Monday, December 07, 2009
Postscript
Two further snippets from the weekend's expedition. First, the fancy Tesco included a contraption for eating up the contents of your piggy bank, or the proceeds of your table top sale. A slightly smarter version of the contraption at Mr S. of Kiln Lane. But with the differance that if you chose to take the money in a chitty exchangeable against goods, you got the whole lot. No 7% deduction in the way of Mr S., on which I have dilated in the past. Second, afficionados of rolls in public houses will be pleased to hear that in Cambridge's Six Bells, that as well as decent beer and decent company, they do a good sausage roll for £2. That is to say sausage roll as in bacon roll, not a wadge of stale pastry wrapping up some spicy spongy quantity. Four chipolata sausages and some onion in a very decent roll. Streets ahead of what passes for rolls in most places. Mr G. gets lots of hits and the only one that I checked suggests that the place also does a splendid fried breakfast. Maybe the sausages are a hangover from that.
A pity that so few pubs still do rolls of this ordinary sort, which used to be common when I was little. A roll or a pie is just the thing to accompany the odd jar. Much more suitable than shredded duck in crispy pecan sauce or vegetarian taglitelly served with a hint of tarragona. Presumably caught in the squeeze between people losing their taste for rolls and pubs getting a taste for higher value snacks.
Must try and find out whether 'Delaware' is still used for Tesco's own brand stuff, in the way that M&S used to use 'St Michael'. And did Tesco give the name Delaware to the road that housed their HQ or did Tesco give their name to the road? And then, does Sir T. live above the shop in a modest - or perhaps magnificent - penthouse?
More recently we have been reflecting on the Foxy Loxy business in Perugia. I share a few thoughts to add to the billions - or perhaps trillions - which must be out here already. First thought, is that it is a pity that there is not better evidence on which to send two young people down for 25 years. Not to say that they are not guilty as found, but one would be more comfortable had they been caught with weapons which matched the wounds in hand. Or some such. Reminded of the saying from a legal friend to the effect that the quality of evidence required to convict varies inversely with the severity of the crime. Second thought, is it possible for stuff to be blanked out on whatever they were consuming that night? Fred Vargas builds one of her murder yarns on a policeman who gets drunk, has a bit of night blanked out, and cannot be sure whether he did the deed or not. (As it turns out the blanking out was caused by the real bad person bashing him over the head then injecting noxious substance). Maybe these two just do not know what happened on the night. Third thought, the DT on Saturday and the Observer on Sunday were both hot on the weakness of the evidence. Maybe the pendulum, having done the hate thing on this (at the very least) badly behaved young woman is now swinging the other way. Fourth thought, why did it take so long for the thing to come to trial, given that they laid their hands on the people they eventually charged more or less immediately? On what I have come across so far, glad I am not a Perugian judge of appeal.
# posted by Jim @ 9:21 AM 
