Imagine my astonishment this evening when I clicked on a link for South African television listings (from the BBC no less) to discover that they have spoiled the finale in the listings. Those listings are here.

I know some people can’t resist clicking on spoiler links – despite warnings that their viewing pleasure will be disappointed. Well, so be it. If you want your viewing ruined go ahead and click. I, for one, have already sent my complaint to the BBC in South AFrica.

This is a disgrace.

Last year Stephen Mofatt promised that Dr Who would take over the airwaves. The news about Matt simply says that it’s more hair waves we have to worry about. We have only had 6 episodes so far this year with 2 to come, and then 2 more later in the year probably. And one of those was that one with the singing and it was rubbish. With so-called leading actors who are now past it, like Diana “her offof Game of Thrones” Rigg and John “Caligula” Hurt, filling the guest star roles it is clear that under Moffit Dr Who has well and truly jumped the Fonz. This is not on. In its anniversary year Dr Who should be featured at the BAFTAs and have an anniversary show, and documentaries about it. Without those it is clear that Stefan Moffitt has lost his touch and MUST GO.

Look at the evidence:

Dr Who used to have adverts for it. Now it doesn’t have so many adverts. FACT!

Dr Who used to be on the television at different times from what it is on now. But now it isn’t. FACT!

Dr Who never used to be run by Steven Moffatt when UKIP did badly in elections. Now UKIP does well in elections and it is run by Stephen Moffatt. AND WITH SPLIT SEASONS. FACT.

Dr Who was put on hiatus for a while in the 1980s when it wasn’t working so well because the production team and senior people at the BBC didn’t like it very much. And just LOOK what is happening now.  FACT

This is not acceptable.

Dr WHo should be on all the year – while ensuring that we don’t waste regenerations due to the burn-out of actors and in order to comply with a line from The Deathly Assassin, backed up in Mordred Undead and that one with the Pertwee logo that doesn’t count, because once we reach twelve regenerations then that’s it all over – especially when we know that that bloke that played the guy who valued the clock Del Boy found in Only Fools and Horses has already wasted one of the late regenerations.

THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Inconvertible proof that Mofatt MUST GO.

The hair cut is the final straw. Moffat has taken his eye off Dr Who by concentrating on another show about Sherlock HOlmes. Working on two shows at once by Moffatt and by the actors shows they NO LONGER CARE for Dr Who and MUST GO – apart from MAtt who MUST STAY so that we don’t waste a regeneration.

Please sign my petition.

I commute to work. I used to arrive back home once or twice a week with a new book for the children from not long after our eldest was born. Over the years I have arrived home with “Next Please”; “Monkey Puzzle”; “The Little Mole Who Knew it was None of his Business”; “The Kiss that Missed”; and others.

We would read as each child lay in their cot. We would read as they lay on their playmat. We would cuddle up together in bedrooms reading. The sounds of our voices, playing with the rhythms and the rhymes became part of the bedtime ritual. Watching with glee as each child scanned the pictures in the books for the little quirks in the background, for clues about the emotions of the characters.

Reading to our children remains a pleasure. We’ve shared Doctor Who and Dodie Smith; Tove Jansson and Astrid Lindgren; Wibbly Pig and Percy the Park Keeper; Steve Cole’s time travelling cows and Robert Louis Stevenson’s pirates.

Every year we take the children to the Book Festival in Edinburgh. We’ve seen Lydia Monks; Julia Donaldson; Axel Scheffler; Ed Vere; David Melling; Oliver Jeffers; and others. And each show has seen an audience of children rapt listening to stories, or participating as children are encouraged to act out parts of the story, or assume the roles of characters within them.

Two shows have stood out.

Steve Cole is an annual treat. His tales of dinosaurs in spaceships gripped our eldest five years ago. And going to see Steve Cole is an event. He sparks with ideas, engages the children in the creative process, making up stories from what is around them. The kids build up superhero tales from a couple of pieces of fruit lying at the front of the theatre. And when he finishes and heads for the signing tent there is a stampede as children rush with piles of books asking for them to be signed. And with great good humour and charm Steve Cole speaks to each child, shares in their view of his world. The children leave enthused, buzzing with ideas, desperate to read more.

