The New Year's eve sexual attacks on women in Cologne raise a number of human rights issues for all European countries.
All women have the right not to be molested by men - or women for that matter. No woman should be a target for assault because she is young or dressed in a particular way. No one should be attacked because of the way they are dressed or because of their skin colour. All this should be obvious.
It should also be obvious that prejudicial behaviour is not just limited to white skinned Europeans. So called "racists" exist in all of the world's communities.
It is clear that only a small minority of the refugees who have fled to Europe are miscreants. The misbehaviour of a small minority migrants should not reflect upon the vast majority of refugees who seek peaceful and lawful sanctuary.
The young females, in Cologne, were targeted by young men who come from societies where women are not allowed to dress as they please - on the streets. In North Africa and the Middle East there is a strict dress code based upon strict religious mores; women who wear revealing clothes are looked down upon. Young women who are dressed in short skirts might even be regarded as prostitutes.
Cairo used to be a fairly secular society but there were still strong religious and cultural opinions held about how anyone should behave. Young men were expected not to have sex with their girl friends before they got married and couples were often chaperoned. These strictures even applied to Christians. Any form of homosexuality was strictly frowned upon. Christians and Muslims alike would rarely be seen drinking alcohol in public.
Is it any wonder that some young men who come from this type of society might go off the rails when they come to the free and easy West? But young men, tempted to behave badly, should be aware that they do not have the right to assault anyone no matter how they or dressed and no matter how they behave. The young ladies in Cologne were innocently going on a night out and they were entitled to have a good time without being molested.
It should be noted, however, that most attacks against women are committed at home by fathers, husbands and boyfriends. It is probably safer from a statistical point of view for a woman to walk the streets rather than be at home. All men have a duty not molest or assault women.
If young ladies in Cologne have the right not to be molested then so do migrants and refugees have the right not to be attacked. This should also be axiomatic. Revenge and tit for tat attacks are completely unjustified and they should be dealt with firmly by the police and prosecuting authorities. Everyone has a civic duty to show tolerance.
The police should be allowed to report the nature of attacks openly and without political interference for fear of upsetting sectional interests. Let us all know what is happening so that everyone can be treated fairly.
Anyone suspected of assault should be prosecuted and tried. A refugee or migrant who is convicted of a serious crime should be subject to deportation and this should be made clear to him when he arrives.
The refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan can easily be accommodated by western society even if we have no religion and the migrants do. Equally, all migrants should be aware that they cannot impose their religious and moral views on a secular society. We should all have one value in common and that is the desire for peace.
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Wednesday, 6 January 2016
United States Gun Law
It seems to me that it is a tragedy that it is so easy to obtain a firearm in the US. Every year thousands of people are killed by firearms in murders, suicides and accidents. The per capita statistics for gun crime and accidents are alarming when compared to the UK.
In the UK 50 murders are committed annually by a gun. In the US murders with guns run into the thousands. Hardly anyone dies as a result of a firearm accident in the UK and there are few suicides using a gun . In the US there are thousands of deaths from suicides and accidents using a gun.
In the UK it is illegal to possess a handgun or a rifle in your on home or out on the street. Shotguns are subject to strict controls and woe betide you if you are seen openly carrying a shotgun in the street.
There is no good reason for anyone to possess a hand gun or a rifle . If you want to shoot a rifle you have to join a gun club where the rifles are held and locked away securely.
Surely, the US constitution conferred the right to posses arms to the people rather than the individual. This right was to allow for militias to defend themselves from tyranny rather than individuals being given the right to roam around freely brandishing handguns and rifles. The founding fathers did not intend that thousands would be killed each year in tit for tat killings , suicides or silly accidents.
When the constitution of the US was first written firearms were like muskets, they were difficult to load and they were single shot. If the founding fathers had envisioned the type of weapons that are available today they might well have changed their minds about including the right to bear arms in the constitution or they would have reworded it.
I have made frequent visits to the US and have always felt uncomfortable that individuals can carry firearms. In one location, many years ago and, at a restaurant in Los Angeles, I saw someone take off his jacket to expose a huge pistol. I was horrified and shouted out "someone has got a gun". Everybody laughed and assured me it was the local sheriff. It was no laughing matter to me and many years later I recall the incident with horror.
