I didn't quite catch that...

1. It may be obvious to those that know me that I’m a fan of the written word.
2. It may be obvious to those that have met me that I like to quote from what I’ve read.
3. It may be obvious to those that have seen my desk that I prefer reading a book to reading on a screen.

Those three things are often complimentary; to refresh my memory of a quote, I can dig out the book and have a quick flick through it to find what I was looking for. In fact, this activity is often enjoyable in and of itself, without a specific quote to search for.

But what if I know the author, but not the book? I may know the context, but not the character. While I’d like to be able to browse through an entire series of novels, it’s occasionally not practical to read 4,000,000 words while searching for the appropriate response to a flame war.

Which is why the Pratchett Quote File has been useful over the years. An online resource that allows you to search the more memorable of the quotes provided throughout the entire body of work produced by Terence David John Pratchett. And TP does some mighty fine quotage, as many people have found over the years.

But the PQF didn’t satisfy enough, really. Because it was in contradiction to point 3 above: I prefer the reading in my hands to the reading off a screen. But Mr Stephen Briggs has corrected that deficiency.

Yes, he’s gone and produced a book called The Wit and Wisdom of Discworld, which breaks down the series into the more witty quotes, and all in hardback form. So I can randomly browse for nothing, or remind myself of the great lines in specific books. This is greatly pleasing to me, but will probably be very annoying to you. Because, you see, he’s also gone and included and index.

A harmless thing, you would think. But it allows me to lookup, for example, flow charts, and be instantly rewarded with Trymon didn’t smile often enough, and he liked figures and the sort of organizational charts that show lots of squares with arrows pointing to other squares. In short, he was the sort of man who could use the word ‘personnel’ and mean it.

In short: you are all in for a new version of IDQCT….; a new, improved version. With approximately 17% more Pratchett quoting.

No need to thank me.

(Yes, I know it’s old. But I’m not really here to care at the minute.)

Can you guess what time of year it is?

No, not just political party conference time. Something much more specific.

Yes, it’s ‘holiday’ time again. Something I’d only found out seven days ago, leaving not-a-lot of time for the trivialities, such as booking time off work and sorting flights and accomodation and the like.

So I’ll not be about over the next few days. But, because I’m so caring and sharing, and not because I’m worried you’ll all forget me given the slightest opportunity, I’ve gotten a little something for you all to read every day.

Plz not to miss me too much, ktnx. A little, but not too much.

FUCK AWAY OFF.

Congestion charges in Belfast? What a blatant money grabbing idea. I can not see it beginning well, let alone ending well.

Minister of Justice, Jack Straw, wants to ‘clarify’ the law regarding self defence. Not because the existing laws are bad, you understand, but because they could be better.

There is to be an urgent review of the law protecting those who intervene in criminal situations in England and Wales, the government has said.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who has been a “have-a-go hero” four times, said he wanted to clarify “that the law is on the side of the citizen”.

Both he and the home secretary have addressed the Labour Party conference.

He said self-defence laws work “much better than most people think, but not as well as it could or should”.

Mr Straw wants to reassure victims or witnesses that they can use reasonable force to stop and detain offenders.

So, here we go again. The government is going to ride in to save us all from bad (or not very good/clear) laws. But hold on a second. Weren’t these laws fairly new?

Oh, yes, the most relevant act is barely out of nappies. So who wrote it then? That would be the very same government that now wants to change it.

Wouldn’t it have been easier just to do it right the first time? Or would that have reduced the opportunity for making political hay in future.

Yes, I am a cynical bastard. But am I cynical enough?

Go-Boris-Go-Boris-Go.

Boris for Mayor!

Boris Johnson has overwhelmingly won the battle to be Conservative candidate in next year’s London mayoral race.

The 43-year-old Henley MP beat off the challenge from Andrew Boff, Warwick Lightfoot and Victoria Borwick in a vote which was open to all Londoners.

Mr Johnson, an ex-magazine editor well known for his TV chat show appearance and media rows over his outspoken comments, got 75% of the 20,019 votes.

