Bring Smoking Back...Please Don't

Local pubs want the smoking ban lifted. Apparently.

Publicans are seeing fewer customers. Apparently.

It's all because smokers have to go outside to have a fag. Apparently.

It appears to have escaped the notice of these publicans that we're in the middle of an economic downturn. They have failed to register the simple fact that I can buy alcohol cheaper in my local supermarket. They have also ignored the fact that by drinking said supermarket bought wine at home, I don't have to pay a taxi driver an extortionate amount of money to get from their pub back to my house. On top of this, the last time I went out in the city centre, it was full of ignorant, drunk fools, who were spoiling for a fight. Male and female. I also found the places mentioned in the article overcrowded. Despite all the poor smokers not going out these days. I would hate to think how many more people these pubs want in their establishments.

So forgive me if I say that smoking in pubs is not going to see the crowds flocking back to your overpriced, surprisingly overcrowded hell holes.

Oh, and Pin Gil; wtf? 

"It is unfair for our customers to have to stand on the street smoking. It is also unfair on people passing on the street to have smoke blown in their faces."

But it's fair for non-smokers to have to sit in it? Seriously?

Court Costs....

At a time when sweeping cuts are being made by public bodies, today's Leicester Mercury has the following headline; "Teenager's 53p fraud court case costs taxpayers' £1,200". Headlines like this must stick in the throat of people who are facing the loss of community centres or increased costs in caring for their relatives. As the young man in question puts it "I think it was all a bit over the top".  Of course he would; he now has a criminal record and has to pay £185 in costs.

It does seem petty that The Gym, a company that owns 10 clubs, with a further 4 planned, would wish to prosecute an 18 year old lad for 'borrowing' his mate's membership details. It seems strange, to me, that they haven't also prosecuted the mate, after all, he was also part of this fraud. I also wonder if he's still a member.... Isn't there another way of dealing with such matters, that don't involve costs? Couldn't the police have just cautioned him? Did the police really need to get involved?

As a gym user myself, I hate to see people abusing the facilities. My gym has had to install CCTV cameras to the entrance of the superior members only Spa area. Not that it seems to put people off from crawling under the barrier. I mean, why should we (okay, the hubby....) pay extra for facilities when we too could slip under the gate? Similarly, if I knew that the person on the treadmill next to me had borrowed a friend's membership card, I wouldn't be happy about it.

It also raises the issue of how petty does a crime have to be for it to be ignored? Reading the comments left on the local newspapers website leads me to believe that there are a lot of Victor Meldrews who aren't happy with the declining standards in modern day society. They complain that criminals get away with murder. Get a cast iron case, and all of a sudden it's not worthy of court time and costs because it's not "proportional". I believe that ignoring the little things leads to people pushing the boundaries as to what they think that they can get away with. If you knew your mate was giving out his gym membership, would you be tempted to use it? How many other people out there are using gyms like this? And who's to say that this was the one and only time Mr Sparrow did this? This may be a 53p case, but the total cost of 'borrowing' may run into the thousands. Criticism of cases like this one appear, to me, to come from people who may be just as guilty of taking liberties, sailing close to the wind themselves. Yes folks, next time it could be you.

One final thing that irks me is this attitude that criminals get away "scot-free". Comments like this are usually made by people who have never set foot in a court, who have no idea what the criminal justice system involves, and can't be bothered to look up sentencing guidelines to see what considerations have to be made. Yes, mistakes are made; that's why appeal processes exist. But criticising sentencing because you believe that hardened criminals (not cheeky young scamps using their mate's gym passes) should be locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of eternity is more about knee-jerk reaction than considered opinion.

Mr Convict

Major news in the Midlands tonight is the news that notorious Nottingham criminal, Colin Gunn, has asked, nay, demanded he is called "Mr" Gunn. The Daily Mail, of course, has jumped on this story like a rash. This has caused outrage amongst right-minded individuals; he lost the right to the respectful title of "Mr" the minute he broke the laws of this land. What on earth is this country coming to, the good people postulate, when criminals make a mockery of the justice system like this. Roger Andrews, according to the news, would rather be in prison than out in the free world; really? REALLY? Okay.....

There are two schools of thought when it comes to the treatment of prisoners; the first is that prisoners should lose their 'rights' the minute that they set foot inside of prison. They show no respect for the laws of this land, why should they be shown any respect? Another topical discussion is the right of prisoners to vote. Society is governed by laws, rules and regulations. If you don't follow them, you are rejecting those norms, and therefore rejecting society as it currently stands. Why, therefore, should prisoners be allowed to have a say on the way society is governed if they want no part of it? Of course, this can be counter-argued; the only way that society can be legitimately changed is through the electoral system (that's if you believe that there are any differences between the political parties, of course....).

The second theory is that prison is there to reform as well as to punish. It follows that treating prisoners with respect, regardless of their crimes, is the only way to show them how to respect others - treat others the way that you want to be treated. It may be the case that some prisoners have never been treated this way, and little things like referring to someone as "Mr" or "Mrs" might have an effect. Similarly with the voting issue; how can prisoners be expected to integrate into society if they are actively excluded?

One other point that springs to mind is when cases sit on the custody threshold, where one person is given a custodial sentence, whilst another person convicted of a similar crime is not. It's okay to afford the latter some respect and call him "Mr", but not the former? How can that be reconciled?

