Now we know - it was addiction to smoking that led to the hostage taking in Iran.
Saturday, 31 March 2007
A highly qualified US general goes to Iraq. Meets up with a very impressive and comprehensive range of contacts. Comes back and writes a report which is his view of where things are in Iraq.
So, why does this differ from the stories our respective great leaders tell us about how wonderful things are?
Our idiot PM makes great point in focussing his efforts warning Iran that their conduct risks their isolation from world affairs. Big deal. I just wonder where we would be now if Chamberlin had warned Hitler of isolation from world affairs back in 1939.
Friday, 30 March 2007
Thursday, 29 March 2007
The Iranian attitude towards the hostage situation still dominates British minds. Google shows just how much.
I hear comments that "Maggie would not have done it this way". Sure, her attitude to Argentina over the Falklands was "Go away or go to war". Those days are well past. We have been the world's puppy dog for a long while thanks to the jackass idiot of a Prime Minister. We have insufficient resources of men and materials to persecute two tiny wars still less add another major contest. Anything we even started to do in the way of serious would need the backing of USA. I'm not sure they would want this even as a willing proxy in their own problems with Iran.
So much for New Labour and enlightened foreign policies. We cannot even keep our Queen safe from insult at a public ceremony.
Wednesday, 28 March 2007
Tuesday, 27 March 2007
(Click to read comments)
This really just another accommodation. The very real hatred these two have for each other - allied to thie own impressions as to their importance in the scheme of things - will mean that it will not last. Both have signed agreements before. Good Friday was an example. Both have the capability to sign treaties and concordats with the reserved mind-set that the bits they like will be granted whilst they may happily ignore those which they do not wish to see accomplished.
Still, never mind. Doubtless B.Lair's men have promised all sorts of off-paper encouragements; I think that in the real world we would call these bribes. He will be able to strut and pose on the world stage that resolving the Northern Ireland dispute was one of his greatest hours and legacy achievement. Still does not make up for the disaster that is Iraq. See if he packages that as a legacy.
Monday, 26 March 2007
Harriet Harman says that the Attorney General should no longer attend Cabinet meetings,
She told the Financial Times the chief legal adviser's role needed to change as part of moves to restore public trust and confidence in the government. She backed a return to the days when the attorney general kept his distance from Cabinet discussions.
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has previously dismissed claims that his job has become too political. He has argued it is vital for "accountability" that he attends Cabinet meetings and insisted he has always put the law before party loyalties.
So, the idea that the chief law officer attend and give his imprimatur to Cabinet discussions is unpalatable? Granted that the Cabinet contains a number of members of the world's second oldest profession (some have moved up a grade into the world's oldest), they have this idea that any extra knowledge is superfluous. There has been pressure for the AG's opinion on the Iraq War to be made public but this has been strongly resisted. There was strong indication that he was leaned on and the eventual situation regarding our actions could suggest his first opinion. The cash for honours inquiry is hanging over the heads of the Government and doubtless is on the Cabinet agenda. AG will be involved in advising what happens here. By it's very nature, what goes on in Cabinet stays in Cabinet but the idea of removing legal advice is a bit scary where we have a ruling political that is as amoral as the current version. Says something strange when exclusion of legal advice is promoted as being necessary to “ restore public trust and confidence in the government”. Bit like the final scene in The Apprentice when the Boss man decides who is fired.
Going back a bit, I found this which gives a confirmation as to the role of AG. American but back-dated sufficiently (1789) that the Redcoats Way of doing things was still powerful. It clearly sets out why it was considered a good thing to have the AG present.
Sunday, 25 March 2007
I had thought that HR was the modish renaming of Personnel and dealt with Human Resources. I had not thought it meant Human Research. Hence, I was a little surprised to read this in a prominent HR journal. No link - I'm just anti-HR.
Are the sex lives of employees the concern of HR? Surprisingly, some experts think the answer is yes.
This may sound like the ultimate invasion of privacy. We already nag UK staff about quitting smoking and joining the workplace gym - surely they should be allowed to go home and enjoy themselves in peace?
Apparently not. There is a growing body of evidence that workplace stress affects sexual health, which in turn makes employees even more stressed and unproductive.
The problem is at its height in the US, where doctors report that a failure to switch off from work is putting pressure on patients' sexual relationships. One female patient asked her doctor if it was normal for her husband to put his Blackberry on the pillow while they made love.
Hence the need for the warning sign.
So, it was nice to see some suggestions for my Amazon Wish List. I'll have two of those ..........