Having recently conducted a couple of guided walks around Llandrindod Wells explaining the wonderful gem that Llandrindod Wells is in terms of its Victorian buildings as part of our annual Victorian Festival, I was delighted to find the following editorial piece in today’s Guardian.
“Fusty, pompous, redolent of an age of social restriction and colonial hubris. This is what mid-20th-century wielders of the wrecking ball thought of Victorian architecture, and it eased their consciences as they razed great portions of our cities. There were dissenting voices: the Victorian Society was founded in 1958 and, championed by John Betjeman and others, fought for the preservation of 19th-century buildings. Liverpool's Albert Dock was saved but, sadly, not Euston Arch. The war is not over; the society is campaigning to save a hospital in Brighton, Manchester's Sale Hotel and a former workhouse in Clitheroe. Why should we care? A glance at the buildings in this year's Heritage Open Days event, which starts on Thursday, shows how much of our urban fabric was defined by the Victorians. Take Bradford's mill owner's house and the nearby mill workers' cottages, the town halls of Leeds and Manchester, or the humbler Almshouses in Reading. But if Victorian architecture is the matrix into which many of our towns are set, there is a danger that the character it lends will not be sensed until it has disappeared. With the demise of the Civic Trust, which helped protect historic spaces, the task of appreciating our 19th-century buildings has become even more important. Cities should not be static, but neither should good work be undone simply because we have ceased to notice it. Pay homage to your local Victoriana this week, and then imagine what things would look like without it.”
So, come on, let’s hear it for Llandrindod Wells with its late Victorian town centre, ably conserved by the efforts of the Llandrindod Wells Spa Town Trust in partnership with Powys County Council. We have a town to be proud of, so let us take pride in it.
Monday, 7 September 2009
Thursday, 3 September 2009
All Law Must Be Applied Consistently And Dispassionately
It is probably dangerous for an unqualified layman to make any comment on the controversial issues surrounding the release of the so-called ‘Lockerbie bomber’, al Megrahi, but I detect more than a whiff of cant and hypocrisy in the furore that this decision has generated.
As I understand it, the Scottish legal system has a provision that allows all prisoners jailed for crimes under Scottish law to apply for release on compassionate grounds. If such an application is made, then the decision as to whether or not the prisoner can be released is taken by the responsible Minister in the Scottish Government. Moreover, such a decision is made only after a careful and thorough review of all the circumstances of the case and after taking expert advice on the prisoner’s physical and mental health. If reputable medical experts come to the view that the prisoner is suffering from a life-threatening illness and has but a short time to live, a dispassionate view of such circumstances would suggest that the decision to release al Megrahi was both right and just.
It is therefore regrettable that American politicians and commentators, some of who are well versed in the application of the law, should lead the cries of ‘foul’ in response to views that are anything but dispassionate.
It is even more regrettable that Scottish opposition politicians, including I am ashamed to say, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, should jump on to a bandwagon fuelled by tabloid anger and threats of sanctions from the United States to condemn a decision that had clearly been taken according to due process and after a dispassionate consideration of the circumstances. Any dispassionate observer who watched or listened to Kenny MacKaskill’s announcement of his decision can surely have no doubt that this decision was taken for the right reasons.
With regard to the position of the British Government on the issue of al Megrahi’s release, Martin Kettle in the Guardian makes it very clear that, in spite of the potential difficulties that might arise if al Megrahi were to be released, the British government were powerless to intervene or even to significantly influence a decision that was not their responsibility. "…Megrahi's release was acknowledged at all times as a matter for the sovereign Scottish legal system under which he had originally been convicted. That fact is repeatedly underlined in the correspondence that was released yesterday. Every one of Jack Straw's letters mentions the point. They mention it because it is true. Whatever other considerations ministers might wish to apply in the Megrahi case, they are all trumped by the law and the rules. A lot of the confected outrage in the media simply ignores the stubborn reality that ministers accepted that their hands were tied."
There remains, however, an issue over the tardiness of any comment from the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. His apparent timidity will not serve him or his chances of winning the next general election well. Once again he has needlessly let Cameron make the running in letting it appear that the eventual comment and denial of any ‘deals’ was forced out of him under pressure from the opposition. Surely, this is one more signal that Gordon Brown’s position both as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party is rapidly becoming untenable
As I understand it, the Scottish legal system has a provision that allows all prisoners jailed for crimes under Scottish law to apply for release on compassionate grounds. If such an application is made, then the decision as to whether or not the prisoner can be released is taken by the responsible Minister in the Scottish Government. Moreover, such a decision is made only after a careful and thorough review of all the circumstances of the case and after taking expert advice on the prisoner’s physical and mental health. If reputable medical experts come to the view that the prisoner is suffering from a life-threatening illness and has but a short time to live, a dispassionate view of such circumstances would suggest that the decision to release al Megrahi was both right and just.
It is therefore regrettable that American politicians and commentators, some of who are well versed in the application of the law, should lead the cries of ‘foul’ in response to views that are anything but dispassionate.
It is even more regrettable that Scottish opposition politicians, including I am ashamed to say, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, should jump on to a bandwagon fuelled by tabloid anger and threats of sanctions from the United States to condemn a decision that had clearly been taken according to due process and after a dispassionate consideration of the circumstances. Any dispassionate observer who watched or listened to Kenny MacKaskill’s announcement of his decision can surely have no doubt that this decision was taken for the right reasons.
With regard to the position of the British Government on the issue of al Megrahi’s release, Martin Kettle in the Guardian makes it very clear that, in spite of the potential difficulties that might arise if al Megrahi were to be released, the British government were powerless to intervene or even to significantly influence a decision that was not their responsibility. "…Megrahi's release was acknowledged at all times as a matter for the sovereign Scottish legal system under which he had originally been convicted. That fact is repeatedly underlined in the correspondence that was released yesterday. Every one of Jack Straw's letters mentions the point. They mention it because it is true. Whatever other considerations ministers might wish to apply in the Megrahi case, they are all trumped by the law and the rules. A lot of the confected outrage in the media simply ignores the stubborn reality that ministers accepted that their hands were tied."
There remains, however, an issue over the tardiness of any comment from the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. His apparent timidity will not serve him or his chances of winning the next general election well. Once again he has needlessly let Cameron make the running in letting it appear that the eventual comment and denial of any ‘deals’ was forced out of him under pressure from the opposition. Surely, this is one more signal that Gordon Brown’s position both as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party is rapidly becoming untenable
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
