It’s bloody well started. I arrived home an hour ago and Mrs Longrider had to move the car so that I could get the bike down the drive. Barely had I managed to get through the door and Mrs Longrider was still shunting the Clio, than a crowd of kids dressed in the customary regalia for the season accompanied by one of their mothers rang the doorbell demanding “trick or treat”.

Trick or treat, my arse. If an adult walked into someone’s property and started some preamble about how nice it was and how unfortunate it would be if “something happened to it”, PC Plod would be feeling their shoulder pretty pronto. Trick or treat is extortion dressed up as a children’s game. It is as unethical as the protection racket and I refuse to countenance it.

Add to my utter abhorrence of the principle, disturbing me when I still have one foot in my leggings, the phone is ringing and I’ve barely got through the door is hardly conducive to a favourable response. Mother’s snotty remarks inferring that Mrs Longrider and I are of the grumpy old men ilk, may be accurate, but is pretty rich from someone who has walked uninvited onto our property and whose children have just engaged in making demands with menaces.

No, I don’t like trick or treat and it is an American import that we could well do without.

Er… Surprisingly accurate… Well, the bit about tranquility, of course. :devil:

I recall clearly that day in 1977 when I first heard “Bat out out Hell”. I was captivated. The loud, racy beat combined with clever lyrics; the epitome of Jim Steinman’s writing style swept me along with their frenetic rhythm. A few years later I waited with anticipation for the follow-up; Dead Ringer and I wasn’t disappointed. Thereafter, Meatloaf and Steinman followed different paths. Meatloaf’s throat problems meant that “Bad for Good” probably likely to have become “Bat out of Hell II” became a Steinman solo project. When “Bat II” finally came, it featured songs from this album and another that Steinman worked on with Pandora’s Box; “Original Sin” – and my, wasn’t that an excellent work… Meatloaf may do justice to Steinman’s exotic lyrics, but the female line up of Ellen Foley, Elaine Caswell, Gina Taylor and Deline Wilde was sublime. Although “Bat II” had new work from Steinman, the covers, while of high quality, were tainted for me by having heard better renditions.

So it is with “Bat out of Hell III”. This, the latest offering from Meatloaf has the same loud, frenetic, over-the-top operatic style as his previous work. It also has four new Steinman tracks. The other Steinman songs have, again, been drawn from “Original Sin” and “Bad for Good” and, frankly, I still prefer the originals even though I like the new Meatloaf renditions. Even the addition of Brian May’s guitar work on “Bad for Good” doesn’t quite make up for the raw original from 1981.

If this sounds like I’m damning with faint praise, perhaps I am. Even so, I love this album. I’m more than happy to have shelled out for the CD. It’s just that the zest isn’t quite there as it once was and that’s probably as much to do with me as it is the music. The anticipation that once preluded a Steinman/Meatloaf collaboration has gone and that’s a shame. Steinman has probably written his best. It says something that even so, he produces a quality that far surpasses much of what is currently touted as music on the high street these days; artificial pap produced for a television market all prepackaged, tasteless, talentless and pointless. Or, worse, much, much worse, the god-awful mindless stacatto chanting rap that is passed off as music. Steinman and Meatloaf may not be quite at the top of their game these days, but they are in a class apart from that dross.

Not all of the tracks on this album come from Steinman’s pen. Desmond Child makes a passable attempt to echo the style. It’s good, but I would stop short of saying great. There is also a contribution from Diane Warren with a power ballad “Cry Over Me”. The swing from powerful rock opera to gentle ballad is present as well as the Steinman word play that is so typical of his writing. Oh, yes, and did I mention that Brian May guitar on “Bad for Good”? It’s growing on me.

If you like Meatlof, then you will, likely as not, like this album. You will, likely as not, be just a little wistful for something that isn’t quite there anymore. It means we are growing older, I’m afraid.

