Thursday, 29 November 2007
Some, including Inayat Bunglawala have protested that this is an overreaction etc. However, IB puts forward a dangerous concept in that he says that if it were a pig, then that would cause offence. He is trying to mark out territory here in the UK.
No. People should be free to call their pig Mohammed, a dog Adolf or canary David Abrahams. If the Sudan does not allow it, then the Sudan is a backward, ignorant, insecure, medaeval society. Inayat's protest is double edged, mark my words. In court because someone called their pet rat "Santa"? It is just as absurd.
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
1. Vince Cable is becoming the Leader the Lib Dems cannot (immediately) have. Classic lines from an intelligent man who does not always come across as a complete git. For weeks he has been coming in with well crafted, hard to brush off questions for Gordon on Northern Rock, soldiers, ID. As others have said, ridicule is a great weapon against both Islamists and Sociofascists.
2. Huhne, one half of the upcoming disappointment - one half of the Lib Dem's leadership "false dichotomy" - had a delicious spat with Health Minister Bradshaw, who was jabbing Huhne about their own donations fiasco. Raw nerve? Well Huhne set about Bradshaw like a Jack Russell playing with its favourate busted tennis ball, accusing the Labour Party of selling honours and when Brashaw retorted, Huhne, all wild eyed and ruddy cheeked, said "sue me". Now, many would say that most Labour ministers deserve being convered in puncture wounds and canine saliva, but this was a bit uncool for a prospective leader. Calamity Clegg and Havago Huhne are no match for Vince "steel" Cable.
3. If that Daily Politics cameraman tries that again, I am seriously tempted to go round there and punch him up the "frote"§. He knows what he was up to. BEHAVE.
The way New Labour is going, spurred on by their policy decisions and implementation gaffes, we shall see an attempt to outlaw cash. I am certain Gordon would love it, so he could see what any person was buying at any moment across the entire country.
Is there noone brave enough in the party to stand up and speak out or are you all completely spineless?Quite.
I do think some will crack and crack enough to split the party between the Political Classes and more solid sorts, unless they have given up the will to live and have been frog-boiled into an amphibian porridge.
Someone who is not yet boiled to a porridge because he leapt from the pan even before the water got warm is Alan Milburn. He is from the NE, so may be tarnished. Lets see.
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Are we now seeing a series of dramatic failures being used to entrench the problems? This is a manifestation of both the "I screwed up so I am best placed to fix it" meme that has been wormed into popular consciousness during this government and the "intentionally break to 'fix' it" idea so beloved of Socialists. Bastards.
UPDATE: How come the Labour Party wants to return the £400,000, yet UKIP's admin blunder, innocent in comparison, was set to have the donation snaffled by the State. One Rule for the Corrupt Leaders, in their Halls of Shame...
Not the work of entrepreneurs? Not the work of the Founders? Not the risk taken by shareholders and investors? Not the work of the employees? No, it is all due to this abstract rise in the economy. We all know who Statist lickspittles think is totally responsible for Britain's long economic success...it is of course
It would be funny if it were not for the fact that I do think that many people actually believe such drivel.
Is there no end to their utter contempt for the law, common decency, the electorate or our society?
As I have said before, New Labour have had their "moral compass" demagnetised long before they entered govenment in 1997.
I really do think that this increases the chances of a Labour split between the more honourable kind and the Political Classes that infest most parties these days. Gordon Brown will be caught between two stools, but as he is half-arsed he will end up on the floor. When the split happens, watch for musical chairs in the entire centre groud.
p.s. Iain also reveals (hat tipping Guido) that
Monday, 26 November 2007
Reasons are lower costs and lower emmissions.
Lower direct costs for the hauliers, I suppose - less labour.
Considering a 38-tonnne truck does 10,000 times more damage than a 1-tonne car, I do not see HGVs now paying their way.
If the aim of the scheme is to lower emissions by linking two containers together, that gives me an idea...
