We went for some gentle beers tonight in Holborn.

The pub was almost empty, yet the barmaid was managing to serve so slowly as to simulate conditions in a busy night-club.

There were of course three other members of staff, all busily doing something else with great industry. But could we buy a drink? Little chance of that.

In desperation, we decided to ask the staff whom they thought was in charge of the pub. All of them replied:

'I think it's probably me'

And I think they were probably right. Adam Smith would have turned in his grave, 300 years on and zilch-efficiency being so beautifully demonstrated.

Tony Blair should join the Tories.

They are in dire need of a good leader. Oddly enough , he is well qualified, and might just do it. (The Battle of Britain was less likely)

Churchill did it -- although not as PM, but Tony can pull it off.

And, imagine the look on Golden Brown's face.

Sadly, it's unlikely as Cherie probably cannot change her mind that quickly -- but then again, she is a woman.

Tory Plan B == Anthony Blair.

And of course, The Sun would be back on home ground.

GOTCHA!

Next Installmant : Conqueror's Logbook. But you have to ask nicely!

The French have moved their terrorist alert status to 'Worry'.

They have only two higher levels of alert, COLLABORATE and SURRENDER.

This of course begs the question as to whom actually won the 2nd world War?

Now I know that classical teaching holds the view that it was won by English grit, and American money, but when we look closely, one has to wonder whether or not the Germans (with help from the Frogs) actually won.

They have a fine country, fine beer, great cars, and pretty much are the financial powerhouse of the EU. Did they really lose?

Last time, they invaded Poland with tanks, this time, they are simply buying it with their wallets.

And did the British lose then ? Probably not, but no-one understands how we did what we did. Better keep mum.

I'd love to hear from you mother.

Oh dear, not enough Tamiflu , and we're all going to die from Bird Flu.

Well, for starters, Tamiflu is not exactly effective , it just happens to be a drug they have tried. I wouldn't rely upon it, and certainly wouldn't waste my money on it.

Instead, there are TWO fantastic drugs that really do work. Smoking and Drinking. Honest.

Smoking (a few fags a day, not 20 a day!), actually helps develop immunity towards airborne infections, exactly the way in which colds and flu are spread. Ask your doctor, he will grudgingly tell you.

Alcohol is one of the most toxic substances we know. It kills all known germs , only larger organisms survive, and until viruses turn into something with legs, wings and muscles, alcohol will stop them dead in their tracks. historically of course, the biblical , communion goblet sharing communities all survived bubonic plague, and worse , whilst sharing a communal cup! This is simply due to the wonderfully antiseptic qualities of alcohol. So drink up ! Wash in beer.

Although frankly I think the biggest risk we face from Bird Flu is in fact more EU nonsense. How will the migratory birds obey the new bird-importing regulations?

Maybe the British Birds will line up smartly on a sand-bank in the North sea and wait in line.

Meanwhile the French birds will simply fly in and start nesting, trying to find a space the the German Birds (who used their bath-towels earlier) have left.

The Spanish birds will then turn up on the British Sand-bank and claim some sand-bank quota allowance...

on a more serious note, the bird-flu problem is real. But by ignoring it (which is what we are doing) we will have a real problem. Our scientists should force the mutation to a human-carried variant right now , rather than waiting for nature to do it. If we don't beat nature to the punch, then we will have a problem in developing the antibodies fast enough.

We cannot stop nature, but we can beat her at her own game. Not by destroying the flu virus, but by creating a variant of our own, developing resistance.

In cowboy films, this is known as 'seeing 'em off at the pass'.

We've got builders in the building right now.

You know, the sort of 'right matey', 'two sugars, plenty of milk' sort of folk. The sort of chaps that seem to do everything with a hammer and chisel yet still need boxes of tools and gubbins.

The standard method of work is to lash together a few bits of two-by-four and 'face it off with ply'. These guys can fix doors, repair windows and install kitchens by simply meditating on their mantra, drinking tea, breaking wind and scratching their backsides.

But this week they have learnt a new trick : using a fire extinguisher to prop open a fire door...

The doors have massive signs : 'Do not jam or leave open , FIRE HAZARD' is the proclamation.

The solution, is to remove the nice heavy red cylinders from the wall, and use them to perform the task.

I guesss it's a sort of martial art, using the force of the fire hazard to deal with itself.

Most Zen.

Today , 21st October 2005, is the 200th anniversary of the Battle Of Trafalgar : When we beat the French and Spanish fleets in a remarkable display of British backs-to-the-wall brilliance. The battle was highly influential in shaping the world of today, and is a key point in British history. We should be proud.

But our greatest national hero who stands at the top of his column in Trafalgar square, is today encased in with metal hoardings. Our glorious mayor , Mr Ken is busy setting up his hifi for one of his cosy parties on sunday.

Meanwhile, real English folk cannot get to the column base, surrounded in majesty by the British Lions. On one of the most important days in our Calendar, Ken denys us our heritage. Thanks mate.

Maybe he wants Nelson Mandela on the top of the column, and we can move Admiral Horatio into some toilet near Soho or (Waterloo??) -- but that would probably offend the French.

"Death to the French!" -- A cracking read, by CS Forester.

http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=1931541728&itm=26

The UK police have conveniently labelled their special-escort-group vehicles with the letters SEG on the registration.

So, budding assassins should simply look out for these vehicles (namely motorbikes), and hang around for 5 minutes, someone important will shortly be passing through.

