caldrail

:D

To give cavalry longer reach from horseback. We know that Not in doubt at all. But the point here is that the use of a longer blade as a slashing weapon necessitated a looser battle formation. Whilst the 'stabbing' element of the earlier gladius is 'emphasised', it must be pointed out that this is the natural result of close-order and disciplined formation of troops with large rectangular shields. They couldn't easily swing swords because they didn't have the space to do so. The change toward longer blades might also be described as a reaction to the increasing frequency of cavalry in their enemiies, but the wide scale adoption of longer blades coincides with the decline in standards following Constantines civil wars and those alluded to by Vegetius and Zosimus. Since the Roman recruits from barbarian cultures were inevitably more accustomed to longer blades anyway, it made sense to simply allow them to use similar weapons given that training wasn't adhered to as strongly as it once was. That barbarians adopted Roman weapons isn't so suprising. Swords are expensive items and if they happened to acquire Roman blades, somebody is going to use them. However, the length of barbarian blades by and large doesn't change much during the Roman period and thus the length of native weapons is more dependent on custom and technique than Roman influence. It reflects the change in Roman military operation. The days of large set-piece battles had gone. Sebastian pleaded with Valens not to march on the Goths for instance, but to continue letting him raid them (with great success according to sources). The Roman military of the late empire was focusing on small scale actions, raids and skirmishes, which better suited the mindset and training of the average Roman soldier of the day, and clearly the Romans had pretty well lost their expertise in command and control of large formations by the late 4th Century (Sebastian was vindicated, as Valens found out the hard way). Therefore 'large' legions had become obselete anyway, and given the decline in CCC, smaller units made more sense. The trouble is we look at the Roman Army with modern hindsight. We see it as essentially similar to our own modern national armies - which is incorrect. Generals of the Roman Legions were not senior officers of a national army nor part of a formal command structure. They were leaders of their own mini-army. The legions were independent formations and whilst they conformed (usually) to military command from their Emperor or his chosen man, the legionary legate was essentially no different to a tribal warband leader. His men were loyal to him, not Rome, and the system relied on these generals remaining loyal to Rome which all to often they weren't. Look how often usurpers were chosen by their own men to be emperor as a result of their popularity with the soldiers. Since Rome was an intensely competitive state, the temptation to use that military capability for their own ends was always present, and the threat of retaliation from other legions was often the only counter to it. For the Romans, 'Might is Right'. Right from the beginning of the principate, emperors were suspicious of succesful generals, and for good reason.

Its the Chinese New Year, and since they haven't been inflicted deeply by the economic downturn, today they've been celebrating. It also happens to be Year of the Ox which is good news for me, because in Chinese astrology that's me - I'm an Ox. There you go, I've admitted it. Get Away From It All Australia are advertising for a guy to run Hamilton Island, a tropical paradise, in a deal involving free flights, feeding turtles, collecting mail, scuba swimming, running a Hamilton Island blog, watching whales, and modest pay. So whats the catch? The Tourist Authority say the succesful applicant will a zest for life. I nod knowingly. You'll be stuck miles from anywhere without anyone to talk to. A bit like Swindon then. Adverts of the Week I was watching late night tv and the inevitable adverts turned their attention to those feeling lonely and unloved on the weekend. Phone now and speak to lovely girls. Who knows where it will lead? Call me jaded, but I think I already know. The next advert stated categorically that I would be speaking to genuine girls. Phew. I thought the robots had taken over. Still, if I happen to get the job on Hanilton Island at least I'll have someone to talk to, assuming my mobile phone battery lasts that long.

They certainly knew about it by the Council of Nicaea in ad325. Curiously, for a book that is a call to arms against Rome, it was included as canon by the priests convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine to unify Christianity. It seems then the underlying message in the Book of Revelations had been misunderstood within three hundred years, or were the priests including it for subtle reasons? True, the Christians felt their time had come, and that Constantine was supporting their efforts, but he was still pagan at this time, a sun worshipper, and tried to have one of his relatives worshipped as Jesus. Were the Christians playing it both ways? Or simply like today, assuming the prophetic prose spoke of future events rather than a diatribe against Rome?

