Who killed JFK?

Hardly surprisingly the 50^th anniversary of the Kennedy slaying has been manna for  the conspiracy theorists. For 25 years between1975 and 2000 no less than 80% of Americans did not believe that there was a lone killer. Even now, 60% are of the same view.

 

He is being lauded as the greatest President of modern times, but the plain truth is that these days he would have had no chance of even getting the nomination because his personal life would not have stood the intense scrutiny meted out by the media.

 

He was a perfect example of satyriasis. He was permanently priapic. He was catholic in his tastes with women; film stars like Marilyn, showgirls, Swedish air-hostesses. They were all good for a session of horizontal jogging with POTUS. It makes one wonder whether his back-trouble was entirely due to a war-time injury.

 

All this was no secret, but the media was much more deferential in those days.

 

Then there was Joe Kennedy’s connections with the Mob, which allegedly played a key-role in stitching-up Nixon.

 

But a conspiracy?

 

Lee Harvey Oswald certainly pulled the trigger, although there is a daft theory that he missed and JFK was accidently shot by his bodyguard attempting to return fire.

 

Oswald was a misfit. He was taught to shoot straight in the Marines, but at the end of his service he took himself off, in the middle of the Cold War, to Russia. Not a good career move. He got low-grade manual factory work, and acquired a Russian wife. When he returned to the US, it is reasonable to assume that he was on the radar of both the FBI and the CIA. He was shot dead, despite being surrounded by armed cops, before he could be properly interrogated. His killer, Jack Ruby, was a Chicago low-life who was suffering from terminal cancer.

 

If there was a conspiracy, who were the prime suspects?

 

The Mob must be high on the list. Allegedly, Joe had been mixed up with them for years. It is claimed that they turned on the Kennedys when Robert Kennedy began to turn up the heat on organised crime.

 

Allan Dulles, the head of the CIA, is said to have had extreme animus against JFK, who had fired him – unsurprisingly because Dulles, who had a taste for the coup d’état as a way of projecting American power, was the architect of the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Many eyebrows were raised when he was appointed to the Warren Commission

 

Finally, we come to LBJ.

 

Apparently, the two men loathed each other. JFK totally side-lined LBJ as VP, giving him an office and nothing to do. If JFK had been re-elected LBJ’s political career would have been over. The Kennedy circle treated LBJ with contempt as a Texan hick with no manners and crude behaviour. And JFK took the credit for civil rights reforms when the real architect was LBJ.

 

So, conspiracy or cock-up?

 

Many writers have made big money out of propagating the conspiracy theory, and there is no sign of it going away.

 

But for now it’s just that – a theory.

O's woes: what next for Iran?

 

My take on the prospect of Obama leading an agreement with Iran on nuclear materials production is largely self inflicted. I am not au fait with what the experts think.

 

First of all, I believe that O desperately wants some sort of conclusive entente with Iran, at least over the atomic energy/weaponry issue. I am not sure why he feels so compulsive on this issue, but some speculations are:

 

1.       Sideline Israel from their hitherto domination over US Middle East policy.

This would give Obama and the US considerably more credibility and support among non-Sunni Muslims on the one hand, but would seriously undermine Israel's bargaining position with the Palestinians on the other. It would, and indeed already has, seriously pissed off those Israelis of the right wing Netanyahu persuasion.

 

2.       Advance US/Muslim relations in general. O has long demonstrated a soft spot for Muslims.

He had earlier hopes of establishing a meaningful dialogue with anti-American countries in that area including Iran. This desire put O square in the middle of religious/political rivalries often manifest in civil war, proxy wars and near open warfare between ME countries. By focusing on Iran and presumably making concessions with respect to how far it can go in upgrading uranium, he has alienated those countries and terror groups aliened against Iran on largely religious but also political grounds. Saudi Arabia and al Qaida are obvious examples as both are stalwart proponents of Sunni Islam.

 

O and his close advisors have always demonstrated a pathetic lack of knowledge and understanding of the rift between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. While this rift is not easily mastered by anyone, an even basic understanding of it  contributes greatly to the predictive capacities of Middle East experts vis-a-vis the behavior of Arab and non-Arab Muslim leaders.

