Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

Swedish health care provides inferior treatment of prostate cancer to elderly men

April 21, 2015

The Swedish health care system is often cited as an example. And in general that is probably justified. But there is little doubt that care is denied when the physician – for whatever reason – believes it is not worthwhile. The patient’s life expectancy plays a key part in this judgement. And that automatically leads to the elderly being denied treatment in some cases. After all, the common good requires that resources not be wasted! Perhaps it would be best to simply withhold all care for people over 70 – or should we say 75?

The Swedish health system does provide inferior treatment to men with prostate cancer if they are over 70 years old. A report from Lund University exposes yet another example of the age discrimination that is endemic in Sweden. And as the country ages, we can expect such denial of care to increase.

Until the over 70s start to exercise their political power.

Aftonbladet:

Many older men are not getting the cancer treatment they need. New Swedish research shows that men between 70 and 80 years are often under-treated despite having a high risk of prostate cancer. According to the national guidelines men should  have surgery or radiation treatment, but many are denied access to these treatments. The doctors believe that patients are too old, says Associate Professor Ola Bratt at Lund University in the research report that was presented at an international urology meeting in Madrid.

Prof. Ola Bratt has examined all the 19 000 men especially at risk and treated for prostate cancer  in Sweden between 2001 and 2012. He notes that doctors often misjudged the patient’s expected lifetime. The doctors have simply ignored vital treatment because they mistakenly believed that the patients would die soon.

“Such an old-fashioned and rather jaundiced view of today’s 70 year olds can have devastating consequences. It can not be the intention that Swedish men should die prematurely”.

Ola Bratt notes that there are large differences between different parts of Sweden. Between 2001 and 2012, the proportion of men over 70 years who received curative treatment was 15-38 percent, but the proportion varies greatly between counties – from 13 percent in Örebro County to 85 percent in Kronoberg County, according to the National Prostate Cancer Register. Many men are thus losers in the great cancer lottery. Those who want to survive, should stay in the right county and go to the right doctor.

There is a shortage of urologists and many of them are available in small clinics that may not keep up with the latest developments. Choice of care has also contributed to more private clinics taking responsibility for severe disease and the patient is then challenged to find the right treatment in a jungle of offers.

The Lancet: Scientists are “not incentivised to be right”

April 19, 2015

In time, incorrect results get corrected. In time, bad science cannot prevail – or so the belief is. But if all the articles about fraud in funding applications, dodgy peer review, predatory journals, confirmation bias and plain fraud in science are only half true, then most of what is reported as current science is not worth the paper it (isn’t) written on. Results reported are not concerned about being correct but about getting the next tranche of funding. “Politically” correct beliefs are not challenged by younger researchers because research funding will be jeopardised if “authority” is challenged. “Peer reviews” become “pal reviews” and even “self reviews”. Journals manipulate impact factors by “pal citations”.

It should all get corrected in time, except that publication of corroborating results is discouraged as not being original while “negative results” are not considered worthy of publication. A generally accepted but incorrect hypothesis then never gets corrected until an opposing theory is “proven” with positive results.

“In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world”.

These two articles, one in The Lancet and one in SMH illustrate the point:

1. The Lancet: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct. 

Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. ……… 

2. SMH: How Australian scientists are bending the rules to get research funding

“Science has become really opaque, especially when it comes to grant funding”, says UNSW climate researcher Ben McNeil. As a result innovation suffers, he says. 

The offences in question range from junior scientists ghost-writing grant applications for senior colleagues to researchers conspiring with others to influence who might review their work.

In one extreme case a cancer scientist discovered his unfunded project idea had been stolen and used by another research group a year later.

The two major schemes that fund research in Australia – the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Australian Research Council (ARC) – hand out about 1.5 billion dollars a year. The impact of these grants is almost impossible to quantify, but some have resulted in big medical discoveries such as the cervical cancer vaccine and new cancer treatments. They also generate new knowledge, jobs and industries.

