Question: Given the below context: Fowzi Nejad was the only gunman to survive the SAS assault. After being identified, he was dragged away by an SAS trooper, who allegedly intended to take him back into the building and shoot him. The soldier reportedly changed his mind when it was pointed out to him that the raid was being broadcast on live television. It later emerged that the footage from the back of the embassy was coming from a wireless camera placed in the window of a flat overlooking the embassy. The camera had been installed by ITN technicians, who had posed as guests of a local resident in order to get past the police cordon, which had been in place since the beginning of the siege. Nejad was arrested, and was eventually tried, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the siege. He became eligible for parole in 2005. As a foreign national, he would normally have been immediately deported to his home country but Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act 1998, has been held by the European Court of Human Rights to prohibit deportation in cases where the person concerned would be likely to be tortured or executed in his home country. Nejad was eventually paroled in 2008 and granted leave to remain in the UK, but was not given political asylum. The Home Office released a statement, saying "We do not give refugee status to convicted terrorists. Our aim is to deport people as quickly as possible but the law requires us to first obtain assurances that the person being returned will not face certain death". After 27 years in prison, Nejad was deemed no longer to be a threat to society, but Trevor Lock wrote to the Home Office to oppose his release. Because it is accepted by the British government that he would be executed or tortured, he cannot be deported to Iran under the Human Rights Act 1998. He now lives in Peckham, south London, having assumed another identity. Guess a valid title for it!
Answer: Iranian Embassy siege
[Q]: Given the below context: In 1969, American rock musician Jimi Hendrix, who was then at the height of his career, was arrested, tried, and acquitted in Canada for drug possession. On May 3, 1969, customs agents at Toronto International Airport detained Hendrix after finding a small amount of what they suspected to be heroin and hashish in his luggage. Four hours later, after a mobile lab confirmed what had been found, he was formally charged with drug possession. Released on $10,000 bail, Hendrix was required to return on May 5 for an arraignment hearing. During a performance at Maple Leaf Gardens later that night, he displayed a jovial attitude, joking with the audience and singing a few lines of mock opera for comedic effect. At a preliminary hearing on June 19, Judge Robert Taylor set a date for December 8, at which Hendrix would stand trial for two counts of illegal possession of narcotics, for which he faced as many as 20 years in prison. While there was no question as to whether the drugs were in Hendrix's luggage, in order for the Crown to prove possession they had to show that he knew they were there. In his cross-examination of Canadian customs officials, defense attorney John O'Driscoll raised doubts about whether the narcotics belonged to Hendrix, who had no drug paraphernalia in his luggage or needle tracks on his arms. After a trial that lasted for three days, the jury deliberated for 8 hours before returning a not guilty verdict, acquitting Hendrix of both charges. The incident proved stressful for Hendrix, and it weighed heavily on his mind during the seven months that he awaited trial. Two weeks after the arrest, he told his friend, journalist Sharon Lawrence, that his fear of needles discouraged him from using heroin and that associating with junkies had convinced him it was not a drug he wanted to use. Both of Hendrix's Experience bandmates, Mitch Mitchell and Noel Redding, later stated that they had been warned about a planned drug bust the day before flying to Toronto and they believed that drugs had been planted... Guess a valid title for it!
****
[A]: Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix
input: Please answer the following: Given the below context: The Slaters of Wolverhampton are plagued with Mrs. Slater's chronic debilitating asthma and her cooking limited to what comes in canned goods that she can heat in boiling water. Mr. Alan Slater is sick with worry and has a cantankerous personality. Nigel longs for a life that is more than a succession of canned-food dinners made from what can be heated in boiling water. When dinner is burnt, the standard substitute of toast is always served. He loves toast, with the crunchy outside giving way to buttery softness inside. Despite her infrequent forays into cooking meals from scratch, his mother's attempts to improve her cooking change nothing before or after her death. His father continues in widowhood with the same cooking style and frequent dinners of toast. The experience brings Nigel to conclude that he is not liked. Nigel learns from a friend that the way in which he could attempt a better relationship with his father is to cook a meal for him. His cooking efforts are thwarted by the new housekeeper, the married and "common" Mrs. Joan Potter, who seduces Alan with her apple pie and array of gourmet meals. The two start to spend time together: at one point, she exiting her council house through an upstairs window so as not to be found out by her husband. Without announcement, the Slaters move to the Herefordshire countryside along with Mrs. Potter. Nigel co-exists with her but never accepts her. She makes a competition of cooking when the teenaged Nigel's shows an emerging interest in developing his skills at school home economics class cookery lessons. Mrs. Potter's lemon meringue pie becomes Nigel's quest to learn the secret recipe. Guess a valid title for it!
++++++++++
output:
Toast (film)