 

3.       Establish formal relations between the USA and Iran as part of O's legacy.

To date, O has been a do-nothing president with very little to point to by way of a presidential legacy. The jewel in his crown was meant to be Obamacare, but that has largely tanked and is so riddled with problems it is likely never to work properly without major, bipartisan, surgery. Hence, O is looking elsewhere to amplify his chapter in American history.

 

4.       Take some of the pressure off Obama generated by critics of his failing Affordable Health Care plan.

This is an old trick and of only temporary value, but it has proven useful as a means of diverting and diluting negative opinion against a leader. It would appear as if O is doing everything in his power to resuscitate his dwindling reputation. Just now, he needs some breathing room. So far, this effort has lead to ham fisted, bull in a China shop diplomacy on the part of John Kerry who must be jumping through hoops of fire to toe the Obama line. One wonders how O can muster and maintain so much influence over Kerry. He certainly did not do so with Hillary Clinton.

Clegg: 'Soak the rich........'

‘Conviction’ is not a word that readily springs to mind when reflecting on the Lib-Dems. Clegg suits the party very well, being a relative stranger to principle, and just like his party, an opportunist and a populist.

 

Now he is becoming something of a menace.

 

It is very unlikely that his current blag on raising an additional £1 billion in tax from the ’wealthy’ (undefined) has the remotest chance of being taken seriously by the present Government, but his views chime well with Miliband’s, and come 2015 we may see the advent of Lab-Lib levellers. Convincing Clegg that he is utterly, totally and dangerously wrong is nigh impossible, but a few facts on who pays what and how much might not come amiss.

 

Income tax is the single largest source of Government revenues. Company taxes only account for about 7%. There is much political posturing about off-shore tax havens, but if all the loopholes in Nevada, Delaware, and elsewhere were closed the impact would be small. Inheritance tax and fuel duty could be abolished altogether by raising VAT by just 1%.

 

People earning more than about £160,000 a year – the top 1% -  pay nearly30% of all income tax. The top 0.1%, 29,000 people, pay no less than 14%. About 60% of all income tax comes from just 10% of taxpayers.

 

The richest are also amongst the smallest consumers of public services. They have little need for state schooling, the NHS, public transport and other tax-funded benefits.

 

The sad truth is that the English view wealth with envy and anger. Banker-bashing is the current blood-sport, forgetting that financial services is the single largest income tax payer, accounting for more than 16% of the total. ‘Fat cats’ – anybody better off than you – are the contemporary enemies of the proletariat.

 

Darling’s parting shot was to increase the maximum rate of income tax to 50%. The result was that the actual tax-take fell. People affected looked for ways around it, partly by simply quitting the UK tax jurisdiction. Politicians should have the Laffer curve tattooed on their bellies so that they can study it every time they take a bath. They might then understand that tax increases only lead to increased tax-take up to a certain point. After that, it declines because people find a way to avoid it.

 

Before Thatcher, the top rate of tax maxed out at nearly 98% - that’s right, 98% Not so much tax as confiscation. The result? The wealthy took themselves off elsewhere so their contribution to the revenues was a mere shadow of what it is today. Off-shore tax havens burgeoned. Armies of lawyers and accountants waxed fat on ‘tax-efficient vehicles’ i.e. perfectly legal fiddles that are still with us, and possibly always will be simply because the practitioners are smarter than HMRC.

 

Today, capital flight is easy. Money can be shifted from one jurisdiction to another on the press of a computer key.

 

Colbert,  a French Finance Minister, memorably said ‘The art of taxation is so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the smallest amount of hissing’.

 

 

Clegg is looking for a whole duvet and may kill the golden goose whilst he is about it.

Immigration.........who wants it?

An opinion poll asking ‘Is immigration a good or  bad thing’ would almost certainly get a massive ‘bad’ vote, especially if conducted for the Daily Mail. This is simple knee-jerk stuff. Reality, as ever, is rather more complicated. Some immigration is important – indeed, vital – to the future progress of Britain, Some is not only harmful but can be positively dangerous.

 

It is a topic that successfully eludes intelligent debate. Since Enoch’s chillingly prophetic speech all these years ago ‘immigration’ has been taboo, at least amongst the chattering classes. Brown and Blair were able to open the floodgates with scarcely a peep from the Tories. But popular opinion is over-riding the hang-ups of the metropolitan elites, and it is now one of the three top political issues. UKIP in particular makes sure that it is high on the agenda for future elections.

