” Rule #1: Use your good judgment in all situations. There will be no additional rules.”Nordstrom's Employee Handbook
Friday, 29 February 2008
Quote of the day
Drudge report risks coalition trops lives in Afganistan
The fact that Prince Harry has been serving with the UK’s armed forces in Helmand Province has been blown by the Drudge Report.
The fact is that he - and the troops he leads can only function effectively, at normal risk levels if he remains anonymous. Without that, the risk escalates astronomically.
So what is the difference between an enemy spy and Matt Drudge?
I am not sure what else you could call it - making sensitive military information available to enemy forces via the internet.
Information that affects the security of operations and could cost lives. It’s not as if there is even an overriding moral factor that might justify it. He knew it was going to be widely known once it was safe to release the information, but it was time sensitive.
He knew that, but apparently disregarded it, just to get a grubby scoop. But this isn’t really politics, or scandal, this is brave, mostly ordinary, people with integrity just trying to do a difficult and dangerous job.
At the very least it is dangerously irresponsible and done with little concern as to the possible ramifications, or the welfare of others.
So - The difference? Well Drudge makes a profit out of it, rather than doing it for merely ideological reasons.
He is reputed to be doing very nicely out of it, owning a luxurious Mediterranean-style home on Rivo Alto Island in Florida's Biscayne Bay, a condo at the Four Seasons in Miami and reportedly drives around in a black Mustang.
It is the way of the world that he will probably continue to enjoy them - and is unlikely to suffer any doubts, or be bothered by the consequences to others, such as troops who are just trying to do their jobs in difficult circumstances.
The fact is that he - and the troops he leads can only function effectively, at normal risk levels if he remains anonymous. Without that, the risk escalates astronomically.
So what is the difference between an enemy spy and Matt Drudge?
I am not sure what else you could call it - making sensitive military information available to enemy forces via the internet.
Information that affects the security of operations and could cost lives. It’s not as if there is even an overriding moral factor that might justify it. He knew it was going to be widely known once it was safe to release the information, but it was time sensitive.
He knew that, but apparently disregarded it, just to get a grubby scoop. But this isn’t really politics, or scandal, this is brave, mostly ordinary, people with integrity just trying to do a difficult and dangerous job.
At the very least it is dangerously irresponsible and done with little concern as to the possible ramifications, or the welfare of others.
So - The difference? Well Drudge makes a profit out of it, rather than doing it for merely ideological reasons.
He is reputed to be doing very nicely out of it, owning a luxurious Mediterranean-style home on Rivo Alto Island in Florida's Biscayne Bay, a condo at the Four Seasons in Miami and reportedly drives around in a black Mustang.
It is the way of the world that he will probably continue to enjoy them - and is unlikely to suffer any doubts, or be bothered by the consequences to others, such as troops who are just trying to do their jobs in difficult circumstances.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Surgeon ’hurried up’ patient's death to get at his organs
This is what can come from a system that is a little too anxious to harvest organs for transplant.
In the US transplant surgeon Hootan Roozrokh has been charged with attempting to hasten the death of a patient. He is accused of administering drugs to finish off potential organ donor, Ruben Navarro, in order to be able to harvest his organs, after his mother had been advised he would not recover and was persuaded to donate his organs.
Roozrokh was not even supposed to be in the room, but waited there while the patient’s respirator was removed. The patient continued to breath on his own. He then ordered a nurse to administer drugs. The patient still continued to breath on his own and he ordered another nurse to administer yet more drugs.
The patient still hung on and finally died some eight hours later.
If this can happen without Gordon Brown presuming state ownership of our organs how much more likely is it when Drs know they have the state’s blessing to literally take Gordon Brown’s 453.592 g (1 lb) of flesh?
In the US transplant surgeon Hootan Roozrokh has been charged with attempting to hasten the death of a patient. He is accused of administering drugs to finish off potential organ donor, Ruben Navarro, in order to be able to harvest his organs, after his mother had been advised he would not recover and was persuaded to donate his organs.
Roozrokh was not even supposed to be in the room, but waited there while the patient’s respirator was removed. The patient continued to breath on his own. He then ordered a nurse to administer drugs. The patient still continued to breath on his own and he ordered another nurse to administer yet more drugs.