How about linking a whole string together so one driver could pull a multitude? How about making them run on special roads thatcan take such weights? Make the road and the wheels low friction but still able to take the weight and provide sufficient traction? How about making the roads dedicated and direct, so no risk of collisions from private vehicles or delays due to traffic etc.? If we use special computer management, we could even do without the driver when on the dedicated route, as computer control could keep each string of containers separate from each other. In case of failure, the part-time driver could know if the way ahead is clear by using a form of traffic lights as a fall-back system. That would be even more energy efficient.
I know what, lets call it a "railway"?
Friday, 23 November 2007
First it was Terminal 5, now it is Terminal 6 and a third runway.
BAA has a monopoly on London airports, so this is a worry for me. Personally, I think Heathrow is totally in the wrong place. Flights have to cross London due to prevailing winds and the same winds mean fumes are blown across the Capital increasing pollution.
The current figures are 450,000 flights a year, rising to 700,000 with T6 and the new runway, but they say even that is only 70% of demand. This to me suggests an entirely new airport. The ideal location is out to the East of London in the middle of the Thames estuary. This will solve the overfly and capacity issues. The new airport could be linked to the Channel Tunnel and national rail networks AND an in-town check-in facility.
This is quite practical now, seeing as we have electronic MoTs, almost, if not all, insurance policies cross-referenced and police use ANPR to check the status, not some badge in a window. I would not be surprised that the VED's main benefit today is to remind people they need to get an MoT - that is certainly what I end up using it for! Bloody expensive service, though, at £140 for next year's reminder...
If we do scrap, what needs to be resolved, however, is to have a form of physical receipt so that "compoo'er sez naaaao" failures do not end up with someone being hauled off and their car impounded, which does happen on occasion. This could be kept in the vehicle so that at least it will give the fuzz a moment of pause and other reference numbers to look up before they take knee-jerk action based upon the skills of a script-kiddie in Swansea (who probably took a sickie half way through writing that piece of code - and anyone in the trade will know that bugs and sick leave go hand in hand...).
However, this does not really solve much and certainly the sickie issue, for the scrapping of the VED will not result in the shutting down of the DVLA, for the MoT and Insurance cross referencing is, IIRC, run out of Swansea by the DVLA!
Thursday, 22 November 2007
It has since emerged that the National Audit Office, which had asked for the CDs, had specifically requested that bank details and other sensitive data be removed from them when it asked for other copies of the Child Benefit database in March, but a senior manager refused to do so on cost grounds.On cost grounds? Removal of certain items of data from each record (or a query only selecting the required ones)? Erm. Anyone with even the remotest knowledge of computer databases would suspect that to select a subset of fields is easy.
Any script kiddie could probably get the documentation, read up the record formats and knock up a bit of code in under an hour to sift it, and I would expect the person who got the data out could have just submitted the right query.
I wonder if this was seen as too expensive because the Manager in question asked one of their "Consultants" for a quote. Knowing them this would entail doing a needs analysis, talking to the customer, writing a functional spec, test plan, documentation, project plan etc etc etc. Probably about 2 weeks work all told at £1,200/day. Lets say £20grand between mates (sandbagging upon sandbags).
That, or they were just angling to get some "income" to their cost centre.
Here's the First Law expressed well in its three main variations:Put this in with the discussion at Liberal Conspiracy here. Many people, including Sunny Hundal, seem to not see pitfalls in creating "hate" crime, in that it will be used to erode Rule of Law by giving privilege to certain groups, for their "community leader"'s own ends.
"1. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more they are praised and their sins covered up.
2. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more racist it becomes to speak the truth about their behavior.
3. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more their behavior must be blamed on white racism." (source)
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
BBC4 just interviewd HMRC and HMRC will re-imburse any taxpayer who suffers a loss.
Who do HMRC get their money from again?
p.s. I include Hazel Blears as a link as this event is so hat-stand non-sequitur moonbatteration presented with bare-faced cheek that Hazel has to be involved somewhere.
