It's in Africa

Be honest, dear reader. If I put an unannotated map of Africa in front of you, would you be able to accurately locate Rwanda? Try it:

Were you correct? Me neither. Here's a quiz question: what percentage of UK asylum seekers are granted asylum (including various resettlement schemes)? I didn't know and guessed at 75%. The most recent confirmed figures show that in 2019 there were 35,566 asylum applications and in 20,703 cases asylum was granted: 58.2%.

The UK has a population of 67.8 million. The 14,863 rejected asylum seekers represent 0.22% of the population.

Denmark has a population of 5.8 million. They had 1,008 asylum seekers in the last three quarters of 2020, of which 357 were granted asylum: 35.4%. The 651 rejected asylum seekers represent 0.11% of the population.

In May, Denmark signed an agreement with the government of Rwanda; the agreement refers to the UNHCR-sponsored Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) in Rwanda, a transit/processing resettlement centre designed primarily to deal with an influx of refugees from Libya to other African countries. You can read the full agreement here. A few weeks later, the Danish government passed a law enabling it to process asylum seekers outside Europe.

“External processing of asylum claims raises fundamental questions about both the access to asylum procedures and effective access to protection,” said Adalbert Jahnz, an EU Commission spokesperson. “It is not possible under existing EU rules or proposals under the new pact for migration and asylum.”

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees urged the Danish government to refrain from externalizing their asylum obligations. Such practices "frustrate access to international protection, are inconsistent with global solidarity and responsibility sharing, regularly undermine the rights of asylum seekers and refugees and thus violate international obligations of States."

The Guardian quotes Rasmus Stoklund, the Danish government party’s immigration spokesman, as saying “If you apply for asylum in Denmark you know that you will be sent back to a country outside Europe, and therefore we hope that people will stop seeking asylum in Denmark.”

All this to deal with a few people who together represent 0.11% of the population. It's likely that most - perhaps all - of these are not genuine asylum seekers but is that reason enough to subject legitimate asylum seekers to an arduous journey of 6,500 miles to live for days, probably weeks, maybe months, in a probably over-populated equatorial camp? Not to mention the economics of it.

By now you may well be asking why I am so interested in Denmark's immigration policies.

Reports in UK newspapers today suggest that the Home Office is keen on replicating Denmark's outsourcing of asylum seeker processing and has had discussions with the Danes about their agreement with Rwanda. Next week, the government will introduce the Nationality and Borders Bill into the House of Commons; today's Times reports that the bill will "include a provision to create an offshore immigration processing centre for asylum seekers" The chief executive of the Refugee Council charity is quoted as saying "For generations men, women and children seeking protection in the UK have been given a fair hearing on British soil. Most have rebuilt their lives as law-abiding citizens making a huge contribution to our communities. Offshore processing is an act of cruel and brutal hostility towards vulnerable people who through no fault of their own have had to flee war, oppression and terror."

What kind of country are we? Whether or not people agree on immigration policy as applied to asylum seekers, surely we should treat all of these people with compassion and decency while their applications are being assessed.

Oh, and here is the answer to the original question:

Images courtesy of freeworldmaps.net

Surveillance

I am being surveilled. Monitored, snooped on. Sitting next to my TV in my lounge, staring defiantly at me, is a small video camera. Given to me as a present by my son. "You're getting old, Dad, and I want to make sure you're OK". What kind of son gives his dad a surveillance device as a birthday present? Whatever happened to socks, a Guns N' Roses T shirt, a copy of the Jeremy Corbyn Annual?

OK, I get it. And I voluntarily gave my son the password to access the device in cases where he hasn't heard from me for ... a week, maybe. Using the app, it just shows live pictures of my massage chair, with or without me on it. It's not exactly a foolproof system, as I might be on the loo, in bed, doing some gardening or cooking. To be sure, I would need one of the little devices in every room in the house - surveillance gone mad. However, it's something. I trust my son not to watch my every movement, although on Friday nights, when he might come home the worse for wear after an evening with mates in the pub, I give it a wave - and sometimes other signals - every now and again. And I generally make sure that, if engaged in some undesirable 'old man' activity - scratching my armpits, picking my nose, strangling the neighbour's cat or reading the Guardian - I do it in the camera's blind spot (have you found that yet, son?)

