94 posts tagged “uk”

Interesting commentary on ABC’s brand-new hit shows for 2008 in the American TV Week:

Buzz projects: Game show “Opportunity Knocks,” which takes the game show out of the studio and into contestants’ front yards, is gaining steam. An adaptation of British crime drama “Life on Mars” is virtually on the air, although producer David E. Kelley’s involvement is in doubt.

   We know Life on Mars is a remake, but Opportunity Knocks? Talk about reviving something very, very old.
   It began on BBC Radio in 1949 and the Hughie Green TV version on ITV began in 1960 in the UK.
   While this version sounds a bit different (‘contestants’ front yards’?) I can’t help but think it’s somehow the same show—it certainly sounds like a talent show with everyday contestants, as with the original.
   The original was infamous for having a young Su Pollard beaten by a dog and some dude called Gerry Dorsey (Engelbert Humperdinck to most of us) getting rejected at auditions. But it was a solid ratings’ hit for ITV and Thames in its day.
   It was so famous that Benny Hill did a parody of it in 1971, pretending it was on German television:

   Again, I shall be interested to see what transpires, and I mean that most sincerely, folks.

Just as I finished writing about Philip Glenister getting his driver off a ticket by acting as Gene Hunt, I surfed over to an article about Canadian actor William Shatner linked from the Daily Mail page I cited earlier:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=565380&in_page_id=1879

   In the 1960s, Shatner wore his Capt Kirk uniform rushing to work and was also stopped. He writes:

I got out of my car, dressed in my uniform. The police officer looked me up and down, frowned and asked: “So where are you going so fast at this time in the morning?”
   I told him the truth: “To my spaceship.”
   He sighed. “OK, go ahead,” he said, before adding the Vulcan blessing: “Live long and prosper.”

   Nothing new under the sun.
   The story is quite good, told in the first person. Shatner recounts his lows and the death of his third wife (after what seems to be the final paragraph talking about the price of his autobiography).

The first time I read about Philip Glenister getting his driver off for speeding (35 mph in a 30 mph zone) I chuckled, as he adopted his Gene Hunt persona. The cop saw the actor and said, according to Glenister, ‘I’m terribly sorry about this sir, I’ll let you off this time if you don’t mind.’
   Glenister had apparently said to him prior, ‘Yes, I’m the one on the booze, not him. Go and catch some proper criminals.’
   Then I found the earliest article on the incident in the Daily Mail tabloid which contrasted this with others in the UK:

   Earlier this week it emerged that Sydney Duffy was fined for doing 35mph in a 30mph area when he tried to leave the road quickly as his wife had an epileptic fit. The 63-year-old has appealed against the fine from Cumbria police and will appear in court.
   And Stephanie Cornwall was issued with a £60 fine after rushing to hospital when her six year-old son Alfie was mauled by a dog. The mother, 40, from Leicestershire, was travelling at 37mph in a 30mph zone.

   One law for celebrities?
   The Met should have more sense than to fine people like Mr Duffy and Ms Cornwall.
   At least here the traffic cops allow for some speedometer error and that humans cannot be expected to constantly monitor their speed when traffic safety is at issue. If you kept staring at your speedo, you might get involved in an accident!
   It is worse here in New Zealand than it was 30 years ago but by and large, 5 mph is not something for the cops to get that upset about.
   I know there are exceptions but I am talking in a general sense. As we work in metric, 5 mph is roughly 8 km/h.
   The second incident probably would have been frowned on more today, less so 30 years ago: 7 mph goes past that 10 km/h leeway that some cops have as a rule of thumb.
   I tend to drive at the legal limit but realize that due to speedometer error I can be anywhere between 5 km/h over or under.
   The ‘Your speed is’ digital signs around some parts of New Zealand are helpful as a means of calibrating my own speedometer—so why do so many of them have their displays closed?
   They tend to show that my car’s 50 km/h is actually 47 km/h so I tend to go closer to 55 km/h on my speedo.
   The problem is that speeding here is governed by legislation that brings strict liability, which basically means “no excuses”.
   But I would think a Kiwi copper would have been able to judge in both cases somewhat better than his or her British counterpart.
   I am not sure if we would distinguish between celebrities and everyday folk. Any stories? I know of one incident told to me by an eyewitness (the passenger) where a rich driver was let off because of the car he drove, and the officers wound up going into macho mode to discuss the vehicle and neglected to issue a fine for excessive speeding. I cannot reveal more since I am not permitted to, and I would hope it is exceptional rather than commonplace.
   If a flash car could get me off a fine, I would have really opened up the Astons and Porsche 911 I have driven, but I prefer my clean licence (knock on wood) and was much more careful.

