About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Thursday, April 12, 2018


Just Finished Reading: The War in the West – A New History: Volume 1 Germany Ascendant 1939-1941 by James Holland (FP: 2015)

We all know the story. In September 1939 the technically advanced German army along with the best air support in the world erupted across the Polish border and started World War Two. Quickly defeating the Polish armed forces the victorious Germans turned on Norway, the Low Countries and France completely dominating them in frightening quick succession with Britain only surviving destruction by the skin of its teeth. Barely holding on during the Battle of Britain the English breathed a sigh of relief when Hitler attacked Russia despite his forces sweeping all before them yet again. Meanwhile German U-boats sank unprecedented numbers of allied ships bringing Britain’s capitulation due to starvation ever closer. Only America’s massive manufacturing base untouched by war could keep pace with both the increasingly desperate demands of the British and the depredations of the wolf-packs prowling the Atlantic.

All of that, or at least a goodly chunk of the received narrative is nonsense according to the author of this impressive part-work. Running to a little over 720 pages I waited until I had a lengthy break to do it justice. At the beginning of the book I was largely of the opinion that a mixture of luck, fortitude and Winston Churchill saved the day back in 1940. My opinion has since shifted somewhat. Although German armed forces are normally portrayed as technically brilliant and highly advanced this is only part of the story. Only a small number of German units were fully mechanised – most forced to walk across Europe – and the Army itself used thousands of horses to transport everything from supplies to artillery. Despite being famous for its tanks it transpired that France both had more of them and of a higher quality. The British Expeditionary Force sent to France was actually a far more integrated and mechanised force than the Germans it faced prior to the ‘Miracle of Dunkirk’. In the air the Germans initially had the advantage of any attacking force – the ability to attack anywhere at their own choosing without their enemies knowing where to concentrate their defences. When they tried it over the Channel and the South East of England it was a very different story. With Radar and a co-ordinated aerial defence strategy the Luftwaffe quickly realised they were up against something they had yet to face – an enemy air force at least their equal technically and one much better directed, led, supplied and reinforced. Looked at in this way it is little surprise that the Battle of Britain was lost by Germany and was a defeat they never really recovered from. Not only did this leave a powerful and dangerous enemy on their western flank but it also showed the world that German might could indeed be challenged and overcome. Britain then became a future bridgehead into Continental Europe growing stronger each month and ever eager for payback. Rather than dealing with this problem Germany and Hitler stupidly looked East.

Looked at from the point of view of Germany’s need for resources – rather than as just a string of German victories – things start making sense a great deal. With the Southern flank apparent secure with Italy joining the Axis and with the non-aggression pact with Russia (inexplicable to many at the time) securing the Eastern flank Germany needed a quick series of victories before their resources bottomed out and before the inevitable British blockade began to bite. It was a hell of a gamble and everything had to go right – always. Norway was only a victory of sorts securing sources of iron but losing much of its naval forces in the process (effectively meaning that a successful invasion of Britain became much more problematical), the invasion of Holland and France although spectacularly successful resulted in the loss of many aircraft that would take time to replace – using up precious resources – and this was exacerbated considerably by the failure to destroy the RAF at even greater cost. Despite a series of quick wins England was still in the fight and actually getting stronger. In order to secure the required resources to continue the fight the occupied territories were asset stripped and the much avoided war on two fronts became a necessity. Again the great gamble was undertaken with the attack on Soviet Russia. Everything rested on a complete and swift victory. If that was impossible then everything was lost.


Whilst not exactly a revisionist history this rather hefty volume did look at the same events we all know and look at them from much more an economic and strategic point of view. When you realise how strapped for resources Germany was even in 1939 when they started the whole affair you can see why they reacted how they did and why they attacked where they did. But the author shows the reality of the situation. From the earliest days of the conflict Germany was in a bind. Everything it did had to go well. Yet even victories as unprecedented as the 6 week defeat of France only made matters worse not better. Occupation cost men, time and money. Every tank lost, even plane shot down, every bullet fired had to be replaced from a shrinking pool of resources and through a highly inefficient production system. As the war grew though necessity the problems just got bigger and bigger. Eventually they would get so big as to fall on the Axis powers and bury them. As soon as they failed to defeat Britain (an almost impossible task in 1939 the author maintains) it was only a matter of time before the German war machine lay in ruins. This was a very interesting look at a war I’m pretty familiar with or I thought I was familiar with. It has both made me rethink my views on the war and feel the desire to dig deeper into the many strategic decisions (almost always bad) made by the Germans in particular in the early years of the war. There is much food for thought here and much to chew over. I’m really looking forward to the second volume which I’ll be reading over Christmas. Highly recommended for all history buffs.

