Dangerous Plant

Back in the day, I used to have a bad habit of just glancing at headlines on newspaper or web stories, misreading them and coming up, in my head, with some elaborate and bizarre story to justify my misreading.  Well, for the first time in years, I did it the other day, when I thought that a headline on an online aggregator read along the lines of 'Musk Plants Threaten Local Community'.  Naturally, my first reaction was to think 'Jesus, not satisfied with using his shitty social media platform boosting fascists around the world, firing off dangerous rockets that explode shortly after take off and trying to make robots powered by his crap AI, that crazy bastard has now started creating flesh eating ambulatory mutant plants!'  Worse than that, I speculated, he's unleashing them against unsuspecting small towns in the US - doubtless those that didn't vote for Trump in the last election.  Even as I think this, I thought, innocent people are being chased down streets by slavering plant monsters, with tooth-lined blossoms, oozing green sap.  Or maybe they are trained only to eat suspected illegal immigrants?  Of course, upon actually looking at the story, I found that the 'plants' referred to were of a completely different kind - the story was actually about how a small town was opposed to the building of giant data centres needed to power Musk's AI in their vicinity.  And who could blame them?  They are probably far more dangerous than ambulatory killer vegetation in terms of the vast quantities of energy and water they use and their potential contribution to global warming. 

But, I certainly can't deny my contribution to the problem.  I try very hard to restrict my use of AI, always aiming to try and get it to fulfil whatever task I'm asking of it in a single take, so to speak.  I always have that slight twinge of guilt when I think about the resources I've just burned up doing something trivial like creating an image or a podcast segment.  But then I'd shrug and think hell, the data centre processing my task is probably in Wisconsin or Ohio, so why should I care?  I mean, if Ohio, say, was to be burned to a crisp, the civilised world might not hear about it for years.  But those data centres are creeping closer - there's one fairly close to me, in Slough, where it is being blamed for a rise in temperatures in the area.  Mind you, that simply prompted me to paraphrase Sir John Betjeman: 'Come friendly data centres, burn up Slough'.  Levity aside, the expansion of these data centres does pose a serious problem.  Apparently, approval has been given for the construction of large numbers of them in the UK, despite the fact that the UK has neither the electricity generating capacities, nor the water supplies, required for their operation, if all were to be built.  'Just build more power stations and reservoirs', is the glib response that I heard recently in a radio debate.  But, leaving aside the slow rate at which we build power stations, what about the environmental effects of this?  As for the water situation - well, we are, finally, building more reservoirs, but this is to meet domestic demand for water, with this Summer's drought showing how inadequate our current supplies are.  If we let the data centres start guzzling these new supplies instead, then we're back to square one.

Of course, the obvious solution is to come up with a way for AI to operate without being so resource-intensive.  Has anyone thought of asking ChatGPT or Claude how this might be done?  After all, we keep getting told that they can answer just about anything... 

Kolchak: The Night Stalker - Seventies Weirdness on a Budget

Over the past few days I've watched a number of episodes of Kolchak: The Night Stalker.  For a series that only ran for a single truncated season of twenty episodes in the mid-seventies, it has proven remarkably influential.  Indeed, it is pretty much the epitome of a cult TV series, in that it was short-lived, had low ratings on its original network run, remains fairly obscure with regard to the general public, yet has maintained a devoted and loyal fanbase.  Watching episodes now, one is left feeling amazed that it ever went to series, being a spin off of two highly rated TV movies, (The Night Stalker (1972) and The Night Strangler (1973)), whose formats and subject matter would have seemed to be too restrictive for development into a typical prime time network show of the era.  But they gave it a go.  They just didn't give it much of a budget - the episodes are generally scrappy looking, with lots of over-familiar studio sets standing in for exteriors, threadbare production values and some pretty ropey looking monsters.  It is largely carried by the two main cast members, Darren McGavin (as Carl Kolchak) and Simon Oakland (as his harassed boss Tony Vincenzo) and some truly wild scripts which found ingenious ways to try and avoid making the format feel too repetitive.  Although, in truth, every episode was simply a slight variation on the formula of dogged reported uncovers some supernatural threat and has to battle police and authorities to resolve it, but high level cover ups ensure that nobody believes him and his stories never see the light of day.  In the first four episodes broadcast, for instance, he dealt with a reincarnation of Jack the Ripper, a zombie, a vampire and a werewolf (on a cruise ship) in quick succession.  It's to the great credit of the writers that, after running through the traditional monsters, they managed to keep coming up with ever more bizarre creations of their own to keep the series going, including an energy eating monster, a shape-shifting vengeful Native American spirit, a Spanish Moss creature conjured up by the subject of a sleep experiment, a rogue robot and a humanoid reptile.  

