Mr Tinkles' Litter Tray

It the end of the world as we know it..or not…

2011-05-22T08:17:00.001Z

All the fuss over…

US preacher's prediction of world’s end proves false

…prompted two thoughts

One, why the fuss? Why would the BBC and just about every other media outlet carry the story with such prominence?

After all they don’t often flag up “Christian” stories. How often do we hear about the killing of believers across the world? When do we ever see the statistics more the huge growth in Christians across much of the world? Why is there so rarely a report of the selfless hard work of so many Christian volunteers in the world’s worst trouble spots – doing it just because they believe their Lord asked them to?

If I was a cynic I might be tempted to conclude that the media is only really interested in stories of fringe “nutters”, bonking bishops (or worse, which should be reported, of course) and church decline (they must be worried that it looks as if the figures have now levelled out).

Two, why oh why is anyone fooled by these people?

If it was indeed a scam, it is difficult to have much sympathy with those who sold their possessions and donated to various “christian” organisations.

What would they need the money for? Wouldn’t they be gone too?

Frankly, even if it wasn’t a deliberate scam, it’s still difficult…

After all, if the “boss” doesn’t know the time…

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Matt 24:36)

…why should Harold Camping?

What is it with these people?

2011-05-21T14:22:00.003Z

As I mentioned in a post some time back, I read this blog.

His latest post is on this story.

In short the NNS is rejoicing over the DfES “banning” free schools that wanted to teach creationism as science or Islamism as citizenship.

Here is his post

And my comments…

Another good one, Your Grace...
As both a Biologist and a Christian (and therefore someone who cannot exist, according to Sam Harris!) I am more than comfortable with Creationism not being taught as scientific theory and as a human being I'm comfortable with Islamism not being taught as anything at all!
The NSS (bless 'em) see things along the lines of "Religion=Bad" and therefore the reason they supplied you with just silence is that in their minds the two are in fact equated; Creationism and Islamism are both "religious" and therefore by definition bad!
The merits of a particular position or philosophy are not what concerns them; just whether that philosophy emanates (or claims to) from God.
As for the effectiveness of the "ban", I think you're correct to ask but I don't think the NSS know or care.

But what got me thinking was this section of the TES article.

The publication comes just a week after ministers were lobbied by a new campaign group, CriSIS (Creationism In Schools Isn’t Science). The organisation sent a letter - whose signatories included professors of science and theology and practising members of the clergy - to education secretary Michael Gove calling for a ban on creationism being taught as science in lessons and extra-curricular activities.

CriSIS? Whoever are they? Why haven’t I heard of them?

Well this is where it gets interesting…CriSIS are in fact just a Facebook page with (as at this moment) 98 “likes”

This is their description of themselves

Campaigning to stop creationism being presented as science in UK schools.
Creationism is known, and officially acknowledged, to be contrary to scientific fact. We therefore demand that creationism should not be presented as a valid scientific position, nor creationist websites and resources be promoted, in state maintained schools or in any youth activities run on state maintained school premises

Without getting even more long winded than I normally am, this is a “group” set up by a disgruntled mother whose children

had been exposed to this dangerous nonsense

The dangerous nonsense being, of course, creationism.

There’s more (read it here if you wish) but I’m sure you get the idea.

Now, when I read that, the impression I had was that some science or biology lesson had included something on creationism…but it turns out this was part of an RE “philosophy of religion” course.

More than that, what CriSIS fail to mention is that the school had another scientist to argue the other (ie “evolutionary”) position.

Why, oh why would anyone worry about such a debate in an RE lesson? Isn’t this exactly the way the issue should be discussed? Both sides putting their case and an opportunity to ask questions/debate?Would they ban the reading and discussion of Genesis 1 and 2? (I’m guessing Richard Dawkins and the like would prefer exactly that – if they can’t get RE removed completely).

I'm reminded of the story a few years back, of Michael Reiss being forced to stand down from his post at The Royal Society.

His crime…he suggested that when teachers had pupils who belived in creationism

"They should take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis,"

I.E. do exactly what a good teacher should do.

Incidentally, that’s exactly what I did when teaching…so sack me…oh, too late!!

Now I doubt whether CriSIS’ letter to Gove had anything to do with the DeFE’s criteria for Free Schools but I’m wondering how many of the signatories realised that the letter wasn’t quite accurate or honest in its portrayal of what happened at the school (again to pick on Dawkins, I’m guessing he’d sign a cow pat if it was in the shape of “atheism rules OK” – hmm wouldn’t that qualify as a miracle???).

My last post (also triggered by the Cranmer blog) actually received 4 replies – I should be proud! But you won’t be able to read any of them. Each was from an atheist and each contained multiple uses of the f-word and other expletives. Now I don’t mind argument or discussion, or even being called an idiot, but this is a family blog, so they’re gone!!

I’m moved to ask, what is wrong with these people???

What don’t they like debate and discussion? Why do they want to ban, ban, ban all the time?

You know, they sound more and more like a religion to me…

Free speech and an Archbishop

2011-04-08T12:45:00.001Z

I have only recently become aware of a blogger – http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/

I’m guessing that he and I would disagree on a number of subjects…me with my liberal/lefty politics (at least in some cases) and my anything-but-orthodox Christianity and he with a more right-wing CofE stance (I hope that's fair!).

However, why I like reading his blog is that he makes me think!

This morning I was drawn to this post

Pied For Christ

An interesting question raised by “His Grace” (and tweeted, which is how I picked up on it) was…

“If a Christian were to thrust a custard pie in the face of a homosexual, would it constitute a hate crime?”

I popped a comment on His Grace’s blog…

“It is an interesting characteristic of modern liberal thought that it is only liberal when you hold to the same views. Free speech? Yes - but only when that speech is to repeat the party line. As someone who holds general political views that I guess would be a fairly long way to the left of Your Grace's, it is a great sadness to me that any willingness to debate and argue a whole range of ideas has disappeared to be replaced by a mean-spirited (at best) attitude of "Shut up, or else!"
At this point there is, of course, a danger of hyperbole - allusions to Hitler loom on the horizon - which may be of little use but it seems to be true (with my very amateur historian hat on) that an early sign of totalitarianism is the suppression of anyone holding contrary views to the accepted wisdom of the state.”

It got me thinking about free speech (and thought) in general…

I do hold views that I know would generally place me on the left…at least in areas such as heath, education, monetary policy. But I find myself growing increasingly uncomfortable by the left’s abandonment of another “policy” that I hold just as dear…free speech.

Now, I am not naïve…I realise there are intolerant people in all walks of life and in every part of the political spectrum and that it’s not a new phenomenon. If in just consider my own experiences, I can vividly recall a member of the student’s union, thirty-odd years ago, red-faced and crashing his fist to the table to silence another member from making an argument for adding some left-wing governments to the press release we were preparing that detailed human rights abuses around world – it wasn’t union policy, so we were informed…ho hum…

But over the years, while still generally holding to the same politics, I have become increasingly disappointed and embarrassed by the left’s drift toward a strange kind of fascism.

