Everyone Is Innocent

I see that, having helped produce a perfect system of justice in our own time, Aberdeen University’s Law School has turned its attention to rectifying the wrongs of the 1950s.

The most notorious serial killer in Scottish history shouldn’t have been hanged, claims Dr Richard Goldberg of the Law School’s Department of Crass Stupidity.

We’re talking about Peter Manuel, who was convicted in 1958 of carrying out 7 brutal murders, his preferred method of dispatching his victims being a bullet in the head from 2 inches away, though on occasion he would, for variety, beat the victim to death with a metal bar. Apart from the crimes for which he was convicted, it is generally reckoned that he killed at least 13 people and probably more, he himself having modestly put the figure at 18. His reign of terror was exactly that, his crimes inducing widespread fear in western and central Scotland between 1956 and his capture in 1958.

In these days the penalty for murder was death.

I have previously indicated that I am opposed to the death penalty.

But I am not in the business of second guessing life and law 50 years ago.

Manuel was hanged and the entire country rejoiced (even those opposed to capital punishment).

And the reason why Manuel should not have been hanged ?

Because he was a psychopath, according to Dr Goldberg.

Wait a minute.

psy·cho·path (sī’kə-pāth’)
n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behaviour without empathy or remorse.

So, if I understand it, had he been ‘normal’ it would’ve been OK to hang him, but Dr Goldberg is distressed because he was hanged while being a perverted criminal without empathy or remorse.

Dr Goldberg’s campaign to investigate this ‘miscarriage of justice’ is likely to be a lonely one. Let me give him a piece of advice - stay in your ivory tower in Aberdeen - don’t come to Lanarkshire - my wife’s granny lived in the street next to Manuel - the people there have very long memories of Manuel’s murder campaign - Dr Goldberg may come across some other psychopathic personalities if he visits Uddingston, for example. The iron bars are being sharpened as I speak.

More Dickheadery

The recent postings concerning (a) Phil Dick’s head and (b) the travails of a ‘human rights lawyer’ have made me wonder whether there’s any opening in the market for a ‘non-human rights lawyer’. A pettifogger who campaigns on behalf of androids and robots perhaps - or even entirely inanimate objects. Even blocks of wood have rights, you know. If I may paraphrase or misremember Ali G -”Don’t animals have rights? They’re human as well, you know”

Walking In The Air

My thanks to Ah Boon Net for this piece about German Performance artist Johan Lorbeer - follow the link to see more startling photographs -

Lorbeer is a German street performer. He became famous in the past few years because of his “Still-Life” Performances, which took place in the public area. His installations includes “Proletarian Mural” and “Tarzan”, which are famous in Germany. Several of these performances feature Lorbeer in an apparently impossible position.

With his still-life performances, this German artist seems to unhinge the laws of gravity. For hours on time, he remains, as a living work of art, in physically impossible positions. Elevated or reduced to the state of a sculpture, he interacts with the bewildered and irritated audience, whose appetite for communication rises as time goes by, often culminating in the wish to touch the artist in his superhuman, angelic appearance in order to participate in his abilities.

Of course, it’s obvious how it’s done, innit?

R.I.P (Maybe) - Albert Hoffman

Some web-sites are reporting the death of Albert Hoffman at the age of 103, though despite these reports and his advanced years there is still a considerable body of opinion on the net asserting that he is still alive. As far as I can tell his death has not yet been reported by the major news agencies such as the BBC.

Albert Hoffman was the Swiss scientist best known for synthesizing Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) which he first did in 1938, though at that time he did not explore its properties and set it aside for five years, until April 16, 1943, when he decided to take another look at it. While re-synthesizing the LSD, he accidentally consumed a small sample and serendipitously discovered its powerful effects. Three days later, on April 19, 1943, Hofmann deliberately consumed 250 micrograms of LSD before his bicycle ride home. This was followed by a series of self-experiments conducted by Hofmann and his colleagues. He first wrote about these experiments on April 22 of that year. As a result of his psychedelic experiences on his bicycle ride home, April 19 is known to acid-heads the world over as ‘bicycle day’ (though please note that on precisely the same day German troops were busy rounding up Jews in the Warsaw ghetto for transportation to extermination camps, and it was the first day when the Jews fought back in what was known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising).

