Why? Because they are probably too old to benefit from the wonderful plan to extend their education to include how to tweet.
Oh, and use the online dictionary wikipedia.
FFS.
Telegraph
I’ve not hidden my disappointment in Gordon Brown. However he is clearly not all bad.
I understand that belief in your ability to do something is probably useful if you are facing an exam, or one of the other countless hurdles that face us during our journey through life.
If you want to believe you can do something, good for you.
If you think carrying a rabbit’s foot, or wearing your lucky underwear will make you more likely to achieve something that your otherwise normal abilities would not, fair enough. It’s clearly nonsensical, but there’s no arguing with belief.
What I do not understand is why people who believe in one thing feel somehow threatened by people who believe in something else.
Logically, whether you believe I can do something or not really cannot affect me, unless I let it.
Unless, I suppose, you are interviewing me for a job.
Feel free to note the somewhat odd consistency in the following article’s author’s view of faith: Waybuloo.
You still have a few days to apply for the final draw:
The following is a letter from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, sent to the Scottish Minister Kenny MacAskill regarding the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. My comments follow it.
“Dear Mr. Secretary:
Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.
Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991.
And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of “compassion.”
Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.
Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man’s exercise of “compassion.”
Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.
Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the breakup of the plane; the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years – in some cases a full career – to see justice done.
But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988.
You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution.
You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification – the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.
You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy.
Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion, preferring to keep your own counsel and hiding behind opaque references to “the need for compassion.”
You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand.
You have given Megrahi a “jubilant welcome” in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?
Sincerely yours,
Robert S. Mueller, III
Director”
It’s a fundamental truth, that what Americans believe is the natural order of justice, and what we believe are mostly identical. But only mostly. There are differences which cannot be put down to how we, as nations or society interpret actual truths, facts, or opinions of how to spell the same word on different sides of the Atlantic.
They are, ultimately, incompatible. We do not have capital punishment, nor do we have the three strikes law. We need to take into account that our system is far from perfect. Notice the 180 degree turn Jack Straw did recently in the name of “compassion”. At least when the Americans make a decision, they stick with it.
And therein is the explanation as to why they are outraged.
This isn’t a matter which should have been consulted with anyone involved in the original prosecution. Logically, how could that be a reasonable step? You might as well ask the prosecution to set the tariff and ignore the law as interpreted by the judge as he passes sentence.
For any victim, the sentence is mostly never going to be enough.
It’s somewhat startling that an apparently talented, experienced and intelligent FBI director says
“I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision. “, because in this case he doesn’t. Nor can he have.
The Scottish minister, and his staff have had, undoubtedly long, difficult conversations when trying to decide if the cancer is actually terminal. It’s irrelevant if someone else thinks a prisoner should not be released on compassionate grounds if that prisoner meets the requirements.
In general, people are sent to prison to change them. Reform them, maybe, stop them doing bad stuff, certainly. But change them it can, and does. This is so the rest of us do not have to change. And this is why I have a problem with Mr Mueller becoming involved.
He admits, right at the start of his letter that he normally doesn’t get involved, but here chooses to. So, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi has changed Mueller, in exactly the same way Mueller wants us to change.
By not offering a prisoner release on compassionate grounds because of something that specific prisoner did, we are changing how our society works, and how we work. This is wrong, and is exactly why we lock up terrorists in the first place.
I am very disappointed to see the hero’s welcome home, but as Mueller fails to point out, this isn’t something we arranged. By all accounts, we even asked the Libyans to try to keep it low-key, but let’s face it, Gadaffi is not well known for his diplomatic ability. Gadaffi pinned to his chest a photograph of Libyan resistance hero Omar Mukhatar, bound and surrounded by his Italian captors. He did this, not privately, but on his first official visit to Italy.
So, Mr Mueller, please do not confuse justice and compassion with the madness of another. You do us, and you an injustice.
I suppose I could be a politician. I have an interest in politics, I like money, and don’t object to wearing a suit.
Of course, I cannot realistically be one, as I’m not a pathological liar.
This is due, I think, to three life experiences.
My mother could see through anything I said. Instantly. Now, this my be a typical paranoid child memory, but still, it is something I bear in mind.
My friends once actively lied to me to protect me from something hideous going on in my life. I very much appreciate this, and quite frankly do not know what I would have done if I were in their position.