Basically, translated, it means, instead of "I resign", with loss of post, salary, pension etc due to the terrible screw up, as a way off accepting the responsibility and out of honour, we have "I pretend to resign until a deal is done abdicating me from all hassle and guaranteeing my cosy life", i.e. with no loss of pay, retention of pension - i.e. he ducks out of ANY responsibility and floats away at our expense into a life of comfort. I expect to see this parasite on the board of a few QANGOs in the near future.
Utterly bare-faced shameless. Such actions are indicative at the corruption and behaviour at the top in Government. The Blair and Brown establishment have created an environment where such actions are seen as worthwhile chancing, asking for and have the likelihood of success, or at least little chance of any consequences if the audacity is not successful.
In any heirarchy, the source of corruption and modus operandi comes from the top down. The culture of an organisation is set from the top. The source, cause and blame for this outrageous behaviour lies with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Monday, 19 November 2007
We will be asked 53 questions, it seems, when we wish to travel.
It does include the need for an email address. Odd, isn't how how similar this sounds to something I blogged about earlier - the EU wanting such info.
Here we go again, the UK gold-plating ideas from the Sociofascists in the EU. They only want 19 pieces of information.
When I travel, I will try and obtain 2 exit visas, signed by Giscard d’Estaing himself...cannot be rescinded, not even questioned!
A Surfer Dude has put forward a new theory based on using the geometry of E8, a symmetrical shape in 248 dimensions (is that all?) . I am all for simplicity, so I must find out more.
"Y'cannae change the laws of Physics, Jim" but you can certainly repeal all the duff legislation!
Friday, 16 November 2007
Frank did try and suggest that employers would select people locally, but he surely knows that is actually against the law now, due to traitorous scumbags like him and his self-loathing Sociofascist lickspittles who have capitulated to the EU and allowed it, not the UK Parliament, to decide what happens here.
So, we are to be forced to fund the training of people from outside the UK. Dobson says hardly any will come, but then they said only around 15,000 people would come from the new EU member states.
They really are traitorous scumbags. If it were Frank Dobson's own personal money on the line, he'd think twice, but it is not AND he is just an also-ran lackey who will do anything to retain is position on the greasy pole.
Thursday, 15 November 2007
Kevin Carson replied with this interesting comment:
My reply was as follows:
Re the mutuals of the nineteenth century, it might be more accurate to say workers were generous *within their means*.
Under a genuine (i.e. non-capitalist) free market, in which the state did not intervene on behalf of capitalists and landlords to enforce artificial scarcity of land, and consequently labor received its full product as a wage, polarities of wealth would likely be far less. In such an environment, the working class would have the resources to fully fund mutual aid arrangements, cooperative insurance, and the like.
To paraphrase some Georgist-leaning libertarian on this side of the pond, the policy should not be welfare or charity, but justice. When workers receive their full product as a wage, they won’t need charity. And you won’t see society pages clogged with Rotary club yahoos wearing color-coded ribbons, breaking ground, handing over giant checks, kissing pigs for diabetes, etc., who in any just world would have their heads in a guillotine.
My attitude toward upper class philanthropy was expressed by a 19th century mill-worker, quoted by E.P. Thompson, whose attention was drawn to a chapel built by the “generous” mill-owner for his workers. The worker pointed out that the chapel was paid for by his own sweat, and added “I wish it might drop into Hell, and Mr ____ with it."
Though I saw some dancing around the edge after that, no replies have yet been able to challenge the above. Stunned into silence or singing "lalala" with their fingers in their ears? I have no idea, but I do think those at LC should really look at this, their attitudes to the past and then look at the State. Really look hard, I mean.
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Some do question if Alex Salmond is being honest in his sabre-rattling over independence, i.e. it is just a haggling position for more money and power but remain safe within the Union. Much as I do not want to see an end to the Union, that would be a shame, for it would mean yet another insincere, disingenuous politician.
We can have the Union with an English Parliament, but even if we do not, the key here is to utterly reject the traitorous moves by some to try and create Regions. They already exist in the form of QUANGOs (doing what of value, pray tell, except give cosy sinecures for jumped up councillors and failed nobodies?) and as such, they should be disbanded and the employees fired, with no golden parachutes, mind.
