Not since Jesus have sandals caused such sheer bafflement and consternation.
Local notices decree that we must not wear flip-flops whilst collecting our food, or whilst taking exercise in the grassy compound. However, wearing trainers is all okay.
But where do my sandals fit into this scheme? As sandals are not specifically mentioned, my wearing them prompts staff to engage that rarely seen attribute - initiative. Staff are not known for being independent thinkers, and in the absence of clear instructions from management there is always the danger of headless chicken syndrome.
The status of my sandals remains uncertain, and at some point I wouldn't be surprised if they became an item on a committee agenda!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Headless chicken syndrome indeed; you might be interested in this story, which suggests a rather arbitrary reality to murder penalties, comparing it with your tariff Ben:
ReplyDelete"Jailed: Martin Gannon, 24, is led away from Wolverhampton Crown Court to start a three-year sentence for for killing his best friend."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015719/Boxer-killed-best-friend-single-punch-slept-ex-girlfriend-jailed-THREE-years.html
I suspect the logical decision regarding the sandals would be heavily dependent on the logic behind banning flip-flops. Of course, whether the logical decision has anything to do with the real one is still up in the air...
ReplyDeleteI only hope you're not wearing socks with them Ben, as that is definitely a crime :D
ReplyDeleteJimmyGiro...there is only one penalty in the UK for the crime of murder: a life sentence. The man in your article was, by all accounts, found guilty by his own admission of Manslaughter. Of course, credit will have been given for his guilty plea (up to 1/3 of sentence) and who knows what else the reports available to the judge said that resulted in that sentence. If the CPS believes the sentence to be too lenient then it is always open to the AG to appeal the sentence on those grounds.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the article suggests that this was a case of involuntary manslaughter, for which there is no need to intend to cause death or even serious harm. If you look at the end of the article the judge even states that there was no intention to cause serious harm. Had there been less bad luck then this could have been anything from battery to ABH or non-intentional GBH. In those circumstances, would we be calling a sentence of three and a half years inappropriate? (Nb:the maximum sentences for those crimes is six months for battery or 5 years for ABH or unintentional GBh).
ReplyDeleteAs interesting as stories are about your sandles Ben, just wondering if you had any thoughts about the corruption scandals in the media and police. The resignations going on etc. Interesting stuff huh? Just slightly more than sandles don't you think?
ReplyDeleteI'm not being rude, its just that I would love to hear your views about some of the massive recent events going on.
Hope you are feeling better and settling in okay. Love and Best wishes to you xx
It's kind of weird, the whole 'didn't intend to do it', stuff. Okay, so it's clear that sending a package of meat and bone at someone elses head with great force can, on the off chance, kill them.
ReplyDeleteSo what happens, do we keep leaving people to repeat this mistake? While patting it down as 'non intentional and thus, ok'?
I mean, this is hardly just about this guy who killed someone. The entire focus on that hides the responsibility of the greater system to, at the very least, educate on how dangerous we are to each other.
It will happen again. A matter of when, not if.
The foot encasement issue is not a new issue. It goes back many years. Trainers, sandals,flip-flops, ....... They all have a long history of confrontation within the "big house". The "system" will always use the Health and Safety" angle. Anway, this nippet from Ben may not hold much weight in relation to the big picture but it does indicate that our prison sercice does not have a national policy and thus leaving individual prisoners open to selective victimisation. Another brick in the wall! prem
ReplyDeleteYes Prem.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to national policy (or the distinct lack of it!), I remember buying the latest model Roberts Radio (before the 'luxury' of in-cell TV) through Brixton Prison's own canteen.
A couple of weeks after my purchase I was moved to Pentonville Prison where my radio was promptly confiscated as not being suitable.
It took a hunger-strike to get it back!
Oh dear, we were reduced to taking extreme measures to highlight the violence and brutality of the "big house". Take, for example, the Hull and Strangeways incients.
ReplyDeleteGod please continue to give your people the courage to challenge "the wrongs". prem
It's interesting to see that Rupert M. Got a pie in the face. And that happened in Westminister!!!! His gutter press has done plenty of damage over the years. Who was feeding who? Was it Scotland Yard feeding News International or the other way around. I am totally convinced that this would bring Ben to his toes. Come on Ben let loose your nashers into this cake. My God, it's a big cake! prem
ReplyDelete