Wasn't there a piece of legislation, about this time, which prevented men of senatorial rank from assuming officerships in the army? I've forgotten exactly when it was passed, but i know it was mid to late 4th century. Possibly drawn up to prevent usurpation, it resulted in an army in which the Roman ruling classes now had no direct involvement. Not at Adrianople. The list of officers killed are clearly well connected, and for instance, Richomeres (who avoided the battle by agreeing to become a hostage of the Goths and was at the Roman camp collecting other agreed hostages when the battle started) had a noble title.

It was for a variety of reasons. Valens for instance asked for Sebastian to be a general of his armies (I believe they were related, and Sebastian had a good reputation working in the western military). Whilst Valens was busy wit some pressing matters and reforming an army to take on the Goths on his return to Constantinople, he got Sebastian to keep the Goths busy. Acccording to Zosimus, heads were arriving in the city every day, and Valens was well aware of how Sebastian was pressing him not to fight a set-piece battle against the Goths. Eventually Valens set forth with an army toward Adrianople, but was persuaded to let Sebastian force-march a contingent of the best troops as a reconnaisance in force, which resulted in a victory at the River Maritza - Sebastian made the mistake of glorifying the event. So Valens wanted a victory. he wanted to outdo Sebastian so as not to suffer the embarrasement and politcal threat, and he wanted to secure a victory without the help of Gratian, the western emperor, en route but delayed. So in this case it was all about image. this was the Dominate, a period of Roman history in which emperors were keen to put on shows of wealth and military success, and really only bred an atmosphere of intrigue.

The attack of Germanic tribes at Kalkriese took place over miles of dense temperate rainforest and was a co-ordinated attack, which indicates central planning and communication. Also, the plan was not simply to whittle the Romans down, but a successful attempt to lure the legions into a prepared killing ground. The attacks further back along the column were intended to disrupt the Roman column and prevent any retreat. The fact these tribesmen had co-operated at all suggests also that Arminius was a considerable leader. Certainly his demise took place because of the differences between tribes (though one can speculate about Roman intrigue). The weather did turn bad, but this was less of an physical factor, since the storm was deeply significant to superstitious Roman soldiers so it was their morale that was harmed. The legions of the time were no less disciplined that at any other - indeed, Arminius's plan hinged on the Romans behaving as expected. What civilians are you discussing? The legions were on campaign to stop what they'd been told was a revolt. They were marching to battle in other words.

As you might have guessed, I spent last night watching Monty Python's third film, The Meaning Of Life, definitely the least funny of the three, and perhaps proof that Life isn't fun? Certainly the town I live in has tried to tell us its a great place to live ever since the railworks, our very own dark satanic mill, closed for business. Yet Swindon always seems so meaningless. It does seem a little coincidental that I've chosen to discuss the Meaning of Life, especially since I seem to have so little of one these days. Or so it seems. Funny thing is, the people who pour scorn on me for not being popular really don't seem to have any more life than I do, nor are they actually popular beyond a few mates. It's as if they don't comprehend that the world exists beyond their own self importance, thus ignorance really is bliss. Of course lifes rich diversity is easier if you're rich too. They say money makes the world go round, though one wonders whether Sir Isaac Newton actually thought that the contents of his purse made apples fall on his head. I must now devote an entire paragraph to Jesus. The reason for this is that despite being offically described as the 'Worlds Most Caring Person', he poured scorn on rich people like a sort of ancient Jewish marxist. Since the Roman Emperor was one of the richest people around at the time, one can understand why they nailed Jesus up. It's a bit like Emperor Tiberius slapping the mans cheek shortly before telling him in a heavy Italian accent that he hadn't shown enough respect. The Romans of course believed money was everything. By strange coincidence, so do the people who are good at earning it. There seems to be this attitude amongst them that since they can afford to be more sophisticated, they are, and are therefore happy at being intrinsically superior to plebs. Just human nature I guess. But are they any different to plebs? Not really, since they always adopt the same lifestyles as their peers. Since I don't seem to be adopting the lifestyles of the Joneses, I must conclude the Meaning of Life isn't found in my bank statement. So where else? Some people see meaning in science, religion, sport, politics, fashion, popularity, gambling, violence, alcohol, drugs, art, music, literature, families, friendships, travel, hot sex, hot cars, railway engines, stamp collecting, fluffy animals, carbon footprints, inconveniently placed trees, or simply sounding important. I guess the Meaning of Life really boils down to the fact that you can choose.what it means to you. So make your mind up and be happy before someone else decides what you should do to make their life meaningful. New Low of the Week It had to happen. After nearly a year of trawling through job adverts and banging on doors, I finally succumbed to temptation and applied for a job of manual labour in a warehouse. Sigh... Now all I have to do is find a warehouse that's still open. Ouch, that sounded pessimistic. Unforgivable. Especially since I've just had a pay rise on my benefits. Excuse me while I check my bank statement.

