Rantings via Weblog (Click here to go to the Home Page!)

A man was shot dead on a tube train yesterday as a police chase ended violently and decisively.

Some people might think this was unnecessary and no different from the terrorism they're battling against. I say that is a specious argument and shows poor analysis.

This link might work:-
http://andymerrett.co.uk/weblog/2005/07/22/man-shot-dead-still-terrorism

I'm right there with the police officers and the decisive action. No way could they guarantee that the suspected perpetrator would not blow up himself and them with him, but the odds of stopping a potential blast are with the head shot.

Two weeks and a day after the 7th July bombings and one suspected terrorist is taken down. It gives a very clear signal that we won't be messed with. It's a sad change to our historically tolerant way of life in UK, where the need for such armed brandishings was not so long ago unheard of, but we live in interesting times and we need to get serious and give the right signals that UK is no longer a soft target.


EDIT 03-Nov-2006

Since my original post, the plot went pear-shaped and then thickened like treacle. First we found that Jean Charles Menezes was not close to being a terrorist but was a tragic victim of mistaken identity.

Then there was news that his stay in UK was not properly cleared, which may have explained why he ran away from the police. Then we heard that there was no chase. Then we heard that the police boss man Sir Ian Blair claimed not to know about the mistaken identity way past when he should have been told, as an explanantion for duff information he gave at a press conference.

I'd still endorse the dread strategy and tactics used by the police in principle but getting your intel right is paramount. They failed in this responsibility.

Since this incident this poor man has become a symbol of us getting it wrong in the so-called war against terror.

It's all a mess.

Steven Wells has written a terrific article at Guardian Unlimited:-

"Free tennis for all" : http://sport.guardian.co.uk/wimbledon2003/story/0,13391,989374,00.html

To quote a bit:-


The LTA does okay. Look, they're paying their bills. Well, maybe in fact they are making a fortune. I think Wimbledon washes its face in business terms. I wonder how embarrassed they are that year upon year we have a non-British final and that most of the Brits - the few that docompete at all - get blasted off the court in the first few days. Obviously not embarrassed enough to capture and nurture new talent - invest in a few players.

Just a couple of years ago Arvind Parmer was being recognised as a contender with yet more potential to show us. Since then nothing happened, asfar as I can tell. Maybe he just did not deliver the results or could it be that he is just the wrong colour for the LTA to commit to his development?

Bob Geldof is cross that some winners of tickets to the live8 concert decided to try to sell them on eBay.co.uk

The BBC reported:-

And he even got government ministers and MPs rallying round, decrying eBay's willingness to allow these auctions on their site.

Now some people have claimed that this behaviour was ripping off the charity. Nonsense. The charity had received its piece of the revenue when they took their slice of each �2 SMS text message. Apparently eBay was even prepared to donate back their commissions on the ticket sales, thus providing potentially even more revenue for the event. I admit that this sounds very lame and indeed eBay were ethically digging themslves into an even deeper hole here. My point is that the charity was not losing out.

Geldof is probably right. It is profiteering, and it is a bit sick. His intention was that well-meaning competition winners should be the ones attending the concert, not those who had been prepared to pay a large amount of money. Apart from the two quid SMS charge, the tickets were meant to be free, so trading them seems to go against the sprit of the thing.

So what did he do? In a spirit of Moral People Power, he called upon ordinary eBay users to scupper the auctions with ridiculously high bids. And they did. Hurrah to them!

So what did eBay do? They suspended (indefinitely, it seems) the accounts of the naughty but well-meaning scupperers, because they were wrong to sabotage perfectly legal and legitimate auctions. Oh, and then eBay banned the auctions too because they felt they weren't right after all.

It seems to me to be really sad and unfair that the losers are the ones who followed the leadership of Bob Geldof, a Knight of the Realm. (I bet he did not lose his ebay account.) They broke the letter of the eBay Law, sure. They were perhaps a little foolish or impetuous to get stuck in like that. But they meant well.

Even though eBay changed its position on the appropriateness of the Live8 ticket auctions, they have remained thus far steadfast to their position on the eBay account suspensions. So under moral pressure, no more poignantly placed than in the high-bidding sabotage bids, they are prepared to bend their own rules. But for the people at the axel of the moral argument there is no leniency.

EBay UK will capitulate for the sake of public pressure but not for the sake of the moral argument. Do I hear cash tills at the altar of eBay? Do I need to offer the opinion that this is pathetic?

Here's the link to the squirmy, Blair-like back-down announcement from eBay:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/entertainment/music/4095464.stm

And here's the full dirt at the BBC:-

http://www2.ebay.com/aw/uk/200506141934002.html

Another link that may be interesting:-

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/16/ebay_live8/

Apparently the Live8 concert tickets are marked up as "not transferrable". This means that you may not transfer them, as part of the terms of accepting them. I understand that selling a ticket really does include transferring it. Therefore you are not allowed to sell it. And I believe it is a legal "not allowed to" here.

So if it is indeed a breach of the terms of the receipt of the tickets to re-sell them, how then does eBay justify its claim that it is not illegal to do so? Maybe I am being dumb but when propositional logic and the English language fail to agree with eBay, who is mistaken?

Check out da appenin news at the BBC's bangin' website:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/4554179.stm

So that's a Big Up to the Electoral Massive... or is it?

Now the yoof term "respec" is acceptable fayre for the political discourse. Everyone is giving respect. Surely it's not another Labour initiative to cash in on the vernacular and try to weedle their way into the mind of popular culture?

More Spin, if you please, MC Blair.

Respect is due. But I doubt it will be forthcoming.