At times, despite the restrictions of network TV in the seventies, everything came together - the claustrophobic sets, the limited lighting used to disguise their shoddiness, some truly bonkers scripts, the often larger-than-life performances and some surprisingly good direction - to give episodes, in parts, a truly feverish, even nightmarish, feel.  The only thing that I could never suspend my disbelief over was the fact that Kolchak still had a job, despite his boss's weekly threats to sack him, as, not only were his supernatural stories all spiked, but he never seemed to file any other copy.  Overall, though, you don't come away thinking that this is something that requires a remake of any kind, as it's charm is very much the result of a particular period in time, combined with some crazy writing and fortuitous casting.  Yet, about twenty years ago, somebody tried to do just that.  I say 'somebody', but it was actually ABC, the network that screened the original TV movies and series.  It was hamstrung from the outset by copyright issues: the literary rights to the Kolchak character lie with Jeff rice, upon whose then unpublished novel the first TV movie was based, while Universal retain rights to the TV series - ABC, thanks to its continued ownership of the TV movies,still had dramatic rights to the character.  What this meant in practice was that the new series could only use elements established in those two TV movies, nothing from the TV series.  The resulting series, titled simply The Night Stalker, had only a cursory relationship with the original.  Kolchak was now an investigative reporter with a murdered wife, who looks into other unsolved murders, trying to link them to his wife's and establish some kind of pattern.  Gone was the 'monster-of-the-week' format and with it, the fun.  Not surprisingly, it lasted only six weeks on air, with four episodes left unaired.

On the face of it, the remake series seems to be another example of someone trying to exploit a property without actually understanding where the appeal of the original lay.  They doubtless saw the old series and thought, 'Hey, people like that even though it is really rickety and whacky with no budget - we could remake it 'properly', with a proper budget and actors and then more people will love it!'  Which, of course, isn't the way nostalgia works - devotees of the original series loved it precisely because it was scrappily made on backlot sets, yet delivered in the weird thrills department through ingenious scripts and performances which could carry you past those shortcomings.  But the problem is that to understand that, you have to see Kolchak in its proper context of being a seventies US network product, born of a time when networks were becoming aware that they had to find ways to break out of the indentikit formats for TV shows of that era, but were too timid to really go the whole hog and back something really different.  This resulted in shows like Kolchak, that brought in ideas from outside of the mainstream, but then tried to force them into a familiar, cosy, format, in the belief that audiences wouldn't be able to handle them otherwise.  But people nowadays, it seems, are unable to contextualise stuff, (hence all those warning you get before screenings of old TV shows that they 'reflect the values of their era' - well, of course they do, that surely goes without saying), with the idea that the past might be different from the present seemingly being too mind-blowing for them to grasp.  Anyway, if you like the weird and offbeat seventies style, then Kolchak: The Night Stalker is for you - the episodes vary wildly in terms of quality, but overall, it's an enjoyable experience, often harking back to the good old days of B-movies and pulp magazines in tone and execution.