It is not Scotland I want to be rid of, but bad politicians, Statism and undemocratic processes. If people arrange it so that England must disconnect from or disband the Union, then so be it. It may end up being a lantern for the oppressed in Europe once again, after the benighted people wake up and realise they have been Collectivised by Stealth via the Autocratic and undemocratic EU political elite.
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
A CiF article in praise of Public Sector Fat Cat salaries.
We hear incessantly from Polly Toynbee regarding fat cat salaries in the private sector. Only this Sunday she poked her fizzog onto the gogglebox to both praise the Queen's Speech, Gordon AND moan yet again about private sector pay. Now? deathly silence when it is the public sector sorts getting massive pay rises. Hypocracy, both by the author of the CiF piece and "our Pol".
However, why would the (sensible) policy to "sack bad teachers" somehow not work, Chris? What do you suggest - keep them on board? So it seems. That is dogmatic, anti "boss" union/"werkuz" pandering, m'fraid. It also ignores all the structural problems that are at the root of why Chris thinks it will not work. Chris' objections are just symptoms of other systemic problems in the State Education paene-monopoly. Fix the problems, not mitigate the symptoms.
You suggest they would get rid of curmudgeons, expensive older teachers and those not towing the line on test results. Your answer is to stay their hand when the proper solution is to sort out the obsession with tests, have vouchers, allow Heads to hire and set pay and make sure the Heads goals are rational and in the best interests of the school and pupils. If you do that, the Heads would not jeopardize their jobs by firing the valuable teachers, those educating their children and so attracting large numbers of parents wanting to slap down vouchers on their desks. Why would they fire experienced and skilled teachers if they set their pay levels THEMSELVES instead of having daft payscales imposed on time-serving union members? They would not.
Amazing how many problems can be solved by dealing with the fundamental dysfunctions that come with central control, aspects of union interference and State provision!
While this would normally result in some bile, the consistency and energy expressed in the comments has been heartening.
The utter contempt that the author - a self-loather if ever there was one - has now been shown is delicious, especially the expose of his recent past.
As you may know, I posted on the Regionalisation By Stealth some time ago. They never give up, these vile parasites. All they want are comfy, unchallenged, taxpayer funded featherbeds.
Monday, 12 November 2007
Well, I have not been kicked off yet, if anything, I have become somewhat noted. Most people seem to be able to argue in good temper, even if we disagree. The mods did appear to get a "raid" from various juveniles, but, although I saw nothing of it, the mods seem on top of it. I think it is good to have a place where "Left Liberals" can hear that their desires to ban public schools, far from being "Liberal" and "progressive", are actually authoritarian. People need to have their ideas challenged, although some want to avoid that. I must say I find the term "Left Liberal" an oxymoron, a tautology even. Lets see.
I believe I am fairly pragmatic in my Libertarianism - e.g. I recognize we cannot dismantle everything overnight and some things are the least worst option - e.g. a Swiss style healthcare system - until people and the economy is developed enough to cope with more self-reliance and philanthropy. The difference between my view and some on LC is that I know sometimes when I am bending or suspending the ideological rules - I do not pretend that some things I support are actually "pure" Libertarian at all.
I know this is repetitive, but I do think it is important that each time disingenuous clap-trap is put out by these so-called "leaders", we do need to expose it for what it is. The MCB is, IMHO, one of the bigger enemies to harmony.
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), thinks the Government is stoking the tension.
"There is a disproportionate amount of discussion surrounding us," he says. "The air is thick with suspicion and unease. It is not good for the Muslim community, it is not good for society."
Unfortunately, the MCB is significantly to blame for the level of discussion, creating a "muslim" angle to things that are just not there and constantly seeing the world via the prism of belief.
The 53-year-old special needs teacher has a gentle manner and a quiet voice - he describes himself as a "community spokesman" rather than a "religious leader" - but he does not mince his words.An unelected one, too. If he is not a "religious leader", then why was he at the Cenotaph yesterday?
