Criticism of air strikes on Libya on financial grounds are misplaced as some things are more important than money and the use of a no fly zone should be decided purely on moral grounds. Whilst acknowledging that this is seldom the case the use of the financial argument does highlight the lie behind the need for the savage cuts when we are not quite so broke as the Government would like to make out. Indeed as suspected the deficit is purely an excuse for the Conservatives in particular to strip the state back as much as they can and hand over services to the private sector.
   After complaining about the price of the war only then do certain commentators make mention of similar situations where we have not intervened e.g. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia so for the benefit of Kelvin Mackenzie and any wannabee dictators the formula is quite simple. If you wish to rule your country in a tyrannical manner and oppress your people you need to ensure that you either have nothing of any worth in your country so that nobody will bother taking action against you, you are not in a strategic location geographically whereby access to your territory would be beneficial to another state or if this is not the case then to make sure you offer large rewards and incentives to other large nations so they fear overturning your rule would see the disappearance of such kickbacks. Another alternative would be build up your military prowess to frighten off possible invaders but in a way to suggest that you may lend your troops to aid in other wars.
   The polite and friendly despot will see him given freer reign to put down his people than the angry, rhetoric spouting ideologue who likes to fan the flames against all others. Such words may be enough to see him take power in the first place but they will not help him indefinitely no matter how safe he believes himself to be.

Budget Day. I don't know but I always feel a tingle of excitement before a budget as I wait to see how much more money will disappear from my pockets but after the headline statements I get bored and by the time the commentators are discussing how it is going to affect pensioners in Peterborough my eyes have sunk so far into my head I can see behind myself. This year the big talk was about the 1p cut in fuel duty as if we should be grateful for the scraps that George Osborne deigns to throw in our direction. As I need to fill my car every week and it now cost about £50 that should save me about 35p that I can reinvest elsewhere in the economy as I do my bit to stimulate growth.
   The whole fuel duty debate has left rather nasty taste in the mouth as it almost feels concocted between The Sun and the Tories whereby the former start a campaign and the latter "listen" and deliver so that the former can claim a victory and lets them think they are more important than they actually are and the Tories can kid themselves that they are being generous. In reality it makes very little difference and Osborne's claims that there is nothing in the kitty to dish out is all well and good and people do not necessarily want handouts but at the same time there is no mandate for slashing everything in sight and flogging the rest to the private sector whilst the richer elements of society remain relatively unaffected.

With the events in Japan and Libya dominating the current news agenda it may be easy for some to forget that things are still ongoing in other parts of the world. Specifically the news in the UK has been rather quiet, until recently, concerning the pro democracy demonstrations occurring in the Middle East. It almost felt like each country was taking its turn and after an initial flurry the protesters in Bahrain and Yemen had decided to go home and wait to see how the situation developed in Libya.
   Recent developments there as well as in Syria have though made the news where ironically Bahrain called in troops from neighbouring countries to quell unrest. Ironic as the Arab league sanctioned the UN to impose a no fly zone over Libya thus defending the protesters from Gaddafi on this occasion. In Yemen 46 protesters were killed when troops opened fire, but this may have been the catalyst that caused a a number of generals to switch sides and back the protesters. After sacking his cabinet in an attempt to placate those unhappy with his regime it may be drawing to the end of Ali Abdullah Saleh's reign as President and one only hopes no more blood is shed. Similarly the protests that have started in Syria follow the path of Tunisia and not Libya.

The Northallerton based estate agent Ian Bebbington was back tracking furiously on the local news last night over his description of a house on his books. http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8914139.Agent_defends_house_advert/
Local residents took exception at the part where he claims the house suitable for being scruffy, discovering new smells and gazing at pond life. Claiming that he was running with the theme of the property having a large garden his explanation on Look North really felt like he was clutching at straws and he was making it up as he went along - in particular when running with his garden theme he said, referring to the pond life phrase "some gardens have ponds". He did not say that this particular house has a pond only that they are associated, which, if he was not being intentionally rude to the other residents by using a well known insult to describe certain undesirable elements of society, then he was guilty of false advertising. Certainly according to the details, which don't include the offending comments, the garden is described as large but only grass and make no mention of a pond. http://www.vebra.com/property/3535/22085591
   Still an esate agent not having a good relationship with the truth. Whatever next: disingenuous politicians, defecating bears.