I saw this movie, Sexy Beast, years ago and again last year when staying with my friends Amanda and Paul in Christchurch. It stars Ray Winstone and Ben Kingsley. If you are used to Ben Kingsley playing rather dignified roles, this will be a surprise. He plays a psychotic East End hood.
   I was trying to find his ‘No no no no no no no’ line only, but this is the closest YouTube has. Excessive swearing: be warned, and don’t play this around your kids (if you have any).

I say that my work at JY&A Consulting is developing plain-English strategies for our clients. So, I thought I’d give the Iraq war a shot and write my recollections in summary form. The Saddam Hussein voice should be read in a South Park style. Steve Bridges plays George W. Bush, with Rory Bremner as Tony Blair. Special guest appearance by Rupert Murdoch.

Saddam Hussein: I gotta gas those Kurds. Let’s let off some WMDs. Where did I put that invitation to those terrorists?
Saddam’s sons-in-law: Saddam has WMDs. A lot of them.
UN: Under the ceasefire, you can’t have them. We’re sending inspectors in.
Inspectors: We found some but there’s more based on what he had before, and we can’t figure out where they are.
UN: Say, Saddam, you need to tell us where some of this stuff has gone to.
Saddam Hussein: Here’s a big-ass report. Chew on that.
UN: Dude, this isn’t complete. In fact, it looks like you have pulled it out of your ass.

Security Council president: Let’s have a vote on a resolution. Who says that we should punish Saddam Hussein if he doesn’t front up on info about his potential for WMDs, where he’s disposed of some of the ones the inspectors can’t find any more, and sort out the money he owes Kuwait?
Security Council members: Yes, we should!
Security Council president: Cool, 15 to 0. Wow, that’s better than that time Saddam invaded Kuwait.

UN: Well, Saddam, here’s resolution 1441. You’ll be in serious trouble if you don’t comply.
Saddam Hussein: Hey, don’t worry about it.

Iraqi ambassador to UN: Here’s the new report.
UN: This is just as stupid as the earlier stuff you handed in. Didn’t you read the questions?
Iraqi ambassador to UN: Yeah, but what are you going to do? Dumbasses.

USA: Right, that means we have to punish this guy under resolution 1441.
France: You need to get one more resolution for military action before you do that.
USA: And if we do, what will do you?
France: We’d veto it.
USA: Basically you are saying that no matter what resolution the international community has voted on, you don’t think we should enforce it?
France: In a word, no. But it’s because of the UN Charter that we have to all agree on military action before we do anything.
USA: Screw you, peacenik.
France: Screw you, warmonger.

George W. Bush: Tony, the French are being assholes. If we don’t enforce this, we’ll look dumb, the UN will look impotent, and Saddam Hussein could continue building up an arsenal. Whatever the case, we don’t know what that smug sonofabitch is doing.
Tony Blair: I agree, George. We either enforce the law, or we say that laws don’t matter. I couldn’t run a country like that.
Gordon Brown: I don’t know if he can run a country. I would do a better job and I have the same initials as the American guy.
John Howard: Count me in.
Jacques Chirac: I hate Americans. But I did meet that Saddam in 1975. Nice guy. We had dinner together.
Jiang Zemin: I like Americans. When they are at war, their economy will be in trouble and they will have to buy more stuff from us!