The fact that people feel so strongly about what prison officers call prisoners is questionable in itself. Surely there are more important things to get angry about. Stories like this don't just bring out the ridiculous, they also give thugs like Mr Gunn the attention that they so desperately crave. Get over it, people.

Cameras in Court?

As if dodgy TV dramas aren't bad enough, the lunatics at Sky want TV cameras in our courts. Important sentencing decisions could be televised to the viewing public, with judges being forced to explain their decisions to a "sceptical public".

Just because members of the public don't agree with the reasons and/or the sentences, it doesn't mean that justice is not being seen to be done. Obviously someone at Sky has never set foot in a court as JUDGES DO EXPLAIN THEIR DECISIONS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO CAN BE ARSED TO GO TO COURT AND SIT IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY! And boy, some judges REALLY like to go into their reasons behind their judgments. If you can't be bothered to do that, newspapers report parts of judge's speeches in some cases. Especially the big, more interesting, cases, you know, the ones that Sky wants the right to put on TV (not to boost ratings). If people don't want to sit in the public gallery of their local courts now, do they really want to see it on TV? After all, real life court action is nothing like Law and Order UK, for a start. 

Of course other countries allow cameras into their courts; it doesn't mean that justice is done proper, like. They never make mistakes, oh no sir-ee. Sky's argument comes across more as an attempt to extend further televisual voyeurism. We clearly don't have enough real life programming. The public won't be tuning into see if the courts are doing the job properly any more than they watch The Jeremy Kyle Show for its fascinating insight into modern day British society.

Casual racism - when does "banter" cross the line?

Banter -

• the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks
• chat that is playful, intelligent and original

I am a Leicester City supporter. It's the place of my birth, and I have grown up in the city. It is a city that has a relatively high ethnic population, and one that has been proud to promote cultural diversity and integration. Leicester is famous for this. Consequently, the football fans have been subjected to racist abuse from other fans over the years. One place I didn't expect racist chanting was in Bristol.


It was the usual kind of thing ("small town in Asia"), with a couple of new ones thrown in for good measure ("Leicester's a shithole, it smells of curry"). The section next to the away fans were united in voice, and probably couldn't stop laughing at the "banter". The irony is that some of these fans would probably have enjoyed a post-match curry themselves, after celebrating their victory over us. It's not as if there is a dearth of curry houses in Bristol. This is what makes this kind of chanting sad; when fans see it as "banter". "Oh, we're not being racist, it's just stereotypes/a bit of a laugh/pointing out the obvious/whatever...". Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who don't see a problem with what is casual racism. Okay, so it doesn't promote hatred - these aren't your stereotypical racist thugs singing this stuff, you know. This was the stuff of 1970s working mens' clubs.  


But isn't racism a form of ignorance? Supposedly harmless chants like the ones the Bristol City fans were singing against the Leicester fans are based on ignorance at the very least. Should this be tolerated? I don't think that it should. If you start to justify such comments, where do draw the line? There are people who feel that they can justify the most hateful and inciteful racist attitudes. Why should ignorance be allowed to stand?


At half time, I asked one of the senior stewards is anything was going to be done about the chanting, and was told that 8 fans had been ejected, along with 3 Leicester fans for retaliating with "small town in Wales". Speaking to some friends, there was a divide as to whether being associated with the Welsh was just as racist as being Asian. To me, there is very little difference. Again, I don't think it's borne out of malice most of the time, just ignorance and immaturity. It's disappointing and somewhat embarrassing that fans can't support their teams, instead of trying to insult their opponents.


More concerning, as a Leicester fan, are the songs directed towards our Japanese import, Yuki Abe. The Japanese do not eat dogs. How would these people have reacted if they were told that when Gary Lineker made his debut for Grampus Eight, the locals were singing "he only eats frog's legs" or "Gary'll eat your horse"? It's factually as accurate, after all.


It's not clever, it's not funny, and it certainly doesn't meet my definition of "banter".

When the going gets tough....

I haven't blogged for a while; I haven't really been in the mood. I've seen things and thought "that would make a good blog post", but when push came to shove, I just haven't been motivated.


The decision not to apply jobs until after our holiday looks to have backfired big time. On top of this, my failure (in my words) to secure pupillage compounds my own self-inflicted depression. I may be down, but I'm not giving up yet.


At this moment in time, my voluntary work is a shining light in these dark, bleak times. I am so close to completing my training, and have to complete assessed interviews with real people before I can be let loose. It's something that I'm looking forward to. Feeling like I'm doing something has lifted my spirits; it's a pity I have to wait two weeks, with it being unlikely that I'll be advising before the New Year.


One thing that has emerged today is the news that Sergeant Mark Andrews has successfully appealed against his conviction for assaulting Pamela Somerville. With the officers who were involved in the death of Ian Tomlinson not  facing criminal charges, these are worrying times. How can the police expect to gain respect from the public when they are permitted to use disproportionate means to deal with us? When a male officer can throw a woman half his size into a cell, causing her injury, and have it justified on the grounds that "she was drunk", then what other excuses could be used to defend similar actions? Mr Justice Bean did say that Sgt Andrews "could have done things better"; yes, by keeping within legal limits, for a start. 

Driving me mad...

Driving in the UK is no longer seen as a privilege, but a right. The minute a child turns 17, they are straight into a car; IT IS MY RIGHT.


