The European Union Competition Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, is going after Google. She reckons Google dominates the search market and should not 'abuse its powerful market position by restricting competition with others in markets where it is dominant, or in neighbouring markets'.
Interesting how European commissioners are keen to tackle big American companies, but less keen to tackle the protectionism in many European countries and in farming all over the EU, which also restricts competition.
The EU tackled Microsoft and insisted it changed the way it bundled browser and other software with its operating system. There are lots of operating systems and lots of browsers, but the EU still thought it ought to be brought down a peg or two to give the second-raters a hand.
Likewise there are many search engines and many comparison websites. Google is used by most people because it is the best and it is free. You can pay to have your adverts appear in Google searches, but to the ordinary punter, the service is free. Nonetheless, the EU thinks it restricts competition.
Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple have all succeeded because their founders are driven mavericks who made brilliant ideas work. They did not need government help.
Any European entrepreneurs who aim to match those achievements will do so by their own efforts, not because the EU has hobbled the market leaders.
I'm in favour of the European Union, but this sort of government-knows-best nonsense gives huge help to the anti-Europe nationalists.
Europe should sort out its own problems before trying to put the world to rights.
This blog is an election-free zone. There is more than enough political rubbish in the newspapers and on TV and radio.
I don't care who promises what, or who wins.
Two soldiers:
Mohammed Emwazi. Trained by his army. Obeying his orders. Killing his enemies.
Joshua Leakey. Trained by his army. Obeying his orders. Killing his enemies.
Both used by their respective authorities to publish their message to the world. Mohammed in videos on YouTube. Joshua with a Victoria Cross medal.
It is all part of the old, old narrative. They are bad. We are good. What they do is bad. What we do is good.
But who are we? And whose message do we believe? Three schoolgirls from east London gave their answer to that this week.
The world is more complicated than it was. It needs more sophisticated solutions than those we used in the Crusades in the Middle Ages.
After the last world war, the United Nations was set up to prevent such conflict by providing a forum where problems could be discussed and, where necessary, solved by force sanctioned by a majority of the countries. What is the United Nations doing about Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Ukraine? Where are the blue-beret troops from many countries? Why is it left to the old big powers to take action on their own account - in their own interest. Why was Angela Merkel negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine and not Ban-Ki Moon?
If the United Nations decides to do something, I am more ready to believe it is right than if America, Britain, Russia, or Islamic State tell me it is.
I ain't lookin' to compete with you
Beat or cheat or mistreat you
Simplify you, classify you
Deny, defy or crucify you
All I really want to do
Is, baby, be friends with you
- Bob Dylan, All I really want to do
Fundamental beliefs are personal. In a civilised society, you can believe in anything you want. You must also accept that everyone else can believe in what they want.
If society is to remain civilised, we should not impose our beliefs on others, or deny others their beliefs. We should enjoy our differences and get along together in spite of those differences.
What we have seen in Paris is a bunch of journalists whose belief in freedom of speech made them think they should publish things which they knew would offend those with different beliefs. That is wrong.
They were killed by two extremists whose belief in the teachings of Islam made them think they should kill people who mock those beliefs. That is wrong, too.
Both factions think that their own belief allows them to attack others. It doesn't.
In uncivilised societies, the belief of those in control is imposed on those who are controlled. Those who think differently are punished.
In civilised societies, we have to control ourselves.
I have just received my tax summary from HMRC and I am very impressed. Open government.
There in multi-colour splendour is how much tax I am paying this year and exactly how much I provided for welfare, health, education and all the other services we expect in a civilised country.
Another example of the vast amount of information we have at our fingertips in this amazing age. And, as with all information, it allows us to form opinions.
I gave seven times as much money to Defence as I did to the European Union. As the European Union is the best defence I can imagine against being invaded, shouldn't we pay a bit more to that and a bit less to the other forms of defence which appear to involve bombing people in faraway places.
In Switerland and California, people can vote for specific proposals as well as for party A or party B. Maybe in the future, the tax summary will be interactive. This is how much you have to pay; this is how we propose to split it; how do you want to divide your bill?
Power to the people.
Here we go again, off to foreign parts with our sophisticated forces to wage war on what is seen as a backward foe.
But it isn't backward. IS is a modern, fluid force with clever leadership which knows how to achieve strategic success on the battlefield and can use modern technology to get maximum impact in the world.
And we are not sophisticated. We have the old army-navy-air force-nuclear weapons mindset which assumes that our enemy will be another country with an army, navy, air force and nuclear weapons.
The world doesn't look like that today. Today's enemies know how to crash planes into buildings, blow up trains, behead people and put the videos on YouTube.
In the old world, all the Brits knew they were good guys and the Germans were bad buys. Today, Brits come in many flavours and opinions on who is an enemy and who isn't come in many flavours as a result.
IS is a dreadful murderous bunch of extremists. It is also bang up to date.
Air strikes are a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem.
We need a new army to defeat terrorism, one which works in societies, not on the battlefield.
War should be the last resort, not something we should rush into because we are outraged by the images we see on YouTube.
I'm sorry the Scots voted No. There are very few opportunities for radical political change and they ought to be taken when they appear.
Why did the Scots chicken out? People don't like change. Politicians don't want to lose power.
Power exlains why politicians can take seemingly opposite views with a straight face: Scotland should not go it alone. We are better together.
Britain should go it alone, we are better apart from Europe.
If Scotland had voted Yes, Westminster politicians would have had less power. If we work more closely with Europe, Westminster politicans will have less power.
Forget all this nonsense about making things better for people. Frighten people with bogey men and tell them you are the only ones who can save them.
Your pounds and pensions will be worthless, your banks and jobs will crash, plague, pesilence, doom. The church and the press have used this tactic for years. Scare people and they will stay in line.
The Scots who believed they could cope on their own had a typically sharp reply to these tactics. 'If we are better together, why aren't we better now?'
Alex Salmond gave Scotland a brilliant opportunity to show these doomsayers they are wrong. An independent Scotland would survive. It would thrive.
Sadly, there are more wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beasties in Scotland than there are bravehearts.
