There is an old joke about someone told to ‘jump’. In a disciplined environment, the only proper response is ‘how high?’ !

One exception to this rule is the Netherlands. Here the response would probably be ‘what do the rules say?’ or ‘we should discuss this first in round table talks’.

In the Netherlands, the priority groups selected for the corona vaccination were first announced as follows: patients and carers in geriatric, handicap and home care, then 60 plussers, then onder 60s with underlying medical conditions, and then general health care workers, and so on.

Inevitably, in a country like this, various groups started lobbying for alternative priorities. First the hospitals argued for priority vaccination of front line corona workers, then ambulance personnel and now GPs.

The original plan followed the science, and seems to compare with what other countries are doing. The Dutch have a love-hate relationship with science. The opinions of lay people, or the man in the street, are regarded with equal value. However, at the end of the day, it is still a question of ‘elbowing’ one’s way to the front, armed with whatever arguments have the most sway, irrespective of whether they are based on fact or not. I wonder why this nation is the last EU country to actually start vaccinating?

At the moment, the silent group of 60 plussers and others with underlying health conditions is being pushed quietly down the queue.

Instead of trying to protect the more vulnerable so they do not end up in hospital, those manning the front lines in hospitals, ambulances and GP surgeries are getting priority. I wouldn’t mind so much if loud mouths from those groups hadn’t been so vocal about their misgivings on vaccination.

In the meantime, I have to continue my semi-recluse existence for another a few months at least, even though I have no hesitation whatsoever about being vaccinated.

Much is being made in the press here in the Netherlands about the psychological damage corona, and the resultant lockdowns, is causing, especially among young people.

Terms like ‘scarred for life’ are being bandied around with abandon. A panel of teenagers interviewed on the radio today were asked the question, “And who feels more lonely this year?” It makes me wonder if we aren’t creating this problem by asking that very question!

Since the first lockdown began in March of this year – nine months ago – I have set foot in only one other person’s house. I wasn’t able to go to the cinema for my birthday, and almost all my non-essential shopping has been done online. I have seen a few of my friends at the church where, as an organist, I was part of the team providing streamed services or, during the summer, services for a maximum of 30 worshippers. I think I have spoken to my next door neighbour twice in all that time. In the apartment block where I live, we all give each other a wide berth in the stairwell and entrance hall where the letterboxes are.

I retired a couple of months ago, but in the preceding months I worked from home, only going to the office a couple of times since the first lockdown began. Even my leaving ‘do’ was done online, which was quite surreal. An hour or so online, opening presents sent on by courier and openly drinking wine instead of the normal coffee, and then my working days were over.

I have applied for citizenship here since I have no intention of returning to a post-Brexit Britain, but if it is granted, there will be no citizenship ceremony due to corona restrictions. Instead I will take the oath of allegiance at the counter in the Town Hall, rather in the same way the ‘free’ civil marriage option is done one morning a week. You can also only be accompanied by two other people when attending the Town Hall – so that will be my lodger (same household, thus ‘safe’) and one friend.

Am I depressed? No. I belong to a generation of Brits familiar with the expression “wartime spirit”. My parents lived through the second world war and knew how to ‘grin and bear it.’

By the time daily life starts returning to normal post-corona, due to the advent of vaccinations, it will have been more than a year of unusual and unprecedented restrictions.

Young people, normally berated in ‘peace time’ for excessive use of their phones and apps to keep in touch with each other, have found the digital solutions unsatisfactory during the lockdowns! However, I do think that the populist reaction of feeling hard done by could be tempered with a bit more patience and resolve. Nobody asked for a pandemic, any more than one prays for a severe storm. Shit happens, only this time on a global scale.

Corona does not discriminate and does not observe public holidays. The death toll worldwide is just under 2 million. One such death this week touched me when I read about it. A newly elected US congressman, who had a wife and two children, was tested positive for the virus on 18^th December. He was admitted to hospital the next day, and after just 4 days transferred to intensive care. Less than 2 weeks after his test, he died. His age? Just 41.