In some countries, the ability to drive is a necessity. Hey, in some parts of the UK, it's a necessity. But the number of cars on our roads is out of proportion. Many of my neighbours will drive the 5 minutes to the local town, rather than walk. It's only 10 minutes. The parking and traffic lights make the car journey so long.


The need to be able to drive from door to door is becoming all to prevalent. Just look at the scramble for places at the entrance of supermarkets or shopping centres. If you actually like to park your car just a 30 second walk from your destination, chances are you won't be blocked in or find someone parked so close, you can't open your doors. As for spaces reserved for parents (er, hang on, you chose to have kids; shouldn't you have thought about the practicalities first?) or the disabled (you want to be treated like everyone else, but only when it suits you), those are actually fair game for anyone prepared to take the piss.


Today, I tried to argue with someone who drove over a pavement rather than drive around a car park properly. It (the fat oxygen thief in question) couldn't give me any reason for being such a twunt. It did mumble about me being a bitch, however.


This is just the start. Expect more car related rants in future.....

Drug Barrens....

An American woman is bringing her charity work to the UK. It involves paying drug addicts to be sterilised.


Some may see this as a bribe at worst, or feel that the sad point is that the £200 she is offering to each addict will be wasted on more smack, crack or whatever. The thing is, these people will be finding a way of funding their habit. It's their choice to feed their addiction. At least the hits paid for by in this manner might mean someone isn't mugged or burgled.


As long as those who choose to undergo such extreme measures do so having sat down with a medical professional, and the full implications are given to them, such measures should surely be encouraged. Bringing unwanted children into the world, to be provided for by The State is the alternative. Adult addicts can make choices; babies can't.


Of course, sterilisation is an option available on the NHS, and could be sought out by responsible drug users. However, anyone who has tried to get such treatment, regardless of their status and social lifestyle, will tell you it's not that easy.

Outrage at the gym...

The decision to cut Child Benefit for high earners has clearly upset the Yummy Mummies and Ladies What Lunch at my gym. The changing room this morning was full of high pitched bemoaning. One member, as she put her Radley bag into a locker, said "if I'd known the Tories would take away my Child Benefit, I'd never have voted them in".


I overheard another angry mother telling her friend that her husband and her "were thinking of trying for a boy this time, but it doesn't seem worth it, not now they're taking Child Benefit off of us". I didn't think it was the right time to express my relief that the changing room would be missing out on another perving little boy.


One of her companions said that "it seemed wrong that the Government [the previous administration, I hasten to add] wanted to increase birth rates, but were doing everything possible to put people off having children". I really wanted to point out the irony in this statement; I lost the feeling in the end of my tongue stopping myself. I wanted to ask what she thought about young, single mothers using the system, but I knew she wouldn't spot the hypocrisy in her own attitude. She then went on to say that her husband's pension would suffer because of this. Apparently, it's one of those stakeholder ones, and the credit crunch has depleted it enough without this on top of everything. I couldn't make it up.


Another friend joined in the tirade against this treachery committed by her beloved Tory party. "It's like we're being penalised because my ***** earns over £60,000 a year". I was surprised I got out of there alive, my heart was bleeding so much.


Child Benefit isn't great. It's £20.30 a week. For each extra child you have, you get £13.40. Considering the take home pay of someone earning £45k a year is around £631 a week, are these women really going to be missing out? They don't realise just how lucky they are that they have the choice not to work. Many families don't have that option, earning too much to claim any other benefit, but not enough to keep them in Per Una.


Also, this argument that the cuts are penalising mothers who choose to stay at home just doesn't stack up. Some of the knee jerk reactions in the media are pointing towards young mums and single parents. I hate to be the one to point it out, but these aren't the people who are going to be affected. Someone earning over £45 a year is likely to be over 30. Their partner, most likely, will be working until she decides to have kids. Then there's that important factor; it's a decision to have kids. They've made that choice. 


As stated above, this cut will affect people taking home over £630ish a week. If that isn't enough to live on, even with 2 or 3 kids, then I'm sorry, what is? If someone is really struggling, then what are they spending their money on? Most of the Moaning Minnies at the gym drive new MPVs, usually Range Rovers, Mercedes, or BMW. Everything they wear is a label. If you can't afford to feed your kids, or keep a roof over their heads (surely number one priority as a parent) AND maintain a particular lifestyle TOUGH. Downsize to a smaller car, buy a semi-detached house, or serve own brand instant at your little coffee mornings. Grow your own nails.  Just don't moan when you lose out on £20-£30 a week you clearly aren't going to miss.

Hey Big Spender

If I see one more social networking, "copy and paste" status that says that the public services and especially the military are facing cuts whilst our taxes are going abroad to other countries, I swear I will scream.


In 2009, 0.52% of public spending was overseas aid. Now, I know I'm not a professor in Maths, but that is not really a huge sum of money to go towards helping those who need it. Considering how much money it's estimated is going into the pockets of our own citizens who are more content to sponge off of the State, I shouldn't be surprised the public is quick to shift the blame onto Johnny Foreigner. 

Why running?

I hated running at school. I hated the cold, I hated the pain, I hated the fact I could barely keep up with the slow, fat kids but most of all I hated running because I wanted to be bloody good at it. And I wasn't.