As I mentioned in my comment above, there is a danger of hyperbole here…”You’re as bad as Hitler!”…fortunately, no they aren’t at least not yet…

But…speech is either free or is is not…the price of being free to shout for what I believe in is that someone else can shout back at me the exact opposite!

A little while back there was a discussion on the radio involving a Christian, an atheist and a Muslim – I’d like to be more specific but it was probably a good 6 or 7 years ago and I can’t find a reference to it on the web…so I’ll try to describe it as accurately as possible…

… although the topic had nothing overtly to do with homosexuality (see below), the presenter felt it necessary to bring it up. When asked for their views, the Muslim stated he believed it was “against God’s laws”. You could hear the sneer in the presenter’s voice as she said “Surely no one could believe that in this day and age” and then “Do you realise what you said could cause great offence to millions” (I’m not sure millions were listening, but there’s nothing wrong with a bit a self-promotion, I suppose.) The atheist then chipped in that such views “shouldn’t be allowed”. The interesting thing was the discussion was on faith schools and the atheist’s viewpoint was that they restricted free speech! It would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous.

And it begs the question, why would the presenter ask the question if she truly didn’t believe anyone could hold a view contrary to (I assume) her own?

I thank God that gays were able to shout for their freedom over the last quarter of the century…but if we then say that no-one (Archbishop or otherwise) can even be allowed to believe that homosexuality is wrong, then we have just replaced one tyranny with another. And the problem for gays, as well as archbishops, is that today’s tyranny is tomorrow’s accepted norm and vice versa. If you don’t allow free (and perhaps yes, offensive) speech, then tomorrow, when the political climate changes (as it always does) it may be your particular group that is (once again?) under repression…who will shout for you then?

One of my favourite quotes from one of my favourite films is from the American President when Andrew Shepherd says…

You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"

Can free speech backfire…does it have dangers? Of course!

For every reasoned argument there’s at least one madman…

Terry Jones defiant despite murders in Afghanistan over Qur'an burning

Of course he’s an idiot…and yes, in my opinion, he does share some moral responsibility for the deaths (he must have known what was likely to happen!) although the largest moral responsibility rests with the killers themselves.

But to live without it…that would be the greatest danger…

Desert Rats

2011-03-19T08:10:00.001Z

It's been a long time since I felt I had the time to blog...

...but this morning I was moved to say...

Whatever the right and wrongs of a "no-fly zone"...

As the various nations of the UN crawled toward a resolution...I said to myself, if I was Gaddafi, I would push to take the rebel areas as quickly as possible.

Fighting reported near Benghazi

If I could work that out, why couldn't the military geniuses in London, Paris or Washington?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Eastbourne, UK

Suffer Little Children

2010-04-06T16:45:00.011Z

In my time as a (very) occasional blogger I have tended to draw back from commenting on "controversial" topics involving the church...after all it's not as if there is a shortage of voices raised against the church these days. The last thing the church needs is another disgruntled Christian adding to the noise.

But I have found myself becoming more and more , by turns, angry and confused...

A senior cardinal has said the Roman Catholic faithful will not be swayed by "petty gossip" about child sex-abuse allegations.
Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, made the remark in an unusual message of support to Pope Benedict XVI during Easter Mass.
The Pope did not mention the scandal directly in his Easter address.
He said humanity was suffering from a "profound crisis" and needed "spiritual and moral conversion".

I'm not a catholic; and I could bore the pants off most people with my difficulties with both doctrine and practice...but allowing for the moment that we can put aside such things as mariolatry, anti-contraception, transubstantiation etc. we should at least be able to agree that we all attempt to follow Christ - however imperfectly...
...so I'm forced to ask (to coin a phrase)

What would Jesus do?

Call it a bit of gossip?

Keep silent?

Be "stunned" when someone dares criticise?

The Archbishop was right with his first instincts...

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has lost "all credibility" over the way it had dealt with paedophile priests.

Damn straight...of course the politics of it then got the better of him and he felt he had to apologise...

Whatever else he may be, Rowen Williams seems to me to be a good man and I'm led to wonder if the apology was forced on him by advisors...frankly if the Catholic church in Ireland suffers any "difficulties" over his remarks...tough...

So to return to Jesus. And I'm always wary of anyone who claims to know what He would do in a particular situation...but I think I'm on fairly safe ground here. Considering how He looked upon those who defiled "the House of Prayer" I think at the least He would be knotting a whip together once again...

If the Catholic Church (or any other branch of the church for that matter) wishes to regain credibility...there's a simple start...

...ensure anyone, priest or lay, involved in abuse is handed over to the police - just as should happen with you or I - and then do everything in their power to keep the abuser away from a position where they could repeat the crime...it's not rocket science surely!!!

Separated at Birth????

2009-06-13T16:59:00.005Z

Mugabe

Ahmadinejad

nuff said.........

WWJD?

2009-04-10T08:33:00.002Z

Technorati Tags: politics,religion,bnp

Short and sweet on this Good Friday…

The BNP ask what would Jesus do?

Vote for the BNP?

Err…No He wouldn’t…not in the wildest imaginings of their tiny fevered brains…

“Not for U” Tube

2009-03-11T17:12:00.001Z

YouTube stands by UK video block

As I write this I am a few feet from the shelves that groan under the weight of my CD collection. I have a (as yet unrealised) plan to arrange them alphabetically one day…but generally they are in a fairly random order.

Except, that is, for those on the end of the last shelf…they are mostly the newest – at least in terms of when I brought them.

If I was to list those I have brought over the last two or three years, I can guarantee that most of my friends (as well as most of my small circle of blog readers) would say “Who?” to many, many of them…

Just picking out 10 artists…

Band of Horses, Blake Babies, Chantel Kreviazuk, Gillian Welsh, Veruca Salt, Toby Lightman, Tara Maclean, Richard Shindell, Newton Faulkner and Liz Phair…

OK, there’s also the latest U2, Bruce Springsteen etc etc…but the point is that I would say that at least half of the last 50 albums that I bought are anything but household names. A major reason for this was my use (up to a year ago) of Pandora (and to a lesser extend other similar services) – I’ve blogged on that before so I won’t repeat myself – but I want to make the point (again) that far from the music industry losing out by my listening to streaming tracks, I ended up buying far more music (particularly by lesser known artists and therefore more in need of sales, one would suppose) than I would have without Pandora, Last FM or Utube.