One year we were lucky enough to see Michael Rosen. His books had been a fixture in the house. “We’re going on a bear hunt” was much read – the familiarity meaning that ultimately at bedtime the children were reading it to us. We’d read others. I’d cried when I read “The Sad Book”. Michael Rosen’s show was wonderful. He spoke about language and rhythm. He played with rhymes – beginning little poems finished by the children in the auditorium. He performed his poems. He introduced the audience to other poets who had written for children. The audience – primary school children and their parents – sat: at times rapt; at times shouting with glee as they anticipated the rhyme.

Our middle child loved it. She wanted to read his poems, to hear the words in her head. We bought her a couple of Michael Rosen’s poetry books. While she was learning to read Michael Rosen’s poems helped encourage her in her reading. The music of his writing has given her a feel for language.

A couple of years ago she got various Christmas presents from various relatives. her favourite? Not the toys. Not the games. Not the cuddly animals.  A book of Michael Rosen poems with a CD of him reading his work. She still talks about going to see him. She lies reading his school poems, and his poems about relatives. Bedtime passes and we’ll go upstairs  half an hour later and she will be asleep her hand clasping a book.

Now, yesterday, this man, who has given my children so much pleasure was attacked by  Michael Gove in a speech about education, and grammar, and the books children should be reading in primary school. Today Michael Rosen was attacked by Toby Young for omitting a comma in an article.

Well, like many other parents, I’d just like to thank Michael Rosen.

And Steve Cole.

And Julia Donaldson.

And Lydia Monks.

And David Melling.

And Chris Riddell.

And Astrid Lindgren.

And so many others. They have given my children so much.

And I’m grateful to them all. And (on his birthday) I’d like to thank Terrance Dicks.  And Tove Jansson. And Robert Westall. Because they’ve given me so much too.

I like the fact that my children love reading.

I’m glad there are Michael Rosens out there.

I dislike them already.

Especially THAT one.

4.35 pm – From outside the man standing banging his fists on the window appears to be shouting. But he is silent. Double-glazing at The Guardian office is excellent.

4.34 pm – a tear trails down the face of the Guardian’s live-blogger. His work is done. He amused literally a person, his boss who required the whole live-blogging people typing Ed Balls things. He weeps now, hoping to get back to some proper work. But no. There is a tap on his shoulder. “There’s a royal baby soon, Shiv” he hears. “Why not live-blog people on the twitter commenting on the birth of the royal baby. That’ll be great.” He sighs, makes his way to the window.

4.32 pm – The Guardian live-blog is now silent. It is not longer making live updates of old tweets it has found.

4.30 pm – The Guardian has now noticed that Ed Balls typed Ed Balls again, but has closed its live-blog before noticing that his wife typed Ed Balls too. Bit shoddy to be honest.

4.29 pm – The Guardian is now blogging a brief video posted by one of their other staff with lots of people typing Ed Balls. It is amazing.

4.28 pm – The Guardian has thus far missed that Ed Balls and his spouse both tweeted Ed Balls. This is despite their live-blogging big Ed Balls related developments.

4.26 pm – They have noted that someone has noticed that someone who is more famous than Ed Balls has not tweeted Ed Balls

4.23 pm – They are now posting pictures of tweets of people having typed “Ed Balls”. This is now the funniest thing that has ever happened. All wars have ended due to the ensuing hilarity and mirth.

4.22 pm – They are now saying that lots of people on twitter are tweeting “Ed Balls”.

4.20 pm – They have blogged a picture Ed Balls tweeted more than two weeks ago. It has the words “Ed Balls” on it.

4.19 pm – They have blogged someone referring to a time in the future when people will type Ed Balls.

4.18 pm – They have now blogged a thing from earlier today. It is really funny. ha. Ha.

4.17 pm – Today’s Guardian live-blogger is Shiv Malik. His other article on the Guardian website today is about two people being dead in a pool. The Guardian eh?

4.17 pm – They have now found a tweet from over two weeks ago and have posted it on their live-blog.

4.15 pm – They have now added one line of commentary to give the impression that they are not just trawling twitter searches of people having typed “ed Balls”.

4.14 pm – Basically it looks like some chump at The Guardian is trawling a twitter search looking for tweets people have made earlier today with the words “Ed Balls” in them. He must be loving it.

4.13 pm – The Guardian has now blogged a couple of things tweeted earlier today about Ed Balls. They are really funny.

4.11 pm – The Guardian has live-blogged about a tweet written some hours ago by popular British politician “Ed Balls”.

4.10 pm – The Guardian has live-blogged some more stuff about the whole Ed Balls thing. They’ve mentioned T-shirts.