Many of those flouting the ‘measures’ to combat corona are young people, often, I suspect, under the impression that only ‘old’ people – who would have died anyway – succumb to Covid-19. Many more are in their 30s and 40s and object to heavy-handedness by governments. This chap did not live to see out his 40s. He must have been talented and popular to win a local election – but corona does not discriminate.

While I am on the subject, the vaccination programme in the Netherlands is causing much debate. The only EU country not to have started administering a vaccine seems to be prevaricating. I accept that the original programme envisaged was based on a vaccine that did not have to be stored at sub-zero temperatures, and that the government is having to re-think the order of the groups to get the jab.

One thing sticks in my gullet however. The priority groups selected for the corona vaccination were as follows: patients and carers in geriatric, handicap and home health care, then 60 plussers, then onder 60s with underlying medical conditions, and then general health care workers, and so on. That put me in the second group. Now, representatives of hospitals and health care workers in general are arguing that they should be first, so that there are sufficient numbers to man all the posts in the hospitals. Interestingly, historical anecdotal evidence shows that health care workers generally prefer not to have the annual flu jab – but then flu does not achieve the same global morbidity rates.

Don’t get me wrong, it is a valid argument, and hospitals already have the freezers necessary to store the vaccine now available. My problem is this: only a few weeks ago, a poll among hospital staff showed that 1/3^rd were prepared to be vaccinated, 1/3^rd did not want to be vaccinated, and 1/3^rd were undecided. The acceptance has since moved to around 60%, but my point is that many in the 60 plus age group were already determined to be vaccinated – myself among them.

I have been restricting my life for 9 months to try and avoid becoming infected, and have openly said for ages that I would respond immediately to a call to be vaccinated. Some nurses and doctors have gone on camera and said they do not wholly trust the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine. I try and keep up with opinions (both scientific and lay) and I can find little evidence to support these misgivings.

I would actually be in favour of vaccination being a condition of employment for health care workers. If I were suddenly hospitalised now, I wouldn’t want to have to ask each nurse or doctor who attended me if they had refused the vaccine. Indeed, I would hope that they had all done what they could to avoid transmitting corona.

Vaccination programmes for infants have beaten back diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, and polio[1]. The vast majority of parents accept this. Smallpox is also an example of a disease totally eradicated by vaccination. Health care workers in the front line should accept vaccination against corona too. If they do not, they should be withdrawn from the front line.

This isn’t the moment to debate the practices of pharmaceutical companies that make huge profits from much needed medicines. If history shows that they have profited unfairly from their sales of corona vaccine, they will face judgement and curbs in the future. However, we need their expertise and ability to fight a pandemic that we are otherwise losing due to small minorities ignoring basic guidance and ‘measures’.

A century ago, the so-called Spanish Flu claimed many more lives. Science has advanced somewhat since then; let us grasp that knowledge with both hands and use it to beat back the corona virus. And when we are prioritising those that should be vaccinated first, let us not ignore those who have been patiently waiting at home for this moment. I don’t mind giving up my place in the queue for a health care worker that needs the vaccine, but I do expect them to actually want what I am still waiting for.

---

[1] Young people today will not know much about polio. When I was young, I knew a few survivors personally who had escaped with minor limitations to their daily life. Go back one more generation and the term ‘iron lung’, a metal coffin-like machine where only your head stuck out, and which enabled polio sufferers to breathe, was still common. Western Europe was only declared polio-free in 2002, and only as a result of a global vaccination programme.

There is a worrying trend appearing in the way certain western governments are challenging the rules. Two examples figure in the news at the moment: Donald Trump’s refusal to concede defeat in the presidential elections in the USA and Boris Johnson’s determination to keep parts of a bill which would contravene the Withdrawal Act from the European Union.

President Trump – he retains the title even as a former president – appears to be grasping at straws by insisting there have been irregularities in the voting in certain key states. He is refusing any assistance to Joe Biden in preparing the transition. His behaviour mimics that of a child whose toys have just been taken away. Even some in the Republican Party who have long felt that his leadership was damaging to the country but felt unable to criticise their president while he was still in office are beginning to come out and accept that they have lost the election.