Lets be honest, there really wasn’t any doubt as to Boris getting the nomination, unless dirty tricks had come into play. But now it’s official, and we’ll now see a titanic stand-off between two massive political personalities, with massive media awareness on both sides.

It looks like both of them are equal, but there is one very important difference: Boris ain’t a twat…

I often find myself visiting Post Secret, because it’s a very cool concept well executed. I do wish that they’d stop going on about it being a ‘community art’ thing; that’s just a mindless label put on something that works quite well, but not because it’s art. It works because it appeals to the voyeur in all of us, and it intrigues people for the same reason that Big Brother does. This doesn’t make BB art, does it?

But I digress. I also visit I can has cheezburger? quite a bit, because it mocks cats and their human slaves. This is pleasing to me.

But when you take those two things and combine them, the coolness is greater than both alone. Which is why I’ve been pissing myself laughing at Lolsecretz. Because it takes the sincerity of Post Secret, and puts it in Lol-speak over pictures of cats.

Should it work? No. But it does.

Today, I am officially in the following state:

Thusly, the odds of me not making a stupid mistake at some point today are really rather low.

Add to that the fact that I have to squeeze rather a lot into the next day or two and a recipe for disaster is there for any that choose to follow it.

Thusly, I apologise in advance for things that will probably be going wrong.

The Economist is, I find, more often than not on the side of the angels when it comes to issues I care a lot about. Sure, it tends to be a little more statist than I’m comfortable with, and it’s also bought into the anti-gun lobby in a big way. But when it comes to civil liberties, economic liberalism and international diplomacy, I find myself nodding along nicely.

Of course, it doesn’t cover the topics closest to my heart anywhere near enough for me, which is why I’m more than happy that, over the next few weeks, there’ll be a special focus on the one issue that will get me most riled: civil liberties.

Human rights are part of what it means to be civilised. Locking up suspected terrorists—and why not potential murderers, rapists and paedophiles, too?—before they commit crimes would probably make society safer. Dozens of plots may have been foiled and thousands of lives saved as a result of some of the unsavoury practices now being employed in the name of fighting terrorism. Dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives. So be it.

I’ll be watching this series with great interest. The first instalment, the whys and why-nots of torture was worth it; it’s a topic that draws on emotion from all looking at it, which is why a (fairly) dispassionate look at the issue is so important.

Roll on the rest of the series. Torture is an easy one (duh, ’tis bad); it’s when they move onto mass wire-tapping, ID cards and CCTV that I’ll be waiting for the reasoned arguments.

According to the BBC, Agenda for Change was all about giving equal pay for equal work.

Nobody told me that. Back when I was subject to it, it was pretty obvious that AfC was an attempt to cut down a little on salaries in the long term, and it was an attempt that failed miserably.

Of course, I’ve since left that job. Six months ago, in fact. But I’m still waiting on hearing from the HR department at that job about any possible owings of money, either to me or from me. And that, frankly, is ripping the piss. AfC kicked in three years ago, and I still don’t know if they’re going to be coming after me for cash.

But the, it’s change in the public sector. Expecting it to actually work is a little much…

As pointed out on Saturday, I spent the weekend in Scotland attempting to celebrate the birthday of the baby sister, for she be old now. And thusly no longer deserving of the moniker ‘baby sister’, but it annoys her slightly and must therefore remain in use.

This is what brothers are for, people: providing low grade annoyance to all siblings. Or so I’ve been told, anyway.

But I digress. One of the topics of discussion was freshers, because said group of people were represented at the proceedings. And there was a horrible realisation on my part.

I’ve slowly come to terms with the concept of people born in 1989 being able to drink; I’ve become accustomed to the idea of people from that year going to university (hell, I’m even related to some of them). But I’d forgotten that the Scots do things a little differently, and let people go to uni at 17.

Meaning that the majority of the freshers were 17, and a significant number of them were born in 1990.

So, from here on, it will not just be a case of uni folk not remembering the 80s (as was my excuse); they’ll not even have lived through any of them. The decade that started on a high point¹ is now just another time that The Kids never knew.