 

Instead of faffing-about, like the Tory female last week who accused Nigel Farage of spreading alarm and despondency just by mentioning the ’I’ word, a smattering of cogent policy might concentrate minds rather more than has been so in the past.

 

The core fact is that those who are here are (mostly) going to stay. There is nothing to do about it, so take it out of the equation.

 

The next important realisation is that some immigration is good and some is bad.

 

The ‘good’ include hard-working Eastern Europeans  who, contrary to tabloid opinion, do not depress wages and steal jobs rightly belonging to the British. The evidence to support such a view simply does not exist. The reason that these people fill British jobs is not because employers recruit them in preference to natives, but because they can’t find enough educated and skilled workers at home

 

They are also very fecund. Those who feel that we need more white Christians and fewer brown Moslems need look no further than the Poles, who are enthusiastic breeders.

 

The ‘good’ include university students and pupils at our public schools, a major financial resource for our struggling  education system. Current immigration policy is to make things tough for them.

 

And the ‘good’ definitely include the uber-rich who are pouring vast amounts of investment into UK, especially London. They are the people who will buy a penthouse at the top of one of the skyscrapers being built (with foreign money) all over central London, and think little of paying £50 million for a pied-a-terre for their shopping trips from Mumbai, Shanghai, Dubai and Moscow. The tax-take alone is impressive. It is estimated that Chelsea and Kensington collected more than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together.

 

Finally, we should not overlook the myriads of scientists, academics, professionals of every stripe, and entrepreneurs who have enriched Britain over many years. The UK also seems to have a particular attraction for film stars, actors, directors and others who find a certain satisfaction in our eccentric life-style, like Sam and Zoe Wanamaker who gave us The Globe Theatre, and Sir John Getty, the only American ever to have understood cricket, and who gave £140 million to artistic causes!

 

The undesirables?

 

Top of the list must be Eastern European gypsies, or ‘Roma, as PC now dictates that we call them. Political figures as diverse as Farage and Blunkett have warned that the extremely anti-social conduct by Roma could easily lead to unrest and violence. This deserves attention; Roma crime is typically street crime, pick-pocketing, begging, ATM fraud, all of which are liable to bring the victim into confrontation with the assailant, sometimes with inevitable results.

 

This may be where Enoch’s warning will come back to haunt us – ‘I dreamt I saw the River Tiber foaming with much blood’.

 

Then there’s the great unwashed and uneducated from Africa and Asia – and elsewhere. There are the phony asylum-seekers and benefits-bludgers, Somalis, Yemenis and other security risks who have no Commonwealth or any other connection with Britain.

 

And perhaps most of all, we don’t want any more Kashmiri peasants who have created a massive ghetto in Bradford. More than 40% were born in Pakistan, so integration never gets traction. These are Mirpuris who continue with their own customs and social structure no matter how long they live in England. The main force is the biraderis, their  clan-system. They cling to the old ways. They persist with first-cousin marriage, leading to a high incidence of birth defects. They arrange marriage partners, run the mosques, and control local politics.

 

A sensible immigration policy requires us to be choosy!

Rich MPs? Bring 'em on!

 

The Yanks and Limeys like to imagine that they are joined at hip and thigh by language, culture and values.

 

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

 

There is one area where we are diametrically opposite.

 

In America, if you work hard, make a success of your career, and accumulate loadsamoney, you are admired.

 

Every sensible kid wants to be like you. If you drive around in a Rolls, they will say ‘Wow’ and want one for themselves.

 

It’s the essence of the American Dream, even if you wake up in Obama’s  quasi-socialist, over-regulated, union-pandering, high tax Shangri-la.

 

Not so in the UK.

 

Success breeds envy and jealousy. If you come from a humble background and make a fortune, it’s assumed that you are on the fiddle. In the days when we  still had a ‘working class’, they would sniff ‘Who does he think he is?’; ‘Too big for his boots!’; ‘Fancies himself’, and the ultimate condemnation ‘Class traitor’.

 

If you drove around in a Rolls, some yob would scratch the  paintwork.

 

This was brought home to me this week by a media rant (which admittedly got little traction) that one of our Ministers had sold the business which he founded before entering politics, for a sum not unadjacent to £17,000,000, as if being rich and in politics is wrong. ‘What can they know about the lives of ordinary people?’ ‘Fat cats who don’t understand us or care’ are the constant refrains.