"Every society has to be really careful so the situation doesn't lead us to a time when people's minds can be poisoned as they were in the 1930s. If your community is perceived in a very negative manner, and poll after poll says that we are alienated, then Muslims begin to feel very vulnerable. We are seen as creating problems, not as bringing anything and that is not good for any society."
Surely Dr Bari should also consider those within the Muslim community who are poisoning minds to make people consider the general British and wider Western society in a negative manner? Most of the alienation is by so-called religious leaders having an attitude of separatism, of talking up difference. Unfortunately, almost all the good things that could be said to be about Islam are already in British society and culture, so it is not surprising all the differences appear negative.
There is, in his view, no such thing as Islamic terrorism.
"Terrorists are terrorists, they may use religion but we shouldn't say Muslim terrorists, it stigmatises the whole community. We never called the IRA Catholic terrorists." Dr Bari thinks Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, made the extremists' job easier by giving a bleak picture of the threat on the eve of the Queen's Speech.
The DT is being a bit confusing here. I agree that it is not good to use the term "Muslim terrorists", for, although almost all terrorists are Muslim, you cannot reverse the logic. However, the term "Islamic Terrorism" is not invalid. Dr Bari is blame-shifting (again). The point about the IRA is a dud, however, and has been fisked and will be fisked elsewhere.
"I think it is creating a scare in the community and wider society. It probably helps some people who try to recruit the young to terrorism. Muslim young people are as vulnerable as any others. Under this climate of fear they will begin to feel victimised."
Islam in itself does not help - the more someone learns about Islam, the worse it gets. It teaches blind faith, obedience. It makes matters worse. It is extraordinary that Dr Bari can complain about the effects while pushing all the requests for action and most of the blame outside his "community". Another example where Dr Bari might be advised to silence his own dogs, yet systematically fails to do so.
The Prime Minister's plan to increase the length of time terrorist suspects can be detained without trial is also, he believes, misguided.
"Even the police haven't asked for more than 28 days. As far as we know there is no clear evidence of the need for more time."
In this I agree.
Control orders and stop and search powers are further increasing the sense of alienation among Muslims, Dr Bari says, and the Metropolitan Police are not helping matters either.
"There was institutional racism and institutions as massive as the Met find it hard to change. They need more Muslim police officers. I'm not going to use the term trigger happy - sometimes the police can make mistakes - but they need to do their job in a better way."
Dr Bari should look to people in his own community who do alot to create alienation. Another blame shift is in operation here. The Islamic "scholar" world might do well to see how they can change to root out institutional prejudice, but again Dr Bari wants everyone else to change. The Police needs good policemen, not a quota system. It is for Muslims to come forward, not for the Police to proactively pull in more tokenistic Muslims. If you talk to the MCB "leaders", you might also realise that many would consider a good policeman "unislamic" and some may also say they were not really Muslim at all, given the oath they swear and the values they pursue - equality before the law being one!
Sir Salman Rushdie should never have been knighted, he says. "He caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped."
Apart from this being an outrageous statement of intolerance in itself, it is also hypocracy, was we shall see in a moment. The only "distress and discordance appears to have been caused by the Muslim community whipped up by various "leaders" and factions wanting to exploit the situation for their own ends. Shame on them.
Dr Bari insists he is simply trying to unite disparate communities. "On the one hand we are accused of not engaging, being insular, and on the other hand of being too political. We can't win."
False dichotomy, Dr Bari. You are right about one thing, though, if you keep up your stance you will not win.
The MCB was criticised for boycotting Holocaust Day but he says he did not mean to offend Jewish people: "It should be inclusive, commemorating all massacres."
AFAICT, it does, but that is not what Dr Bari and the MCB want, I suspect.
According to a recent report by the Policy Exchange think-tank, the bookshop at the east London Mosque, which Dr Bari chairs, stocks extremist literature.
"The bookshops are independent businesses," he says. "We can't just go in and tell them what to sell … I will see what books they keep, if they have one book which looks like it is inciting hatred, do they have counter books on the same shelf?"