When I was younger I was a keen modeller. Mostly it was railways, then as space became a commodity in short supply, I turned to military models. Then I drifted away to other things. The Napoleonic era still fascinates me and I felt a hankering to rekindle my interest in military models. I forked out for the work in progress pictured; a French Grenadier of the Imperial Guard 1812.

That’s when it struck me; I ain’t as young as I used to was…

Seeing me struggle to focus, Mrs Longrider handed me a pair of her reading specs. Monsieur popped dramatically into focus and I could see the detail just as I could twenty-odd years ago. “Great, thanks,” I said.

Oh, dear… I’ve got to that age…

Between me hearing about this story this morning on the radio and getting to a computer this evening, I see that Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali has apologised for his “offensive” sermon (hat tip Devils Kitchen).

Australia’s senior Muslim cleric Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali has apologised for any offence caused by his comments that immodestly dressed women provoke sexual attacks.

Sheik Alhilali drew widespread condemnation for likening scantily clad women to uncovered meat eaten by animals in a sermon to 500 people last month, The Australian reported today.

“I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments,” he said in a statement today.

“I had only intended to protect women’s honour, something lost in The Australian presentation of my talk.”

That’s a shame…

I’m a great believer in the freedom of speech. Therefore, I’m more than happy for the Sheik to spout off. Certainly, I believe that the Australians should give him every opportunity to speak, nay, provide him with a platform indeed. Let him call his message from the minarets of the mosque. We all want to hear what he has to say, so speak up, speak out, don’t hold back old bean.

Those of us who speak out about the ideology of Islam in negative tones, are accused by the multiculturalists of “Islamophobia”, even though there is nothing irrational about what we say. I frequently point out that this repugnant ideology is misogynistic, but the good sheik has proved me wrong, it is misanthropic. After all, women are mere meat (didn’t we know this already?), and men are nothing more than bestial savages unable to control our primal urges. Yup, it’s insulting and offensive to all of us. Bring it on, I say. Y’see, Sheik Hilaly makes the case against the repugnant, medieval ideology that underpins the cult of Islam far more eloquently than I ever can – and, perhaps, just perhaps, the dhimmi apologists might for once take notice. One can but hope.

I first heard this story mentioned on the radio this morning. Naturally, it has been gathering pace during the day and was featured on Jeremy Vine’s midday radio show.

The cost of residents’ parking permits could be linked to car emissions under plans being considered in one of the country’s most affluent areas.

A Lib Dem council in London wants owners of gas-guzzling vehicles to pay more to park outside their homes.

Richmond upon Thames residents with two high-emission cars could pay £750 a year, compared with £200 now, but the greenest cars would be exempt.

My immediate reaction was apoplexy. It hasn’t changed much since; having as I have since, listened to the self-righteous preaching by the self-appointed guardians of the planet; the LibDem councillors who came up with this vile scheme.

I don’t drive a large car. I don’t own a car. I don’t much like the large gas guzzlers being discussed. However, it is not my place to tell others what they should or should not buy. While I can understand charging extra for a second vehicle as this will be using a second parking space, charging people for their car’s emissions when it is standing still – and, therefore, not emitting anything, is nothing more than a punitive tax designed to punish those who make purchasing decisions of which the council disapproves. The council approves of electric cars…

The council hopes other authorities will be encouraged to follow its lead.

I’m sure they do. Having listened to both the leader of the council; Serge Lourie and Sir David Trigg, the Council cabinet member for traffic, transport and parking pontificate about how they have an obligation to “encourage” residents to change their lifestyle choices, I am in no doubt whatsoever that they want others to follow in their tawdry footsteps.

Listen you jumped up fascist fuckwits, you have no obligation to do anything of the sort. You were elected to serve the residents of Richmond, not to socially engineer them into thinking as you do. You do not “encourage” by using financial penalties for forbidden thinking and behaviour – that is blackmail, not encouragement. Get a dictionary, look the words up. It isn’t difficult, you pair of obnoxious, bullying little shits. It is not, absolutely not, your prerogative to use force to dictate people’s buying choices.

