Category Archives: ramblings

beliefs, ramblings

Four Agreements

A few weeks ago, quite by chance, I came across The Four Agreements.

What are they? Well that depends on who you are and how you view them.

According to Everyday Wisdom they are based on ancient Toltec (an archaeological Mesoamerican culture) wisdom and

offer a powerful code of conduct that can rapidly transform our lives and our work into a new experience of effectiveness, balance and self supporting behaviour.

Everything we do is based on agreements we have made. In these agreements we tell ourselves who we are, what everyone else is, how to act, what is possible and what is impossible. What we have agreed to believe creates what we experience. When these agreements come from fear obstacles develop keeping us from realizing our greatest potential.

According to others they are four principles to practice in order to create love and happiness in your life or for stress management and personal growth.

Yeah OK, that’s what they all say!

What is clear is that they are based on the thinking of Mexican shaman and new age spiritualist Don Miguel Ángel Ruiz and they seem to be the cornerstones of whatever wacknut religious beliefs he holds. They have made him lots of money as he sells “self-help” books about thee agreements by the million.

All of which leaves me feeling very sceptical and mis-trusting.

However when you read the four agreements they do make a lot of sense and they aren’t too far apart from my own personal modus vivendi (see here and here).

Now I don’t propose that anyone goes out and lines Ruiz’s pocket with more money by buying his books. It should be enough to lay out the four agreements and leave you to think about them. They are:

1. Be Impeccable with Your Word
Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.

2. Don’t Take Anything Personally
Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.

3. Don’t Make Assumptions
Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness, and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

4. Always do Your Best
Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgement, self-abuse, and regret.

What’s so special about them? Actually very little. They are pretty much what most belief systems boil down to if you analyse them deeply enough. They can also be pretty damn difficult to adhere to! Not making assumptions is especially hard — the whole of western culture is based upon everyone making assumptions.

Not taking things personally is hard too. I know, from recent experience, that it is all too easy to get upset when someone close reacts emotionally apparently as a result of something you did. But you have to be able to stand back and realise that their emotions are their problem to deal with, not yours, and come from within them. They are not your emotions; you cannot control the other person’s emotions, nor are you responsible for them. Yes that can be hard.

But none of that means the four agreements aren’t worthwhile. Indeed if everyone could just strive towards them society would be a whole bunch better. And you don’t need to believe in some peculiar religious practice to make sense of them; they fit atheists just as well (maybe better?) than they do believers — atheists have no overlying dogma to contend with.

ramblings, science

The Strangeness of Days

The more I think about it, the more puzzling time becomes. Not just from a scientific point of view — and who knows that’s bad enough! — but from an experiential view.

There are two things which especially puzzle me; confuse me, even; despite that I think we all experience them.

The first is the way in which time is not linear.

OK, we know that time works only in one direction: it marches inexorably forward. As far as we know there is no way in which time can run in reverse; physicists tell us this doesn’t accord with the laws of nature they know about, hence our continuing quest for time machines.

But we all know from experience that time is not linear. There are days when one gets up and follows one’s normal routine — some combination of coffee, shower, shave, hair-do, feed the cat etc. — only to fine one is 15 minutes late leaving for work/school. The next day you’ll do exactly the same and be ready 15 minutes early. Some days the afternoon disappears without you realising; other days it drags and you seem to be checking the clock every few minutes wondering how many hours have passed.

Scientists tell us this is impossible; that time is perfectly linear. Yet we all experience it. And no-one so far can explain it satisfactorily.


The second puzzle, which may be related to the first, is the nature of days. Again no-one to my knowledge has ever satisfactorily explained this.

How is it that on Thursday, I was convinced it was Friday? Yesterday (Friday) morning I thought it was Saturday. And by yesterday evening I thought it was Thursday again. Worse, yesterday evening (what time I was existing in Thursday) Noreen was convinced it was Saturday. And today? Well I have no clue; my head is just too full of cold germs to be sure of anything beyond it’s dark, it’s raining and I’d rather be huddling under the duvet.

Now I can understand how it may be possible to explain the way in which time passes faster as one grows older. The theory is that as one ages there is less new to take in; the brain measures time in notable experiences; hence as there are fewer, time seems to pass faster.

But that doesn’t explain the non-linearity of time at either the level of minutes and hours or at the level of days. I’ve been pondering this for years, and still have no idea what’s going on here. Is it just that all our brains are faulty, or is there some underlying system of local time-warps? Has anyone got any clues?

ramblings, thoughts

Wrong!

Crumbs it’s a busy week again, which is why there’s been no blogging. Hopefully I might catch up a bit over the weekend, because next week looks like being busy too.

Meanwhile earlier in the week I came across the best advice I’ve seen in a long time about recovering from mistakes written by Matt Shipman over at SciLogs. It is very simple, though not always easy. It goes like this …

Assuming you are a human, you are going to make mistakes. But [for many of us] those mistakes can be public. And embarrassing. So how do you recover gracefully, or at least with as little damage as possible to your reputation?

Here’s the short answer: admit your mistake as early as possible; never make excuses; and do not make the same mistake again.

The rest of the article is worth a read too.

We’re human. We make mistakes. That’s what we do here; it’s called “life”!

So yes, three golden rules:

  1. Admit you made a mistake — and that includes saying “Sorry!”
  2. Never make an excuse — they cut no ice; it was a genuine error and these things happen.
  3. Log the mistake in your brain so you can guard against it next time.

We all make the best decisions we can, at the time, with the information we have available. That information includes the state of your aberrant brain. Unless we’re mental, we none of us deliberately make mistakes. So yes, we are going to get things wrong sometimes.

When I was at work I expected to make errors, but I knew I could hold my hands up to them and often correct them. I also expected to get a bollocking for it occasionally. And I was fine with my guys as long as they admitted they got things wrong. There’s only a problem when someone keeps making errors — usually the same silly errors — and not learning from them.

Keep calm, admit you got it wrong, and learn from it.

history, ramblings, topographical

Over-priced London

3 Comments

They must be havin’ a giraffe! A bleedin’ big ‘un n’all.

Yesterday Diamond Geezer, who blogs a lot about various London-y things, posted a list of the cost of various London attractions.

This was prompted by the news that The Shard is to charge a few coppers shy of £25 for the privilege of going to the top to see the view. A view which, likely as not, will be mist, aka. low cloud, rather than the promised 40 miles round London.


So everyone can be equally scandalised, here are the maximum prices from Diamond Geezer‘s list with one or two I’ve added …

£30.00 Madame Tussauds (on the day)
£29.95 The View from The Shard (Time Out website)
£29.00 Harry Potter Tour, Watford
£28.00 Up at the O2
£26.95 Ripley’s Believe It Or Not
£24.95 The View from The Shard (standard price)
£24.00 The London Dungeon
£23.00 London Zoo
£20.90 Tower of London
£19.80 London Aquarium
£18.90 London Eye
£18.00 Buckingham Palace State Rooms
£16.50 Churchill War Rooms
£16.95 Hampton Court Palace
£16.00 Westminster Abbey
£16.00 Kew Gardens
£15.00 Houses of Parliament
£15.00 St Paul’s Cathedral
£14.00 HMS Belfast
£13.50 London Transport Museum
£13.00 St Paul’s Cathedral
£12.00 Cutty Sark
£8.00 Tower Bridge exhibition and walkways
£7.00 Royal Observatory Greenwich
£6.00 Apsley House
£4.00 Wellington Arch

I’m sorry, London attractions, but those prices are just not on and they are why you won’t see me visiting any time soon. So don’t go wondering why you don’t see me, at least until you reduce those prices by 50%. We’re in a recession. OK?

Yes, I’ve done a lot of the attractions. I remember being taken to Madame Tussauds at the age of about 10 (so 50-ish years ago) and my father complaining about how exorbitant it was even then. Here’s my verdict on those I can remember:

  • Madame Tussauds : distinctly “so what”
  • The Tower : also distinctly “so what?” 50 years ago
  • London Zoo : a rip-off at £18 about 4 years ago
  • London Aquarium : very disappointing
  • London Eye : the super views made it just about worth £12 for 30 minutes a few years back
  • Hampton Court : haven’t been since my school trip of 50 years ago; I really should go again
  • Westminster Abbey : I refuse to pay for admission to any state funded church
  • St Paul’s : same as Westminster Abbey; and anyway I hate rococo
  • Cutty Sark : boring 45 years ago; the new “replica” seems to me a waste of money
  • Houses of Parliament : interesting, but not as interesting as I had hoped
  • Kew Gardens : with Hampton Court about the only place on this list that’s really attractive
  • Wellington Arch : only opened recently; worth the cost of a pint for the view down Constitution Hill, up at the Quadriga, and especially if you can be there when the Horse Guards go underneath

Add to which that the London Dungeon, Apsley House, Buckingham Palace, Harry Potter, the O2, The Shard, and Ripley’s hold no attraction for me, which is why I’ve not been to them.

And that is from someone who likes history and going to interesting and odd places. What a sad reflection on one of the great cities of the world and my home!

Thank your personal deity the national museums are all free.

amusements, memes, personal, ramblings

I've Never Seen Star Wars

Tim over at Bringing up Charlie has started something new. It may even turn into a meme.

As a result of some new-fangled programme on the wireless, which seems to be called I’ve Never Seen Star Wars, Tim has come to realise that there are a collection of things he’s never done or which have somehow passed him by, but which everyone assumes everyone else actually has done. And guess what? The summit of his list is never having seen Star Wars.

Tim then goes on to challenge the rest of us to document the things we’ve never done but which might surprise our friends. Being as I like memes, and I’m insatiably curious about other people, it would be churlish of me not to join in. So here’s my list of a dozen (apparently common) things I’ve never done.

  1. Seen Star Wars or 2001: A Space Odyssey or Clockwork Orange or any of those other iconic films. (See, Tim, you aren’t the only one!)
  2. Eaten oysters or tripe
  3. Worn a dinner jacket or a cocktail dress
  4. Been skinny dipping

  5. Played strip poker or strip pool
  6. Taken recreational drugs
  7. Driven a car or ridden motorbike
  8. Watched Eastenders or (again like Tim) Friends or Downton Abbey
  9. Lusted after Jennifer Aniston or Pamela Anderson
  10. Been to the races (horses or dogs)
  11. Been on a package holiday
  12. Broken a bone

Interestingly only one thing on that list bothers me not to have done. Anyone care to guess which one?

So now I dare everyone else to tell, their darkest, secret, “I’ve never dones” — either in the comments here or on your own blog (with a link in the comments), so we can all have a good snigger. 🙂

personal, ramblings, science

On Hairiness

Now here is a mystery. Well at least it’s a mystery to me, and I can’t quickly find anything about it on the intertubes.

I’m one of those hairy males; I always have been. Fortunately I’m naturally mid-brown-ish of hair for if I were black haired I’d have to shave twice a day or spend more of my life looking like a villain.

As a child my hair was light brown; it got thicker and darker and wavy as I got to puberty. I ended up with something akin to a coconut mop on my head. Now I’m past three score years it is almost completely grey (the front is actually white), much finer, less wavy and thinning — though I’m nowhere near approaching going bald or even really receding.

But it isn’t head hair or beard that is my immediate interest, but body hair.

(No, no, I’m NOT going THERE!)

We know that as men get older their patterns of hairiness change. As I’ve said, head hair greys and gets thinner even to the extent of baldness; and apparently leg hair also decreases. Annoyingly though eyebrows, ears and noses sprout extraneous tufts of fur, which may also go grey.

(As an aside it’s also interesting that ears and noses continue to grow throughout life, with ears apparently growing at a rate of around a couple of millimetres every decade. Noses also appear to grow with age, hence the caricature of the old man with a large warty nose.)

But in the last few years I’ve noticed something else strange. I’m sure that the hair on my forearms and chest, maybe also my back, is getting longer as I get older. Not thicker, coarser or darker, but longer.

Now it does seem that men do go on growing body hair well past puberty, even into their 30s, and apparently most men over 35 are a lot hairier than they were in their 20s. But I’m talking about something I’ve only become aware of in the last few years, say from about age 55.

Now I can’t prove that my impression is right. I didn’t start measuring the length of my body hair at the age of 18 and don’t have a series of regular measurements throughout my life. (Just see what joys I’ve passed by!) Several searches using “a well known search engine” haven’t turned up any tufty hints.

Not, you understand, that I’m complaining. Inasmuch as I think about it at all I quite like being hairy; it’s part of me and it doesn’t bother me; I certainly wouldn’t shave or wax it. Ouchy!

Am I imagining things? Am I going mad? Do I have hairs on the palms of my hands? (No, not yet!) Does anyone know? If not, why not? — this is a vitally important research topic!

PS. No, no picture of my chest hair; you really didn’t want that much information, did you!?

ramblings, science

Fukushima Follow-up

The follow-up to the Fukushima accident, in the wake for the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, continues.

In the last week there has been a thoughtful essay in the Wall Street Journal by physicist Richard Muller looking at the likely additional rates of cancer in Japan as a result of the nuclear problems.


What he says, and I have to assume his numbers are correct, is quite revealing. First a bit of background, which is in the article:

  • The average American gets an annual dose of 0.62 rem of radiation.
    (“A rem is the unit of measure used to gauge radiation damage to human tissue”.)
  • Anyone living in Denver gets 0.3 rem on top of that due to Radon gas from the local granite.
  • Yet Denver has a lower cancer rate the the US as a whole, despite its high radiation figures.
  • The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends evacuating an area if the excess dose of radiation is just 0.1 rem. Yet people still live in Denver.
  • Following the accident the Fukushima evacuation zone showed radiation at the level of 0.1 rem.

So what does this mean? Well here is Muller’s explanation:

If you are exposed to a dose of 100 rem or more, you will get sick right away from radiation illness. You know what that’s like from people who have had radiation therapy: nausea, loss of hair, a general feeling of weakness. In the Fukushima accident, nobody got a dose this big; workers were restricted in their hours of exposure to try to make sure that none received a dose greater than 25 rem … At a larger dose — 250 to 350 rem — the symptoms become life-threatening … and your chance of dying (if untreated) is 50%.

Nevertheless, even a small number of rem can trigger an eventual cancer. A dose of 25 rem causes no radiation illness, but it gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer — in addition to the 20% chance you already have from “natural” causes. For larger doses, the danger is proportional to the dose, so a 50 rem dose gives you a 2% chance of getting cancer; 75 rem ups that to 3%. The cancer effects of these doses, from 25 to 75 rem, are well established by studies of the excess cancers caused by the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 …

Here’s another way to calculate the danger of radiation: If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance). We can call this a cancer dose. A dose that high would kill you from radiation illness, but if spread out over 1,000 people, so that everyone received 2.5 rem on average, the 2,500 rem would still induce just one extra cancer … Rem measures radiation damage, and if there is one cancer’s worth of damage, it doesn’t matter how many people share that risk.

In short, if you want to know how many excess cancers there will be, multiply the population by the average dose per person and then divide by 2,500 (the cancer dose described above).

In Fukushima, the area exposed to the greatest radiation … had an estimated first-year dose of more than 2 rem. Some locations recorded doses as high as 22 rem …

How many cancers will such a dose trigger? … assume that the entire population of that 2-rem-plus region, about 22,000 people, received the highest dose: 22 rem. (This obviously overestimates the danger.) The number of excess cancers expected is the dose (22 rem) multiplied by the population (22,000), divided by 2,500. This equals 194 excess cancers.

Let’s compare that to the number of normal cancers in the same group. Even without the accident, the cancer rate is about 20% of the population, or 4,400 cancers. Can the additional 194 be detected? Yes, because many of them will be thyroid cancer, which is normally rare (but treatable). Other kinds of cancer will probably not be observable, because of the natural statistical variation of cancers.

Sadly, many of those 4,400 who die from “normal” cancer will die believing that their illness was caused by the nuclear reactor.

Sure these numbers are regrettable, and tragic for those affected. But by and large they will be indistinguishable from the variation in the normal background cancer rate, especially if the 194 excess cancers is (as Muller suggests) an over-estimate. It is the psychological effect on the people which is potentially the greater danger.

Let’s put this in a different context. One nuclear accident in 20 years is likely, over time, to result in somewhere around 200 deaths in Japan.

Compare that with coal mining where in China alone in 2004 there were over 6000 deaths of miners due to accident — plus any resulting from later pneumoconiosis. In fact it is estimated there are annually 4000 new cases pneumoconiosis just in the US. (Data from Wikipedia.)

Another comparison. We all take air travel for granted. Yet in the 12 years since 2000 plane crashes have caused on average 1183 death a year worldwide. (Data from the Air Crashes Record Office.)

(OK, a real comparison would cover far more data and causes, but you get the picture.)

Now there are other approaches to calculating the excess cancers caused. Another approach cited in Muller’s article suggests that Fukushima will cause 1500 excess cancers over a 70 year period. But I suggest that over such a long time period that number too is going to be pretty indistinguishable from the background. And anyway it is still a factor of at least 10 less than the number of people killed directly by the tsunami.