By fuck, that makes me old. What a horrible concept.

–
¹ – me, obviously.

A random conversation on the door a while back led me to discover something mentioned here, and also to the Convention in question.

Now, it depends on how you translate it. The nice, legalise version on the Europa portal says:

1. Europol, the members of its organs and the Deputy Directors and employees of Europol shall enjoy the privileges and immunities necessary for the performance of their tasks in accordance with a Protocol setting out the rules to be applied in all Member States.

Which sounds a little over the top, but broadly acceptable. The translation on the wiki is closer to the one I was in discussions about last night, though.

“The officers of the EU police force, Europol, are immune from criminal prosecution should they break the law while carrying out their activities”

The discussions were with a fella who knows a little (not a lot, but a little) about the way the PSNI operate, and he was basically saying how unfair it was that everything the local cops did was done with the knowledge that, should they cross the line a little, they could themselves end up in front of a judge. And how it would be so much better if they could all just go the way of the Euro cops and just be immune while working.

Obviously, I then felt the need to check that out, because blanket immunity falls squarely onto Ed’s List Of Fucking Stupid Ideas. And my investigations didn’t satisfy me enough for comfort, to be honest. In what ways are Europol immune? Which translation is closer to the way the law is interpreted in member states? And who the fuck made it possible that there could be such ambiguity in such an important case?

And they say we should have a constitution written in the same fashion? Balls to that…

–
The conversation in question may have touched on this story, and may have paraphrased the quote from the USPCA officer (“It is a farcical situation, the law can be used back against the people who are trying to enforce it.”). With the basic sentiment from me that the use of laws to keep a check on those implementing the law are the very best possible use of said laws. But I digress…

Today and tomorrow, I shall be visiting the youngest of the siblings, who’s busy turning [age censored for reasons of self-preservation].

So I’ll not be about; instead I’ll be driving along some (allegedly) fine driving roads in Scotland. Which should be nice.

Don’t go wreaking the place when I’m gone, y’hear?

The tag-line to a blog entry by the Director General of the BBC:

It’s important you can trust the BBC – even on what to call a cat.

Mr DG, I do trust the BBC. I trust that pretty that every angle will be covered somewhere; that all voices will be heard; that people will be sent to shine a light into the darkest of places. That’s not the problem I have with the BBC.

No, what I don’t like, and don’t trust, is the bias that’s shown in the commissioning of shows and in the presentation of news; the bias that isn’t admitted or announced; the insidious bias that only the voice of respectability can get away with.

Do I give a shit about Blue Peter not wanting to call their cat Pussy? No. Am I annoyed by the phone in ‘scandal’ or the Songs of Praise nonsense? No. Am I continually incensed by the soft-left slant put onto every possible news story and every big-budget new series. Damn right I am. But I know it’ll be there, no matter what I think.

So I do trust the BBC; I trust that their output will be factually correct, but politically slanted. I trust them like I’d trust an Aes Sedai: they’ll not actually lie, but their meaning isn’t always the same as the words would suggest…

Surprisingly, today’s conference was quite good. Sure, only a couple of the presentations were what I’d call engrossing, but there was craic, and catching up with people I didn’t expect to see there, and frankly the best lunch I’ve had at one of these things.

And the new thing I’ve learned today? Some of the best folks working with diabetes in Norn Iron aren’t preaching what they speak. Specifically all that mumbo jumbo about 10,000 steps a day; it’s presented as a normal figure that everyone should be attaining, and one that will greatly reduce your risk of many things.

And the good professor’s daily average? Some 7,600 steps.

This amused the assembled multitude. Because it was either laugh or cry at the death by powerpoint…

Today, I shall mostly be out of the office. Which is nice.

But it’s because I’m at a conference. Which is generally not so nice.

But it may be an interesting conference. Which is slightly nicer.

And the hotel it’s in has provided me with several nice meals in the past, so the free lunch should be good. Which is very nice indeed.

Apart from that, don’t expect to hear too much from me for a while, for I’ll be busy freeloading listening attentively.

