Most Inspirational Blog Award

Ana's very kindly given me an award:

There are things that I've inspired that I would rather not have done. Disdain, derision, outright hatred sometimes, although nobody feels the need to explain these feelings that they have, other than to the extent that it is my fault. There are odd moments when I feel hurt by that, but less and less these days, I'm pleased to report. One can't win against a person who is agreeing with one - if one tries, it backfires very badly. That's a truth that a few people could benefit from acknowledging.

Anyway, I digress - I'll do some research and find some blogs to pass this on to.

This'll make you laugh...

My wife received a text message from my niece at some unspecified point in the (presumably), recent past.* I don't communicate with any of my family - they have nothing of any interest to say to me, and consequently I have nothing of any interest to say to them.

Anyway, it seems that my sister was thinking about trying to make contact with me, and sent my niece as emissary (but not to me, you'll note - apparently a game of Chinese Whispers is required). It seems my sister is concerned as to the reception she'll get if she tries to mend bridges, or whatever it is she has in mind (it must be four or five years since I last heard from her), and with good reason, too. I understand that it is appropriate and amusing to reject people who are trying to reach out, and this is a theory I look forward to testing.

And Ruth, dear Ruth, it wasn't my fault Dad left. Not even this evil machine was capable of achieving that at the age of two.

* I should note that while I've stated this as a fact, my wife merely told me that my niece had texted. Given that quite a lot of the things that come out of my wife's mouth, erm, strech credibility, if I may understate it like that, my niece may never have done any such thing, and my sister may never have entertained the idea of contacting me. Amazing the false paths we can be led down, when we rely on reported information, isn't it?

By 2040 you will be able to upload your brain...

I had to chuckle... This guy's, frankly whacky, ideas will be hailed as visionary, for no better nor worse reason than that people may make money from them (I contest that no idea is pursued that cannot "turn a buck," which is why most people know very little about anything else). Because money may be made from them, they will be pursued and will probably become reality, as he has predicted.

By 2040 you will be able to upload your brain...

I won't argue with any of his predictions. Partly because I don't know anything about the current state of the technology, and partly because I couldn't give a flying fuck. However, if A.I is ever deemed to have outstripped human intelligence, I'd be pleased to have a chat with it... I could do with a decent conversation.

Do you think machines will ever learn to be duplicitous? If they do, the monkey people had better watch their arses. Actually, I've just realized that that's a dumb question... If we start uploading our brains to machines, then they will replicate our thought patterns, and, presto, they will understand the concept of lying. And they'll lie a fuck sight more convincingly than any human, too, I'd imagine.

World's dementia to double every 20 years

Looks like I found something more interesting to think about quicker than I had anticipated...

DSM defines dementia as an "overall decline in intellectual function".

World's dementia to double every 20 years

Well, now... What's twice 100%?

Incidentally, my opinion is that everybody's brains are still working just fine. It's just that there are any number of legal and societal rules (ie, written, customary and some that are, seemingly, secret (until one breaches them)), which forbid free thought. The "forbidden" areas of thought become stunted.

In fact, there is very little thought that is encouraged, it seems to me. The upshot is that the less one permits a person to think for themselves, the less they will think for themselves, the more inclined they will be to adopt other "sanctioned" views, and so on.

You've got the system you deserve.

And, yes, I refuse to address myself to any more of your piddling, monkey problems. Quid pro quo, Claris - did you think I wouldn't reciprocate your selfishness, too? Did you really think I would go on giving as you took, without acknowledgement? Fuck you, monkey people.

New legal papers to be released soon, says Megrahi lawyer

Hmmm.

New legal papers to be released soon, says Megrahi lawyer

I don't usually go in for extended quotations, but there's something about this excerpt that's got me going...

The release of the documents will spur the long-running campaign, supported by some British relatives of victims, to have his conviction overturned. In today's Independent on Sunday, the civil rights lawyer Gareth Peirce, who has successfully represented clients including the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Tipton Three, says that Megrahi's conviction was a miscarriage of justice and calls for an inquiry to be set up.

She says there has been a lack of an independent, effective and transparent investigation. "In the absence of this, a number of the bereaved Lockerbie families have of necessity themselves become investigators, asking probing questions for two decades without receiving answers; they have learnt sufficient forensic science to make sense of what was being presented at al-Megrahi's trial and make up their own minds whether the prosecution of two Libyans at Camp Zeist near Utrecht was in fact a three-card trick put together for political ends."

