The coolest place in a heatwave?
Blogger of the Year PETER RHODES finds some sacred shade. Plus the real face of 21st century terrorism and more ways to bully the Scots
THREE, two, one, zero - fire cliché! We are told that by 2018 the new UK space port will be "up and running."
AND the bullying of the Scots goes on. Until last week no-one had heard about the space port. Suddenly it is announced that Britain has several potential sites, and most are in Scotland. But the usual unnamed sources are threatening that, if the Scots vote for independence, it is "highly unlikely" the hub would be built there. See the process? First create the sweetie. Then wave it under the noses of the Scots. Then threaten to take it away. Coming soon: the unveiling of the massive new UK Research Centre for Deep-Fried Confectionery, to be built either in Paisley or Margate - depending how the vote goes. No pressure, lads.
IT may be a long time before we know the sequence of events that brought Flight MH17 crashing down but if you want to know what 21st century terrorism looks like, this is it. The real threat is not merely home-made bombs cobbled together in bathrooms and hidden in mobile phones. It is enormously powerful modern armaments getting into the hands of the sort of psychopaths who come out of the woodwork whenever someone shouts "revolution" or "jihad." We see them all over Africa, the Middle East and now in eastern Europe. They swagger around, burn down buildings, set up roadblocks and murder unarmed civilians. The normal, good people,who simply want more freedoms can only weep and ask: "Why did our revolution go wrong?" Why? Because revolutions always go wrong.
MORE to the point, why is it common practice for airliners to be routed above war zones, even after aircraft have been shot down? I have a feeling the term "saving fuel" applies.
A TORY think-tank suggests limiting child benefit to a maximum of four children per family. The idea has sparked a number of online polls and I can't recall an issue which has attracted such thunderous, and broad-based support, including this: "There should be no child benefit, as there are too many people already. Four children is too many. Two children per family is maximum, one is even better." Or how about this: "In our overpopulated country, why are we paying people to have children?" One of those comments came from the kindly, caring Guardian website, the other from the hard-nosed Daily Mail. This is an issue where large sections of Left and Right agree. It is a strange thing that although we may claim to love children, we hate paying for other people's.
ON the hottest day of the year I was stuck in a motorway jam for more than an hour. The temperature was nudging 30C. Remember when air-conditioning in cars was regarded as a silly American luxury?
AND on that sticky, sultry evening we slipped into the vast, free communal refrigerator you find conveniently sited in most villages. There are few cooler places to stand than under the 900-year-old Norman arch of a church. A friend who is a bellringer invited us to watch his team in action. Somehow seeing other folk labouring makes you feel even cooler.
AND before you start haranguing me, an unbeliever, as a hypocrite for entering a place of worship, let me point out that generations of my family were Godfearing Christians who paid their tithes and believed every illness and stillborn child were the result of their own sin. They paid dearly to make the Church rich. I may not be a believer but I consider myself a shareholder.