4.08 pm – The Guardian has blogged links to various videos where people do something very amusing about “Ed Balls” because two years ago today British politician “Ed Balls” typed “Ed Balls” when using the twitter  - which, as many readers will know, is the zenith of humour on the twitter.

4.05 pm Oh look they’re live-blogging people typing “Ed Balls”.

4 pm – regular readers of the internet will realise that the popular British newspaper “The Guardian” has a website on which some bod is paid (apparently – pending the introduction of full-on citizen journalism) by the Guardian to live-blogs stupid things that nobody gives a toss about. In this live-blog I intend to live-blog the Guardian’s live-blogging of stupid things.

by [named columnist who has the sole purpose in the paper of writing something designed to attract lots of clicks through]

[some words about how wonderful the writer is vaguely related to [thing that generates lots of hits]]

[big picture of half-clad famous woman for the image searchers]

[pointless anecdote about [thing that generates lots of hits]]

[futile attempt to generalise about the experience of all people of a particular gender from that anecdote]

[another anecdote about [thing that generates lots of hits]]

[self-deprecating bit to show the writer is lovely really]

[bit about the writer's love life wrapped up in an anecdote to support whatever the thread about [thing that generates lots of hits] is.]

[bit about the writer's partner stressing that the writer's partner is some sort of love god and finds the writer desirable mainly because of the [thing that generates lots of hits]]

[picture of writer's partner to disprove previous paragraph]

[long boring anecdote]

[picture of writer intended to prove that such tenuous thread of argument as runs through this anecdote laden piece is justified on account of the writer's apparent gorgeousness]

[fatuous observation based on no evidence but thrown in to make a series of personal anecdotes resonate for people who the things in those anecdotes have not happened to]

[big picture of writer looking serious because we've got to the serious bit of this article]

[fatuous observation about a thing in the real world which bears no relation to the anecdotes but done in such a way that the sleight of hand is not visible to idiots]

[anecdote intended to be amusing]

[faux confession to encourage gullible readers to feel empathy for the writer]

[conclusion showing that [thing that generates lots of hits] will generate lots of hits]

3.29 pm – sorry, fell asleep. Anything happened?

3.06 pm – Another man confirms that the person who died is still dead.

3.01 pm – Yet another man confirms that the person who died is still dead.

2.54 pm – Another different man confirms that the person who died is still dead.

2.50 pm – By ‘eck it’s Hayek.

2.48 pm – A different man also confirms that the person who died is still dead.

2.45 pm – HOUSE – EUlogy bingo: Falklands

2.41 pm – Plasticine man uses speech on dead person to argue for his policies in an unbiased apolitical way by making a political speech.

2.36 pm – plasticine man confirms person who died is still dead.

2.35 pm – 5 live interrupts sport news for development on death.

2.31 pm – waiting for Parliament to take a position on whether or not she’s still dead.

2.26 pm – aye, still dead.

2.05 pm – Man confirms that the person who died is dead.

1.35 pm – yeah, whatever.

1 pm – The headlines: Still dead.

12.58 pm – News from Westminster (may not be true)

12.54 pm – ah, nothing. It was nothing. Just Maguire and Pearce wittering on again. Stand down folks. Still dead.

12.53 pm – hang on. What’s that?

12.52 pm – yep. still dead.

12.28 pm – still dead.

12.14 pm – yep. Still.

12 noon – Still dead.

11.38 am – Still dead.

11.19 am – MOmentary media silence as they talk about something else.

11.10 am – yep. Still dead.

11 am – Headlines: Still dead.

10.53 am – Still dead.

10.36 am – Yep – still dead.

10.32 am – Just checked twitter. Louise Mensch still banging on about pygmies of the left and revelling in her grief. Suggests dead person is still dead.

10.30 am Apparently she became a burglar. Still no nearer to getting this cleared up.

10.28 am – Woman learned how to crack a nut and to follow her instincts. Could still be monkey or dead person discussion.

10.27 am “They know something” – again. Might be monkeys. Might be dead person. Troubling broadcast. Has she RISEN?

10.25 am We are now hearing about the pack returning from a fight with blood round their mouths. This might be about the dead person or the monkeys. I’ll listen properly for a bit.

10.24 am Nolan has spoken to an independent expert to verify the claims of a woman who claims she was brought up by monkeys. he disputes the banana element of her story. But is the dead person still dead?