The most important aspects of prosecution case against Megrahi were "hijacked" from the Scottish police investigating the bombing, Ms Peirce argues. The crime scene was violated she says, in part "because outsiders were conducting a desperate search for wreckage that it was important for them to find and spirit away".

I always thought that Gareth was a bloke's name, but I guess the Indy knows better than me!

However, we've got a claim here that the crime scene was contaminated. Evidence was removed from the crime scene? By whom? And how do we know this? And it's suggested that this was not the only act that made the forensic evidence dubious.

Peirce suggests that the conviction was politically motivated. On what ground, I wonder?

And then the Lord Advocate (note the retention of the masculine title, despite the fact that Elish Angiolini appears to be a woman), claims that Megrahi is attempting to clear his name, having abandoned his (second) appeal. Not cleared in Law, of course, but in the minds of the public. And apparently this matters to Angiolini.

And another thing: how do these documents demonstrate Megrahi's innocence? Because, as everybody knows, I'm a stupid guy, and I need stuff explaining to me in really fine, fucking detail.

You know, the more I think about this, the less important it seems to me? It really is a matter of stupendous indifference to me. I think I'll go and think about something more interesting.

Megrahi's lawyers to reveal 'evidence of innocence'

This story just keeps on running... In the same way that a festering sore runs, methinks!

Megrahi's lawyers to reveal 'evidence of innocence'

What do I think about this latest development (if I want to be asked interesting questions, then I have to ask them of myself, these days!)? Well on the one hand, I don't actually care that much; after all, none of this impacts me, directly. On the other hand, I do have an interest in the Law, as a general concept...

As one of the commenters observes, we don't have a particularly good record, when it comes to miscarriages of justice - the desire for revenge attaches itself to whomever appears the most likely candidate (I write "desire" - it might just be a habit, who knows?), and Plod the Sod can't necessarily be trusted to be impartial, especially when they're sure that they've got their man. Much like the rest of us, I suppose.

Does it matter whether or not Megrahi is innocent? He's free, after all? I suppose it matters to him. It almost certainly would if he were innocent. But if he is innocent, where does that leave the families of those who died at Lockerbie? Where will they put their hate then?

Oh, what tangled webs we weave... Somebody's lying.

Genius: there's no other word for it - Part XXXXVII

Ah, massive hair and gallons of "slap" - it must be the 80s, again! The Blow Monkeys were a bit leftwing in their attitudes, as this track demonstrates - Red Wedge, and all that. Still, the music's great...



Addendum: I should apologize to the Blow Monkeys for the "leftwing" comment. After all, thinking back, Atila the Hun was left of Thatcher, in political terms.

Police to investigate MI6 over alleged complicity in torture

Oh, dear, whatever next? It seems that Robertson and Jacobson's contention that we don't do torture in the UK is on shaky ground. Allegedly, of course. Well, to be accurate, we don't do torture. The UK "intelligence" services do. Or rather, the US "intelligence" services do, and the British just stand and watch it happen. And it doesn't take place in the UK, because we make sure of that.

Police to investigate MI6 over alleged complicity in torture

Hilarious, in a truly black, sickening way. Still, torture is unlawful: let's trust in the Masons to follow the trail of causation. If the UK intelligence services have been colluding in torture, then there'll be a memo hiding in an archive file, somewhere. And it'll be to or from somebody senior, too, I suspect.

And if anybody tries to suggest that torture is necessary to save lives, then I'll fucking crucify them - one cannot call oneself civilized (as I understand that word), whilst one is engaged in this type of activity, and arguing that it doesn't happen, when one is looking with averted eyes, just looks weak.

Oh, and one last thing: let's not get into a game of semantics, as to whether waterboarding constitutes torture, or not, as the fucking imbecile Bush did. I suspect that waterboarding is the least of it, but in any case "torture" is clearly defined in Law, and any activity that is carried out for the purpose and effect described is torture. End of argument. Why have you appointed such utter cretins to the highest offices? I'm beyond words.

Revealed: Blair's role in Megrahi release

Fuck me, this is like a fucking soap opera, except not very interesting, with poor character development and with weak, predictable storylines. So, Tony Blah is now part of the equation?.. That's the last time I'll mention that, I think.

