Spot the Earth

Saturday’s event where the moon changed its colour before our eyes, a rare glimpse of the phenomenon known to scientists as the were-moon, was, like any reminder of the massive size of everything in the universe except us, deeply unsettling. With that in mind, I invite you, via Answers.com, to Spot the Earth.

(NB - Illustration is for comparison purposes only. Objects looming next to Earth may appear closer than they actually are.)

Injunction

I really can’t get upset about the injunction against the BBC last Friday night. Its journalists had found (or been leaked) something apparently damning in connection with the cash-for-honours inquiry. Good—that’s their job; they’re supposed to dig. However, if it’s as damning as all that, it could well end up forming part of the prosecution’s case, a point made by the police when they explained why they had asked for the injunction. The fact that it was the government’s own Attorney-General they then had to ask to go to court to apply for it was amusing, but doesn’t reflect some dark scheme to bury the story. If it’s pertinent to the case against, the No. 10 email in question will come out during the trial; if it isn’t, or if there is no trial, there’s no reason for the email to stay hidden, as its disclosure would no longer impede the police’s enquiries.

You’re not supposed to pre-empt a court case, but that always rankles with the press, which for some reason considers itself a more legitimate court than any institution actually bearing the name. The Sun, the Mirror and the News of the World are the titles usually guilty of successfully spiking trials by revealing information beforehand, but this time it’s mainly the Mail (on Sunday, at least) and the Telegraph that are straining to publish what the BBC wasn’t allowed to share with us. This is no quest for truth and freedom, piercing the black veil of conspiracy with the pointy stick of righteousness; it’s merely another chapter in the history of a hubristic and fairly ADD media that values its own self-image over any consequences of its actions, and then always backs away at the critical moment, claiming simply to be an observer, not a participant. Ultimately the press is no more our friend than the banks are.

So, I’m not bothered about the injunction. Please, someone, tell me if I’m missing a broader point of principle here.


EDIT: In the end it was the Guardian that went ahead and published. Scotland Yard still maintains that this could potentially harm any prosecution arising from their current investigation.

H & S

A big shout out to our occupational health and safety department for trying to enliven its one-page health and safety newsletter by using this picture to accompany a short article on the danger of working at heights:

Not dead

A woman who pretended to be dead to avoid a speeding conviction has been given a suspended jail sentence. Glenda Askew, 47, of Clase in Swansea, pretended to be her daughter and wrote to the court saying her mother had died in a car crash.

The court heard Askew did not have a full driving licence and “panicked” when being caught by a speed camera. In March 2006, she was clocked driving at 41mph in the 30mph restricted Clasemont Road in Morriston in the city.

Prosecuting Bryn Hurford said: “When a court summons arrived she filled it in in the name of her daughter Tracey Roberts, stating that her mother would not be able to attend as she had died in a car crash.” Mr Hurford said suspicions were raised and police called at her house.

Judge Michael Burr said usually an immediate custodial sentence was warranted but he said he saw “little purpose” in jailing her. [BBC]

“Usually”?