First read :-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/18/pennsylvania_incident/
The peculiar thing about this story is that she wasn’t charged with attempted rape. After all, now picture a half-naked man chasing his girlfriend down the street after she had refused sex. Suddenly seems a bit less funny doesn’t it?
When you think about what has happened to a certain Banksy’s artwork recently :-
The stranger and stranger it gets.
First we have what is legally an act of vandalism, but the community in which that act of vandalism took place seems to approve of that act of vandalism. Vandalism could be defined as the destruction or defacement of some property; which given the protests since the removal of Banksy’s artwork could mean that whilst Banksy’s original artwork was an act of vandalism, so was removing it!
It seems strange for a community to have any rights over private property that is within that community; almost a denial of property rights. But it already exists – planning permission, maintenance enforcement notices, make a property a listed building, etc. Is it going too far to say that the community should have some say in how a building is “decorated” ?
As to the “theft”, people have been very quick to deny there’s been a crime here. But the community itself feels that something has been stolen from it – which is theft. It may not be legally theft, but if the community believes it to be theft, then perhaps the law is wrong.
Graffiti in general is a bit of an issue, as a good percentage of it has very little in the way of artistic value. Perhaps we need a way for a community to vote to protect “street art” and to condemn simple graffiti. That way those who have to live with it, get to choose what to keep and what to whitewash.
As for the property company that tried (and apparently failed) to sell the artwork in question here, it is rather hard to condemn them. If someone were to paint an artwork onto the side of my flat worth thousands, I would have a hard time saying no. Perhaps a ‘community street art protection order’ could expire after a certain period – perhaps 5 years – after which the property owner would be free to sell the artwork.
So it looks like he’s out on bail.
He could be guilty of murder, or he could have been trying to protect his home from burglars.
Let us assume it’s the later. There are all sorts of problems with his story of what happened – if you were to tackle a burglar in your own home in the middle of the day with plenty of practice at that sort of situation.
But in the middle of the night ? Woken from a sleep and still in a daze? And not really knowing what to do ? It’s all to easy to imagine me doing something really daft in that situation is all too believable.
Add guns to that mixture, and you have the recipe for a disaster. Which if Pistorius is telling the truth is exactly what has happened.
There are those who argue that it is a right to keep a gun in the house to protect yourself from burglars. Ignoring whether it’s a right or not, it is for most of us a dumb thing to do. Most of us do not undergo the sort of training that will let us make sensible decisions in such a situation, and those that do have the training are not likely to operate at full effectiveness without the right level of caffeine.
The boss of Iceland has come up with this.
To which the only appropriate response is “horseshit”.
His argument is that councils (or local authorities) award contracts based solely on price. Now I am not directly involved in the tendering process, and indeed not directly involved in the council tendering process, but I do have some familiarity with the process – sometimes I am one of the “quality gates” to get past in an area which works to many of the same rules as local authorities.
And nobody awards contracts based solely on price. At least not if they want to keep their jobs for longer than 10 minutes.
It is true that the public sector will award a contract based on price with all other things being equal. But if you want to supply burgers to all of the schools in the county of Rutland, you’ll probably have a huge pile of paperwork to complete which includes specifying the size of the burgers, and what’s in them.
Once all that paperwork had been sent back to the council, some poor unfortunate has to go through all the paperwork whittling down the responses to those who meet the criteria – strange as it may seem an invitation to tender for supplying 10,000 beef burgers will solicit responses from people willing to supply 50 chickens! Once the responses have been whittled down, the cheapest response is selected – if there’s no good reason to reject it.
Does this result in a downward pressure on price? Of course it does – and councils would be criticised if they did not exert downward pressure on prices. But it doesn’t encourage corrupt practices.
So today in addition to being subject to a near miss – the cosmic equivalent of being given a close shave by a Samurai with his (or her) Katana – we also had an unannounced visitation by an asteroid that crash-landed in Russia causing a considerable amount of property damage, and more seriously some injuries.
Now this doesn’t happen every day, but in the lifetime of the Earth it does happen pretty frequently. As is evident from our nearest neighbour which looks as though it has been bombarded in some sort of celestial war. And indeed, the evidence can be seen on Earth if you look close enough; and that list just includes the largest impacts – events such as Russia today simply don’t show up.
Now there is not a great deal we can do about this as individuals, so as individuals we may as well forget about it – the chances of being killed by a meteorite are pretty remote but as it turns out only slightly less likely than being killed by a terrorist!
As a species however, we have reached the point where we can start doing something about it. If that is, we want to invest the resources into doing so. Admittedly we have started looking but simply knowing we’re all going to be killed by a dinosaur-killer isn’t enough – we should be able to do something about it. Perhaps there isn’t much we can do about a dinosaur-killer.
But we should be able to do something about smaller dangers. If we want to.
If we told the military that they will have to change the kinds of really expensive toys they get, we can probably start some form of meteor defence programme without having a dramatic effect on the economy. After all, ultimately a large meteor is as dangerous as an all-out nuclear war.