Decisions, decisions

Planning this trip to Orlando is becoming an all-consuming obsession. This is a holiday like no other. This is taking a military level of precision. The problem is there is so much to do. I'd like to goto the Disney parks (Magic Kingodm, Epcot, Animal Kingdom and MGM-Studios), plus Universal and Islands of Adventure. Then there's Seaworld and the Kennedy Space Centre, plus at least one waterpark.

That gives 9 places to go to. And 12 days to do it in. The worry is that it'll be too much and extremely tiring and that 3 "rest" (i.e. shopping) days won't be enough. We'll have to be up quite early each day to get to the parks, and then we'll be out quite late each day as well. This will not leave much time for Joe and Jess to play in the pool or go shopping or whatever.

But on the other hand, it seems silly to go all that way and then not do something. I suppose if we miss anything it'll be Universal and Islands of Adventure. But they look really good and I'm sure we'd really enjoy them. But then it would give us 2 free days which we could spend doing the Disney parks a bit more thoroughly, and that is the main reason for going.

Oh, it's complicated and I don't know what to do. Do a bit of everything and miss a lot, or miss a couple of parks altogether and do the rest more thoroughly.

I have made a couple of decisions though: One is to book a great big 4x4 as a hire car. It's a bit pricey but given we've got a very long run down from Atlanta it's worth the extra for the space. The second decision is one we're keeping secret from the kiddies and that's to go on a helicopter ride. But that goes over Universal and if we're not going then it'd probably make me annoyed that it looks really good or something. Maybe I should cough up for a more expensive ride if we miss Universal that goes over Disney, given that I'd be saving money on Universal tickets anyway.

It'd be a lot simpler if we just went to a crappy Spanish beach like most people.

Runaway

As I write this, the north runway at Heathrow has been closed for over an hour and a half.

The reason for this is that a man armed with a rucksack scaled the perimeter fence, got onto the runway and ran into the path of a plane.

The man was arrested and taken into custody and sniffer dogs called to check the rucksack for explosives. The news does not say whether any were found.

So why is the runway still closed? He is no longer a threat. Why keep the runway shut? Why cause delay and misery for thousands of people? The danger (if there ever actually was any) has been averted.

I'm not saying this guy was a terrorist, because he was probably just one of those idiots who protest against the expansion of Heathrow, given that Terminal 5 is due to be opened tommorow, but when we close runways at airports over small incidents like this, or shut down our train and tube network at the drop of a hat. Well, isn't that what terrorists want? They get pretty much the same affect without going through the actual bother of blowing themselves up. They want to cause disruption and we are letting them do it by our own stupidity.

Open the runway and let the stranded passengers get on with their lives.

This lack of justice is criminal

What do you actually need to do to get put into prison, or punished at all these days?

In the past couple of days I've seen a guy in my local paper who sexually abused two boys at the school he worked at get off without a jail sentence, because he showed remorse. So saying "Sorry" makes it all better, does it?

Then there was the two yobs who drove a car into somebody's house, and got out laughing clutching cans of lager. The man who owned the house, and his neighbour chased after the youths and detained them. The police took over an hour to arrive, incidentally. Their punishment? A caution. Not even a criminal conviction.

And then I read about someone who actually did goto jail. He killed a man to steal his bicycle. His punishment? 6 years, of which he will probably serve about 3. For killing a man.

What sort of joke of justice is this? No punishment for sexually abusing children. No punishment for drink-driving and crashing a car into somebody's house, causing untold damage and risking the lives of the occupants. And barely any punishment for murder.

No wonder there's such a huge amount of crime. There is simply no deterrent. When we were burgled the police came quickly. And when they tried to get back in again a couple of weeks ago, they also came quickly. But they aren't going to get the people that did it. They aren't even going to try because they don't have the manpower. But if they were caught? What would they get? A slap on the wrist? A warning? As I mentioned before, they caught somebody doing graffiti who had also daubed his vile scrawl on my garage door. Was he made to clean it up? Like hell he was. But why not?

People of England, I promise you this. When I come to power I will automatically double all sentences. Possibly even treble them (with some exceptions, such as pensioners who can't afford their council tax and so on). There will be no early releases and the sentences will be a minimum. In other words, if you get a 20-yr sentence, you will not get out after 10 for good behaviour. You will get out after 20 for good behaviour. If you've been badly behaved in prison, you'll just get more time added to your sentence. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

The problem of prison overcrowding will be solved simply: Build more prisons. This will be easily financed by the fact that we won't have to deal with so many criminals on the streets, because they'll be locked up, not taking up police and court time. And if that isn't enough then I'm sure it's found easily enough elsewhere. Removing the mayor of London from office will probably do it.

Go, Boris!

Finally, somebody with some sense!

Boris Johnson, the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London, has said he will reduce the amount of time that traffic lights are red, by reducing the time for pedestrians crossing. A brilliant idea. Of course, the greenies are condemning it, because of course every person who takes a bit longer to cross is therefore considered fair game and is eligible to be run over. Sorry, whats that? People won't run them over? And will wait for them to finish crossing? Nah, don't believe you.

Ken Livingstone has for years now made the car driver his main enemy. He has ground London to a halt by ensuring that cars are fourth-rate on the capital's roads, behind buses, cyclists and pedestrians. This, despite the fact that they are the most numerous. He has then taxed us for driving into the capital. And when that didn't actually reduce the traffic, he has re-branded it an environmental tax and increased it.

Boris has said the £25 charge will be scrapped, along with the pointless western extension.

This is the first politician in years who has done something for the car driver, rather than taxing us to death, and making it difficult and more congested to drive by introducing bus lanes and more and more traffic lights. This is the first politician to realise (or at least publicly acknowledge) that using 50% of the road for 5% of the vehicles, and stopping the traffic every 100 yards is actually not a good way to make traffic flow more freely.

Please, let's get rid of Ken.

Interestingly a couple of weeks ago I drove into London in the evening, the first time in several years that I've done so. It took slightly longer than the bus and tube, but only because I took a wrong turning. Coming out again took less than the bus and tube. And I got to see the sights, listen to the radio, didn't feel threatened and nothing smelt of wee. It far more pleasant experience. Whilst I was there I even managed to find on-street parking for free. I'll certainly do it again.