Saturday, September 5, 2009
Moral Dilemmas - Hanging On
You have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and are given two choices; take treatment that will severely reduce your quality of life but would expect to extend your life by at least 4 years, or take no treatment and enjoy life for a year. Which would you chose?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Moral Dilemmas - Emergency Room Decision
A man was shot several times by police as he attempted to kill his wife.
They have both been brought to the emergency room with life threatening injuries.
All your training tells you to treat the man first.
Who do you treat first?
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Moral Dilemmas - Do You Act?
You are the leader of a country that is at war.
Your intelligence service have cracked your enemy's code.
You learn through the breaking of the code that the enemy are to launch a devastating attack on one of your cities.
If you order the evacuation of the city you know that action would reveal to your enemy that you have broken their code.
Do you evacuate the city?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Moral Dilemmas - Do You Attack An Allie?
Despite several requests by you your allie's Admiral refuses to sail the fleet to either your own or a neutral port; but he says that he will give the order to scupper the ships if the enemy attempts to requisition them.
Do you trust the Admiral or do you give the order for your own navy to sink the ships?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
2009/2010 Barclays Premier League Predictions
The English Barclays Premier League starts 15 August - list your prediction as to where each team will finish up come 9 May 2010?
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Moral Dilemmas - The Date You Will Die
You are given the opportunity to know the exact date you will die. Would you want to know?
Friday, July 31, 2009
Moral Dilemmas - Save A Hundred, Or One?
You are faced with a decision, you can save a hundred innocent strangers including women and children but as a result someone close to you will die, or you could save the person close to you and as a result the hundred strangers will die. Who do you choose?
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Moral Dilemmas - Alibi For A Friend
Your best friend tells you that they are being accused of committing a serious crime. You have no reason to doubt them when they assure you that they are innocent but they do not have an alibi. They ask that if you are asked that you will tell the authorities that your friend was with you all the time on the night of the offence. Do you agree to be their alibi?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Moral Dilemmas - Cheating For Charity
You enter a quiz where the winning team will receive a large financial prize. You are the only contestant that has decided to donate any prize you win to a charity. You then find a copy of the questions before the quiz starts, would you say anything?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Moral Dilemmas - Assisted Suicide
A close relative has a terminal illness, they are not mobile and are in a lot of pain but are mentally alert. Despite assisted suicide being against the law they ask you to help them end their life. Would you be prepared to assist them with their suicide?
Friday, July 3, 2009
Moral Dilemmas - A Close Friend's Partner Having An Affair
You are close friends with a married couple and one of them confides in you that they are having an affair you feel strongly that their partner ought to know but would you tell them?
Friday, May 22, 2009
Barack Obama - Is There No End To Cronyism In Washington?
Barack Obama is on record as saying that he wanted to offer more of the top diplomatic jobs to career diplomats.
Despite a promise to end cronyism in Washington, Barack Obama is expected to appoint one of his home town friends and financial backers Louis Susman, a lawyer and financier with little experience of foreign affairs, to the plum posting of US ambassador to London.
The London posting is not alone in being used to reward political supporters. Other positions in Europe are expected to be filled on the basis of patronage with Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, who campaigned for Obama, becoming the US ambassador to Dublin.
If confirmed it continues the practice adopted by previous administrations where ambassadors have been political appointees more interested in country walks than Iraq or nuclear non-proliferation and most of the work is left to the embassy's number twos who are usually career diplomats.
Is this simply a continuation of cronyism, is it a one off, or an intentional snub to the United Kingdom?
Despite a promise to end cronyism in Washington, Barack Obama is expected to appoint one of his home town friends and financial backers Louis Susman, a lawyer and financier with little experience of foreign affairs, to the plum posting of US ambassador to London.
The London posting is not alone in being used to reward political supporters. Other positions in Europe are expected to be filled on the basis of patronage with Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, who campaigned for Obama, becoming the US ambassador to Dublin.
If confirmed it continues the practice adopted by previous administrations where ambassadors have been political appointees more interested in country walks than Iraq or nuclear non-proliferation and most of the work is left to the embassy's number twos who are usually career diplomats.
Is this simply a continuation of cronyism, is it a one off, or an intentional snub to the United Kingdom?
Friday, May 15, 2009
How Important Is The Freedom Of Information Act?
British MPs have for a long time being trying very hard to ensure that they are not bound under the Freedom of Information (FOI) act.
Since the FOI act was introduced parliament has filibustered on requests to release certain information, arguing that there should be restrictions in the volume of requests made by the media, the right for MPs to refuse requests on the grounds of cost and that an exemption was needed to protect correspondence between MPs and their constituents from being published.
Early in 2007 there was a concerted effort to pass an amendment to the FOI act that would have effectively removed both the Commons and House of Lords from the list of public authorities obliged to release information under the 2000 act, which when only came into force in 2005 with the purpose of making government more open and accessible and accountable.
Parliament fought tooth and nail to prevent details of their expenses from being released under FOI requests but despite their delay tactics detailed information on their expense claims has now started to enter the public domain and exposed MPs from all parties to have been guilty of milking the expense system.
There have been repeated calls under the FOI act for the release of the minutes of the cabinet meetings that led to the British support for the US led invasion of Iraq.
These requests have been rejected on grounds that what is said in cabinet must remain private.
Many feel that Britain was involved in an illegal war and that those who authorised Britain's involvement were fully aware at the time that the argument for war was seriously flawed.
Does the recent scandal relating to MPs expenses demonstrate the power of having an effective FOI in place?
Should politicians be responsible and held to account for decisions they make?
Should minutes of cabinet meetings be released in a timescale so that those responsible for operating above the law can be prosecuted?
Since the FOI act was introduced parliament has filibustered on requests to release certain information, arguing that there should be restrictions in the volume of requests made by the media, the right for MPs to refuse requests on the grounds of cost and that an exemption was needed to protect correspondence between MPs and their constituents from being published.
Early in 2007 there was a concerted effort to pass an amendment to the FOI act that would have effectively removed both the Commons and House of Lords from the list of public authorities obliged to release information under the 2000 act, which when only came into force in 2005 with the purpose of making government more open and accessible and accountable.
Parliament fought tooth and nail to prevent details of their expenses from being released under FOI requests but despite their delay tactics detailed information on their expense claims has now started to enter the public domain and exposed MPs from all parties to have been guilty of milking the expense system.
There have been repeated calls under the FOI act for the release of the minutes of the cabinet meetings that led to the British support for the US led invasion of Iraq.
These requests have been rejected on grounds that what is said in cabinet must remain private.
Many feel that Britain was involved in an illegal war and that those who authorised Britain's involvement were fully aware at the time that the argument for war was seriously flawed.
Does the recent scandal relating to MPs expenses demonstrate the power of having an effective FOI in place?
Should politicians be responsible and held to account for decisions they make?
Should minutes of cabinet meetings be released in a timescale so that those responsible for operating above the law can be prosecuted?
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Water Boarding Torture Or Enhanced Interrogation?
The water board technique dates back to the 1500s during the Italian Inquisition. A bound and gagged prisoner has water poured over him to make him think he is about to drown. When he was President George Bush said that such techniques were not torture and merely an acceptable form of enhanced interrogation. President Obama wasted no time and outlawed its use as soon as he took office - where do you stand?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)