The rest, as they say, is history - a history involving Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters and the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Tests and the Grateful Dead and turn off your mind, relax and float downstream, and Timothy Leary and turn on, tune in, drop out, and psychedelia and granny takes a trip, and Lucy In The Sky and feed your head and Interstellar Overdrive and I know what it’s like to be dead etc.

Hoffman himself called LSD “medicine for the soul” and was frustrated by the worldwide prohibition that pushed it underground. “It was used very successfully for 10 years in psychoanalysis,” he said, adding that the drug was hijacked by the youth movement of the 1960s and then unfairly demonized by the establishment that the movement opposed. He conceded that LSD can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

One of the claims sometimes made for LSD is that its use increases human longevity - if Mr Hoffman indeed is still alive then he seems to be a remarkable advertisement for his discovery.

Things That Make You Go Ugh

I’ve just watched the first half of the Man Utd - Barcelona game, and very exciting it was too.

Unfortunately it featured a cameo of one of my pettest of pet hates about modern football.

http://almax.wordpress.com/2006/06/25/the-absolute-game-revisited-part-42/

Barcelona attacking - United goalie (who looks totally useless, by the way) suffers the most trivial of injuries when in collision with a team-mate - United break forward, crowd roaring them on, no thought of putting the ball out - lose the ball - Barcelona attack again - crowd roaring at them to put the ball out to allow ‘attention’ to the goalie - United win it back - attack like fury, crowd roaring them on - lose the ball - Barcelona attack - ref stops the game to allow attention to goalkeeper who has, of course fuck all wrong with him to begin with - referee re-starts the game with a dropped ball - Barcelona retain the ball - crowd boo them vociferously for their ‘lack of sportsmanship’

What a charade. The United goalkeeper was faking. He should have been sent off - this form of cheating should be dealt with robustly - and as far as ’sportsmanship’ is concerned, I demolished that in the above linked article years ago - professional football players wouldn’t know ’sportsmanship’ if it jumped out of their grossly inflated pay-packets and bit them on the bum.

For that incident alone, I have switched horses in this game - c’mon Barca !!

Right, that’s the second half starting - I’m off

The Words ‘Dick’ and ‘Head’ Appear in This Posting

From the web-site devoted to Philip K Dick (Total Dick-Head) comes news of the extraordinary litigation between Hanson Robotics and American West Airlines.

The background is that Hanson Robotics built a Philip K Dick Android, and there’s a photograph of it below in conversation with one of its makers (android on the right).

The android, which looked just like the author and was able to conduct rudimentary conversations about Mr. Dick’s work and ideas, was at the cutting edge of robotic technology, able to make eye contact and believable facial expressions.

Mr Hanson, the builder of this remarkable artefact lost his Head in unusual circumstances while on a flight from Texas to Las Vegas. He sued the airline. The following extracts from the judgement of the Central District Court of California give a flavour of the issues involved, as well as allowing the judge to indulge in a bit of knockabout humour :-

“Plaintiff David Hanson (“Plaintiff”) has lost his head. More specifically, Plaintiff has lost an artistically and scientifically valuable robotic head modelled after famous science fiction author Philip K. Dick (“Head”). Dick’s well-known body of work has resulted in movies such as Total Recall, Blade Runner, Minority Report, and A Scanner Darkly, and a large group of admirers has grown following his death in Orange County, California, in 1982. His stories have questioned whether robots can be human (see, e.g., Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968)), so it seems appropriate that Plaintiff reincarnated Dick as a robot which included the Head, valued at around $750,000.

“Plaintiff brought the Head onto the plane in a carry-on duffel bag and stored it in the overhead bin. Plaintiff fell asleep during the flight from Texas to Las Vegas, and woke up when the plane arrived in Las Vegas. On waking, Plaintiff immediately left the plane to catch his connecting flight to San Francisco. Perhaps because he had just woken up, Plaintiff lacked the total recall to remember to retrieve the Head from the overhead bin.”