Also, I say “over the last two or three years” when actually I shouldn’t really include last year – i.e. after the loss of Pandora –I have “discovered” far less music since…go figure, PRS…

I would have probably bought U2, Bruce and the other “big” groups/singers but would in all likelihood never heard of Kris Delmhorst or Dead Can Dance…

And occasionally, after hearing a few more tracks from an album, I decided against buying it when I might have if I had only heard the latest single…but not often…

And I also guess that there are some people that might decide not to buy music anymore because they can watch the video on Utube…but somehow I doubt this happens too often; after all, my years of watching Top of the Pops and listening to Radio One didn’t stop me !!!

So, although I’m not a big UTube viewer, I see with sadness and amazement (although not with surprise) that the PFS and UTube can’t get their act together…

..from what I’ve read UTube aren’t exactly helping matters – but the PRS seem to be the proverbial dinosaurs yet again…does no one who works for them have the slightest understanding of the digital world in which we now live???

Will anyone be surprised if more people turn to the pirate sites???

We don’t need no education, education, education…

2009-03-10T11:08:00.000Z

Although Iraq may have had more devastating and immediate consequences, for me, just as big a betrayal by New Labour has been their arrogant disregard of the education system, while pretending that they actually cared about it.

I have never yet cheered at the election of a political party but I came close when Blair beat the Tories…I started my teaching career a year or two before Thatcher's first victory and so spent the next decade or so watching and coping with the deliberate attacks on the state system. Thank goodness there were the miners for her to really vent her spleen on or there may have been no state education system left for us to be concerned about.

But at least you knew where you stood with the Tory party at the time…it was obvious that they saw the local comprehensive as something “other people” used – a necessary evil to occupy the children of the great unwashed until they could take their rightful place in the factories and shops (in order, of course, to make larger profits for the same politicians when they retired from politics and settled into their next life as members of the board at ICI)…

Then – hooray – here comes Tony and his merry band…they really care about education; and education for all! In fact some of them (not many, true) actually went to a state school and some (also not many) actually send their children to one.

And repeating his rallying call from the last general election - in preparation for the next, Mr Blair promised that his "government's passion" would be "education, education and education. Then, now and in the future."

But, of course, twelve years later (Has it really only been that long? Seems longer!) we know that this was as empty a promise as the rest…There may have been extra money but at no point have we had a coherent policy…bureaucracy, targets and testing have accompanied a steady decline in standards, behaviour and recruitment (until this year…well the recession is good for something, after all).

So we come to the latest mad idea…aptly described by one union leader as “back-of-the-fag-packet-stuff”. Actually, that may be ascribing too much thought to it.

When I trained, most teachers did a three year course; either the B.Ed. or the Cert.Ed…over the last twenty years it has become more common to go the route of a one year PGCE after obtaining your degree. This also has it’s roots in the Labour party but the old version…Shirley Williams' closure of teacher training colleges (which was more about cost cutting than anything else) pushed more potential teachers toward the PGCE route.

Now, I was not exactly a model student. I am blessed with an excellent memory and went to just enough lectures to stay (mostly – got carpeted a couple of times) on the right side of my lectures and borrowed notes from friends at revision time…And I was definitely not possessed by some sort of vocational dream…but I wanted to teach…I don’t know why exactly - I just did. Did I do it because I wanted to do some good? – a bit, I like to think. I certainly believe that a good education is a way of freeing people to make their own choices…

And some of the stuff I learnt has never been much use…or has it? I certainly never walked into a classroom and thought “Which of Piaget’s stages are these pupils at?” or “What would R S Peters have to say about this class?”…but looking back, I realise that I did, unconsciously, use what I had learned..and again, looking back, I see that it made me a better teacher…

And OK, perhaps it is possible to cram that into just a year…although I doubt it…

So now what? Ooh…Let’s cut the training down to 6 months…

6 months?

So at the same time as the government move to forcing more and more kids into further or higher education against their will (and won’t that work out well!!!) because education, skills and training are essential for everyone in the modern world, we cut down the training for those that will be expected to deliver it…

One argument is that there are high quality potential teachers that find the idea of a year’s course unacceptable and go go off to work foe Barclay's (Not anymore!) instead. Frankly if that’s the extent of the commitment of these lost “excellent” candidates, I don’t want any of them teaching my children. And what do we think they will do if when?) the recession eases…they’ll be off to Barclay's again, I warrant…

You’ve got to love the description of these people…

Schools Minister Jim Knight is to announce proposals aimed at attracting more outstanding people into teaching as a new career.

What's so f*****g outstanding about them – does he mean, as teachers? They weren’t interested in teaching last week, mate. Perhaps they were hoping to be outstanding wbankers but the field is shrinking a bit (I hear the pension benefits might not be all it used to be either). And if they are outstanding mathematicians, or historians or musicians – what the hell has that got to do with them being a good teacher?

There are huge problems with education…it needs a root and branch overhaul and it needs courage to ask real questions about what type of education will be needed for the next twenty or thirty years…

…but I have no hope that we will get anything other than more fag packet policy…

Incidentally, they may have already done so; and this particular bit of madness was not a deal breaker, but today I know for certain…for the first time in my life the labour party has lost my vote.

Sigh.......

2008-11-28T08:43:00.004Z

I was originally a reluctant facebook user...I now realise I was right...I spend far too much time on it!!

Oh well...

Sometimes, however, it can be a commentary on modern life in unintentional ways...

This morning I was greeted with a message to check out the latest movies; which I did as I waited for my emails to download (see, I can multitask!).

As it turned out it was not the latest movies that caught my eye but the information below where I was invited to say which of the current movies I wanted to see or to rate those I had already seen.

In the list, one above the other, were The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and Zack and Mira Make a Porno.

By each one were the figures for "want to see" and "not interested". They caught my eye as they were both awarded exactly the same figures - 75% and 25%...

However they were actually mirror images - The Boy's 75% was in the "not interested" score but Zack and Mira had their 75% in the "want to see" category.

Says something about modern life...

Sigh...

Orissa Violence

2008-11-01T19:36:00.005Z

Before I decided to have a bit of fun at Russell Brand's expense (as if he cares!!!) I was going to post on the violence against Indian Christians in Orissa that I heard about via my copy of barnabus aid magazine from the barnabus fund.

However, before I did, I checked some of my favourite blogs and found that matt at Raskolinikov had already picked up on the story and done his excellent stuff...

Rather than doing a repeat job, may I recommend his post...

Those of you who believe, as he says, please pray...

Laugh - I Nearly Did!

2008-11-01T14:16:00.009Z

I haven't blogged for the best part of a month...so I guess it had better be on a subject of national - nay International - importance...

So what then?..The Credit Crunch?..Iraq?..The U.S. Election?

Question...Why does Russell Brand have such big hair?

Answer below...

Que? Que?

