I'm sorry, this is ridiculous

A brief paragraph in today's Times. Craig Williams, Rishi Sunak's PPS when in government, has been charged with offences under the Gambling Act 2005, one of which involved the alleged placing of a £100 bet on the date of the next election three days before Sunak announced the date.

All very straightforward, you'd imagine. Justice in action. He did not enter a plea at the Crown Court hearing yesterday so he has been sent for trial.

But here's the kicker.

The 52 word "report" ended with the final sentence: "His trial has been set for January 2028". What? Three years' time? I'm not one of those constantly harping on about Britain being broken but what does this say about the justice system? Is Williams playing the system by not entering a plea and hoping it will all go away? Or is he now a victim of a system which, even if he is eventually found innocent of the charges, will trash his reputation and ruin his life for 3 years?

This is beyond ridiculous.

Things I didn't know #3

The Lewis chessmen. Never heard of them until now. 78 12th century (chess is a very old game played at the top level by the very young) pieces, 67 of which are in the British Museum, the remainder in the National Museum of Scotland (which I'd also never heard of).

They (at least some of them) are going on their travels as part of a cultural loan exchange between the British Museum and the French, which will see the Bayeux Tapestry come the other way.

The chessmen are made of walrus ivory and whale tooth, probably made in Norway and found on the island of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides in 1831. The Hebrides were part of Norway - Viking invaders -

 [from the Bayeux Tapestry]

from the 9th century until 1266 when King Alexander III of Scotland paid Norway 4,000 marks and 400 marks p.a. for sovereignty in the Treaty of Perth. The annual fee was supposed to last forever but it has apparently been forgotten about - perhaps Scotland didn't have any marks left after a while.

There's obviously an argument that we should be lending the chessmen to the National Museum of Norway rather than the French.

Banknotes

Apparently the Bank of England is inviting us to nominate our suggestions for who should appear on the face of the new £5, £10, £20 and £50 banknotes. Despite the fact that no-one carries actual paper money any more. I know, they're made of plastic now, not paper.

For reference the current notes show:

£5 – Winston Churchill

£10 – Jane Austen

£20 – J.M.W. Turner

£50 – Alan Turing

Not sure there is some kind of value assertion here, perhaps that Turing (a genius) has been 5 times more consequential than Jane Austen (anyone could have written her stuff, even an infinite number of monkeys). I feel there should be, so my contributions are value-added:

£5 - Andre Arshavin scoring 4 goals for Arsenal in one match against Liverpool. Of course he's Russian so that might be controversial. Especially with Liverpool fans

£10 - Maradona scoring a beautiful winner for Argentina against England in the World Cup quarter final in Mexico in 1986. Of course it should actually have been just an equaliser because his first goal was scored with his hand. For me Maradona was the GOAT but the Hand of God might not appeal to the Bank of England.

£20 - Geoff Hurst scoring a hat-trick to win the World Cup for England in 1966. No brainer.

£50 - Ray Kennedy scoring the winner at Tottenham's White Hart Lane ground in 1971, winning the League title for Arsenal in so doing. I was there. We went on to win the League/FA Cup double.

I've just checked out the eligibility rules (probably should have done that first):

1. They must be dead so no Arshavin or Hurst
2. Don't have to be British or even born in Britain all the above OK
3. Must have made a lasting, positive impact on British society in some way sorry Diego
4. Real person not fictional
5. Not divisive, politically explosive or otherwise controversial Diego strike #2

So some revision is required. The Banknote Character Advisory Committee has recently decided on six themes: notable historical figures, nature, architecture and landmarks, arts/culture/sport, noteworthy milestones, and innovation. I think this means our selections must be themed within one of these. Seems I've gone for either arts/culture/sport or noteworthy milestones, so I have to choose which and then revise within that. Here I go:

£5 - Arnold Schoenberg’s first twelve-tone composition: “Suite for Piano, Op. 25”, written between 1921 and 1923.

£10 - Elvis Presley, first worldwide famous rock n roll star, hugely influencing the development of 20th century popular music

£20 - Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque, founders of cubism am I allowed two faces?

£50 I was going to stick with Ray Kennedy but that would probably be seen as divisive by my Tottenham readers (and the Committee) so I've gone for Emma Lazarus: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...” [The New Colossus] on the Statue of Liberty.

None of these are British but I've followed the rules. It's pretty disappointing (although obviously not for him) that Geoff Hurst is still alive. His time will surely come, I don't doubt. I probably should check to see if any of these have previously been used but I'll leave that to the Committee.

I very much look forward to readers' suggestions. No Boaty McBoatface please.

Things I didn’t know #2

Perhaps my favourite tv series, maybe even the GOAT tv series: The West Wing. Lead character: Josiah Edward “Jed” Bartlet. What I didn’t know is that there was a real life Josiah Bartlett, who was one of 56 people who signed the American Declaration of Independence. I know, the spellings of the surname are different but this surely can’t have been coincidence. I think that the fact both came from New Hampshire endorses my view that Aaron Sorkin's character was based on the 18th century Governor of that state.