Surely, it is time for the majority of American citizens to change their attitude to the possession of firearms. Drugs and other dangerous materials are subject to strict control so why not firearms?
In the UK 50 murders are committed annually by a gun. In the US murders with guns run into the thousands. Hardly anyone dies as a result of a firearm accident in the UK and there are few suicides using a gun . In the US there are thousands of deaths from suicides and accidents using a gun.
In the UK it is illegal to possess a handgun or a rifle in your on home or out on the street. Shotguns are subject to strict controls and woe betide you if you are seen openly carrying a shotgun in the street.
There is no good reason for anyone to possess a hand gun or a rifle . If you want to shoot a rifle you have to join a gun club where the rifles are held and locked away securely.
Surely, the US constitution conferred the right to posses arms to the people rather than the individual. This right was to allow for militias to defend themselves from tyranny rather than individuals being given the right to roam around freely brandishing handguns and rifles. The founding fathers did not intend that thousands would be killed each year in tit for tat killings , suicides or silly accidents.
When the constitution of the US was first written firearms were like muskets, they were difficult to load and they were single shot. If the founding fathers had envisioned the type of weapons that are available today they might well have changed their minds about including the right to bear arms in the constitution or they would have reworded it.
I have made frequent visits to the US and have always felt uncomfortable that individuals can carry firearms. In one location, many years ago and, at a restaurant in Los Angeles, I saw someone take off his jacket to expose a huge pistol. I was horrified and shouted out "someone has got a gun". Everybody laughed and assured me it was the local sheriff. It was no laughing matter to me and many years later I recall the incident with horror.
Surely, it is time for the majority of American citizens to change their attitude to the possession of firearms. Drugs and other dangerous materials are subject to strict control so why not firearms?
Wednesday, 23 December 2015
If I were Polish would I trust the British?
In August 1939 the British signed a defensive agreement with Poland to try to stave off an imminent invasion of our ally. In September Nazi German and the Soviet Union invaded Poland and divided up the spoils. What followed is well recorded and millions of Poles suffered at the hands of the Germans and Soviets - millions died and there was a pogrom against the Jews.
Britain and France declared war on Germany as a result of the invasion of Poland but neither nation had the military power to save Poland.
Many Polish people fled Poland and thousands of Polish servicemen fought alongside the British Army to rid Europe of the scourge of Hitler. Many brave Polish pilots flew alongside the RAF to win the Battle of Britain and save our nation from Nazi tyranny.
At the end of the Second World War the three great powers: the US,GB and the USSR divided up Europe. Poland was to fall under the sphere of influence of the USSR and Stalin's tyranny. The British no longer felt that Poland was worth fighting for and we let them down.
The nation which Britain originally went to war for was left to its own devices.
In 1990 East Germany was absorbed by the West German Federal Republic and millions of East Germans found themselves becoming "citizens" of the European Union. There was no vote and East Germany did not have to make any application. East Germans were free to travel anywhere in the EU including the UK. No-one cared.
In 1990 Poland more or less became a state which was independent of the USSR and of course Polish citizens expressed the desire for their country to join the EU. The Poles had to wait until 2004 to join. It was my view at the time that Poland had as much right to join the EU as East Germany, and that Poland should have been admitted to the EU too, without question. Britain could easily have insisted upon this as a quid pro quo for East German incorporation but failed to do so. Britain was later, however, one of Poland's greatest supporters in its quest to join the EU.
Since 2004 Poland has been a model state within the EU. Many of its citizens have come to Britain to improve not just their lives but the life of Britain as well. Britain has a moral obligation and a duty to welcome our Polish friends as many of their fore fathers gave their lives to help Britain in its hour of need.
There is no excuse for the xenophobia and prejudice which some people in Britain are now showing towards Polish and other European citizens who have settled in Britain. They are entitled to be treated the same as any British citizen. Poland, Romania and Bulgaria expected to be treated as equals when they were invited to join the EU and they were entitled to be. Britain cannot change the rules because of the attitude of xenophobes.
If we did not want Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians to have the right of freedom of movement throughout the EU then we, in Britain, should have vetoed their application to join. We did not do this at the time as we wanted to expand our markets and make money. What sort of country would Britain turn out to be if it only welcomed people's money rather than the people themselves?
The Poles would be right not to trust us as if we let them down again.
Britain and France declared war on Germany as a result of the invasion of Poland but neither nation had the military power to save Poland.