Social engineering… where have I heard that comment before? It just goes to show that LibDems once given the reins of power can be as authoritarian as the truly appalling ZANU Labour.

Once more we have the lemon sucking, purse lipped, puritans of envy and spite trying to force others through extortion and blackmail to bend to their will, to give up their free choice to abide by what local councillors deem to be the “correct” lifestyle choices; the smug, arrogant self-righteousness dripping from every vowel expelled from their sanctimonious lips. One thing is sure; if anyone tries to tell me what vehicle I should buy, my response would make nitric acid appear like mild green Fairy Liquid in comparison. How dare these jumped up poltroons presume the right to dictate their will to those whom they serve.

Red Ken was mentioned on the radio as approving the scheme. Well, the Stumbanfurer would, wouldn’t he? After all, he is going to wack London drivers of verboten vehicles with a triple congestion charge come 2010. Nasty little fascist dictators always band together. Anyway, fuckwit-in-chief Serge Lourie explains:

“Climate change is the single greatest challenge facing the world today,” said council leader Serge Lourie.

Really? And the proof for this is? Once more the smug arrogance of the global warming fascists is apparent as they assume that they are right, so that justifies any and all behaviour – after all, it’s global warming, innit? This, despite the science they claim is so robust being at best, flaky. Yes, the planet is warming. This is something it has done before. It has also cooled. It is a natural phenomenon. The question – and it’s one that has not been satisfactorily proven despite the hyperbole – is just how much we are affecting it. Recycled horseshit is still horseshit and I can smell it all the way from Richmond. But, never mind facts, never mind evidence, the mantra is enough, and people must be socially engineered to think as the inquisition does or burn as a penitent heretic.  How vile, how pestilent, how abominable and execrable are these new inquisitors.

Jeremy Vine’s show included interviews with some Richmond residents. One was annoyed that he would be penalised. When asked if this would make him give up his powerful car, he said that he would simply pay the extra. Wrong answer. Another said that it might affect her buying decision in future. Wrong answer.

The right answer is for the residents of Richmond to band together and remind these odious little creeps just who is the boss in this relationship. A mass refusal to pay would be a good step in the right direction. Another would be a mass demonstration outside the council house culminating in the ritual placing of councillors’ heads on spikes, but that would be allowing my imagination to run away with me. It makes a nice image though; brings a glow to the cockles of my heart.

Update: Not everyone is impressed by my eloquent rant. But, then, I didn’t expect the humourless green cycling lobby to react in any other way… Still, well done for both spectacularly missing the point and making a complete tit of yourself in the process. From here on in, the only way is up.

I notice since my comments regarding moderation on Rocky Hillside Blog, that this was an error caused by spam filters. An apology has been graciously made – I graciously accept and withdraw my previous comment..

Today, this blog turns to years old. When I started, I wanted to write about those things that were making me angry; Identity cards, David Blunkett and his authoritarian agenda, Blair and his terminal lying… Some of the names have changed, the issues haven’t.

Two years on, I’m still finding things to write about and seem to manage to find something most days. My stats make interesting reading:

733 posts and 1,339 comments

Compared with last year’s:

353 entries and 431 comments

In that time, I felt I’d outgrown the Blog-City host and set up my own domain using Wordpress to give me maximum creative flexibility and control. Incidentally, those of you with outdated links to the Blog-City address, this will disappear now that the subscription has expired.

Oh, yes, and I have my own troll. So I really have arrived… :devil:

I see from today’s Observer that the safety lobby is calling for a raise in the age limit for obtaining a driving licence.

Another teenage road death provoked fresh demands yesterday for the driving age limit to be raised and tougher penalties for dangerous motorists.

In the latest tragedy, a 16-year-old girl was killed when a car mounted a pavement and struck a group of youngsters standing outside a shop in Norwich. Police were last night questioning a 17-year-old on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving over the incident early yesterday.