I've always enjoyed watching athletics. I can remember watching the first London Marathon on the TV as a kid. Every year after that, I would watch the coverage and tell myself "one day, I'll do it". I was right.


I said I was crap at running at school. I did have my moments. Usually on cooler, overcast days, with a fresh breeze in the air, and a low pollen count. I should have twigged something wasn't right when I clocked the best 400m time for our PE group (which was double my 100m time, run the week before in blistering sunshine, after which I collapsed fighting for breath), with seemingly little effort. I was 17 the day after my asthma was diagnosed. I wonder to this day, if it had been spotted earlier, could I have enjoyed distance running as much as I do these days?


I took up running in my mid-twenties as a way to keep fit. Since then, I've grown to love it. If illness or injury prevents me from going out, I get grumpy. I try to organise my day around a running session, not the other way around. It's easy to get addicted to. As well as the natural hormone release contributing to a feeling of well-being, for me, there's the feeling of self-improvement. Every time I run a route quicker, I don't just feel pleased with myself, it makes me want to go out and run it even more quicker. I like being able to say that I can run for miles; not from the perspective of belittling anyone who can't. I don't really care what anyone else can or can't do. No, I'm an asthmatic, exercise induced asthmatic at that, and one with dodgy joints. I might not be skinny, and I might not win any races. But I can run for miles. It's a sense of achievement that I personally feel proud of.


But I still want to do it quicker than last time ;-)

Fit firefighters? Fat chance

Oh dear, I've ripped off a previous title; but nothing else seems appropriate.


Almost 40% of Leicestershire's firefighters failed a fitness test at the first attempt. Of those, 35% managed to pass second time around. Their union rep has said that the reason for the failure is because the standard has been set "too high". Apparently some "really fit" firefighters have failed the test. Based on that logic, some really unfit firefighters have passed the test. Or maybe they just blagged it. I'm surprised he didn't go further and suggest that the wrong sort of test was being used.


In an attempt to overcome this, failures are being given advice on nutrition and exercise. Perhaps those "really fit" firefighters are doing the wrong kind of exercise? Or eating the wrong kind of healthy food? Or perhaps, just maybe, they are doing the typical thing of overestimating their own fitness? It's human nature, after all. No really, it was just the one kebab. Honest, guv.


If I was ever trapped in a burning building, aside from the jokes about being rescued by a hunky man in uniform, I would be distraught to see a lard arse struggling to come to my rescue. But that could just be me. 

The Death Of Public Transport

Arriva yet again is doing its utmost to kill off public transport in Leicester. The bus company has announced that so called "saver" tickets will be subject to a price increase this weekend. Nice one, and thanks for the warning.


Prices will be going up by over 10%; well over the rate of inflation, however this has not deterred the transport group from stinging the general public even more than it does now. Arriva blame the increase on "running costs", and that the company has "reached the point where it is inevitable that we must pass on some of the additional costs to customers in order that the services remain sustainable". It's hard to reconcile this statement when Arriva:

• cannot ensure that buses run on time
• cannot run enough buses at times when demand is high
• cannot run a frequent service after 6.30pm, and in some areas, no service at all after this time on a Sunday
• cannot run a night service, something other cities of a similar size can sustain
• employs some of the rudest and most ignorant drivers known to mankind (okay, this doesn't affect the cost as such, but it's one more nail in Arriva's coffin as far as I am concerned)

In short, Arriva is one of the worst public transport providers I have ever had to endure. Only Cross Country Trains challenges for the top, or bottom, spot. Oh, wait a minute .... Cross Country is owned by Arriva, isn't it.


The company is still making profits; rather than using them to slap shareholders on the back, these should be ploughed back into the communities that Arriva is supposed to serve, otherwise how on earth are more people going to be persuaded to ditch the car? As it stands, it is now cheaper for me to drive into the city centre and pay for a car park. I have always supported public transport, but this price increase now means I will be reconsidering my stance. I am lucky to be in a position to do this. It's those who aren't, and the ones who are the most reliant on buses, but who will eventually priced out that I feel sorry for. Not Arriva's profit margin.

Raising the age of criminal responsibility....

The Law Society has said that the age of criminal responsibility is too low.  As you can imagine, I disagree.


The way children are viewed can be seen as two extremes. On the one hand are the feral offspring of uncaring parents, allowed to roam the streets of our nation, striking terror in the heart of law-abiding citizens. On the other, are precious little innocents, who even as teenagers, shouldn't be subjected to the harsh realities of modern life, and need to be wrapped in cotton wool. Metaphorically speaking. When commentators say that the age of criminal responsibility is too high, I am convinced that they have the latter in mind. Even where they consider the former, their behaviour is written off as a product of society, and that they have been failed, and couldn't possibly be able to know right from wrong.  The reality is, children fall somewhere in between. 


The article keeps referring to young children, and yes, it's right that young children aren't criminalised. Despite popular myth, a 10 year old does have some idea of what is right and what is wrong. I was 10 years old, I can remember what it was like. Hitting other people? Wrong. Stealing? Wrong. If kids didn't know the difference, then surely more children would be committing crimes. They don't because they know it is wrong. At the age of 10, kids are on the verge of joining 'big' school. Some are close to reaching adolescence, physically, so why is it hard to imagine they cannot be intellectually? In my opinion, 10 is the right age for children to accept responsibility for their actions. To qualify this further, there are many parents, middle-class and supposedly upright, who on the one hand molly-coddle their kids, yet are happy for their little girls to wear make up and clothing more suited to women twice their age. Hmmm....