While their $1.5 billion budget seems hefty, together the ARC and NHMRC reject about four out of every five ideas each year. In 2013, only 1883 ideas out 9004 received funding. The consequence of researchers’ attempts to “game” the system is that, if undetected, precious money may be allocated to unworthy research projects, potentially at the expense of the next lifesaving vaccine. …… 

While the NHMRC and the ARC say they have no evidence that “gaming” is widespread, a recent survey of 200 health and medical researchers suggests this may not be the case.

Before handing out money, both bodies ask panels of anonymous experts to assess project ideas, as well as the calibre of the people who propose the idea.

When public health researcher Adrian Barnett and two colleagues surveyed researchers about whether they form alliances with others to boost their chances of a better review, they were shocked to see one in five admitted to the practice.

“I knew it was going on, but I didn’t think it’d be as high,” says Barnett, from the Queensland University of Technology.

Warm snow

April 17, 2015

Protesting Global Warming at the University of Colorado.

ffcu facebook page

ffcu facebook page

Daily Caller:

Global warming activists should probably start planning their protests for the summer because the second climate rally — within just days of a major one in Canada — has been buried in snow.

Student activists with Fossil Free CU have camped out the University of Colorado, staging a “sit in” meant to show the Board of Regents the group’s commitment to getting the school to divest its endowment of fossil fuel holdings.

The group’s Facebook page shows students braving the elements to convince the Board of Regents to ditch fossil fuels to fight global warming. Unfortunately for them, the “Gore effect” has kicked in and may blunt their arguments that the world is catastrophically warming.

The “Gore effect” has made its mark this year on several protests, including a major one last week in Quebec City where thousands of demonstrators marched through snow and frigid weather. Earlier this year, a divestment protest at Yale University was cancelled due to “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues,” according to organizers.

That AGW is a religion and a matter of faith – which ignores reality – is apparent. Alarmism and the antics of the unthinking acolytes indicates that there is something to be said for the notion that evolution is causing the dumbing-down of the human race. Alarmism is quite simply the subordination of actions to fear – which is my definition of cowardice. We probably reached peak intelligence as hunter-gatherers and the modern “welfare state” is most likely accelerating the decline.

If “intelligence” is an inherited characteristic – as it seems at least partially to be –  then it is only a matter of simple arithmetic that unless the “more intelligent” reproduce at a higher rate than those of “less intelligence” then the “average intelligence” of the population will inevitably decrease.

Swedish lay judge wants capital punishment “for some races”

April 17, 2015

I have yet to discern the real advantages brought by lay judges to the Swedish judicial system. Presumably they are thought to bring a modicum of “real life” into the ivory tower of jurisprudence. But it seems to me that politically appointed lay judges pervert the course of justice more often than they assist it.

Sveriges Domstolar

Serving as a lay judge in a court is an honorary task.  It helps to maintain public confidence in judicial administration and is a way for the public to gain insight into the operations of the courts. The varying background and experiences of lay judges give the courts a broad picture of the general conception of justice in   society.  This is particularly valuable for assessment issues, for example, for evaluation of evidence, reasonability issues and choice of sentence. …

Lay judges are elected …  in the municipal council or county borough council after nomination by political parties. If a person wishes to be a lay judge, he or she contacts a political party and puts forward their interest.

The simple fact is that lay judges in Sweden today are mainly passive and often unprofessional – and I can’t say much worse than that. Yet another case of a lay judge demonstrating her unsuitability is reported in the Sundsvalls Tidning:

Lay judge Anita Edin (M) believes that one could impose the death penalty “for certain races.” After her statement the trial had to be interrupted.
“We obviously have zero tolerance for these things” said Judge Kristina Svedberg.
The statement was made during a break in a trial in Sundsvall District Court on Wednesday, where several persons of foreign origin were indicted for drug offenses. During the break, one of the three lay judges said that he would write a motion on the death penalty.
“Yes, at least for certain races”, responded Anita Edin, a lay judge and Moderate politician in Timrå. Judge Kristina Svedberg broke into the discussion between the jurors and pointed out to Anita Edin that statements about the death penalty on the basis of race were very inappropriate.
“No, it’s clear, you do not say such things. You can only think such things” said Anita Edin.