 

I wonder who are these ‘ordinary’ people for whom the Left claims to speak on behalf.

 

I for one welcome the wealthy into politics, for very sound reasons.

 

They have independence. They don’t rely on their MPs salary. They have more experience of life than the artificial world of politics. They will be disinclined to fiddle their expenses. They will not spend time soliciting freebies. They will not be in the pockets of special interest groups like the Police Federation, they will not be Trade Union puppets.

 

Most importantly, a wealthy MP can be one of that almost-extinct species, the conviction politician. They are not members of the ‘payroll’ vote. and don’t have to grovel to the Whips.

 

The more the better!

Flying for dummies..

A widow of our acquaintance is about to go on an exciting long-haul trip somewhere east of Suez. She is slightly baffled by the intricacies of modern-day air-travel (aren’t we all!), because her late husband used to make all travel arrangement, so I have called down on 54 years of international travel to give her a few tips. For what they are worth, here they are;

 

First up, check your passport expiry date. If that seems like a statement of the bleedin’ obvious, not everybody appreciates that a valid passport is often not enough. Increasing numbers of countries are now insisting on six months validity before the expiry date. I always renew mine about a year before expiry, so it will be valid for nearly 11 years.

 

So now we can get started.

 

Before booking your ticket, check with the on-line agencies like Expedia or Tripadvisor to get a broad order of cost. If you have to make a connection, ensure that your baggage will go through to your destination. There’s no fun in having to pass immigration and customs at an intermediate airport and then go through all the security etc. hassle again just to save a few quid on the ticket.

 

On-line or agent? I prefer an agent. His job is to sort out any problems and take care of the detail. Remember to book your seat at the same time. I nearly got bumped in Houston last month despite checking-in more than 3 hours before departure because there were only 2 unreserved seats left on the entire flight. Don’t pay by credit card – you may be charged commission. Debit card is OK.

 

Do you need a visa? I always get my travel agent to handle this; it takes out the hassle. But don’t take the agent’s word as to whether a visa is needed. My agent told me that my Thailand visa was valid for 90 days. It isn’t. It’s 60 days. Check it out yourself.

 

Distances to the gate seem to get longer. T5 at LHR is a nightmare. So if you have a problem with your pins, ask the agent to reserve ‘ mobility assistance’. This whisks you through formalities and gives you priority boarding. And gets you quickly through the immigration queues on return.

 

So now you are ready to go.

 

Keep your passport and other documents about your person. Travelling to NZ, my neighbour had everything in his carry-on, which was nicked at Heathrow.

 

How will you dress? The least amount of outer clothing, because you will have to take it all off at security. I wear a light anorak and sweater which I remove on arriving inside the terminal and put in my carry-on, arriving at security in shirt sleeves. I wear trader-pants with lots of zip-up pockets. My passport goes in the long leg-pocket. My wallet in the front zip-up. The usual location in the hip pocket makes itself felt when you have been sitting on it for 12 hours.

 

Avoid lace-up shoes. You may have to take them off at security.

 

How long will it take to get to the airport? Double it! I’ve had the lot – car break-down, puncture on the M25, driver going to the wrong airport.

 

You have now checked-in and face security. At LHR and LGW it’s pretty slick. But make sure that you have no uneccessaries in your pockets, no liquids and no ’sharps’ – look in the bin and see how many people forget the rule. Don’t make eye contact and NEVER give the security official any verbals, however grumpy you might be feeling.

 

As we used to say on Zambia Airways ‘Enjoy your fright!.

I hate dogs.........or dog-owners!

Yet another small child killed by some idiot’s dog, a bull-mastiff. A four-year old this time; a few days ago serious injuries were inflicted by a dog, also a bull mastiff,  that attacked a 5 and a 3-year old. Earlier an 8-year old had been attacked by a pair of bulldogs.

 

Latest statistics indicate that there are 28,000 dog-inflicted facial bites a year with 19,000 needing plastic surgery. There are about 100 serious dog attacks every week. Amongst children they are more common than measles, whooping cough and mumps combined.

 

The most susceptible are 2-year olds. Who in their right mind leaves a 2-year old alone with a large dog?

 

The commonest culprits are pit-bulls and Rottweilers. No surprise there, then, but just who are social misfits who think that these are OK as family pets?