According to Plaintiff, as soon as he got to San Francisco, he went to the baggage counter, spoke to Defendant’s employee, Leanne Miller (“Miller”), and informed her of the problem. Miller told him that the
airplane with his Head was in flight, and could not be checked until it landed in SouthernCalifornia. Plaintiff offered to fly to Southern California to regain his Head, but Miller told him not to do that. According to Plaintiff, he informed Miller of the importance and value of the Head, and she replied that all efforts would be made to recover the Head and that it would receive “special treatment.”

Plaintiff asserts that about 45 minutes later, Miller called him with the good news that the Head had been found in Orange County. Plaintiff “remained willing” to go retrieve his Head, but Miller replied that it would be sent to San Francisco. According to Plaintiff, Miller then informed him of the special security procedures that would be taken to protect and deliver the Head. Plaintiff told Miller that Plaintiff’s friend Craig Grossman would be at the airport to pick up the Head. Grossman waited for the Head at the San Francisco airport, but it never arrived and has not been found since.

While hearts may be left in San Francisco, heads apparently are left in Orange County, or are simply lost or stolen.”

“Philip K. Dick and other science fiction luminaries have often explored whether robots might eventually evolve to exercise freedom of choice. See, e.g., 2001: A Space Odyssey (a HAL 9000 exercises his freedom of choice to make some bad decisions). But there is no doubt that humans have the freedom of choice to bind themselves in mutually advantageous contractual relationships. When Plaintiff chose to enter the Contract of Carriage with Defendant he agreed, among other things, to limit Defendant’s liability for lost baggage. Failing to show that he is entitled to relief from that agreement, Plaintiff is bound by the terms of that contract, which bars his state law claims…The Court must GRANT Defendant’s Motion. But it does so hoping that the android head of Mr. Dick is someday found, perhaps in an Elysian field of Orange County, Dick’s homeland, choosing to dream of electric sheep.”

Much of the foregoing could, of course, have come directly from a Phil Dick story, though by now the Head would be the Chief Executive of Enron and be organising flights to Mars. Instead, some enterprising but dishonest airport employee has the incredibly lifelike model pictured here sitting on their coffee table at home, chatting to them while they watch ‘the X Files’.

The Wandering Jew Revisited

I’ve written briefly about what the French call le juif errant before, in my review of Christopher Hitchens’ book ‘God Is Not Great‘, but I return to the topic now after reading Martin Gardner’s essay on the subject in ‘the Portable Atheist‘.

For newcomers, let me recap - according to legend (ie it’s totally made up), while Jesus struggled along the Via Dolorosa on the way to his crucifixion he was insulted by a spectator who urged him to go faster towards his doom, and……well, in a quite spectacularly malevolent exercise of arbitrary divine power the Lord said to the spectator “I go, but you will tarry until I return“

Malevolent because he did indeed go, but as we know, he hasn’t yet returned……..and the spectator who was thus cursed IS STILL ALIVE and has been wandering the earth ever since, unable to die until the Messiah returns.

That legend has become titled, with a fairly typically Christian undertone of anti-semitism, “The Wandering Jew”. Indeed, so completely has that pejorative phrase been assimilated into British culture that the plant Tradescantia (pictured above) has the common name ‘wandering jew’.

Now, although the Via Dolorosa story is a complete invention, it was an invention with a purpose. The purpose was to flesh out and give some meaning to a troubling statement uttered by Jesus and reported in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (I quote from the New International Version of the Bible) -

Matthew 16, 27-28 -
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 8, 38 and 9, 1 -
38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels. 1 And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”

Luke 9, 26-27 -
26 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”

So, three of the Gospels quote Jesus as saying that people who were then alive would still be alive when he returned to rule the earth in his ’second coming’.

I think it’s fairly generally agreed that the ’second coming’ hasn’t yet occurred - even those organisations, like the Seventh Day Adventists, who set a date for it happening, and then watched that date come and go with no show, are agreed that it hasn’t happened yet.