Many Polish people fled Poland and thousands of Polish servicemen fought alongside the British Army to rid Europe of the scourge of Hitler. Many brave Polish pilots flew alongside the RAF to win the Battle of Britain and save our nation from Nazi tyranny.
At the end of the Second World War the three great powers: the US,GB and the USSR divided up Europe. Poland was to fall under the sphere of influence of the USSR and Stalin's tyranny. The British no longer felt that Poland was worth fighting for and we let them down.
The nation which Britain originally went to war for was left to its own devices.
In 1990 East Germany was absorbed by the West German Federal Republic and millions of East Germans found themselves becoming "citizens" of the European Union. There was no vote and East Germany did not have to make any application. East Germans were free to travel anywhere in the EU including the UK. No-one cared.
In 1990 Poland more or less became a state which was independent of the USSR and of course Polish citizens expressed the desire for their country to join the EU. The Poles had to wait until 2004 to join. It was my view at the time that Poland had as much right to join the EU as East Germany, and that Poland should have been admitted to the EU too, without question. Britain could easily have insisted upon this as a quid pro quo for East German incorporation but failed to do so. Britain was later, however, one of Poland's greatest supporters in its quest to join the EU.
Since 2004 Poland has been a model state within the EU. Many of its citizens have come to Britain to improve not just their lives but the life of Britain as well. Britain has a moral obligation and a duty to welcome our Polish friends as many of their fore fathers gave their lives to help Britain in its hour of need.
There is no excuse for the xenophobia and prejudice which some people in Britain are now showing towards Polish and other European citizens who have settled in Britain. They are entitled to be treated the same as any British citizen. Poland, Romania and Bulgaria expected to be treated as equals when they were invited to join the EU and they were entitled to be. Britain cannot change the rules because of the attitude of xenophobes.
If we did not want Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians to have the right of freedom of movement throughout the EU then we, in Britain, should have vetoed their application to join. We did not do this at the time as we wanted to expand our markets and make money. What sort of country would Britain turn out to be if it only welcomed people's money rather than the people themselves?
The Poles would be right not to trust us as if we let them down again.
Wednesday, 16 December 2015
UK Astronaut Tim Peake
Good luck to Tim Peake:I watched him take off for the International Space Station but why was there all the flag waving and hype about his journey in the British press and media? Tim Peake was not making history as over 300 astronauts have already made it to the ISS. He was just making British history.
The UK is no longer a world power in the military or economic sense and it ranks well down the pecking order when it comes to space endeavour. Britain was one of the first countries to launch a satellite into space with a made made rocket but it now lags behind France, India, The US, Russia and China.
Tim Peake's bravery, intelligence and demeanour makes up for the lack of commitment of the UK to make a full contribution to the International space effort. The British government has only committed to one trip for a British astronaut but hopefully it can find the money for more.
It was great to see Tim Peake enter the ISS from the Russian made Soyuz space capsule and no doubt his friends and family were rightly proud of him. Tim is proud of his country and proud to wear the Union Jack. However, was all the flag waving by the British press and media necessary? Tim got there by courtesy of the Russians, the Americans and, dare I say it, our European partners.
If our astronaut had got to the ISS by way of a British rocket and spaceship then our nation would be doing something for which we could be really proud and we could could all wave the flag.
Britain has some great aeronautical engineers and they need our support to get us back into space with our own kit.
Skylon is one such project - the British government is supporting this and hopefully it will be as successful as Tim Peake.
http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/johnpreece/2013/09/06/sabre-skylon-and-the-british-aerospace
http://rocketeers.co.uk/taxonomy/term/42
The UK is no longer a world power in the military or economic sense and it ranks well down the pecking order when it comes to space endeavour. Britain was one of the first countries to launch a satellite into space with a made made rocket but it now lags behind France, India, The US, Russia and China.
Tim Peake's bravery, intelligence and demeanour makes up for the lack of commitment of the UK to make a full contribution to the International space effort. The British government has only committed to one trip for a British astronaut but hopefully it can find the money for more.
It was great to see Tim Peake enter the ISS from the Russian made Soyuz space capsule and no doubt his friends and family were rightly proud of him. Tim is proud of his country and proud to wear the Union Jack. However, was all the flag waving by the British press and media necessary? Tim got there by courtesy of the Russians, the Americans and, dare I say it, our European partners.
If our astronaut had got to the ISS by way of a British rocket and spaceship then our nation would be doing something for which we could be really proud and we could could all wave the flag.
Britain has some great aeronautical engineers and they need our support to get us back into space with our own kit.
Skylon is one such project - the British government is supporting this and hopefully it will be as successful as Tim Peake.
http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/johnpreece/2013/09/06/sabre-skylon-and-the-british-aerospace
http://rocketeers.co.uk/taxonomy/term/42
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
BBC Sports Personality of The Year
We now have another controversy where megaphone protesters are demanding that Tyson Fury is removed from the candidates to become BBC Sports Personality Of The Year.
Tyson Fury is entitled to his opinion and provided he does not try to incite others to commit violent acts or indulge in hate crime then he can say what he likes as far as I am concerned. The same opinions can be heard in pubs and religious establishments all over the country.
It is no use the BBC, however, saying that he is just a sportsman who has won a sporting event. The BBC has turned sport into a pageant and a carnival with its sports review of the year. This annual event is now more of a celebrity forum rather than a celebration of sporting prowess. It is bound to attract criticism when it invites controversial figures to take part in this mawkish nonsense.
Most of the sports people who appear on the programme hardly have strong personalities and every year they mumble the same old platitudes of how they could not have done this or that without the support of their family or a trainer. They do not utter any opinion of real value or controversy.
Why do they appear on this programme where mutual back slapping is the order of the day? They have been well rewarded already with their medals, belts and cups and plenty of money if they are professionals. Why do they need public acclamation and a silver television camera as well?
The programme has got a hackneyed format where sporting professional "luvvies" pat themselves on the back to the sound of schmaltzy music.
Amateur sportsmen and women,who really keep the sporting life of the nation going, never get any real recognition and their opinions do not matter in the age of celebrity culture.
Why doesn't the BBC do us all a favour and stop broadcasting this awful programme every year. No one will really miss anything; as sports fans will have already recorded their favourite sporting event and all that they will be missing is the cheesiness of it all.
The BBC could invite Tyson Fury to defend his opinions on BBC Question Time to see if he can go a few rounds with the real people in the audience. I think that the audience might win on points.
The BBC should replace Sports Personality Of The Year with a re-run of the 2015 Last Night Of The Proms. Marin Alsop's conducting, performance and opinions are worthy of any forum.
http://www.marinalsop.com/news/marin-alsop-returns-to-conduct-the-last-night-of-the-bbc-proms-2015/
Tyson Fury is entitled to his opinion and provided he does not try to incite others to commit violent acts or indulge in hate crime then he can say what he likes as far as I am concerned. The same opinions can be heard in pubs and religious establishments all over the country.
It is no use the BBC, however, saying that he is just a sportsman who has won a sporting event. The BBC has turned sport into a pageant and a carnival with its sports review of the year. This annual event is now more of a celebrity forum rather than a celebration of sporting prowess. It is bound to attract criticism when it invites controversial figures to take part in this mawkish nonsense.
Most of the sports people who appear on the programme hardly have strong personalities and every year they mumble the same old platitudes of how they could not have done this or that without the support of their family or a trainer. They do not utter any opinion of real value or controversy.
Why do they appear on this programme where mutual back slapping is the order of the day? They have been well rewarded already with their medals, belts and cups and plenty of money if they are professionals. Why do they need public acclamation and a silver television camera as well?
The programme has got a hackneyed format where sporting professional "luvvies" pat themselves on the back to the sound of schmaltzy music.
Amateur sportsmen and women,who really keep the sporting life of the nation going, never get any real recognition and their opinions do not matter in the age of celebrity culture.
Why doesn't the BBC do us all a favour and stop broadcasting this awful programme every year. No one will really miss anything; as sports fans will have already recorded their favourite sporting event and all that they will be missing is the cheesiness of it all.
The BBC could invite Tyson Fury to defend his opinions on BBC Question Time to see if he can go a few rounds with the real people in the audience. I think that the audience might win on points.
The BBC should replace Sports Personality Of The Year with a re-run of the 2015 Last Night Of The Proms. Marin Alsop's conducting, performance and opinions are worthy of any forum.
http://www.marinalsop.com/news/marin-alsop-returns-to-conduct-the-last-night-of-the-bbc-proms-2015/
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
Bombing Syria again
Tonight the UK parliament will vote whether to bomb ISIS in Syria or not. I have no doubt that parliament will vote to approve the proposed military action. This will be a mistake. I can think of only one case where a country or military force has capitulated as a result of bombing and that is Japan at the end of the second world war. The use of nuclear weapons changed the course of the war and Japan's eventual surrender. Even after the the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the military leaders were reluctant to surrender; it was only after a second nuclear bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that the Emperor of Japan insisted that the war was over.
The US lost the Vietnam war even they they had dropped more conventional bombs on North Vietnam than bombs dropped in the second world war.
The Iraq war was "won" only with the aid of troops on the ground and the peace was lost.
Likewise the bombing of Libya by Britain and France gained a hollow victory which eventually left a power vacuum, some of which has been filled by ISIS. Our enemy is growing stronger by feeding off the chaos caused by bombing. They are after all a guerilla army which is perfectly capable of digging itself in and fighting amongst the destruction. The bombing campaigns of Assad, Russia and the West have failed and will continue to do so until a force of troops is organised to defeat ISIS. Even if ISIS is defeated, in a conventional war sense, they will still be able to survive by fighting guerilla actions in Syria, Iraq and North Africa. ISIS will still be able to attack Europe using "fifth columnists" who have been inspired by a false cause. A bombing campaign alone will not achieve military or political results or any sort of victory.
The best method of achieving peace in both Iraq and Syria and Libya is by using diplomacy and political expediency which is under the guidance of the UN. The nations involved in the conflict will have to put aside their national interests and organise a ceasefire. Assad and the official Syrian regime should be prevailed upon to stop bombing civilians. Unofficial guerillas should be ordered to disarm and if they do not then a UN peacemaking force should do the job. After the ceasefire, a UN peacekeeping force should then protect the country until there are new elections. The international community might have to prepare for Syria being split up into new nations or being governed as a federation or confederation of states. Even if the UN is involved and is given the power to organise a settlement then peace will only come after many years.
There is really no alternative. The status quo has no hope of succeeding whilst all of the protagonists disagree about their objectives and the future for Syria. Britain's plan is to be part of a factional coalition that has no plan.Of course we should consider helping one of best friends and firmest allies - France. However, the French president has failed to obtain agreement for a grand coalition supported by both the US and Russia; whilst this situation persists there will be more innocent civilians killed and more brave airmen shot down. There will be more refugees and years more of tragic war.
Bombing and war should only ever be used as a last resort to resolve conflicts. I can think of only one war that I would have willing fought in and that is the war against Hitler who was determined to use violence despite the terrible consequences for his nation and him personally. Most other wars since the second world war could have been avoided or prevented by UN action. Bombing without purpose is simply futile and counter productive. We should not be so naive to believe that our enemy will not attack us back so more bloodshed should be expected - on European and US soil as well.
We need politicians who can lead us with sufficient imagination and rationality to recognise that bombing alone will not work. We need leaders who can organise a sensible coalition and act in concert with the UN. Sadly, this is not the case and I can only think that the horrors will continue for many more years to come. There is not much hope.
The US lost the Vietnam war even they they had dropped more conventional bombs on North Vietnam than bombs dropped in the second world war.
The Iraq war was "won" only with the aid of troops on the ground and the peace was lost.
Likewise the bombing of Libya by Britain and France gained a hollow victory which eventually left a power vacuum, some of which has been filled by ISIS. Our enemy is growing stronger by feeding off the chaos caused by bombing. They are after all a guerilla army which is perfectly capable of digging itself in and fighting amongst the destruction. The bombing campaigns of Assad, Russia and the West have failed and will continue to do so until a force of troops is organised to defeat ISIS. Even if ISIS is defeated, in a conventional war sense, they will still be able to survive by fighting guerilla actions in Syria, Iraq and North Africa. ISIS will still be able to attack Europe using "fifth columnists" who have been inspired by a false cause. A bombing campaign alone will not achieve military or political results or any sort of victory.
The best method of achieving peace in both Iraq and Syria and Libya is by using diplomacy and political expediency which is under the guidance of the UN. The nations involved in the conflict will have to put aside their national interests and organise a ceasefire. Assad and the official Syrian regime should be prevailed upon to stop bombing civilians. Unofficial guerillas should be ordered to disarm and if they do not then a UN peacemaking force should do the job. After the ceasefire, a UN peacekeeping force should then protect the country until there are new elections. The international community might have to prepare for Syria being split up into new nations or being governed as a federation or confederation of states. Even if the UN is involved and is given the power to organise a settlement then peace will only come after many years.
There is really no alternative. The status quo has no hope of succeeding whilst all of the protagonists disagree about their objectives and the future for Syria. Britain's plan is to be part of a factional coalition that has no plan.Of course we should consider helping one of best friends and firmest allies - France. However, the French president has failed to obtain agreement for a grand coalition supported by both the US and Russia; whilst this situation persists there will be more innocent civilians killed and more brave airmen shot down. There will be more refugees and years more of tragic war.
Bombing and war should only ever be used as a last resort to resolve conflicts. I can think of only one war that I would have willing fought in and that is the war against Hitler who was determined to use violence despite the terrible consequences for his nation and him personally. Most other wars since the second world war could have been avoided or prevented by UN action. Bombing without purpose is simply futile and counter productive. We should not be so naive to believe that our enemy will not attack us back so more bloodshed should be expected - on European and US soil as well.
We need politicians who can lead us with sufficient imagination and rationality to recognise that bombing alone will not work. We need leaders who can organise a sensible coalition and act in concert with the UN. Sadly, this is not the case and I can only think that the horrors will continue for many more years to come. There is not much hope.
Thursday, 5 November 2015
Sharm El-Sheik Flights
The British government has advised national airlines to stop flying in and out of Sharm El-Sheik as a result of suspicions surrounding the crash of the Russian Airline over the Sinai desert last Saturday. There is a suspicion that a bomb was planted on the plane.
The British government is right to exercise caution even though an air accident report has not been finished or concluded that the flight came down as a result of a bomb on board.
Some of the holidaymakers who are now stranded believe that the government should not have intervened and that individuals are responsible for their own safety. Many will disagree with this opinion. I support the British government's action as it is duty bound to protect the public as best it can. I feel that I am responsible for my own safety but I am more cautious than the government.
I am careful not to fly over a war zone just to go on holiday. In the past I have travelled a lot for business and often I felt very uncomfortable flying over the Middle East but I took a calculated risk. For a holiday in the sun, where I could go for a walk on a beach or a swim and then enjoy a glass of wine afterwards without disapproving looks or upsetting the locals I preferred Spain.
With regard to airport safety, security is often only tightened up after there has been an incident which means that if an airliner is victim of air piracy, a bombing or a ground to air missile, then there has been a fault in security. Travellers should be aware that governments and travel corporations may neglect security because of incompetence or a lack of will or both.
If the Russian airliner was downed by a ground to air missile fired by guerilla fighters then it may be dangerous to fly over the Sinai desert even if, officially, it remains open for air companies to use it. The area could now be unsafe to travel home from by air; but hopefully not.
If your government advises you not to travel to an area our country then you are probably better off heeding their advice; they might know something that you do not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34730104
The British government is right to exercise caution even though an air accident report has not been finished or concluded that the flight came down as a result of a bomb on board.
Some of the holidaymakers who are now stranded believe that the government should not have intervened and that individuals are responsible for their own safety. Many will disagree with this opinion. I support the British government's action as it is duty bound to protect the public as best it can. I feel that I am responsible for my own safety but I am more cautious than the government.
I am careful not to fly over a war zone just to go on holiday. In the past I have travelled a lot for business and often I felt very uncomfortable flying over the Middle East but I took a calculated risk. For a holiday in the sun, where I could go for a walk on a beach or a swim and then enjoy a glass of wine afterwards without disapproving looks or upsetting the locals I preferred Spain.
With regard to airport safety, security is often only tightened up after there has been an incident which means that if an airliner is victim of air piracy, a bombing or a ground to air missile, then there has been a fault in security. Travellers should be aware that governments and travel corporations may neglect security because of incompetence or a lack of will or both.
If the Russian airliner was downed by a ground to air missile fired by guerilla fighters then it may be dangerous to fly over the Sinai desert even if, officially, it remains open for air companies to use it. The area could now be unsafe to travel home from by air; but hopefully not.
If your government advises you not to travel to an area our country then you are probably better off heeding their advice; they might know something that you do not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34730104
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