Which brings me to Matt Hancock. Does he have a son who has given him one of these devices? If the picture of our esteemed Secretary of State for Health in a meeting with one of his 'closest advisers', in his office, was taken from the office CCTV, why on earth would anyone have CCTV in their office? Is this a government thing; do they all have CCTV? Everyone knows that CCTV can be hacked so it doesn't sound like a great idea. And, if so, did Hancock know he was being watched? What a fecking eejut. First rule of being surveilled: find the blind spot.

I believe this is the system which the civil service had installed in the Prime Minster's office:

Note to Hancock's kids: you can get one of these neat little devices on Amazon for about £20; when's his birthday?

It might be too late by the time this is published.

As a Spurs fan...episode #2

On 5 May I blogged about who might become Tottenham's new manager after sacking Jose Mourinho. I thought it would have been sorted by now but a dizzying succession of aspirants through Daniel Levy's revolving office door has yet to produce a winner.

On 19 May, in his programme notes for the last home match of the Premier League season, Levy said "We shall focus on the recruitment of a new Head Coach. We are acutely aware of the need to select someone whose values reflect those of our great Club and return to playing football with the style for which we are known – free-flowing, attacking and entertaining". So, no mention of winning.

In that earlier post I mentioned as possible choices for Spurs manager (or is it Head Coach? That's an interesting distinction) Rafa Benitez, Max Allegri, Maurizio Sarri, Brendan Rodgers, Roberto Martinez, Julien Lopetegui, Eddie Howe, Gareth Southgate, Ralf Rangnick and Jurgen Klinsmann. One coach I didn't consider - for pretty obvious reasons - was Mauricio Pochettino. But after Rodgers gave a firm pre-emptive "no thanks", it was the previous coach (or was he the manager?), sacked by Levy in 2019 in favour of Jose Mourinho (who could not be further from the notion of free-flowing, attacking and entertaining football), who came back into the frame and who, apparently, was for some reason down for it. However it was Pochettino's current employers, Paris Saint Germain, who closed that door pretty quickly.

Since then Spurs have been linked with maybe a dozen possible candidates. Some, as RB Leipzig's Julian Nagelsmann, quickly got themselves top jobs elsewhere - at Bayern Munich in Nagelsmann's case. Antonio Conte left Inter Milan in a huff after winning Serie A and popped into Levy's office for a chat, which ended in not exactly acrimony, more like frustration: "Conte’s demands proved unrealistic and he was ultimately deemed a poor fit [really? duh!] for the club" according to a Spurs source. Next in the office was Paulo Fonseca, sacked by Roma a few weeks earlier to be replaced by ... Jose Mourinho! A few days later, Gennaro Gattuso was sacked by Fiorentina after being in post for 22 days. Spurs dropped Fonseca in the bin, talked to Gattuso, the Spurs fans revolted on social media about his frequently expressed racist, homophobic and mysogynist views (not to mention the combative former midfielder famously headbutted Tottenham’s then first-team coach Joe Jordan after playing for Milan in a Champions League tie at the San Siro in February 2011), and Spurs gave Gattuso a quick shove out of the door.

Which leaves Spurs where? It's not easy to see any consistency in approach; Levy seems to be torn between appointing a young, energetic manager with a growing reputation for developing young talent and playing attractive football and an experienced but traditional style title winner (which is definitely where Conte fits). There are two further problems: (1) the club recently appointed a Director of Football, Fabio Paratici, which suggests the Head Coach role rather than a traditional Manager, although that pretty much puts Spurs in line with everyone else; Paratici was responsible for bringing Fonseca in (2) they have very little money, the lack of match day income during the pandemic hitting hardest at a club paying for the construction of the new stadium. So no huge transfer budget.

I was gently mocked, after that earlier post, for including Gareth Southgate and Roberto Martinez in the frame. But I think these two - especially perhaps Martinez - would tick boxes for the club. I don't know what their international contracts are but you'd think that relatively young coaches don't want to spend the rest of their careers managing international teams. Martinez has always played attractive football and has no baggage; he's an engaging personality. He has proved with Belgium that he can work effectively with world class players - if Spurs can afford any of those in the near future. Levy needs to sort his mind out and make a bold, innovative choice.

Finally Jurgen Klinsmann, who claimed live on TV 2 days ago 

that he would be interested. Daniel, give him a call!