I see. So what do you think was the high point of Joe Bidens term as President of the United States? What were his successes? Where did he fail? After all, Barack Obama replaced him as President within twelve minutes so he couldn't have been brilliant? Perhaps he didn't buy a barack-in-a-box?

Sejanus had risen to prominence beneath the senators socially and had considerable influence by beeing the confidant of Tiberius. The thing is though, Sejanus was using this influence to clear his path politically by removing those he regarded as obstacles. It stands to reason that some senators were outraged or frightened and thus began plotting, basically, to save their own skins by removing Sejanus. Tiberius was already unpopular anyway but then again he was Augustus's chosen successor. To say Tiberius was a victim doesn't really work for me. Even though he remained in Capri for two thirds of his reign he still remained Romes head man. Sejanus really had no-one to blame but himself. He lived by the execution warrant and died by it.

The structure of the Roman military during the Empire was simple. Individual generals (Legatii) were in command of legions which acted as independent mini-armies. There was no national army. For that reason, the Empire was absolutely dependent on the loyalty of these men and very often found them looking after their own political interests rather than than enforcing the security of provinces. Vercingetorix rose in rebellion after the Gauls were conquered, whilst anti-Roman sentiment was at its highest. You know what? I agree completely. However, the ability of the opposing troops and leaders must be considered.

