Tighter than an owl's chuff

So J.K. Rowling is bleating that Indian 'pirates' are mildly reducing her royalties from Harry Potter and the Contractual Obligation. Frankly, my sympathies are limited - the cacky fingered old bint already has a ton of cash, surely she can spare a bit for a couple of piss-poor Bombay chancers. No doubt soon she'll be up there with Bono, Geldof and all the other billionaires telling us what we need to do solve world poverty. How about digging in their own pockets for a couple of hundred thousand in loose change?

The whole bandwagon is bollocks anyway. I totally refute the notion that Harry Potter is good for kids because they're encouraged to read. There's nothing more likely to further emasculate an entire generation than the notion that some speccy twat who spends far too much time playing with his 'wand' could ever be a hero. We had a name for kids like that at school, and it certainly wasn't 'wizard'.

As for the unfortunate phenomenon of adults reading all about Harry's adolescent adventures, don't get me started. What's next? Conkers on the Tube and marbles in the Boardroom? I ask you.