Revealed: Blair's role in Megrahi release

And it seems that Jacobson was right: BP was involved, although the extent to which it actively lobbied Jack Straw is unclear. And as for all these spooks... American spooks amongst them, which kind of undermines the repetitive bleating coming from US politicians, of late (ie, all this tedious whinging about not being informed of the decision to release Megrahi, before it was made public - I suggest you speak to your spooks about that, you fucking halfwits).

Meanwhile, the Libyans are denying that the release had anything to do with trade. OK, let's forget that: anything that comes out of a person's mouth could easily be a lie. Which means that Jack Straw could be full of shit, too.

Nope, I like my method - much simpler... Let's just assume that Megrahi was released owing to the discretionary exercize of compassion by the Scottish Justice Minister. If that story's bullshit, it will soon become apparent. Trust me.

Howard Jacobson: We'd already shown Megrahi compassion – by not sentencing him to death

Oh, God, they're all at it:

Howard Jacobson: We'd already shown Megrahi compassion – by not sentencing him to death

Unlike Robertson, whom Jacobson quotes, the latter permits himself to speculate on what may really have motivated the release of Megrahi. He also appears to assume (at length), that the decision to make the release was a judicial one, when it was not - it was a political one, made by the Scottish Justice Secretary, as I understand it - a point made by Robertson, as it happens. As an aside, I would also point out that Robertson chose to argue that in this case, politicians should stay out of judicial matters, apparently because they made a decision that went back on an assurance made earlier by a different politician who did get involved in a judicial matter. Except on this earlier occasion, Robertson agreed with the decision. So, politicians shouldn't get involved in judicial matters, unless Robertson agrees with the decision made?

Anyway, there is no point to Jacobson's speculation, because it merely clouds the issue - Jacobson cannot know that BP was involved in the decision, nor that more general commercial interests may have been a consideration. So why bother factoring them in - that's the stuff of conspiracy theories? Work with the verifiable facts.

My sense is that Jacobson, like Robertson, disagrees with the decision, and is determined to demonstrate its wrongness. The decision is not going to be changed, for any number of practical reasons. As such, the construction of a flawed and highly emotive argument achieves precisely nothing.

Jacobson also praises Robertson's version of compassion ("we don't hang or torture, in the UK"), and this is where the duty to show compassion begins and ends, it seems - indeed, we don't even have to show compassion ourselves, because this version of compassion is part of the system. Hmmm... What's wrong with that picture? We are excused the obligation to demonstrate forgiveness on a personal level, because we believe we've formalized compassion and can dispense it impartially at a systemic level? Yes, that'd be about fucking right, in my experience.

A question has just popped up in my mind, which will never be answered, of course, and it is this: "what is Jacobson's interest?". As far as I know, he lost no relatives or friends at Lockerbie (I stand to be corrected). Why is he getting so exercized about this? He wants justice, he says (or something of that nature). Life imprisonment, because we don't execute murderers.

An eye for an eye? It'll be the death of you, Howard.

Series of errors allowed Madoff to keep trading

Oh, God - I'm laughing so fucking hard, I can barely type! I'm sorry, this is schadenfreude.

Series of errors allowed Madoff to keep trading

Now, for those of you who may be unaware, my background is in Law and financial compliance. The first thing that one is told, as a rookie compliance officer (by the people training one, not by one's company!), is that a major risk indicator in any organization is the balance of marketing types vs. others, at the top of the organization. In other words, if an organization is run by marketing people, then the potential for blind eyes to be turned is much greater. Moreover, such an organization is likely to appoint a junior person to the compliance role, because they can be more easily controlled (ie, manipulated and starved of information), and also because it is a measure of how important they regard compliance.

And the SEC has been caught out in just this way, by the look of things. They put people on the case who could be slapped down, if anything was uncovered - hell, one might even think that they were determined not to find anything, even though it was (apparently glaringly), there, presumably because it would have been embarassing. Or, even worse, they were so fucking supine that they feared that if they looked and found nothing, but Madoff chose to be angered by the scrutiny, then there might be repercussions. Cowardice, in other words.