The patient still hung on and finally died some eight hours later.
If this can happen without Gordon Brown presuming state ownership of our organs how much more likely is it when Drs know they have the state’s blessing to literally take Gordon Brown’s 453.592 g (1 lb) of flesh?
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Quote of the day
” If we cannot learn, if the only effect upon us of the presence of the dynamiter in our midst is to make us multiply punishments, invent restrictions, increase the number of our official spies, forbid public meetings, interfere with the press, put up gratings -- as in one country they propose to do -- in our House of Commons, scrutinize visitors under official microscopes, request them, as at Vienna, and I think now at Paris also, to be good enough to leave their greatcoats in the vestibules ... I venture to prophesy that there lies before us a bitter and an evil time.”Auberon Edward William Molyneux Herbert (1838—1906) Writer, Philosopher ~ and MP
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Issue of DNA records of the innocent reaches European Court
Did you wonder why Det Supt Stuart Cundy, who led the murder hunt which led to Mark Dixie's conviction, started going on about a compulsory national DNA database the other day? What his agenda might have been?
Unlike Scotland, where they take their civil liberties a wee bit more seriously, In England and Wales if the police arrest you, even if you have done nothing wrong, like the guy with the MP3 player, they will take your DNA and you will go into New Labour’s National DNA database, never to be removed.
This is unlike the tried and tested system with fingerprints where they only keep them if a person is convicted and people don’t mind giving them for elimination purposes because they know they will be destroyed afterwards.
Now the police’s practices with the DNA database is being challenged in the European Court of human rights as an infringement of an individuals right to privacy and anti-discrimination.
This database is scarily already the largest of it’s kind in the whole world.
If they win then the police will have to remove the DNA records from the system of those who have not been convicted and the system will have to work more like the fingerprint system or the Scottish system.
It is quite probable that a compulsory universal DNA database (that the police appear to be covertly working their way towards already) would indeed probably result in a few extra detections, or earlier detections of crimes.
Then again, so would electronically tagging every citizen, at their own expense, with a mini GPS system, camera and Microphone that relayed the info it recorded to a central database would too.
The question is, is the price paid in the loss of your civil liberties worth the benefits of the illusion of safety. DNA evidence can be spoofed, or compromised, by the savvy criminal and it is not always necessarily as reliable as it is imagined to be by the general public.
If they ever do manage to force a compulsory national DNA database on us by some devious means (Passports? ID Cards?). it will be great for the Authoritarians who want to check our every move.
Then there is the good old mission creep factor. What else would they get up to with the information? - One could do racial profiling in the name of medical research for instance…
One thing is certain - before long every junior civil servant and council worker in the country would have access and you could be sure they could not be trusted not to leave millions of records on a bus somewhere, or just loose them.
Best it is stopped. It comes to something when a UK citizen has to appeal to the European court to protect their civil rights from our own Government.
Unlike Scotland, where they take their civil liberties a wee bit more seriously, In England and Wales if the police arrest you, even if you have done nothing wrong, like the guy with the MP3 player, they will take your DNA and you will go into New Labour’s National DNA database, never to be removed.
This is unlike the tried and tested system with fingerprints where they only keep them if a person is convicted and people don’t mind giving them for elimination purposes because they know they will be destroyed afterwards.
Now the police’s practices with the DNA database is being challenged in the European Court of human rights as an infringement of an individuals right to privacy and anti-discrimination.
This database is scarily already the largest of it’s kind in the whole world.
If they win then the police will have to remove the DNA records from the system of those who have not been convicted and the system will have to work more like the fingerprint system or the Scottish system.
It is quite probable that a compulsory universal DNA database (that the police appear to be covertly working their way towards already) would indeed probably result in a few extra detections, or earlier detections of crimes.
Then again, so would electronically tagging every citizen, at their own expense, with a mini GPS system, camera and Microphone that relayed the info it recorded to a central database would too.
The question is, is the price paid in the loss of your civil liberties worth the benefits of the illusion of safety. DNA evidence can be spoofed, or compromised, by the savvy criminal and it is not always necessarily as reliable as it is imagined to be by the general public.