All of which leads Muller to conclude:

The reactor at Fukushima wasn’t designed to withstand a 9.0 earthquake or a 50-foot tsunami. Surrounding land was contaminated, and it will take years to recover. But it is remarkable how small the nuclear damage is compared with that of the earthquake and tsunami. The backup systems of the nuclear reactors … should be bolstered … We should always learn from tragedy. But should the Fukushima accident be used as a reason for putting an end to nuclear power?

Nothing can be made absolutely safe. Must we design nuclear reactors to withstand everything imaginable? What about an asteroid or comet impact? Or a nuclear war? No, of course not …

It is remarkable that so much attention has been given to the radioactive release from Fukushima, considering that the direct death and destruction from the tsunami was enormously greater. Perhaps the reason for the focus on the reactor meltdown is that it is a solvable problem; in contrast, there is no plausible way to protect Japan from 50-foot tsunamis …

Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer … but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test.

The great tragedy of the Fukushima accident is that Japan shut down all its nuclear reactors. Even though officials have now turned two back on, the hardships and economic disruptions induced by this policy will be enormous and will dwarf any danger from the reactors themselves.

Indeed. And hence I still believe — nuclear waste disposal problems not withstanding; I acknowledge that as an unsolved challenge — nuclear is our best and friendliest hope of managing our power requirements for the foreseeable future.

history, ramblings, sexuality, thoughts

If Scotchmen can wear kilts …

Well indeed! If Scotsmen (and Irishmen) can wear kilts, and females of all ages can wear trousers, why in blazes can’t boys wear frocks?

It makes no sense. Except as a means of perpetuating the male dominant status quo.

There was an interesting, and rather worrying, article a few weeks back in the New York Times about the angst that parents go through when their son wants to wear what they think of as “girl clothes”. Of course, being America, whole families are in analysis rather than just getting on with life.

And do you know what? Most of these kids are no more than four or six years old. But they’re still seen as deviant, or worse. The article even acknowledges that few of them continue to want to dress as girls beyond the age of about 10.

And so what if they do? Why on earth does it matter?


Read this for another scary example of sexist reaction
to a 15-year-old boy in a dress.
Doesn’t the lad look rather good?
It is really only in the western world that we’ve become wedded to the idea than men have to wear trousers, and to do anything else is either deviant or at best a huge joke. See most people’s reaction to the aforesaid Scotsmen in kilts, or actors in drag.

Until about 100 years ago effectively all small boys, regardless of class, would have been routinely dressed in frocks until they were at least five years old. In Arabia and northern Africa men and women still wear loose robes. In Japan men traditionally wore kimono the same as women. Not to mention the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians … or monks.

OK, it’s easy for me. I’m not a parent and I haven’t had to cope with it. But I would hope that if I had I might have been a bit more level-headed. And yes, I do concede that it must be hard — especially for the young kids — when most of society doesn’t understand and people are so spiteful. So they need strong and sympathetic parents, not analysis!

But FFS why do parents have to worry when the kids are only six, or in one case in the article as young as three!? Kids of both genders, especially young kids, like to dress up. Whether that’s in mum’s high heels, as Davey Crocket, or Spiderman, or My Little Pony. And some kids are more comfortable in some clothes than others; some (heaven help us!) are most comfortable in no clothes. Where’s the problem?

When I was young we didn’t have much choice in clothes. There were no t-shirts, sweatshirts, football strip, trainers, batman outfits, jeans, … Today kids can have a whole range of choice, so no wonder a few will pick something a section of “society at large” thinks unsuitable. Most of them grow out of it, just as they grow out of collecting Pokemon, plastic pigs or used tea bags.

Even if they don’t grow out of wanting to wear dresses, WTF does it matter?

Society is able to accept many things that were formerly seen as deviant or unacceptable — men with earrings, homosexuality, bikinis, tattoos … So why can’t we be more comfortable with boys wearing dresses?

ramblings, science

A Special Day

Today is special. It is a red letter day. Well … no … actually it’s a blue moon! So anything could happen — allegedly.

The mostly used definition of a blue moon is where there are two full moons in a calendar month. But that it appears is a more modern definition, the older one being applied where there were four full moons in a season. Various older belief systems give each of the three normal full moons in a season a name. Where there are four full moons the third of the four is called a blue moon so that the last may keep it’s “correct” name and rightful place in the season.

Which might suggest to you that blue moons aren’t that rare. And you’d be right. They occur every 2-3 years (actually 7 times in the moon’s 19-year Metonic cycle), because of the mismatch between the 28 day lunar cycle and months of 30 or 31 days in our solar calendar.