But by far the most important one is this:
The woman I choose to spend my life with is, obviously, enormously important to me. I will do whatever I can do to protect her and our family.
As a natural response to this, I won’t fib to her. If, in a moment of madness, I do, she will surely know, and her opinion of me will worsen.
So, no fibs, no lies, no untruths.
But…political manoeuvrings? Well, perhaps.
If one of the children ask what they are getting for Christmas, I’m probably not going to be heart-wrenchingly open about it.
So, go read this. You’ll probably nod in agreement, and enjoy some of the comments.
I’m not proud of being British.
Where my mother happened to be when she gave birth to me does not give me an automatic right to boast about the wonderful achievements this nation managed up to that point, and quite frankly as my own contributions to society have been fairly limited, I probably cannot justify being proud of anything since.
I did not help win a gold medal at Beijing, for example.
However, I do sometimes feel ashamed of us, as a nation.
A while back I wrote of how I perceived our Justice minister to be incapable of compassion, which is surely a fundamental requirement for any justice system.
Without compassion, you are left with a system which is based on punishment, and effectively revenge in the name of the victim.
So I am quite glad to see that Jack Straw has decided to change his mind and release Ronnie Biggs from prison.
I’m not sure why Straw has done this, as only last month he was claiming that Biggs had not repented, and therefore he wasn’t going to let him out.
Perhaps it’s because JS has decided that one of his typical knee-jerk, 180 degree turns will somehow bolster his, or his parties popularity in the press.
But this isn’t why I’m ashamed of my society, at least not today.
I’m ashamed because of the comments others have made upon the announcement.
Take for example:
” Ask Jack Mill’s loved ones.
Mr Mills went out to do a nightshift on that train and was never able to work again, or to lead a normal life.
Worker
Recommended by 204 people ”
There has never been any proof that Jack Mill’s injury was caused by Ronnie Biggs. Just because you are present when someone injures someone else, does not mean you are culpable for those injuries.
“This is the wrong decision. It’s his own stupid fault that he ran away and never served his sentence when he was younger. It seems that if you present yourself as a “loveable rogue” then you can get away with anything!
Brendan Fernandes, Brighton, United Kingdom
Recommended by 128 people ”
Well, no.
It was the “stupid fault” of the Prison service for giving him the opportunity to escape, the Police’s fault for not recapturing him, the Airport/Port authorities fault for not stopping him from leaving the country, and the Government’s fault for not having a workable extradition treaty with Brazil.
I cannot imagine being a criminal. I can imagine, however, trying to escape from prison if presented with the chance.
But it is this one comment which leaves me despairing:
“On the day Jack Patch is buried – a man of stature, bravery and dignity – the last veteran of WW1 – here we have Jack Straw grabbing the headlines in announcing the release of criminal train robber Biggs.. Does Straw have no sensitivity, no decency? I doubt that he has. Another stunt by a government of idiocy.
Douglas, London ”
I suspect Douglas actually means Harry Patch. He was, undoubtedly, a very honourable man. He was not, however, the last veteran of WWI.
The last British veteran is Claude Choules. Harry Patch was our last veteran soldier.
Although there is also Douglas Terrey, who claims to have worked as a military courier for British Army Ordnance Corps.
Other nations also have WWI veterans – there is Frank Woodruff Buckles (US) and John Henry Foster Babcock (Canada).
And this is why I am ashamed.
It is not because our politicians are untrustworthy. We elect them; we get the government we deserve.
It is not because as a nation we seem to have forgotten what compassion is, nor failt to comprehend why it is important when seeking justice.
It is because, as Douglas demonstrates, we are capable of getting on our high horse and bleating on about something publically, when we do not have any evidence or even facts to back up our whining. We even have other morons support us.
He should go into politics.
All quotes taken from BBC News
In the UK, the legal age to be allowed to purchase (but not consume in private…) alcohol is 18. Not 19,21, or 39.
So every time I’m in certain supermarkets and see the signs saying “check 21″, suggesting that I not be offended if the cashier happens to think I look under 21, and therefore will ask for ID if I am trying to buy alcohol, I feel a little riled.
More so, now, as at least one Supermarket (rhymes with tucking Fesco) displays “think 25″. Excuse me? Surely “if we think you are under 18 we will ask for ID” is enough? It doesn’t matter if I am 18, exactly, and wearing a Birthday Boy badge, 18 is the legal age.
