Rendered Speechless

Yesterday, retired judge Sir Peter Gibson reported on his review of 20,000 top secret documents following allegations of wrongdoing against MI5 and MI6 officers. Gibson found evidence that the UK had been "inappropriately involved" in some renditions, and that a further investigation was needed into investigations of complicity.

Let me just spell that out for you. The UK has been involved in the illegal transfer of persons to another country for the purposes of torture.

Documents found in the Libyan foreign ministry after the civil war in 2011 show that both the CIA and MI6 rendered suspects to the Libyan authorities in the full knowledge they would be tortured. Yes, you heard right. Two western democracies were flying people in to what they for years had considered a rogue, terrorist state so they could circumvent their own justice system. On some occasions, these were their own citizens.

So why isn't there widespread outrage in the UK about this? Simple. We've been led to believe that it is somehow vital for our "national security" that we allow the security forces to operate outside the rule of law. That they be allowed to employ torture - widely regarded as ineffective in obtaining accurate, useful information - to "protect" us.

Not that these actions did much to protect Shaker Aamer. A Saudi citizen and a British resident, Aamer was picked up by the CIA in Afghanistan in November 2001 and rendered to Guantanamo Bay three months later. He has been held there since without charge.  Aamer has never been charged with any offence, never received a trial and has been cleared for release by both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Aamer was rendered to Guantanamo Bay on the basis of information provided by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, who turned him over to the US forces in exchange for a cash bounty. The evidence for detaining him in Guantanamo came from a detainee dismissed as "entirely unreliable"  and who is known to have been tortured in order to obtain information.

There is no other reason for him to still be in Guantanamo, other than the fact that if he is released he will be in position to reveal the methods used by the CIA, MI5 and MI6 supposedly for our protection, and they don't want to lose what little public support they have left.

The Gibson report came out on the same day as the verdict was delivered on the two men who murdered soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich. Coincidence? Maybe. 

What better way to reinforce the idea that we need to export people with no connection to terrorism to foreign states where they can be tortured, than to remind us of the threat of terrorism on our own doorstep?

The rendition and Rigby stories have at least provoked some debate on what drives Islamic terrorism. Sadly the fact that the key driver is Western foreign policy, in particular the way the US and UK dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq under the guise of "tackling terrorism", is the elephant in the room. Anyone positing that as a cause of Islamic terrorism is dismissed as a radical to be hectored and ridiculed on news shows.

If we want to prevent Islamic terrorism either on our streets or against British targets in the Middle East, how about we start repairing some of the damage we've done? Be a much more worthwhile investment than the social and moral cost of sending innocent people into torture.

Sunday is Funday

Guests at the upcoming Charles Manson wedding have been advised to politely decline if the groom suggests a toast.

Two people have denied keeping three women as slaves in their home for thirty years, claiming they were actually unpaid interns.

China has made the first successful test flight of a stealth drone. According to eyewitnesses….

After the publicity success of Movember, the government are hoping that rising fuel prices will do the same for the elderly during “Decimatember”

I don’t understand the concept behind Beaujolais Nouveau. It’s like paying double to go into Nandos and eat raw chicken.

James Arthur is following the well-worn path of celebrity self-destruction. Fame, Twitter spat, abusive text messages. Expect to see him on next year’s Children in Need in a PVC catsuit, twerking at Gloria Hunniford.

The John Lewis ad. The heartwarming story of a bear discovering the real meaning of Christmas, and his woodland friends discovering the real meaning of “omnivorous”

If you are thinking of moving banks from the Co-Op because someone who works there did drugs, you’re going to be snort of options

.

Shoplifters in Hull have taken to stealing probiotic drinks. They’re real culture vultures.

Gordon Brown only agreed to the Commonwealth summit being in Sri Lanka this year so Glasgow would look better next year.

341 people have been arrested for child porn offences in Toronto. All have said that they only accessed the material while in a drunken stupor.

Nick Clegg has said that Roma immigrants need to be sensitive to British traditions. Like the press labelling them baby-stealing, benefit-scrounging health tourists.

The woman who stalked Alec Baldwin has been jailed for contempt of court. The woman who stalked Billy Baldwin has been jailed for contempt of her self-esteem

UK schools are being put on flu watch. The things the BBC will do to keep Chris Packham busy.

Dear work. Sorry, but I can’t come in tomorrow. I appear to have padlocked myself in a holdall, like you do.

