Volcanic ash -A legal absurdity. God knows.

Once upon a time there were three legal guidelines aimed to lead the way to simple decisions on questions of legal liability.

The first was that sometimes accidents for which nobody is to blame really do happen.

The second was that people should be free of liability for anything over which they had absolutely no control.

The third was that liability should not exist or at most be low if the act or omission complained of formed only a reasonable risk of which the sufferer was aware and willingly accepted by virtue of taking part in the activity concerned.

As time went on increasing numbers of the human race grew to feel that whatever happened to them someone else was responsible. It wasn't a big step from that to also believe that the someone should pay. Initially this was sidestepped and coped with by introducing the notion that the blameless event or accident was an Act of God. This was unfair. To many the appeal of God is that he (or she? why not?) is meant to be benign although there are those of course who prefer to portray him/her as a purveyor of fire and brimstone as a better way of getting folk to toe the line and behave themselves. Did anyone ask God whether he/she was OK with being the villain of last resort?

As it turns out God has not proved to be good at turning up in court and shelling out cash to the outstretched palms of "no win, no fee" personal liability lawyers and other righteous upholders of the "Where there's blame" - and there always must be,- "there's a claim " culture. One can imagine him/her, upon receiving yet another verdict of "Act of God" and another invitation to cough up, rolling their eyes and muttering something sounding like " Clucking Bell,-whatever next. What part of Love thy Neighbour don't they get?".

As result of continued non appearances by the declared guilty party the earthly,- though one wonders,-authorities of the UK and EU have decided that when volcanos periodically spew out ash,- fire and brimstone even,- thereby stranding booked would-be travellers, it is the airlines who are to blame. No arguing. Without a doubt to blame and they should therefore pay up not just by refunding fares which is reasonable enough ,but to the extent of keeping those affected housed, watered and fed until such time as they can proceed on their way. In extreme cases this could be quite a while and possibly caused or extended by the same legislating governments' failure to really understand what they are dealing with and resorting to their innate default mode of covering their potentially exposed rear ends.

It was obvious from last year's airline industry losses of nearly £2 billion during and as result of UK and EU government's lengthy closure of airspace due to the Icelandic volcano doing its thing that something needed to be changed. It hasn't been. Under EU law airlines cancelling or delaying flights beyond 5 hours continue to be liable to stranded passengers. This liability includes:
-Provision of food and accomodation until such time as they can be carried to their booked destination.
-Reimbursement of reasonable costs if they have found their own hotels and/or alternative transport home.

The airlines neither have anything to do with volcanos deciding to erupt nor governments' decisions on whether or not they can operate. This year the governments have tried to fudge the last bit by theoretically leaving it up to the airlines as to whether or not they operate in the new "red" or "blue" zones. This cleverly transfers liability to them for the decision of whether or not to fly. Clever one, but it still totally ignores the fact that disruption and costs to people caused by what were formerly acts of the Almighty should not, as result of said party not showing and stumping up in court, be transferred to a totally innocent alternative,-the airlines. It is absurd that they should be liable. There are plenty of insurance companies around to do what insurers are meant to do,- take on the risk in return for the payment of a commensurate fee by the transport user. "Come on people", one can hear from above "Just do something for yourselves for once." Almost incredibly he/she and Michael O'Leary are singing from the same hymnsheet here. That really is an act of God.

UK Media,- The Silly Season Starts Early.

The UK is at war in Afghanistan and Libya. The nuclear problem persists in Japan. Christchurch New Zealand has barely started to recover from its earthquakes. Our economic situation remains gloomy as we start to pay for years of Blair and Brown borrow and spend. So what has the UK been reading most about over its breakfast, in commuter trains or on its IPads?

Well, the big issues of course. It's nearly summer. Sex. Never mind the rest. Fred-the-Shred, now rebranded as Fred-the -Bed's extra marital activities for one. Shock, horror,-he was at it while RBS was heading down the plug. Should that worry us? Did it diminish or even enhance his performance on the (day) job? Who knows or cares? And yet that became the number one world headline for our press and TV news bulletins. Then there was the IMF man whose interpretation of Room Service seems to have got way out of hand as does the almost uncommented upon very heavy treatment of untried defendents by the US "Justice" services. The concept of being innocent until proved guilty is not on display there .Not the greatest shop window for a country bent on telling the world how to run itself, but the media has ignored that question in favour of persuing the more salacious. Finally there has been the non-affair of UK Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, who dared to say that there are several forms of rape which means that a sentancing policy which treats all the same might not be appropriate. A good point worth stating and debating sensibly. The contorted expressions on the faces of even some of the normally well balanced lady TV reporters said it all. Rational discussion on the subject simply isn't possible, just as it isn't about ever widening collection of other issues where the self proclaimed occupiers of the moral high ground pour boiling oil down upon any who might question them.

