Laura J's profileThe Talking PointPhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
January 26 New cannabis laws create "dual justice system"
(Image © PA)
What’s happening?
The reclassification of cannabis from Class C to Class B comes into effect today amid claims the new laws send out “mixed messages”. The government introduced tougher penalties because of concerns that strong strains of the drug, such as skunk, can cause mental health problems. Under the new ‘three strikes’ system, a warning will be followed by an £80 spot fine. Only after a third offence will people face arrest and up to five years in prison.
What are people saying?
Legal experts have warned the new penalty system is fundamentally unfair – and could even cause a surge in cannabis use. “It’s a dual justice system,” John Fassenfelt, deputy chair of the Magistrates’ Association, told the BBC. “If you smoke or take another Class B drug you’ll be brought to court, if you take cannabis you’ll be given a fine. Where’s the justice in that?”
Why should we give a damn?
The government reversed David Blunkett’s decision to downgrade cannabis because of “real public concern about the potential mental health effects of cannabis use,” despite expert advice that it should remain Class C. Although mental health charities welcomed the move, others claim it will do little to deter users. Danny Kushlick, of the drugs policy think tank Transform, said: “Nobody is going to be put off smoking cannabis by the decision to reclassify it. It’s a decision that has been taken for political reasons.”
Your thoughts?
Share It
January 22 Is the credit crunch fuelling a crime wave?
What’s happening?
The number of robberies involving knives increased by 18% in England and Wales between July and September last year, according to figures released today by the Home Office – the first official sign that the recession is fuelling a violent crime wave.
What are people saying?
The Tories insist there is a link between rising theft and the credit crunch. “These statistics show yet another harsh consequence of Gordon Brown’s economic downturn,” Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said in a statement released to the press. But Home Secretary Jacqui Smith denied that it was inevitable. “It has been the case in the past when we have had previous recessions that it has had an impact on crime,” she told Sky News. “That is why we started working last summer to make sure we could be on the front foot to prevent that from happening. I do not think these things are inevitable, there are things you can do about it.”
Why should we give a damn?
The 18% rise in street robberies involving knives is “a truly alarming statistic”, writes Guardian home affairs editor Alan Travis – not least because it comes despite government efforts to reduce knife crime in 10 notorious hotspots. But it is the smaller rise in burglaries, fraud and forgeries that will set alarm bells ringing in the Home Office, writes Times home affairs correspondent Richard Ford, because they “suggest that overall crime could soon start to head upwards dramatically – with highly damaging consequences for a government heading towards a general election.”
Do you feel safe on our streets? Is the credit crunch really causing a crime wave? Share It
January 21 President Obama's speech: the verdicts
(Image courtesy of Ron Edmonds/AP/PA Photos)
The world’s leading political commentators have begun returning their verdicts on President Barack Obama’s inaugural address. The speech issued a stern warning that challenging times lie ahead; called for responsibility on the part of every American and drew a definitive line under the Bush administration.
Naomi Wolf, feminist, author and former political consultant to the Clinton administration, applauds the lack of “fake optimism” and notes three things Obama did impressively. “Firstly, he sounded a note of our dire circumstances that was in line with a reality that many have been in denial about. That is technically brilliant, because he's inheriting a mess, and he's telling people, ‘We’re not going to dig ourselves out of this easily.’ But also, ‘Don't blame me for it all.’” Secondly, he reasserted the rule of law – with George W Bush sitting right behind him. And thirdly, “most amazingly,” the new president reached out to the Muslim world: “For Obama to say, ‘I’m not going to demonise you’ – that is extraordinarily stabilising,” she writes in the Guardian.
In around 20 minutes, thunders the New York Times’ opinion-editorial, Obama “swept away eight years of President George Bush’s false choices and failed policies and promised to recommit to America’s most cherished ideals.” Noting the speech lacked the soaring rhetoric of John F Kennedy’s, the paper nonetheless argues “it left no doubt how Mr Obama sees the nation’s problems and how he intends to fix them and, unlike Mr Bush, the necessary sacrifices he will ask of all Americans.”
