It sure is.  Right now there are so many crazy things going on in the world that my conviction - that we live in God`s blueprint so that the initial design faults for humanity can be ironed out before we go into full time production - has been justified by many recent events.  I`ll turn to just one example to illustrate the point.

Hard on the heels of turbulent priests wandering yet again into politics and politicians themselves playing their ya-boo games which continue to insult the intelligence of those who put them there, we now have the judiciary once again confirming that not only can the law itself be an ass but so too can those who are supposed to display experience, knowledge, understanding and common sense when dispensing their conclusions.

A killer who apparently cannot be named for legal reasons (really) has successfully brought a legal challenge under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act.  Here`s the saga - the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber heard that the killer arrived in Britain 18 years ago, when he was 28.  He entered the country illegally and claimed asylum on the grounds that he had been detained as a Tamil during the Sri Lankan civil war, but his claim was rejected.

He appealed, lost the appeal but then lodged another appeal on human rights grounds -  including under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prohibits `torture or inhumane or degrading treatment.`  Once again, his appeal was rejected, after which he went on to commit a number of criminal offences, mainly at `the lower end of the spectrum of severity.`  But in 2006 he was handed two short jail terms for assault and a further assault later that year which led to a hospital order.

In 2010 he committed a far more serious offence when he stabbed a man 21 times who was living with him in the sheltered accommodation they shared.  The victim died of his wounds.  In September last year, by now aged 45  and a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, he renewed his asylum bid and in the Lower Tribunal a judge allowed the case on Article 3 grounds.  It was ruled that "it was likely that he would face a real risk of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment at the border of Sri Lanka."

The Home Office appealed this ruling but the ruling was upheld by the Upper Tribunal.  So there we have it.  Yet another expensive, time consuming legal saga resulting in a convicted killer who should not have been here in the first place, not only being allowed to stay but also being unable to be identified even though his name would have been made public at his criminal trial.

As to the application of common sense in this case the judge should surely have taken account of the fact that they play cricket in Sri Lanka.  And very well too.