Time

That's enough of this tomfoolery. Pictures, indeed. Let's get onto something more serious.

We came home on Friday so the first newspaper I had seen for a week was delivered on Saturday morning. The verdict in a murder trial was splashed on the front page, a murder that had aroused a lot of interest across the country. The Commonwealth countries had all agreed to the ending of male primogeniture in the Royal Family. More problems, or rather more of the same problems in Europe. But what really grabbed my attention was a small piece at the foot of the page. It was just a couple of paragraphs, continued on page 4 or 6 or soemwhere towards the middle of the paper. The Prime Minister had said he was happy for the Government to consider changing the clocks so that we are in line with the rest of western Europe. Now this, oddly enough, is something about which I feel quite strongly.

What it basically means is that we would put our clocks forward one hour - permanently. During the winter months we would be running on Greenwich Mean Time plus one hour and in the summer it would be GMT plus 2 hours. This would mean that dawn would be an hour later than it is now - and sunset would also be an hour later (obviously). So what are the pros and cons?

Well, it would stay light later in the evenings. During mid-summer weeks, it would still be light at 10 o'clock in the evening. I'm not sure just how that would be of a great benefit other than for keen gardeners who would have longer to spend in their gardens after coming home from work. The main benefit would be in the winter months when children would be coming home from school in the light so there should be fewer accidents. On the other hand, they would be going to school in the dark.

I don't remember it personally, but there was a trial some 30 or so years ago which is being referred to in the arguments/discussions about this proposal. It would seem that the number of road accidents fell during the trial, a trial which was abandoned after complaints from people living in Scotland and the north of England who were more affected than people living in the southern parts of the country. That fall in the number of accidents is one of the main arguments used by those in favour of the proposal.

Another so-called pro is that businessmen in England would be on the same time as those in, say, Paris and Frankfurt. But that seems to me to be a particularly puerile argument. If a businessman who deals with people in Paris can't adjust his time mentally, there's not a lot of hope for him, in my opinion. After all, what about New York, Tokyo, Sydney?

I do have personal experience of putting the clocks forward permanently - other, that is, than the trial I can't remember. Our house in France is actually further west than Our English home, although by not a lot. The clocks there are an hour ahead of the English clocks so I know what would be the effect of permanently changing the time. And I like it not.

While we were in France last week I watched the sun creep over the horizon several mornings. At about 8.30. I do not like getting up in the dark and having twilight until 9.30 - or even 10.00 on really dull days. No, I think we should stick with GMT, plus an hour in the summer. It has served us well for centuries and it ain't broke so why try to fix it?