Straight To The Point

US Weapons Given To Iraqi Security Forces End Up in Turkey Being Used for Violent Crimes.

So that's where all those 190,000 weapons went to?

I've not watched the Daily Show, but obviously I've heard about it since it gets linked to from all over the internet. And here's another one: This link shows an excellent clip explaining the problems with America's policy in the Middle East. (Basically, backing the right horse, only for the horse to turn around and trample on them, to extend the metaphor).

After more friendly fire incidents, where 3 soldiers were killed, the US helps make amends by refusing to allow the soldiers to appear at inquests.

How can this be the right thing to do? It would help the bereaved families, and maybe prevent the same thing from happening again. And we're supposed to be on the same side as ther US?

In an earlier post, I stated (in a nutshell) that the world would be a much better place if we just pubished bad behaviour. However, as a corollary to this, why do people who try and make a difference get punished?

For example, it seems that almost on a daily basis, whistleblowers get sacked for revealing the truth (there are plenty of examples of this). Why? A lot of the time it's councils that do this, and we the taxpayer end up compensating them in an out of court settlement. Who's decision at the council was it to sack them, and why haven't they been held accountable?

Brown is to crack down on gangs:

* Tougher enforcement" of the law
* More police on the streets
* Crack down on illegal sales of alcohol to under-18s
* "Where there is a need for new laws we will pass them."
* Increase the number of "acceptable behaviour contracts"

You'd be forgiven for thinking that Blair was still in power - more laws, tougher laws, more strange new means of surpressing bad behaviour.

When will they tackle to root of the problem? That which causes under-18's to want to drink alcohol and hang around shopping centres etc..?

Why not look at why under-18's do this? Among lots of other reasons, maybe it's because they have no reason not to. As I've heard them say before, it's because they get protection, respect and a sense of belonging. They should be able to get this elsewhere, and until they do, creating more new laws (which only serves to make it look like the Government is doing something) will solve nothing. It starts with the home.

(From the BBC) 28 SHAs were set up in 2002 to supervise local health services in England. 4 years after they were created the regional bodies were merged into 10.

Some 764 people were made redundant or took early retirement at a cost of £82.89m. That's an average of £108,000 each!

Only a fool believes what they read on an advert, but it still beggars belief when a company hides behind half-truths. Take Ryanair for example, who have just been chastised by the ASA for their misleading advert. Ryanair claimed that "its flight from London to Brussels is faster and cheaper than making the journey by Eurostar".

Sounds plain enough? Well, it didn't take into account that if you're in central London, you'll need to travel 25 miles to Stansted airport first at your own cost. And once you "arrive" in Brussels, thanks to Ryanair, you'll actually find that you are still 28 miles away!

To add insult to injury, Ryanair defended its position, saying that time and costs involved in getting to an airport or railway station were "irrelevant" as they applied to both modes of transport. How is this true? If I saw an advert that claimed to take me to Brussels, and I wanted to go to Brussels, I would assume it would take me to the centre, not 28 miles away! They are not comparing like with like.

BTW Eurostar takes you directly to and from the centre of the respective cities.

All the problems in the world are caused by one thing - society not punishing bad behaviour. That's it. Whether you're a politician invading another country for dubious reasons, or a smoker dropping a cigarette on the street, all bad behaviour should prompt some kind of punishment.

Take gangs for example. Now I'm no expert (otherwise I wouldn't be writing a blog ;) ), but from what I've heard (and I listen to Radio 4 in the morning let me tell you) but the reason kids join gangs is because they get friends, "respect", and protection. In fact, most of the things they should get from their parents. And where are the parents? Where's the dad who left the mum before the baby was born? Where's the mum who's out playing bingo and leaving the kids to themselves? Okay, these are stereotypes, but they do exist, and they should be "punished" in one way or another for shirking their parental responsibilities. This is just one example of bad behaviour not being punishable, and the person gaining from their wrong actions.

I'm not jumping on the Sun bandwagon of calling it to be scrapped, but surely there must be a good argument that if you infringe someone else's human rights (by, say, killing them) then you can have your own human rights infringed.

Justice isn't something that should happen for henious crimes - I believe that everybody should take responsibility for their actions and take the consequences; otherwise, the message that it sends out to people is that it's okay to do bad things as long as you don;t get caught, or if you do, you can minimise your punishment.

Take this example of a Gangmaster who didn't pay his workers for a month, and left them to scavenge for themselves. His punishment? To have his licence revoked.

From this we can learn:-

* Foreigners are not as important as the rest of us and can be treated as slave labour
* Even if your workers depend on you, you are not obliged to even provide them with food.
* As a gangmaster, you might as well try and get away with not paying your workers, because even if you are caught, the worst you can expect is to have your licence revoked.

Can you feel the damp squib of justice? I feel like trying to rip someone off today. After all, if some people can get away with it, why can't I? It's the world we live in, and our Government doesn't seem to bothered about it. It's every man/woman/child for himself, and the weak and desperate will be crushed (right after we've finished exploiting them).

I almost couldn't believe this when I read it - in America, they have to have special "zones", and they are the only places where you are completely free to speak. This was created by the Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration. The government has the power to move anyone to one of these areas.

Needless to say the Government uses this system to move protestors as far away from any passing official as possible.

BTW, I should also make clear that I'm no America-bashing here, but I can't believe that it's got to the stage over there that free speech is only allowed in certain areas!

And I don't want to drag terrorism into everything, but it seems to me that America (and the UK) has got it's enemies completely mixed up.

I've just been to Asda to buy some bread, and noticed that a lot of their bread went past it's Best-Before date yesterday. Is that even legal? I'm just glad I noticed before I took it to the checkout.

Now that I've mentioned it on my blog, watch their sales plummet!

The US military cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to the Iraqi security forces, an official US report says. Correspondents say it is now feared many of the weapons are being used against US forces on the ground in Iraq.

So now we're not just selling weapons to the enemy, we're giving them away!

I'm not blowing my own trumpet here or anything, I'm just surprised that the point of view I have isn't more widespread. Basically, it's this: compared to how most people are killed, terrorism makes up an incredibly tiny fraction. So why are we wasting our time on it when there are plenty of other problems to be solved? At least someone at the LA Times has realised this.