Welcome to Amazon assist, how can we help? Ah, hello. I’m calling because I need to delete ten year’s worth of speeches from the internet.

And finally, a few thoughts on our esteemed leader's trip to Sri Lanka...

David Cameron promises to send a strong message to Sri Lanka, after the chocolate on his pillow had melted by the time he got back to his hotel room.

David Cameron has acknowledged that his trip into Tamil territory will be difficult. The hotel he’s staying in doesn’t even have a whirlpool bath.

David Cameron has said that his talks in Sri Lanka will be “robust”, and that he did not and would never remove the Toblerone from the minibar.

Ideology Over Ideas

Let's face it, whether we consider ourselves to be a political animal or not, we all have an ideology we follow. A way of doing things that we believe to be "the right way".

In my case, I'm a socialist and a liberal (note the small "l").

I happen to believe that a good society is one that looks after those who are unable to look after themselves, and which gives its citizens the right to go about their business equally irrespective of gender, sexuality, race or religion.

Where it needs to be, my ideology is flexible enough that I can still object to things that I consider to be bad ideas - irrespective of what colour political coat they happen to be dressed in.

For some people though, the pull of their ideology is just so strong that it blinkers them to seeing what absolute crackpot nonsense their ideas are. One such case has reared its head from the government this week.

The Department for Education (DfE) has seen one of its internal reports leaked to the press. The report was commissioned to look at where a further £260m of savings could be made by the Department from its budget.

One of the suggestions related to the forced conversion of schools to Academy status. Academies are the pet project of the Education Secretary Michael Gove. Schools which are deemed to be "failing" will have their governors removed and forced to convert to Academy status, irrespective of the wishes of parents, pupils or staff and even where they are already showing signs of improvement.

Often the Academy will be run in association with a private sector "sponsor". It is funded directly by central government and therefore taken out of local authority control,.

Forcing a school to convert to an Academy is a resource intensive process. It takes a lot of time and money out of the DfE budget,, for what in some cases can be very little in terms of positive outcomes. So the report suggested that value for money be taken into account when deciding whether to force a conversion to Academy status. A pretty reasonable suggestion, given the way the Tories bang on about keeping public spending under control you would think.

It was immediately ruled out by Michael Gove as "totally wrong". Leaving the potential grammatical inaccuracies in that statement aside, how can something which takes account of value for money and the potential benefits to a school be "wrong"?

Simple. Getting schools out of local authority control and increasing private sector involvement in education is Gove's ideology. It's an ideology which he will not be swayed from, even when civil servants in his own department come up with ideas that will save money from his budget. It's the same reason the DfE sat on reports of £80,000 of financial "irregularities" at a flagship Academy in Bradford for months. Nothing must be said or done which makes the ideology look bad.

This isn't an isolated example either. Take the sell-off of £12bn worth of the NHS, for no other reason than the ideology that private sector = good, public sector = bad. Or the re-privatisation of the East Coast Main Line rail franchise, which has returned a surplus to the taxpayer since it has been back in public hands but must now be franchised, because apparently only the private sector knows how to properly run a railway.

Two separate studies from University College London this week have shown that immigrants make a significant net contribution to the Treasury. They are more likely to pay more in than they take out when compared to those of a similar age and gender born in the UK. The studies consider that the government's targets to reduce net migration substantially are neither a "useful tool nor measure of policy effectiveness".

The government's response? To continue to insist that the country is overrun with "benefit tourists" who are a drain on society, despite all the evidence that flies in the face of that statement.

I actually feel a little sorry for David Cameron. He seems like a reasonably decent sort of bloke trying to do his best, but he's painted into a corner by the frothing lunatics that form the basis of his core support. A cadre that was brought up in a post-war, mainly white Britain with a rigid class system where the poor made things that the rich could sell and keep all the money from.

Any attempt to modernise or move away from their ideology will see them desert the Tories for the even loonier fringes of UKIP, which is itself splitting at the seams.

So for now, expect to see more ideology over ideas. The good news is that in 18 months, we can all do something about it and start putting some common sense back into Britain. Don't waste your chance.

Mambo Number 13

The 2013 rugby league World Cup starts next weekend. In its honour, I've re-worked the lyrics to Lou Bega's "Mambo Number 5" for your delectation.

The original is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unlc89KvLt4) for those of you who can't remember it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you "Mambo Number 13..."

