Skip to main content

In defence of Gordon

I am not a Labour Party supporter - as a wishy-washy liberal (even if I do tend to read the Times rather than the Guardian) with the surname Clegg, I don't have much choice, really. But I do want to express sympathy for Gordon Brown over the whole Sun/Jacqui Janes letter furore.

Given the demands on his time, I think Gordon Brown should be patted on the back for hand writing letters of condolence - and if he makes a few spelling mistakes, so what?

I have every sympathy for Jacqui Janes as a grieving mother, but I do think two questions in all the blame game over whether it's the Sun or Gordon Brown at fault don't seem to be answered. How come an ordinary person like Ms Janes records her phone calls? This seems a very strange act. And how did the recording get to the Sun? Were they tapping her phone? Or the Prime Minister's phone? If so, the Sun should be in a lot more trouble than it is. If not, it's hard not to question the motives of whoever supplied the recording to a newspaper like that.

Image from Wikipedia
Labels:

Comments

  1. Clare Dudman15 November 2009 at 12:48

    Good point. I read somewhere there was a friend in the room...if that's all it was (rather than a recording which I understand is illegal unless you've told the person concerned you're recording them) then I suppose the accuracy is questionable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg15 November 2009 at 13:36

    I heard on the radio what was claimed to be part of the recording (her side of it only)...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sue Guiney15 November 2009 at 15:18

    Excellent points as always, Mr. Clegg!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kate15 November 2009 at 17:22

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous15 November 2009 at 17:26

    Apologies for deletion above - I've no idea why it logged me in as "Litopia" - some technical tie-in weirdness. My opinions were my own, nothing to do with Litopia, so I've deleted it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brian Clegg16 November 2009 at 10:09

    No worries - we're just left wondering what those opinions were now!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more