Chuckling at the Bombers' Bloopers

In a recent article for The Guardian, Marina Hyde called upon all echelons of society to laugh at the terrorists who have carried out botch attacks. By mocking them, she argues, we deny them all dignity; by taking the ‘mickey out of them’, we do not flatter them by placing a sort of “misplaced reverence” in their actions.
This may be a valid point but my understanding of laughter and its source comes as a relief of social pressure; a sort of valve that releases anything that may cause an explosion (no pun intended). Therefore is it possible that the reason why we are not mocking the terrorists is that they do not rate in our climate of fear?
This could be seen as flattering not the terrorists for the government for handling the scenario impeccably; acknowledging the event, creating a context for its occurrence and demonstrating the leadership skills to guide the country through without panic buying, hibernating or generally running amuck. Market commentators might support this view as many commentators have noted the lack of ‘fear’ in the economy on the final weekend of June. The swift realisation that ‘there is nothing to fear but fear itself’ quickly removed any sting for the free market and people continued to live their lives normally, despite the terror threat being elevated to its highest step; people just saw a few more bobbies on the beat and had to sit for longer in traffic jams at airports. However, commuters did scan other’s belongings more closely and fellow Londoners have admitted to me that, when leaving a bag near me while they do something near-by “This belongs to me, it’s not a bomb or anything!!”
This is irreverent in its own right; people are commenting about the casual reality that a bag-bomb could appear at any moment. Perhaps this general lack of impact on daily life (although those sitting for five hours in tunnels at Heathrow Airport and those with Arabian features ‘randomly’ being frisked on train station concourses by special branch may disagree) may result from the fact that it was a miss. If the car packed with gas canisters and nails did hit night clubbers in Piccadilly, would the reaction have been any different?
However the failed attack was mocked with the fact that the second car, allegedly placed to target those fortunate enough to stumble away from the initial blast on the club in Haymarket, was towed away having being ticketed by parking inspectors for parking illegally. Many smirked at this revelation as they did when it became known that the Glasgow attackers chose to ‘B&Q it’ for all their car bombing needs.
Maybe it’s the fact that it was a miss that negates any build-up in social pressure and as a result, there is no reason to discharge this through humour and mockery. However, even after 9/11 ( New York ), 3/11 ( Madrid ) or 7/7 ( London ), there was a period of reflection. Those comedians who first used this as ‘material’ were met with shouts of ‘too soon’ or boos; indicating that ‘we will laugh, just not yet’ -as much a part of the human psyche as comedy, is grieving; those who died and the surviving families deserve some dignity before the event becomes a side-show. However as Team America (cited by Marina Hyde herself) episodes of Family Guy (I am particularly reminded of the scene where Al-Qaeda are attempting to film their latest video message but the speaker is blooping his way through it) and a trip to your local comedy club will prove, there are always openings for injecting humour into events regardless of its scale and impact on the community.
I find it hard to believe that the lack of fun-poking at these criminals is linked with some bizarre deference, I feel it is more to do with either they rate no higher than the dig shit we walk on, or like a sunday roast, some digestion is needed before carrying on.

