Search

Paul's Blog

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.

Uncategorized

Posted by on in Uncategorized

Most of you have already realised that authors are also commercial brands. If you read one good book by a certain author, then you will probably buy another carrying the his or her name on the front cover. I don't know about you, but sometimes this has been a disappointing experience for me. The book just hasn't been of the same standard as the previous one, the one I enjoyed. Now, no book is a single-handed effort. At the very least there is an editor involved. And sometimes that editor is a better writer than the author and the combination of the two talents serves the reader well. That's one explanation for why one book carrying an author's name may be far superior to another. But there are two other possibilities. The poorer efforts often come in the author's twilight years and maybe they've just lost their touch. The other possibility is more sinister: the supposed author actually had very little to do with the book. A publisher has decided to exploit the author brand-name but most of the work on the book is done by a lesser-known writer. The supposed author receives a wad of cash for lending their name, or brand, to the project. I've come across a couple of examples of books bearing the names of highly respected British or Canadian military historians that were so far below their usual standard that I was left wondering how much they had had to do with writing them. A very careful reading of the acknowledgements often gives a clue to who really wrote the book. But without definite and legally watertight proof I will have to refrain from naming names. I suspect many of you know who the prime suspects are and maybe even the books involved.

Continue reading
Hits: 235
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

I gather the appearance of four pistol toting cops in a Dingwall eatery recently caused some comment. When I first came to Canada I found it odd to see cops wandering around with guns on their hips.  I would have been more than a little worried about the armed cops in Edmonton if I had known what bad shots some of them are. Confronted several years ago outside a block of flats by a man wielding a knife, officers felt they had no alternative but to open fire. I can't remember how many bullets were fired, but I think maybe around 20. Only one or two hit the man with the knife. I always thought the people living in the block of flats were lucky not be killed or crippled for life by a stray police bullet. So, my advice to the people of Dingwall is to ask questions about how well trained and practised the cops are when it comes to using their guns. Pistols and revolvers in the vast majority of hands are only accurate at pretty much point-blank range. Deliberately shooting someone in the arm or leg to disable them is a myth. Even aiming at the centre of the body, most people shooting at someone more than a handful of yards away would be lucky to get a hit.  The other myth is that stun-guns are used as an alternative to firearms. In a life or death situation, the only one that really justifies cops pulling out a pistol, a stun-gun is just not reliable enough to guarantee incapacitation. For all intents and purposes a stun-gun can only be trusted as an alternative to wading in with a truncheon/baton.

Continue reading
Hits: 186
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

There have been several newspaper and magazine articles recently telling us that contrary to popular conception, the Battle of Culloden in 1746 was not a Scottish Vs English affair after all. My guess is that "journalists" have suddenly become aware of the battle and the 1745 Rising thanks to the TV series Outlander. Like most Scottish history, the truth is complicated. Smart Alecs have long impressed themselves by revealing that there were at least three "Scottish" regiments in Hanoverian lines at Culloden. It's also quite likely that there were more clansmen on the Government side during the rebellion than were "out" with Charles Edward Stuart's rebels. But there is something to popular perception of the issues at stake. While Scots might have been divided when it came to the Jacobite Rising, but the English Establishment was not. And it did not make much effort to distinguish between Scottish factions. No Scot could be trusted when it came to dealing with the rebels after their defeat. Ignoring the provisions of the  1707 Treaty of Union which guaranteed the integrity of the Scottish legal system, captured rebels were shipped to England to be dealt with. The punitive laws outlawing Highland dress did not distinguish between loyal and rebel clans. Nor were Government troops bent on burning, raping and murdering their way through the Highlands after Culloden fussy about the loyalties of their victims during the rising. And Highlanders represented a far larger proportion of the Scottish population in those days than they do now. The English Establishment set out to break the pesky Scots once and for all. The English Establishment knew what the war was about.

Continue reading
Hits: 188
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

I was reading about the defeat of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan by the Israelis in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The verdict has to be that there were too many political generals and not enough professional and capable military commanders on the Arab side. Those in the know say that one-third of the British casualties in Afghanistan were avoidable or unnecessary. British generals are political with a small "p". The upper echelons of the British Army are filled by club-able chaps of the right sort and background. Competence takes second place to having no interest whatsoever in changing the status quo. There can be no more Cromwells, or his Major Generals. This means that the talent pool the British Army chooses to draw from is by necessity pathetically shallow and includes far too many real-life Giles Wemmbley-Hoggs and Tim Nisebutdeems. There is a very good reason why in the real wars fought during the past 150 years have always started out for the British Army with a couple of disasters. Perhaps the time has come to trust the working people of Britain a little more and stop sacrificing their kids on the altar of politically safe-handed mediocrity at the helm of the British Army. 

Continue reading
Hits: 219
0

Posted by on in Uncategorized

Fortunately for governments and businesses, whistle-blowers are often deeply troubled people. I am hard put to think of a single whistle-blower who has prospered after exposing wrong-doing by their employer. To blow the whistle usually means sacrificing your job, jeopardising future employment prospects and, almost certainly, eventually, a serious loss of income. As Scots kids of my generation used to be told "no-one likes a clype". To that maxim might be added "and no-one trusts a clype either". At the end of day, most whistle-blowers were already fragile, unhappy or deeply troubled people before they went public. One of the first things an employer does after the balloon goes up is to attempt to discredit the whistle-blower. Whatever made the whistle-blower unhappy, odd or difficult to work with in the first place often makes this easier than it should be. Society's, our, lack of support for whistle-blowers makes it even easier to destroy those brave, or possibly foolhardy, enough to speak up. 

Continue reading
Hits: 166
0
Go to top