But in one respect Anita Edin has a point. I see no reason why – for real justice – different people committing the same crime should not be subject to differing penalties. But perhaps reserving capital punishment just “for some races” is going too far. Anita Edin should probably join the Sweden Democrats.

The Swedish use of lay judges is over 1,000 years old and it is a working system – but it does not improve the dispensation of “justice” (whatever one takes that to be). Professor Christian Diesen of Stockholm University writes –

CairnLay judges have always, without interruption, taken part in the administration of justice in Sweden. For more than a thousand years, lay judges, elected by the people, have been members of the local courts. The role has changed during the centuries, but – in contrast to all other countries in Europe except Finland (as Finland was a part of Sweden until 1809) – the lay judge has never been out of the system.

At the time of the Vikings all free men were assembled in the ting, where political matters were discussed and decided. The ting, held outdoors in a place of religious cult, also served, however, as a court. Many disputes were ”solved” through ordeals or duels, but in civil litigation the chief or leader of the court proposed a verdict to the members of the ting for approval ( – the Vikings banged their shields to signal agreement…). In the 13th century when the local courts were established (and the ordeals abandoned), the administration of justice in the country was carried out by a judge, appointed by the king, and 12 elected (permanent) members of the local community. In the 17th century the courts were led by professional judges (with legal education) and the proceedings changed from oral to written form, a change that reduced the influence of the lay members of the court. The legal reform of 1734 reduced that influence even further as it stipulated that all lay judges had to disagree with the professional judge in order to outvote him. At the beginning of the 19th century the introduction of the jury system was discussed, but the jury was introduced into the Swedish system only in cases concerning freedom of the press (and it still applies in these cases). During the 20th century two opposite lines can be seen in the development of the role of the lay judges : The number of lay judges in the local courts has been reduced, step by step. In 1918 the government decided that 3 lay judges were sufficient for minor criminal cases. In 1948 the number of lay judges was reduced from 12 to 9 for major criminal cases and in 1971 from 9 to 7. The same year lay judges disappeared from civil cases (except for cases concerning family law). In 1983 the number decreased to 5 for major criminal cases and in 1997 it fell to 3 lay judges in all criminal cases.

But though the number of lay judges has steadily decreased, they have, in spite of being politically appointed amateurs, also been given a higher individual standing

On the other hand, since 1971, lay judges participate in the proceedings of Court of Appeal (as a minority) as well as the administrative courts, and in 1983 lay judges of all courts received an individual voting right, which put them on an equal footing with a professional judge.

Charm school does not make up for lack of competence

April 15, 2015

I have a clear perception that many hospitality companies have calculated that “charm school” is much cheaper than training employees for competence and are intentionally pursuing a strategy not of adding form to substance but of replacing substance with form.

I am just back after two weeks of airlines, airports, security checks, hotels and the hospitality industry surrounding the “wedding business”. Everybody seems to have been to charm school and that’s nice. But smiles and charm ring hollow sometimes. I perceive a decline in competence.

The Connemara used to be my hotel of choice in Madras. My preference shifted to the Adyar Park in the late 90s and that remained my preferred choice till 2006. Now after an 8 year break I have spent 8 days at the Park. But I am left somewhat disappointed.

I note that ITC has expended much effort in training staff in their charm schools. The smiles and politeness border on the excessive. My stay would have been unforgettable if backed up by efficiency and competence. Unfortunately this was not the case.