In my ignorance of American political history, if you'd asked me how many people signed that Declaration in 1776, I'd have guessed at somewhere between 4 and 10, knowing (guessing?) the names of perhaps a couple.

The TV show also taught me about the 25th Amendment. Bartlet (the fictional one, as you'll have observed no double t) invoked it when his daughter was kidnapped by terrorists and he decides he is too emotionally compromised to make rationally correct decisions on the situation. He steps down temporarily but there is no Vice President (next in line) at the time because he resigned after a sex scandal, so the next-next in line Speaker of the House Allen Walken, a Republican (Bartlet was a Democrat) became Acting President. Things don't go well and there is inevitable conflict between Walken and Bartlet's Cabinet, leading to them seriously consider invoking another of the 25th Amendment's clauses and deposing him. Of course, it's drama: Zoey is rescued, Jed returns, everyone breathes a sigh of relief and America's constitution is safe.

The actual 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967, four years after Kennedy's assassination meant that VP Lyndon Johnson became President, in accordance with the Constitution, but there was no Vice President for the remainder of Johnson's term.

If this all seems arcane, it was invoked by Ronald Reagan and George W Bush when they had medical procedures which involved anesthesia. 

There's something in the water in Cambridgeshire

South Cambridgeshire District Council launched a trial in January 2023, giving its staff the option of working a four day week with full pay whilst maintaining 100% productivity.

So how did that go? Brilliant, say the staff. Quelle surprise.

Of course, there have been studies. Lots of them, by universities. The council claims £400,000 p.a. savings and is proposing to make the policy permanent at a meeting this month.

You can have as many studies as you want but surely common sense suggests this is nonsense? If you can work hard for 4 days, why not work as hard on the 5th day and radically improve output? If you can get all your work done in 4 days, why not do it in 3? Or do a couple of 24 hour shifts and take the rest of the week off? What if all these employees work extra hard for 4 days a week for a couple of months then revert to their previous productivity rate, still enjoying Free Fridays and going fishing?

This is gloriously mad.

Have we been had?

I wrote recently about The Salt Path. I titled the piece A Triumph of Defiance. But it appears I should have called it A Triumph of Storytelling.

There was an article in yesterday's Observer newspaper:

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-salt-path-whats-in-the-book-and-what-the-observer-has-found

...which reported an investigation by journalist Chloe Hadjimatheou into the backstory which is the basis for the book written by "Raynor Winn" about her and her husband Moth's reasons for walking the Cornwall Coast Path - losing their home and all their money which had been invested in a friend's failed financial scheme. The Observer alleges first that the couple's real names are Sally and Tim Walker, also that Sally Walker was arrested after being accused of stealing tens of thousands of pounds from her employer, leading to complicated loan and surety dealings and eventual loss of their house. The "evidence" presented by the paper is based on testimony from a Ros Hemmings, whose husband owned the business from which Sally was alleged to have embezzled money. Today's Times, reporting the story, asserts that "the Hemmings' family solicitor recalled that Winn [Walker] was arrested and interviewed by police", so it's not just a single source.

Documents are shown which indicate they, at the time, owned a house in south west France; they were not homeless. I watched a video on the Observer's YouTube channel:

https://youtu.be/UY2ivdm9obY?si=cqtRSJ57yptF-FFa

It shows what looks like a falling down, roofless barn. There is no way in which this rundown building could be used as a home in its present state so I don't think that discredits the book's "homeless" assertion.

The report also quotes unnamed neurologists casting doubt on Moth's condition. I discard this as though it's solid evidence, since any reporter worth their salt can find medical experts to support their story, perhaps discarding the views of those that don't. The Times writes that "the couple declined to share their medical records with the Observer".

What to make of all this? Were we misled? That seems indisputable, given the false names and substantially changed backstory. I'm not sure the Observer has much else that stands up and their story has a bit of a stench of tabloid tendencies to knock down successful people (I'm assuming Winn and Moth, after three bestselling books with another to come, are now able to live comfortably; maybe even get the barn renovated). The video is titled The Salt Path lies: how a blockbuster book and film were spun from lies, deceit and desperation, which honestly sounds a bit tabloid-y.  Would the book have become a bestseller - or even got published - if they had been honest about their backstory? Could they have simply said "our story is based on fact but we have not wanted to name people whom we were connected to"? The problem is that, once even a small deceit is uncovered, it's impossible to think back on the tale of the 600 mile walk itself without thinking that maybe lots of little details have been embellished, or even invented.

I've been left with a deep sadness. I enjoyed the book, thought it was a wonderful story, but now this throws everything into doubt. And I feel hoodwinked and gullible. I usually think I have a decent bullshit detector but it failed me here so perhaps, like Ros Hemmings and her late husband, I've been taken for a ride this time.