As well as this, could raising the age lead to some children playing the system to get out of being punished? Children of all ages can be manipulative with adults, and can say things that help their own situation. An older child/young teen who is used to lying may find it even easier once they've been exposed to the criminal justice system. At times, it seems like adults underestimate the capabilities of those under 18, this could be a big mistake in the long run.


Would re-introducing doli incapax help? Possibly, but if a child between 10-14 years of age doesn't understand the nature of their actions, in terms of criminal responsibility, then surely they don't have the necessary mens rea for the offence in the first place? And if this is the case, then why should the age of criminal responsibility be increased? 

Paying for your weight loss; Fat chance

I am going to come across as a harsh cow, but I don't care. Obesity is not a disease, but a way of life. It's very simple. To lose weight, you need to consume fewer calories than you need. If you consume more, you put on weight, and if you get the balance right, your weight stays the same. 


Hopefully, that's cleared things up. Unfortunately, some people don't like the sound of that. It's far easier to blame their genes, fast food restaurants, food pricing, anyone but themselves, that would of course be wrong. 


The thought of eating healthy food, and taking a little bit of exercise is apparently more daunting than major surgery. That's surgery that you might not wake up from. I don't know if it's just me, but I find that kind of attitude frightening. Obesity surgery is on the rise, and this isn't breaking news. It seems that more and more people see it as a panacea or maybe even the easy option. There is no easy option. The operation reduces the size of the stomach; why not reduce the amount of food that you eat? Gastric bypass also reduces the length of the digestive tract, to stop food from being absorbed into the system. Again, there is a more logical option; eat food that doesn't break down as quickly. Instead of gorging on fatty foods, eat whole-wheat varieties and veggies. This isn't a recent discovery either, despite the way that eating greens is really, really good for you is being reported. And contrary to popular myth, it can be cheaper and easier to cook healthy food from scratch instead of subsisting on take-aways and junk food.


As for exercise, doctors aren't telling us to train like Olympic athletes. Thirty minutes, 5 times a week is all you need to do. It sounds a lot, but break it down. Just go out for a walk. Whatever. As for excuses, I have exercise induced asthma. I also have a condition that means I'm susceptible to injury. I could easily shy away from exercise, wrap myself in cotton wool for the benefit of my fragile constitution. The truth of the matter is exercise helps with both conditions. Okay, I might sprain my ankle every so often, but the number of times that this happens has decreased as the reality is exercise has strengthened my body. Revelation of the decade? I don't think so....


So to read that one woman has gone to court to get a decision to refuse her obesity surgery overturned. I could have ignored this story, had she been challenging the decision of a private health care clinic. But no, she wants the operation carried out on the NHS. This woman has already had complications from the procedure, but hey ho, she's more willing to put up with that than she is to cut down the food she eats, which is what she'll have to do once she's had the surgery, if she has it. So why the hell should the taxpayer pay for this? If she's successful, she sees it as a victory for those poor unfortunate people 'suffering' from obesity. I see it as another excuse for fatties to use, rather than getting off their lazy arses and doing something for themselves.


So yes, I'm harsh. But as an ex-fatty who lost weight 'the hard way', I think I'm justified in that opinion. Which leads me onto my latest bug bear; the latest Slim Fast ad. "I bet she's never been on a diet"; no, that's right, love. No woman who's a size 10 or smaller has ever been a size 14 or bigger. Oh no.


Arsewipes.

Viva Las Red Sox

Or the "Summer Hols 2010 Experience". This post is a biggy - be warned!!

* * *

AIR CANADA - NEVER AGAIN....


Before this trip, I have always wanted to go to Canada. I've never really had any preference where. The rugged, desolate landscapes when flying over Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have been intriguing, and I've wondered what the cities, such as Vancouver or Toronto, would be like. Would they be more like the US, or would they retain any 'Britishness'. However, if I never see Canada again, I won't be too unhappy.


Whilst not a regular traveller, like the hubby, I have been about a fair bit. I've made use of connecting flights before now. In all my time travelling, I have never missed a connection, or had a flight cancelled. One would be disappointing. But to have it happen twice, on the same holiday, is scandalous. The main problem seems to be the eagerness of US airports to close as soon as the weather becomes a bit inclement. Bearing in mind Boston gets significant snow fall, I wonder how anyone ever manages to fly out during the winter....


The upshot of our misfortune is that I have been to Canada; not just technically due to flying into an airport. We spent around 5 hours in Montreal, and 3 hours in Halifax. What were my impressions? How the feck do I know, it was the middle of the fecking night.

Montreal - it's lovely, honest

The worst thing for me was that the layover in Halifax could have been easily avoided if Air Canada wanted to be more proactive and helpful. The only person who seemed to want to try and get us onto our connecting flight was the one member of staff unable to do so.

* * *

BOSTON - MORE THAN A FEELING


I have made no secret of it; I love Boston. I went there in 2003, and had a great time. It's a walker friendly city, and so there is lot to see, and lots of places to explore. It was so cold and windy on our last visit that we still had lots to see and do.