George W. Bush: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Congress, we have to go to war to enforce international law. Who’s with me?
Majority of Congress: We are.
Minority of Congress: We like French food.

Saddam Hussein: Looks like I’m f***ed. Get me Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the Information Minister!
France: Told you so, the Americans are warmongers.
Liberal media: Don’t worry, we’ll do what we can with slanted reporting to make the troops feel bad. And we’ll give that Information Minister dude a lot of air time.
Rupert Murdoch: Not on my watch. I can set Bill O’Reilly on you.

   Now, I know I have missed out some facts to get it into summary format, and the Commander-in-Chief has been edited for fluency, but consider how long the last post was!

Bit of a history lesson here. On March 18, 2003, 12.35 p.m., from Hansard.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I beg to move,

That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine.

At the outset, I say that it is right that the House debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right, but that others struggle for in vain. Again, I say that I do not disrespect the views in opposition to mine. This is a tough choice indeed, but it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down now and turn back, or to hold firm to the course that we have set. I believe passionately that we must hold firm to that course. The question most often posed is not "Why does it matter?" but "Why does it matter so much?" Here we are, the Government, with their most serious test, their majority at risk, the first Cabinet resignation over an issue of policy, the main parties internally divided,

18 Mar 2003 : Column 761

people who agree on everything else—[Hon. Members: "The main parties?"] Ah, yes, of course. The Liberal Democrats—unified, as ever, in opportunism and error. [Interruption.]
   The country and the Parliament reflect each other. This is a debate that, as time has gone on, has become less bitter but no less grave. So why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people who have been brutalised by Saddam for so long, important though those issues are. It will determine the way in which Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century, the development of the United Nations, the relationship between Europe and the United States, the relations within the European Union and the way in which the United States engages with the rest of the world. So it could hardly be more important. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation.
   First, let us recap the history of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had used the weapons against Iran and against his own people, causing thousands of deaths. He had had plans to use them against allied forces. It became clear, after the Gulf war, that Iraq's WMD ambitions were far more extensive than had hitherto been thought. So the issue was identified by the United Nations at that time as one for urgent remedy. UNSCOM, the weapons inspection team, was set up. It was expected to complete its task, following the declaration, at the end of April 1991. The declaration, when it came, was false: a blanket denial of the programme, other than in a very tentative form. And so the 12-year game began.
   The inspectors probed. Finally, in March 1992, Iraq admitted that it had previously undeclared weapons of mass destruction, but it said that it had destroyed them. It gave another full and final declaration. Again the inspectors probed. In October 1994, Iraq stopped co-operating with the weapons inspectors altogether. Military action was threatened. Inspections resumed. In March 1996, in an effort to rid Iraq of the inspectors, a further full and final declaration of WMD was made. By July 1996, however, Iraq was forced to admit that declaration, too, was false.
   In August, it provided yet another full and final declaration. Then, a week later, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, defected to Jordan. He disclosed a far more extensive biological weapons programme and, for the first time, said that Iraq had weaponised the programme—something that Saddam had always strenuously denied. All this had been happening while the inspectors were in Iraq.
   Kamal also revealed Iraq's crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon in the 1990s. Iraq was then forced to release documents that showed just how extensive those programmes were. In November 1996, Jordan intercepted prohibited components for missiles