So, this article doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s reached the point where people are so happy to let the Government rule over them, rather than represent them, that we let jumped up bean sellers make us uncomfortable just because we look only 6 years older than the age to purchase alcohol, and not 7.
What does a 25 year old look like? Any different from 24 or 26?
I’m aware that I am easily irritated these days.
This doesn’t mean I cannot question how the UK Government can somehow be the biggest advertiser in the UK. They are not, after all, selling anything, and quite frankly I am not going to be coerced into telling on someone who may or may not be fraudulently claiming benefits, simply because the Government are unable to stop them on their own.
I find the car tax adverts particularly irksome; the government paying to broadcast threats to the electorate seems slightly less than democractic in my eyes, but perhaps that’s because I’m not their target voter.
When questioned about the astonishing 211 million quid that the Government spent on adverts last year, one of their spokemuppets glibly pointed out that advertising their online tax return service saved many hundreds of millions.
I’m baffled how; that’s a lot of fines which weren’t levied, or alternatively, a lot of additional taxes collected.
But that explanation doesn’t hold water either; a tax return in itself doesn’t generate tax, it’s primary purpose is to confirm that all tax due has been paid. Unless you have a vast, undeclared second income that you suddenly decide to come clean over, the return cannot generate anywhere near half a billion quid.
Or are the “savings” costs which would otherwise not have been incurred? That doesn’t make sense either – if the online service has put clerical staff out of work, just how many were employed for the £500 million?
The Government’s job, I have always believed, is to represent the general will of the voters. So, why are they advertising things – car tax, benefit fraud, anti-smoking campaigns when the people watching them clearly already know, or don’t care?
I’m over-weight. I do not need morph-like figures on TV to tell me to eat less, eat better and exercise more. I already know this. It will not affect my chosen lifestyle, because it is my chosen lifestyle. If I decide to lose weight, it’ll be because I want to, or perhaps I’ve had a nasty health scare.
The problem is, of course, that democracy depends on two factors; that the elected do as expected, and that the electorate actually choose people they believe will do their bidding.
Hence the result of our traditional two-party system is you, I, and the rest of the population who should know better, vote for the party we feel is going to be least poor.
I don’t vote for the party with the greenest agenda, or the best tax plan, or the one which promises to spend my taxes more sensibly, as I know that it won’t affect the actual end result. It’ll be red or blue.
This makes it all very difficult to explain to my children, who at best have a very passing interest in politics.
A while ago, I spoke with my second eldest child, the one I spend more time in conversation with than any other.
I explained that if her school actually wanted to show how democracy worked, they could give a very simple demonstration.
Allow all children, in a proper, organised and secret ballot, to vote on one of three things. Allow them to pick from no uniform for two days, extra break times for 3 days, or a single, longer day in return for a longer lunchtime.
None of these would particularly disrupt their education, and the children would probably fall into two groups.
The ones who are in hand-me-down, ill-fitting, worn-out or otherwise uncomfortable uniforms, and those who aren’t.
The results would probably be that the extra breaks would win, as there is no conceived cost.
But those kids in the itchy, uncomfortable clothes would realise that fundamentally democracy isn’t about being fair. It’s possible to be in a group with a valid reason for their choices which goes beyond the slacker tendencies of kids, and still lose.
And this brings me to the point of the exercise. Let them talk, and see if they reach this logical conclusion:
The only way for a group to make the “right” decision, when that decision isn’t the one which appeals to the entire group is for discussions and debates to carried out.
As adults, we don’t have this. Sure, couples might discuss things, as will those with declared affiliations with specific political parties, but in general, we do not discuss this sort of thing openly.
We all know that we, as a minority of one cannot actually affect the result of an election, so we vote with everyone else, picking the least-worse option.
You’ve probably done this when you’ve gone with a group to the cinema. If you aren’t keen on seeing the most popular film, which has suddenly sold out, you have undoubtedly thought “I’ll see anything, except for that…” So, you’ll pick the least worse.
We could then extend the school experiment to show the kids how fundamentally warped our first past the post system is.
The end result of doing this experiment termly, for 6 years? An entire new voting generation who actually understand that voting for least-worst is only a compromise, and leads to a result that the majority find sufferable, rather than the one they’d pick.
I would imagine you’d find their tolerance of unelected decision makers remarkably low, too.