The portents for interesting reading, listening and viewing this summer are not good,- and it's only May.

UK Politics and Sums: Let's be Clear,- Nobody is proposing to clear the (accumulated) debt.

Since way before the May 2010 UK General Election there has been an extraordinary fog about what all political parties have meant about "debt reduction".

Much of the electorate has been under the impression that they have been and still are talking about reducing the existing acumulated mountain of borrowing called the National Bebt which is currently costing the tax payer,-ie diverting from other possible uses,- £120 million a day.

The Conservatives promised ,if elected, to eliminate "the debt" over their first five year term of government.

Labour promised "to halve" it.

Both still cling to those positions. This gives the impression that even borrow- and-spend Labour would make a good start on the national debt and getting that £120 million a day down. To many that doesn't sound a bad idea and makes them receptive to reasonable Ed and shouting Ed's pleas/whinges that the Coalition is cutting "too fast and too soon" and the idea that there is a much easier and less painful alternative to slamming on the expenditure brakes.

Inexplicably the Conservatives haven't shouted from the rooftops that this is a lie. Nobody is talking about cutting the real debt mountain at all. They are just talking about halving the rate of annual increase of the structural part of the annual overspend,-that's the bit which is generated by day to day running costs of government and the state sector rather than borrowing to genuinely invest in things like infrastructure developments on which there is a future payback,-to the awful negative legacy we are building up for ourselves and our children. That's a very different thing and it needs to be spelled out to the electorate in clear, simple terms. Just like this in fact. Why isn't it being?

Thought for the Day...............Realities.

Q: What do the subjects of the following comforting statements have in common?:

- "Grandma has gone to a nice retirement home far away."

- "The puppies/ kittens/cubs have gone to a nice family who will look after them beautifully."

-"Your old TV/Fridge/Stereo/ VCR has gone to China/Ghana/wherever for reprocessing"

A: They are probably all in a hole in the ground.

The Royal Wedding- Free Pullout Supplement-Yours to Keep.

A week on, with the dust settling, the Duke of Cambridge back flying and the Duchess in the supermarket looking for something for dinner, here is a quick reference summary of the key points and moments for those who didn't have the time or inclination to settle in front of their tellys on 29th April for several hours of daytime viewing and couldn't manage the heap of souvenir colour supplements which came through their doors last weekend.

-You missed something.

-It was a great show and proved yet again that this is something that Britain does best. Royal weddings, funerals,occasions, parades. It makes no difference. We are the tops. American versions come across as pure pastiche/Disneyworld lookalikes. Goose stepping military shows so beloved of Peoples (un)Democratic Republics are nasty and threating,- often not least to that country's own population.Ever since Queen Victoria introduced most of the pageantry Britain has done it right. This event was superb.

-Scorned by many men as women's fayre, the blokes mainly watched it all the same.

-It was a mix of Old Windsor (Battenburg) and New Windsor (Windsor).

-Old Windsor didn't smile a lot. It's not their thing. New Windsor did.

-Old Windsor dressed for the races or the 1950s. New Windsor was very smart.

- Old Windsor had most likely blackballed Blair and Brown from the guest list. New Windsor,- more diplomatically would probably have said "What the hell, let them in".

-The bride's dress was ivory,had a train, and looked great.

-The Middleton family came across very well.

-General concensus that New Windsor could save the monarchy, especially in Australia, after its all time Charles and Diana low. Problem is though there's one more act by Old Windsor to come first. Do the decent thing Charles?

-Did Charles sing "God Save the Queen" with full enthusiasm?

-Did Camilla?

-Much betting went on about whether Prince Harry would score with the bride's sister-the chief bridesmaid.

-The lady concerned's bottom now has its own website. There was also a general internet concensus :"No knickers".

- All but a handful of the British attendees at the Abbey appeared to be Conservative and "No" voters in this week's elections.

- Should Prince William's helicopter sadly suffer a terminal malfunction, would King Harry make it an All-Party Britain? Could that be our best option?

-Two lesser Princesses, Beatrice and Eugenie turned up as a cross between panto dames and the ugly sisters. You'd have thought their father Prince Andrew would have given a tactful steer "You're not going out dressed like that", but that would have required good sense. Gave everyone a laugh though. Enough to frighten the horses.

-Maybe they did,-one threw its rider and bolted down the Mall. Its fate? Early retirement "arrangements" in France?

-While the Royal couple are received with great enthusiasm, some of the young and rather narrowly based coterie with whom they are almost inevitably surrounded aren't so attractive. Many of the hangers-on including the pot pourri of "in" celebs don't come across as such wonderful people.

-Becks didn't know which side to wear his medal earned for valour in the face of Alex Ferguson. Somebody must have gesticulated or more politely whispered in his ear in regal "Your flies are open" tone though as it was correctly on his left by the end of the service.