Not everyone was quite so overwhelmed. Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for George Bush, told Fox News the speech was a literary let-down: “The surprising thing about this speech was that in this extraordinary moment, the speech was actually quite ordinary from a literary perspective. There were too many 'raging storms' and 'gathering clouds' and other things that any writer could consider cliché. And I don't understand given Obama's literary ear in so many past speeches how some of these things got through into an inaugural address."
Gerard Baker, US editor of the Times, bemoans the lack of memorable phrases. Obama’s language, he writes, was “decidedly 19th century” – a self-conscious attempt to echo the words of his hero, Abraham Lincoln.
But that, argues Jonathan Atler in Newsweek, is missing the point. Or, rather, two points. “First, this is Obama's style. Neither his famous Philadelphia speech on race nor his acceptance speech in Denver contained sound bites. He loathes them, and thinks the media's obsession with one-liners undermines sustained argument. Second, it can take time for a line to penetrate. FDR's ‘the only thing we have to fear is fear itself’ was on the inside pages of most accounts of his speech. The same for Dr. King's ‘I have a dream’ line. So something may emerge from this speech that is hard to predict before it sinks in further.”
Here's the text of Obama's speech in full. What's your verdict?
Watch some highlights:
Also on MSN:
Share It
January 20 President Obama: the day has come7:15pm: your verdicts Did Obama's speech hit the right note with you? Share your thoughts in the comments section. I'll be back tomorrow with more analysis. G'night. 6:30pm: the new semantics? Back to the instant verdicts: Conservative author S E Cupp told Fox News: "This was a great speech. President Barack Obama hit every centrist note — strength in our defense, but with restraint. Pride in country, but with humility. Help for the poor, but not for the lazy. Great challenges, but tremendous optimism for the future. Peace for the willing, opposition against the unwilling. He spoke respectfully and sincerely to both sides of the aisle. There is no doubt in my mind (nor was there ever) that Barack Obama will govern from the center. And this is very good news." In the Daily Mail, commentator Liz Jones writes that, at times, Obama almost had the "cadence and emotion" of Dr Martin Luther King: "This wasn’t a speech that dodged any issues, and parts of it will be difficult to swallow for many Americans, especially the super rich and the famous ones. I think his sombre words will herald the end of the silly celebrity culture, the ridiculous consumer culture, that Americans have lapped up for so long." Political blogger Michael Tomasky, writing in the Guardian, says he was surprised by how "rooted in the moment" the speech was. "Obama chose to speak in specific terms – one might even say programmatic ones – about the dire present moment and his plans for how to get out of it... A few of the lines were so on-message that they would have worked well in a closing statement during a presidential debate." Elsewhere, a tag cloud of words used by Obama during his address reveals that 'nation' dominated, followed - apparently in equal quantity - by 'America', 'people', 'world', 'work' and 'today'. Words such as 'God', 'patriot', 'danger' and 'defence' were used only sparingly - a deliberate reversal of his predecessor's preferred rhetoric? It certainly seems to emphasise the difference between the two presidents' priorities.
5:45pm: The post-speech analysis begins The most important part of today's spectacle was Obama's speech, delivered immediately after he became the new US president. Commentators across the world are now poring over the full text, analysing every syllable. What were the main messages? Was there any subtext? Is it comparable to the inaugural speeches of any previous presidents? Obama's main message - that the US needs to pick itself up, dust itself off and reclaim its position of leadership - was a direct jab at the many failings of the Bush administration. Some commentators are comparing the speech to the one given by John F Kennedy, who also inherited a country that had been united by fear. * Quick aside: Dubyah has left the building (well, the Hill), heading for Andrews Air Force base and then onto the former First Family's new home in Texas. Cheers in the MSN newsroom... 5:05pm: Barack Obama is now president of the United States
Here comes the man of the hour, his hand on Lincoln's bible... And he stammered! Stumbled on his words. "I will execute faithfully... faithfully execute... (smiles all round) " BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Obama speaks: he's thanking George Bush for his cooperation. "Every so often, the oath is taken in rising storms and gathering clouds.. That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood." Lost homes, failing schools, dependence on foreign energy - these are the indicators of crisis, he's saying. "No less profound is the sagging of confidence in our country..." The challenges will be many, "but know this, America - they WILL BE MET... On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances, the worn-out dogmas, that for too long have strangled our (government)... All are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness..." He's paying homage to the ancestors of today's generations of Americans. "They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions... Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin the work of rebuilding America." Science will be "restored to its rightful place" in the new administration, he's saying - core to solving some of the most pressing issues facing humanity today, such as global warming and energy production. "All this we can do; all this we will do." Not a square inch of ground on Capitol Hill that isn't covered by human beings, listening intently. No sign of any notes or autocue - can't imagine Dubyah pulling off a lengthy speech quite so eloquently. "We reject the choice between our safety and our ideals" - a return to the rule of law, even in the face of terrorism. "We are ready to lead once more." Cheers. Fascism and Communism were faced down with sturdy convictions, not just tanks, he's saying. "The lines of tribe shall soon dissolve" - his tone is overwhelmingly pluralist, one of working together to defeat common foes such as climate change and energy shortages. "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility." Now he's reciting Washington's own words - those of carrying forward freedom and delivering it safely into his people's hands." This is a man who means business - and will be sitting in the Oval office tomorrow morning with a pile of enormous problems waiting in his in-tray. The biggest ovation came when he referenced the fact that 60 years ago, a man of colour would have struggled to get a seat in a restaurant - and certainly wouldn't have been standing on Capitol Hill accepting the US presidency. 5pm: theme by John Williams Joe Biden is now vice president of the United States. Legendary Hollywood composer John Williams, he of Star Wars fame, penned the piece of music that will usher Obama onto the stage. It's a sweeping, orchestral version of Lord of the Dance. Not bad. It's now noon in DC. The inauguration is running slightly behind schedule - a rare thing indeed. Everyone's on their feet. 4:45pm: Barack Obama takes the stage It's a cliche, but the applause that greets him is thunderous. This is the dream that Martin Luther King spoke about four decades ago. Silence falls for a second before the soon-to-be-president and his VP, Joe Biden, are introduced. "The world is watching as our great democracy engages in this peaceful transition of power..." Ballots are more powerful than bullets, the speaker is saying: hear, hear. This just in from our blogger in DC: "Eerie silence as crowd awaits swearing in. Dubya appears to chants of 'na na na na na na na na hey hey hey goodbye' and boos." 4:35pm: George W gets less-than-enthusiastic greeting Barely cracking a smile, the outgoing president has just taken his place to watch the inauguration of his successor. Muted boos from the crowd when his arrival was announced, the BBC's man-on-the-spot is reporting. Just spotted this on Twitter, from tanyaslonik: "Show some respect, people. No booing today! No shoes, either." Why no shoes? It's six below freezing in DC... And here comes Obama, looking every inch the statesman. The volume on the TV has been cranked right up here in the newsroom - my colleagues have downed tools are peering over the tops of their monitors like meerkats. Excitement levels almost as high as they were on election night. The horns are blowing: the ceremony is officially underway... 4:20pm, inauguration day: With less than an hour left of the Bush presidency, the global chatter about the handover of the White House has reached deafening levels. Twitter, the comversation platform of choice for Democrats during the elections, is again playing host to millions of Obama devotees. Here are a few snippets from the conversation: katofawesome: Now for the moment we've all been waiting for. I can feel it, the time is coming. :D linlori: A huge day in history and neither of my girls are old enough to understand what's going on. Sharoney: Long shot of the Mall. A sea of happy humanity. No exaggeration. None at all. caseymorell: Hillary looks pissed... Elaine, who's blogging live for us from DC, just caught a glimpse of George Bush senior - leaning heavily on his wife's shoulder and looking none-too-steady on his feet. Here's what she told me: "Just saw Bush senior on screen hobbling with cane. Cheers ripple through crowd as Gore, then Carter then Clintons come into view." Any minute now... 2:30pm, inauguration day: What's happening: It's been a long time coming, but change is finally here: today, at about 5pm GMT, Barack Obama will make history when he puts his hand on Abraham Lincoln's bible on the steps of the US Capitol and takes the oath of office, officially becoming the 44th president of the United States. What people are saying: More than a million people are braving the crush in Washington DC to witness the moment firsthand - including our Campaign Tales blogger, Elaine Monaghan, who's covering the event live for us. Here's her latest dispatch: "Finally made it into the city, nearly three hours after leaving home. Entertained during hour-long train ride that usually takes 10 minutes by beautiful gospel singing - Amazing grace, Lean on me, and endless chants of "yes we can" and "amen". Train absolutely jammed full, but as it edges along the track, there is not a single gloomy face: amazing atmosphere of joyfulness. As we arrive in the city, crowds are streaming towards the mall, the odd armoured personnel carrier is in view and people are handing out maps and stickers. It's absolutely bitterly cold, below freezing, unusual for washington, but no one seems to mind..." Why we should give a damn: The global conversation is overwhelmingly optimistic: the BBC World Service polled 17 nations and 15 of them said the majority of their population believe Obama's presidency will lead to improved relations between the US and the rest of the world. What do you think? Does Obama's inauguration herald a brave new world? I'll be live blogging throught the day and we'll be bringing you full coverage in our Obama inauguration special. Thanks for keeping me company. Also on MSN: Campaign Tales: live blog from Washington DC President Barack Obama: inauguration special Goodbye, Bush: a fond(-ish) farewell
Share It
January 19 Ken Clarke's comeback 'could divide voters' What's happening?