So that would make those who were alive and ARE STILL ALIVE, approximately 2000 years old.

In these circumstances, it’s easy to see how the wandering Jew myth arose - better to have Christ’s prophecy fulfilled by one old man, rather than a tribe.

So, how much longer does the old boy have to wander?  Well, almost all of the Christian sects continue to believe that the second coming IS coming, and a lot of them believe that it’ll happen in their own lifetimes (this belief is especially prevalent in the USA - Heck, there’s no point in having the Rapture if it happens after y’all is dead, now is there?).  However, the Catholic Church has been shrewd enough to move the date for the second coming sufficiently far into the future to ensure that they will never be proved wrong.

Intriguing, n’est-ce pas?

Would any of our Christian correspondents care to have a go at interpreting what Jesus meant in the passages quoted above?

Or indeed tell us exciting tales of actually meeting the old Wandering boy himself.

R.I.P Jimmy Giuffre

I’ve just discovered that one of my favourite jazz musicians, clarinettist/saxophonist Jimmy Giuffre, died on Thursday at the age of 86.

I’ve previously written about Jimmy before - here -

http://almax.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/random-cuts-number-17/

The opening sequence of the film of the 1958 Newport Jazz Festival (Jazz On A Summer’s Day) remains for me one of the most dazzling and thrilling pieces of music on celluloid.

Celtic 3-2 Rangers

Obviously a hugely disappointing result for Rangers.

By all accounts Rangers did not get the rub of the green (excuse the pun) today. I didn’t see the game so I cannot comment on whether Celtic’s first goal was offside or not. But, does it matter now? - the goal was given. Had it happened in reverse, of course, they’d still be talking about it at the end of the century.

So Celtic are 5 points clear with 3 matches to go. Can they hold on, or will their bottle crash ?

Credit to Celtic for winning when they had to, though clearly a full-strength Rangers team would cream them.

Aamer Anwar

The Sunday Herald carries a full page advertisement today headed up ‘Defend the Right to Free Speech : Defend Civil Liberties‘ and it takes the form of an ‘open letter in support of Aamer Anwar‘ together with several dozen names of signatories of the letter and quotes from some of them. Although it is an advertisement, the Herald nails its own colours to the mast by simultaneously carrying an arslikhan piece focussing on Anwar in its colour supplement.

Let us recap briefly on what all this is about -

Aamer Anwar is a Glasgow solicitor (usually referred to in the press as a ‘human rights lawyer’). He has been involved to some extent with a number of high profile court cases over the last few years, and currently represents Tommy Sheridan in his latest travails.

Towards the end of 2007, Mr Anwar represented a person called Mohammed Atif Siddique who was charged with various offences including (and I paraphrase) (1) possessing various articles in circumstances which gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession was for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism (these articles including various computer-related items including bomb-making instructions, instructions on terrorist tactics and suicide operations): (2) repeatedly committing a breach of the peace by showing to students at Glasgow college images of suicide bombers and images of the murder and beheading of persons by terrorists, and by threatening to become a suicide bomber and carry out acts of terrorism in Glasgow or elsewhere : (3) providing instruction or training in the making or use of firearms and explosives by means of the Internet in that he set up, managed and controlled web sites containing links to documents providing instructions on how to operate various weaponry and to make explosives and (4) distributing or circulating terrorist publications by means of web sites containing links to terrorist publications with the intention that the effect of said distribution and circulation be a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or the provision of assistance in the commission or preparation of such acts.

After a 19 day trial Siddique was convicted (by a jury at the High Court in Glasgow) of these offences on 17 September 2007. Siddique had been represented in court by Donald Findlay QC, widely regarded as the finest criminal advocate of his generation, perhaps the finest since the war. Thus it cannot be claimed that he had anything other than the best possible representation. If Findlay couldn’t get him off, naebody could.

In due course, Siddique was jailed for eight years for these offences. His conviction is now under appeal.

But the situation which gives rise to today’s Herald advert arises from what happened on 17 September 2007 after the jury’s verdicts were returned.