And please don't be misled by the title of this post; it's definitely not ME that's a Spurs fan! Many years ago my elder son, responding perhaps to misguided liberal parenting, decided to support Tottenham Hotspur. For a father - me - who himself rejected his father's Arsenal roots in favour of glamorous Chelsea, and now back again as a Gooner Forever (or at least for the moment), I live in hope that my son will eventually recant. Meanwhile, I write this to honour his (injudicious) choice.

Not a country

Holland is not a country. The Netherlands has 12 provinces, which include Noord-Holland and Suid-Holland, which together make up the fictional entity of Holland. tripsavvy.com sums it up concisely:

Why are the terms Holland and The Netherlands used interchangeably for the country? Actually now they aren't. In 2019 the Dutch Culture Ministry decided that, from January 2020, 'Holland' would no longer be used as part of the country's 'branding'. The message hasn't quite got through to the official travel organisation, whose website is (still) holland.com and includes a 'Holland Stories' section.

I'm not quite sure why they think that Holland is not an appropriate brand name, although if the world traditionally referred to England as 'Yorkshire', I might also think a re-brand is in order. It could just be that the residents of the other 10 provinces have had enough of stuck-up Holland ruling the roost.

The Kingdom of The Netherlands was a proud maritime nation in the 16th and 17th centuries. The Dutch under the leadership of William of Orange decided in 1568 that they had had enough of the rule of the Hapsburgs led by Philip II of Spain. Thus began the Eighty Years War which, to 21st century minds, seems like a lack of an exit strategy on both sides. In 1581 the Dutch declared their independence from Spain and the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Holland was one of the seven provinces) was established. It took until 1648 (yes, you've got it, 80 years later) for the Spanish to recognise the Netherlands as an independent country, which seems like an extreme of stubbornness.

The Dutch, far from being complacent after winning - if that's the right word for an eighty year war - their fight, four years later declared war against England. You could accuse them of simply being bored but the battle of these two maritime nations for control of the seas and ultimate colonisation was probably inevitable. Samuel Pepys, in his diary, had a great deal to say about this conflict from his position as Surveyor-General of victualling for naval ships. The war went on, with a couple of brief time-outs for drinks, for 22 years, with both nations determined to be the dominant power of the world's oceans.

A century of peace then ensued for the Dutch people. The price for this was arguably an acceptance that they couldn't compete with the British Empire; after all, their ships couldn't get out into the  Atlantic Ocean without running up against the British Royal Navy. In 1795 the French invaded and Napoleon made his brother, Louis, King of the Netherlands. The Netherlands included Belgium from 1815 (after the final defeat of Napoleon) until 1835 when Belgium seceded. You'd perhaps accuse them of a short attention span.

By now you'll be itching to know the most famous people born in Holland. Van Gogh doesn't qualify - he was born in Zundert in the province of North Brabant. Rembrandt was born in Leiden, in the province of South Holland.✅ Johan Cruyff - Amsterdam, North Holland.✅⚽

Holland, you will not be forgotten.

Triple-doubles

Russell Westbrook is a basketball player. Clearly an outstanding one, as last month he beat a long-standing record of 181 triple-doubles, set by Oscar Robertson in 1974.

US sport is obsessed with statistics. In baseball, for instance, there are the following just for batting:

1B – Single: hits on which the batter reaches first base safely without the contribution of a fielding error

2B – Double: hits on which the batter reaches second base safely without the contribution of a fielding error

3B – Triple: hits on which the batter reaches third base safely without the contribution of a fielding error

AB – At bat: plate appearances, not including bases on balls, being hit by pitch, sacrifices, interference, or obstruction

AB/HR – At bats per home run: at bats divided by home runs

BA – Batting average (also abbreviated AVG): hits divided by at bats (H/AB)

BB – Base on balls (also called a "walk"): hitter not swinging at four pitches called out of the strike zone and awarded first base.

BABIP – Batting average on balls in play: frequency at which a batter reaches a base after putting the ball in the field of play. Also a pitching category.

