An explanation for my absence

I must apologise to readers for the shortage of substantial blog posts in the past week. As well as travelling to the lovely city of Lincoln for a pleasant and productive visit,  I have been devoting a great deal of my time to making further enquiries into the Bishop Bell case, and a number of important and fascinating developments in it which I hope will soon become apparent.  I���ve also had to spend quite a lot of time spelling ���Mary Dejevsky��� to people who seem unable to cope with audio versions of this rather simple name.

On top of this I found myself preparing for the appearance on BBC Radio 4���s ���Moral Maze��� to which I link in an earlier post.

This has also been a curious period in politics and news, in which the initial clamour of the referendum campaign has gradually been resolving itself into a (to me) wearisome repetition of old, old arguments which I have been hearing or making for decades,  during which nobody cared at all. Whether they care now, we shall see.  I suspect they just want it to end, and will vote accordingly, but who can say in this febrile era in which all that was once solid is now quaking bog and treacherous quicksand?

And there have been the equally dreary primary elections in the United States, in which I struggle to be interested. I don���t even want to want to be. I want to want to be interested in cricket ( a useful Michael Frayn formulation,). But I am not, and cannot be, though I can remember that I was gripped by it round about the age of 11.

But I don���t even to want to want to be interested in US politics, which, to me, have all the fascination of a Parish Council election in Borsetshire.

Anyway, I felt I should explain.