Right. Time to sit down in my cubicle at the Library and while away an hour on the internet. It's quiet, nobodies showing off their bestial personal habits, and no mobuile phones... Uh-oh. I spoke too soon. The young black lady on the PC to me right whipped her phone out with practised ease. She spoke clearly, confidently, quietly, and for some strange reason, there was a very appealing tone to her voice. I found myself listening in. Oh no. I've turned into a sad eavesdropper. Oh well.. Now it seems that her friend has a relation who is getting into trouble with the police. That seems to be a rite of manhood with young black males all over world. It makes me wonder if their girlfriends get turned on by the bad boy image... "You've been arrested how many times?... Wow...." I don't get it. With all the modern equality and equal opportunities, not to mention a black President of the US, how can young black males claim to be repressed? They say White Attitudes. What White Attitudes? I used to hang around with a group of young blacks and found them affable company, even if they did try to live up to the L.A. image. None worked for a living of course, and it doesn't take much speculation to figure out how they paid for their designer clothes. I remember meeting a twenty-something black woman a year or two ago. Somehow or other we got talking and I have to confess, she was nice. Sadly my 'White Trash' label didn't impress her mother, who happened to be in the bar too, and the young lady promptly vanished from sight. It seems to me that racism, even in its mildest forms, persists because the blacks want it to. Its common ground for them, a focus of their community, an excuse, a cause to cling to, justifying every attempt they make to get something for nothing. Now there will be some people who'll accuse me of hypocrisy given my short-lived betrothal to Miss J. For those who haven't read my blog before (shame on you), Miss J was a black lady chosen by DS, a former boss of mine, a blonde airhead with the attention span of a goldfish and the marital instincts of a piranha. Given the circumstances, Miss J's skin tone was the least of my worries. So now we have a 44th Precedent of the United States. I would like to think he'll make a difference in more subtle ways than international politics. Somehow, I doubt things will change very much after the euphoria dies down. To many young blacks, it's business as usual. News Item of the Week Right, I've mentioned Barack Obama, I've done my duty. Now lets find the most interesting news item that doesn't have 'Inauguration' on it. Lets see... Parade on Pennsylvania Drive.... No. Bullet proof glass viewing compartment.... No Obama means 'He With Us' in Persian... No. Bible used has segregational connections... No Most people ever in a political meeting... No Newspapers describe crowd as 'Biblical'... No Steven Spielberg says he couldn't afford to film a scene with a crowd like this... No. Reaction of Iranians... No Kenyans hold celebration party.... No Oh I give up. Yes, it's Obama. But under protest, because the media aren't interested in anything else right now. Hang on... Whats this? RAF C130 scrambles to take pregnant woman from Stornaway Island to mainland hospital... Aha! Action, human interest, and a happy ending, all in one go. They almost got lost in the rush to cover Obama there. Well done lads.

Patterns of Urban Settlement In the light of recent threads concerning Roman urbanisation, here's a few thoughts on urban settlement in the the Roman world. Whilst this subject is interesting enough, and hauntingly familiar to us with modern perspective, it must be remembered that an estimated 80% of the population in Roman times were rural, and not all of those living as Romans. There are basically three types of Roman town. 1 - Existing settlements. In areas where the Romans made their presence known it was always possible to find larger settlements. With Roman patronage there would have been people in these settlements, not necessarily Roman, but those willing to conform and profit from the system, who would have built and sponsored Roman-style facilities alongside those of the native culture. Street layouts would broadly retain their former character although Roman planning would eventually impose itself to some degree during redevelopment. 2 - The Vicus Roman forts were either temproary marching camps, or more usefully, permanent installations built either of wood or stone. Once the Roman soldiers had become established in an area, they were a ready source of customers for local artisans and entrepeneurs. The importance of the Roman military in this respect cannot be overstated - entire local economies depended on soldiers money. Initially, these vicae were native settlements, built by those people who wanted to profit from the forts soldiers, and the existence of Roman facilities emerges to satisfy their requirements as customers. As the settlement becomes more successful, it would develop a Roman character. 3 - Colonies Towns created from scratch by urban planning were a feature of the principate, especially under the Augustan Franchise which saw the distribution and settlement of more than thirty legions of veteran soldiers. These colonies served two purposes - Firstly, they provided a nucleus of Roman culture in wilderness or declining regions. Secondly, they provided new markets and growth, therefore widening the tax base. Colonies were built to a generic pattern. They always had a north-south aligned street grid, and facilities would be found in more or less the same relationship to each other, a feature designed to make these towns familiar to travellers and enhance communications and community life. Urban Issues in the Roman World In all cases, the Romans encouraged the development of urban development and landmark changes might receive rewards and concessions to the community. A spirit of competition existed in the first stage of this urbanisation of the Roman World as communities vied with one another for prestige. The issue of 'Romanisation' is an exaggerated concept. Provincial populations for the most part carried on life as they always had done, apart from having to observe Roman law. Some provinces adapted to Roman culture readily and thus seem more 'Romanised' to our eyes. Britain was never fully compliant, the north of England in particular proving troublesome. Judaea and Mauretania were rebellious. Hadrians promise to rebuild Jerusalem turned to outright revolt when he decided to create a Roman city named Aelia Capitolina in its place. The familiarity of Roman architecture we see preserved around Europe, Africa, and th Middle East tends to reinforce the view that the Roman world was a unifrom culture, but that wasn't the case. Rome was a city state at the center of an empire, a confederation of barbarian regions under Roman rule. Some regions were more willing than others, and its worth noting that after the varian Disaster of AD9, the Romano-Germanic towns undergoing settlement beyond the Rhine were quickly abandoned by the native tribes. Urbanisation was therefore a product of Roman patronage, not culture, further encouraged by the presence of the Roman military and its need for logistical support. An interesting trend is the fortifying of towns from the 2nd Century AD. On the one hand, it can be seen as symbolic of civic pride and possibly an employment initiative. On the other, a sign of increasing defensive posture and a desire to live in safe protected surroundings? The implications in the second case is that the Roman Empire felt less safe, thus encouraging defensive works, and it may be no coincidence that Hadrians policy of border control is linked to this atmosphere. By the late empire Rome was in decline as a city, the center of power had moved to Constantinople, or in the case of the Tetrarchy, Trier and Antioch too. There was therefore less focus to emulate Roman civil engineering and urban development, and less wealth to support and patronise it. The old fanchise system was long dead as provincial towns became increasingly independent of central control and wholly concerned with their own survival in an unstable empire. The drawback to urban life is the ever-present risk of disease. Rome itself had outbreaks of disease and althogh there was some provision for health care and cleaniness, assuming you were wealthy enough to afford it, the average Roman lived in conditions not far removed from his barbarian neighbours. Noticeably, there seems to be an increasing prevalence of disease toward the late empire. It's tempting to believe this is linked to a decline in Roman culture with the influx of foreign immigrants over the centuries, but it can also be demonstrated that the spread of disease was due to Roman trade, that the merchant ships and overland caravans were carrying disease to all corners of the Empire once it emerged in one place. The comfort and wealth of Roman life was also immensely attractive to many barbarian peoples across the border. It would therefore be correct to say that the urbanisation of the Roman world was a victim of its own success.