Okay, fair point; younger drivers are less experienced and therefore more vulnerable when it comes to effective hazard perception than their older and more experienced counterparts. Consequently they are more likely to approach hazards at an inappropriate speed, fail to observe effectively and fail to respond accordingly. That’s why experience is so important. However…

Her death came hours after 19-month-old Billy Donnelly was killed when a stolen car mounted a pavement in south London and crushed his pram.

Tragic though this story is, it is a strawman, because:

Three teenagers were seen running from the scene. Last night, a 14-year-old boy arrested near the scene was released on bail until December while another boy, also 14, remained in police custody.

It is already illegal to drive a car on the public highway aged 14. Therefore, this is nothing more than emotive and misleading reporting. These boys were breaking a law that is already in place (as well as the theft of a motor vehicle), so has nothing to do with any discussion regarding an appropriate age at which an individual should be entitled to obtain a driving licence. The issue here, is one of enforcing the current law rather than imposing a new one. If the authorities cannot enforce current legislation, what faith can we have that new legislation will make any difference? The Observer is conflating two very separate issues.

Still, that apart, what justification is there that an extra year waiting for a licence will make anyway?

Campaigners called on the government to raise the driving licence age from 17 to 18, with a one-year minimum training period and pointed to the disproportionate number of young male drivers involved in road deaths. Men aged 17 to 20 account for three per cent of drivers but make up a third of convictions for dangerous driving while studies suggest that young men are almost 10 times more likely to be killed than experienced motorists.

Following that logic, the age limit should be 20…

Studies suggest that raising the driving age could cut annual road deaths by as many as 1,000.

Or perhaps they will simply delay them for a year. Statistics are all very well, but they do not tell the whole story. A new driver of whatever age is vulnerable because they lack the experience that enables them to instinctively recognise and respond efficiently to developing hazards. Despite the DSA’s attempts to do this, it is not a skill that is easily taught. This is because hazards come in all shapes and sizes. What in one circumstance is benign, in another may be deadly. A good driver will recognise the difference and deal with it without giving it too much thought. The newly qualified driver lacking that experience is more likely to miss the warning signs. Some of this skill can be imparted during practice while preparing for the test. However, even a good candidate at the time of taking and passing a driving test still lacks that valuable experience, so will be prone to error during the first few years of driving. That this is exacerbated in young men is a complication doubtless caused by the heady mix of wheels and testosterone.

The DSA has a PassPlus scheme designed to provide some post test coaching. This is a sound approach. According to the DSA, taking this will help new drivers not only by helping them develop their skills but will also lead to insurance discounts. Experience suggests that the communication links between the DSA and the insurers is somewhat patchy. These are the self same insurers who want new drivers to have that year’s worth of training.

Learner drivers should take lessons for a minimum of 12 months according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI).

The plans are backed by motoring and safety groups, such as the RAC Foundation, which said they would lead to 1,000 fewer road casualties a year.

The proposals are intended to reduce the high numbers of young drivers killed or injured on Britain’s roads.

As I said at the time of this story, where to start?

Where to start? Once again, a pressure group has opted for a “one size fits all” solution. One of my concerns here is the general nature of the statement made by the ABI. How many lessons in a year? How many hours would that be? One hour a week? Two hours a week? What about people who have intensive training over a couple of weeks?

What a new driver needs is sufficient training – and that amount will vary from individual to individual. Also, importantly, the driver’s attitude to the road, other road users and good driving is crucial.

And, to be just a little controversial, we could all do with a regular reassessment of our driving. I’m not suggesting here a repeat of the “L” test, rather an advanced observed drive. Assessment is a two-way process, allowing both the candidate and the assessor to input into the process. The DSA has changed its approach over the past couple of decades – a reassessment would be a chance to educate; something the DSA says that it would like to do. I don’t have a problem with having my driving assessed on a regular basis. I wish I could say the same about others. However, my libertarian soul balks at any form of compulsion.