“Civilization is a conspiracy,” said John Buchan. “Modern life is the silent compact of comfortable folk to keep up pretences.” This statement could be applied to many of his novels in which characters who are ordinary and human are drawn from their pretences into all kinds of adventure. He gave us characters like Richard Hannay, the Scots mining engineer, and Edward Leithen, the barrister and MP. Less well known, however, is Dickson McCunn, the protagonist from his 1922 novel Huntingtower. Dickson is everything you least expect of a hero in an adventure story: he is fifty-five years old and a recently retired grocer. He is the logical antithesis of the James Bond type of hero and, while successful, is drawn very much from the ranks of the common man. He is dependable, not flashy.

Huntingtower is a rip-roaring adventure story that reads with all the fun and enjoyment that, as a child, could be derived from Enid Blyton. (Actually I saw a lady reading the famous five a little while back in the park - it seems the enjoyment does not diminish with age!) It tells of Dickson McCunn going for a walking holiday and soon finding himself up to his ears in adventure; the story is centred around a Russian Princess who, having escaped the revolution, is being held against her will in the house of the title. As with stories such as The thirty-nine steps their is a back drop of historical relevancy and it very much reflects attitudes and thoughts of the time. What makes Huntingtower different is the light hearted and amusing touches throughout. Helping with this are a group of street urchins from Glasgow called the Gorbals Die-Hards who are camping near-by and turn out to have a spirit at once adventurous and militant. Their exploits are constantly referenced, by the narrator, in comparison to those of great figures from history and the show resourcefulness and hardy courage whenever called upon; while Dickson is the central figure and the narrator is telling his story the Gorbals Die-Hards could arguably be said to steal the show.

I really enjoyed this book and think that it shows Buchan on top-form throughout. It's not about deep emotional insights, it's just a good fun read. There were some characters who speak mainly in the Scots' dialect but it's usually understandable (just!) and where it isn't there is a glossary of terms at the back. The story combines light hearted romanticism and adventure with some allusions to the failings and evils of the new social order emerging in Russia at the time. What I find most endearing about Buchan's work is the way he can write so well - his descriptions of places are particularly excellent - but keep it entertaining and enjoyable throughout and, for me, this is up there with the best of his books.

The Turner Classic Movies introductions are really great; I've seen several good ones and really like this one that Jack posted on his tumblr.

There seems to be a bit of an online fuss brewing about the proposals from K-Rudd's government (If only we had a prime minister whose name could be given a ghetto makeover. If only we had a prime minister who was anyone but Gordon Brown.) to add a national level filter to stop users accessing websites with criminal content. As with any change to the law that effects the internet people will jump up and down and get all over excited with themselves and shout about freedom of speech and civil liberties and what not. To them I simply say; when did the freedom to break the law become a civil right?

I agree that anything that amounts to censorship should be carefully considered and implemented. I hate the way modern society tries to stop people saying things that may offend because it's frankly absurd to think that people have some right not to be offended. I am fed up with all of these gagging orders the High Court keeps putting on the press - the Trafigura scandal in particular was absurd as the firm were effectively trying to ban people from hearing what their own elected representative was asking in Parliament. (It was regarding Trafigura's dumping of Toxic waste that killed thousands in the Ivory Coast) My indignation at silly government ideas like Mr. Mandelson's disconnecting people scheme knows no bounds and I proudly blacked out my twitter pic to support the New Zealanders as they campaigned against an unfair law.

The thing is, however, if people keep screaming about freedom and claiming an inalienable right to do pretty much whatever even when it's illegal then they'll ruin the very thing they say they like. The internet, while great, also contains ridiculous amounts of very bad stuff. Nobody has a right to view things so vulgar that they're against the law, to view things that involve abuse, etc. Nobody has the right to harm a child and nobody has the right to look at such things. The law is targeted at Refused Certificate content; to you and I that means content so explicit that it is unclassifiable by their board of censors.

Now I agree that any list of banned sites must be very carefully analysed - and borderline stuff should be checked by a human. But the idea of creating a net free from child-harm and other illegal websites is surely one that we as a society should embrace. It's not so much censorship as the acceptance that boundaries are necessary for the good of the collective whole.