I may be reading this entirely the wrong way, but I look at the Northern Rock thing, and see the government basically saying “This is a high risk investment; we’ll take the risk away from the (relative) few who have invested and instead spread it across everyone else.”

Which is charming, I’m sure. And, in five years time, when a bigger bank with fewer government supporters on the board gets in trouble, will the same courtesy be extended towards them? Or, looking backwards, should the same guarantees have been offered to investors in BCCI or Barings?

In other words, I see a very, very dangerous precedent being set.

I’m not an economist or someone who plays the markets, although I’ve been involved in several detailed conversations along those lines in recent months. But my opinion of the entire set-up is that all the rules that people trade by, and all the systems they play, are pretty difficult to distinguish from confidence tricks. Now, there is no doubt that said tricks work, and I’m yet to be informed of a better way of making money for more people, but that doesn’t make them any less trickery. And the likelihood is that, this time at least, offering the guarantees that have been offered has changed the situation sufficiently that the guarantees will never be needed; people won’t go cashing in all their investments because there’s no risk of losing out.

But what about the next time; and the next time? What happens when those working the system come to rely on government bail outs? More and more risks will be taken, and eventually the risks will become so great that the government will need to step in and make good. And then we’ll all be worse off.

Or, of course, it could be the case that this is just a one off, and no guarantees will be offered to other banks. Which raises a whole separate set of questions along the lines of ‘So just who was Northern Rock blowing?’…

I’ve a whole new concern about the upcoming Stardust film. Yes, the reviews I’ve been hearing have been very positive, yes the box office figures are very encouraging, yes most of the cast inspires confidence (Gervais being the exception, of course). But there’s still something that really brings forth the doubt.

It’s right there on the music section of the wikipedia article:

English pop band Take That have written and recorded the theme for the film titled “Rule the World”, featuring Gary Barlow on lead vocals. The song is not featured on the soundtrack to the motion picture. However, the song is set to be released as a single for the band Take That on October 22, 2007 in the UK. As for the United States, it’s unknown.

I only found out about this on the radio this afternoon, and I think it’s a fucking travesty. The song is dross, the band are worse, and if the character of the film is in any way similar to the feel of the song then it will be woeful.

I have The Fear, and for once, it’s entirely justified…

Balls.

So, anyone else catch the big reveal? The one where PC David Copperfield finally exposed himself, on national television?

Personally, I thought it was quite interesting, but then the central theme was exposing red tape, organisational stupidity and government ineptitude, so of course I was going to like it. And it provided yet more evidence of what can be achieved by someone making their point, clearly and repeatedly, in the face of government indifference. To whit, absolutely fuck all. The system won’t change, the people in charge won’t change, and the person trying to effect change ends up leaving the country.

Gotta love the relentless march of the bureaucrat, don’t you…

For quite a while, I’ve been lamenting the delay in the roll-out of the Wheel of Time; there’ve been large gaps between instalments, and the instalments are getting bigger. But the expectation was that there’s only one book to go; only one more wait until the ends are tied up.

About a year ago, I became aware of a probable cause for some of this delay; the author, known as Robert Jordan was very, very ill. Understandably, the writing of books was not the highest priority for him, especially when you consider the side effects of some of the drugs he was on. But, like in many such situations, there was hope that he’d recover, or (selfishly) that he’d recover enough to finish the book.

It’s one of these things that make you seriously question your priorities; instead of being concerned about someone because they were very seriously ill, because they were dying in a pretty unpleasant way, I was worried because their death would provide some inconvenience to me. Clearly I’m a horrible, horrible person. But I digress.

There were encouraging signs, apparently, at the start of the year; some readings I don’t understand had apparently moved in a way I didn’t understand but which doctors said was encouraging. There was talk of living a few more years.

Sadly, it didn’t work out that way. Yesterday RJ died, at home, surrounded by his family.

Death comes for us all. We can only choose how to face it when it comes.

So said Jordan, through the mouth of the Aiel, sixteen years ago. He chose to face it with determination and hope; who could ask any more?

RIP.