Almost immediately after the return of the jury’s verdict, and therefore prior even to the sentencing process, Mr Anwar went out to the front of the court to make a statement to the media, where he said -

Today Mohammed Atif Siddique was found guilty of doing what millions of young people do every day, looking for answers on the internet.

This verdict is a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech and undermines the values that separate us from the terrorist, the very values we should be fighting to protect.

It is farcical that part of the evidence against Atif was that he grew a beard, had documents in Arabic which he could not even read and downloaded material from a legitimate Israeli website run by DR Reuven Paz, ex Mossad.

When detained at Glasgow Airport by Special Branch on the 6th April 2006, his laptop was confiscated and he was released, at liberty for 7 days he made no attempt to escape or to destroy his home computer, hardly the actions of Al Qaeda. He remained at home until 7 am on the 13th April when the Police broke down his front door and he was taken to the Scottish Terrorism Centre in Govan for 2 weeks of questioning.

Young Muslims today live in a climate of fear no different to that experienced by the Irish community in the last century. There are two questions that remain unanswered: Why websites based in the United States full of hatred (such as those of the chief Crown Expert Evan Kohlmann - www.globalterroralert.com) are allowed to operate? and why are young Muslims looking for answers to the horrors of Iraq, Guantanamo and Palestine on radical websites?

Since the Prevention of Terrorism Acts of the 1970s terror laws have done little to ensure that we are safe from terrorist attack, but much to infringe the human rights and civil liberties of those living in the UK. Terrorism can and must be fought without sacrificing our human rights.

Repression and injustice, and the criminalisation of communities make us less safe, not more. They act as a recruiting sergeant to extremism and marginalise those whose engagement is vital to the effective fight against terrorism. The sensational and biased reporting of this case breached the most important principle of justice- that people are innocent until proven guilty.

This is not a way to isolate extremism but only encourage it.

Atif Siddique states that ‘he is not a terrorist and is innocent of the charges, that it is not a crime to be a young Muslim angry at global injustice.’

The prosecution was driven by the State, with no limit to the money & resources used to secure a conviction in this case, carried out in an atmosphere of hostility after the Glasgow Airport attack and ending on the anniversary of 9/11. In the end Atif Siddique did not receive a fair trial and we will be considering an appeal.

Later on that evening, Mr Anwar appeared on BBC2’s Newsnight where he made very similar points.

These remarks came to the attention of the trial judge, Lord Carloway, who was less than pleased, and his reaction is set out in his own note on the matter, which can be read here -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_11_07_carlowayandanwar.pdf

As a result, Anwar has found himself being reported to and facing a bench of three High Court judges who will consider whether his remarks (and apparent failure to apologise for them when given the express opportunity) constitute a contempt of court.

Now, if I can attempt to cut through some of the verbiage, let me see if I can summarise what the current dispute is about -

Lord Carloway is of the view that some of the remarks made on the steps of the court by Mr Anwar were (a) untrue (eg Siddique was NOT convicted of “doing what millions of young people do every day, looking for answers on the internet“) (b) misleading (c) an unjustified attack on almost every area of the trial process, other than the defence (d) an unwarranted attack on an expert witness, Mr Kohlman, in suggesting in public that he ran a web site full of hatred (e) an attack on the independence of the Advocate Depute who prosecuted the case and (f) an attack on the fairness of the trial and thus presumably an attack on the Court itself.

Lord Carloway was at pains to stress that the court is big enough to suffer these sorts of criticisms when they are made by disappointed litigants. His concern was that it was a novelty for such a scathing attack to be launched by a law agent who owes a duty not only to his client, but to the Court as well, and indeed to his professional colleagues, witnesses and the public.

In essence, as I understand it, Carloway’s complaint is that a person who participates in the trial process as a professional working in the justice system ought not to make comments critical of that system, particularly when the system’s own remedies for rectifying perceived injustice have not even been embarked upon, far less been exhausted. Thus the complaint is not necessarily about what was said, but is confined to the status of the person saying it. Had Anwar been a mere spectator then his remarks would not have been a spur to intervention by the judge.