What complicates things is British law. With any valuable finds, there's an inquest to find out who owns the items - The finder, the owner of the land, or the state. There is for instance a hoard of silver tableware locked away in an auction house in London because it appears the items may have been stolen and smuggled out of Rumania following a possible murder of the original finder. Whilst the current 'owner' is not under suspicion of criminal activity, the provenance of the items is suspect, and at least two major court cases on both sides of the Atlantic have failed to resolve this affair.

I suspect your students are more motivated than I was. Back then, I disliked the teacher, and with boyish insidiousness, proceeded to reduce her to a nervous wreck. She did try to motivate us though. There was this idea she had for team based learning with a mural painted around the walls to show the position of the teams as they progress toward France. She made the mistake of putting me on the team painting the mural... And I hit on the idea of a horizontal 'snakes and ladders'. She wasn't overly impressed with the artwork to begin with, and even less when she saw the crude police van directing those with poor pronounciation to jail and so back the start. I understand that the year after I left her tuition she turned into a fire breathing dragon and reduced her pupils to nervous wrecks instead... Maybe I shouldn't admit to being the cause of such suffering and misery...

Remember - A trolley is not just for Christmas.... Send

Try this. Includes a pic of an iberian style sword. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius Before the adoption of the gladius, the Romans used a variety of swords. Most were of the 'antenna' type (referring to a swirly decorative pommel unlike the solid one of later times) and varied in length. Both thrusting or slashing swords were more or less common. A few had an elongated 'bowie knife' tip.