18 Mar 2003 : Column 762

that could be used for weapons of mass destruction. Then a further "full and final declaration" was made. That, too, turned out to be false.
   In June 1997, inspectors were barred from specific sites. In September 1997, lo and behold, yet another "full and final declaration" was made—also false. Meanwhile, the inspectors discovered VX nerve agent production equipment, the existence of which had always been denied by the Iraqis.
   In October 1997, the United States and the United Kingdom threatened military action if Iraq refused to comply with the inspectors. Finally, under threat of action in February 1998, Kofi Annan went to Baghdad and negotiated a memorandum with Saddam to allow inspections to continue. They did continue, for a few months. In August, co-operation was suspended.
   In December, the inspectors left. Their final report is a withering indictment of Saddam's lies, deception and obstruction, with large quantities of weapons of mass destruction unaccounted for. Then, in December 1998, the US and the UK undertook Desert Fox, a targeted bombing campaign to degrade as much of the Iraqi WMD facility as we could.
   In 1999, a new inspection team, UNMOVIC, was set up. Saddam refused to allow those inspectors even to enter Iraq. So there they stayed, in limbo, until, after resolution 1441 last November, they were allowed to return.
   That is the history—and what is the claim of Saddam today? Why, exactly the same as before: that he has no weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, we are asked to believe that after seven years of obstruction and non-compliance, finally resulting in the inspectors' leaving in 1998—seven years in which he hid his programme and built it up, even when the inspectors were there in Iraq—when they had left, he voluntarily decided to do what he had consistently refused to do under coercion.
   When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far-reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, and possibly more than 10 times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; and an entire Scud missile programme. We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years—contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence—Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
   Resolution 1441 is very clear. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has for years been in material breach of 17 UN resolutions. It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate, the first step being a full and final declaration of all weapons of mass destruction to be given on 8 December last year.
   I will not go through all the events since then, as the House is familiar with them, but this much is accepted by all members of the UN Security Council: the 8 December declaration is false. That in itself, incidentally, is a material breach. Iraq has taken some steps in co-operation, but no one disputes that it is not

18 Mar 2003 : Column 763

fully co-operating. Iraq continues to deny that it has any weapons of mass destruction, although no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes it.
   On 7 March, the inspectors published a remarkable document. It is 173 pages long, and details all the unanswered questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It lists 29 different areas in which the inspectors have been unable to obtain information. On VX, for example, it says:

"Documentation available to UNMOVIC suggests that Iraq at least had had far reaching plans to weaponise VX".

On mustard gas, it says:

"Mustard constituted an important part . . . of Iraq's CW arsenal . . . 550 mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for . . . additional uncertainty"

with respect to over 6,500 aerial bombs,

"corresponding to approximately 1,000 tonnes of agent, predominantly mustard."

On biological weapons, the inspectors' report states:

"Based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq's potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres . . . Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."

On that basis, I simply say to the House that, had we meant what we said in resolution 1441, the Security Council should have convened and condemned Iraq as in material breach. What is perfectly clear is that Saddam is playing the same old games in the same old way. Yes, there are minor concessions, but there has been no fundamental change of heart or mind.
   However, after 7 March, the inspectors said that there was at least some co-operation, and the world rightly hesitated over war. Let me now describe to the House what then took place.
   We therefore approached a second resolution in this way. As I said, we could have asked for the second resolution then and there, because it was justified. Instead, we laid down an ultimatum calling upon Saddam to come into line with resolution 1441, or be in material breach. That is not an unreasonable proposition, given the history, but still countries hesitated. They asked, "How do we judge what is full co-operation?"
   So we then worked on a further compromise. We consulted the inspectors and drew up five tests, based on the document that they published on 7 March. Those tests included allowing interviews with 30 scientists to be held outside Iraq, and releasing details of the production of the anthrax, or at least of the documentation showing what had happened to it. The inspectors added another test: that Saddam should publicly call on Iraqis to co-operate with them.
   So we constructed this framework: that Saddam should be given a specified time to fulfil all six tests to show full co-operation; and that, if he did so, the inspectors could then set out a forward work programme that would extend over a period of time to make sure that disarmament happened. However, if Saddam failed to meet those tests to judge compliance, action would follow.
   So there were clear benchmarks, plus a clear ultimatum. Again, I defy anyone to describe that as an unreasonable proposition.

18 Mar 2003 : Column 764

   Last Monday, we were getting very close with it. We very nearly had the majority agreement. If I might, I should particularly like to thank the President of Chile for the constructive way in which he approached this issue.
   Yes, there were debates about the length of the ultimatum, but the basic construct was gathering support. Then, on Monday night, France said that it would veto a second resolution, whatever the circumstances. Then France denounced the six tests. Later that day, Iraq rejected them. Still, we continued to negotiate, even at that point.
   Last Friday, France said that it could not accept any resolution with an ultimatum in it. On Monday, we made final efforts to secure agreement. However, the fact is that France remains utterly opposed to anything that lays down an ultimatum authorising action in the event of non-compliance by Saddam.

