The weathermen promised us snow. I looked out last night before I went to bed and wondered where said snow was going to come from as the sky was crisply clear as it had been all day. It must all have changed in the small hours of the morning as we woke to a fairly light covering of snow, maybe a centimetre at the most. Very pretty but very impractical.
I decided not to run. It was actually still snowing, very thin stuff but still snow, and the pavements looked a little treacherous. So I dressed in normal clothes (as opposed to running gear), put on an extra layer of socks, my warm coat, my waterproof boots, a wooly hat and gloves, and off I went for a stomp into the village to purchase, among other things, the wherewithal to make mushroom soup. It’s definitely the kind of weather that demands warming soups and stews.
So I walked out in the snow, listening to that odd squeak of fresh snow under walking boots. There’s not been enough for any spectacular snowdrifts this time although I suppose it could still happen. There were, however, some rather fine icicles to be seen.
In the village centre council workers using big plastic shovels to clear pavements and sprinkling grit all over the place. This seems to me to be a new innovation. I wonder which party will claim responsibility as local council elections next come around.
Thinking of spending public money, here’s a little item:
“A new official portrait of the king has been unveiled, created to hang in public buildings across the UK under an £8m government-funded scheme that an anti-monarchy campaign group has described as a “shameful waste of money”.
The Cabinet Office announced last year that it had set aside funds to offer every public body – local councils, courts, schools, police forces, and fire and rescue services – a free portrait of King Charles.”
Here’s a link to the article, just in case anyone wants to look at then photo of Charles in all his regalia and medals and such.
And here’s a link to an article about a more heroic figure, in my opinion: journalist John Pilger, largely excluded from mainstream media in his later years.
And here’s another to an article about a teacher in Israel who was fired put in prison for posting criticism like this of military action:
“Horrific images are pouring in from Gaza. Entire families were wiped out. I don’t usually upload pictures like this, but look what we do in revenge,” said a message on 8 October, below a picture of the Abu Daqqa family, killed in one of the first airstrikes on Gaza. “Anyone who thinks this is justified because of what happened yesterday, should unfriend themselves. I ask everyone else to do everything possible to stop this madness. Stop it now. Not later, Now!!!”
And then there is Michael Rosen:
'If someone commits a crime against you,' said the King, 'does that entitle you to commit a crime against them?'
'Ah, let me stop you there,' said the King's tutor, 'you've got some of your terms wrong.'
'Go on,' said the King.
'A response to a crime is not a crime,' said the tutor.
'You mean any response or all responses to a crime are not crimes?' said the King.
'Let's be clear,' said the tutor, 'someone commits a crime against you, you are entitled to respond.'
'I'm not sure that answers my question,' said the King, 'what I'm trying to find out is if you're entitled to make any kind of response?'
'Let me answer it a different way,' said the tutor. 'If someone commits a crime against you, you must say that your response is not a crime.'
'But what if my response was criminal,' said the King.
'What you need to understand,' said the tutor, is that that's not possible. It's not possible for our response to be criminal.'
'That's good to know,' said the King.
Life goes on. Stay safe and well, everyone!
No comments:
Post a Comment