There's a tree in Savernake Forest that I know of. An unremarkable tree at first glance until you discover how old it is. That old fella was sprouting out of ground, fresh from the seed, roughly the same time William the Conqueror was striding ashore at Hastings. That day in 1066 changed everything. From that point forwards, England and France would be uncomfortable neighbours, no doubt made worse by the Germanic roots of the Anglo-Saxons. Of course now we're on good terms, despite my successful attempts to enrage my French teacher as a child. Nobody else liked her either. It's an instinctive thing, this antipathy between the British and French. Even some of our insults derive from our little upsets. The English two-fingered salute originated from medieval archers who taunted the French by showing they still had their bow fingers - the French had taken to cutting them off every time they caught one of them. We don't fight wars with the French any more, and to be honest, I'm a bit old to annoy French teachers now. Instead, we have a rivalry over language. A couple of decades ago the French created legislation to stop their countrymen using anglicised words in everyday conversation. They felt it was poisoning their traditional language. Imagine then my suprise when I see on the news that the French government are encouraging the education of English in their country. How times have changed. I watched as their schoolchildren underwent physical education classes entirely in English. They have free lessons and language camps out of term time, just to learn how to speak our tongue. The pervasiveness of the English language is something we take for granted. Usually when an Englishman encounters foreigners who don't understand him he simply shouts louder. Despite this traditional English ignorance of foreign languages, I did learn some French at school, inbetween annoying teachers. On an industrial visit to France back in my college days I had many opportunities to display this mastery of conversational French. I don't know if the bus driver actually understood me or not, but he took my money anyway and I arrived back at the hostel safe and well. As for the toilet cleaner we asked directions of, I can assure him we did find the Harbourmaster later that day. As for that idiot I tried to buy chocolate from - I wanted two bars of the stuff, not to haggle over the price. So I got to shout louder at a foreigner after all. Phone Call of the Week Talking about communication, I got a wierd phone call the other day. I found it on my answering service, three minutes of wheezing and a distant voice asking "Are you done yet?". My phone tells me there was no phone number, so I'm inclined to believe I have been contacted by aliens from the Planet Zarg who want to abduct me for sex. Thanks for the call guys, but lets stick to taking you to our leader, yes? Oh.... They've hung up......

What you have to understand is that domesticated trolleys you find in supermarket car parks are tended to by trolleyherds, but that sometimes trolley rustlers make off with them and invariably dump them in ditches, and thats despite devices to keep them shackled to their home carpark. Its a growing problem. Numbers suggest trolleys aren't an endangered species but their cruel treatment by some shoppers is ubelievable. I hope that in some small way I have made you aware of the plight of the Lesser Spotted British Trolley.

I've recently made a big deal about Bincknoll Castle. I was under the impression that it was another hillfort, albeit much smaller and a possible fortified farmstead. It turns out that in the Wiltshire listed monuments its described as whats left of a medieval motte-and-bailey. Apologies for the mistake (I'm not an archaeologist!)

According to my studies of discarded shopping trollies, based on statistical information gathered over twenty five years, not one shopping trolley mated and bred offspring. Some do flourish in their damp and muddy home however, as weeds and sediment will tend to build up around them thus creating the perfect enviroment for the urban trolley. Trolleys do like ditches though, and I have seen at least one with a thriving population of four trolleys living together in an adonised community. Brings tears to your eyes.

I think the excuses had more to do with political credibility of those supporting campaigning in the Senate. Rome never excused itself to other nations, nor was there an international forum for such disagreements.

The Romans fought wars for the same reasons everyone else did. Security, resources, territory, politics. Sometimes it was justified, sometimes it was greed, sometimes simply personal ambition of the leader, or that he needed military victory to remain popular.