Former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke is making a dramatic return to the Tory frontbench. It’s all part of David Cameron’s reshuffle of his shadow cabinet as he beefs up his attack on the economic crisis in readiness for a general election.
What are people saying?
In a statement released to the press, the Conservative heavyweight – who will be compete directly with Labour’s Lord Mandelson – said he was “delighted” to be returning to frontline politics and wants to help Britain tackle “the gravest economic crisis I have known in my lifetime”.
Why should we give a damn?
His return could divide voters, according to liberal thinktank, CentreForum. Director Julian Astle told MSN: “Some will remember him as the chancellor who sorted out the public finances, turning the deficits of 1993 and 1994 into the surpluses inherited by Labour in 1999 and 2000, but many others will remember the price of Ken’s austerity – the leaking school buildings and the overstretched hospitals.” Mandelson has welcomed the appointment of a fellow pro-European, however, which could reinvigorate the campaign to get Britain into the single currency. Sunder Katwala, spokesman for the left-of-centre Fabian Society thinktank, blogged: “I am sure the Tory party’s instincts will remain strongly Eurosceptic, but Clarke’s portfolio will make him something of a balancing voice in the detail of policy and politics.” What do you think?
Share It
January 12 Prince Harry condemned for 'racist' remark What's happening?
Like grandfather, like grandson: Prince Harry is following in the footsteps of his gaffe-prone grandfather, Prince Philip, by putting his foot firmly in his mouth – again. Harry is under fire from political and religious groups for referring to an Asian army colleague as a ‘Paki’. Video footage of the remark, shot in 2006, was published online last week by the News of the World. The word is a derogatory term for an immigrant or descendant of an immigrant from Pakistan and the young royal’s remark has provoked widespread condemnation.
What are people saying?
Harry has since apologised, insisting no malice was intended. David Cameron, the first senior politician to comment, stressed the importance of “rooting out” such attitudes in Britain’s “great institutions”, but said no further disciplinary action was needed – a sentiment echoed by Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg. The Muslim Council of Britain, a moderate group, said the Prince had done the right thing by saying sorry: “In the big scheme of things, there are more important issues that we should be discussing, not least the carnage in Gaza,” a spokesman told Reuters. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, an independent body set up to help eliminate discrimination, told MSN: "These appear to be disturbing allegations and we will be asking the MoD to see the evidence, share that evidence with us and their plans for dealing with it. We will then consider what further action might be necessary."
Why should we give a damn?
What constitutes an offensive word is now the subject of reinvigorated debate. If terms such as ‘Brit’ and ‘Aussie’ are acceptable, why is ‘Paki’ not? Because, argues Murad Ahmed in the Times, the term comes from a different era, when it was used by racists to communicate violence and intimidation. Harry’s latest misdemeanour (since 2004, the son of the heir to the throne has traded blows with a paparazzi photographer and been criticised for wearing a Swastika to a friend’s fancy dress party) has also called into question the merits of a hereditary monarchy: are we expecting too much of boys from a broken home, forced into unsuitable boarding schools and “living their lives under a media microscope”, asks Guardian columnist Peter Preston.
Your thoughts? Share It
|
|
|
