Today’s issue of the Berliner Morgenpost (January 5th) contained almost nothing but good news. Bad news was confined to small boxes (this will have been more obvious in the print edition). So reports Expatica. The editorial (in German, like the rest of the paper) discusses the plan. The main emphasis is on everything that is good about Berlin.

I mentioned ‘Dinner for One’ on New Year’s Day.

Now I have come across an article in the Spiegel Online of December 31st.

It reports that two Germans see the film as ‘banned’ in Britain.

One of them is ‘der Bremer Kulturwissenschaftler Rainer Stollmann’ – a person involved in studies of culture. Stollmann says that the real reason for the refusal to show the sketch is because Freddie Frinton played to lower-class audiences, presumably in places like Blackpool. Anyone who knows how many TV comedians come from that field must realize this is wrong. And if the BBC had anything against the sketch forty years ago, what about ITV?

The other self-appointed expert is Stefan Mayr of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, who has published a book called ‘Dinner for One von A – Z’ in the Eichborn Verlag. Mayr opines that the ‘stiff British’ don’t want to see aristocrats like Sir Toby portrayed as drunkards. In addition, Mayr thinks that Miss Sophie, who is inappropriately familiar to her servants, is similar to Queen Elizabeth II. He describes the piece as ‘ein knallhartes Antimonarchie-Stück’ (a hardcore anti-monarchy sketch).
Only a private TV station has shown ‘Dinner for One’, as part of a programme on ‘New Year customs in Europe’. But secretly, the ‘banned sketch’ is reaching British living rooms. Some copies have even been sent to BBC employees – but there has been no reply!

Really, I have often thought how good Spiegel Online is – so this must just be another case of international misunderstanding!

I mentioned earlier that a date has been set for an inquest on Princess Diana.

Now the Independent has a long and thorough article on the inquest, followed by a short piece on the coroner, Michael Burgess, and a Q and A section on coroners.

The same coroner will be opening the inquest on Dodi Fayed in Surrey. This is a coincidence as he happens to be the coroner both for Surrey and for the Queen’s Household. Inquests have to be held in the case of deaths by accident abroad.

Burgess will have the 6,000 or so pages in the French file. It will probably take him six months to analyse this.

bq. It remains to be seen how much of the French file Mr Burgess will have translated, and how much of it will then be made public. (At the very least, documents in the case have to be made available to lawyers representing all interested parties.) The file consists of more than 300 witness statements, taken by the 30 detectives who worked on the case for two years (interviews with witnesses at the scene; with the photographers; with medical staff; with employees of the Ritz hotel, which the couple had just left; with friends and family of the driver, Henri Paul; and with the two British bodyguards who were travelling with the couple).

There are rumours of a cover-up, and these have been encouraged by the secretive French method of investigation:

bq. The 6,000-page file assembled by Judge Stephan has never been made public. He has never given an interview or a press conference to explain his findings. If he is called to give evidence at the inquests, he will refuse – not because he has something to hide, but because he is still bound by his professional oath of secret d’instruction, or the secrecy of investigation.

When I publish an entry, two or three websites are automatically ‘pinged’. I just added two short entries, saving time by doing them in one session, and I knew the ping would not work. But I was surprised to get the following snotty message (presumably cut off at ‘life’):

bq. Ping ‘http://rpc.weblogs.com/RPC2’ failed: Ping error: Thanks for the ping, however we can only accept one ping every half-hour. It’s cool that you’re updating so often, however, if I may be so bold as to offer some advice — take a break, you’ll enjoy li

Well, weblogs.com, it’s cool that you have time to tell me how to organize my life.

Robin Stocks on Carob has a long and interesting entry on the rumour that it was a translator’s error, hinging on the difference between German Tier and English animal, that led to a patent being granting for cloning humans.

It wasn’t. Carob links to the patent and sets out the history. The patent application will have been in English in any case, and it contained an explicit reference to human cells. It is excellent to have the whole thing researched and set out here. The entry concludes:

bq. In July 2002, the EPO limited the Edinburgh patent. It now no longer includes human or animal embryonic stem cells, but still covers modified human and animal stem cells other than embryonic stem cells.

Bayern Info, a periodical for members of the Bavarian section of the BDÜ, supplies information from issue 12/2003 of AWI (Außenwirtschaftsinformationen der Industrie- und Handelskammer für München und Oberbayern). This is apparently not online, but can be obtained by email.

The AWI points out that on some websites of German embassies, there are lists of lawyers and legal information sheets. At the German Embassy in the UK, for example, there is a list of German law firms of Rechtsanwälte in London and ‘Britische Anwaltskanzleien in London, mit denen in deutscher Sprache korrespondiert werden kann /
English firms of solicitors in London with which correspondence can be
conducted in German’. There is also a memorandum (in German) on obtaining legal advice and taking legal action in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.