Monday, April 09, 2018




Baby, it’s COLD outside….

It seems that the only thing we learn from History is that we don’t learn from History. Because it looks like we’re slipping into a new Cold War a little bit more each day. Growing animosity to Russia from the old NATO countries has recently erupted into loud and very public slanging matches the like of which we haven’t really seen for some decades. I’m old enough to remember the original Cold War and although it was a pretty exciting time – nothing adds a particular frisson to the day than the ever present possibility of nuclear annihilation – I didn’t like it that much that I want to go through all that again.

Of course the cynic in me says that, with the recent practical destruction of ISIS and associated groups, the ‘War on Terror’ doesn’t really have the same headline grabbing power it once did. Time to look for a new enemy or, in these days or remakes, reboots and recycling, an old favourite: the Soviet Union AKA Russia. It has the advantage of easy brand recognition, familiar personalities and an older generation who can bore their children with stories of duck and cover and the 4 minute warning. Russia is a ready-made enemy ideally product placed to fill the bad-guy of the month slot so recently vacated by (insert latest Middle-Eastern terrorist group name here). Now the odds of us actually coming to blows with the Russians is vanishingly low – but all the better. We don’t actually have to prepare for conflict we just need to look (and spend) as if we do which will make the West’s hawks and defence contractors very happy indeed. Even more on the upside of history we appear to be moving beyond the rather disturbing 30’s feeling for a more comfortable 50’s one neatly jumping over the 40’s and that whole messy hot war thing.

Then, in the background is the ever present Chinese who seem to have dodged a bit of a bullet on this one. Despite talk of trade war – at least with the US – pretty much everyone thinks that annoying the Chinese is a bad idea. After all almost everything you use, wear, drive, listen to or play games on is either made in China or has components made in China. Oddly I say a baseball on one of my colleagues desks today brought back from the US by a friend. On picking it up I couldn’t help but notice that this icon of American culture was, in fact, made in China. So it’s probably not a good idea to pick a fight with them. I mean, they’ve already bought half the world and rent most of the rest. Personally if I had kids I’d be getting them a head start by teaching them basic Chinese. Sooner or later it’s going to become the 2nd global language of choice.

Anyway, back to the upcoming Cold War (unfortunately not exactly an antidote to Global Warming!) with Russia throwing its weight around trying to look impressive. They do seem to have made significant strides in propaganda and psychological warfare which you can’t help but admire. In that area we have quite a lot of ground to catch up. But I’m sure that similar dirty tricks are not beyond our capabilities. Despite the odd poisoning and TV appearance denying particular activities (when they even bother denying things that is) most of this new Cold War will likely to be fought on the Internet and in Social Media. Again Russia has significant experience in doing this but it’s only a matter of time before their own techniques are used against them and (as always) everyone loses. If things track as they look to be doing the next 10-20 years are going to be one hell of a surreal ride. To the Cold War history books – STAT! 


OK people.... I think it's *really* about time you got a life............ Practically the WHOLE cast of The Simpson's are stereotypes. It's why the comedy WORKS.

Saturday, April 07, 2018

South Korean university boycotted over 'killer robots'

By Jane Wakefield, BBC Technology reporter

5 April 2018

Leading AI experts have boycotted a South Korean university over a partnership with weapons manufacturer Hanwha Systems. More than 50 AI researchers from 30 countries signed a letter expressing concern about its plans to develop artificial intelligence for weapons. In response, the university said it would not be developing "autonomous lethal weapons". The boycott comes ahead of a UN meeting to discuss killer robots. Shin Sung-chul, president of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (Kaist), said: "I reaffirm once again that Kaist will not conduct any research activities counter to human dignity including autonomous weapons lacking meaningful human control. Kaist is significantly aware of ethical concerns in the application of all technologies including artificial intelligence." He went on to explain that the university's project was centred on developing algorithms for "efficient logistical systems, unmanned navigation and aviation training systems". Prof Noel Sharkey, who heads the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, was one of the first to sign the letter and welcomed the university's response. "We received a letter from the president of Kaist making it clear that they would not help in the development of autonomous weapons systems. The signatories of the letter will need a little time to discuss the relationship between Kaist and Hanwha before lifting the boycott," he added. Until the boycott is lifted, academics will refuse to collaborate with any part of Kaist.

