Christmas cards and the Fallen Star

[lathany]

Well, yet again I have no idea where most of my friends live. With the arrival of the twins I have had little opportunity to visit them, and we seem to have lost half the addresses we did have. I foresee another email requesting location information approaching (just as soon as I finish the actual card pile).

The Fallen Star vote is in progress. Four votes in favour of an expedition, three against and one abstention. One outstanding vote remains. I have a suspicion that it is going to be a draw, leaving me to make a final decision on behalf of the NPCs. *sigh*

I have really enjoyed the game, though.


On a completely different note, having read the BBC news site, I agree with venta. "The Foster Affair" is really, really dull. Whatever happened to proper news stories ?

Comments

Nice to know I'm not being unreasonable :)

[venta.livejournal.com]

Still front page lead in the Telegraph this morning.

Now, admittedly, I've not really been reading all the coverage, so it's entirely possible I've just missed this. But there is a question which seems to me to be obvious, which no one has asked:

Why was Downing Street's press office making statements for Cherie Blair anyway ? She is not the PM, she is not even a member of Cabinet. She is "just" the wife of the PM; although obviously it's not possible for them to keep their affairs entirely separate, hers should be not be handled by the PM's mechanisms.

Who does she think she is, Hilary Clinton ?

Haven't a clue...

[lathany.livejournal.com]

...but someone else might know.

I had a similar one regarding the Paul Burrell (spelt ?) affair. Could the queen give permission for him to "take care" of Diana's possessions (as opposed to crown possessions) when Her Majesty was not one of the executors of Diana's will ? I never really understood why it was the whole "he told someone" as opposed to "he held the objects".

Re: Haven't a clue...

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Because theft is "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it" (see http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/crime-reduction/rob_burg.htm (http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/crime-reduction/rob_burg.htm))

It was apparently the opinion of the prosecution that, if Burrell had informed the Queen that he had the stuff for safekeeping, that was good enough to demonstrate that he neither dishonest, not intending to permanently deprive of possession.

Possibly there's a value judgement to be made here, in that if the person he'd told about it had been me, or his fence, then he would still be guilty of theft. If it had been one or more of the executors, then clearly he wouldn't. The Queen in this case lies somewhere in between, and I don't know whether the case was dropped because the prosecution guessed that it would probably lose, or because some other law or precedent establishes that it would definitely lose.

Re: Haven't a clue...

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

he neither dishonest, not intending to permanently deprive of possession.

Well, that went a bit wrong. Should say something like "he was either not dishonest, or not intending to permanently deprive of possession".