Lies, Malice, False Reporting, Hacks and Google

You know, I hate starting the week with a mega moan.  (Who am I kidding?  I love a bloody good moan).  But my Saturday turned into an online nightmare thanks to Google.  I was just settling down to watch some crappy TV, (a favourite Saturday early evening pastime), with half an eye on checking my emails, when I see an email from Google saying that they've removed a post from this blog because it has been reported as contravening their content guidelines.  Now, Google's regular censorship on the nebulous grounds of contravening content guidelines is like a red flag to a bull to me at any time, but even more so when the post in question was simply the one promoting the latest episode of the 'After Hours' podcast.  I mean, it simply comprised the promotional artwork for the episode, a brief synopsis, a link to where it can be heard and some brief notes on the creative process behind it.  Nothing that contravened any kind of content guidelines - certainly no promotion of violence, child pornography, illegal activities or anything else they list.  Of course, trying to resolve this sort of thing is made next to impossible by Google's penchant for secrecy, in that they won't tell you exactly what contravenes which of their guidelines, nor will they tell you who or what reported your content in the first place.  So, your only recourse is to use the link provided to request an immediate review.  Within half an hour of my having made my request, the post had been reinstated, with a cursory email saying that 'upon review' they had found that it didn't contravene any guidelines after all.  Well, no shit, Sherlock!  

Nevertheless, that quick turnabout on Google's part gives us a valuable clue as to what passes for their review process when it comes to handling alleged reports of material contravening their guidelines.  I think it is obvious that if someone decides to press that button to report content on a blog, they automatically sanction it, without question, without actually checking the content in question.  If a report is made, then the content is assumed to be in contravention. Which rather goes against the accepted principles of justice, under which one is innocent until proven guilty.  If you request a review then, it seems, your content actually gets looked at by a human being, at which point it becomes obvious as to whether the original report was valid or instead malicious. Which, in this case, in view of subsequent events, it most certainly was.  Because shortly after I dealt with this problem, I had Google blaring to the world that The Sleaze was a 'dangerous' site hosting malware, resulting in red screens and dire warnings on every browser when you tried to access the site, (unless you have the good sense to disable the 'extreme paranoia security settings).  I was effectively being blacklisted across the internet.  Bizarrely, Google had sent me an email, but I didn't see it because, as they had deemed The Sleaze a 'dangerous site' and blacklisted its URL, the message, containing the URL, immediately went into Gmail's spam folder, where i didn't find it until hours later!  Anyway, a malware check via my web host revealed some suspect files, (there seemed to have been a hack, which I haven't yet got to the bottom of), which were quickly dealt  with, followed by a reinstallation on the Wordpress code for good measure.

Once again, I had to request a review of the site from Google to get those warnings removed, which I had to do through the Google Search console, something I haven't bothered using since Google started systematically de-listing my site from their search engine, (I'm just one of many, many victims of this policy).  Now, here's the bit which really pissed me off - while Google is very quick to brand sites as 'a threat' and accuse them of peddling malware, 'social engineering', stealing credit card details and God knows what else, (all stuff they accused The Sleaze of, without foundation), they certainly drag their feet when it comes to withdrawing all that shit.  I was left, for the better part of a day, with Google spreading what were, effectively, slanderous misinformation about a perfectly legitimate site.  Going back to that false report about the blog post, I'm now pretty sure that that was intended as a diversion of sorts - while I was dealing with that, I was distracted from anything going on with The Sleaze.  So, while the real villains here are the hackers, they are aided and abetted by Google's own policies.  Moreover, Google now clearly considers itself as some sort of 'Guardian of the Web' and has taken it upon itself to act as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to supposed 'security' issues.  Who appointed them?  Who are they accountable to?  It is also deeply ironic that they have taken on this role when they have spent so much time over the past few years trying to destroy the web as we know it, putting vast numbers of sites out of business by denying them visibility in web searches, (basically, they have unilaterally decided that things like satire and humour sites, niche sites, informational sites and the like (anything non-commercial, in other words) have no value and that they therefore won't serve them up to users in searches, even when they may be the most relevant resource).  I'm left hugely frustrated by this whole business.  I mean, sure, if Google doesn't want to give me traffic, fine, but I get pissed off when they pull stunts like this to deny me traffic from other sources (which I still get - other, better, search engines exist).  Really, they are complete bastards who think that they have the right to decide which sites should or shouldn't be on the web.

