* Blair Baloney

The soon (hopefully) to leave office Prime minister said on the subject of Saddam's execution in Iraq (something the media got very excited about him not saying anything about for reasons known only to the media) this :
"So the crimes that Saddam committed do not excuse the manner of his execution, and the manner of his execution does not excuse the crimes.
"Now I think that's a perfectly sensible position that most people would reasonably accept".
Well 'the manner of his execution does not excuse the crimes' is a strange statement seeming to imply some moral equivalence between the punishment and the crime. As though everyone was sitting round saying now he's (Saddam) been verbally abused on the scaffold and had his execution videoed that makes it all square. I'll put his picture back up.
The consequence of crime which has the result in a penalty from the law enforcement agencies of society surely has no relevance to the moral judgement on a crime. The penalty is whatever it is. Whether you think verbal abuse of criminals or the execution of criminals is a proper penalty is a completely different issue and excuse is neither here nor there.

* Old bollocks then said when questioned about the amount of CO2 pollution caused by aircraft taking him on holiday : "I'm not going to be in the situation of saying I'm not going to take holidays abroad or use air-travel. It's just not practical".
Use of air travel is one thing but how taking holidays abroad is not practical I fail to understand. How is it impractical for him to holiday at home? Presumably this refers to the constant earache he would be getting from the avaricious one if he took her to beautiful Bognor or some other desirable English resort.