Which brings me to Anwar’s defence to the allegation of contempt of court - as far as I can understand it, his position is that, as a human rights lawyer articulating and defending the positions of those charged with crime, he is entitled to ‘free speech’.

Really?

This is not the place for me to expound on the highly complex issue of free speech - suffice it to say that, in general terms, I am an avid supporter of the right of free speech, while simultaneously and reluctantly accepting that that ‘right’ cannot be unconditional. I can demonstrate the generality easily enough - if I called Aamer Anwar by a racialist epithet, then he would be offended and probably report me to the police. Dozens of people are prosecuted every day in Scotland for exactly that kind of behaviour. I cannot imagine many proponents of a system of free speech which enables me to utter foul racist abuse with impunity, and I cannot imagine that Aamer Anwar would support such an idea.

Similarly, and merely by way of example, I am not at liberty to discuss my employers affairs or business in public. I cannot expect to be critical of my employer in public with impunity. You may be able to criticise my employer, but if I want to retain my job, I have to be much more circumspect. If I was to say in public that my employer was a corrupt crook who should be in jail, then I am unlikely to succeed at an Industrial Tribunal offering only the ‘defence’ that I’m entitled to free speech.

And so on - it is obvious to most people that ‘freedom of speech’ is very often conditional.

One of the conditions of being a solicitor is that when you lose a case in court, you do not publicly criticise the court. There’s a loser in every case - how undignified and ultimately anarchic if the losing lawyer by-passes the constitutional framework of the appeal process and appeals directly to the readers of the Daily Record via press statements claiming that ‘my client didn’t get a fair trial’. And the beauty of the ‘free speech’ scenario is that what you say doesn’t even have to be true !! You can say precisely what you like, unfettered by truth or decency, because it’s ‘freedom of speech, innit?”

How would it have appeared if the boot had been on the other foot - the jury find the accused not guilty and the prosecutor gives a press release complaining about the idiocy of the jury and the bias of the judge?

It would be absurd.

The ‘open letter’ in today’s Herald is signed by many of the usual suspects, many of whom I have admiration for in other areas - eg Iain Banks, Alex Neil, Paddy Hill, Bashir Maan, Colin Fox, George Galloway, Mohammed Sarwar, Tommy Sheridan and Tony Benn to name but a handful, along with a motley collection of ‘campaigners’ and ‘protestors’ of one sort or another, professional complainers, academic lawyers from various ivory towers, minor politicians on the make and others not involved in criminal law in Scotland.

The name of Donald Findlay is conspicuous by its absence. As are the names of any other ‘campaigning’ lawyers in Scotland, or any prominent members of any of the criminal bars in Scotland, or any members of the Faculty of Advocates. All too scared to speak up, perhaps?

The letter says this - “.…..(Anwar) is part of a rich and important tradition of campaigning lawyers that speak without ‘fear or favour’……….“

Well, all of you signatories of the letter, it’s quiz-time - name one lawyer, who is part of that rich tradition, who has ever, immediately on the conclusion of a long-running high-profile trial, given a press statement saying anything remotely like that his client had not received a fair trial and that the jury’s verdict was a tragedy for justice and for freedom of speech.

Just name one.

I’ll save you the bother of searching, because it’s never happened.

It’s never happened because even the most ‘campaigning’ of lawyers recognise the conditional nature of the freedom of speech allowed to them as officers of the court.

The open letter finishes

“We, the undersigned, believe that the current attack on Aamer Anwar is an attack on the fundamental right of all lawyers to represent their clients“

Before signing something they patently don’t understand, the signatories of the letter should’ve asked themselves precisely how Anwar’s right to represent Siddique has been attacked - as far as I understand it Anwar has represented Siddique throughout and still represents Siddique in his ongoing appeal. So that’s quiz question number 2 - How has his ‘fundamental right’ been attacked?

And finally, the advertisement invites readers to show support by assembling outside the High Court in Edinburgh on the day when Anwar’s case is to be heard. The campaign advertisement is a very effective bit of rabble-rousing, with the emphasis on the word rabble.