"One, two, three, four, five

Everybody in your cars, come on let's drive

To stadiums across the country

For the biggest stars of rugby league

You'll ever see

Show their skills, every week

Cause in this game, well talk is cheap

There's Australia, England, Wales and New Zealand

And so it continues with Scotland, France and Ireland

So who is going to lift to the trophy at Old Trafford?

We all hope it's going to be England

It's rugby league, it's our favourite game

With all these stars, remember their names

A little bit of Charnley on the right

A little bit of Ryan Hall in full flight

A little bit of Tomkins out the back

A bit of Sinfield keeping it on track

A little bit of Roby around the ruck

The bounce of the ball and a little luck

A ground full of fans making some noise

Let's all get behind the England boys.

Mambo Number 13!"

Ed Milliband - The Musical

Scene: The podium at the Labour party conference. Ed Milliband stands before a hushed audience, waiting to deliver his speech. He tentatively clears his throat…

“Conference. Fellow Labour members. Much has been said and written about my family and I over the last twelve months, not all of it flattering. Comparisons have been drawn to many people, including Mr Bean and both Wallace and Gromit. Yet both I and the party have emerged stronger from these difficult times, and let me tell you why. It’s because..”

(To the tune of “I Am What I Am”)

“I’m Ed Milliband.

I don’t need notes, I don’t need prompters

I write my own speech, even though some

Might think that’s bonkers.

I’m like a warrior that’s on a mission

I’m out to give a kicking to the Coalition

I don’t give a damn, just let me shout out

I’m Ed Milliband.

I’m Ed Milliband

I’m not our Dave, no I’m not Tony

I’m still my own man

Trade unions, don’t try to own me.

UKIP are such a joke they've got me in stitches

Ladies, I don't care what's gathering behind your fridges

From Cornwall to Shetland, stand up and say

Vote Ed Milliband

I’m Ed Milliband

Whatever you say I’ll rise above it

Clarkson, bring it on

Stand against me, I’ll bloody love it

Socialists, time to get out of the closet

Let’s laugh when Nick Clegg loses his deposit

This government’s a sham, it’s time for change

I’m Ed Millibaaaaaaaaand.”

Rapturous applause, bouquets being thrown on from the side of the stage.

Short silence

Working class voice: “Blimey, that Michael Ball’s lost some weight hasn’t he?”

End

Weekend Whimsy

Just for fun, a few bits you might find amusing. Go on, unleash your inner giggle...

Ryanair have vowed to remove everything from their service that unnecessarily annoys their passengers. So that’ll be their website, staff, Chief Executive...

UKIP – doing for the immigration debate what sailors on shore leave do for city centres

The Godfrey Bloom scandal has overshadowed the important policy decisions made at the UKIP conference – immigration, public spending and the unicorn cull.

Not keen on this new game where you have to kidnap the first Chancellor of a united Germany – Grand Theft Otto V B.

Durham police have left red boxes around the town for people to deposit their drugs in as part of an amnesty. That’s going to be a really good game of Deal or No Deal when they get those back to the station. “Box 12 please Sarge.” “It’s a blue Chief, a blister pack of Viagra.”

Ed Milliband has promised this week to keep public spending under control, disassociate his party from the Unions and keep a cap on immigration. Did he wander into the wrong conference by mistake or something?

Bradley Wiggins got a knighthood for winning the Tour de France. For winning the Tour of Britain he gets a Tufty club badge and a year’s free hire of Boris bikes.

In this series of Downton Abbey, the part of Lady Grantham will be played by a replacement bus service between Lady Peterborough and Lady Newark Northgate.

So the Edinburgh Zoo panda may not be pregnant after all. Hard to tell with pandas though. Nothing’s ever black or white.

The developers of the new Grand Theft Auto game have responded to criticism that their games are too violent by making some changes. Players must now raise funds for Comic Relief to set up a rehab centre for former prostitutes.

Security is being reviewed at Buckingham Palace after guards challenged a loudmouthed, unemployed ex-serviceman found strolling through the grounds like his family owned the place.

George Osborne is right, the economy has turned a corner. Straight into a branch of Cash Converters.

Have you seen the designs for the new Olympic Stadium in Tokyo? It's the size of a pinhead but still seats 3 million people.

Went to a preview screening of the new Diana film. Bit of a car crash to be honest.

Dennis Nilsen's old flat is up for sale. Still full of lots of original features. A nose, a couple of ears, a penis...