The Shocking Truth

So, these gloves that can give electric shocks to people touched by their wearers which the Trump regime wants to issue to ICE agents, don't they sound like the sort of thing that you used to see advertised in the back pages of porn magazines?  You'd find them alongside the ads for dodgy masturbation devices like the 'Wanky-Doodle-Dandy', (I kid you not, that was a real product), blow up sex dolls and the like.  They'd be promoted with something along the lines of 'how to make your love life electric', or 'give your woman an electrifying sex experience when you stroke her with these'.  Believe me, there are a lot of people into mild S&M who go in for this sort of thing - giving electric shocks to their partners' erogenous zones would, for them, be considered a major erotic turn on.  Especially if they shackled to iron bedstead at the time.  Or so I'm told.  But to get back to the point I was originally intending to make, this raises the question of whether ICE is now having its equipment supplied by the sex industry?  What next, you wonder: nipple clamps to restrain detainees, making it easier for ICE agents to pull them, by the nipples, into custody?  Or perhaps whips for crowd control?  Maybe they could use vibrators, claiming that they are powerful weapons to harmlessly subdue female targets?  How about swapping their current ski-masks for more durable leather gimp masks to keep their identities secret while they go about their illegal business?

Now, I know this sounds bizarre, ridiculous even.  But let's not forget the levels of corruption in the Trump administration.  In particular, the way in which various lucrative government contracts keep getting awarded to Trump cronies and family members.  Also bear in mind Trump's associations with porn industry figures like Stormy Daniels.  Is it so far-fetched to imagine that some hooker, madame, stripper or porn actress of his acquaintance  has set up some kind of sex equipment supplies company and has managed, via their contacts with him, to land a contract to supply ICE with equipment?   Perhaps she's also got the contract to outfit their detention centres, with the holding areas now styled like bondage dungeons, featuring detainees shackled to the walls.  The interrogation rooms could be equipped with wooden chairs fitted with manacles, or maybe even cages and racks, where detainees are spreadeagled naked while they have hot wax dripped on them until they give up the names of all their equally illegal immigrant associates.  If that doesn't work, then perhaps having a gimp-masked ICE agent bend them across his knee and give them a good hard bare-arsed spanking would do the trick.  After all, if Trump can give the White House a makeover so that it's interior now looks like a bordello, it seems perfectly reasonable that he'd hire someone to turn ICE's buildings into bondage parlours. 

More Milk Deliveries

I've had a busy couple of days, on the road a lot, culminating in an evening in the pub.  So, I'm too knackered to actually come up with a proper post - I'm sure that I had an idea for a post, but I'm too tired to remember what it was.  Instead, here's a picture of a couple of recent model railway acquisitions.  These are a pair of Wrenn six wheeled milk tankers, which will join the other ten (a mix of Wrenn. Lima and Hornby) in my milk train.  I think that I probably have more than enough milk tankers now, having acquired another couple of Wrenn tankers a few months ago, (they can be seen behind the latest two). 

I must admit, that I had no intention of buying another two, but these were very cheap at the local Toy and Train Fair, (Wrenn wagons, even unboxed are still usually relatively expensive).  Plus, they are in the St Ivel livery I already have two of the Lima tankers in a version of this livery, but the Wrenn version is fairly unusual.  Whilst Wrenn were notorious for putting out rolling stock in colourful, but fictional liveries, this colour scheme is actually genuine.  In the sixties, the newly formed Unigate had a number of tankers refurbished and repainted in order to promote their new yoghurt brand.  Which means that they might have been hauled by steam locomotives, meaning that they aren't necessarily anachronistic with regard to my layout. 