10.23 am But is the dead person still dead? I don’t care that this woman drank water from a pond.

10.22 am Nolan is talking to some woman who claims she was brought up by monkeys.

10.21 am Radio interviewing some bod about something else. What the hell is going on?

10.20 am News silent for a moment. Will try the radio.

10.10 am She’s still dead.

10.01 am Yep. Still dead.

10 am. Give me a minute. I’m just checking the news.

9.57. Yep. Still dead.

9.55 Like many people I have been impressed by the rolling news networks, and newspaper websites, feeding of our demands for news on whether a dead person is still dead. This information, reaffirmed at every bulletin, has left the blogosphere struggling to respond adequately. Accordingly, I have today set up this live-blog to answer the question everyone is asking: Is the person who died the other day still dead? I intend to update this live-blog throughout the coming days – keeping you abreast of all developments in the “Is that person who died the other day still dead?” news.

[montage of clips dead person footage of hotel, bod putting up shutters, party conferences, standing in streets, standing in parliament, wearing silly hats, looking out of a tank, covering up a painted aeroplance, next to another dead person, in parliament again, picture of milk bottle, parliament again, police in riot gear, man wearing miners helmet looking sad, car in the desert, quick clip of bald man from Guess Who, parliament, flag lowered, crying in car driving off, Saturday superstore pop panel, parliament again, some stuff about other stuff, Europeans, Americans, holding up fingers to show dead person can count to three, gargoyle waving microphone at dead person outside building, usual form]

VOICEOVER: blah blah blah controversial and divisive blah blah blah but still dead blab blah blah first blah blah blah chemist blah blah blah Mr Whippy blah blah blah stroke blah blah blah other one couldn’t reach blah blah blah if you’re blue and blah blah blah putting on The Ritz blah blah pronounced “scone” blah blah blah Meryl blah blah blah versus Kramer blah blah blah millk sna blah blah

DEAD PERSON (accompanying montage of clips): blah blah discord may we bring blah blah blah you turn if you blah blah blah we are a blah blah blah rejoice blah blah blah you could do a movement to it but there’s no melody and no heartache blah blah blah frit blah blah blah I’m enjoying this blah blah blah fight on we fight to blah blah blah

PAXMAN: blah blah blah man in a suit blah blah blah another man in a suit blah blah blah

MAN IN A SUIT: blah blah blah patriot blah blah blah Falklands blah blah blah best thing that ever blah blah blah Labour dominated blah blah blah saved this blah blah blah pride in nation blah blah blah

PAXMAN: blah blah blah and another man in a blah blah?

ANOTHER MAN IN A SUIT: blah blah blah destroyed manufacturing blah blah blah politicised police blah blah blah lucky in blah blah Galtieri blah blah blah Scargill blah blah blah Foot blah blah blah blah Kinnock blah blah blah

PAXMAN: blah blah blah another bloody week and bit of this blah blah blah over-egging blah blah blah viewers want other new blah blah blah

VOICEOVER: blah blah blah finest Margaret Thatcher related commentary blah blah blah

In addition, over one million people have now fled to the neighbouring counties of Essex, Hertfordshire, Surrey and Kent. Refugees are arriving at towns which are already stretched to capacity, and many families are living in crude houses built by volume builders, in partially finished buildings with snagging issues relating to poor plasterwork and poorly fitted window locks unresolved since the properties were built during the property boom. Please help if you can.

General Biro said, “Our military capabilities reach as far as the bus stop to the sea and any American establishments located there will feel the merciless might of our tactical new clear weapon – which is launched using a catapult confiscated from the eldest child of one of the wine treaders in the Duchy’s school.”

When quizzed on the new clear weapon General Biro described it as an “H bomb”, although when pressed stressed that it was “more of an H2O bomb”.

[some waffle purporting to justify the change in position that no-one could possibly believe]

[more waffle]

[insert picture showing a thing about the controversial position]

[more waffle]

[rousing crescendo of this sad attempt at subversion to no comic effect for the purposes of April fools day]

Now, if Parliament passes a provision saying that, for example, a two thirds majority is required to vary any royal charter made after a certain date what is the effect?

It means that any future variation of that royal charter will require a 2/3 majority in Parliament.

But, if the provision for the 2/3 majority is in a normal piece of legislation that legislation itself can be amended or repealed by later legislation. Later legislation is passed by a simple majority. So the 2/3 majority rule would simply be a normal statutory rule which could be changed or revoked by 50% plus 1. Unless, of course the legislation containing the provision is itself protected by a rule that provides that that provision (or the broader legislation) cannot be amended by a special majority.

