Ketchup Confusion

I've noticed that there often seems to be a moment of confusion when I ask for ketchup for my chips at the chippie or other fast food place, although I normally use brown sauce. The worker hesitates and asks if I mean "tomato ketchup" or "tomato sauce".

I was always a little confused why they needed to ask for clarification but never really gave it a whole lot of thought until I saw this article from the Middle Class Handbook. According to them, there is a pretty clear class divide in the British choice of condiments. Brown sauce is the middle class condiment of choice while "tomato sauce" is used by the working class. "Ketchup" is a more middle class term that the chippie worker would not use, hence his confusion when he comes across me.

2011 Masters

I was watching the Masters yesterday on the BBC and something felt like it was missing. I don't believe the BBC played the Masters jingle that CBS uses. Dave Loggin wrote the song and it is entitled "Augusta". The song also has lyrics (see after the jump), but CBS only uses the instrumental version.

This song is the perfect example of the interaction between music, sport and memory. When many people think of the Masters, this song is one of the first things they think of. When you hear a few bars of the song, images of Augusta come to mind. Without the song, the BBC's coverage was lacking one of those little things that makes the Masters special.

Stone Roses Disappointment

Yesterday I got very excited when I read this.

But later I saw this and became disappointed.

It seems like this rumour makes the rounds every year. When I saw that the Telegraph was running the story, I got my hopes up since I figured they would only carry it if there was something behind it. At least the Complete Stone Roses tribute group will be playing in Stirling this summer.

2011 Census

Sunday was census day in Scotland. I was actually pretty excited to fill it out. I have seen my ancestors' records from various US census, and its pretty cool to think that in 100 years my descendants will be able to a little glimpse into my Scottish life.

Double Jeopardy Outrage Continued

Continuing on from my post last week about the passage of the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill, I came across this news story over the weekend:

An inquest has returned verdicts of suicide for Derrick Bird and unlawful killing for each of the 12 people he shot dead in West Cumbria last year. A jury of six women and five men sitting in Workington, Cumbria, returned the verdicts after listening to four weeks of harrowing evidence.

Unless I am missing something, this "inquest" seems to be completely pointless and a waste of time and money. As far as I can tell, there is a separate inquiry which is also wrapping up soon on how the police response could have been better. Why did a second one need to be held with a jury?

1. Why did this take 4 weeks and required 70 some people testifying? There was no question he did it. If this was required by some legal technicality, couldn't they wrap it up in an afternoon? Why did so many people need to relive the events for no obvious purpose?
2. Suicide is a actual crime you can be found guilty of? Is there a punishment for it? Who defends you? How much does the British government spend each year trying people for suicide?
3. Unlawful killing? As opposed to lawful killing? (I actually read this is the English term for homicide and manslaughter which makes more sense, but I still wonder what the point of jury's verdict is since Bird is dead.)
4. Going back to my double jeopardy post, if this had happened in Scotland, could you now be retried for suicide if you were acquitted the first time around? Could a dead person be retried for unlawful killing?

Athens

I have uploaded my pictures from Athens. Here are a few of them:

The Parthenon

Temple of Olympian Zeus and the Acropolis

Where is the Double Jeopardy outrage?

Hours before dissolving itself, the Scottish Parliament passed the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill and the bill is currently awaiting royal assent. The Scotsman summarises the bill as allowing "exemptions to the centuries-old principle that no-one should be tried twice for the same crime." I am shocked that not only has there been no form of public outrage, there seems to be support for it. The Daily Record notes that Scots Law has provided protection against double jeopardy for over 800 years but they then go on to support getting rid of that protection saying how great it will be to retry some people 30 years later. Even the Law Society of Scotland supports the bill.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law lists five principles which underpin double jeopardy:

• preventing the government from employing its superior resources to wear down and erroneously convict innocent persons;
• protecting individuals from the financial, emotional, and social consequences of successive prosecutions;
• preserving the finality and integrity of criminal proceedings, which would be compromised were the state allowed to arbitrarily ignore unsatisfactory outcomes;
• restricting prosecutorial discretion over the charging process; and
• eliminating judicial discretion to impose cumulative punishments not authorized by the legislature

A government's ability to require anyone to answer to the court and to submit to its judgement is one of its greatest powers. Without protection against double jeopardy, this power would go largely unchecked. This power is entirely one sided. The state would have the power to decide how often to charge an individual and could do so until it received the verdict it wants. The individual has no choice. He must continue to defend himself until he loses. The individual will never win and the state will never lose.

The judicial system is based on finality. Once the court has decided a matter of fact, it is not reconsidered, res judicata. The integrity of the judiciary demands this.

Prosecutors have the responsible to use their powers with great care and only after consideration. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies. It is the responsibility of the prosecutors to decide when the evident is great enough that the State will bring charges against an individual. By prohibiting double jeopardy, the prosecutor makes sure his case is sound and is forced to not make premature accusations. Without this, the quality of the judiciary will suffer. Knowing that you could possible have a second chance at trying someone completely changes the dynamics surrounding criminal procession.

What makes the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill worse is that it applies ex post facto. This is coupled with a vague general "new evidence" exception so that anyone acquitted of a crime in Scotland ever now faces the uncertainty of their acquittal and faces the worrying prospects of a second trial.

One of the hallmarks of an advanced civilization is a fair and just legal system. These recent developments cause me to question if Scotland has this.

I have supported the SNP in the past on this blog, but this is clearly a huge error of judgement on their behalf.