An up-date on a story I've posted about in the past, the last time being a month ago.
Shaikh Eisa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan has been acquitted of assaulting an Afghan merchant after the Al Ain Court of First Instance found him not responsible for his actions which were videotaped and put on the internet last year.
The court also cleared Shaikh Eisa of endangering the life of the Afghan merchant, M.S., and of sexually abusing him with a stick.
I've always had a problem understanding the way the law is structured in the area of responsibility, not just here of course.
It makes no sense to me that a verdict can be 'well, yes he did it but he's not guilty because...'
If he did it he's guilty of doing it. That should be the verdict. Yes he did it. Guilty.
Extenuating circumstances should, to my non-legal mind, come in later when the sentence is considered. If the person did the deed, ie is guilty, but was coerced, mentally unbalanced or whatever then the sentence, if any, would reflect that.
Anyway, back to the 'torture tape trial'. The verdict is what was widely expected and I don't suppose anyone's surprised.
In an earlier hearing, a doctor from Abu Dhabi's Forensic Laboratory testified before the Al Ain Court that the medication given to Shaikh Eisa at the time when he allegedly assaulted the merchant may lead to loss of memory and uncontrollable behaviour.
The court accepted the 'not responsible' defence.
It's a bizarre case.
The tape is on the internet for the world to see. A number of people are shown torturing an Afghan merchant, Mohammed Shapoor. Sheikh Eisa has been found not guilty while five co-defendants were found guilty.
Couldn't they also have mounted a 'look what you made me do' defence?
Two associates of Sheikh Eisa, American citizens, released the tape to the media. They were sentenced in absentia to five years in jail for having drugged him, thus endangering his life, and defaming & insulting him by broadcasting the tape.
The victim is suing them for libel because he says that releasing the tape defames him. The court must have agreed because he was granted Dh10,000 in temporary compensation.
It's reported in The National that after the verdict the victim Mr Shapoor congratulated the sheikh, kissing him on both cheeks.
I really have trouble getting my head around all that.
While Sheikh Eisa and and a co-defendant were acquitted, three other co-defendants were jailed for between one and three years for the assault.
Public Prosecution can appeal the verdict. I'll be as surprised as you if they do.
So far the international media has simply reported the verdict, although the Financial Times does add the comment that: Reaction to the verdict ranged from a weary assumption that the judicial process was bound to find the brother of the UAE president innocent, to shock that in spite of graphic video evidence Sheikh Issa was found innocent while five of the seven accused were sentenced to jail, including two farm employees who had carried out the assault with the sheikh.
Where newspapers allow online comments the predictable reaction, a travesty of justice, from people is obvious and almost unanimous.
The real attacks will start tomorrow I'm sure, when the columnists file their pieces.
Gulf News report.
The National report.
The Times report.
Financial Times.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
It may be art, but is it food...
In the days when I used to run advertising agencies in the UK and Australia I used to take in design students to give them practical work experience.
They were usually in their first year in art college so they had no practical experience, they were learning the basics and were starting to explore their creativity.
Although what they designed was often pretty it was inevitably completely unworkable and unrealistic with no relevance in the real world.
I was reminded of it the other evening when we made one of our rare trips to a hotel restaurant, the Hunter Room Grill at Westin Mina Seyahi.
It's been a while, a couple of years in fact, since I posted about pretentious food but I couldn't go past this example.
Mrs Seabee ordered what was described on the menu as braised Short Rib with puree sweet potato, mushrooms and onions.
Those first year art college students came to mind because this is what arrived:
This isn't from a first year student but from what must be a qualified and highly paid chef in a five star hotel. Which charged Dh158 for the dish, served on a strange slab of cold china.
The quality of the food wasn't the problem, that was fine. Excellent, well-cooked meat and fresh vegetables. But who came up with that presentation, and why?
Another reminder that we're right not to encourage such nonsense by visiting hotel restaurants very often came a few evenings earlier.
Nowhere near the same pretentious presentation but another example of a menu misnomer.
At Pachanga at Hilton Jumeirah Beach Mrs Seabee (she always orders the wrong thing) ordered Paella, a dish she really enjoys.
As you probably know, paella is a dish which has all its ingredients cooked together in one pot at the same time.
Here's what arrived:
A strangly moulded circular pile of rice with peas artfully arranged on top. Pieces of separately cooked seafood were carefully arranged on top of that stack and other seafood items were dotted around the strange piece of china it was served on.
Again, top quality ingredients, well cooked. But paella it ain't. It's seafood served with rice and peas.
They were usually in their first year in art college so they had no practical experience, they were learning the basics and were starting to explore their creativity.
Although what they designed was often pretty it was inevitably completely unworkable and unrealistic with no relevance in the real world.
I was reminded of it the other evening when we made one of our rare trips to a hotel restaurant, the Hunter Room Grill at Westin Mina Seyahi.
It's been a while, a couple of years in fact, since I posted about pretentious food but I couldn't go past this example.
Mrs Seabee ordered what was described on the menu as braised Short Rib with puree sweet potato, mushrooms and onions.
Those first year art college students came to mind because this is what arrived:
This isn't from a first year student but from what must be a qualified and highly paid chef in a five star hotel. Which charged Dh158 for the dish, served on a strange slab of cold china.
The quality of the food wasn't the problem, that was fine. Excellent, well-cooked meat and fresh vegetables. But who came up with that presentation, and why?
Another reminder that we're right not to encourage such nonsense by visiting hotel restaurants very often came a few evenings earlier.
Nowhere near the same pretentious presentation but another example of a menu misnomer.
At Pachanga at Hilton Jumeirah Beach Mrs Seabee (she always orders the wrong thing) ordered Paella, a dish she really enjoys.
As you probably know, paella is a dish which has all its ingredients cooked together in one pot at the same time.
Here's what arrived:
A strangly moulded circular pile of rice with peas artfully arranged on top. Pieces of separately cooked seafood were carefully arranged on top of that stack and other seafood items were dotted around the strange piece of china it was served on.
Again, top quality ingredients, well cooked. But paella it ain't. It's seafood served with rice and peas.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Armed police storm Emirates flight at Heathrow
Armed officers have stormed a plane at London's Heathrow airport as it was about to depart for Dubai and arrested three men on suspicion of making a bomb threat, police say.
The three men arrested Friday night aboard an Emirates Airlines plane at Heathrow Airport had made a verbal threat to staff, police said Saturday.
The men, ages 58, 48, and 36, were arrested on suspicion of making a bomb threat and remain in police custody
Sky News television, which broadcast the grainy picture from the plane, said the men arrested were English and appeared to be drunk.
No surprise there then, from my experience of Emirates and Virgin flights into and out of Heathrow.
To avoid flying with drunks falling about and throwing up we're going back to flying with Singapore Airlines.
I don't know what the maximum penalty is but I hope it's what these morons get.
The story is here and here.
NEXT DAY UPDATE
Robert Fowles, 58, from Dover, Kent, is accused of making a bomb hoax and being drunk on the Dubai-bound Emirates flight on Friday night, the Metropolitan Police said.
Another man on the plane, Alexander McGinn, 48, also from Dover, has also been charged with being drunk on an aircraft.
A third passenger on board the plane who was arrested at the time - a man aged 36 - was released without charge.
The three men arrested Friday night aboard an Emirates Airlines plane at Heathrow Airport had made a verbal threat to staff, police said Saturday.
The men, ages 58, 48, and 36, were arrested on suspicion of making a bomb threat and remain in police custody
Sky News television, which broadcast the grainy picture from the plane, said the men arrested were English and appeared to be drunk.
No surprise there then, from my experience of Emirates and Virgin flights into and out of Heathrow.
To avoid flying with drunks falling about and throwing up we're going back to flying with Singapore Airlines.
I don't know what the maximum penalty is but I hope it's what these morons get.
The story is here and here.
NEXT DAY UPDATE
Robert Fowles, 58, from Dover, Kent, is accused of making a bomb hoax and being drunk on the Dubai-bound Emirates flight on Friday night, the Metropolitan Police said.
Another man on the plane, Alexander McGinn, 48, also from Dover, has also been charged with being drunk on an aircraft.
A third passenger on board the plane who was arrested at the time - a man aged 36 - was released without charge.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Still in the pre-internet age
There's a huge gulf between the claim that Dubai is an ultra-modern commercial/financial centre and the out-of-date thinking of so many of the companies operating here.
We're still in the age when to get anything sorted out people are expected to visit companies personally and wait in endless queues. In an age when e-mails aren't even read let alone replied to. In an age when material needs to be sent to companies by fax.
Companies got as far as understanding that a website was a good idea - but having set them up they simply left them. Huge numbers of them are several years out of date, making them useless.
On various forums there are regular complaints from people overseas that they get no response to e-mails to hotels, tour companies and others.
There are a couple of reports in Gulf News today that continue the story, relating to the ultra-modern tallest structure in the world, Burj Khalifa.
The first is headed "Confusion over Burj website owner persists" and talks about the people involved in registering burjkhalifa domain names.
How could it be allowed to get to this? When the name Burj Khalifa was decided on it should have immediately been protected. It's very basic stuff that the domain names such as burjkhalifa.com and .ae and .org and .info and the others should have been registered.
They weren't, so we have the free-for-all that's now going on.
The official website is all over the place too.
That Emaar site is still burjdubai.com and that's what the tower is still called on the site.
The second report is about the queues for Observation Deck tickets, in which the final para says "The announced online ticket booking on the tower's website was not yet active at the time of going to press."
I went to check it. If you browse through the Observation Deck section you'll find the valuable information: "At The Top will open in January 2010." Will open. How long ago was that put on the site?
A pop-up tells you to: "Purchase your tickets online for the date and time of your choice" but nothing happens if you click on it.
The Observation Deck was obviously planned years ago, everything's now in place, it's up and running - but no-one thought to have the website ready.
What's going on with management and IT people here?
The stories are here and here.
We're still in the age when to get anything sorted out people are expected to visit companies personally and wait in endless queues. In an age when e-mails aren't even read let alone replied to. In an age when material needs to be sent to companies by fax.
Companies got as far as understanding that a website was a good idea - but having set them up they simply left them. Huge numbers of them are several years out of date, making them useless.
On various forums there are regular complaints from people overseas that they get no response to e-mails to hotels, tour companies and others.
There are a couple of reports in Gulf News today that continue the story, relating to the ultra-modern tallest structure in the world, Burj Khalifa.
The first is headed "Confusion over Burj website owner persists" and talks about the people involved in registering burjkhalifa domain names.
How could it be allowed to get to this? When the name Burj Khalifa was decided on it should have immediately been protected. It's very basic stuff that the domain names such as burjkhalifa.com and .ae and .org and .info and the others should have been registered.
They weren't, so we have the free-for-all that's now going on.
The official website is all over the place too.
That Emaar site is still burjdubai.com and that's what the tower is still called on the site.
The second report is about the queues for Observation Deck tickets, in which the final para says "The announced online ticket booking on the tower's website was not yet active at the time of going to press."
I went to check it. If you browse through the Observation Deck section you'll find the valuable information: "At The Top will open in January 2010." Will open. How long ago was that put on the site?
A pop-up tells you to: "Purchase your tickets online for the date and time of your choice" but nothing happens if you click on it.
The Observation Deck was obviously planned years ago, everything's now in place, it's up and running - but no-one thought to have the website ready.
What's going on with management and IT people here?
The stories are here and here.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Smoking ban extended
I've been surprised that the ban on smoking in places like shopping malls and restaurants has been obeyed by just about everyone.
Now there's a new federal law that extends the ban to include public transport and public places(a bit vague that one) houses of worship, educational institutions and health and sports facilities.
There's one more - a ban on smoking in a vehicle with a child of up to 12 years in it.
For a bad example to children and for the damage to their health that's about the worst place to smoke. But I think it's going to be a difficult one to enforce.
Gulf News has the story here.
Now there's a new federal law that extends the ban to include public transport and public places(a bit vague that one) houses of worship, educational institutions and health and sports facilities.
There's one more - a ban on smoking in a vehicle with a child of up to 12 years in it.
For a bad example to children and for the damage to their health that's about the worst place to smoke. But I think it's going to be a difficult one to enforce.
Gulf News has the story here.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Burj Dubai Khalifa official opening
After the big firework/light display for the official opening we at last know the height of the world's tallest structure.
Photo: The National
It's 828 metres, a dramatic increase on the previous tallest building Taipei 101 which is 509.2 metres.
You get some idea of the size of the thing when you see it against other 'normal' skyscrapers...
Photo: Bloomberg. Sydney Morning Herald
It isn't just the height that strikes me but also the mass. Each of those sections at the bottom are the size of a 'normal' tower. It's an absolutely huge building.
Brand Dubai's suffered a loss though because the word Dubai has disappeared from the name. It's officially Burj Khalifa, named after the President of the UAE and Ruler of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
Burj, by the way, is the Arabic word for tower.
The opening has been covered all over the world, naturally, and I've been glancing at comments left on blogs and forums.
Two particular areas, the renaming and the finance, are attracting the usual crowd of the uninformed.
On the renaming there are plenty of comments that it's payback for the Abu Dhabi loans to some Dubai World companies and that Abu Dhabi will now own the building.
The other area is that 'Dubai's bust' and can't afford the building.
There are several things these people don't understand. First, they don't understand that 'Dubai' doesn't own the building, and nor can 'Abu Dhabi'. They don't understand that the developer is Emaar, which is a very profitable company and nothing to do with Dubai World. They don't understand that the building was over 90% sold off-plan, that the individual investors own the building and that their money was used to fund the construction.
It's a fact of life that a complete lack of knowledge doesn't deter people from stridently stating an opinion, confidently expressed as fact but in reality far from it.
The renaming is actually more far reaching, especially for Brand Dubai, than just changing the nameplate on one building.
The city being built around the tower is Downtown Burj Dubai. Presumably that will now be Downtown Burj Khalifa. The Metro station is Burj Dubai Station, which presumably now has to be Burj Khalifa Station. The brand name Dubai has lost a lot of future publicity.
There are other areas which are affected too, such as contracts held by the thousand or so owners, which must say they own part of Burj Dubai and will therefore need to be changed to say Burj Khalifa.
Interesting times.
Reuters have a clip of the fireworks on YouTube, here.
Photo: The National
It's 828 metres, a dramatic increase on the previous tallest building Taipei 101 which is 509.2 metres.
You get some idea of the size of the thing when you see it against other 'normal' skyscrapers...
Photo: Bloomberg. Sydney Morning Herald
It isn't just the height that strikes me but also the mass. Each of those sections at the bottom are the size of a 'normal' tower. It's an absolutely huge building.
Brand Dubai's suffered a loss though because the word Dubai has disappeared from the name. It's officially Burj Khalifa, named after the President of the UAE and Ruler of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
Burj, by the way, is the Arabic word for tower.
The opening has been covered all over the world, naturally, and I've been glancing at comments left on blogs and forums.
Two particular areas, the renaming and the finance, are attracting the usual crowd of the uninformed.
On the renaming there are plenty of comments that it's payback for the Abu Dhabi loans to some Dubai World companies and that Abu Dhabi will now own the building.
The other area is that 'Dubai's bust' and can't afford the building.
There are several things these people don't understand. First, they don't understand that 'Dubai' doesn't own the building, and nor can 'Abu Dhabi'. They don't understand that the developer is Emaar, which is a very profitable company and nothing to do with Dubai World. They don't understand that the building was over 90% sold off-plan, that the individual investors own the building and that their money was used to fund the construction.
It's a fact of life that a complete lack of knowledge doesn't deter people from stridently stating an opinion, confidently expressed as fact but in reality far from it.
The renaming is actually more far reaching, especially for Brand Dubai, than just changing the nameplate on one building.
The city being built around the tower is Downtown Burj Dubai. Presumably that will now be Downtown Burj Khalifa. The Metro station is Burj Dubai Station, which presumably now has to be Burj Khalifa Station. The brand name Dubai has lost a lot of future publicity.
There are other areas which are affected too, such as contracts held by the thousand or so owners, which must say they own part of Burj Dubai and will therefore need to be changed to say Burj Khalifa.
Interesting times.
Reuters have a clip of the fireworks on YouTube, here.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Update on 'service charge' update
Now you and I think it's fairly simple - a law was passed in 2006 saying it's illegal for restaurants to charge a 'service fee'.
Simple, it's illegal so they can't do it. Right?
Wrong.
We don't understand. It obviously isn't simple at all.
In fact from the number of updates and clarifications issued it must be very complicated.
As usual we have different officials in different ministries and departments, federal and emirate, clarifying the issue for us. Naturally, in the way of things here, the've all been different so we now have no idea what's actually happening.
I've tried in my previous three posts in the last week on 'service charges' to keep up with the updates and clarifications.
It's illegal so they have to stop it. Except restaurants and cafes operating inside hotels and those paying taxes to the local governments.
Customers can't refuse to pay the 'service charge'. Yes they can refuse to pay.
A bylaw has to be issued, in about two weeks, before the law can be enforced. Enforcement will happen immediately.
A grace period to allow restaurants to adjust their systems. No grace period will be allowed.
Got that?
By the way, whatever happened to the official government spokespeople? I posted about the announcement that they were being appointed to stop this kind of confusion way back in March last year.
Getting that idea up and running must also be much more complicated than it appears.
Today's clarification is here.
Simple, it's illegal so they can't do it. Right?
Wrong.
We don't understand. It obviously isn't simple at all.
In fact from the number of updates and clarifications issued it must be very complicated.
As usual we have different officials in different ministries and departments, federal and emirate, clarifying the issue for us. Naturally, in the way of things here, the've all been different so we now have no idea what's actually happening.
I've tried in my previous three posts in the last week on 'service charges' to keep up with the updates and clarifications.
It's illegal so they have to stop it. Except restaurants and cafes operating inside hotels and those paying taxes to the local governments.
Customers can't refuse to pay the 'service charge'. Yes they can refuse to pay.
A bylaw has to be issued, in about two weeks, before the law can be enforced. Enforcement will happen immediately.
A grace period to allow restaurants to adjust their systems. No grace period will be allowed.
Got that?
By the way, whatever happened to the official government spokespeople? I posted about the announcement that they were being appointed to stop this kind of confusion way back in March last year.
Getting that idea up and running must also be much more complicated than it appears.
Today's clarification is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