Here is the hypocracy. On one hand he wants Rushdie's book "pulped", but here he wants books actually inciting hatred left on the shelf. Dr Bari: Hypocrite.
He is more careful about who is allowed to preach in the mosque. "If I hear of a specific preacher who is inciting hatred I will ban him from preaching but I cannot disallow him from praying."
Ban him where? I understood the MCB had no powers over who can preach or speak. Maybe I am wrong. Banning is not just the issue, naming and shaming should help to promote a more sincere stance. I will not hold my breath.
In Dr Bari's view, suicide bombers are victims as well as aggressors. "I deal with emotionally damaged children," he explains. "Children come to hate when they don't get enough care and love. They are probably bullied, it makes a young person angry and vulnerable.
"The extreme case could be suicide bombers, it is all they have … The people who become suicide bombers are really vulnerable."
Islam is a bullying doctrine - submission, "forbidden", "must", but yes, Islamists and such are indeed victims - victims of Islam, and in that Dr Bari is right.
Although he stresses there is no justification for suicide bombing - "killing innocent people is completely forbidden, Islam is very emphatic on that" - he says British foreign policy has driven Muslims into the arms of the extremists.
DING! Here we have it again "killing innocents". The Daily Telegraph should be ashamed to let that one pass. Shame on them and shame on Dr Bari for repeating that meme YET AGAIN. As far as Islamists are concerned, all Westerners are not innocent.
"Criminal people have used that as a weapon to encourage young people, those who don't have any anchor in themselves, [to become suicide bombers]. Iraq has been a disaster, the country has been destroyed for no reason, that had an impact on the Muslim psyche."
Iraq is no excuse, and the damage was already done - the issue of Iraq is just a recent situation. More light could be shed if the topic of US forces on Saudi soil was raised. It will allow more understanding of the issues, if you ask me. Pandering to the meme of Iraq causing terrorism is just lame, Dr Bari.
His passion is to integrate Muslim and British cultures - he says integration must go both ways.
"Everybody can learn from everyone. Some of the Muslim principles can help social cohesion - family, marriage, raising children with boundaries, giving to the poor, not being too greedy."
What is uniquely "Muslim" about "family, marriage, raising children with boundaries, giving to the poor and not being greedy" for heavens sake? I'll tell you: nothing. It is absurd to talk of such things via the prism of Islam. I mean what on EARTH does this guy think he is saying? The ARROGANCE that Islam has ANYTHING to add in terms of such things to British culture is astonishing, laughable. Dr Bari is not stupid, but as we know intelligence + ignorance = arrogance. Just because people forget or lose their culture and history (no thanks to the Sociofascists, who love the idea of a feckless, rootless, ignorant rabble to control like clay) does not mean that such values are not part of the culture or generally held. It certainly does not mean that Islam can "teach" the British anything of value.
British people could, in his view, benefit from arranged marriages. "I prefer to call them assisted marriages," he says.
Dr Bari seems a bit demented. Maybe it is a cry for an "assisted suicide"? Stop your disingenuous words, Dr Bari - many people have "assisted marriages" via friends, relatives, social groups and all manner of ways, but this is not what is being discussed when many people talk pejoratively about "arranged marriage", now is it?
"Marriage should not be forced on people but parents can be a catalyst … Young people are emotional, they want idealism. Older people have gone through all sorts of things and become a bit more experienced. A child will always want to eat chocolate but if he does then he will become fat. He needs to be given things that are good for him too."
If it should not be forced, maybe you could speak out about the hothousing, whisking away in isolation, deadlines etc. etc. and especially of the practice of marrying cousins. No, all you want to do is selectively talk of the benefits and quietly ignore the brutal and unforgivable aspects. Shame on you Dr Bari - some "leader" you are!
"Alcohol is the worst drug long-term," he says, and adds that the Government should consider banning drinking in public places, as it has done with smoking.
