It seems that Guy Jenkin and Andy Hamilton were on to something. The acclaimed writers of ‘Drop The Dead Donkey’ (and many others) created intrepid news reporter Damian Day who was so keen to get to the news first that he sometimes created it. Brazilian Politician and TV host Wallace Souza is accused of doing just that but for real.
Souza’s ratings hit programme ‘Canal Livre’ gained a reputation over its 20 year run for being on the scene first but suspicions were aroused when they seemed to be there before the police. The kernel of the doubt seems to have been around for over a year since one of Souza’s bodyguards was accused of nine murders and he confessed that at least one had been aired on ‘Canal Livre’ – ordered by his boss. The case against Souza is based on the accusation that he had links with organised crime – i.e. the very groups that his programme is intended to uncover.
To cap the story, once accused Souza himself went on the run and no doubt became a prime time draw subject in his own right. He has now given himself up and is subject to arrest now that his immunity as a member of the state legislature has been removed.
From an outsider’s perspective this dual role of politician and TV presenter is both odd and maybe at the root of such a bizarre situation. According to The Guardian, Souza (an ex Policeman himself) was in his third term and enjoying the highest voting rates in recent elections so his outspoken commitment to clean the streets had an obviously effective populist ring but maybe the TV connection was a step too far. Policing is policing, politics is politics and entertainment is entertainment. When they mix it can be a bit too ‘L.A. Confidential’ (indeed Souza claims that he was able to get to the crime scene first because of information supplied by informants within the police)
Lest this sound just a slightly amusing oddity, it should be remembered that Souza is accused of ordering at least five murders. He is one of 20 arrested – including his son – on suspicion of involvement with organised crime that fuelled this curious story.
’
Friday, 23 October 2009
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Awkward Cases
There are plenty of stories every day that raise an eyebrow, a shrug and a tired ‘the world’s gone barmy’. Sometimes however they linger rather longer and disturb rather more. Two recent UK cases exemplify this.
To most if us, Yvonne Hossack looks like a heroine. Working tirelessly and for free she represents vulnerable people living in care homes threatened with closure by local authorities. This puts her on a collision course and her own tenacity and self belief equips her well for the impact. This determination is based on her view that data proves that elderly people displaced from their residential homes to new ones face potentially fatal consequences – she claims that death rates double to 37% within a year. This then is no ‘soft’ issue of discomfort. Of course no one is suggesting that the local authorities aren’t concerned about this and don’t carefully consider it when making decisions; it’s just that they have their budgetary pressures and could do without intervention especially when it’s of the humanitarian and (in her own words) ‘bloody minded’ kind. This explains three authorities’ decision to complain about her to the Law Society on the basis that her efforts had wasted money and time – in effect tying up resources on ‘hopeless causes’. The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal dismissed these complaints and the resulting press coverage - no doubt aided by the fact that Home Secretary Alan Johnson was one who spoke for her - has no doubt strengthened her support for the inevitable next battle.
In parallel came the story of Carol Hill, a school dinner lady sacked for bringing to the attention of parents the fact that their child had been bullied. Hill had seen an incident at school, broken it up and casually later asked the victim’s parents if the child was OK only to find that the parents knew little of it. Many people would see the school as the errant party – it seems an odd policy to advise parents only of a santised version of the truth that omitted the main details. The logic here though is that Hill apparently broke a duty of confidentiality – presumably to the bullies. The school and Local Education Authority appear to have been oddly silent in the fallout from this – there have been no denials of the facts and the only justification seems to have been a mantra that says Hill should have ‘followed proper procedures.’ This seems to miss two obvious points – a) the School’s own proper procedures seemed to be to hush things up, and b) she was merely showing concern in a daily conversation – she was hardly rushing to the press. Once again though the beurocrats actions bought the press rushing to them.
This is bizarre stuff. When what look to most of us like heroes can be treated as villains, it seems that ‘society’ (that’s us) must accept the rule of beurocrats focused on ridding themselves of embarrassing truths.