Some of us remember Watergate, and the illegal attempts by Richard Nixon to undermine the election for his second term of office. I am not sure quite how to compare the two statesmen, but both of them seem to fall short of the integrity one somehow expects from a national leader of a free democracy.

Boris Johnson has suffered a defeat in the House of Lords over his new Internal Market bill which contains clauses which conflict with the Withdrawal Act. I am afraid this is another example of a leader suffering from ego problems. Downing Street has announced that the disputed clauses will be reinstated when the bill returns to the House of Commons. Formally, the House of Lords does not have the power to block new legislation, only delay it. By sending a bill back to the Commons rather than forwarding it for Royal Assent, the Lords effectively draw out the process – and forces the Commons to vote again on the bill.

If the Commons approve the bill for a second time, it goes back to the Lords. They can then reject the bill twice more within the lifetime of a parliament, after which it automatically goes for Royal Assent. The government could invoke the Parliament Act after the second refusal by the Lords – a somewhat dramatic move – begging the question as to whether the government is really listening to the objections of the upper chamber or not.

To me, that is the critical point: listening to the prevailing opinions and acting accordingly. In the USA, the last of the votes are still being counted; 4 states have yet to declare their results. Nonetheless, the overwhelming opinion there is that Donald Trump has lost, albeit by a small number of votes. Statements on broadcast media by Trump supporters alleging voting fraud but with no facts to substantiate it are being interrupted or faded out by the broadcasters. I cannot remember that ever happening before.

Boris Johnson is determined to get his new bill through because of the middle finger gesture it makes to the European Union: we decide about our trade and industry now, not you! Concerns that invoking the disputed clauses in the bill would effectively move the trade border from the Irish Sea to the mainland of Ireland and thus risk political unrest again are being ignored, as is the condemnation of reneging on an international treaty.

Brinkmanship is not new in politics. I am just a little disturbed about the way Trump and Johnson are playing that game at the moment.

So-called traditions come and go very quickly these days. Yesterday in church, a kind of hot-cross bun was distributed, marking an event in the life of St Hubertus. It is a local tradition in my neck of the woods, but goes back hundreds of years.

We have just had Halloween. This tradition was unheard of a few decades ago here and originated largely in America. St Maarten was another of those regional traditions that is now being picked up by the rest of the country.

Fireworks is one of those traditions that has interesting roots. Some countries have traditional firework days, usually to celebrate their national day. Many have long used New Year’s Eve as the firework night, with televised pictures of firework displays going round the globe as each time zone reaches midnight. It is supposed to be the noise that drives evil spirits away at the start of the New Year.

The UK has a firework night on 5^th November which commemorates the failed attempt to blow up king and parliament over 400 years ago. These days the UK also uses fireworks to see in the New Year in common with so many other lands.

The problem this year is of course corona. People gather in close proximity to each other to watch fireworks in the street, and the emergency services have their hands full dealing with firework accidents and fires. All of this is good enough reason to consider how things should be done differently this year.

The trend in the Netherlands in recent years has been to move from individually bought fireworks to locally organised displays. This helps the safety aspect, but this year does not solve the problem of groups gathering together.

There is only one logical step and that is to ban fireworks altogether this year. There are so many problems attached to such a decision however that it is difficult to see how it could be successfully implemented and policed.

Where I live, within minutes I can cross the border in Belgium and buy fireworks that are banned in the Netherlands. The same is true in the east of the country with the border to Germany. A ban on fireworks would really only work if neighbouring countries did the same.

The sale of fireworks here is restricted to the last few days of December; in Belgium you can buy fireworks the whole year round. Those determined to set off fireworks at the end of the year will find ways of obtaining them, including fireworks which are illegal (and extra dangerous) or which exceed the size and noise levels allowed here in retail sales.

