Alexander Hawkins

is that well reasoned comment directed at all EU citizens or just those in charge of Definitive et al. Quite... Seems fairly clear that 'EU' is redundant to the 'dumb fucks' where we're talking about the morality of this.

Speaking of which, I noticed that the OTHER team is called "Great Britain" and not "United Kingdom"--what's up with that? Does Ulster have its own team or something? I hadn't spotted that at all! Beats me

Let's all fall out with each other - USA v UK in the curling as we speak

Where's the puch line? I would pinpoint it at 'WTF?!!!'

I really enjoy the Melis. As Brownie says, structured, not a blowout. And what a lineup!

Both beautiful! I especially like that first one of just Gilmore.

I quite like the retro Dutch shirt...as 'Oranje' shirts go...

Here in the UK everything went pretty curling crazy 4 years ago when our women won gold. The gold medal match was well into the small hours for us, as you can imagine, and the game still got one of the largest TV audiences for a sporting event ever!

Looking forwards to the list! Where are the good sources over here for SN/BS?

M Q e.e. cummings

Agreed. I'd also argue it's also part of a convenient privatisation of criminal/social justice (see also private security contractors; CCTV; privatised prisons; etc. etc.)

The statistics regarding pedophillic recidivism are not ambiguous. I'm all for treating the perpetrators with civil dignity, but until a way is found to make "rehabilitaion" a plausible possibility instead of an abstract talking point, I'm also in favor of having information at my disposal that allows me, not to get in their faces, but simply to keep my kids away from theirs. I see no malevolence whatsoever in that. But the moral point aside, the danger is not your malevolence - and I don't think anyone could/has put that charge - but that of a vigilante minority. As to recidivism - of course, we know that many paedophiles are recidivists. This does not prove, though, that paedophilia is a crime with a high rate of recidivism; and of course, it tells us nothing about the likely future offending of any given individual. FWIW, there are a few programmes which have shown some capacity to 'rehabilitate' in relation to certain types of crime (whatever the word might mean; I entirely concur with your inverted commas!); but very few, and in very few instances.

The theory is indeed one thing. But the empirical research - consistently, and as far as we know - denies that we have the predictive capacity to know anything much at all about recidivism. I think your human nature point is pertinent, but seems to me to be logically a bit out of step. What of the human nature of the criminal who has done his/her time? Shouldn't we respect their capacity NOT to offend in the future? This, after all, is clearly a function of their autonomy/nature. Edit: Of course, I absolutely accept that there are a great number of people - almost certainly a vast majority - who would use such information about offenders sensibly. If men aren't all angels, they're certainly no more all devils.

The seatbelt instance is clearly distinguishable, though. For a start, there's little difference in the emotional stakes of the driver/non-driver as regards seatbelts. I do see your point, but I would say that it's dangerously similar to that made by conservative penologists in the US and UK for some time. Preventive criminology is notoriously inaccurate (hopelessly so, in fact, in all but a very few cases); and obviously that's an empirical critique quite apart from the moral ones. There's also the definitional problem. Perhaps a sexual offense against a child is altogether different than many other types of offence, but which (and therefore which we feel justified in using predictive criminologies against) is not at all an obvious issue.

Perhaps - a genuine perhaps (I'm not entirely clear on my thinking here) - those of us without children or other experiences with offenders are in a better, more clear-headed position to judge whether names and addresses etc. should be witheld or not? Strikes me, for example, to be obvious that we don't ask the victim of a crime what the punishment should be for the offender, for the very reason that they're too involved. Isn't this case analogous in some ways?

Stan Tracey's son Clark is a really nice player. Tony Oxley is the boss. We're well off for freer percussionists - Mark Sanders, Roger Turner, etc. One of the finest straight ahead players in the country, IMHO (as ever), is Dave Wickens. Awesomely creative, swings like a monster, and extremely subtle to boot.

Am absolutely in accordance with Chuck and Weizen here.

Bob Wilber Bob the Builder Modest Mussorgsky

No. The GIITH HighNote CD contains live recordings coming from Jerry Newman´s acetates. Definitely, Classics are not focused on this kind of material. Thank you!

Muhal's playing has this headlong urgency on the track which I've only really ever heard from Bud Powell. Idiomatic bop/hard bop, but with an almost frightening intensity, and a fabulous left hand.

I'm not as much of a hardbop conoisseur as some of you all, but that is probably one of my top five modern jazz records. It's insane! Of course, I only have a King mono pressing... I carry no rankings in my head, but share the sentiment - GREAT record!

Ah - I was clearly mistaken!