BB/K – Walk-to-strikeout ratio: number of bases on balls divided by number of strikeouts

BsR – Base runs: Another run estimator, like runs created

EQA – Equivalent average: a player's batting average absent park and league factors

FC – Fielder's choice: times reaching base safely because a fielder chose to try for an out on another runner

GO/AO – Ground ball fly ball ratio: number of ground ball outs divided by number of fly ball outs

GDP or GIDP – Ground into double play: number of ground balls hit that became double plays

GPA – Gross production average: 1.8 times on-base percentage plus slugging percentage, divided by four

GS – Grand slam: a home run with the bases loaded, resulting in four runs scoring, and four RBIs credited to the batter

H – Hit: reaching base because of a batted, fair ball without error by the defense

HBP – Hit by pitch: times touched by a pitch and awarded first base as a result

HR – Home runs: hits on which the batter successfully touched all four bases, without the contribution of a fielding error

HR/H – Home runs per hit: home runs divided by total hits

ITPHR – Inside-the-park home run: hits on which the batter successfully touched all four bases, without the contribution of a fielding error or the ball going outside the ball park.

IBB – Intentional base on balls: times awarded first base on balls (see BB above) deliberately thrown by the pitcher. Also known as IW (intentional walk).

ISO – Isolated power: a hitter's ability to hit for extra bases, calculated by subtracting batting average from slugging percentage

K – Strike out (also abbreviated SO): number of times that a third strike is taken or swung at and missed, or bunted foul. Catcher must catch the third strike or batter may attempt to run to first base.

LOB – Left on base: number of runners neither out nor scored at the end of an inning

OBP – On-base percentage: times reached base (H + BB + HBP) divided by at bats plus walks plus hit by pitch plus sacrifice flies (AB + BB + HBP + SF)

OPS – On-base plus slugging: on-base percentage plus slugging average

PA – Plate appearance: number of completed batting appearances

PA/SO – Plate appearances per strikeout: number of times a batter strikes out to their plate appearance

R – Runs scored: number of times a player crosses home plate

RC – Runs created: an attempt to measure how many runs a player has contributed to their team

RP – Runs produced: an attempt to measure how many runs a player has contributed

RBI – Run batted in: number of runners who score due to a batter's action, except when the batter grounded into a double play or reached on an error

RISP – Runner in scoring position: a breakdown of a batter's batting average with runners in scoring position, which includes runners at second or third base

SF – Sacrifice fly: fly balls hit to the outfield which, although caught for an out, allow a baserunner to advance

SH – Sacrifice hit: number of sacrifice bunts which allow runners to advance on the basepaths

SLG – Slugging average: total bases achieved on hits divided by at-bats (TB/AB)

TA – Total average: total bases, plus walks, plus hit by pitch, plus steals, minus caught stealing divided by at bats, minus hits, plus caught stealing, plus grounded into double plays [(TB + BB + HBP + SB – CS)/(AB – H + CS + GIDP)]

TB – Total bases: one for each single, two for each double, three for each triple, and four for each home run [H + 2B + (2 × 3B) + (3 × HR)] or [1B + (2 × 2B) + (3 × 3B) + (4 × HR)]

TOB – Times on base: times reaching base as a result of hits, walks, and hit-by-pitches (H + BB + HBP)

XBH – Extra base hits: total hits greater than singles (2B + 3B + HR)

Some of these are traditional, such as batting average, others examples of Sabermetric stats, such as OBS, yet more are weirdly esoteric (EQA) or aggregates of other stats. You'll get different lists from different sources; the above are from Wikipedia.

I hope you're keeping up. In addition to the above for batting, there are stats for pitching, fielding and baserunning. Michael Lewis' book Moneyball is famous for describing how Billy Beane, the General Manager of Oakland Athletics, revolutionised player recruitment by an intense stats-based focus.

You'll be pleased to know, though, that this post is not about baseball [Ed: It's a bit late for that, Nigel]. It's about basketball.

In any game of basketball, a player's contribution can be assessed according to five measures: points scored, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocked shots. By recording 10 or more in three of these categories in a game, a player achieves a triple-double. Most commonly it happens in the first three categories. For instance, three days ago Kevin Durant of the Brooklyn Nets scored 47 points, 17 rebounds and 10 assists against the Milwaukee Bucks. A triple-double.

Back to Oscar Robertson. In his career, he scored 181 triple-doubles and his record stood for 47 years and was thought of as one those that might never be broken. Until now. On 10 May, Russell Westbrook, playing for the Washington Wizards against the Chicago Hawks, scored 28 points, 13 rebounds and 21 assists to record his 182nd career triple-double. And he's still only 32.

BTW if you are wondering whether basketball is a team sport or an individual one, the Wizards lost the game! 

War in space

Yesterday's Times had a headline "NATO allies join forces on a new front: war in space". What? We're going to spend our precious money building Jedi Starfighters?