It will not be Mr Average that buys in fireworks if they are banned, generally speaking, but the sort of people that enjoy flouting the rules and, for example, have organised or attended illegal parties during corona restrictions. The kind of person that welcomes any opportunity to stick it to the nasty government. The kind of person that doesn’t hesitate from lobbing fireworks at police and emergency staff attending fires or other incidents. The kind of person that will happily reserve one of their biggest firework ‘bombs’ for public buildings.

I enjoyed fireworks during the innocence of my childhood. Recent studies have shown that birds have a terrible time on firework night. As a former dog owner, I have experienced first-hand the problems of walking my dog in the run-up to firework night, and his anxiety on the night itself with so many explosions taking place close by.

Fireworks are pretty to watch, but come at a cost. I have long favoured a ban on retail sales, with the compensation that public displays would become the norm. So much for my own point of view.

Now we have corona to contend with. The Dutch Prime Minister has frequently used the expression ‘devilish dilemma’, and I think the problem of fireworks this year certainly falls into that category. The biggest problem is not the fuses on the fireworks but people with short fuses! I do not envy the government’s task of solving this impending problem for this year, and I await their expected announcement on it at the end of the week with great anticipation.

I am not certain but I think the Netherlands is probably the only democratic country to have a political party dedicated to the rights of animals. Their name (Partij voor de Dieren) sounds to my mind even more ridiculous in English: Party for the Animals. They have at present 5 out of the 150  seats in parliament, 3 out of 75 in the Senate, and 1 out of the 26 seats in the European Parliament.

The party swung into action with a vengeance this week when two of their constituents were murdered in broad daylight!

The crime scene was a zoo. Two chimpanzees had escaped from their enclosure and were roaming around in the area where members of the public were walking around. One of the chimps was 19 years old, but the other was a veteran 53, and had already spent the last 50 years in that particular zoo.

They posed a danger to visitors to the zoo, although they usually only display aggressive behaviour towards others they know well: members of their group but also their keepers. The decision was taken to shoot them down because a tranquiliser would have taken too long to take effect. Such animals can be incredibly mobile and decisions on how to deal with the potential danger needed to be taken quickly. Based on what I have read and heard, shooting them was probably the wisest option.

Of course there will be an inquiry into how and why these chimpanzees were able to escape. Chimps are very intelligent and it can be a daily battle of wits between the keepers and them.

What interests me more is the reaction from the Party for the Animals. They immediately tabled questions in Parliament about this incident. They have renewed their demands for the closure of all zoos, starting with this particular zoo. Amongst other arguments, they stated that the fact that these animals escaped shows that they did not enjoy living in an enclosure.

It does seem sad when several seats in the different political forums are taken up by a party that focuses on animal rights. I do not understand why a cross-party lobby is not employed to deal with this. It would make for a more credible campaign. In Brussels, there is the possibility to set up Working Parties for specific themes which cross national and party lines.

Of course we should take the needs of animals, and the environment in general, into account when taking decisions which have an impact on the natural world around us. I really think that a political party shows a misplaced respect for the Parliamentary machine which already has its hands full representing the needs and rights of all of us.

Zoos in general are not bad thing. There are far-reaching regulations in place these days to ensure the animals are housed appropriately, and a lot of work is done behind the scenes on breeding programmes to support natural communities in the wild. As a child I was taken to the zoo and that was a vital building block in my awareness of the natural world. Seeing elephants and giraffes first hand is far more effective than pictures in an encyclopaedia or, as is possible these days, films on tv and internet.

In a democracy, I am happy that my opinion can be heard alongside those totally opposed to my point of view. We should not be wasting franchise space on political parties formed to champion such issues.

Postscript

Within days of the shooting of the escaped chimpanzees, animal lovers were calling for some kind of memorial plaque to be placed in the zoo where it happened.

The news now is that the zoo is indeed going to do just that!

If we are seriously going to go down that road, we are going to end up surrounded by plaques commemorating the demise of all sorts of animals – often pets, I guess – that met their end in public places.