To be honest, I couldn't care less if they fine Brand and Ross (they're both so rich, it would be meaningless anyway - a bit like when a football club fines one of its stars a weeks wages) - if they fine the beeb, they're only fining you and me anyway...

I wonder if the BBC would factor any fine into their next submission to have the licence fee increased...

I actually think that Ross has a fair bit of talent, he did a good job of stepping into Barry Norman's shoes - his interviews with film stars seem to show a genuine interest in them, rather than the (all too common) rattling off a researcher's set of questions without listening to the answer.

I don't listen to his show on Radio 2 (or very little else on Radio 2 for that matter) so couldn't comment there. I remember him from "They Think It's All Over" where he showed a quick wit and I have occasionally watched his chat show. Actually with both these latter examples he betrayed a tendency to chuck in the odd obscenity for no other reason than a cheap laugh - a shame, he's cleverer than that.

Yes, this "jape" was unpleasant, it probably crossed a line - and you have to wonder if the two of them are so thick that they really didn't think it would get some people upset; Radio 2 (late night or not) is surely the home of middle (and middle-aged) England!

Actually, I wonder if when you reach a certain level of celebrity, you simply think you're fireproof...

And it wasn't even funny...phone pranks can be very funny...a few minutes on U tube can show us that - but this one failed dismally.

And I would understand entirely if Andrew Sachs had wanted to complain himself - also, his granddaughter (her chosen profession would seem irrelevant to me). I guess that she is doing her best to further embarrass her granddad by touting her story round the tabloids...oh well...

I should imagine though, that the majority of the complaints were from people who had not heard the original show and either have still not or have found it on the Internet - ah well I suppose we not only have the right to be offended we also have the right to seek it out!

But I still haven't really reached my point - the point is that we pay these people huge amounts of money and all they can do is do their job lazily.

I love comedy (I would make a case that it is one of God's greatest gifts to us) and I have a particular love of (and admiration for) the stand-up comedian and their like. But there is a habit that some have, I guess if they are a bit short of material or the act's not going too well, they resort to dropping in an obscenity or insulting someone. Usually the someone is an individual or organisation that has fallen out of favour...

So back in the 80's you could get away with "Thatcher...what a cow..." Oh how we laughed...

And once we realised Tony wasn't all we hoped for, there was "Blair...what a bastard..." One moment while I pick myself up off the floor.

And since the rise of militant atheism, you can always get a laugh with "Christians...wankers..." Ho ho ho...

By the way, if anyone thinks God hasn't got a sense of humour, well, He tells one just as good...

"Atheists - morons..." Don't believe me? - check out Psalm 14 - perhaps not a belly laugh, but at least as funny...

This type of "comedy" can of course be much of the material of a poor act, much like racist jokes were the staple of certain comics in the 70's. A few weeks ago we went to see Russell Howard, who was excellent, by the way. Unfortunately his support wasn't as good and started by getting the audience to shout out the rudest swear word they could think of - surprise, surprise, the "C word" won hands down. But you can forgive him, he's clearly learning his craft and hopefully will not need to resort to that type of cheap trick for that long.

But this can also be found coming from those at the top of their craft. Stephen Fry (One of the cleverest and wittiest performers (he's so much more than just a comic) around) fell into this trap on "QI" some time back. after an interesting (well it should be!) point about the battle of Culloden he resorted to "Religion - shit!" - Cue huge applause.

That, as I said was a bit of an aberration. Generally, if Fry was to make a joke about religion, it would be well thought out (and he certainly knows enough to be aware that Culloden was about way more than religion) and probably well deserved - God knows we give comedians enough material!!!

But in case he's caught a bit short of material again, here's one to try, Stephen - "Gays - pathetic!"

Oh wait a minute...perhaps that won't get a laugh...

Anyway, to return to Mr Brand and Mr Ross. I had an idle moment a few weeks back and channel hopped until I ended up on something like the comedy channel - a watched about ten minutes of Russel Brand's stand-up comedy act.

I say comedy but all it actually consisted of was a long monologue on how he is treated badly by the press.

"They said I was in Cannes but I was nowhere near!" - I paraphrase but honestly, there was nothing else, no punchline , no irony...but the audience laughed away (not particularly loudly, it must be said). Apart from this sort of stuff, there were the random swear words (which got rather louder laughter - go figure).

Not that it was particularly offensive...it was just boring, certainly not cutting edge. (It's amusing how many of Ross' and Brand's defenders over the last few days have tried that tactic "Oh, he's just too cutting edge!" - Davina McCall said as much when asked for her opinion on the row - Davina being so cutting edge herself, of course.)

Mind you, I'm generally suspicious of anyone who brings out a biography almost before they've left school...for crying out loud why can't these people wait until they've actually done something???

Russell Brand

Question...What does Russell Brand have such big hair?

Answer...To hide his tiny little talent.

A Horse's Arse

Comedy Russell+Brand bbc Jonathan+Ross phone+prank

Sex (and) Education

2008-10-05T13:19:00.005Z

Sex laws 'unfair to teachers'

at least, according to NASUWT general secretary Chris Keates.

Now I was a teacher for 25 years and during that time I heard very little that made much sense from any of the teaching unions...

...I see nothing much has changed...

She told ITV's Tonight programme the law was wrong because a teacher could legally enter a relationship with a sixth former at another school.

Her problem it would seem, is that if I was (once more) a teacher and I was "dating" (what a nice modern euphemism that is) a VIth former from the school up the road, I would be fine. But if the girl was from my school, I could end up before the beak...

Unfair? - Absolutely....So what???

If Ms Keates cannot see the difference between a girl (or boy) from the school up the road and one that I may have taught at times over the last seven years, she's a moron.

Incidentally, she doesn't even understand the actual law...it only relates to pupils under eighteen and not actually eighteen as she states. Although, chances are, any school management team or governors with half a brain would discipline a teacher up to dismissing them, even if the pupil was over eighteen.

It is of course an issue of position and authority and not merely age...

...I can't speak for modern recruits to the job but I went into teaching with some (possibly vague) sense of vocation. I certainly didn't start teaching as a way to pick up girls. And there should be an atmosphere in the classroom that means that any development of this type of relationship is impossible - what a headteacher of mine called an "informal formality"

And of course, I'm not really saying that I believe that is the motive of those who do pursue these relationships...and neither are they peadophiles, whatever the tabloids might shout...

But even if there is no accounting for the human heart, even if it really is "luuurv".....

...can't you wait a year or so before you play hide the sausage????

Is this law fair...to teachers?

No, probably not. And its not well framed either...I doubt if it does the "couple" much good by actually jailing the teacher. Put them on the sex offenders register? - probably not effective either, after all the teacher is hardly likely to repeat the action!

Perhaps the unions should be calling for better teacher training so that fewer of their members got themselves in this predicament. (Whatever the truth of the argument about the standards of GSCE and 'A' levels, teacher training in general is one area where standards have fallen for years).

Is this law something teachers should be happy to put up with...to protect those they supposedly came into the profession to help?

Yes, absolutely.

teaching sex law morals education

The Nasty Party?

2008-09-09T05:56:00.008Z

I have a problem with politics...Well to be absolutely straight, I have a LOT of problems with politics...

Chances are, it will be a while before I get a chance to vote for our next government as Gordon will probably let it go down to the wire; after all, at least that way he will be able to say he was Prime minister for a few years...

...but then I will face one of my problems - who the hell do I vote for?

The choice used to be fairly straight forward; left or right?

But the party I grew up supporting, the party of "ordinary people" like my Dad (OK they probably never were really that, but at least they seemed to be) - the Labour party of the sixties and seventies (and before) has of course long since been put in a pair of concrete overshoes and dumped off Westminster bridge.

And at the same time I can't really say I hate the other lot as I did when Maggie was at the helm - "call me Dave" seems like such a nice bloke - although I suspect he's really just a stuffed shirt and so perhaps I'll just write "viva la revolution" across my ballot paper - at least that way I can complain about whichever party gets in next time.

So with the prospect of having little chance a needing to make any meaningful choice for the next few years, I've been playing "fantasy politics" via satellite TV, newspapers and the internet.

If I could actually vote in America at least I would have a genuine choice. And even without a vote, I can watch the coming election with a bit of interest in who wins.

If only things were as they are portrayed as in The West Wing.

I'd vote for Bartlet in a flash! I's probably vote for Matt Santos or even Arnie Vinick.

Why are politicians only ever intelligent, compassionate and all about serving the public in fiction???

Talking of the West Wing...

There's a great moment in one episode where, during hearings about President Bartlet's cover-up of his MS, Leo is before a committee. One of the republicans wants to use his five minutes of time to ask questions that have nothing to do with the President's possible dishonesty but are simply for the spiteful purpose of embarrassing Leo over his past alcoholism and drug addiction.

Another of the republican members of the committee prevents the question...saying,

"This is why they hate us..."

His point, of course is that the political right has traditionally been "the nasty party" often more intent with scoring points or bringing others down than perhaps getting to grips with real problems or solutions.

As I grew up, it was the conservatives (small or large "C") that resisted moves to better the lot of ordinary working people. It was the right who resisted womens' rights (Anyone who believes Thatcher was a move forward for women must have been visiting another planet during her time as PM) and were content to turn a blind eye to racism. They were the ones that sneered at the "common man" - only good for working for the bosses and who should shut up, know his place and be thankful he had a job - "Get on your bike" - yeah, thanks Norman.

Well so what?

Well, maybe the right are still pretty nasty, but it saddens me to see that the left seems to be in a competition with them in this...

Now, I should imagine that if I sat down with Sarah Palin we would find few things we agree over as far as politics are concerned. However I have been dismayed and almost ashamed by the left's method of "taking her on".

You want to attack her political position on sex education? Fine; but to ridicule her family's attempt to cope with her daughter Bristol's pregnancy - and when did the left care if you were married when you got pregnant? They've been trying to convince us all different types of family are equally as valid for as long as I can remember. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that what they really mean is that all types of family are valid, as long as the family in question agrees with the rest of our politics too.

By all means argue against her views on abortion - but to criticize her for bringing a Down's child into the world - is it ONLY a woman's right to choose if she chooses abortion?

And she believes in a literal 6 day creation? Well so do 150 million of her fellow Americans...many of whom will have to vote for Barak Obama if he is to enter the White House.

Then of course, the internet rumour mill has had a field day...an affair...her last child is really her daughter's (and so what - is it anyone's business?)...she bans books...and so on...

And finally, the ultimate irony - the question is constantly posed, how can she possibly hope to be Vice-President as a wife and mother at the same time?

Ahh the new rallying cry of the left - get back in the kitchen, woman, that's where you belong!!!

So, yes, I hope that Obama wins in November, I think the world might just be a better place for him, although I do worry that he is so inexperienced...

...but in the meantime, "Go Sarah!" - ignore and confound the mean spirited gits.

And I hope she kicks ass in the debate tonight.

politics hypocrisy palin

Mum Given Bum Rush

2008-06-26T22:14:00.006Z

I'm not sure if this is light-hearted or actually something much more sinister. (So I'll try to avoid the jokes - too late with the heading, then.)

Sadly, I suspect the latter...

Baby's bottom censored by store

A mother who wanted to give a birthday cake to her son featuring a photo of him as a baby was forced to have it censored because it showed his bottom.

Staff at the supermarket refused to scan the picture onto a cake as it featured nudity

To get a feeling for the true lunacy of this, it's worth playing the clip

As the mum points out...ASDA don't seem to have a problem with nudity when it's found on their magazine racks.

Now, I understand the world we (think) we live in, where there's a paedophile around every corner...and some studies make horrifying reading - I cannot find the source off hand but I remember (from my teaching days) a report from the NSPCC giving the figures for abuse of pre-teens as more than 1 in 10. In fact as a teacher, it always used to bring it home to me if I put it in terms of three kids in each of my classes - quite horrific.

And I understand the need for something like a CRB check -although I have a sinking feeling that they probably have little to do with actually preventing child abuse than with that favourite tactic of governments -

"We need to do something"
"This is something"
"Let's do this"

I don't (know that I) know any peadophiles - but I'm guessing their tactics generally don't include popping into ASDA with their favorite dodgy photo to have it put on a cake!

Likewise I doubt that many carry out their abuse in front of a class full of kids with the teacher present!

So I'm left wondering - if we have got to the point where a mum can't use a (hopefully embarrassing) photo of her son for his 21st birthday, perhaps we have lost more than we have gained.

We certainly seem to be in rather short supply of common sense.

political+correctness stupidity ASDA

The Real OC

2008-06-24T22:42:00.004Z

I still can't find the time or enegy to be serious...so...

Schoolboy hacker Omar Khan who upped his grades faces 38 years in jail

It could be a long time before Omar Khan goes to college: as long as 38 years, according to Orange County prosecutors, who have arrested and charged the 18-year-old student with breaking into his prestigious high school and hacking into computers to change his test grades from Fs to As.

Well yes...he's been a naughty boy...

...but thirty eight years - child molesters get less!!!

Am I the only one that feels a sneaking sense of admiration for him?

Wouldn't a few week's detention be more appropriate?

And I'm thinking - he allegedly did this because he failed to get a place at college.

There must be a few universities that have some places on their computing courses still free...I'm guessing he could be a straight A student...

..and when he gets his degree (and remembering the level of expertise of the IT departments in school where I taught.)

...give him a job at his old school...perhaps Head of Department!

crime education I.T.