Even where some competence was visible, it was far too narrow and there seems to have been little interest – either from the employer or the employee – to widen the employee’s area of expertise. Where employees did not have an answer – no shame in that – they had no interest in getting me an answer let alone increase their own knowledge. Security was for show and brainless and bypassed by the “privileged” regularly. Time does move slower in Madras than in the rest of the world but 5 minutes should not be 30. What I took to be promises were clearly not perceived as being promises by the front desk staff.  And these non-promises were produced with a smile at the drop of a hat – a first response without any substance. It was an attitude which permeated the establishment. Plenty of smiles, empty promises but no real interest or a pride in the result. It is only my perception but the younger employees seemed to more infected by the “charm school syndrome” characterised by smiling – but empty – promises.

One noteworthy exception was the concierge and his staff who impressed with their breadth of knowledge and their readiness to address all issues. Presumably they were all too old to have been sent to ITC’s charm school.

Smiles and the politeness are welcome and necessary but they are not sufficient. Without competence the charm rings dangerously hollow. A modicum of politeness would have been sufficient for competent and professional staff. But no amount of smiling and fawning compensates for a lack of competence.

After all, the essence of justice lies in being able to discriminate

March 31, 2015

I was recently accused of discrimination.

It is a pity – linguistically – that the word “discrimination” is used as – and generally taken to be – “unjust discrimination”.

A discerning person, a person of judgement is one with the ability to discriminate. Discernment, discrimination and judgement all weigh something against some value scale. The value scale comes first. To judge or discriminate, whether for music or literature or taste or behaviour, first requires some standard value scale against which to compare.

Without being able to compare and discern differences and then make judgements which necessarily require discrimination, we could not achieve justice. Some discrimination may be considered to be unjust. Other discrimination may correct an injustice. The same action may be unjust to the one while being just to another. The same action resulting from discrimination may be considered just by some and unjust by others.

Virtually all human behaviour is based on discrimination. We choose one food over another, make friends with some and not with others, listen to jazz but not to punk-rock or kill some people but not others. We discriminate whenever we give “more” care to a sick person or an old person or a child. And that is just. We discriminate when we don’t give one of Usain Bolt’s competitors a head start. We discriminate with different tax rates for different people. Nobel prizes are awarded subsequent to discrimination. We discriminate when we prefer anything or anyone. But we don’t take that to be unjust. Without discrimination there would be no appreciation (or contempt).

Those without values cannot judge or discern or discriminate. A person with sensibilities is one with values. Nearly all behaviour discriminates. The issue is not the discrimination, but where the subsequent actions lie on the scale of being just. And that scale of justness (rather than justice) too is a value scale.

The ability to discriminate is what tells us where we are on our (or somebody elses) scale of justness. It is what makes us sapient. In a world without discrimination there would be no values, no good or bad, or just or unjust.

And so when I was accused of discrimination, I took it as a compliment.

Discriminating (adj): discerning, selective, judicious, refined, cultivated, cultured, sophisticated, sensible, enlightened, sensitive, subtle, nuanced, critical, perceptive, insightful, perspicacious, penetrating, astute, shrewd, ingenious, clever, intelligent, sharp, wise, erudite, aware, knowing, sagacious, sapient.

 

“They’re off” in the great UK entertainment stakes

March 30, 2015

The UK General Election campaign kicked off today. There are 38 days of campaigning and I am looking forward to some entertainment from the antics of the menagerie.

  • From the duck I expect that the many insults will just roll of its back, that it will not produce any deep or profound thoughts but that it may make some dreadful (and hopefully entertaining) gaffes.
  • I expect the poodle to spend much effort in denying it is a poodle, trying to appear pro-business while soaking the rich and denying that it is really a communist.
  • I expect that Nicola Sturgeon may compete in a show of fangs with Alex Salmond to demonstrate who is the more dangerous hyena. Possibly they will split the work-load with Salmond harrying the poodle while Sturgeon goes after the duck.
  • The jackal will race after any wounded prey in sight and may also look for unattended carcasses to feed from. It will be fascinating to see if the lame duck manages to land any kicks on the sneaky but nimble jackal as it cavorts around.
  • The chameleon will continue being all things to all men (and women), but may stand exposed as it changes colour too slowly to keep up with the changes in its background. But the illusions it weaves could be compelling for those with a hallucinatory frame of mind.
  • The green slug will slither along in its slime, first one way then another, in great confusion, but it could provide some interesting contortionist tricks.