Curiously it seems no-one really knows why it is called a blue moon, but it almost certainly isn’t because the moon suddenly becomes Smurf-coloured for the day. Smurf-coloured moons can happen but only as a result of significant atmospheric pollution, like the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883.

One theory for the name is that “blue” in this context is derived from the Old English word belewe meaning “betray” which was used to describe “false” moons entering the calendar. Well I suppose that’s possible, but given that the earliest known English reference dates from only 1524 it is perhaps unlikely.

Well, anyway, enjoy the last day of summer. In London it is bright and sunny but Autumnally cool, which is actually rather nice in what in the UK has been the wettest summer for 100 years. And if the sky is clear this evening go and bathe in the light of the blue moon! Sadly you’ll have to provide your own Blue Moon Cocktail.

You can find more on Blue Moons at:
Wikipedia : Blue Moon
Wikipedia : Full Moon Names
Wikipedia : Metonic Cycle
Jodrell Bank : Night Sky in August
And in various news stories, eg. here

current affairs, nudism, ramblings

Nudity Stupidity

So we have two, rather different, men in the news this week for appearing nude. Prince Harry for playing strip pool at a party and Stephen Gough, the Naked Rambler, incarcerated again in Scotland for walking nude down the street. Neither has done anything overtly illegal (Gough is convicted of breach of the peace, although frankly from what I’ve read I don’t see how) but both are being punished. Both might reasonably stand accused of stupidity, given what they know; but stupidity alone isn’t illegal.


Uneasy bedfellows?!
Heresy Corner has a scathing summation of the issues. On Prince Harry:

And if a 28 year old man takes his clothes off in the company of other consenting adults, who cares?

It’s only a naked body. We’ve all got one of those. If you’re a distinguished actor you may well have displayed it to all the world in the name of art. This is the 21st century.

And, more tellingly, on Stephen Gough:

Gough has spent most of the past six years in prison since making the mistake of bringing his naked frame north of the border, where a Presbyterian horror of the body lingers despite repeated SNP claims that Scotland is a mature, progressive democracy ready for full independence.
[…]
Gough’s case is simple: “there is nothing about me as a human being that is indecent or alarming or offensive.” He poses no danger to society. He has never physically attacked anyone or interfered with property, nor has he used insulting language: his “crime” is to upset the sensibilities of prudes, of whom there are obviously a large number in Scotland.
[…]
Is nudity “indecent”? Only if you assume, as Anglo-Saxon prudes tend to do, that nudity implies sex. There are other reasons for being naked that have little to do with sex — taking part in a game of strip-billiards, for example.
[…]
It’s hard to escape the view that Gough’s real crime is not so much outraging public decency as refusing to conform. Keeping him upholds the majesty of the law which Gough’s defiance challenges, at a cost to the taxpayer of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

[I would also take issue with the assertion that sex is indecent. Like nudity, sex and sexuality have to be normalised not criminalised and/or marginalised. But let’s leave that aside for now.]

At least there appears to be a tiny amount of common sense appearing in all this. Prince Harry is apparently likely to be punished only by being given a dressing down (pun intended) by his commanding officer (though GOK what it has to do with his CO) and made to donate some of his salary to charity. Meanwhile the Kirkcaldy Sheriff has ordered Gough to undergo psychiatric tests, which might give him a way out of the corner he and Scottish “justice” have painted him into.

Nevertheless, frankly, both cases are ridiculous. We need to come to terms with the fact that nudity is a normal part of the human condition. Get over it! Our princling has done nothing most of us wouldn’t have done; his only crime is his parentage. Gouch is agreed by all to be harmless but eccentric. The former should just be ignored. The latter allowed to go on his way and also ignored.

What is perhaps more important is to ask why people appear so outraged by these cases. I suspect it goes back to what I was writing about yesterday: most people need some outside influence to give them their moral code because they are unable (or unwilling) to think it through for themselves. Once that happens these people are prey to ridiculous, even dangerous, influences: anything from the abhorrence of nudity, through male dominance, to terrorism.

But it isn’t just the traditional religions that are now occupying this morality defining territory. The tabloid media (papers, TV, radio) have become the new religion — the definers of morals — and thus the definers of what people think. Too many people still adhere to the “if it’s in the paper, it must be true” and pause to think no further.

Well it’s time to grow up and start thinking. Time to rise up against the Mrs Grundys of this world.

If it harm none, do as you will.