From The FT:
Sir,
On a recent visit to the Babylon exhibition at the British Museum my elderly mother and I were stopped by a Metropolitan Police community support officer, who demanded my identity, home address and other personal details. The officer warned that I could not refuse to provide this information, according to section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
I asked the reason for this "stop and account". She told me it was to deter potential terrorists near an “iconic target”. I wonder how the names and addresses of middle-aged males accompanying their mothers to the museum would help the west win the war on terror.
Prof. Alfredo Saad Filho, University of London, London, UK.
And from The Metro:
Would it be possible to provide free sick bags with future copies of Metro? Mainly because if I have to endure yet another grovelling, adoring and sycophantic article or letter concerning how supremely wonderful, handsome, awe-inspiring and all round God-like Barack Obama is, I will be in real danger of emptying my breakfast on to the good people riding my train.
It's time to get a grip, everyone.
Oliver, London, UK.
Monday, 26 January 2009
Readers' letters of the day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
You can take the politician out of Chicago, but...
I wonder what skeletons the MSM are hiding for the Obamessiah.
Ayn Rand: "Socialism always trends to totalitarianism" (approximately)
It's all very reminiscent of Blair, except that I think people have even bigger expectations. And that Obama isn't going to be low(er) spending like Blair was in term 1.
...and Major didn't run a demented foreign policy or a fiscally irresponsible domestic policy. Whether that makes Obama better off, or just means he's going to come to grief even quicker, is an open question...
JB, what does this have to do with Sir John Major? Much maligned for his EU-philia (and rightly so) but at least he got house prices down and took us out of the ERM. And Sunday shopping and extending pub opening hours.
Sorry, reading back on it my comment was unclear.
Major's government, although floundering and vaguely crooked (not the man himself, but most of those around him), ran a fairly moderate and sane foreign policy, and a fairly sensible (post-ERM at least) economic policy. Hence, Blair inherited a situation that wasn't - from a foreign or economic policy - too challenging.
George W Bush's government, on the other hand, as well as being the most corrupt in the last 40 years, ran an insane foreign policy and an unwise [*] economic policy, both of which have entirely crashed down in flames. This makes Obama's job trickier than Blair's - but on the other hand the previous US administration is now so reviled [**] that he may stay popular despite having an extremely difficult job.
[*] ie similar to the UK's economic policy, but with massive net government borrowing instead of net repayments, mass extension of consumer credit on even ropier terms than here, and even larger balance-of-payments deficits than here.
[**] In the US, I mean: while in 2004 Bush was universally reviled outside the US, by 2008 he was universally reviled inside it as well.
Obama certainly does induce cult-like worship from many, many people.
Why though? My guess...
Post a Comment