Bully the Bullies?

Picking up from where I left off yesterday, how best to retaliate against these online bullying bastards who like to whip up virtual lynch mobs?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could actually identify them in real life and give them a taste of their own medicine?  Of course, some of them are easily identified as they are part of that 'blue tick brigade' who want everyone to know who they are, to the extent that they are willing to part with money to actually buy that badge of infamy.  So, we could organise mobs to stand outside their houses with placards saying 'Murderer!' and the like, they could follow them around wherever they went, shouting abuse and waving those placards some more.  I can guarantee that these scumbags would soon be screaming about 'mob tactics', 'harassment' and 'invasion of privacy' - all the things they themselves were guilty of in their treatment of Jason Arday.  Even better, we could trawl through their lives, trying to find discreditable stuff about them, no matter how minor, and broadcast it to the world.  Fighting fire with fire, so to speak.  But still a pretty shitty thing to do, no matter how vile and deserving of it the recipient is - which is why the majority of us would never actually do it, just fantasise about it, instead.  Unlike those bastards, who are apparently devoid of any morality or sense of decency let alone consciences.

But what about all those 'rank-and-file' idiots who just followed the herd and joined in?  Their lack of any agenda, other than trying to appease the bullies by going along with them in the hope that they'd be spared, happy to see someone else having their life made a misery instead of themselves, makes their actions, in many ways, far worse than those of the ringleaders.  So, to extend our fantasy, couldn't we get someone to do a bit of hacking of social media accounts and track them down?  We wouldn't need mobs for retribution against them - just some masked avengers to knock on their front doors, punch them in the face when they answer it, before running off into the night.  They just wouldn't know who was going to get the knock on the door in the night next.  But it needn't just be confined to door knocking attacks - we could get them in the streets, just run up to them and knee them in the groin or give them a good slap.  Maybe a kick in the balls as they walk into the pub.  You get the picture.  Perhaps this is the only way that they'd start to get the message to stop being sheep and 'going with the flow' to appease their social media gods by 'piling on' to some bastard when directed to do so.  Except, of course, that we're far too civilised to actually enact this fantasy: that's the problem with this sort of shit, it's an uneven contest as the conscience free online bullies will always stoop lower. 

Utterly Vile

There are some vile, vile people out there.   The other day I asked whether those in the press and social media who had hounded Jason Arday out of his job as a Cambridge academic were happy now that they had destroyed his career.  Because, driven largely by racism, that seemed to have been the metaphorical lynch-mob's aim.  Yet still, they wouldn't stop with their campaign of vilification and humiliation, begging the question of what their objectives now were.  Then the news broke that he was dead, presumably having taken his own life.  So, are they ecstatic now?  Jumping with joy, having driven a man to apparent suicide?  You'd think that maybe, just maybe, they'd exhibit some remorse: if not the main instigators of this horrible shit show, the right-wing 'influencers' and their ilk, but maybe the rank-and-file social media users who had retweeted and liked their bile.  But no, the morning after, there they all were, busily repeating the excuses being put out by the prime movers of the whole hate campaign - it wasn't their fault, it had nothing to do with anything they had said or done, in fact, it was all the fault of those woke lefties, (presumably because, for reasons of 'political correctness' they had been complicit in getting a black man a prestigious professorship which, obviously, his sort aren't cut out for), or even Arday himself for having the audacity to try and put himself on the level of obviously superior white academics.  Indeed, even his suicide was simply a self-serving attempt to make himself a martyr.  Like I said: vile.  Utterly, irredeemably, vile.