Dr Bari wonders why many people consider "muslim community leaders" irritating and damaging to our culture, wanting to impose their hatstand views on us all. Here it is. I have news for you Dr Bari, two pieces, actually. 1- the worst drug is religion, with Islam being at the Crack end of the market. 2- even the Koran does not say alcohol is "haram"/forbidden, but lets not let a good chance to control the population slip by, eh? He'll be calling for a banning of dogs around Mosques, next.
Dr Bari believes Britain would benefit from a little more morality: "Religion has principles that can help society … Sex before marriage is unacceptable in Islam … On adultery and living together we should try to go back to the religiously informed style of life that helps society"
Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. All it did, if anything, was codify existing morals. Further, any "morality" of benefit that Islam contains already exists in British culture. Islam and Islamists are past masters and trying to "brand" things as being "Islamic", as if it only exists because of Islamic teaching. The meme needs to be fought constantly and exposed for the poisonous, self-serving lie that it is.
Abortion should also be made more difficult. "By the time a foetus is 12 weeks old our religion says that the child has got a spirit." Homosexuality is "unacceptable from the religious point of view".
Dr Bari is being vague - just how "more difficult"? Having seen my own son at 13 weeks, it is difficult to consider the little mite as being without spirit - he sure gave the Sonographer the runaround, the little monkey. However, I will not stand for a medaeval made-up religion to rule or influence the law on such things. On Homosexuality, Dr Bari slithers away. It must be understood that in Islam, little, if at all, about ones entire existence can be considered as not "religious" - it is totalitarian. Such a view put forward by Dr Bari might seem "ok" to many with a secular/pluralist and CoE outlook, but Dr Bari is just fobbing off those people here, taking them for fools and he knows it. I know it too. Disingenuous, Dr Bari.
Is stoning ever justified? "It depends what sort of stoning and what circumstances," he replies. "When our prophet talked about stoning for adultery he said there should be four [witnesses] - in realistic terms that's impossible. It's a metaphor for disapproval."
Dr Bari tries to hop around the truth table hoping nobody sees the glaring holes in his attempt at logic. Dr Bari fails miserably, and we now have the leader of the MCB clearly accepting, if not condoning, the concept of stoning as a valid form of punishment. He wonders why the community is regarded with negativity when he comes out with medaeval, barbaric viewpoints such as this. From your own mouth, Dr Bari.
There should be more modesty too. "You shouldn't be revealing your body so much that it can be tempting to other people. I hope my daughter wouldn't wear a bikini but I also hope she wouldn't wear a burka."
If Dr Bari is not attempting to excuse molestation, assault and rape then I am unlikely to get a cigarette paper between his position and that stance. What is this "shouldn't"? Who is he to dictate to women and simultaneously imply excuse. A woman in revealing clothing is no excuse for the disgraceful behaviour of men. Dr Bari clearly accepts and justifies that all men are adolescents in mens bodies - beyond self control. Dr Bari does not mention hijab - I suspect he will want, no, demand his daughter cover her head...like he does...only with a scarf and not a hunk of coconut matting.
Dr Bari runs guidance courses for parents of all faiths. "Children are like plants, if you don't look after them they will grow wild and weeds can come in." The same is true of Britain, he says. "There is plenty of freedom in Western society but boundaries are sometimes hard to see."If you treat people like vegetables, then of course problems occur. The solution is for people to be responsible for their actions and not be infantilised or treated like plants - with regular doses of manure from above.
Dr Bari, as ever, disappointing and his own community's enemy.
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Should Sir Ian go, either resign or be sacked? I say yes. Why? Not for the shooting, but for the 24 hours afterwards.
Either Sir Ian was in the dark or he knew an innocent man was shot. If the latter, then he should go immediately not really for the fact that he lied at the time, but that he has lied since then. If he was in the dark, then he should also go, as he clearly has created an environment whereby he is not told the honest, if ugly, truth. This can be for many reasons - e.g. his subordinates also did not know, they were too scared or were busy butt-covering themselves first etc etc. I do not want to guess what unpleasantness was the reason writhing beneath Sir Ian in his chain of command, only that corporate culture has one prime source - the chief. If the culture was one of butt-covering, incompetence, cowardace or whatever, then Sir Ian is to blame for allowing such people to remain or to allow a view to form that such behaviour is acceptable. I do not recall him sacking anyone himself, so, if he was indeed unaware, he has not fixed it (if I am wrong and people have been kicked out, then I stand corrected). Two reasons for him to go if he was actually unaware.