Just a thought

2008-06-23T12:41:00.003Z

I hardly seem to have time to post anything at the moment...certainly nothing requiring any real thought...

...but I was just making lunch and as I took a potato out of the packet, I noticed that Sainsbury's had added a sticker to the bag...

"As Seen On TV"

So, I just wondered...what programme were they in? Were they all in the same episode or series or was it a one off special?

And - most importantly - have I just ended the promising TV career of an up and coming spud by microwaving it for 7 minutes?

Stll. tasted pretty good...

Ian Wright longs to play Hamlet

2008-04-23T18:10:00.003Z

Fed Up Wright Quits As BBC Footie Pundit

Poor old Ian......

Ian Wright has quit the BBC as a football pundit, saying he is fed up playing the role of a "comedy jester".

I actually thought that he played the role of "comedy jester" without any arm twisting from the BBC.

However, fair enough, if he's fed up of being portrayed as a joke figure...we can understand his desire to get out and take up a more serious role.

Former footballer Ian Wright and sports presenter Kirsty Gallacher are to host Sky One's relaunched Gladiators.

Hmmmmmmm

Nb - Yes, this is an entirely trivial post at the expense of a former Arsenal player by an avid Spurs fan...

A Night at the Oprah

2008-04-13T08:14:00.003Z

Help....

My faith is shattered...

All this time I thought I knew the truth, but now I'm not so sure...

Oprah on Jesus:
Is Jesus the Only Way to God?

Ah wait...it's only Oprah...

phew...

There's actually some important points that should be made here (Treasure In Clay Jars makes some of them) such as the power granted to celebrity, a lack of the most basic understanding of what is supposedly her faith...

...but I'm not sure it's worth it. Anyone who is impressed but such dumb ramblings, probably cannot be reasoned with...at least Dawkins has a brain!

Oprah God Jesus Truth

Sharia don't like it*

2008-02-09T09:01:00.000Z

Not being a member of the Church of England, I tend to view the Archbishop as one of those quaint hangovers from a bygone age; a little like Morris dancers or Real Tennis.

You know, something that gives a flavour to us as a nation and that somehow we might miss - but is not really very relevant anymore.

Several of my friends disagree, and tell me that the Archbishop is actually a very deep thinker; a really clever guy, with much to contribute to Christianity in particular and the country is general.

And they also point out, quite correctly, that he has the best platform of all the Christian leaders in the UK and one of the most prominent in the world - what he says at least gets reported!

Two thoughts...

One.

Can he truly be surprised by all the fuss that his comments have created? - Whether of not he actually said precisely what the press are claiming. (Supplementary question - is he so naive as to think that the press would actually care exactly what he said and be bothered about reporting it accurately???)

Secondly.

When is he going to stir up controversy by using his public position to proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God, Saviour and the only way to God? I do not know whether he has a job description; but if he does, you would hope that might be in it.

I wonder how the press would report that...

*with apologies to The Clash

Christianity sharia archbishop Jesus law faith religion

Woof Woof Woof

2008-01-24T09:19:00.000Z

As I said below, I was intending to post a serious point or two on the nature of belief, truth and so on...and still will if I have more than a few minutes.

However this caught my eye this morning.

Dog lead goths 'hounded off bus'

A goth who leads his girlfriend around with a dog lead and collar was stopped from getting on a bus amid fears for passenger safety, a bus firm confirmed.

So the bus company believe there's a chance that the driver may brake sharply and propel these two love birds forward in such a way that the chain wraps itself around old Mrs Baker from No32, thereby strangling her to death.

Yes, of course they do.

But then why do many buses allow dogs on leads (in fact they tend to insist on leads). Surely there's as much chance of "Rover" killing me under heavy breaking as the young lady goth in question.

And what about guide dogs? All that harness...deadly on a sharp bend.

And although I haven't seen such a claim yet, I'm just waiting for the first "this is demeaning to women" comment to surface as justification for insisting they take the "lead" off.

Well yep, it probably is; although the girl is adamant that it was her idea.

But if we are going to ban any female dressed in a way that demeans women, I'm guessing a large proportion of girls under the age of thirty will have to take alternative transport. Just consider how many are fooled into thinking the only way to be attractive to a man is to walk around half naked like a Britney Spears lookalike...if that's not deaming to women, I'm not sure what is.

Or at the other extreme (sort of), would the bus company refuse to let a Muslim woman travel for wearing a veil?

Of course it's all crap...the driver(s) don't like...or understand...or perhaps are a little fearful of this couple.

Well fine...I don't understand the goth thing particularly either. A fair proportion of my children's friends have been into it at some time or the other. I just thought they were a little weird...which I should think is partly the point anyway - my parents thought I was weird; and that made me very happy!

But lets not dress it up(goth or otherwise)...it's discrimination, plain and simple.

discrimination liberty freedom goth fashion

Hugs all round

2008-01-20T20:57:00.000Z

I read a lot of blogs...and I comment on them in the same manner as I blog...in short bursts of furious activity followed by silence.....

So over the last week I have commented on dozens!!!

One that caught my eye was this post by yellow.

Originally I was caught by the post itself...His point was (he is a university chaplain, obviously)

I was looking at the postgrad prospectus the other day and one line about the chaplaincy struck me:

“Embracing all faiths the chaplaincy welcomes all students”

Now the second part of that statement I agree with but I found the first part troubling. Firstly it’s just not true.

I thought to myself "I couldn't agree more". Of course we (Christians) should accept, love and care for all people, whatever their beliefs...but wait a minute - embracing all faiths?

I'm sorry, when the church (or parachurch) starts to talk like this, you know they are missing the point! Jesus did not embrace all faiths - and anyone who claims that He did has either not read or has not understood the plain meaning of the New Testament!

There is a huge difference between accepting another human being (whether Hindu, Muslim or Atheist) and embracing their faith.

Now it is just possible that those who wrote that prospectus didn't actually mean it to come out like that - perhaps they meant it in the sense of "not turning anyone away, whatever their faith".

But I don't think so...and clearly neither does yellow...

I was more concerned with the idea that I embrace all faiths. Clearly I don’t.

Good on you, mate! But what led me to want to comment was the next bit.

I’m not talking here about Muslims or Jews or Sikhs or Hindus. These are all respectable faiths; I’m talking here about the Scientologists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Mormons. How can we embrace their doctrine?

Some things people believe... well, they are just weird aren’t they? I’m not being a blind bigot here. Can anyone seriously expect me to take a world view with Xemu the alien ruler of the Galactic Federation depositing souls here on interstellar Douglas DC-8s as seriously as... say... the Quran? Can I put the Mormons on the same footing as Hindus?

Whoa hold on a minute...what makes something a "respectable faith"? How do we sort out some kind of hierarchy of belief?