To demonstrate: section X of statute A says “royal charters can only be amended by a 2/3 majority of parliament”. What is to stop an amendment or repeal of section X, or statute A, or both?

Even if the section is itself protected by an entrenching rule that it cannot be amended unless by a 2 /3 majority how is that entrenching rule protected? Potentially by a section or legislation that itself is potentially subject to the normal simple majority rule.

So, good luck with the whole entrenching the 2/3 majority vote thing.

Luckily, most political journalists don’t understand much in the way of constitutional law so they’ll not notice.

ETA  – a couple of very helpful comments via twitter

@loveandgarbage And, since the courts will not review the enacting of primary legislation, all moot anyway.

— Matthew Taylor (@MTPT) March 18, 2013

@loveandgarbage see also the discussion in Jackson v. A-G about poss of two-part process to extend Parliament beyond 5 years under PA1911.

— Paul Scott (@PaulFScott) March 18, 2013

What I want to focus on is one point about the bill annexed to the McCluskey report. The bill proposes the establishment of an approved regulator as determined as appointed by a Recognition Commissioner (a government appointee). The approved regulator is to regulate “all relevant publishers” according to clause 4 of the bill. (In the event that no regulator is approved, or approval is withdrawn, the Scottish ministers must constitute a body under clause 7 to act as approved regulator and this government appointed body will have the power to regulate all relevant publishers).

So what is a “relevant publisher”? This is defined by clause 8 (1) of the bill.

“In this Act, “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who
publishes in Scotland—
(a) a newspaper, magazine or periodical containing news-related material, or
(b) by electronic means (including a website), news-related material (whether or not
related to a newspaper, magazine or periodical).”

So you are a “relevant publisher” if you are a person who “publishes in Scotland” “news-related material”.

“News-related material” is defined in clause 8 (2)

““news-related material” means—
(a) news or information about current affairs,
(b) comment about matters relating to the news or current affairs,
(c) gossip about celebrities, other public figures or other persons in the news.”

By commenting on the bill (which is a matter relating to the news) this blog post is giving news-related material. By tweeting sarcastic comments about the group’s work yesterday

http://www.twitter.com/loveandgarbage/status/312606505046245376

http://www.twitter.com/loveandgarbage/status/312607493358497792

http://www.twitter.com/loveandgarbage/status/312608367908622336

In taking such scurrilous actions I was tweeting “news-related material” and this blog-post and those tweets therefore fall under the category of material regulated by the approved regulator provided it is published in Scotland.

The definition of “news-related material” also includes “gossip” about celebrities or other public figures. “Gossip” is defined in clause 8 (3). “for the purposes of this Act, includes assertions of fact about the private or family life of any persons mentioned in subsection (2)(c) if the information published is calumnious, defamatory or scandalous.” There is no requirement that the information be untrue – a prerequisite for defamation actions in Scotland at the moment. It is sufficient if the information is scandalous. Does this require the comment to fulfil the current law of defamation, or is this a revival of the old Scots law of convicium – where true comments about someone could found an action in verbal injury? The report is silent. But this element is well explored in a blogpost by Mark  (warning contains gratuitous Tom Hanks imagery)

So, gossip is news-related material. On-line gossip or news comment whether found on twitter, facebook, or any common or garden blog will be subject to the Scottish regulator – provided it is published in Scotland. So when is something published in Scotland? The bill informs in clause 8 (4).

“A person publishes “in Scotland” if—
(a) the publication takes place in Scotland, or
(b) the publication is targeted primarily at an audience in Scotland.”

“The publication takes place in Scotland” introduces an interesting element in relation to on-line material. This is not defined in the draft bill, but there are Scottish cases that make clear when publication takes place in Scotland. For example, Ewing v Times Newspapers 2010 SLT 1093 is an Inner House decision premised on the basis that a man who was a vexatious litigant in England and Wales could sue in Scotland on the basis of having attended a public library in Edinburgh to download and view an article about him that he felt was defamatory (the Outer House decision [2008] CSOH 169 is clearer on the publication point). The downloading of the article in Scotland by a person with no other connection to Scotland, no assets in Scotland, nothing, was sufficient publication to found jurisdiction. This is the general law the draft bill is plugging into.

The impact of that is startling.