The rumour has long existed that Cressida Dick was at fault yet she would be "untouchable". She was responsible on the ground in the room. The mark, IIRC, was made with insufficient evidence or intelligence. Once the mark was made and taken as unequivocal truth, the path was set. I see Cressida Dick as the one responsible for permitting the mark to be accepted.
There has been alot of criticism at the "resignation culture" - i.e. the baying for heads. This is a spectacular inversion - no surprise these days considering it is a classic tool of Sociofacsists. The clamour is that resignations and in extremis, sackings do NOT happen when they should and we have the squalid spectacle of people clinging on to their positions long after they should have resigned. In a way it is not unsurprising - all those perks, fat salary, cars and future pensions and sinecures in some sleepy QANGO somewhere.
Unfortunately for us, many people in office these days, and certainly in most Party apparatus, have long had their "Moral Compass" demagnetised.
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
Maybe it is time for some interesting email addresses:
To me, kicking/beating a person who is down means attempted murder at the least, for to do so is risking death and to continue to perform an act that risks death is surely murder.
"did not mean to kill"? I thought ignorance was no defence.
Friday, 2 November 2007
£20 bln on its way to Northern Crock and another £10bln likely to be used to buy up sub-prime garbage until some "investor" gets the entire portfolio for thre'pence ha'penny. This will be because the "simple shopper" that is the State loses its bottle, broons its troos and caves in to a fire sale at OUR EXPENSE. Witness, I predict, the buyer turn around the deal and make billions in profit as the assets are either disposed of or otherwise handled properly.
Gordon Brown and his "mini-mean" Darling have just created a Nationalised version of Farepak, and we are the losers compelled, on pain of imprisonment, to pay.
It was a good vehicle to outline the draconian laws that now exist. It had a good ending except for the very final part.
Two issues I had were this:
1. It repeats the meme about "innocents" - i.e. none of us are, so we all justifiable targets. It is also hypocritical in that it condemns accidental - but possibly not proactively minimised - collateral damage when visited upon Muslims (conveniently ignoring the fact that most Muslims die at the hands of other Muslims squabbling for power and money), yet seems to think a legitimate response is intentional, premeditated death and maiming. It goes on about people voting for the government so they are "to blame" as if people can unbundle all policies or, if they did not vote for Blair, somehow not get killed. It was and is a daft, irrational, self-serving, disingenuous cop-out.
2. At the end there was a summary of the new legislation, but, in a highly misleading and disingenuous way, it was presented "since 1997". No, dears, since 11th Sept, 2001. This is a dangerous meme as it attempts to disconnect the laws from 9/11 and make out that actions of Islamists are entirely reactions to such things. It is not.
Regrettably, the show sullied its message with the above failures, requiring me to suspect the overall balance and good faith of the creators. It is a shame, as it was otherwise a very good concept.
Arguments against the Police State should not be undermined in this way.
Thursday, 1 November 2007
We have Junior Doctors at risk by the NHS being forced to take EU Doctors due to EU Laws
We have criminals not deported due to EU laws.
We have fading control over immigration and asylum due to EU laws.
We have daft Foot & Mouth logistics due to EU directives.
We have th Food Standards Agency not ruling on food additives because "it is an EU matter" - reply is "so shut down then".
And to add insult to injury, The Town Clerk of Britain, Gordon Brown - for that is all he really is these days - is aiding and abetting this by forming Commons Committees for each Region.
I see one reason for not moving forward to an English Parliament - that would scupper the plans for the breakup of England.
Britain stood up to enforced collectivisation in the past. Will it do so again? Japan learnt it could dominate economically without warfare. The EU is trying to dominate politically in a similar fashion.