   I realize not everyone likes to read Hansard, and I certainly didn’t when I was at law school. Perhaps this excerpt from later on might be more useful and it is the crux of the international disagreement. The Prime Minister outlined his position on resolution 1441:

It is correct that resolution 1441 did not say that there would be another resolution authorising the use of force, but the implication of resolution 1441—it was stated in terms—was that if Iraq continued in material breach, defined as not co-operating fully, immediately and unconditionally, serious consequences should follow. All we are asking for in the second resolution is the clear ultimatum that if Saddam continues to fail to co-operate, force should be used. The French position is that France will vote no, whatever the circumstances. Those are not my words, but those of the French President. I find it sad that at this point in time he cannot support us in the position we have set out, which is the only sure way to disarm Saddam. And what, indeed, would any tyrannical regime possessing weapons of mass destruction think when viewing the history of the world's diplomatic dance with Saddam over these 12 years? That our capacity to pass firm resolutions has only been matched by our feebleness in implementing them. That is why this indulgence has to stop—because it is dangerous: dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us; dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, and even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace against us; and dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity, when, in fact, if pushed to the limit, we will act. But when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. It is true that Iraq is not the only country with weapons of mass destruction, but I say this to the House: back away from this confrontation now, and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating in their effects.

   I do believe Mr Blair was right in his last sentence, because Saddam Hussein would have armed Iraq more and more. 
   We know history has shown us that there gaffes along the way with a loss of many lives, Coalition and Iraqi, but from the point of view of international law, the above outlines pretty well why the war began: a breach of resolution 1441. This was also why Congress voted yes to attacking Iraq, not the reasons now given by certain politicians.
   As I wrote in an earlier post on the subject, countries have taken two positions on the resolution: the US–UK one, which says 1441 must be enforced if the UN Security Council is to save any face; and the French one, which required a second resolution authorizing force (but which it said it would veto). Countries like New Zealand took the latter position.
   I make no judgement on which is right and which is wrong here.
   Certain American presidential candidates need to level with the American people on why they are changing their minds about the Iraq war. The reasons I have heard from the likes of Sen. Clinton are so far fabrications at worst, and the result of a poor memory at best.
   Sen. Clinton voted to enforce a UN Security Council resolution, just as her husband did in Kosovo, without a second resolution.
   She needs to tell the American people why her position on enforcing international law has now changed and I see nothing wrong if she merely fronted up with her rationale.
   As I said in the comments to that earlier post, I do not mind the anti-war brigade or the anti-war rhetoric of the US Democratic Party as long as their arguments are founded in truth. There are strong arguments against going into Iraq backed by many nations, but it is very odd that they are not used; instead, Bush- and troop-bashing seem to be the norm. That makes me question their motives and it makes me rather sad for those who believe their arguments: what they do is divide a country and hurt us all.

I was trying to find a version of ‘Life on Mars’ that I had heard on Groove FM here in Wellington, but stumbled across Rick Wakeman doing one on piano instead. (Wakeman played it on the Bowie album.) Very amazing.

[Cross-posted] This has been official for a while (or so I think—not that I ever heard what the Electoral Commission thought, but I did see it on its website). However, I wanted the party to approve the news first before sharing it with you all. The following is the overseas release which was rewritten from the one sent to domestic newsmedia. One that includes a mention of the Bush–Cheney campaign of 2004 was sent to US media.

