my existence …) plays a large part here, for the further south you go the hotter it is, the more corruptly-shambolic the taxation system, the flakier the economy and the higher the debt. Of course, Britain is an exception to the rule, since it must be put in the Mediterranean basket of cases even though it is far up in the north. Still, Britain was ever exceptional ….

No, I would advise the Greeks to hang on to their islands for a rainy day and do the right thing, which is take the medicine, invest long-term rather than on frivolous consumption and in general live within your means. Selling the islands is desperation stakes, even if the ultimate solution would be to sell the whole country to the Germans and let them sort out the mess, and – more to the point – pay for it all as they did with East Germany.

But though this is hardly a laughing matter – especially for innocent Greeks (I assume there are some!!) – I did have a chuckle yesterday when I saw the headline.

“Greece calls for EU to play its part.” – in other words, bung in billions to bail them out. I am I confess mystified to understand exactly why the thrifty Danes should play their part in bailing out the hapless Greeks, though I suppose we do still owe them for democracy and stuff. When does the statute of limitations run out on this?

Well, good luck Greece, but don’t count on my pfennig, and don’t sell the islands either!

By Chris Snuggs

Greenwich Observatory

A rich and beautiful place in British History

view3 — View from Observatory Hill of Queen Anne's Palace, the old naval buildings & across the river Canary Wharf

Paul Handover recently published an article about “Daylight Saving” and the Greenwich Meridian. THIS SITE with its photos and links is of particular interest to those with little personal knowledge of London.

Greenwich Park – where stands the magnificent Royal Observatory – is one of the jewels of London. Steeped in history, it provides the perfect day-out for the family, including foreign tourists. Forget the jostling crowds in the frenzied den of useless consumption that is Oxford Street and take a train out to Greenwich. There you will find a magnificent park, wonderful views of London and the Thames, the Royal Observatory and the National Maritime Museum. Too much to mention in detail, but if for nothing else just go to see the clocks of John Harrison, horologer extraordinaire in a time when chronometry meant everything to men at sea. You don’t have to be British to take pleasure in the great skills and achievements of British sailors and explorers, backed up by men of science responsible for some of the most important advances in scientific history.

I can’t count how many times I’ve been to Greenwich Park, but every time I get back to London from my current home in Germany, I try to take my son there. I want him to see this rich place in British history, but also to enjoy its enormous beauty.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: