No point in me applying, I wouldn't last 30 seconds. :-)
More waste of taxpayer funds

A large blast in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, has killed at least 50 people and injured more than 2,700 others, the health minister says.

It is not yet clear what caused the explosion at the city's port. Videos show smoke billowing from a fire, then a mushroom cloud following a blast.

Hospitals are said to be overwhelmed and many buildings have been destroyed.

Lebanon's internal security chief said the blast occurred in an area where highly explosive materials were stored.

A BBC journalist at the scene reported dead bodies and severe damage, enough to put the port of Beirut out of action.

The explosion comes at a sensitive time for Lebanon, with an economic crisis reigniting old divisions. Tensions are also high ahead of Friday's verdict in a trial over the killing of ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.

In the Lebanese capital Beirut, a major explosion occurred in the harbor near the historic center at the end of the afternoon. At least 73 people were killed and more than 3,700 people were injured. Among the injured are five employees of the Dutch embassy. According to Lebanese security services, more than 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate may have been stored unsafe since 2014.

It looks like a stockpile of ammonium nitrate. :-O

Possibly 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate stored in shed.

It looks like a stockpile of ammonium nitrate. :-O

Possibly 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate stored in shed.

The inferno & the mystery ship

Lebanon’s president said that multiple administrations since 2013 received warnings about the materials from the Rhosus. An investigation is ongoing and 20 port officials have been detained.

Psychologists and neuroscientists once studied moral decision-making predominantly through the lens of harm, fairness and concern for other people. For example, one approach was to peer at people’s brains while they caused or observed pain in others. But around a decade ago, it began to emerge that people’s “moral foundations” – how they decide what is right and wrong – are more complex, and crucially, differ according to background, culture and political ideology.

Progressive liberals, for instance, are more likely to make judgements based on the moral foundations of “care” and “fairness”, aiming to avoid harm to others, or embracing political issues such as equality (which might suggest that scientists previously had spent a bit too much time focused on studying only liberal morality). Traditional conservatives, by contrast, are often more likely to prioritise the moral values of “loyalty”, “respect for authority” and “purity/sanctity”, and so make moral choices that favour traditions, societal stability, and preserving the way of life of their communities and nations.

It’s not that conservatives are uncaring and liberals disloyal – the moral foundations can be present across society – but the point is that each person has different priorities about which values are most important to them when weighing up what is right or wrong. “We consult these underlying moral intuitions to figure out our position on an issue that we've never heard,” says Rathbun.

Consider people’s reasoning for justifying violence. When a conservative supports policies like the death penalty, torture or military force, they are not setting aside their ethical values, even if a liberal might strongly disagree. And a liberal supporting a protest movement that leads to public disorder and violent clashes with authority might find disagreement with their political opponents, but they are guided by what they believe is moral.

Last year, Rathbun and Rachel Stein of George Washington University set out to explore how people’s moral foundations affected their attitudes to nuclear weapons. Like with the “Atomic Aversion” study, the pair asked participants from the US to put themselves in the shoes of a leader weighing up whether to make a nuclear strike against a military base, varying factors such as weapon effectiveness, the identity of the enemy, and associated casualties.

The pair found that people who prioritised so-called “binding” moral values of loyalty and respect for authority – which probably evolved to strengthen the “in-group” and protect against external threats – were more likely to approve of the use of nuclear weapons in their scenarios. They also, perhaps unsurprisingly, were more likely to endorse the actions of a leader who had launched a nuclear attack. Even stronger support for nuclear weapons was found among people who value the moral rule of “an eye for eye” – perhaps one of the oldest ethical principles.

People with these binding and retributive values were also less likely to abandon their position as civilian casualties rose.

"It was VJ Day when the pain of war could finally start to fall away as peace was declared on all fronts," said Sir Tom - who raised millions of pounds for NHS charities by walking laps of his garden during lockdown.
"I respectfully ask Britain to stop whatever it is doing and take some time to remember.
"We must all take the time to stop, think and be thankful that were it not for the ultimate sacrifices made all those years ago by such a brave band of men and women, we would not be enjoying the freedoms we have today, even in these current difficult times."