 

A man in my neighbourhood owned two Rottweillers, which were sufficiently unruly to be kept in a pen. They escaped and killed over 30 sheep. About the same time another Rottweiller got amongst the sheep, killing many before the farmer despatched it with an iron bar.

 

This is not a dog problem; it’s a people problem. The dog is not the main menace; it’s the owner.

 

There is a strong tendency amongst dog owners to be selfish, irresponsible, dirty and liable to go ballistic at the slightest criticism of his adored mutt or any suggestion that dogs don’t exactly have the right to roam where they please or that ‘dogs rights’ should be in any way restricted. We had recently a tremendous kerfuffle when the local Council banned dogs from the children’s play-areas in a park.

 

Part of the coast near my home is one of the very few breeding grounds for the Arctic tern. Every year an area of the shingle beach is taped-off, reading ‘birds breeding; keep out’. Between April and August all dogs must be on a lead within surrounding nature reserve to protect the ground-nesting birds – oyster catchers, little terns etc.

 

Dog owners will not be put upon; dogs have rights, OK? So they duck under the tape, let the dogs loose, and then wonder why they are mobbed by a mass of angry Arctic terns. They beat a very rapid retreat covered in tern-poo. The joys of schadenfreude when I am watching!

 

Dirty? Irresponsible/ Anti-social?

 

All of the above.

 

I watched an old guy walking his dog along a busy town centre footpath. He paused to allow the mongrel to deposit a load of liquid crap on the pavement, not even bothering to put the dog in the gutter. This is not an aberration. The quiet country lane by my house once qualified as the dog-poo capital of Britain because of neighbours owning large dogs free to drop their enormous deposits at will (except in the owner’s garden). Recently the owners have either moved on or gone to the great Battersea Dogs Home in the sky, so it is no longer a problem.

 

The problem is that there are just too many damned dogs. I have seen a driver load 6 wet, muddy and very large dogs into the back of his brand-new Jag. It is not uncommon to see dog-walkers with 3 leads in each hand.

 

There are solutions.

 

I once worked in an African city where, for rabies-control, dog-ownership had restrictions. You were allowed to own only two dogs or one bitch, and not one of each. Dogs were licensed, the fee was realistic and the licence was a coloured tag attached to the dog’s collar. The colour indicated whether the licence was current. Any dog loose in a public place not wearing a current licence was shot on the spot.

Season of mellow mists and frutifulness? I don't think so...

At least we have had Obama and Merckel adding to the gaiety of nations with their spat over phone-hacking. The Sunday Times produced a wonderful cartoon of Angular in the shower and O peeping through the window.

 

Hollande also got out of his pram, threatening to derail the FTA negotiations (typical!) but nobody was interested in listening to him, especially when the Yanks said ‘And you’re another; you spy on us all the time and have done for ever and a day.

 

Angular went off in a sulk, perhaps wondering why she did not have an Obama-style spy-proof mobile phone, although so far the Germans have not marched across the Oder/Neisse line.

 

The meeja has been conjuring up visions of armies of clerks sifting through our e-mails and listening-in on our phone calls, although the reality is that all this guff is crunched through the Billion Dollar Brain to pick up trends and key-words and phrases. That’s how we keep nicking men-with-beards laden with bomb-making gear.

 

Then along comes National Security Agency boss General Alexander to spoil the party. ‘Oi, Frau’ says the gallant gentleman, ‘It wasn’t us. We never hacked your phones. It was your lot wot done it, and just sent it all to us, as they have been doing for years!’

 

Collapse of stout party!

 

Dave kept well out of it. One explanation is that he has nothing interesting to say, but the truth is that the NSA and MI6/ GCHQ exchange all this stuff as a routine. This neatly gets round our own privacy restrictions; if NSA collects it no law is infringed. It’s called ‘the special relationship’. The US doesn’t extend this arrangement to anybody else; fancy giving sensitive material to Johnny Frog!

 

Otherwise, it’s plus ca  change, with the media wallowing in the Murdoch phone-hacking trial revelations that  the woman with hair like an explosion in a mattress factory had been discussing Africa with Dave’s late spinmeister for years.

 

You couldn’t make it up!

 

With these two, Dave can win!

Two people will help Dave to win the next General Election, and one of them is not his £500,000 a year Antipodean vote-catcher.

