A simple matter of interpretation
Looking on the Guardian website at something else, my attention was drawn to this. "Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, thinks youths who persistently misbehave and intimidate others in their communities should be "harassed themselves"". Note the harassed themselves is in quotations marks, this is an indication that these are the spoken words of Jacqui Smith. However, I listened to the video and did not hear her say this at all. Just to make sure, I listened again. Jacqui Smith may well have been implying this, but she did not actually say those words on the video. When I read them I thought, 'Why is she recommending that upholders of the law break the Protection from Harassment Act?'. Either she said those words and they are not included in the video clip, or the Guardian is putting words into her mouth. Either way, the Guardian is wrong to indicate you will hear these words if you press play.
When I read the European Convention which states that torture is prohibited and that this is an absolute human right which cannot be violated, why am I reading calls for the ban on torture to be less ambiguous?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
3 comments:
Jacqui Smiff, gawd love her, the guardian of the big bruvver state. She made it, the cameras are now on her, the fat, smiling bitch. I hate her type.
For once, I agree with you. Shame about your other commenters.
Shame about people who haven't the guts to post comments other than under the cover of "anonymous"
Post a Comment