UK general election menagerie

 

It’s not a bad cast from an entertainment perspective. From the viewpoint of leadership or vision, it is a pretty useless bunch. The duck has the advantage of having been at the top table for some time. But it may have outstayed its welcome and could provide a succulent feast for a clever predator (though cleverness is conspicuously lacking among the predators on show).

 

A Swedish government non-apology (which the silly Saudis thought was sincere)

March 30, 2015

Oh dear!

She couldn’t understand how a unilateral non-extension of a defence cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia – because it was a dictatorship – was an insult. She couldn’t understand how her planned formal speech about women’s rights and human rights – as Sweden’s Foreign Minister and as a speaker invited to the Arab League – was not an insult to the systems of government and a denigration of their judicial systems. Even though she was a Foreign Minister she could not understand how criticising a judicial system based on Sharia was not also a criticism of the religion it was based on.

In any case, the deteriorating diplomatic situation was rescued by a monarch-to-monarch appeal by King Carl XVI Gustaf to King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud. Margot Wallström could not understand her offense and now she cannot understand how the Swedish appeal through its special emissary could be construed as an apology! But her denial that anything said was an apology insults intelligence. Or does she mean that “we didn’t apologise but the silly Saudis thought we did”. She might as well say that the Saudi King now agrees with her statements.

Margot Wallström is among the more experienced and competent members of the Swedish government. But as Foreign Minister, her lack of understanding of the consequences of her statements smacks of incompetence. I have no doubt that some of her statements were more for domestic consumption, since this government is hostage to its green partners (pun intended). But it was more than a little naive for a Foreign Minister to think that such statements would not be taken seriously and at face value abroad.

The Saudi King would never have received an emissary directly from the “socialist” government which had contemptuously dismissed him as a dictator. However he was certainly prepared to accept an emissary and a private letter from King Carl XVI Gustaf. The letter hailed King Salman for  “protecting Islam and its holy places” and expressed great “sorrow and regret”. It is not the first time that Swedish royalty has been invoked to smooth over diplomatic issues with Saudi Arabia. Back in 2004 Crown Princess Victoria was sent to Saudi Arabia (also by a Social Democrat government) to save some defence (radar equipment) deals. The Defence cooperation agreement came in 2005 – also under the Social Democrats.


UPDATE! I note that the Svenska Dagbladet claims to have seen the King’s letter and that it contained no apology. Presumably SvD in its politically correct wisdom (or self-delusion) thinks that the Saudis have been successfully fooled!!!


 

 

1427498080030735400.jpg

Björn von Sydow, former Swedish defense minister and special envoy of Sweden meets Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, Minister of Defense. (SPA)

 Arab NewsSweden has apologized for the recent offensive remarks by its foreign minister against the laws of Saudi Arabia and hoped for better relations between the two countries. …….. 

In a message to King Salman, Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Lofven expressed “deep sorrow and regret over the current crisis in the relations between the two countries” while stressing his government’s keenness to maintain healthy relations between the two countries.
Lofven also said the role of King Salman in protecting Islam and its holy places is clear and that his government was concerned over the deterioration of the relations between the two countries following the controversial comment by his cabinet minister.

But for domestic consumption Margot Wallström must now walk the tightrope and insist that what was an abject apology, and accepted as a sincere apology, was not really an apology after all. If she agrees she apologised she upsets the greens and denies moral superiority. If she denies the apology she is insincere and has “duped” the Saudis with her subterfuge.