According to Inspector Knacker, they are keen to get more bikes labelled this way (their new super duper bikes), but the police and the DVLA are having an argument over what registrations will be allowed.

And I thought those guys both played on the side of the angels??

I was visiting Paris, and was searched at Waterloo. Presumably a random check, designed to catch out bomb-smuggling or money-running criminals. Who knows, it was a plain-clothes agent, pulled me over, asked a few quick questions, and whisked me into a little office to search my bags.

Nothing untoward, but I tried to strike up a conversation with the man.

He was remarkably uncommunicative at first, obviously taking the official line of taking it all jolly seriously. When he found my personlised post-it notes, I tried to joke that it was an essential accesory in today's paperless office. It wasn't funny, and the little leather pouch was subjected to additional scrutiny.

Nothing found, and I was a free-man again (!) I wished him well, and said that I hoped they searched effectively, but hoped they found no terrorists (ie there aren't any).

He replied that he hoped he found lots of them.

I objected suggested that this meant that he was hoping terrorists existed, and the more the merrier.

He actually agreed, and said that if there were no terrorists, then he would lose his job.

Something is seriously wrong here. Either the man is poorly educated and doesn't know what he is saying , or , he is a proponent of terrorism. If it was a funny comment on his part, then I didn't find it funny, given he had set the tone of the encounter for the two of us.

If he is poorly educated, then he really shouldn't be doing this job, as any half bright bomber will have no trouble in fooling him.

If he is a proponent of terrorism then he will shortly be convicted under the new laws.

Frankly, I think education is the answer. And the government should focus on making sure that its employees are able and qualified to do their jobs.

I was queueing to buy some paper in Rymans today.

The queue was quite substantial (over 15 people), and to my surprise, there were two people, working a single till , one packing, one taking money. There were three tills.

I asked as to why they didn't run two tills, as most of the time, one or the other was totally idle (sometimes both!).

The answer was that it was 1730, and the store closed at 1830, and the other two tills had been already cashed up, in readiness to close!

So customers are made to wait, so that the store can close on time.

Simple really, once you figure out who are the clients, and who are the servers. Silly me.

Maybe someone should tell IBM to add another one of their glib posters at Airports and Waterloo, that by correctly telling clients from servers, increases in revenue can be obtained.

Adam Smith would have been delighted.

Of further amusement (possibly more seriously) was that the shop assistants behind the till didn't seem to understand what the problem was. Maybe Rymans' senior management should take a closer look at who is minding the store.

Two quotes to amuse yourself with :

Rymans’ owner Theo Paphitis says the profile of the business will change: “Partners will not be a toy shop under Rymans. It will take its place as a first class social/home office stationer.”

“We want to take some of the good things from Rymans and some of the good things from Partners and grow both businesses faster than we are at the moment.”

14-Feb-2001 (ChannelInfo.net)

Why do the public seem to believe everything that the media prints? The case regarding global warming is quite shocking. Moreso to believe that our schools are turning out hundreds of thousands of youngsters who allegedly achieved high grades in their science exams yet don't actually know what a scientific theory is.

A scientific theory is something that can proven, or disproven beyond a given degree of doubt.

Here's a typical definition:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)

And this simply explains what the 'global warming' problem is. Where is the yardstick by which we can can measure 'how much warming is being done by whom'? Worse still, how about simply measuring the degree of warming and not even apportioning blame?

Simple ideas such as sea-level rising, and Antarctic ice breaking off are simply too crude to measure effectively. In truth, the Antarctic ice shelf is THICKENING in the middle (although calving off at the sides). Sea-level is reported as falling in certain places -- as well as rising in others. However, these things make great media items, and the public get all excited, and blame everything onto human driven global warming.

What about the recent spate of hurricanes?

What about it? Hurricane activity is highly cyclic. So given a busy hurricane session, another session is more likely. One can in fact postulate a theory here that hurricane activity is closely modelled by a markov process , and in fact this works pretty well -- it doesn't need assumptions or vague notions about global warming to make its predictions.

Two recent papers in Nature and Science try to connect global warming with incresed hurricane activity , but on close inspection, the analyses are flawed. The datasets biassed (due to early 1960s-70s data collection), and certain of their summary results contain implausible inferences. If you look closely, you will see that they actually claim that Category 3 hurricanes have DECREASED over the period, (whilst 4 & 5 have increased).

So what is going on ? Weather appears to be hotter, more disturbed, and we are certainly chucking out vast quantities of gunk into our atmosphere. Scientists do not rule out a direct connection, rather they seek to tie the two together in a sensible way, so that we may make and take sensible decisions regarding our behaviour. So shouldn't we cut down JUST IN CASE? Why modify behaviour that we don't know is causing a problem? We might as well all wear zebra-t-shirts -- that might reduce the problem too, and we havn't tried that either.

Closing thought: Our emissions may be slowing the rate of global warming. We have made the heroic assumption that the connection between our activity and 'some warming' is a positive, linear one. It is more likely to be highly non-linear, and even vary. For instance, a severe warming of the Atlantic, could cause the gulf-stream to change dramatically. This could severely cool the UK. ie warming in place A --> cooling in place B. This is a sharp reminder that we need a testable theory -- simply taking blind action otherwise could have unpredictable results.

The papers to read :
a) Kerry Emanuel, 4 August 2005: Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436, 686-688.

b) P.J. Webster, G.J. Holland, J. Currie and P. Chang, 16 September 2005: Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science, 309, 1844-1846.

Then read
http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2005/oct2005/