Whilst we should discharge our duty of care of the animal world, and the natural world in general, to the best of our ability, let us not forget the needs of mankind. There are wars, and millions suffering hunger. When it is our turn to face our Maker, will He be more impressed that we opened our wallets for memorial plaques for animals or that we did what we could to help our fellow man?

There is a lot of confusing information emerging about the corona app that has been introduced in the Netherlands.

It was commissioned months ago, and after a false start, a privacy-safe version was produced. Basically, it works like this: if you go for a corona test, you also indicate if you have the corona app working on your telephone. If you test positive, a coded signal is sent to your phone so that your app knows you are positive at this moment.

The app uses the Bluetooth signal to broadcast this information anonymously. Anybody else using the app will pick up that information via their Bluetooth connection if they are within 10 meters of your phone. The strength of the signal is used by the app to determine the approximate distance. If they remain close to you for more than 15 minutes, then they receive a warning on their telephone. They cannot see who the person was that triggered that warning.

Bluetooth is not completely reliable for this purpose. Clothing can mask the strength of the signal, but conversely the signal can sometimes pass through glass or thin walls. The app judges the distance between the phones, not their owners; if two phones are lying close on a table but the users remain well distanced and even masked, the app might react over cautiously.

Not everyone is able to use the app either. On iPhones, for example, a certain minimum operating system release is needed. My slightly older phone cannot upgrade to that operating system, and I would need to replace my phone for the app to work.

Today came the news that around 10.000 people a day receive a warning via their corona app. Some 3.7 million users have downloaded the app; there is no way of knowing how many are actually using it. The national use of the app was launched only a couple of weeks ago.

The advice is: if you receive a warning on the app, go into quarantine. That is a lot of people every day suddenly withdrawing from their jobs because an app told them to. Until they show any symptoms, they are not eligible for a test, although there are signs the government may change that.

Dry runs and anecdotes have shown that a small percentage of the warnings were not justified; the conclusion is that around 70% of the warnings were correct and another 20% were possibly triggered by someone between 1.5 and 3 meters away. That leaves up to a possible 10% where the threshold for the app was not reached. That could mean that several hundred people every day are told by the app to go into quarantine when they do not need to.

This particular app works on the basis of proximity. Earlier apps in other countries were designed to assist tracing. Where an outbreak occurred in a particular place, users of the app who, retrospectively, had been in that place could be traced and tested. Such an app uses GPS data and not Bluetooth technology. Of course, there are privacy issues associated with the storing of an individual’s GPS movements, but it is a different approach.

Today also I heard the first radio commercial encouraging people to use the Dutch app. Fortunately though, the long awaited app is no longer the focus of the battle against corona. Social distancing remains the core message, and I agree with that.

For myself, I am not going to get the app; I have no intention of replacing my iPhone any time soon in order to do so. I will leave others to decide if the app is reliable enough for them to risk using.

Christmas is two months away as I write this. In his press moment yesterday, the Dutch Prime Minister declined to give advice about corona and Christmas – yet. Probably because it is a bit early still, and we have yet to have Halloween, St Martin and St Nicholas (31^st October, 11^th November and 6^th December (or the evening before), respectively).

The Outbreak Management Team, a group of scientists that advises the cabinet on the medical facts and statistics on corona, has already tabled their view that Christmas will need to be celebrated in small groups this year.

A prominent UK BBC broadcaster said in a recently published interview that she would have 7 people in her home for Christmas, even though the rule looks likely to be a maximum of 6 there. This week she apologised for her rash comments – no doubt under pressure from her bosses – and said that she would abide by whatever rule was in place when the time comes.

Imagine a driver saying they would drive on the correct side of the road most of the time, but on Sundays they would decide for themselves which side to drive on!

Actually, for some people, the restrictions on numbers will be a blessing in disguise. How many dread the annual invasion of in-laws and other estranged family members, I wonder! But I digress.

In Scotland, the First Minister had long promised that university students would be able to travel home for Christmas with their families, but in the meantime worries about so many students travelling on public transport at the same time have emerged.