To most if us, Yvonne Hossack looks like a heroine. Working tirelessly and for free she represents vulnerable people living in care homes threatened with closure by local authorities. This puts her on a collision course and her own tenacity and self belief equips her well for the impact. This determination is based on her view that data proves that elderly people displaced from their residential homes to new ones face potentially fatal consequences – she claims that death rates double to 37% within a year. This then is no ‘soft’ issue of discomfort. Of course no one is suggesting that the local authorities aren’t concerned about this and don’t carefully consider it when making decisions; it’s just that they have their budgetary pressures and could do without intervention especially when it’s of the humanitarian and (in her own words) ‘bloody minded’ kind. This explains three authorities’ decision to complain about her to the Law Society on the basis that her efforts had wasted money and time – in effect tying up resources on ‘hopeless causes’. The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal dismissed these complaints and the resulting press coverage - no doubt aided by the fact that Home Secretary Alan Johnson was one who spoke for her - has no doubt strengthened her support for the inevitable next battle.
In parallel came the story of Carol Hill, a school dinner lady sacked for bringing to the attention of parents the fact that their child had been bullied. Hill had seen an incident at school, broken it up and casually later asked the victim’s parents if the child was OK only to find that the parents knew little of it. Many people would see the school as the errant party – it seems an odd policy to advise parents only of a santised version of the truth that omitted the main details. The logic here though is that Hill apparently broke a duty of confidentiality – presumably to the bullies. The school and Local Education Authority appear to have been oddly silent in the fallout from this – there have been no denials of the facts and the only justification seems to have been a mantra that says Hill should have ‘followed proper procedures.’ This seems to miss two obvious points – a) the School’s own proper procedures seemed to be to hush things up, and b) she was merely showing concern in a daily conversation – she was hardly rushing to the press. Once again though the beurocrats actions bought the press rushing to them.
This is bizarre stuff. When what look to most of us like heroes can be treated as villains, it seems that ‘society’ (that’s us) must accept the rule of beurocrats focused on ridding themselves of embarrassing truths.
Friday, 4 September 2009
A Question Of Faith
There have been some odd responses to the - what looks like from here - bizarre story of the US couple who wouldn't take their dying daughter to hospital because they were waiting for God to act. Dale and Leilani Neumann claimed that seeking medical attention would have put the Doctor before God but their stance cost the life of their 11 year old diabetic daughter Madeline.
Whilst public debate raged, the US Courts appeared somewhat more unequivocal. The Marathon County, Wisconsin court found the couple guilty of 'second degree reckless homicide' and therefore didn't set any store by their defense of religious belief (although apparently in no less than 30 other US states they might have).
Some of the blogosphere comments that such a court decision puts 'Government above parent' when making life and death decisions look a bit odd from this side of the water. This same defence of the freedom of the individual can also be heard in the Obama health care debate and has traditionally been the gun lobby's mantra too. It's easy to get the impression that Amercians' fear of the 'New World Order' is widespread but can this really be? The weight of public comment suggests not - from those who see the parents' decision as pure stupidity to those who equate the skills of the medical profession with God given talents (so there's no either or.)
Whilst public debate raged, the US Courts appeared somewhat more unequivocal. The Marathon County, Wisconsin court found the couple guilty of 'second degree reckless homicide' and therefore didn't set any store by their defense of religious belief (although apparently in no less than 30 other US states they might have).
Some of the blogosphere comments that such a court decision puts 'Government above parent' when making life and death decisions look a bit odd from this side of the water. This same defence of the freedom of the individual can also be heard in the Obama health care debate and has traditionally been the gun lobby's mantra too. It's easy to get the impression that Amercians' fear of the 'New World Order' is widespread but can this really be? The weight of public comment suggests not - from those who see the parents' decision as pure stupidity to those who equate the skills of the medical profession with God given talents (so there's no either or.)
Thursday, 16 July 2009
No One Escapes
Of all the people you'd expect to be affected by the 'economic downturn' (or whatever is this week's euphemism for recession) the Amish would be low on the list. And yet they are suffering along with the rest of us according to the LA Times and Wall Street Journal.
The austerity with which the Amish are associated has apparently been relaxed by some of late. In Indiana US a number of Amish moved from traditional farming to well paid factory work and opening their own businesses often around craft skills. This resulted in the (rather hard to imagine) sight of Amish 'souping up' their carriages, buying second homes and jetting off on holidays.
When redundancies started to hit last Autumn, local religious leaders relented on their traditional forbidding of social security claims. At the same time there was a bank run on the community's Land Trust.
With unemployment at almost 20% in some parts of Amish Indiana, times are very seriously hard. Since the Amish espouse modern technology like cars, some are having to think again and, though there is a precedent for relaxing these rules because Amish men were allowed to drive during the depression if it was a viable way of earning, this is a major life change that will not be taken lightly.