That made me think, if push comes to shove how would it look? I guess my list would start with Christianity as the only perfectly sensible one, followed by Judaism (Well, they're nearly right, aren't they?). And at the other end, the extreme nutter end, I would probably agree and put Scientology up there ( my goodness, have you heard Tom Cruise lately?) and right at the end would be Atheism (I wonder what would upset an atheist most, that I call them nutters or that I include them in a list of faiths? - but I digress).

My problem with this is that it is basically random. How can we decide which set of beliefs is more sensible than another set? What we consider to be loopy is as much to do with our culture and worldview as any subjective judgement. Now I've read the Hindu scriptures...frankly I think the JWs are less nutty....at least they believe in one God!

But that's not my point either...

Christianity is at the same time exclusive and inclusive.

In terms of it's truth, in the claims of Jesus, it is utterly exclusive - He claimed to be the only way to God. I know that's not very PC or post-modern but tough...as the tee-shirt say "God said it -'nuff said".

In terms of it's love for mankind, it is utterly inclusive! Jesus doesn't care how loopy your beliefs is today (or for that matter how evil your actions) you still get a second chance with Him. And yes I know we, His followers screw that one up regularly...but then if we were perfect we wouldn't need a Saviour.

So I was going to comment as such on yellow's post...and I did comment, but I didn't say any of this. As I hit the comment button something else caught my attention...and that's the subject of my next post.

faith belief atheism christianity religion

Pandora Tomorrow? - Unlikely

2008-01-14T00:28:00.000Z

I love Pandora!!!

If you don't know, Pandora is a site that streams music...

...the excellent aspect of it is that you create your own stations according to what they call a music "genome".

In essence, this means that you start a station by choosing an artist or even a single song and they then play music that has the same "qualities".

I have created several stations which I can play according to my mood....perhaps I want to listen to little celtic/esotric stuff...perhaps to a bit of rock...or maybe some indi...it's all there for me.

So what? Well I recently received an email from the site's founder which explained...

we worked diligently with the rights organizations to negotiate an economically workable license fee. After over a year of trying, this has proved impossible. Both the PPL (which represents the record labels) and the MCPS/PRS Alliance (which represents music publishers) have demanded per track performance minima rates which are far too high to allow ad supported radio to operate and so, hugely disappointing and depressing to us as it is, we have to block the last territory outside of the US.

Now, in the year or so since I discovered pandora, I have been introduced to at least twenty (and that's just the number I can remember as I sit here) artists that I hadn't heard (or had heard of) - nine of which I have since bought an album by!!!

As the email goes on to say...

It continues to astound me and the rest of the team here that the industry is not working more constructively to support the growth of services that introduce listeners to new music and that are totally supportive of paying fair royalties to the creators of music.

Too right...

More...

I don't often say such things, but the course being charted by the labels and publishers and their representative organizations is nothing short of disastrous for artists whom they purport to represent - and by that I mean both well known and indie artists. The only consequence of failing to support companies like Pandora that are attempting to build a sustainable radio business for the future will be the continued explosion of piracy, the continued constriction of opportunities for working musicians, and a worsening drought of new music for fans. As a former working musician myself, I find it very troubling.

And the consequence for me...

We have been told to sign these totally unworkable license rates or switch off, non-negotiable...so that is what we are doing. Streaming illegally is just not in our DNA, and we have to take the threats of legal action seriously.

Well, thanks go out to the music industry...

I have contacts/friend all over the world...some of them have not bought a piece of music legally for years (its ALL there if you know where to look!)

I tend to get on my high moral ground over this issue when I chat to them (especially being a musician - although never producing anything that was likely to make me any money!!!)...and I probably won't resort to illegal downloading...but frankly if more and more people do, the industry only has itself to blame!!!

Idiots!
pandora
music downloading illegal pandora

To donate or not to donate...

2008-01-13T23:36:00.000Z

PM backs automatic organ donation

As a Christian, I of course believe that when I die I go to be with Christ...this has made my decision to carry a doner card over the years an exceptionally easy one...I really won't need this old body...I get a new one!!!

So...I have carried an organ doner card for the last twenty five years.

However, if this goes ahead, I shall (sadly) stop. And instead carry whatever I need to prevent them from using my organs.
Not because I am worried about some over enthusiastic doctor turning my life support off (although I would not rule that out!) or that I think they might whip out my kidneys while I am still breathing my last on the operating table...
But because I believe that it is not the state's place to decide what happens to my body after death!

I have struggled since the last change in the law, when they removed the rights of my wife or other relatives to go against my wishes...
My wife has always agreed with my decision to donate my organs (as I have hers) but in the moment of grief...yes, in that irrational moment of suffering, I wanted her to have the right to say "no!" - the right to be irrational...the right to change her mind...

...is this attitude selfish?...probably...

...is it logical?...probably not...

...but at my death, do my family's wishes come first?...too right they do!!!

Who do I care most about; who would I be most concerned about if I should die tomorrow? Surprise, surprise, it is my wife and children!

But I have managed to push this aside for what I suppose I belived is the greatest good...

...but now?

This proposed change might very well push me over the edge...sorry Mr Brown...hands off...

I say might...because there's a line in the BBC report...

unless people opted out of the register or family members objected,

(my emphases)

Is it possible that our government might be backtracking on this?

If this truly means that they would once more allow the wishes of relatives to take their rightful place, perhaps I can remain a doner...it would be against the trend of our nanny state, but let us hope!

organ donation health ethics rights christianity government state

Blogging, Life, the Universe and Everything

2007-10-17T00:43:00.000Z

Well - Blogging, time and life anyway.

I first blogged seven months ago and it quickly took over a great deal of my time and therefore too much of my life.

Well I have a good life, at least in part due to many varied interests. As it is, I wish there were 25 hours or more in the day as I never seem to have enough time for all I want to do. So after a couple of months the blogs had to take a back seat. Or actually a total pit stop.

But I've got the bug again.

Maybe I shall try again...this time more infrequent and only triggered by those stories, news items or even half heard conversations that really get me going!!!

And maybe I'll even get good at it...although this does rather worry me!!!

How many????

Well we'll see.

blogging blogs time life

Genetically Engineered Brains

2007-05-04T07:45:00.000Z

GM protesters pick wrong field in bid to disrupt potato trial

The operation to sabotage the government's GM potato trial was planned with care and under conditions of great secrecy. Two hundred and fifty protesters swooped on the 16-hectare site outside Hull, armed with shovels and filled with indignation.

In less than an hour they had moved to invalidate the trial, planting thousands of organic potatoes. Mission accomplished. If only they had got the right field.

This bunch...

...attacked the wrong field in their campaign against GM crops (Mutatoes - geddit?)

Now I am certainly not sure that we need GM crops, I am tempted to think that the technology is more about making fat cat companies even fatter than any altruistic "save the world" motive as they would have us believe.