Oh dear. Brian True-May should really have stopped digging when interviewed for the Radio Times. http://www.radiotimes.com/blogs/1215-midsomer-murders-producer-brian-true-may-no-ethnic-minorities-suspended/
It's bad enough that no ethnic characters have been included in Midsomer Murders in its 80 odd episodes but to them claim that the all white cast was because he wanted to keep the show English shows his ignorance of what is English. Claiming that the show was successful in appealing to a certain audience may well be the case but if that audience is the BNP or EDL does it need to be shown on prime time television.
One of the actors, Jason Hughes' comments were a bit clumsy when stating that the show would not have been any the worse if there was a black gardener in one episode. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12741847
I understand what he was trying to say in that there have not even been any ethnic background characters but it does sound like tokenism to have a black character portrayed as the manual labouring hired hand of a rich white person.
   It is quite staggering to think that out of 250 or so deaths not a single victim, perpetrator, witness or investigator was black. It would seem that Midomer was bucking the national trend for sending white people to jail when a disproportionate number of black people end up there. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/11/black-prison-population-increase-england

It might just be my impression but the rolling news coverage of the earthquake in Japan seemed to be trying to ramp up the tragedy even more than it already is as they pad out the programme. On the BBC News this morning they were interviewing somebody from the nuclear industry regarding the danger facing the nuclear reactors and the explosion at one. He was rather calm and not overly worried about the situation with the proviso that it was hard to establish the true nature of events in a country undergoing such difficulties from so far away. He was very measured and confident that some nightmare scenario was unlikely, with the relevant authorities handling the situation in the appropriate manner. You could almost see the disappointment in Nicholas Owen's face as the disaster turned out not to be as dramatic despite him actually mentioning Chernobyl to his guest.
   The ugly truth is that no matter what the horror, after repeating the same story on a loop every half an hour or so it becomes mundane without any new developments which is one of the main problems of rolling news. During times when such big news stories are not occurring then added gravitas is lent to minor items in an attempt to make them seem more important: a particular favourite being the time when the anchor detailed how French union members had started rioting whilst on strike and after crossing to the correspondent at the scene we were confronted by the horrific sight of an empty road with a burning tyre in it.
   To be honest it would be better for all concerned if they simply announced "There have been no further developments yet so go and have a cup of tea. Don't worry we'll give you a shout if anything happens."

Far too much deference is being awarded to Prince Andrew in the wake of the ongoing furore over his associates in his role as Trade Ambassador. It is not so much the fact that he has met and been friendly with people who we now view as undesirable - the nature of such a position means that such contacts are unavoidable - but that he has been very quiet on the topic himself. No regret that developments have shown that Saif Gaddafi and Jeffrey Epstein are probably not the best people to be associated with he has not yet publicly distanced himself away from them. It is embarrassing enough that he was on friendly terms with them but for government officials to show their support for fear of upsetting the Royals is equally embarrassing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/07/prince-andrew-david-cameron-full-confidence
   More embarrassing was to hear the Speaker shoot down Labour MP Chris Bryant for daring to ask questions about the affair in the House of Commons. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12604190
Just because he is Royal does not mean he is deserving of any more respect than anybody else and he is as accountable as any other citizen. If his behaviour is enough to warrant questions in the House then so be it: being a prince does not make him above the law and for the Speaker to dismiss such questions is tantamount to elitism and has no place in a democracy.

Certain commentators are getting themselves worked up over the latest EU ruling wishing to abolish the use of gender in insurance calculations. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/123&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
The mention of EU no doubt sets alarm bells ringing in the heads of those obsessed that Europe are once again meddling in our affairs and upset that a perfectly respectable lady might see her premium increase at the benefit of some yobbish boy racer. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1354051/Boy-racers-win-gender-insurance-shock.html
   Once again this misses the point that the way insurance companies calculate their premiums is biased by separating on gender grounds and the only major factors should be actual risk as opposed to perceived risk as well as value of item to be insured. The whole point of insurance is to spread the cost of replacing or repairing an item amongst the rest of the population but the companies have tried to second guess the markets and adding more on to the cost according to certain criteria. Currently one of these is gender whereby the price for men is higher as the statistics say that men are involved in more accidents. The trouble with these tactics is that people find it hard to argue with the facts but they do not say that every male driver is dangerous behind the wheel whereas every female is a safe driver. You can split the population into any set or group that you want and one will always come out better than the other in the statistics, but if the groups were split along racial lines then there would quite rightly be an outcry.
   The number of factors that these companies use are so numerous as to make the whole thing ridiculous - the one that I get stung on is mileage: their thinking is that as I spend more than an average amount of time on the road I am more likely to have an accident, whereas I would argue that I have spent more than an average amount of time on the road without having an accident so that makes me a safer driver. Every question that is asked is loaded with even the seemingly innocuous "Do you smoke?" counting against you if you answer yes. Back in the day when I did I questioned this to be told that if I tried to through a lit cigarette out of the car window and missed it could cause an accident as I tried to put out the back seat which was about to turn into an inferno. This indicated to me the level of speculation that they were prepared to go to and it was no surprise to hear of them keen on the idea of fitting monitors to cars to check the quality of roads that you were driving on.
   It is ridiculous to penalise a whole sub section of society by the actions of a few and despite the Daily Mail's protestations there are indeed girl racers as there are perfectly safe teenage boy drivers. The only thing that should count against an insuree is the number of claims made or points on licence which are an indication of that individual's ability. The only other things to consider should be the value of the vehicle and it's security. The problem is that there are so many insurers all trying to find an edge that these other factors are used to try to gain an advantage over each other. One thinks they have a new angle to identify risk and the rest soon follow leaving us all bombarded by lots of promotional post when the renewal is due and another group of people gain pariah status.