Next week in Geneva, 123 member nations of the UN will discuss the challenges posed by lethal autonomous weapons, or killer robots, with 22 of these nations calling for an outright ban on such weapons. "At a time when the United Nations is discussing how to contain the threat posed to international security by autonomous weapons, it is regrettable that a prestigious institution like Kaist looks to accelerate the arms race to develop such weapons," read the letter sent to Kaist, announcing the boycott. "If developed, autonomous weapons will be the third revolution in warfare. They will permit war to be fought faster and at a scale greater than ever before. They have the potential to be weapons of terror. Despots and terrorists could use them against innocent populations, removing any ethical restraints. This Pandora's box will be hard to close if it is opened." South Korea already has an army of robots patrolling the border with North Korea. The Samsung SGR-A1 carries a machine gun that can be switched to autonomous mode but is, at present, operated by humans via camera links.

[It’s good to see that other people share my paranoia/concern about the development of killer robots. Companies or Universities might (genuinely) say that algorithm ‘X’ or technology ‘Y’ is not intended to create a killer machine but develop them a bit, bolt them together and….. Skynet! In other news Sarah Connor has been seen in South Korea. Authorities are expressing interests in the present location of her son, John]


Happy Birthday to Me! 58 Today!!!

Thursday, April 05, 2018



Just Couldn’t Finish Reading: The Crowd – A Study of the Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon (FP: 1895)

This was billed as ‘one of the most influential works of Social Psychology in history’ and as being instrumental in creating a whole field of study – which, presumably, led to what we now call Sociology. From the 60 pages I managed (out of a total of 139 in my edition) I can see who that was the case. The author makes a determined effort to look at crowds from a scientific viewpoint and to actually understand why they behave in certain ways. As he was essentially creating a field of study the narrative was a bit of a mish-mash of schools of thought – inevitably – including biology, psychology, cultural studies and history (plus a bit of law thrown in for good measure). This is pretty much what I expected.

What I had real trouble with, and a major reason why I couldn’t finish this short book – which I had fully expected to polish off in a few days at least – was the archaic world view that kept getting in the way of the investigation in hand. Most noticeably was the superior attitude to both the white and, generally, European ‘race’. At first I could ignore the swipes at other ‘races’ particular ‘Latins’ but it quickly wore rather thin. Likewise his far from hidden disparagement of women – at first rather ‘amusing’ became quickly less so. In quite quick order my interest and therefore reading speed dropped substantially and after heroic efforts to get 60 pages in just couldn’t face another 80+ ahead of me. That’s a shame really. I’ve read other books from this era that were not anything like as racist nor misogynistic as this. It’s possibly the fact that it was from a French author but probably more likely just a sign of the times. Luckily I had intended buying another book of his on the psychology of revolutions but had yet to do so. Ironically I think I’ve dodged a bullet on that one. Obviously not recommended.   

Monday, April 02, 2018




Reading: Q&A

One of the most common questions I’m asked is ‘How many books do you read?’ usually followed up by ‘Why do you read so much?’ Now, on average I presently read around 70 books a year. In my mid-late teens and in to my early 20’s I was averaging around 100 a year – a number I’m hoping to reprise once I retire. So, I don’t really regard 70 as ‘a lot’. Of course the average (whatever that means) in England & Wales is supposedly 3 a year. Yes, that’s right – 3. So, in comparison I guess 70 IS a lot. It just shouldn’t be. Another common question I’m asked is what I’m reading right then – usually in the surprised tone of voice: ‘What are you reading NOW?’ I actually get this a lot. It’s because I have a butterfly mind and have an interest in a great many subjects with almost the exclusive exception of sport – and I’m even developing some interest in various aspects of that. Everything else is, I believe, fair game.

I read essentially for three main reasons, entertainment, enlightenment and as something to pass the time. My entertainment is mostly provided by fiction. In my early years this was almost exclusively Science Fiction (where I picked up my love of all things scientific) but these days my tastes are far wider and I’ll read pretty much anything that looks interesting with the exception of Romance or Horror – although I do dip into the Horror genre from time to time (I’m actually a huge fan of the Vampire genre but, generally, don’t consider these to be horror per se). I’m a huge fan of Crime novels, Historical (especially war based), Spy stories, and general Political thrillers. I also like Fantasy novels but think that good ones are rather rare. It’s easy to write a bad fantasy novel and surprisingly easy to get it published. Likewise I like a good Urban Fantasy novel but these are even rarer and, it seems, bad ones are even easier to get published.

