By Kathy Martin…
Written June 2015
Here is a story that will strike joy, if not delirious delight into the heart of every bank robber or motorised offender in Britain! A police officer has been charged with “dangerous driving” after being in pursuit of a person who drove away from a self-service petrol station without paying.
The report states that the constable was in a marked police car, so the offender would not have feared that he was being chased by “thugs”!
A summary of the event is that the criminal was arrested after a car chase followed by an “on foot” chase across a field by the police constable, with over 15 years experience and was subsequently charged and found guilty.
However, PC Steventon was charged with dangerous driving because he contravened “guidelines”, note the word guidelines, not RULES, issued by the Association of Chief Police officers in 2011 that stated that only police officers trained to an advanced level of driving should carry out pursuits.
I could understand that if this charge was brought about by the defence lawyer of the criminal on a revenge or “tit for tat” level, but in fact the prosecution was initiated by PC Steventon’s EMPLOYER, the “jobsworth” North Yorkshire Police!
Despite PC Steventon being found “not guilty” by a judge with common sense, what message does this give to police officers either on foot or in a vehicle? Police officers especially at the grass roots level, not only in North Yorkshire , but in other areas, will be too scared to do their jobs in case they infringe a “guideline” that will end up with them in court, possibly facing a jail sentence, being thrown out of the police and indeed, losing their pensions!
I understand that on 27th May the Scottish Parliament rejected what has become known as the “Assisted Suicide Bill”.
Should readers be unaware of this terminology, it was meant to be a law that would allow (but not compel) an adult, in full possession of his or her mental faculties to make the decision that he or she did not want to suffer in the event of suffering from a terminal debilitating medical condition later in life. Should this happen, the person would simply be “put to sleep”, as happens to many pet animals, certainly in the UK.
However, many “humanitarian” organisations and “do-gooders” vociferously opposed this “law”. They said, shouted, rather that this will make the old and infirm feel undervalued and unwanted!
The Act would have given a mature adult the OPTION to decide that he or she didn’t want to suffer later in life should he or she suffer from a condition for which there was no cure.
In the early to mid 1970’s there was a film called “Soylent Green”, where the premise was that it was COMPULSORY for each and every citizen to present themselves at a clinic on their 60th birthday. There, with their pre-selected favourite pictures displayed on a wall-screen and their favourite music piped into the room, they peaceably and quietly “went to sleep”.
The “Assisted Suicide Act”, or more accurately the “Dying with Dignity” Act was NOT compulsory. It would have given thoughtful adults the option of saving not only themselves mental and physical pain and suffering, but also not being obliged to see their loved ones watch hopelessly in anguish as the inevitable slowly and finally happened.
Written following week
As I don’t belong to the same social circle (or anywhere near it!) as President Anastasiades I haven’t been able to ask him exactly what he means.
Even my two good friends, Google and Wikipedia haven’t been able to tell me very much. However, I was able to deduce that, in relation to Cyprus, the word “settler” applies to a (mainland) Turk who has made a home for himself and his family here after the Turkish RESCUE of the Turkish Cypriots in 1974.
Therefore, from here on, in this part of my ramble I have to rely on my memory, which at my age, can be dangerous!
The word “settler” was mentioned in negotiations a few years ago. I can’t remember if it was during President Anastasiades’ regime or that of his predecessor, Christophias. Whoever the Greek Cypriot President was, it was stated that a settlement would ONLY be possible IF all the “settlers” were returned to Turkey!!
Let’s also take into account a statement made a few weeks ago by the head of the Greek Cypriot negotiating team property delegation, Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, who was reported to have said that a settlement would ONLY be possible if all of the “Greek Cypriot” properties were returned to their rightful owners.
If the above conditions still apply, and from the quotations in the press these appear to be ultimatums, not topics for negotiation, then all that the Turkish Cypriots, mainland Turks, the United Nations, the European Union, and indeed the entire world, need do is to ignore the events and changes that have happened during the past 41 years, and restore the status quo that existed in 1974, although hopefully without the genocide of the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriots!
Meanwhile, back in dear old Blighty, the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron has been flexing his muscles. One of the items on the Conservative Party’s manifesto was that there would be an in/out referendum in respect of Britain’s membership of the European Union. This referendum will as far as can be seen, go ahead.
However, apparently, Mr Cameron has told his Cabinet that they must follow his line (staying in and negotiating from the inside) or they will be sacked!
I believe that if a person is employed by another person, the employee should “toe the company line”, or face dismissal. However, Mr Cameron does not “employ” his Cabinet members. Their wages are paid by the tax-paying electorate, as are the wages of every Member of Parliament.
Therefore, in a democracy, shouldn’t the views of the electorate, the constituents of each voting region be the deciding factor, rather than a pre-determined viewpoint of a select group or one man?
Also, I read in the UK press that Mr Cameron has “robustly defended” the Falklands. Does this mean that he donned camouflage and, possibly using a three line Parliamentary Whip, as an awesome and fearsome weapon defended the beaches of the Islands against an invader?
Er, no, not exactly!
Mr Cameron was present at a dinner where the Argentinean Foreign Minister, Mr Timerman said that the Falkland Islands should belong to Argentina. Mr Cameron retorted that the Falkland Islanders have the right to “self-determination”. In other words, the wishes of the majority of the citizens must be respected.
Excellent words and sentiments Mr Cameron, but you and your predecessors have consistently and constantly ignored the wishes of the majority of citizens that have lived north of the Green Line (the TRNC) through the years since 1974!
With this blatant display of double standards in your politics how do you and your ilk sleep at night?
It may seem like years to people like me, but apparently it has only been a couple of months that the gossip columns in the UK have covered the furore of Jeremy Clarkson, who used to present a BBC TV programme called “Top Gear”. I admit to only having watched this programme once or twice before we left the UK to emigrate here, and we don’t have television here, just a DVD player.
Therefore, I can’t say that, in my opinion, he was a “good” or “bad” presenter of that programme.
However, he was a “larger than life” character, and not just in the physical sense! If all the press and media reports are to be believed, he was totally “politically incorrect”!
In fact he was/is so “politically incorrect” that he frequently said what he said just to push a stick into a hornets’ nest to see what reaction he got!
Nevertheless, “Top Gear” is just a television programme, albeit (apparently) a very successful one, and Jeremy Clarkson is just a human being, so why was there all the fuss?