An altogether strange side of the current world dilemma.
The austerity with which the Amish are associated has apparently been relaxed by some of late. In Indiana US a number of Amish moved from traditional farming to well paid factory work and opening their own businesses often around craft skills. This resulted in the (rather hard to imagine) sight of Amish 'souping up' their carriages, buying second homes and jetting off on holidays.
When redundancies started to hit last Autumn, local religious leaders relented on their traditional forbidding of social security claims. At the same time there was a bank run on the community's Land Trust.
With unemployment at almost 20% in some parts of Amish Indiana, times are very seriously hard. Since the Amish espouse modern technology like cars, some are having to think again and, though there is a precedent for relaxing these rules because Amish men were allowed to drive during the depression if it was a viable way of earning, this is a major life change that will not be taken lightly.
An altogether strange side of the current world dilemma.
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Credit Crunch Hurts
The idea of a backlash against bankers is all the rage at the moment - from viral games to jokes to stand up routines. For most if us this is the safety valve that we all need to deal with the collapse of jobs, savings and career prospects. For some though it gets real. The London demo scuffles and even the smashed window of a certain ex RBS CEO don't seem too odd. A group of over 60's kidnapping an IFA however does.
James Amburn was apparently attacked with his assailants' zimmer frame before being tied up and driven 300 miles after which he was imprisoned in a cellar and tortured for four days. The attackers were after some recompense from Amburn for the investments that he'd made on their behalf which went the way of most investments of late. The victim was only able to escape when he alerted his bank when asking them to transfer funds to his captors' account (he added a little 'call the police' PS).
All of this happened in Bavaria (with a little off-stage scene in Switzerland where Amburn did his banking) but it probably isn't too far fetched to imagine it elsewhere. The two men had accomplices too - their equally senior wives who allegedly contributed to the incarceration and torture.
James Amburn was apparently attacked with his assailants' zimmer frame before being tied up and driven 300 miles after which he was imprisoned in a cellar and tortured for four days. The attackers were after some recompense from Amburn for the investments that he'd made on their behalf which went the way of most investments of late. The victim was only able to escape when he alerted his bank when asking them to transfer funds to his captors' account (he added a little 'call the police' PS).
All of this happened in Bavaria (with a little off-stage scene in Switzerland where Amburn did his banking) but it probably isn't too far fetched to imagine it elsewhere. The two men had accomplices too - their equally senior wives who allegedly contributed to the incarceration and torture.
The Price Of Justice
Between 2002 and 2006, Pennsylvamia judges sent about 10% of kids appearing before them to detention centres. judge Mark Ciavarella however sent 25%. The difference was marked but the reason was not clear until recently when he - and another judge, Michael Conahan - were convicted of taking cash from the owners of the centres.
Keeping the jails full meant that the owners kept the tills ringing so having a 'friendly' judge clearly made sense - indeed it seems to have been worth their paying the judges over US$2.5m.
Even in a world where the expectation of corruption high places is pretty much the norm, this story still shocks.
It all seems to have come to light because of a particualrly absurd case in which a 15 year old girl was sentenced to three months without even having the chance to put her case against the charges of a heinous crime - that she wrote an unflattering comment about a teacher on her MySpace page!
Removing the judges from their posts - and putting them in their paymasters' facilities for over 7 years - doesn't of course fix the outstanding problem of many hundreds (maybe thousands) of convictions that now need to be reviewed. What's more, there are suggsteions that there may have been many more cases beyond just juveniles so this may be the tip of the iceberg.
Keeping the jails full meant that the owners kept the tills ringing so having a 'friendly' judge clearly made sense - indeed it seems to have been worth their paying the judges over US$2.5m.
Even in a world where the expectation of corruption high places is pretty much the norm, this story still shocks.
It all seems to have come to light because of a particualrly absurd case in which a 15 year old girl was sentenced to three months without even having the chance to put her case against the charges of a heinous crime - that she wrote an unflattering comment about a teacher on her MySpace page!
Removing the judges from their posts - and putting them in their paymasters' facilities for over 7 years - doesn't of course fix the outstanding problem of many hundreds (maybe thousands) of convictions that now need to be reviewed. What's more, there are suggsteions that there may have been many more cases beyond just juveniles so this may be the tip of the iceberg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)