They say always finish on a song. This one's a sneak preview of Miley Cyrus's new interpretation of Dolly Parton's "9 to 5"

Wake up in the evening, cursing and a bitchin’

Wish my talent matched my ambition

Bump and grind, just to feel alive

Jump on the stage and the blood starts pumping

Forget your popping, locking or crumping

Girls like me love to twerk from 9 to 5

Twerking 9 to 5

I used to be on Nickelodeon

Now I shake my thang

When I’m up there on the podium

My poor Pa

It makes his heart all achy breaky

I swear sometimes

He don’t know how to take me

Twerking 9 to 5

No more Hannah Montana

It’s a sex tape next

Where did I put that banana

Twerking 9 to 5

Making lines all nice and blurry

Driving teenage boys

Into a masturbating fury

Twerking – 9 to 5...

An Intelligent Design For Life

Let's get this straight from the off. I'm a man of science. Show me something that's true and actual, and everything will be satisfactual.

I'm not a man of faith. If you have faith, I'm happy for you. If you've found a God and a belief system that you can work with then kudos.

Just keep it to yourself will you? In particular, don't try to teach anyone that it's worth the same or more than science.

One of the big areas of frustration for me is the insistence that evolution isn't really how living things got to be like they are. Instead, everything was designed by God to be like this - the process known as "intelligent design". No matter what evidence you might be able to throw at the ID crowd (not to be confused with the IT Crowd, or the 1D Crowd) - little things like the fossil record for example - they're not having it.

So let's examine how their claims stack up against The Bible shall we? Exactly how intelligent was their creator's "Design For Life"?

I'll even be generous. I'll assume that the first person on earth (let's call him Adam for sake of argument).was designed in his entirety by God. Not a great job mind, given God put his reproductive bits in an enormously perilous and uncomfortable position, stuck his brain on the very top where stuff could fall on it and his heart behind a protective "cage" with huge gaps in the middle.

So anyway, there we have Adam. The Bible then tells us that Adam got a wife from God, made out of one of his ribs. Now thanks to the work of scientists, we know about DNA. If you take a rib out of someone and use it to make someone else, that someone else is going to have the DNA of the rib donor. So they are going to be effectively identical twins. God, in his ultimate wisdom, created identical twins and made them breed.

Again - intelligent? Those in charge of zoo breeding programmes for endangered species know that you have to keep genetically similar lines of breeding apart, otherwise you get all sorts of health issues. Look at Norfolk for example.

Not God though. Oh no. His intelligent design knew much better. So Adam and the new girl (let's call her Eve) have kids. Now the Bible gets fuzzy here on how many and of what gender. Only three are named, and they are all boys, so it throws in a disclaimer to say that there are "other sons and daughters" in the mix too. Here's the thing though. They've all got the same parents, and they are supposed to be the root of the rest of mankind.

So we're not just talking two people committing incest here, we're talking about a whole family at it. Brothers and sisters, for generation after generation, doing the nasty and giving birth to more inbred offspring each time. Again, as a man of science I would query the "intelligence" behind this sort of design. It's no wonder we're all 99 point whatever percent identical from a DNA perspective with that kind of background.

That's just the physical stuff. I haven't even touched on the fact we're wired to be competitive, malevolent, selfish scrotebags with a short temper and the capacity to build weapons of infinite capacity to deliver death and suffering. Way to go, big guy!

So that's people sorted. All in all, not a great report card so far for God. Must do better next time, see me. Although preferably not via a piece of toast, or a teatowel, or whatever way you keep manifesting yourself.

So what about the environment he gave people to work with. The playground where we, and all the other species he found time to create, including the stuff that will kill us given half the chance, are meant to thrive and prosper.

Well for a start, two-thirds of it is covered in the wet stuff. Most of the things that live in the wet stuff can't survive on the dry stuff, and most of the things that live on the dry stuff can't survive in the wet stuff. Not great planning that.

The bits at the top and bottom are so cold to be completely inhospitable to anything above a microbial level. There are bits around the middle which are so hot and dry that they support the odd few reptiles, insects and other stuff that doesn't need much of the wet stuff - did I mention that, the things that can't live in the wet stuff still need it to survive, only some of the wet stuff will kill them if they drink it while the other won't.

So assuming God made us all in his own image - and that must have been the plan all along - why did he bother building a planet where we can only actually live on twenty percent of its surface area? Hardly an efficient use of time and resources, all that wasted carbon. Why make the moon and the stars and all the other guff in the universe that's so far away we'll never actually get to go there? Showing off? Why not put some of that hydrogen and helium to good use closer to home?