Students living in halls of residence are at particular risk of picking up corona; students in general often congregate for parties and evenings of drinking. Funnel large groups of them through stations and trains on their way home for the holidays, trying to make sure they all wear masks and social distance, and I leave the rest to your imagination.

Traditional Christmases see several generations getting together for the big day. Grandparents – at high risk – meeting up with grandchildren, themselves at low risk but quite infectious.

Even if we have succeeded in coming down from the second wave by the end of December, I can guarantee there will be a noticeable spike in January. If it were ethical to do so, I would put money on it!

There is a small but vocal minority in various countries, fuelled by social media, claiming that corona is one big hoax. When enough of such followers ignore the rules, it literally undermines the efforts of the rest of us to drive corona back.

A local councillor in the UK was recently quoted as saying she didn’t believe corona was real because nobody she knew had died from it. She cited a friend of hers, a nurse at a Nightingale hospital, who had yet to see any patients at all! I should add that Nightingale hospitals are temporary hospitals set up in the UK during the first wave to provide overflow beds; these largely remained unused, partly because of insufficient staffing.

At a time when so much emphasis is given to ensuring everyone gets a good education, and when information from around the world is available to us at our fingertips, I cannot get my head around the fact that some people remain unconvinced about the very existence of corona, let alone the dangers.

Christmas for me will be spent at home with my lodger. Neither of us have immediate family that would have descended on us, and we do not anticipate any other guests. It will be the two of us. The place will have decorations and a tree, and there will be lights and candles. I am going to make a number of the traditional Christmas food items instead of buying them this year; now I am retired I have time to do that. We will exchange presents, watch the King’s speech (NL) and the Queen’s speech (UK) and make sure we have some games and films we can enjoy. There will be services in my local church, albeit with reduced numbers – at the moment pegged at 30. My seat there is guaranteed since I am the organist!

In other words, I am going to make the best of it, and if I can, so can the rest of us.

Today brought the news that the corona test facility in Breda has been vandalised, and that staff there have been intimidated while on duty.

A new testing ‘street’ was recently set up close to the main area hospital, to replace the facility housed in the car-park of the local football stadium.

Even before it opened, street signs directing you to the location had been variously daubed with slogans like ‘corona is fake’. Now that graffiti has become worse and physical intimidation used by irresponsible people apparently unconvinced by the existence of corona.

With cases signalled in virtually every country on the globe, and hospitals full to overflowing in certain places with patients suffering from Covid-19, I find it difficult to see how you can provide more evidence for the existence of corona.

What is worrying is that a very small minority are not only openly flaunting the rules, but are taking to vandalism as a means of venting their discontent.

Street demonstrations, a cherished right in this country, apparently are not enough for these hooligans. Civil disobedience, a grey area at best, is increasingly becoming the order of the day. Physically attacking parts of the health care system there to protect and treat the sick is going way too far.

What worries me is that the police do not have the numbers to cope with such outbreaks of civil disobedience. This country is not used to seeing a constable on duty just to keep order, but that is what will become necessary if this level of aggression continues. The winter is only just beginning. We have some long dark months ahead, with only a muted Christmas celebration this year to raise our spirits.

Those intent on playing the victim of mandated restrictions are going to become increasingly vocal and active, and public order is going to become a real issue in the months to come. Mark my words!

The day before yesterday, the engineer came to replace my electricity meter with a new ‘clever’ one. Ok, I do know that they are called ‘smart’ in English!

The national target was to have smart meters installed everywhere by 2021, and since I rent my apartment, I did not want to obstruct progress and refuse the installation.

My issue however is with its use. I have two objections, one on principle and the other practical, and both have to do with privacy.

I will deal with the practical issue first. The application of smart meters is still quite new technology, and in various countries, has not enjoyed a problem-free introduction. Being old-school, I prefer to wait before jumping on a new bandwagon. As long as the meter shows me the reading, nothing has changed. I keep a record of the readings and I have no problem if the energy supplier wants to come and see for themselves what the reading is.