One man's excuse for poor results is another man's goldmine

Could he have been right at the outset? Marks and Spencer's Stuart Rose once laughed at suggestions that his competitor's poor showing in quarter sales results was down to bad weather. This week, however, on releasing slower 2007 Q2 figures the widely declared saviour of the British commercial institution was slow to put forward weather as a sole contributing factor but did admit on BBC Radio's Today programme that he was quite happy to be proved wrong on the famous statement 'Weather is for wimps'.
But was he correct in conceding defeat? Especially when there are clearly other more obvious reasons and even figures to suggest that, indeed, weather really is for weak business models. The Dublin City Businesses Association are trumpeting 5% increase in footfall on July of last year while shopping centres on the edges of the capital are celebrating up to 18% more visitors than the same period of 2006. Their CEO, Tom Coffey, even went as far as to tell reporters that "Rain is good for business. You can't go the beach but you can't lock yourself up at home either".
So why is it a valid reason for businesses to blame 'unseasonable weather' for bad results? I thought that the one thing about living in the UK or Ireland is that there is no such thing as 'seasonal'. We live in the climate that coined the phrase 'make hay while the sun shines'. And, in contrast to what some UK high street stores are reporting, Mr Coffey's association even suggests that the Spring sun kept shoppers away and now they are returning in their droves and are likely to continue as autumn approaches and people start buying to 'layer-up' against the elements.  
Retailers should be more intelligent. The ice-cream machine should not be rolled and shelves should not be cleared of soups and firelighters in favour of BBQ charcoal and sun cream based on the calendar but on what is actually happening outside the window. Granted they are not the most accurate, but there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the astute business person is signed up to weather alerts so that they can stock sandals or wellies. Isn't it obvious that flexibility is key to success in changeable environments? Being prepared is the mantra of every good scout and shopkeeper!
But in this toddler society and financial market 'why' is the eternal question - up is the only permitted direction so a plateau or drift downwards sets panic alarms. So if it’s not the weather, what is it? It’s the economy, stupid!
Higher interest rates scare borrowers and entice savers. This may satisfy banks but it does nothing to warm the commercial sector that thrives on whatever category of an individual's expenditure they can garner; from capital to discretionary. This is being squeezed and so priorities change; mortgages are paid or regular saving schemes are started. The level of credit in both the UK and Ireland is also a reason for these rates to encourage those living beyond their means of starting a smooth descent to a soft landing rather than a crash and burn which, judging be the levels of debt, is in no-ones interest.
Inflation is another possible reason; The UK is at an almost decade high 2.7%; 0.2% above Government targets and prompting an unprecedented explanation letter from The Bank of England's Mervin King to the then Chancellor for the Exchequer, Gordon Brown - a safety net put in place when Brown awarded independence in the setting of rates as part of Labours rise to power in 1997. While Ireland has a long way to reach the incredible 7% highs of the start of this decade, the line-graph is definitely point northwards. This combined with the failure of income to keep pace has resulted in the in/out scales tipping unfavourably with a need to throw out dead weight in an attempt to rebalance. Tales of big bonuses wallpapers over the reality, how many within in the square mile of the city, let alone of the country, benefited from the Stg£8.8billion in end of year bonuses.
So don't be a wuss Stuart, weather is an excuse or a cover-up that the future isn’t as ‘Rosey’ as the golden days of times past.

The citizens muted voice on Europe's future

Pushing through an EU amendment treaty without emphatic support from the individual nation states (that is the form people who democratically form such a body) smacks of ingenuity, covertness and a blatant disregard for opinions of those who should 'make or break' the institution that was established as a meeting of minds - not a system of instruction. It is denying the very political method it is meant to be representative of; democracy.
The agreement of a long session in Brussels last June is a re-badged constitution that is no different from its sister document; Ireland's Bertie Ahern reckoned it was 90% the same, the Spanish calculated 98% while Angela Merkel, whose EU presidency as German Chancellor presided over the formation of the treaty, admitted that they were using "different terminology without changing the substance...to make the constitution a success".
It is also not reassuring that the only faith that political leaders have in the treaty and its contents is to push it through 'the back door' rather than facilitating an open discussion or ratification by universal suffrage. The argument for this could be the rejection of the constitution by France and Holland first time round but I recall that the 'official line' on this was that the refusal to ratify was a retort for local political issues and not the EU constitution itself.  Even if the opt-outs that Britain obtained in their so called 'red line defences' or Sarkozy's removal of free market competition being at the heart of the EU identity are considered as being enough amendments to permit a u-turn the promise of a referendum, As Tony Blair said in 2004 "You can't have a...rejection of a treaty and then you just bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go”.Likewise, it is not right to have a scenario that the Irish found themselves in with the Nice Treaty where the people were forced to vote and vote again until they 'got it right!’ What is wrong with the theory that people should have the final say on how they wish to be governed and essentially the make-up of that system of governance?