 

Step forward the two ‘Reds’ – Miliband and McGluskey.

 

First-up, Red Ed.

 

Apart from looking absurdly young to be PM, he follows the recent trend of being a career politician who has never done anything else, much like Dave. He is Oxford (PPE – what else?) and LSE-educated. He became an MP at 25, and youngest-ever Leader of the Labour Party at 40. Unsurprisingly, he lacks gravitas.

 

More to the point is where he stands politically.

 

Despite the hysterical rant in the Daily Mail about his father, a Marxist academic, the basic premise is relevant – that a person’s view of life is likely to become fixed at a young age, and it must be a reasonable certainty that Ed’s was heavily influenced by his father’s communist convictions, especially as he is said to have been present during his father’s discussions with like-minded academic friends. His mother was also a left-winger, and an active member of CND.

 

Currently, he is perhaps deliberately vague on major policy issues, but he has ratcheted Labour to the left. Blairism is history.

 

He is an out-and-out Socialist, and proud of it. Will the electorate buy-into that discredited philosophy?

 

Now for Red Len.

 

He has been a trade union official since 1969; he is a child of the destructive brand of unionism that almost brought Britain to its knees in the 1970s, and largely wrecked its own power. He was a supporter of Militant Tendency, and currently supports a rag-bag of left-wingers called Socialist Unity, as if there could possibly be such a thing.

 

Like the Bourbons, he seems to have forgotten nothing and learnt nothing.

 

His concept of unionism is not primarily as a mechanism for the protection of the members but as a political force de frappe that will dictate  public policy.

 

As in the70s, his tactic is ‘entryism’, packing local Labour Parties with class-warriors, and deselecting sitting members opposed to their brutal kind of politics. He is on record as saying that he wants to spend more money on political campaigning and selecting Labour candidates.

 

He has been pretty successful so far in around 40 constituencies, but it rather looks as if the corrupt assault on Falkirk was an entry too far. And he got a bloody nose at Grangemouth.

 

His industrial tactics give rise to a feeling of deja-vu. During the Grangemouth dispute, a senior manager was mobbed at his home; intimidation was used in the BA dispute. Nothing new there, then.

 

Democracy, of course, doesn’t apply in Len’s scheme of things. No less than 63% of his members don’t vote Labour. He himself was voted-in to his £122,000 a year job by 7.3% of the total union membership.

 

With enemies like these, who needs friends?

 

 

 

Obama and Merckel not on speaking terms......by phone, that is!

Season of mellow mists and fruitfulness? I don’t think so.

 

At least we have had Obama and Merckel adding to the gaiety of nations with their spat over phone-hacking. The Sunday Times produced a wonderful cartoon of Angular in the shower and O peeping through the window.

 

Hollande also got out of his pram, threatening to derail the FTA negotiations (typical!) but nobody was interested in listening to him, especially when the Yanks said ‘And you’re another; you spy on us all the time and have done for ever and a day.

 

Angular went off in a sulk, perhaps wondering why she did not have an Obama-style spy-proof mobile phone, although so far the Germans have not marched across the Oder/Neisse line.

 

The meeja has been conjuring up visions of armies of clerks sifting through our e-mails and listening-in on our phone calls, although the reality is that all this guff is crunched through the Billion Dollar Brain to pick up trends and key-words and phrases. That’s how we keep nicking men-with-beards laden with bomb-making gear.

 

Then along comes National Security Agency boss General Alexander to spoil the party. ‘Oi, Frau’ says the gallant gentleman, ‘It wasn’t us. We never hacked your phones. It was your lot wot done it, and just sent it all to us, as they have been doing for years!’

 

Collapse of stout party!

 

Dave kept well out of it. One explanation is that he has nothing interesting to say, but the truth is that the NSA and MI6/ GCHQ exchange all this stuff as a routine. This neatly gets round our own privacy restrictions; if NSA collects it no law is infringed. It’s called ‘the special relationship’. The US doesn’t extend this arrangement to anybody else; fancy giving sensitive material to Johnny Frog!

 

Otherwise, it’s plus ca  change, with the media wallowing in the Murdoch phone-hacking trial revelations that  the woman with hair like an explosion in a mattress factory had been discussing Africa with Dave’s late spinmeister for years.

 

You couldn’t make it up!