I have a simple home, with one gas boiler for heating and hot water, and one meter for the electricity. I cannot make use of systems to evaluate my usage – there is almost nothing I can do to reduce my use of energy on a daily basis. I do not need a meter to tell me that it would be cheaper to shower less, and I cannot adjust the heating per room, so I use common sense to set the single thermostat to the lowest setting I am comfortable with.

In short, the smart meter will tell me almost nothing I cannot work out for myself. How I live my life – when I use the heating and when I go on holiday – is nobody’s business but my own.

The other issue I have with the introduction of smart meters really does have to do with privacy. Not only have I yet to be convinced that the data obtained from my meter cannot be used by the wrong people, the network supplier has already broken their own rules regarding obtaining my consent!

To be clear on this, there are two other parties involved. The national company that deals with the pipes and cables, and associated meters (network supplier), and my chosen energy supplier, which I can change when I want to. The network supplier passes on data from the smart meter to the energy supplier – as long as the consumer has agreed to this.

The rules say that I, the consumer, must give express consent to this transfer of data. My network supplier already has two black marks here: the default setting upon installation of a smart meter is ‘on’, and they have at no time requested my permission to allow data transfer, neither does their website offer an option to register or amend your choice.

I do make use of online accounts. I have an online ‘My energy’ account with my energy supplier. Once logged in I can see what I have paid per month, and see the results per year. So far, so good.

Which of us has an extra ‘My network’ account? I do not. That figures, because you do not have one! You ‘log in’ each time with your address details and meter number. When you do that, in my case, there is no option to change the consent status for the transmission of data from my meter. Third black mark!

For years I worked for a consultancy company specialised in consent issues with health care. I learnt a thing or two about how consent is supposed to work. A supplier obliged to seek express consent cannot then provide no means of easily indicating that consent or otherwise. They certainly cannot assume consent on the basis of no objection, especially if they provide no mechanism for registering or amending your consent.

I have taken a first step and sent in a complaint to the network provider. Depending on their response, I will consider taking my complaint to the Dutch privacy watchdog: Authoriteit Persoonsgegevens, and possibly even the appropriate ombudsman. Privacy rules are there for a reason, and we let standards drop at our peril.

I will update this post when I have had a response to my complaint.

It isn’t over till the fat lady sings, they say. The generally refers to opera, but Brexit feels more than ever like a Greek tragedy.

It is 22^nd October; by 31^st December a trade deal has to be in place, agreed not only by the UK but by all the member states of the EU, or else it will be World Trade Organisation rules for the UK.

The UK feels it has preferred status since they were a member for 45 years. The EU doesn’t want to be seen doing favours for renegades. 15 all.

Britain wants to have the right to subsidise its own industries, thus destroying the level playing field concept behind EU trading rules. That won’t wash (as it stands); 15-30 to the EU.

On behalf of fishermen, the UK wants to restrict fishing rights to UK boats, who end up selling most of their prize catch back to Europe. We are not talking about cod or plaice here, the mainstay of fish and chip restaurants in the UK. They are caught outside of coastal waters. We are talking of delicacies less wanted by British restaurants but eagerly bought up by continental eateries. Protectionism – again not an EU trading principle; 15-40.

Arbitration should fall to the European Courts, says the EU; no, to the British courts says the UK. I somehow do not see the EU bowing to adjudications from a non-EU country; game to the EU.

Both sides are calling from compromise from the other. Boris Johnson does not want to lose face back home; “Give us a Canada deal!” Talk about comparing apples and pears! The EU does not want to give a ‘reward’ to a former member state for jumping ship and the refusal to pay further membership fees.

Does the EU chief negotiator want to be cast in the role of the father in the parable of the prodigal son? I doubt it.

The spin will go on for a long time after talks (probably) break down. The EU is left with a still considerable trading block, much bigger than it was than when the UK joined 45 years ago, and the UK will be left standing on its own.

The vote is open for driver of the day; I think Barnier should get the most votes. I like his new EU face mask with the yellow stars on it!

(With apologies for mixing several metaphors: opera, tennis and Formula 1)