In general, there was increasingly a trend for military units to go private, to secure regular pay by operating as mecenaries contracting to defend communities rather than act as part of the Roman legions. Particularly after Adrianople, tribes were hired as troops for the Romans, the feoderatii, which was becoming a looser arrangement than the strict treaty it had once been. Archaeology shows the adoption of barbarian style arms and armour. Now whilst that doesn't necessarily mean these weapons were any worse than those used before, it does mean that the Roman forces were not well trained in their own, thus readily adopted those they were more familiar with. It also implies the late empire system of equipment was not functioning well. Vegetius - he wrote De Re Militari as a guide to what the Roman legions of the late Empire should be doing, not what they were, and he hints in the text that soldiers of his day weren't as impressive as those of old. Further, he refers to legionaries as being 'unprotected'. Now whilst he exaggerates the problem (according to archaeological evidence, which admittedly isn't as accurate as we'd like because the sample is too small) there is a correlation - many late Roman soldiers had no armour. Many Roman units were no longer commanded by 'Roman' officers, nor even trained to fight in Roman tactics. Marcellinus - In Res Gestae Libri XXXI Ammianus Marcelliuns describes the Adrianople campaign. By and large Marcellinus doesn't criticise the efforts of Roman troops, but there are hints that things weren't as well organised as they might have been. Units act impetusously and seem to have little steadfastness. Valens had made prodigious efforts during his stay at Melanthia to rouse the troops to any enthusiasm for the forthcoming fight at all, especially since the Goths had already massacered Roman forces under Lupicinus and Maximus, and there's little sign of any desire for revenge. Zosimus - A particularly damning statement comes from Nea Historia, as in book four he describes the preamble to to the Battle of Adrianople. Sebastianus, observing the indolence and effeminacy both of the tribunes and soldiers, and that all they had been taught was only how to fly, and to have desires more suitable to women than to men, requested no more than two thousand men of his own choice. He well knew the difficulty of commanding a multitude of ill-disciplined dissolute men, and that a small number might more easily be reclaimed from their effeminacy; and, moreover, that it was better to risk a few than all. By these arguments having prevailed upon the emperor, he obtained his desire. He selected, not such as had been trained to cowardice and accustomed to flight, but strong and active men who had lately been taken into the army, and who appeared to him, who was able to judge of men, to be capable of any service.

The big deal in Britain at the moment (apart from our economies disappearing act that is) happens to be the plans for the expansion of Heathrow airport. Now that the airport is operating at 99% capacity they want an extra runway which requires the demolition of two nearby villages and the loss of seven hundred homes and businesses. If they want more landing space, why not use the River Thames? The Americans have shown it can be done. You have to hand it to the pilot of the Airbus 320 that made a smooth arrival on the River Hudson. His skill at the controls certainly saved the lives of the passengers and crew, and in modern airliners with big engines hanging under the wings, such a landing is potentially disastrous. I also feel some sympathy. Whilst I've no doubt the man would simply he was only doing his job, the media circus wants a hero. Amongst the people who shouldn't be called heroes are sportsmen. Scoring goals or points doesn't quite involve life or death risk in a selfless effort to save others. Come to think of it, I guess the politicians supporting the Heathrow are not exactly well-regarded in some circles right now. It's not just the poor people who stand to be turfed out of their homes, but also the green lobby who deeply resent any increase in carbon dioxide. Its hard to empathise with the green lobby. Their movement has all the overtones of religion and lets be honest, although they give their own lives meaning by striving against enviromental issues, they would think nothing of foisting their views on the rest of us. Rather like the government that wants to demolish seven hundred homes without giving anyone a chance to persuade them otherwise. Heroes? Only in their own mind. Religious Intolerance At Home The news item said that a Christian bus driver refuses to drive a vehicle with an aetheist slogan "There's probably no God". Why? Does he normally say three Hail Mary's and close his eyes before flooring the pedal? Personally I don't see his problem. He does believe in God doesn't he? So what difference is a slogan going to make? Does he really believe people are going to take any notice as the bus rumbles past and fills the air with thick black diesel fumes? People discover their own God for all sorts of reasons. Bus slogans aren't one of them. Headline of the Week Our newspaper ran a story concerning a housing estate in Swindon. Abbey Mead and its drainage ditches are now a dumping ground for supermarket trolleys. Gasp! Surely not! Actually, West Swindon as a whole has been a dump for shopping trolleys for more than twenty years. Maybe I should have mentioned it earlier? Sorry.....