Most people think of war as bad. Maybe inevitable but preferably avoidable. If you are going to have a war, however, surely having it in space is the best option. The biggest downside of war is innocent civilian casualties; there are no civilians in space. I foresee a worldwide treaty banning terrestrial war and allowing galactic warfare. No more archers, trebuchets or tanks, just upgraded drones. Drones vs drones in space - no human casualties, military or civilian - and an annual league title for the winners, who take their place in the Intergalactic Federation wars. Where we'll all be cheering on the Chinese. What's not to like?

Get on with it, Boris; get the world signed up, Suzanne Collins to script it and Jacinder Ardern to play Katniss Everdeen.

Is impartial news a thing of the past?

Where do you get your news? Do you cross check other sources for corroboration?

I thought I'd check out the new TV channel GB News, recently launched by the 'big beast' of political journalism, Andrew Neil. Neil has been one of the best, most forensic political interviewers of recent years and has appeared to be scrupulously impartial in his verbal destruction of politicians of all stripes. A surprise, then, to see Neil as the face of a news channel that doesn't pretend to be impartial - indeed loudly claims to be 'anti-woke' and against the 'metropolitan mindset', 'identity politics' and cancel culture'. If you turn on to GB News, therefore, you wouldn't expect to be surprised by the thrust of its 'news' reporting.

You'd imagine Priti Patel, of all our British politicians, would be pushing her way to the front of the queue for an 'interview' (i.e. a platform for her views). And there she was: 'taking the knee is gesture politics' - you can see it on the GB News Twitter feed, if you feel the kneed.

Except. At 12:30 today, I watched Gloria De Piero (ex Labour MP and TV journalist) and economics/business journalist Liam Halligan co-hosting a three hour show "DePiero & Halligan" (so not "News at 12" or "The Lunchtime News", or indeed any pretence of being news). Gloria introduced an item from the Yorkshire Post on the number of Covid-related fines issued by the police in Nottinghamshire, which turned out to be largely breaking of Tier restrictions - remember those? - from however many months/years ago that those existed. Followed by someone called Sarah giving her opinions on the impact of continuing restrictions on 30 guests at weddings - cut to Gloria, nodding her approval of these views. There was no balancing item from someone in authority as to why it was necessary but, worst of all, it just felt very Radio 5 Live, members of the public blathering about local things no-one else is interested in. Basically provincial gossip. Is that it, Andrew?

I am a news sceptic, in that I basically don't believe there is such a thing as an unbiased presentation of news. If you are a reader of the Daily Telegraph, the Mirror, the Sun, the Guardian, you pretty much know the slant you will get on news items - indeed you read your paper of choice because you broadly agree with its general political stance. I read - and subscribe to - the Times, largely because its reporting of football and horse racing is supremely detailed and enlightening. I enjoy the Comments sections but always check out the authorship of a comment piece in order to evaluate its degree of impartiality. I watched last year's US General Election avidly on CCN, completely aware of (and enjoying) its anti-Trump bias.

I am absolutely not a fan of the BBC. Nothing to do with its impartiality or otherwise; I just don't believe it should exist. If there is a role for a public service broadcaster in a democratic country (something I dispute in an era of multiple news outlets), it should be restricted solely to news and news analysis. No competition with - and desire to eclipse - other media outlets, no drama, no sport, no provincial gossip and definitely no national cheerleading. And no licence fee.

So that's me; no pretence of impartiality, but I don't have to be. And no provincial gossip here.

Shout out for St Peter's Without

So yesterday, switching from tea to beer at half time enabled England to win their match. I've not yet seen an acknowledgement from the team of my part in the victory. But I do want to acknowledge the beer's part.

I was a given a couple of bottles of St Peter's Without, a craft zero alcohol beer brewed in Beccles in the county of Suffolk, UK. I only drink occasional alcohol, being more partial to zero alcohol beers. This is a particularly tasty example, very hoppy and flavourful - well done St Peter's Brewery! - so I bought a further supply.  They do four varieties of zero alcohol beer: Original, Gold, Organic and Elderberry & Raspberry, with a mixed case of 12x500ml for £21.00. I'm definitely going to give that a try - unless of course they decide to donate one in a sponsorship deal😁. They do have interesting chunky bottles:

I'm not sure if other Saints have their own breweries but I guess there has always been a tradition of monks and religious orders brewing and distilling. Not sure why, although Arthur Guinness was a devout Christian who starting brewing beer "to wean people off spirits". Works for me. But does the brewery have Papal permission for use of the Saint Peter nomenclature? Perhaps copyright protection expired a couple of thousand years ago, so I could have called this blog Saint Peter without problems. Imagine that, St Peter blogging today!