I was really excited when I booked a whale watching trip. I would rather go and watch them in their natural environment, not cooped up in some glorified wet circus. If a whale is going to leap out of the water, it's going to do so because it wants to, and not for some reward and applause. Although I got the feeling on the boat that had a whale flipped out of the ocean, most of the passengers would have done so. As it was, the whales were being incredibly shy. The boat travelled for ages until two humpbacks were spotted; a mother and calf. We only really saw them when they came up for air, but rather than being disappointed, I had the smug, self-satisfaction of knowing no whales were harmed during the trip.

It's a whale - honest

One other trip we wouldn't have contemplated doing on our last trip was to the Harbour Islands. There are plenty to choose from, but we went with the two easiest, which are Spectacle and Georges. Spectacle is small, and has a number of well maintained paths to walk off the American sized food portions we'd been eating. There were great views of the planes landing at Logan airport, where it looked as though some would hit the water instead of the runway.


Georges Island houses Fort Warren. No longer in use, it's a great place to explore, with loads of nooks and crannies, and nothing to stop you from investigating. Except the dark. Torchless, we couldn't go too far into the ramparts. Although the highlight, for me, was the cricket lessons taking place on the field. Being taught by an American who had taken the trouble to dress in whites for the occasion, it was amusing to see that he failed to bowl a single ball at his tutees that wasn't a no ball. I say bowl; the arm went above the head, unfortunately it didn't stop him chucking. And the least said about how he held a bat, and the appropriate stance, the better. I know that baseball can be technical, but at least I have a better idea on how to bat and pitch....

How not to play cricket

Boston is proud to draw on its Irish heritage. Every where you turn, there's an Irish pub. The great thing about them is that they have not only heard of lime cordial, they have it in their bars. It was a refreshing change to be able to chill out on a hot, summer's day with a lager and lime. Although I still had to be careful, as some of the waitresses seemed to get it confused with a lager shandy, doh! How that happened, I don't know....


When we decided to go back to Boston, I managed to get us tickets for Fenway Park. My baseball knowledge is limited, but even I know it's one of the few remaining old school stadia, and I am well aware that the Red Sox have a lot of history. I wanted to get a feel of the pre-match atmosphere, so we went about an hour before the game started. The area around Fenway Park houses many bars and restaurants, as well as stalls selling a wide variety of food and drink. The area was full of people, it reminded me of my trips to Wembley. Inside the stadium, things were just as busy, if not more. My football team has asked, at Fans Consultative Committee meetings, how can they get more people into the ground before kick off. It's not rocket science. Although I was surprised at just how expensive food and drink were, the number of kiosks, and the wide variety of food and drink on offer meant that there would be something to suit everybody's moods and tastes. On top of this, there are kiosks selling official merchandise, saving trips to the store where queues seemed to be longer. If only Leicester City were willing to take such a view....

I was am easily amused, and the Hammond organ version of "Crazy in Love" playing when I first walked out of the concourse had me in stitches. I hadn't really read up a lot on the rules of the game, but picked up a fair bit during the game. There were some things that confused me, such as being able to be struck out on the first two foul balls, but not the third, but it didn't detract from the game. My other concern was how much TV would affect the game, but to be honest the time taken for the teams to change at the end of an innings was quicker than I expected. However, substitutions were a long, protracted affair. It's apparently not just a case of taking one player off and replacing him. Just don't ask me what was going on!!


The other noticeable thing was that people drifted in to watch the game, some missing the first 3 innings! For me personally, I hate to miss any of the action; the nearest I can equate it to is watching an entire County Championship or Test Match. Even so, I would still be there for the start, and would still be there at stumps. :-/  For the record, the Sox were walloped 9-1 by the Cleveland Indians.

Matchday security

* * *

VEGAS BABY


Before I start on my Vegas experience, I want to state that I enjoyed Vegas. I just wouldn't rush to go back. I feel I've done it.


Las Vegas consists of The Strip, several miles of hotel resorts based on numerous themes, some with their own shopping malls, and Fremont Street, where it all began. And that's pretty much it. It's not like there's anything to see or do in between the two. The bus is recommended if you want to see Fremont Street, not so much for the distance, but because of the heat, and the fact that some of the areas in between don't look too inviting. Away from the glitz and glamour of the strip are houses bordering on the shanty town style. Most appear to be derelict. I could be doing the area a disservice, I just wouldn't want to take the risk.


The Strip is big, brash and garish. Each hotel has a theme, some an accompanying show. Treasure Island, with it's pirate theme, has a free trice nightly show featuring scantily clad 'ladies' taking on more conservatively dressed blokes. Bet you can't guess who wins! As long as you can look beyond the plaster and the plastic, it's a true spectacle, but once you've been inside one casino, you've been in them all. It's the same games, the same slot machines, I mean, who's looking at the hieroglyphs when wasting a few dollars?


The one stand out for me was the Miracle Mile mall. It claims to be a mile and a half of shops, restaurants, takeaways etc, but it's the central part of the mall that impressed me. Made to look like a pueblo, it even has a fake sky and atmospheric lighting. The air conditioning gives it away, however.

Fremont Street is worth a visit. Some of the old neon signs have been preserved for posterity, and there's more of a feel of Blackpool and the amusement arcades to this part of Vegas. It is also cheaper than The Strip, or it seemed to be.