I’ve been looking for enlightenment between the covers of books since day one. I’m going to blame my teenage brain for that one. As I teenager I really didn’t have much clue about the world and was honestly confused by just about everything – from the people around me, the world around me and even myself. As it appeared that either no one else was interested in finding these things out (including my fellow High School students) and no one seemed to be around to help me I headed for our local library and began reading everything I could get my hands on – starting with History and Science. My initial knowledge base was so low though that it took years of random and largely undirected reading to even start thinking about things properly. It was probably only when I went to University that it all started to come together and make some sort of sense. Oddly for those three years I hardly read at all as I was both having too much fun and I was actually learning things in class for a (pleasant) change. University also introduced me to Philosophy which I had, oddly looking back, almost completely ignored up till that point.

After a few years’ unemployed (and reading more again) I managed to get a full time job and began to buy books by the truckload (or so it seemed). Most of them were fiction but the proportion of non-fiction grew steadily and I’m now reading non-fiction more often than novels. I’ve moved beyond my desire for enlightenment and my goal these days – probably unachievable – is to ‘understand the world and how we got here’. That’s the direction I’m aiming in at any rate. So, lots of history again and as much quality analysis as I can find. I do have the glimmer of an answer which is directing my reading to hopefully bring things more into focus. The need to know is most definitely driving me on. I feel it inside me stir every time I think of slacking. It’s one thing that completely amazes me about other people – that so many seem not to have that drive. They don’t feel the need to know stuff or the absolute joy of discovery or the sweet delight in finding out that something you believed for years was wrong but now you know enough about it to correct things. I just don’t get it. Even when they ask me ‘How do you know this stuff?’ I can only look at them incredulously and reply ‘How do you NOT know this stuff?’ Of course I’m normally a bit more diplomatic, laugh, and say ‘I read BOOKS and I remember things’. Oddly this does not often encourage people to follow my example. Sometimes it feels like I’ve just woken someone momentarily from a light afternoon nap only to watch them drop off again. It bemuses me and, as usual, anything that bemuses or confuses me sends me running to my book stock, a book shop or Amazon to begin the hunt for answers. To this day I’m still trying to wrap my head around a question that I was asked a year or so ago: ‘Why are you reading a book about a subject you know nothing about?’ I couldn’t help but think that the answer was obviously in the question. I read books about things I know little or nothing about BECAUSE I know little or nothing about them. Isn’t that what it’s all about? Or am I missing something?

Sunday, April 01, 2018


Me neither..............!
Cartoon Time.

With 'Mad March' now over with we move into one of my favourite months - April. Not only is it my birthday later this month but (possibly just as important) it's Book Month here @ SaLT. So, rather more book related posts than normal. I hope that all of the bibliophiles out there enjoy what I have on offer.... Now go find a book & start reading.

Saturday, March 31, 2018


US may tie social media to visa applications

From The BBC

31st March 2018

The Trump administration has said it wants to start collecting the social media history of nearly everyone seeking a visa to enter the US. The proposal, which comes from the state department, would require most visa applicants to give details of their Facebook and Twitter accounts. They would have to disclose all social media identities used in the past five years. About 14.7 million people a year would be affected by the proposals. The information would be used to identify and vet those seeking both immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Applicants would also be asked for five years of their telephone numbers, email addresses and travel history. They would be required to say if they had ever been deported from a country, or if any relatives had been involved in terrorist activity.

The proposal would not affect citizens from countries to which the US grants visa-free travel status - among them the UK, Canada, France and Germany. However, citizens from non-exempt countries like India, China and Mexico could be embroiled if they visit the US for work or a holiday. Officials defended the proposal by saying it would help to identify potential extremists. Social media came under scrutiny after the shootings in 2015 in San Bernadino, California, in which 14 people died. The authorities said they had missed signs of radicalisation in messages on a messaging platform sent between the attackers.