Of course, these unrepentant arseholes won't learn anything from this tragedy - as soon as they see an opportunity to humiliate someone else whose very existence seems to offend them, they'll swing into action, whipping up the hate, cheering on the lynch mob.  But, hey, they'll tell you - they most definitely weren't motivated by racism, just a concern for maintaining proper standards in public life.  Except that allegations of plagiarism aren't that unusual in academia, but never attract this level of attention, let alone these sorts of consequences.  Most of these, though, concern white academics, so one can only surmise that what really enraged these bastards was that the allegations drew to their attention that a young black man had been appointed a Professor at Cambridge.  Oh horror of horrors!  As I said last time I talked about this, I have absolutely no idea whether Arday was guilty of plagiarism or not  - but I do know that we are meant to consider people innocent until proven guilty.  There was an ongoing academic process to ascertain the veracity of these allegations - but these evil shits just couldn't wait for that, they decided to jump the gun, assume guilt and round up a lynch mob.  The fact that they seem so unwilling to accept any responsibility for their actions just makes what they have done even worse.  They clearly have no consciences - any of them, from the instigators to the followers.  Let's be clear, even if 'all' you did was re-post some of the ill-informed and poisonous bile flying around social media, you are just as guilty as the instigators.  You are just as culpable in the death of Jason Arday.  Not that you care, obviously, you soulless, utterly vile little bullies.

The Joys of Solitude

I often get these videos turning up in my You Tube feed with titles like 'I Have No Friends' or 'How to Avoid Loneliness' and every variation you can think of on the theme.  Now, I know that this indicates that You Tube's algorithm thinks that I'm some kind of sad old git lacking human contact (probably as a result of the number of videos of model railways I look at), but I'm afraid that I'm the wrong guy for this sort of stuff.  When I see something like 'I Have No Friends' my immediate reaction is 'why are you telling me?'  If it worries you that much, you should sure;y be out in the real world, socialising and making contact with real life human beings, rather than posting videos online.  Personally speaking, as I've noted here previously, I actually don't understand this anxiety about having few friends or being alone.  I'm one of those weirdos who enjoys their own company.  I have friends and acquaintances, but I like them in small doses: I can handle them better that way.  In general though, I can't say that I really like people much, especially not en masse.  When I hear people saying how terrible it is that some poor old git that they are patronising hasn't seen or spoken to anyone in a week, I think 'Jeez, lucky bugger!'  Solitude is my idea of paradise.  

In fact, I sincerely believe that from solitude comes strength: if you can make peace with yourself and happily live with yourself without self-loathing and self doubt for an extended period, then you'll develop the mental strength to deal with just about anything.  It just isn't clear to me exactly why so many people apparently can't deal with being on their own - do they really need constant external stimulation from others?  It probably helps that I've always had a well developed imagination, but I can happily live in my own head.  I can always find ways to amuse myself.  The best thing about solitude is that it gives you the time and space to actually think properly about, well, everything.  I love thinking.  Maybe other people don't.  Perhaps they find it challenging and confronting.  Nowadays I look back on the days when I was still working full time and marvel that I ever survived it with all the other people I had to deal with and their constant demands frequently leaving me without the time and space to think properly.  The sense of freedom that I enjoy now is marvellous - my time is my own and I can set my own pace for my life.  I can't help but feel that what is needed to combat loneliness is to teach people to actually enjoy their time alone, rather than all those bloody patronising 'initiatives' the do-gooders go in for of 'reaching out' to the allegedly lonely.  Look, I accept that loneliness is apparently a problem for many people, but it isn't for me, so please You Tube, stop shoving these videos in my timeline.  