We made two trips out of town. The first was to the Hoover Dam. Lake Mead was created to provide water, not just for Nevada, but for the surrounding states. As for size, it makes Rutland Water look like a puddle. Having said that, the water supply is beginning to run out. It is estimated that Vegas will have no water supply in as little as 15 years. Before this, power to Vegas would also drop, the dam also acting as a generator. We noticed, looking at some of the islands, and at the coastline just how much of the reservoir has dropped over the years.

Example of how much the water level has dropped since Lake Mead was created by damming the Colorado River

The road used to run alongside the shoreline of Lake Mead

Seeing the fountain show at Belaggio's, I felt some disgust towards the tourist industry for wasting such a valuable resource, as amazing as the show was.


We also went to the Grand Canyon. It's a 4½ hour drive from Vegas, but it is well worth the effort. My only regret is that we didn't spend longer there. Seeing it for myself from the South Rim, I wanted to go down there and explore it for myself. One day...


We found a parking area, got out of the car, and was greeted with this view:

After travelling for many months, through forests, plains, prairies, mountains and desert, the first pioneers to stumble across the Grand Canyon must have thought "bugger".

It is a truly breathtaking place. There was a path to the visitors centre, about 1.5km in length. I was surprised at how quiet the path was, most people appearing to prefer the shuttle buses or their own transport. After so long in the car, I was relieved to stretch my legs! As well as the stunning views of the canyon, we also saw some of the wildlife. The highlight was the mule deers; a large male was chillaxing in the scrub while his female companion grazed on the greenery. No comment...


Vegas is all about money. Gambling, eating, drinking, shopping and shows. For someone who likes to explore places, it was easily covered in just a couple of days. I won't rule out going back, but I feel as though I've done it. But don't let me put you off going, it's a place you have to experience yourself, and I know so many people who can go back there time and time again. I'm not one of them.

Selective Reading: the nation's favourite past-time

Judge criticises police


Aside from the silly mason argument, I wonder if the general public is capable of reading and absorbing information properly. The lad hasn't gone unpunished, I hate to tell you folks, his punishment has been deferred to a later date for him to show that he's not the "little scroat" (not my spelling) he's been labelled as. On top of that, he's also spent time on remand. I would like to see some of the commentators say that wasn't punishment in itself had it been them or a family member in that position.


Rather than criticising the judiciary, who at the end of the day have their hands tied by public policy and government busybodies most of the time, surely people should be asking why the police are allowed to be judge and jury. The powers levied to them in recent years, and increased further with the introduction of fixed penalty notices for public order offences etc means that the police can effectively deal with potentially criminal behaviour on the spot. This looks good for clear up rates, no doubt. I say potentially criminal behaviour; I have known people issued with a notice having actually done very little, and had the person(s) been brought before a magistrates' court, the prosecution would fail to convict based on what actually had taken place. 


I was shocked as well when these people told me that they had not been made aware of any process to enable them to appeal the notice. It seems to me that the police have been given a tool with which they can administer justice as and when they see fit. This is clearly wrong. If a person has been accused of behaving criminally, they must be given the chance to answer the accusations in a fair and just way. Every person I know who has received one of these notices had grounds to appeal, and should have done. But in every case, that person did not want to run the risk of being found guilty, and felt that the easiest thing to do would be to pay up, and forget about it. I feel that this is something that is relied upon when such notices are issued. I can feel some further research coming on....


In this particular case, both youths should have been brought before the courts where a judge can listen to the evidence of both to determine where the truth lies. Punishment proportionate to the role played by each could then have been administered. Fairly and justly. Both admitted playing a part in the incident, but the chance to deal with both proportionately was lost the minute a police officer decided to reprimand just the one.

Not a great start to the week...

When I got into my car today, Killing Joke's "Love Like Blood" was playing on my CD player - it seemed, musically speaking more than lyrically, to reflect my current mood. Only Blur's "This Is A Low" would have been more appropriate.


I have had my first ever pupillage interview. As it currently stands, I won't be having a second. Not with this set of chambers, in any case. I feel dejected, rejected and totally disheartened. I rue not filling in the special request form and re-sitting Opinion Writing, Drafting and my Family assessments. I wish I'd never gone to that 6th form college, and taken those A levels. Yes, I have life experience, and I have work experience. It doesn't paper over my academic failings.


I have asked for feedback, and hope to receive something constructive back. Anyone who knows me, will know that I will have analysed the interview, and pulled it, and myself, to pieces. If the pupillage committee can give me any positive feedback, I'll be clinging onto it for all that it's worth.


My malaise is having an affect on my pre-holiday excitement; in that I am not excited. I pity the poor husband who is away on business, and doesn't get the benefit. I may snap out of this mood, and be my usual hyperactive self by the time he gets back. We've got a fair bit planned, including whale watching and a game at Fenway Park. In between, we plan to see the Grand Canyon and the Hoover dam. Not to mention shopping.... The dollar has been weakening against sterling, what are the chances of a crash by this weekend?


On top of this, I will be called to the Bar this week. At least I'll be able to call myself a barrister, even if I won't be working as one. Yet.

Is The Law An Ass?

Or is it just the perception of the general public?


I'm getting increasingly fed up with people criticising the criminal justice system (CJS) who quite clearly no idea how it works. I'm not suggesting that the current system is perfect, and that there doesn't need to be any improvement, but some of the criticisms levelled at the CJS are at best mistaken, and at worst downright ridiculous.