Expressen: “Naturally, the Swedish government has not apologised for its well-known and long-held positions on democracy and human rights”

The bottom line is that for a Swedish Foreign Minister, an abject expression of “deep sorrow and regret” does not constitute an apology. If a Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister had used such words he would have had little recourse but to resign for having his country deliver such a shameful apology. A Japanese Foreign Minister forced to express “sorrow and regret” would then have resigned and (since hara-kiri is no longer de rigueur) left politics. These are dangerous waters for Margot Wallström and for Sweden. A Foreign Minister of Sweden who is perceived as being insincere is “all used up” and can only damage the country’s affairs abroad.

What I find most reprehensible in anybody is a lack of professionalism. The worst insult I know of is to call a specialist an amateur. Margot Wallström and this Swedish red/green government have been amateur and unprofessional. If Swedish foreign policy is to influence and encourage the development of human rights in Saudi Arabia then this episode has been spectacularly counter-productive.

“Terrain, terrain!” and George assumes control

March 29, 2015

The German Wings 4U9525 tragedy is now leading to a discussion on whether and how depressive and suicidal tendencies of a pilot can be screened for, which in turn is leading to a discussion of what occupations should or could be forbidden to those having such tendencies. And what degree of disability is disabling for an occupation is the question that follows. Many military and  law enforcement bodies do have such bans. In some US states you can’t pass the bar exams if you have been diagnosed as depressive. (But you can continue to practice if you become depressive the day after you pass your bar exams). Should a person with suicidal tendencies be permitted to become a President or a Prime Minister or a Finance Minister? or a surgeon or a hedge fund manager for that matter?

Every human has some bouts of some level of depression. I am sure psychological profiling has become very sophisticated and can be very successful in general screening. I have even used such profiling – albeit very crudely – when screening applicants for a job. If one applied the precautionary principle – which is about the most unscientific mumbo-jumbo as can be found – very few would ever be deemed suitable for any sensitive occupation. I cannot see that psychological testing will ever eliminate all potential cases of determined, suicidal pilots. It will also give many false positives.

I suspect that the solution lies not in expecting psychological profiling to find the “needle in the haystack” but in ensuring that even if he appears he can do no harm. The regulation for always having two people in the cockpit goes down that road. It is said that for commercial flights today the pilots spend only about 5 minutes actually flying the plane themselves. And much of that time is spent in plugging in what George, the autopilot, is supposed to do. Most of their time is spent in monitoring and checking systems rather than actively flying. In theory, apart from taxiing before take-off and after landing, George could fly the entire flight. His side-kick Mary – if she was present – could do all the monitoring that pilots currently do. George would fly and Mary would – independently – provide the checks.

Coming from the power generation world I am familiar with all the “forbidden modes of operation” that are embedded within the control systems of gas and steam turbines to avoid zones of dangerous vibration or even of operating at “uneconomic” conditions. Once open a time – 100 years ago – measurements were physically monitored by operators. A very few mechanical – but automatic – governors were used, for example to restrict turbine overspeed (by restricting flow). Later – but before the electronic age – physical measurements were converted into electrical signals, displayed in control rooms and provided the operator with many, many alarms of potentially dangerous conditions. Some operating modes were automatically avoided by these measurement signals leading to the corrective operation of motorised valves. Now in the electronics age and with the speed of computing that is available, it is software in the control system – which the operator cannot override – which takes care of “enforcing” the avoidance of the most dangerous forbidden zones.

Pilotless drones are booming. Pilotless commercial planes are not yet in use not because of technical barriers but because of lack of acceptance by passengers and by society in general. Cargo planes are not pilotless yet, but only because of the concerns of air traffic control and airports and of those under the flight-path. But pilotless planes will surely come (even if pilots’ unions will not much care for this). No doubt pilotless planes will pose new challenges such as the avoidance of hacking or some unauthorised assumption of control. But these are all technical, technology, system and societal challenges rather than insurmountable barriers. No technology breakthroughs or invention of new materials are required for introducing the use of pilotless commercial aircraft.