Walking Through the Eclipse

Yesterday's daily walk ended up coinciding with the much vaunted eclipse.  I certainly didn't plan it that way - the timing was the result of a series of setbacks and incidents.  My setting out for the walk ended up being delayed for various domestic reasons and when I finally got into the car to drive out to a local country park, I found the roads around Crapchester unusually congested.  Recalling that it was the day of this bloody eclipse, I suspected a connection, but assumed it was just people going home early to observe it.  Nevertheless, it took me forever to get out of the town, but the traffic was still abnormally heavy for the country roads I was on and I began to suspect that the bastards were all going the same way as me - which, it turned out, they were.  As I turned onto the very narrow lane which is the quickest route to my destination I found myself in inexplicable gridlock - the lane was just solid cars as far as you could see, none of them moving.  As I later learned, the Crapchester Astronomical Society had issued an open invitation for people to come and observe the eclipse at the primary school which is on that route.  Apparently failing to grasp that this town's population has an unusually high proportion of morons, it hadn't occurred to them that they would be overwhelmed and that when the car park was full, these morons wouldn't instead just drive on.  No, instead they blocked the entrance and treated the road as a car park, blocking it in both directions!

I eventually extricated myself from the gridlock and after much shouting at other drivers blocking my way, took the long route to my destination which, mercifully, proved to be pretty much deserted.  Anyway, as I couldn't be bothered to invest in any of those rip-off  'eclipse glasses', (I mean, what use are they when there isn't an eclipse and as the next one here in the UK isn't due for another sixty years I felt that my money could be better spent elsewhere), my view of the event was limited.  I mean, damn it, it wasn't even a full eclipse - I remember the last one which was a full eclipse.  At least it momentarily went dark during that one.  This time, of course, despite being a ninety five per cent eclipse, it never really got especially dark.  I observed with interest, however, the change in the quality of the light as the eclipse reached its peak and the way in which the birds and animals quietened down and ceased activity.  (On that previous, full, eclipse, I remember a cat looking alarmed and diving for cover as the sky darkened, then re-emerging when it was over and giving me an accusing look, as if I had been responsible for it all).  So yeah, I experienced the eclipse in my own way, but I still don't rate it as highly as the last one...

Unpopular Opinion

As ever, I find myself out of step with public sentiment, or rather, what the media would have us believe is public sentiment.  I speak, of course, about the whole 'early release' furore whipped up by the press as stick with which to try and beat Andy Burnham - ignoring the fact that this is a policy he inherited. rather than something he came up with.   Anyway, most of the 'outrage' centres around the early release from prison of two of the three people jailed for their part in a police officer's death.  Now, I'm not going to try and argue that his death wasn't a particularly horrific crime - he was dragged behind a car while trying to foil a robbery.  But the fact is that the two people whose release is being mooted were convicted of manslaughter, rather than murder - they were passengers in the car which killed him so, arguably, had little agency in the events that unfolded.  The driver - whose release isn't being contemplated - was convicted of murder.  The reality is that manslaughter is considered a lesser offence than murder, mainly because there is no 'malice aforethought' or premeditated intent to kill involved, so is it so unreasonable that those convicted of it who have served a proportion of their sentence should be released on licence?

Now, if it was someone close to me who had been killed, then I accept that I might feel differently about this, but when dealing with matters of justice we surely need to try and be objective.  Nobody is talking about putting 'murderers' back on the streets, despite what the tabloids would have you believe.  OK, so you might think that I'm just being a contrarian here, but there's another issue related to this case which is the real sticking point for me: the suggestion that simply because they were involved in the killing of a police officer, these particular offenders should be singled put for harsher treatment.  Indeed, it goes beyond that, with suggestions that any murder of a police officer should be treated more severely than the murders of other people.  Really?  So some lives are worth more than others?  Personally, I think that all murders, regardless of who the victim is, are equally heinous and should all be treated with the same gravity when it comes to their investigation, prosecution and the punishment of the guilty parties.  I notice that in some quarters of the press they've tried to qualify this outrageous and offensive notion by saying that the 'extra severity' should apply to the murders of all 'emergency workers'.  But the same response applies - we cannot measure the value of peoples' lives in terms of the jobs they did in life - all life is sacred.  Even that of some down and out who fried their brains on meth, or that of a sex worker or even someone who is themself a criminal.  Just because a person is a scumbag doesn't give anyone else the right to take their life.  Not a popular view as far as the gutter press go, but tough - it's the right view to take.