I hope that the technology is efficient and that the system is made to work very well, it's time the internet had something like this. I'd eventually like to see an internationally based system - I think the internet needs some level of control, but the essential thing is that it should be designed well so there are safeguards against abuse and actively staffed to see that any manipulation can be reversed. I'm not naive and I know that as an open technology we can't eliminate things from the web but, in the case of RC-Content, I don't think that means we shouldn't try.

PS) These views represent what I think, this being a personal blog; please don't read them to represent the views of my employers or anyone else.

I disagree with the size of banker bonusses when they have just messed up and had to be bailed out but just because money is undeserved does not give the state the right to steal it from them. Their businesses have decided to award them a bonus why has the state got any right to take it?

I do think it's ill-gotten this year for the bankers, I resent that I pay charges so they can get such bonusses but it's a free market system. By doing this the chancellor has ensured that one of two things will happen:

• The best bankers will leave for places where their work is rewarded better - why stay in this environment when you can earn twice as much elsewhere?
• The banks will pay bonusses twice as large in an effort to keep their staff.

Niether of these two options is good for the economy. It's all well and good to say that the rich should pay and that the state can take what they want but what people forget is that when the state starts aggressively targeting the rich it's forcing the very people who create the wealth in the first place to consider leaving. Without London as a major financial centre our economy would be much weaker.

PS) These views represent what I think, this being a personal blog; please don't read them to represent the views of my employers or anyone else.

As you approach the town hall in my home town, an insignificant blot on the coast around about the latitude fifty-five degrees north, you can't help but notice that it's architecturally impressive for something of so little importance.  Britannia stares down at you, nymphs reclining at her feet, from above the door. The door itself is flanked by pillars and stone reliefs depicting classical scenes. There is a prominent clock tower and, naturally, a nautically themed wind vane. The town hall, you see, was built at a time when society was proud of civilisation. It was proud of all that it had achieved and all it hoped to achieve; proud of the forward march of democracy and justice and the rule of law. The spirit of the time was to celebrate the progress that had been made and look forward to a century of more and therefore any municipal building was worth the effort of making impressive.

I'm presently reading The Siege of Krishnapur by J.G Farrel and it's notable the way the characters are so proud of progress; even surrounded by hundreds of revolting sepoys baying for their blood they remain attached to the idea that they stand for the betterment and advancement of society. The Victorians were a flawed society by modern standards but they were moving forward, they were improving. They were ingrained with racism and prejudice and yet at the same time paradoxically committed to improving civilisation; while their actions may have been at times misguided and foolish they aimed high.

This is why Winston S. Churchill was a warrior, not due to lust for blood but due to the idea that in civilisation we had something that should be defended to the last drop of crimson. Sadly this pride in civilisation seems to have been surrendered; it is now seen as a burden from which we should be unshackled. What need have we, the pinnacle of humanity, for such things as fairness and progress? The aspirations that marked that age gone by are now frowned upon as society scrambles to find the bottom of the barrel, finding instead that they just keep getting lower and having to scramble some more.

Atop the town hall, this monument to the progress of another age, are nine flagstaffs. Once upon a time they flew the Union but that time seems to have long passed; while a local regiment was in Afghanistan their regimental flag hung proudly from the staff. Today, however, I passed the building and saw, flanking Britannia in two rows of three, flags proudly saying "Vote for Joe". Yes, a building built to hold a mirror to the triumph of progress and civilisation is now reduced to the level of advertising hoarding for a popular television program. I can't help but think that perhaps, somewhere, society has left the tracks a little. (And when I say left the tracks a little I mean burst off the rails, ploughed through a hedge and hit the wall in a blazing wreck.) Is the X-Factor the pinnacle of our society? Is reallity television the crowning achievment of our age? Joe sings well and seems like a nice chap and what not, I wish him well, but perhaps doing more to honour a contestant in a tv talent show than they do to honour our nation, our freedom or our fallen is just a little crazy?

Anyway, we all know Lucie Jones was the one with the gift.