It's all too funny for words. Reminds me of my old place of work. Nobody believed me, either. Or else chose not to believe me, because they were doing nicely out of it. Or else they were only too well aware of what was going on with the megalomaniacs who were running the business, and had chosen to become part of it, rather than object. Also reminds me of the pharmaceutical industry and its non-regulators on both sides of the Pond.

You like putting people in boxes and giving them labels? I will have my revenge, and it will be complete. What's more, I don't care if you hate me for it.

Matt

Geoffrey Robertson: Megrahi should never have been freed

Geoffrey Robertson is an eminent QC (Queen's Counsel - a senior barrister, from the ranks of which the judiciary is drawn). Geoffrey Robertson has an opinion:

Geoffrey Robertson: Megrahi should never have been freed

I'm struggling to put into words my mental process, just now. First, I think the discussion is irrelevant - Megrahi's been released, and Libya won't be giving him up again, I doubt, so bitching about the correctness of Scottish Justice Secretary MacAskill's decision is about as complete a waste of time and energy as it is possible to conceive. Unless, of course, Mr Robertson perceives that he may be able to influence future, similar decisions?

However, Mr Robertson's position is clear - he didn't want Megrahi released. He's constructed an argument, very similar to the one I made in my previous post, to the effect that MacAskill should have stayed well away from the decision, which was already being considered by the judiciary. Robertson believes that MacAskill should atone for his error, or else be dismissed. Now, I am unclear as to the legal minutiae, here, but I'd be prepared to wager that MacAskill was within his remit to intervene. One may not like the tack that MacAskill's intervention took, but if he had the legal standing to take the decision, and the legal ground on which to decide in the way he did, then I don't see that there's any argument.

Now, to compassion. Well, I'm not going to second guess MacAskill, here. I'm going to assume that the true motivation for Megrahi's release was compassion. I'm going to assume that MacAskill exercized what he believed to be compassion in granting the release. Mr Robertson's view of compassion is stated: we don't execute murderers, in the UK - and that's the best that one might anticipate. I don't see much point in arguing that, to be honest - each person has their own view of what "compassion" amounts to - indeed, dependent upon how revolted we are by the behaviour under scrutiny, our definition of "compassion" might well be flexible. In any event, Robertson advises us that MacAskill's compassion is misplaced, because it was not appreciated by the person upon whom it was bestowed. I think Megrahi's gratitude is probably irrelevant to the question, but that's just my view.

Now, I must ask you to permit a brief digression, because I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the argument that Robertson makes a propos Human Rights/abolition of the death penalty, but I'm not quite sure why... Only nation states may legally kill people. War and capital crimes are the only circumstances when state-sponsored homicide is permissible. Now, war isn't relevant to this discussion, and I'm not about to make the puerile argument that because world leaders can kill thousands via "legitimate" airstrikes and bombardment, an indiviudal should be permitted to knock off a few hundred in a terrorist act. Nor that if one punishes the terrorist, one should punish the leaders, too. Who'd want to run for high office, if that became the norm?

So much for that. Now, Robertson links the abolition of the death penalty (for international crimes), to the certainty with which politicians can assure other politicians that a person convicted of a certain crime will never be freed. Thus, when Robin Cook promised Madeleine Allbright, nobody should have made a liar of him. But, Mr Robertson, Mr Cook's word was not Law - it's not enforceable. Even if Mr Cook had passed a law to that effect, is it too commonplace to note that no parliament may bind a future parliament, and the law thus introduced could be overturned?

The upshot is that no such global assurance may be given by any politician - the best that Cook could promise was that he would not release Megrahi (and he didn't). And any politician (Allbright, in this case), who secures such an assurance is stupid to believe that the agreement is between anybody other than the assurer and the assuree. Aside to Ms Allbright: as far as I know, we don't do political prisoners, in the UK. Once again, I find myself stumbling upon an instant when a politician has sought to influence a legal matter. Learn your lesson, guys: create the system, allow it to run its course, have some faith in your judiciary and don't go changing the rules in isolated instances in order to suit yourselves, because as soon you introduce uncertainty, the Law is brought into disrepute.

One final word on punishment, which everybody seems to be obsessed by. When a person does something wrong, they must be punished - that's the principle upon which you work, is it not? An eye for an eye, and all that? And there are those among you who scrutinize behaviour very closely, in order to seek out aberrance, like the Witchfinders of olde. You will learn nothing in that way. On the contrary, you scorn the opportunity to learn.