I won’t be there.

My Favourite Books

No 78 - The Penguin Cricketer’s Companion - Alan Ross

There’s a misconception that Scottish people en masse loathe and detest the English game of cricket and all that it stands for. I’m Scottish and I love cricket and I know loads of other Scots who share my enthusiasm for the game.

And some who exceed even my enthusiasm - I have a lawyer friend from Stirling whose infatuation with the game is a lifetime obsession and goes beyond even that of the most fervent member at Lord’s. And talking of Lord’s, there was an old Sheriff at Glasgow (now sadly deceased) who probably had the most prime seat in the Member’s pavilion there - right at the very front next to the players gate, so that he could be first to congratulate the centurion or the multiple wicket taker as they left the field - I often saw him during television coverage, because his position was so spectacularly optimal and constantly in the eye of the camera.

And of course, a number of correspondents on this blog are clearly both Scottish and cricket fans.

Some years ago Freuchie fae Fife won the UK National village cricket championship by defeating a team from Surrey in the final at Lord’s. During the build-up to that match there was quite a lot of speculation about Scottish ability on the cricket field - one cricket magazine (which I’ve still got in the loft somewhere, but cannot find, natch) had an amusing article entitled “Can these men play cricket?” illustrated by a cartoon drawing of hairy highlanders dressed in cricket white shirts, kilts and tackety-boots.

The article answered its own question with an emphatic ‘No’, which made Freuchie’s ultimate victory all the sweeter.

Also emerging in the wash during that time was the quite extraordinary, but apparently true, statistic that more Scots, as a proportion of the population, played organised cricket during the summer than did the English.

And indeed there is a thriving County Cricket Championship of several divisions operating in Scotland. In the town where I live there is the West Lothian County Cricket Club which has frequently hosted international matches between Scotland and overseas visitors.

Anyway, this is all by way of explanation why an SNP supporter from central Scotland happens to have quite a substantial library of cricket books, including several Wisden annuals and any number of collections by such as John Arlott, E.W Swanton, Neville Cardus and Brian Johnston et al. I simply love cricket and the Englishness that it represents.

Many years ago when Mad Mac first persuaded me to pen something about fitba for TAG, I remember us both bemoaning the fact that football had nothing like the quality of literature devoted to it as cricket. Almost all football writing is anaemic sludge appealing to the lobotomised shed-enders, while very much cricket literature is first-class writing aimed at a highly demanding and discerning audience.

Thus this book, which is an anthology of cricket-writing has a huge pool of superb writing to select from, where a book this size about football would be mainly filler and tripe.

And so there are contributions from Dickens, Siegefried Sassoon, A.G Macdonell, L. P Hartley, Cardus, Swanton, Robertson-Glasgow, Arlott, William Blake, Lord Byron, Lewis Carroll, Conan-Doyle, A.P Herbert, Wodehouse, Betjeman, and Harold Pinter, just to name the most famous of dozens of contributors.

You have poetry, passion, drama, humour, tragedy and comedy, just like cricket itself.

There are stories about cricket or where cricket is the backdrop (eg Dickens’ Dingley Dell v All Muggleton match from ‘Pickwick’). There are profiles of players (WG Grace, Ranitsinhji, Bradman, Compton etc). There are recollections of ‘Men and Moments’ (Len Hutton’s 100 centuries (Hutton pictured right), England winning the 1953 Ashes, Eton v Harrow at Lord’s etc). There are sections devoted to ‘the Poetry of Cricket’ and ‘New Prose’, the latter mainly devoted to more modern players (though the book was first published in 1960, so that ‘modern’ in this context means the period between 1960 and the second edition publication in 1979).

In short, something for everyone.

The book is a delight in almost the same way as reclining semi-comatose, partly-consumed pint of scrumpy in hand, in a deck-chair on the edge of a cricket-pitch on a sunny Sunday afternoon, the snick of leather on willow and cries of ‘catch it’ somewhere in the distance, the Sunday Times covering your head from the glare of the sun, not a care in the world, roast beef and Yorkshire for tea, is a delight.

There’s a we