I seem to have an amplitude of things buzzing around inside my; apologies if these include something not of interest to you.
There is a terrorist trial running here right now. A British man (Ugandan Asian convert to Islam in UK) admits plotting to 'kill as many innocent people as possible' in the UK and USA by targeting skyscrapers and major financial institutions in New York and Washington and setting off a dirty radioactive nuclear device in London. He is on trial with others who plead not guilty. I have sufficient experience of legal procedures to know that these claims will be amplified but right now all we are told is that plans for the operations were found on his computer. It is accepted by the prosecution that there is no evidence of any vehicles being obtained, specialist knowledge re bomb making or constituents of any such device. So, something like a Power Point on my computer as to how I might seduce Charlotte Church.
It is clear that the trial will be followed by a number of Muslims. Some of the 'peaceful' variety as well as would be fundamental activists. They may lack knowledge of how our legal system works but could have that Islamic tendency to kick off at the slightest imputation. I have to say that the way things have been reported, this Muslim is not getting a very fair crack of the whip. If this guy – even including those on trial with him – has the nous and ability to co-ordinate the attacks on two continents as he planned we should engage him in community service punishment at the Wembley Stadium project.
Jack Straw's attack on the veil still chunders on. The latest in the fall-out concerns a classroom assistant (some sort of glorified milk monitor I think) who insisted on wearing the face covering when at school.
She was involved with young children. Her employers agreed that she could wear the veil in the public areas and staff room but required her to uncover when in class on duty. She refused. Her husband confirms it is a matter of her personal choice. I suggest her suitability to be involved with young kids is clearly in question when she insists on appearing like some Trick or Treat Halloween character. She was on the radio this morning. Yes – she speaks English. It is not the sort of English I would like any child of mine to assimilate. Her pronunciation of many words was dodgy at best, emphasis and pace was quite wrong and she sounded muffled – maybe she had a blanket as a veil? To balance we had problems with English women wearing a Christian cross where it might be seen by the general public. This details treatment of TV newsreader and presenter Fiona Bruce but news is just breaking of a British Airways edict re their female staff. They have said that crosses may be worn but must be invisible. It seems that their dress code which refers to religious symbols does not ban Sikhs with turbans or the religiously significant kara bracelet. Why one may not display crosses signifying a Christian religious belief in what is still (OK maybe only nominally) a Christian country is beyond my understanding. Or acceptance. It think next time I check in with BA I'll take one of those life size crosses as carried by penitents at Easter in Spain or doing Stations of the Cross in Jerusalem. We seem to be fighting a war on terror overseas whilst the people whose aims coincide with those of the terrorists are doing so well and winning in this country. Just as bit of light relief, see this.
War on terror leads me into the CGS of the Army and his remarks about the way this Government is treating the British Army. One small section of his initial interview was given undue prominence. Doubtless, it gave the soldiers a lot of good morale 'bash the government' feeling but I just wonder what it has done for his service future and the ability to ever again draw attention to anything. He will be a marked man. There is a minority view that he was wrong. This based upon the fact that the Government is in charge and soldiers should not get involved. Erm – Cromwell anyone? It could well be that the gallant soldier (holder of Military Cross which does not come stuck to a Mars Bar) has tried to raise the matter privately and been routinely ignored. In the background is the controversy whether the Attorney General gave dodgy answers to the 'How legal is the Iraq War?' question posed by last CGS.
Note - MY world. Be aware it is that of a very dogmatic old man who is still thinking like he did back then but prepared to listen to today
Saturday, 14 October 2006
We live in interesting times
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment