18 September 2015
People (well, two actually, let’s be honest, Gin) have said:
“Why don’t you write about the millions of displaced persons
on the move in the Middle East?”
“Or the controversy concerning the Assisted Dying Bill?”
“Or the scandalously yawning gap between rich and poor
in the affluent West?”
I excuse myself by saying there are far more competent pens than mine; such subjects are their bread and butter, they give an informed opinion — even the ones you don’t agree with. They do their research, they hang around the corridors of power, they attend meetings; some even teach these subjects. All I have is gut feelings and a few half-formed, ill-expressed notions.
Leave it to the pros is my excuse.
Nonetheless, at 4 in the morning yesterday, I scribbled two pages that concerned the moral aspects for killing two British subjects, with drones, in a faraway country. Was this action justified?
My gut feeling was an unequivocal yes. To me they are traitors. They subscribe to practices and beliefs wholly at odds with civilised society. Had they been here and not out of reach of the normal procedure for criminals, they would have been arrested, tried, and imprisoned if found guilty. They placed themselves beyond that, and considering the threat they posed…
But the more I wrote, the more rocky my argument, and I found myself deep in a quagmire of words. So I went and made a cup of tea.
Joshua Rozenburg in The Guardian is worth reading: click here.
I’ll stick to stuff I can get to grips with, like spring bulbs, a Lithuanian recipe for fish, and putting summer clothes out of moth’s reach for the winter.