The most common complaint is sentencing; I've read on various forums many criticisms. Yet none of the articles referred to by the authors of reason, as they like to think of themselves, contain any of the full details. There's usually no mention of pleas in mitigation, and if there is any reference to it, it's normally just a snippet, and not the full picture. Similarly, the article doesn't give all of the details of the crime itself, just the juicy parts that make for interesting reading. I've observed hearings from the public gallery, and the newspaper report on any case will skirt over the issues, not go into any detail.


Whilst criticising the length of a sentence, the reader is not usually made aware that the defendant in that case pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, Even where this has been alluded to, or in the rare case it is explicitly mentioned, the reader is not informed that the defendant may be entitled to up to a third off the total sentence. Many friends of mine aren't aware that this is the case, so I assume that the reporter believes that it's common knowledge. Er, wrong. If the general public were so au fait with the law, there would be no need for lawyers.


Earlier this year, one local man was jailed for robbery after taking a traffic warden's camera. His family, outraged at the two year sentence, launched a campaign to have his sentence cut. There's no mention that he was given the maximum credit for his guilty plea; the judge was looking at a three year sentence. But as robbery carries a maximum life sentence, three years needs to be considered with some perspective. The Sentencing Guidelines for Robbery suggest a maximum of five years for street robbery, the nearest pigeon hole for this particular incident.  The Guidlelines go on to say:

The Court said that, irrespective of the offender’s age and previous record, a custodial sentence would be the court’s only option for this type of offence unless there were exceptional circumstances, and further:

• ·         the sentencing bracket was 18 months to 5 years, but the upper limit of 5 years might not be appropriate ‘if the offences are committed by an offender who has a number of previous convictions and if there is a substantial degree of violence, or if there is a particularly large number of offences committed

• ·         subject to the same qualifications, the upper limit would normally be three years in cases where no weapon was used

• ·         an offence would be more serious if the victim was vulnerable because of age (whether elderly or young), or if it had been carried out by a group of offenders

• ·         the fact that offences of this nature were prevalent was also to be treated as an aggravating feature.

Although the Court stated that there could be ‘exceptional circumstances’ in which the perpetrator of a street robbery might receive a non-custodial sentence, no appellate decisions have come to light in which a non-custodial sentence for street robbery has been upheld. However, statistics show that for offences of robbery sentenced in 2002, non-custodial sentences were imposed on 8% of adult offenders.

So, in effect, a minority of people do not go to jail if they plead or are found guilty of robbery. Having listened to the evidence, the Judge found that this offence warranted the top end sentence for the offence. I must admit that I was surprised the guy wasn't charged with criminal damage, but he admitted the more serious offence. If he did that without taking any legal advice, then I have no sympathy for him. However, I would suspect that he did have advice, in which case he must surely have been told what the consequences of his actions could be. It then also begs the question, what wasn't reported in the newspaper or in the campaign? After all, it does seem harsh at first glance.


The appeal was turned down, but it was interesting to see that the judge made reference to his previous offences. Hmmm.... It was also interesting to see that the Judge referred to this as a planned robbery, not a spontaneous act as previously suggested. So what exactly did happen on that day? There's certainly more to this than meets the eye, hence my reservations towards criticising the judiciary for sentencing.


What makes this even more ironic is that many of the people I know who criticised the judges who dealt with this matter, also have been critical when judges are seen to be too lenient.  It seems that they can't win. Show a bit of compassion, give an offender the benefit of the doubt, and it's wrong; come down hard on offenders, and that is also wrong.


It may be argued that it's the consistency that is the problem. Each case is decided on its own facts, and each offender is sentenced on his or her own circumstances. It's rare to see a Crown Court sentencing where there isn't some form of pre-sentence report recommending an appropriate sentence. These decisions aren't made lightly. But for me, whilst judges are human and are liable to make mistakes, they can only sentence based on the guidelines given to them, and it's the Government who decide what these should be. So instead of criticising judges when you don't agree with a sentence handed out, first of all see if they've acted within the limits given to them by the people you've elected into power.


For anyone who wants to see what goes on, any member of the public (over the age of 14yrs, of course) is allowed to sit in the public gallery and watch proceedings. It's a real eye opener, and you'll see that sentencing is not as simple as it looks. I recently visited Loughborough Magistrates' Court, and the Bench I observed outlined all of the aggravating and mitigating factors that lead them to the decisions that they had made. If you really want to do something about it, become a Magistrate, a lawyer, or even a Judge!!

Leicestershire's children are the laziest in the country

According to the Leicester Mercury today.  Following on from last week's posting, it would seem that the culture of driving kids to school is more than prevalent, despite what parents would like the rest of us to think.  With the school holidays around the corner, it will be interesting to see if certain roads continue to be a nightmare at certain times of the day. History suggests that they won't; I don't see this summer being any different....


I walked into the neighbouring village last week, which according to Google maps was just over a mile. I must admit, the sunshine made it a nice walk, but it certainly didn't feel that far. The purpose of my trip was to get my haircut, and out of principle as much as the chance to enjoy the sunshine, there was no way I was going to drive. I had the misfortune of passing the local primary school at chucking out time. The selfishness of some of the parents shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. Looking at some of the parents, it looks like they could do with leaving the car at home and walking, as well as their podgy offspring....