-There were said to be 5,000 street parties throughout the land (well, not all of it, none in Glasgow). In fact there must have been thousands more, each one a credit to those who ignored the legal niceties of registering, getting police approval, roads officially closed, health and safety assessments, insured etc etc. Some in Town Halls will be furious at this proletarian gesture of defiance.

-Maybe Glasgow would have had a party of it was State run and funded?

-The kiss x 2 gave the TV networks and crowds value for money as did the final act of the show,-the RAF flypast, first by the Battle of Britain flight followed by what is left of the strike force,- 2 Tornados and 2 Typhoons. A nice day off from Libya for them.

-At that, other than for those attending the evening party, the curtain came down. Literally a class act.

Next big Royal Event apart from minor outings of the bands and horses and barring any unforseable State funerals : Summer 2012. The Queen's 60th Jubilee of accession.(although it will be only 59 years since she was crowned on 2nd June 1953). Then will come the London Olympics. Will we be at work at all next summer?

Obama and Osama Bomb out UK AV and Local election coverage

This Thursday's UK electoral events of the referendum on Alternative Voting , the English local council and the Scottish parliamentary elections couldn't have been worse timed for gaining media attention.

Thanks to the very late Easter and thereby coming at the end of 3 consecutive Bank Holiday infested short working weeks when most of the UK has always going to either be on holiday or otherwise switched off from the tedium of the winter's politics, the campaigns have struggled to gain traction anywhere. The nation is hardly in a frenzy. North of the border there may be a bit more interest in the Scottish parliament elections which could lead to a referendum on Scottish independence.

Any hope of holiday time interest was completely swept away by the lead up to the Royal Wedding and the great day itself. With that out of the way Ed and Nick must have been hoping for a media breakthrough on Monday May 2nd so that they could complete their "Yes" campaign in the AV debate at the gallop. So what happened? Seemingly oblivious of their needs , Mr Obama spent Sunday night watching his men rid the world of Osama. How inconsiderate. Couldn't he have waited a few days?

Now Ed's normally dark rimmed eyes look like getting blackened further with the likely loss of the AV vote and a failure to knock Alex Salmond and the Nationalists off their perch in traditionally Labour Scotland. OK, south of the border he will have the satisfaction of ousting a lot of Conservative and Liberal councillors in England but cyclically that would have happened anyway a year into a new government having to take unpopular measures. The unfortunate Nick is also likely to get a double pasting,- his from the loss of the AV vote and also the loss of large numbers of Liberal council seats.As the holding of the AV referendum was a key element to his agreement to join the coalition last May he will feel doubly sore.

So what now? An attack on Ed's leadership of the Labour Party is unlikely at the moment as nobody is in a hurry to grasp the top job while there are probably still four years to go until the next General Election (See caveat below). Winning the leadership contest just as the party was going into opposition always looked more like a hospital pass than the key to eventual tenancy of Number 10. A hostile bid is much more likely much closer to the four year mark. For Nick nearly a year in government has been a long and thankless time. He doesn't look happy. Twelve months ago Cleggmania was at its height. The electorate had liked what it had seen of him in the TV debates and the "I agree with Nick" from both the other candidates , Gordon Brown in the red corner and David Cameron in the blue ,had achieved national resonance. When the election turned out to be a stalemate with no overall majority for either major party Nick bravely did the only thing he could , both sensibly and constitutionally. Although many Lib Dems are much more at ease with Labour than the Conservatives the fact was that, if nothing else, the nation had rejected Labour and wanted a change. Clegg therefore had no real moral option than to go for a coalition with the Conservatives on the best terms he could get. He actually got a very good one and has disproportionaly influenced government policy ever since( a very good argument against AV). Unfortunately many of his party don't begin to understand the realities of being in government rather than remaining a loose alliance of various protest groups. This could be fatal for Nick if they start baying for blood after this week's likely twin debacles.It could also be fatal for the coalition and the Lib Dems themselves as in extremis we could see a sudden General Election about which the only near certainty would be that the battle would be a simple Labour v Conservative one and that the Liberals and their influence would be wiped out. With their demise would go any hope of electoral reform or Lib Dem power for a long time.

The AV campaign might have had legs if it had ever achieved a hearing but once the Royal Wedding was announced for 29th April it was going to struggle for media cuthrough in the vital runup period. The very late Easter did it no favours either. Then just when there should have been an apportunity for maximum media attention along came Obama v Osama .It was game over,- and not just for Osama. Sorry Nick,- and Ed. Get the raw steaks ready to put over the eyes. Oh,- and Dave? He will just shrug off the council results,celebrate the "No" win in the AV contest and raise a glass to whatever happens in Scotland.