Let us take a random ficititious blog called Robert Catesby’s blog – a scurrilous vehicle for the publication of political gossip. if I view Catesby’s blog in Scotland, downloading its content to my computer, his blog is “published” in Scotland. It provides “news-related material”. And Catesby (although based in the independent state of Euphoria) finds himself subject to the regulation of the Scottish ministers’ approved regulatory body for the press.

Or the Washington Post publishes a piece relying on the US freedom of expression entitlements but is viewed by me on my desktop, I have published the American piece in Scotland by viewing and downloading it, and brought it within the remit of the McCluskey group’s suggested Scottish press regulator.

McCluskey’s proposals therefore amount to an attempt to have Scotland regulating the world’s media, as well as the world’s bloggers, and every participant on a social media outlet wherever located – if viewed and downloaded in Scotland.

Well, good luck with that.

Paxman: [redacted] ITN [redacted] standards [redacted] everyone knew [redacted] nonce sense [redacted] the autumn. What did they expect? [redacted] No conferring. [redacted] THERE WILL BE NO CONFERRING. [redacted] Val McDermid book [redacted] IRvine Welsh story [redacted] whole bloody country [redacted]

Pollard: Hi-de-hi

Paxman: Ho-[redacted]-ho

Pollard: I’ll do it Mr Fairbrother. Will it help me be a yellowcoat?

Paxman; [redacted] couldn’t run [redacted] sodding brewery [redacted] Liddle [redacted] bloody Gillligan screwed [redacted] afterwards [redacted] Hutton [redacted] petrified [redacted] shadows.

Pollard: We’re starting together. We’re taking a chance on what we feel.

Paxman: George [redacted] better with Harrison Birtwistle to be honest [redacted] carry on like this we might as well [redacted][ Martyn bloody [redacted] and his good [redacted] agenda

Pollard: We’re starting together. because we believe our love is real.

Paxman: Newsnight is a place for proper investigations not [redacted]. I mean [redacted] idiot [redacted] bloody pasties [redcated] for half an hour [reacted] pasties! [redacted] and over [redacted] pasty pasty pasty [redacted] matters worse [redacted] sodding jerry-cans [redacted] a whole episode [redacted] expecte people [redacted] take seriously? I mean [redacted]

Pollard: We’ll promise to have and to hold from this day on until we’re frail and old there’s no chance of breaking

Paxman: [redacted]

Pollard: Hi de Hi

Paxman ho – de-[redacted] -ho

2. If we believe that the accused had an identical twin who is wholly evil and may have committed the crime can we use this in reaching our decision?

3. Is the episode of The Tweenies featuring Max dressed as Jimmy Savile something we can take into account in reaching our decision?

4. Is a partial understanding of the Hilary Mantel piece on “royal Bodies” something we can take into account in reaching our decision given that we have only relied on Louise Mensch’s piece about it in The Sun where she indicates that she had read the 5,700 words in 5 minutes, and a tweet from Piers Morgan saying that he had read it three times?

5. Can we take into account the defensive frailties of Arsenal in recent weeks?

6. What’s your favourite colour?

7.  Is turning The Hobbit into 3 long films something we can take into account?

8. Why do you wear a wig?

9. Can we go home now as there are three of them in here that are stupid and frankly I don’t want to speak to them any more?

10. Heads or tails?

A senior police officer said,

“Ordinarily when there is a passing bandwagon only a small number of politicians leap on and there is no danger of the bandwagon toppling over and crushing them in a pointless and futile tragedy. However, with the interventions of the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition – who have jumped aboard despite appearing to have no awareness of the dangers that lurk beneath a Mantel piece – there is now a danger that the bandwagon will overturn pummeling their stupid skulls into a mush. However, they may also injure other roadusers in the vicinity – and that won’t do.

“In such circumstances we in the police recommend that politicians should avoid bandwagon jumping and instead indulge in a knee-jerk response. If the knee is jerked hard enough the only potential danger is that the foot will kick the politician in his own face. And frankly, that’s not going to bother anyone. And it might help tidy up the gene pool.”

8.37 Still snowing. It’s that wet snow that lies on the ground and makes it white.

8.14 blah blah blah snow

7.58 Well it is January. And we were told to expect wintry weather.

7.46 Yep. Snow.

7.37 Yep. Still snowing.

7.25 Yeah, still snowing.

7.10 Loveandgarbage is awoken from uneasy dreams to discover the world has transformed into a giant winter wonderland.