But as a first step maybe George could enforce avoidance of some forbidden modes of flying even with a suicidal pilot at the controls. We may well see that the “Terrain, terrain!” warning will become obsolete. George (and Mary) would have taken over control of the aircraft long before the proximity warning alarms go off.

 

 

Monarch to monarch: Saudi King accepts Swedish King’s apology

March 28, 2015

The Saudi Arabian Ambassador returned to Sweden yesterday. It must be galling for the Swedish Social Democratic government that a monarch-to-monarch apology and appeal was needed to mollify the Saudis. (No doubt the Swedish monarch’s request to the government for an increase in his budget will soon be approved). The apology was carried in a letter carried personally by the King’s/Swedish government’s envoy (not the Ambassador to Saudi Arabia), Björn von Sydow. He is a former Speaker and has even been Regent when the King and his children have been abroad. He would have been acceptable to the Saudi monarch as a true representative of King Carl XVI Gustaf. The Swedish government may say otherwise, but this was indubitably an appeal from a monarch to a monarch and not from a socialist government to a “dictator” King.

The Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström says she does not back away from any of her support for “human rights or democracy” and that she has the support of the people. Indeed! But it took a King to ride in on his white charger to rescue her. “We had an opportunity to address the misunderstandings that we could have criticized Islam or insulted Saudi Arabia” is what she said.  The Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, while in China said “We have resolved any misunderstandings about our insulting Islam, which we have never done. We apologize if we have acted in such a manner that it has been understood that we  have somehow downgraded Saudi Arabia as a nation. That has never been our intention and we have not done that”. Sounds pretty close to an abject apology to me.

It is also grand hypocrisy. Because of course it was always Margot Wallström’s intention to denigrate Saudi Arabia, their system of government and their legal system. She singled out Saudi Arabia as a country whose morals were too low for Sweden to cooperate with on Defence matters.

She has been noticeably silent about voicing any criticism of China (where Prime Minister Löfven is on a visit). For Sweden to fall out with China would be economically unsustainable. The EU has been criticising Saudi Arabia for air attacks in Yemen but Margot Wallström has been conspicuously silent on the matter. Hopefully she has learnt the lesson that there is a little more to be considered about consequences when one is a Minister rather than an activist leading a demonstration. (That is a lesson still eluding her Green party partners in government who bear their share of blame for the Saudi Arabia fiasco).

DagensNyheter:

Saudi Arabia decided on Friday to normalize bilateral relations with Sweden after a meeting between the government’s envoy, Björn von Sydow, and Saudi Arabian government leaders and King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.

“We had an opportunity to address the misunderstandings that we could have criticized Islam or insulted Saudi Arabia. This allowed the Ambassador to return” said Margot Wallström when asked if Sweden had apologized.

“I’m not backing down from my statements for democracy and human rights. It is well known what we think on these issues and it is something we have strong support in the Swedish population” she said

Margot Wallström thinks she has acted professionally and that the problem was resolved quickly in normalising relations with Saudi Arabia. Bjorn von Sydow had the meeting with government leaders and carried a letter from King Carl XVI Gustaf to King Salman. von Sydow will not go into any more detail.

“We can confirm that the king on the government’s desire sent a letter that the government’s envoy handed over to the Saudi king” wrote the Court Information officer Margaret Thorgren. “Please also refer all questions to the Foreign Ministry”. ………

According to the television channel Al-Arabiyya the Swedish king stressed “the power in the relationship” between their countries to his brother-monarch King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven comment on the re-established diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia during his visit to China. He did not directly answer the question if Sweden apologized.

“We have resolved any misunderstandings about our insulting Islam, which we have never done. We apologize if we have acted in such a manner that it has been understood that we  have somehow downgraded Saudi Arabia as a nation. That has never been our intention and we have not done that”.

A “democracy” provides no immunity from – or an excuse for – incompetence and stupidity.