So that's the physical and mental aspects of people, and the planet on which we live, all designed by a supposedly hyper-intelligent supreme being. Frankly, if we ever have to start over we may as well just give the job to Kevin McLeod and let him get on with it. See if "Grand Intelligent Designs" makes a better job, it can hardly do any worse.

Let Sanity Prevail

Some sports like to market themselves as a contact sport. Not rugby league.

The 13-man code rightly markets itself as a "collision" sport.

Strong, athletic players hurtling into collisions at high speed and in charged atmospheres. Tempers are occasionally going to rise as the intensity and will to win predominant in professional athletes takes hold.

There will be flash points, words will be exchanged and occasionally things will get physical beyond the boundaries of the laws. Fans, for the most part, love it and almost expect it. A good confrontation can lift the volume and passion in a crowd, particularly the next time the players involved come face to face during the game.

So why are the disciplinary bodies in both hemispheres seemingly hell bent on taking it out of the game? Leeds Rhinos player Ryan Bailey recently found himself suspended for having the temerity to throw one back when an opposition player took a swing at him, for example.

Let me clarify, I'm not advocating the cheap shot. The king hit. The sly elbow of Cassidy on Morley, or Boyd on Brohman. I'm talking about two fellas coming face to face and blows being traded before it all gets broken up.

When the sin bin was introduced back in the 1980s, that was one of its main purposes. Send both players off for ten minutes, let them calm down and then get back to the game. Now however it seems that anything that vaguely resembles a bout of fisticuffs is going to lead to you sitting out a game or two on the sidelines.

I get that the sport has a public image it wants to project to broadcasters, sponsors and the parents of potential young players as a safe environment for families to watch and play sport. That makes sense, and like I have said I'm as much in favour of getting rid of thuggery from the game as the next fan.

The occasional punch up though, is and always has been part and parcel of the game. To have players sitting in the stands rather than on the pitch as a result of a bit of handbags is tipping the balance too far, a rush to sanitisation overtaking sanity.

A little light relief

I'm conscious things have been terribly serious in this little corner of the Internet for a while now, so I thought I'd share with you a couple of songs, sketches, jokes old and new, with us around, you won't feel blue, so meet the gang... sorry, sidetracked there for a minute.

Ahem. Anyway, for your delectation may I first present...

Theresa (to the tune of "Delilah" by Tom Jones)

I saw your van every night as it passed by my window

I saw the words telling me to pick up the phone

You want me out of your country

But all I want is for you to just leave me alone

My, my, my Theresa.

Why, why, why Theresa?

Can’t you see, you may be Home Secretary

I’ve applied for asylum so why can’t you just let me be?

I get why you want rid of Hamza and Abu Qatada

You don’t want them here preaching their sermons of hate

I just came to escape persecution

So why do you treat me like an enemy of the state?

My, my, my Theresa.

Why, why, why Theresa?

Hear my song, no wonder feelings are strong

No matter the motive you couldn’t have got it more wrong

I see your men every morning at Kensal Rise station

Demanding the papers of anyone Asian or black

You claim to be guarding your borders

UKIP must have you worried so you’re going on the attack

My, my, my Theresa.

Why, why, why Theresa?

You’re too far right, it’s time to put up a fight

Forgive me Theresa, but you’re clearly not very bright

Forgive me Theresa, but you’re clearly not very bright.

Second on the bill, may I present as a tribute to the late Mel Smith...

I Believe (2013) - if you don't know the tune then the original can be found here

I believe Obama is trying to do his best.
I believe Bruce Willis still looks good in a vest
I believe Zimmerman's as innocent as Fred West
I believe, yes I believe

I believe the royal baby is going to be black
I believe Abu Qatada will be coming back
I believe Piers Morgan isn't a talentless hack
I believe, yes I believe

I believe we love our weather
That Bruce Forsyth will live for ever
And that Walford's a bit dull without...
Heather

I believe that there is beef in Findus pancakes
I believe that Tony Blair admits to his mistakes
I believe that Ed Milliband is better than Dave
And that even the Mexicans love that bloody wave

I believe everyone likes a vuvuzela
I believe that Simon Cowell's a lovely fella
I believe that nobody really knew about Savile
I believe Ed Snowden really hates air travel
And I believe the NHS is safe with Jeremy Hunt
But I can't believe David Cameron's not a ....

And finally, a commercial presentation on behalf of our sponsors...

Do you enjoy taking long walks on warm summer evenings? 
The sound of traditional music?
Ornate embroidery on a large scale?
Want to meet others with similar interests? 
Then why not join us at Orange Dating?

Just listen to what some of our satisfied members had to say...

"After a hard day of marching, I used to be so sad coming home to a microwave meal for one. Through Orange Dating I found someone who I can share my life with. Plus it never hurts to have a second set of prints on a Molotov cocktail." - Ian P, Belfast

"As an obsessive knitter, I was forever turning out more balaclavas than I knew what to do with. Through Orange Dating I've met loads of new friends who are only too happy to model my designs, even on the warmest summer nights." - Mrs P, Belfast
So if you hate the Pope but love the smell of burning diesel, why not come march to a different beat?

Orange Dating - putting the sexy back in sectarianism!

Time to make a decision...

There has been some terrific cricket played, mainly by England, so far in this Ashes series.

The focus however has been less on the quality of the play, and more on the umpiring. In particular, the Decision Review System (DRS) has come in for some criticism.

For those who don't follow the sport, DRS is a system which permits the players to challenge umpiring decisions that they believe might be wrong. Each side gets a maximum of two reviews per innings, the incident being referred to an off-field umpire who can use technology to examine whether the on-field call was correct. If the review goes your way, it doesn't count as one of your two for the innings.

It's not a novel idea, a similar system exists in professional tennis. Both codes of rugby have a process where the on-field referee can ask for incidents to be reviewed to determine the correct decision. The main difference however, and where cricket stands alone, is that these sports use it to establish the correct decision. In cricket, there is a presumption that the on-field decision was correct unless there is overriding evidence to the contrary.

Therein, lies cricket's problem with technology. Other sports have been able to embrace the concept that sometimes their officials need help in getting it right, and that a game where officials get most of their decisions correct is a better one for players, spectators and sponsors alike.

Cricket however remains stuck in a bygone age of gentlemen and players, where the umpire's decision is always correct, even when it isn't. That it operates in this presumption is causing it untold problems, as is the insistence on no more than two unsuccessful referrals per innings.

The Australian first innings in the 3rd Test at Old Trafford provides a perfect example.

Australian batsman Usman Khawaja was given out caught behind. Khawaja asked for a review, believing he'd not hit it. The thermal imaging system known as "Hot Spot" showed no evidence of the ball striking the edge of the bat. There was a noise, but it was some way after the ball had passed the bat. So there was no evidence to suggest that Khawaja had hit the ball.

However, as the original decision was that Khawaja was out, in order for this to be overturned there needed to be clear evidence that he hadn't hit the ball, not clear evidence that he had. Result, the original decision was upheld and he was given out by the off-field umpire.

How was Khawaja meant to prove that he hadn't done something? The only thing that could possibly have saved him would have been if the ball had been shown to hit something else other than his bat. So a clearly incorrect decision was allowed to stand because of the presumption that the on-field umpire was correct.

The knock-on effect could be seen in England's innings. Tim Bresnan was given out caught behind off a ball that brushed the clothing rather than the edge of the bat. Yet Bresnan chose not to review. Was he influenced by the difficulty Khawaja had in trying to prove a negative and thought better of potentially wasting a review?

Later in the Australian innings, England appealed for an lbw decision against Steve Smith. The on-field decision was not out, and was clearly shown to be incorrect by subsequent replays. However, England had already used their two unsuccessful reviews in that innings on other marginal decisions, so they couldn't ask the off-field umpire to review and overturn the on-field decision. 

So what's the solution to the problems that DRS is creating? In my opinion, it isn't to scrap it. It picks up and corrects too many poor decisions to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The solution is two-fold. 

An automatic review of every dismissal. If a batsman is given out on the field, he shouldn't be limited by whether his team-mates have already used all the side's reviews earlier in the innings.

The second part of the solution may not be as palatable to cricket's administrators. It's time to end the automatic presumption that the on-field call was correct. Review each decision on its merits from first principles. Remove the "umpire's call" element on leg before wicket decisions, so that if a ball meets all the criteria in the laws for it to be given out, then it's out whether it is  a marginal call or plumb in front.

In other words, use technology in the way other sports have embraced it. To provide the correct decision. It may be too much for cricket's Corinthian attitudes, but it's the only way the game can take DRS forward with any confidence.