If they ever do manage to force a compulsory national DNA database on us by some devious means (Passports? ID Cards?). it will be great for the Authoritarians who want to check our every move.
Then there is the good old mission creep factor. What else would they get up to with the information? - One could do racial profiling in the name of medical research for instance…
One thing is certain - before long every junior civil servant and council worker in the country would have access and you could be sure they could not be trusted not to leave millions of records on a bus somewhere, or just loose them.
Best it is stopped. It comes to something when a UK citizen has to appeal to the European court to protect their civil rights from our own Government.
‘Most Wanted Fugitive’ actually innocent German holidaymaker
It just goes to show how much you can rely on facial recognition software.
A German couple on holiday in the Sicilian resort of Taormina last year were mis-identified as James J Bulger, alleged American crime boss, one of the FBI’s most wanted - and his girlfriend Catherine Grieg.
Fortunately the FBI appear to have adopted a more sensible approach since they had pensioner Derek Bond arrested at gunpoint and clapped in irons whilst on a wine tasting holiday in South Africa. They misidentified him as one Derek Sykes, on their most wanted list. It was days before they even bothered to go look at him. He had to agree to extradition to try and sort it out.
It could have been far worse, he could have been in real trouble as happened to a German businessman in 2005, whilst off on holiday going to Macedonia.
He was allegedly arrested, held captive, flown to Afghanistan and tortured - by U.S. government agents after being mistakenly identified as an associate of one of the 7/11 Hijackers.
Oops! Sorry…
Presumably this is the same vaunted biometric technology to be included in Passports and New Labour’s beloved ID card system and database. The same facial recognition software that was trialled last year as a part of a airport security and hailed as a success.
Knowing it’s going to be there ready to misidentify you as a dangerous gangster, or a terrorist should make you feel so much more secure – doesn’t it?
A German couple on holiday in the Sicilian resort of Taormina last year were mis-identified as James J Bulger, alleged American crime boss, one of the FBI’s most wanted - and his girlfriend Catherine Grieg.
Fortunately the FBI appear to have adopted a more sensible approach since they had pensioner Derek Bond arrested at gunpoint and clapped in irons whilst on a wine tasting holiday in South Africa. They misidentified him as one Derek Sykes, on their most wanted list. It was days before they even bothered to go look at him. He had to agree to extradition to try and sort it out.
It could have been far worse, he could have been in real trouble as happened to a German businessman in 2005, whilst off on holiday going to Macedonia.
He was allegedly arrested, held captive, flown to Afghanistan and tortured - by U.S. government agents after being mistakenly identified as an associate of one of the 7/11 Hijackers.
Oops! Sorry…
Presumably this is the same vaunted biometric technology to be included in Passports and New Labour’s beloved ID card system and database. The same facial recognition software that was trialled last year as a part of a airport security and hailed as a success.
Knowing it’s going to be there ready to misidentify you as a dangerous gangster, or a terrorist should make you feel so much more secure – doesn’t it?
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Quote of the day
” Politicians never accuse you of ‘greed’ for wanting other people’s money - only for wanting to keep your own money.”Joseph Sobran
PM’s Kiss of death for Martin
It’s been looking as though the red faced one, Michael Martin, Speaker of the house of Commons, bearer of the huge chip on his shoulder, would be able to ride out the scandal over his expenses - Especially as he is in charge of investigating them himself…
“Oi me! Did you do it?”, “Wot me guv? Naah.”, “Well that’s OK then, I’m convinced”.
Martin is the chairman of the Commons members estimate committee, who are conducting a ‘root-and-branch’ review of expenses following the discovery of Derek Conway’s dodgy expenses.
And we wondered why he had been so keen on blocking details of MPs' travel expenses being published under the Freedom of Information Act…
His spokesman, Mike Granatt, has now resigned for ‘ethical reasons’ apparently after cottoning on to the fact he had been parroting what has delicately been described as ‘incorrect information’ concerning actual details of Martin’s wife’s taxi fares.
No stranger to being accused of playing fast and loose with taxpayers money - in October 2007, Martin was criticised for blowing over £20K of taxpayers' money on lawyers to silence negative press coverage. Being a ‘class warrior’ didn’t put him off employing posh libel firm Carter-Ruck .