Under rules brought in last May, officials were told to seek people's social media handles only if they felt "that such information is required to confirm identity or conduct more rigorous national security vetting", a state department official said at the time. The tougher proposal comes after President Trump promised to implement "extreme vetting" for foreigners entering the US, which he said was to combat terrorism. "Maintaining robust screening standards for visa applicants is a dynamic practice that must adapt to emerging threats," the state department said in a statement, quoted by the New York Times. "We already request limited contact information, travel history, family member information, and previous addresses from all visa applicants. Collecting this additional information from visa applicants will strengthen our process for vetting these applicants and confirming their identity."

The idea is subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The public will have two months to comment on the proposal before it makes a decision. Civil liberties groups have condemned the policy as an invasion of privacy that could damage free speech. "People will now have to wonder if what they say online will be misconstrued or misunderstood by a government official," said Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're also concerned about how the Trump administration defines the vague and over-broad term 'terrorist activities' because it is inherently political and can be used to discriminate against immigrants who have done nothing wrong," she said. The social media platforms covered in the proposal include US-based entities such as Instagram, LinkedIn, Reddit and YouTube. However, the New York Times reports that overseas platforms such as China's Sina Weibo and Russia's VK social network would also be included.

[I read about this some time ago so it’s been on the cards for quite some time. As I’m from the UK it wouldn’t affect me anyway – not that I’m planning any trips to the US presently – but I wonder how they’d react to the fact that I have neither a Facebook or Twitter account – or any other Social Media account. Would that fact alone make me suspicious? After all… what could I possibly be hiding by not broadcasting to the world my every thought, meal, relationship or amusing cat video?]

Thursday, March 29, 2018



Just Finished Reading: Ground Control – Fear and Happiness in the Twenty-First Century City by Anna Minton (FP: 2009)

For most of the history of the modern city it has been public space owned and managed by the public using public money for the public good. But as we edge ever deeper into the 21st century something is happening – something hardly talked about, something hidden behind management speak, legal jargon and political sleight of hand: the privatisation of public space. Little by little, from shopping centres to whole neighbourhoods property developers are being sold parts of the city on 99 year leases (or longer) and are taking control of security – with CCTV and private guards – waste disposal and cleaning as well as monitoring who enters their space and what they do there. For safety and security – to say nothing of ‘enhancing the shopping experience’ the companies move on the homeless, licence street entertainers, prevent to distribution of political or other ‘questionable’ literature and break up any gathering of youths or other less than desirables. In other words they suck the life out of public spaces then try to import life-like activities (controlled of course) to bring it back.

This, argues the author, is what has been happening across the country – beginning in London naturally – at an increased pace since the 1980’s with only a short pause from the credit crunch after the 2008 banking crisis. Alongside the growing number of gated communities (not just for the rich apparently) and the wholesale destruction of perfectly fine older properties in areas of low land value this has been a silent and largely unremarked programme started by the Tories and carried on by New Labour in the names of increased property values – an end in itself apparently – and, more nebulous and much more insidious – supposed safety and security typified by the ‘secure by design’ building ideology. Imported almost wholesale and quite often word for word from American projects in the 80’s such safety procedures have seemingly increased the fear of crime and, by extension, the levels of anxiety in the very people they were supposed to make feel secure. There are no limits, it appears, to the need for increased security. No matter who deep you dig the moats or how high you build the walls they are not deep enough or high enough to guarantee a good night’s sleep.

Personally I haven’t noticed (or to be honest given a thought to) the private nature of shopping malls and such. I have been to at least one of the mega-malls mentioned here – The Metro Centre, the second largest shopping centre in the UK with 370 shops over 190,000m2, but honestly hadn’t noticed either the camera’s nor the private security. Likewise I don’t think I’ve ever seen a gated community nor, as far as I know, am unaware of anyone that lives in one. I have seen wholesale destruction of old housing though and the misery that causes especially to the elderly and close-knit larger families. The book is full of examples of this sort of urbanisation but is most definitely not a piece of mere academic study. Sprinkled with interviews with those living in or with this new style of living as well with planners, designers, architects and even a few politicians willing to talk about it this book is a fascinating insight into a largely behind the scenes activity driven by an ideology alien to British and European ideas of the city and city life. Eye-opening if rather depressing and a must read for anyone interested in modern urban planning.

That was the last of my City books (for now). Coming soon – How our technology affects who we are.

Monday, March 26, 2018



OK...... I see a *few* problems with that idea.................