JY&A Consulting revamps logo for New Zealand’s Alliance Party

Wellington, May 9 (JY&A Media) New Zealand political party, the Alliance, is looking more modern and relevant, thanks to its new logo by JY&A Consulting (http://jya.net/consulting).
   Devised by JY&A Consulting’s Jack Yan, the new logo signifies a new beginning for the democratic socialist political party.
   Mr Yan says that he has been a keen observer of general elections in the UK, US and New Zealand since the 1980s and that played a part in his team’s design.
   He says the Conservatives in 1983, Labour in the UK in 1997 and 2002 and Labour in New Zealand in 1999 and 2003 had certain commonalties in their campaigns, centring around typography.
   He also said that in those years, the party’s name was important, not the symbol—hence the traditional Labour rose was not present on that party’s election materials in 1997 and 2002.
   By abandoning the old A symbol of the Alliance and concentrating on the word, Mr Yan says that the party looks more professional and ready.
   The Alliance has contested every General Election in New Zealand since 1993. However, due to party changes it is trying to rebuild itself for the country’s General Election later this year.
   ‘We have two major parties in New Zealand that vote pretty much the same on all issues,’ says Mr Yan, ‘and minor parties that get ignored because of a lack of visibility. I wanted to change that. Why should minor parties be laboured with second-rate brands?’
   The logo is based around the Frutiger typeface and its lettering is predominantly in red, with a red dot over the i in Alliance to signify its environmental awareness.
   He says the letter i also shows the humanizing aspect of the party.
   ‘As a piece of design I think it looks more cohesive than the committee-led logos of National and Labour,’ he says, criticizing the major two parties in New Zealand.
   ‘I was given a lot of freedom, which is a good sign of how the party leadership handles matters. It clearly believes in trusting the right people.’
   As well as heading JY&A Consulting’s parent, Jack Yan & Associates, Mr Yan co-wrote Beyond Branding in 2003 and is a director of the Medinge Group, a branding think-tank based in Sweden.
   In October 2007 he was a keynote speaker for the Alliance Party at its annual conference.

What fictional character do you relate to most and why?

Let’s see: what Chinese fictional character had to operate in the west, deal to the establishment, drive a rare two-door car, impersonate others, and have his adventures chronicled?
   Simon Templar.
   Pity he was always played by Caucasians on the screen, but I always thought he was Chinese, since his creator was. A new pilot is being made now, which, inter alia, Sir Roger Moore and his son Geoffrey are producing.

   TV trivia buffs might notice John Steed’s Rover SD1 from The New Avengers in the last car chase, reused here. It was also George Cowley’s Rover SD1 in the first season of The Professionals. Stingey British Leyland!

From the Murdoch Press, not a good start for London mayor-elect Boris Johnson:

Boris Johnson got off on the wrong foot with staff at the Conservative Party’s headquarters after barring them from his victory party. …
   Only MPs, donors and a tiny number of political strategists were said to have been allowed to attend. One source said: “It is a kick in the teeth for all the workers. The party chiefs deserve a good hiding for it.”

   But it certainly was a good day for the Tories in the local elections. Daniel Finkelstein, in the same newspaper, wrote:

Gordon Brown is hardly the first to experience a bad night of results. Most leaders have had one of those. And there is a standard procedure. You pass round to your people in the studios a list of your triumphs and the failures of the other party. Every time the presenter mentions your terrible results in, say, Wales, you can say “but David Cameron has failed to break through in the North/cities/rural areas (delete as applicable) and only did a little bit better than Iain Duncan Smith in 2002.” …
   But as for reading out their own triumphs and the failures of others, this was made difficult by the fact that, er, there weren’t any. That much became clear at about 2am when it emerged that Cameron’s Tories had taken Bury.

   Labour is blaming its leader, says Mary Ann Sieghart, though I do not agree with her headline:

They may not always have liked what Tony Blair did, but at least they knew why he was doing it. Nobody ever complained of his weak leadership. With Mr Brown, they don’t understand why he does what he does—why abolish the 10p tax band if it was intended to help the poor?—and he is notably bad at either listening to their concerns or using charm and persuasiveness to win them and the voters over. Instead, he barks at his critics, denies the facts and even makes up some of his own. Yesterday, on the Today programme, he claimed to have taken a million children out of poverty, when the actual figure is 600,000. Inflation is hitting not only food and oil these days.

   No prizes for predicting the next General Election outcome.