Heard of Ninkasi? She was the Sumerian Goddess of Beer around 1800 BCE and her poem A Hymn to Ninkasi is a clay tablet that was simply a beer recipe. Not kidding; it's true. Here is a bit:

You are the one who soaks the malt in a jar,
The waves rise, the waves fall.
Ninkasi, you are the one who soaks the malt in a jar,
The waves rise, the waves fall.

You are the one who spreads the cooked mash on large reed mats,
Coolness overcomes,
Ninkasi, you are the one who spreads the cooked mash on large reed mats,
Coolness overcomes,

You are the one who holds with both hands the great sweet wort,
Brewing [it] with honey [and] wine
(You the sweet wort to the vessel)
Ninkasi, (…)(You the sweet wort to the vessel)

I guess it's not easy to be certain about translating ancient Sumerian tablets.

Tea not working

It's half time in England's first match at the European Championship 2020 (I know, it's a bit late) tournament. Before the match I was undecided whether to support my country with a cup of tea or a beer. I chose tea

(decaff of course, don't want to get too excited) but it hasn't had the desired effect; it's 0-0.

So time for a beer.

I can be a bit superstitious and if we go on to win that'll be the pattern for the remaining games. Let's hope they won't be at 2pm. If we don't win I'll need a different superstition - suggestions?

One thing about the anthem. How do England get to own the UK anthem? And do we really want to empathise with "send her victorious"? It's such a dreary tune; find something better!

Scotland play their first match tomorrow and I'll be cheering them.

At the Centre of the Universe

I have resumed my pre-pandemic routine of reading my morning newspaper in the flesh, i.e. on paper rather than on my tablet. You'll be pleased to know that this blog will continue in the internet flesh.

Today's paper is full of Cornwall, which is where I live in the UK. For the next few days Cornwall will be the centre of the world. Or at least the centre of the G7 world, since the leaders of the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan are meeting from Friday in the sleepy south west of England. Not so sleepy when a very noisy aircraft flew over my house in the middle of last night, waking me up. Civilian flights into the local Newquay airport don't usually operate at night so either (a) this was an emergency load of noisy British revellers returning from Portugal to avoid quarantine requirements, (b) Vladimir Putin's air force was bombing the G7 or (c) a US military cargo plane delivered Joe Biden's armoured people carrier, which apparently has 8 inch armour plating and can survive a nuclear strike. I don't imagine that's a direct strike, more like stopping those nasty uranium atoms from a nearby explosion.

The G7 used to be the G8 but they sacked Russia because Putin insisted on the leaders engaging in underwater naked fistfights to determine the seating positions at the conference table. Now they sit according to political preference: Biden on the left with Merkel to his left, Macron on the right with Johnson on the far right alongside Mario Draghi and Yoshihide Suga, Canada (of course) in the middle. Britain, in the chair, has invited fellow Russophobes Australia, India and South Korea. The latter refused to sit in the same room as the Japanese unless they received an apology for Japan's 20th century imperial atrocities. The Australians only came after receiving an assurance that they would be allowed to continue trading with China and the Indians came as long as Pakistan wasn't included.

There is a suggestion that the G7 could morph into a D10 group ('D' for dumbing down). Although the French want Russia to be invited back into a S11 group - Sinophobes United. The original 'G' by the way stood for Good Guys.

Are all these temporary immigrants good for Cornwall's economy? I don't quite see Joe Biden slipping into the corner shop for a packet of fags or Emmanuel Macron popping into the chippie; Scott Morrison is partial to a pint of beer although given the fizzy muck that Aussies call beer he isn't going to be delighted with the local Proper Job. In a week's time they'll all be gone and we can resume our sleepy lives, at least until the end of the school year when we will be invaded by hordes of kids and dogs who can't travel abroad because the French and the Americans won't have them, the rest of the EU blames us for ... just being us ... and the Australians, whilst in the Green Zone, don't allow anyone past their borders so that they can stay Covid-safe without bothering to vaccinate their citizens.