Martin must surely realise that if people criticise his conduct it could simply be because they genuinely find his conduct is open to question, still class is always a good smokescreen, bound to guarantee a knee jerk reaction with the more bigoted left.
But he may be doomed after all, as Gordon Brown has given him his backing. Talk about the kiss of death ;-)
“Oi me! Did you do it?”, “Wot me guv? Naah.”, “Well that’s OK then, I’m convinced”.
Martin is the chairman of the Commons members estimate committee, who are conducting a ‘root-and-branch’ review of expenses following the discovery of Derek Conway’s dodgy expenses.
And we wondered why he had been so keen on blocking details of MPs' travel expenses being published under the Freedom of Information Act…
His spokesman, Mike Granatt, has now resigned for ‘ethical reasons’ apparently after cottoning on to the fact he had been parroting what has delicately been described as ‘incorrect information’ concerning actual details of Martin’s wife’s taxi fares.
No stranger to being accused of playing fast and loose with taxpayers money - in October 2007, Martin was criticised for blowing over £20K of taxpayers' money on lawyers to silence negative press coverage. Being a ‘class warrior’ didn’t put him off employing posh libel firm Carter-Ruck .
Martin must surely realise that if people criticise his conduct it could simply be because they genuinely find his conduct is open to question, still class is always a good smokescreen, bound to guarantee a knee jerk reaction with the more bigoted left.
But he may be doomed after all, as Gordon Brown has given him his backing. Talk about the kiss of death ;-)
Friday, 22 February 2008
New Labour Back bencher threat to agency staff
One wonders if the MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, New Labour's Andrew Miller, is actually intent on damaging the UK economy, or if it is only a side effect of his attempt to grab more influence for the unions.
Supported (of course) by the trade unions he has tabled a private members bill to force the same rights/benefits as full time employees receive on agency staff, such a sick pay.
The union said there should be a "level playing field" with permanently employed people.
I have often heard full time employees express slightly jealous amazement when they find out what agency staff are paid by comparison.
The fact is that agency staff usually get a higher pay scale than permanent staff. This generally makes up at least the financial difference for sick pay and annual leave, etc. that they don’t get.
They usually also get a premium to make up for the lack of job security, as they generally fill posts where full time employees are off long term sick, having children, or the post is unable to be filled. They are also used when capacity suddenly and temporarily needs to be expanded for a project.
These people tend to be independent and avoid union membership. They also tend to take far less sick leave; so can spend that portion of their wage as they choose.
If they had the same rights and conditions as full time employees they would no longer be competitive, or of any use to an employer, in the capacity they are generally used in. It would not be economical to pay them the same rates as they get now.
If these rights were introduced then this sector would become much less competitive and be markedly reduced. The knock on is that all the businesses that make use of them to fill in would be less efficient and less cost effective.
This would in turn force them to look for redundancies more often and make full time employees positions a little less secure. It would of course strengthen the union’s position.
Supported (of course) by the trade unions he has tabled a private members bill to force the same rights/benefits as full time employees receive on agency staff, such a sick pay.
The union said there should be a "level playing field" with permanently employed people.
I have often heard full time employees express slightly jealous amazement when they find out what agency staff are paid by comparison.
The fact is that agency staff usually get a higher pay scale than permanent staff. This generally makes up at least the financial difference for sick pay and annual leave, etc. that they don’t get.
They usually also get a premium to make up for the lack of job security, as they generally fill posts where full time employees are off long term sick, having children, or the post is unable to be filled. They are also used when capacity suddenly and temporarily needs to be expanded for a project.
These people tend to be independent and avoid union membership. They also tend to take far less sick leave; so can spend that portion of their wage as they choose.
If they had the same rights and conditions as full time employees they would no longer be competitive, or of any use to an employer, in the capacity they are generally used in. It would not be economical to pay them the same rates as they get now.
If these rights were introduced then this sector would become much less competitive and be markedly reduced. The knock on is that all the businesses that make use of them to fill in would be less efficient and less cost effective.
This would in turn force them to look for redundancies more often and make full time employees positions a little less secure. It would of course strengthen the union’s position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)