Just Finished Reading: The Wounded and the Slain by David Goodis (FP: 1955)

James Bevan it at the end of his tether. Drinking heavily, failing at his job and barely speaking to his beautiful but aloof wife he takes his doctor’s advice and takes a vacation on Jamaica. Trapped in the hotel surrounded by high walls and crushing poverty Bevan watches helplessly as his wife begins flirting with another man. Sickened by his seeming inability to do anything about it he leaves the hotel and proceeds to get roaring drunk in the seediest dive he can find. When a fight breaks out his drunken mind decides he needs to be somewhere else to keep drinking in peace. Leaving the shanty bar he is followed out onto the filthy street and mugged. Acting purely on impulse he deflects the knife with a handy empty bottle only to have it smash and rip into his would-be assailant’s throat. Covered in his opponent’s blood he staggers back to the hotel to his waiting and horrified wife. Thinking nothing more of it Bevan decides his close encounter with death is a turning point. A time to start over and make something of his life – until a stranger appears with evidence that he has killed a man in cold blood and a willingness to go to the police and stay whatever he needs to for Bevan to hang.

This is the last of the ten Hard Case crime novels I’ve been working through lately. Generally a rather hit and miss series this was definitely on the miss side. I almost gave up after the first 50 pages which moved at a glacial pace (rather ironic considering the tropical setting). The author seemed to have read a layman’s guide to psychoanalysis and tried very hard indeed to use it to explain the otherwise strange behaviour of both Bevan and his wife who both seemed to go out of their way to make a potentially difficult situation much worse. This was another one of those stories where I had almost no sympathy (or to be honest very much interest) for any of the characters with the possible exception of the local mixed race police commissioner who actually seemed rather interesting considering his brief appearance. There was page after page of characters wandering around in the slums in the dark with a few meaningless encounters along the way none of which moved the narrative along one bit. Frankly the plotting was a mess and at one point I just decided to grit my teeth and finish the damned thing – which I did. My recommendation – save your time and read something else.

Next up – after a brief detour into SF – will be ten 20th century classics in publication date order. After THAT, as I’m definitely missing Sci-Fi at the moment, will be ten novels of man’s struggle with his own technology, but that’s for much later in the year. 

Saturday, March 24, 2018






The BEST of Luck, Kids! You're going to NEED it.

Lords seek rethink on UK passport contract

From The BBC

23 March 2018

Members of the House of Lords have called on the government to reconsider awarding a contract to print new blue UK passports to a Franco-Dutch firm. Conservative peer Lord Naseby said it would have a major adverse effect on "the whole of British industry, and the British people as they face Brexit". The burgundy passport, in use since 1988, will revert to its original blue and gold colour from October 2019. Gemalto has won the contract ahead of the current UK producer De La Rue. Lord Naseby said that he wanted an assurance that "nothing will be signed or sealed until the whole matter's been reviewed".

However, fellow Conservative Lord Courtown said that as a member of the European Union, the UK had to abide by procurement rules. He denied that there were any security issue in awarding the £490m contract to Gemalto, adding that some 20% of blank passports were already manufactured overseas and would continue to be personalised in the UK. Lord Courtown said that the decision would save the UK £120m over the course of the contract. But Lord Forsyth, a Conservative former cabinet minister, said the government was taking an "extraordinary position" while Labour peer Lord Foulkes said the matter should be reviewed "in the name of not just security, but of national pride". De La Rue, which has printed the burgundy version of the British passport since 2009, said that it been "undercut on price" by Gemalto. The company's chief executive, Martin Sutherland, said that he would appeal against the decision.

[OK, I’m the first to admit that this is friggin hilarious. The post-Brexit UK passport that the Brexiteers are crowing about because it goes back to the pre-EU blue colour so beloved by little Englanders is to be manufactured in FRANCE. Apart from the fact that you really couldn’t make this shit up it must’ve given a few of the Brexit crowd actual heart attacks. But here’s the thing – firstly they followed EU regulations that we are still bound by and second it saves the taxpayer £120 MILLION into the bargain. But that’s not enough (of course) to the people who think that we should be free of EU regulations, commercial reality (oddly when we’re supposedly going to be an outward looking and commercially hard-headed nation after we leave) and, it appears, any hint of sanity where ‘love of country’ is concerned. If we do go back on this I hope that both Gemalto and the EU sue us for non-compliance and breach of contract. If the Brexiteers think that pulling this shit is going to put us in a STRONGER bargaining position with the EU negotiating team they’re going to have a VERY rude awakening soon. My bet is still that we’re going to crash out of the EU with no deal in 12 months. Watch this space!]