But really, these people make me think about planting Triffids in my garden - certainly they would have a higher IQ than the average "mutato".

Their excuse....

The public were not given sufficient information by the government who supplied only a 4-figure grid reference for the location of the trial (an area of 1 square km).

.....ahhh, I see, you want to go and vandalise someone's field and you blame the authorities for not giving you a clear enough map....

and as the owner of the "wrong field" said...

"...The beans are just about peeping through. The protesters should have been able to see that," he said

Anyway I thought I'd help....in case they're confused again...

Beans...

Potatoes...

science protest mutatoes GM environment

Awards and Merit

2007-05-01T06:14:00.000Z

This post (rant?) got ridulously long, so it has been split into two parts...

Part One

BBC's Humphrys honours Johnston

John Humphrys, a presenter on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, has paid tribute to the BBC correspondent Alan Johnston, abducted in Gaza seven weeks ago.

Receiving an award in London for news journalist of the year, Mr Humphrys said he did not deserve the honour.

There is much to be applauded in John Humphrys' comments at the Sony Radio Academy Awards.

"Frankly if we weren't so obsessed with personalities and celebrities

...can't argue with that...

they're the people who should have had the award," he said to the applause of the audience at the Sony Radio Academy Awards.

Well I certainly think that if we - and more importantly, the media - were really not so obsessed with personality, Humphrys may very well have faced stiffer competition for the award of news journalist of the year.

He may be a decent journalist - certainly he is by no means a bad writer - but for the last several years his reputation has been built on being a professional "Mr Grumpy" rather than much in the way of incisive questioning. As with Jeremy Paxman, this makes for entertaining TV or radio; especially when his particularly rude and hectoring style seems mostly reserved for everybody's favourite targets, Bush, Blair and the Labour party.

(One wonders if this will change if Cameron leads the Tories to victory...)

Humphrys declared that...

BBC correspondents who faced danger on a regular basis, above all Mr Johnston, deserved the award more

Hmmmm...Why?

What is the purpose of an award for "news journalist of the year"? Isn't the clue there in "what it says on the tin"? It is not for the best news journalist of the year?

It may be that the best journalist is currently on assignment in Iraq - or in some other deadly trouble spot - it may be that Alan Johnstone is the best news journalist in the world.

But perhaps he/she is in some dingy office in Scunthorpe. Is being in danger - or indeed being brave as I have no doubt such people are - what decides how good a journalist you are?

Well of course not; and I am not claiming that Humphrys is really making that case.

And it is of course perfectly understandable that the journalistic community should feel a collective call to keep Johnstone's plight in the public eye. Although you have to ask - What do they think they're doing here..?

British union calls for boycott of Israeli goods

Unbiased press? My eye...but that's another post.

Back to John Humphrys...

...if he (or the BBC or the Sony Radio Academy Awards) wish to honour such bravery they would be better handing out "bravest journalist of the year" or some such.

But actually how much should anyone care about which awards some narcissistic group bestows on one another? Well, not much; but there are two wider points that flow from this.

The first is about the awards/honours "system" in general. It has been a constant source of amusement to me over the last few months to listen to the shock and/or horror expressed over the "Cash for Honours" scandal stories. As if the honour system had suddenly changed from rewarding people who actually deserved it!

The entertainment industry has for years used its awards as a means of promotion...does anyone in their wildest imaginings really believe that "newcomer of the year" (or whatever) really represents the "best" or just the band that the Music Moguls think have the best chance of becoming the next cash cow?

Does anyone believe that the main recipients of Knighthoods and other honours are really those who have served their counties and fellow citizens rather than the latest group of party hacks who's turn has come up (whether with financial inducements or not).

Even the awards given to us plebs (what did Blair call them - "the people's awards", or some such) are too often laughable. Why do so many "lollipop ladies" get an MBE? After all they simply did their job...for money (admittedly not much money)...like how many millions of people?

Or headteachers...there's always headteachers...but the same question can be asked as for the lollipop ladies - except headteachers get vastly more more money of course.
And the list could go on...interpersed of course with genuine "heroes" who really did go beyond the call of duty...

The reason of course, is to keep us all in line. Put up with the crap that the world, the government, your employer, throw at you...be good, don't question and, at the end of it all, we may pat you on the head and you can pop along to see the Queen.

But the other wider question is about the place of merit in today's society.

Do we still believe in rewarding ability and hard work?...but that's for part two...

awards iraq Alan+Johnston bbc meritocracy press

Viewers 'lose millions' to GMTV

2007-04-23T14:28:00.000Z

Well of course, you gotta hope they throw the book at this bunch...

Callers to premium-rate phone competitions on the GMTV breakfast show have been defrauded out of millions of pounds, a BBC investigation has found.
Panorama found that for the past four years, a company working for GMTV had been finalising shortlists of potential winners "long before" lines closed.
GMTV has suspended all phone-in quizzes but said it was confident it had not breached regulators' codes.
The phone operator, Opera Interactive Technology, denied any wrongdoing.
Panorama said tens of thousands of callers had been charged £1.80 to enter competitions on GMTV - but as many as half had no chance of winning.

But what caught my eye was the quote further down.

Samantha Pedder, 37, from Saffron Walden, told Panorama: "I've spent near on £1,000, but you think, 'Well I'm in with a chance'.
"To find out that I wasn't makes me really angry and I want my money back."

Well no, Samantha, I don't think that.

And the link to this article which tells us...

Unemployed Brett Rees, 22, from Rotherham, landed a 126-page phone bill for nearly £9,000 after he repeatedly called TV quiz shows. He says he didn't realise how expensive it would be.

They should have cut me off, they should have cut me off straight away. Instead of letting me run up this phone bill so high they should have cut me straight off.

Incidentally, £9000 at £0.75 a call...that's 12000 calls.

Sigh...it's too depressing to go on...

GMTV phone+quiz+fraud TV

Sheryl Crow - "If It Makes You Happy"

2007-04-23T11:30:00.000Z

I have a couple of Sheryl Crow CDs. It's harmless, middle of the road stuff...

...but now she wants to save the planet...

Unlike Al Gore, who's idea is to make so much money out of lecture tours and films that he will be able to buy a really big boat to escape the coming flood, her master plan is that we should get used to using one square of toilet paper whenever we visit "the rest room". She has sympathy for anyone with a gippy tummy - they can use two or three.

I propose a limitation be put on how many sqares (sic) of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.

except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

Well having just spent the last few days with the worst bout of...well you really do not want know...I have to say sorry, Sheryl, three sheets just ain't enough.

I must have used up at least my next six months quota.

But it got me wondering; how does she think we should enforce this? Will there be "toilet tissue police" who loiter outside public loos and dash in after us to do a quick count? Will we have to sign for our roll in Tesco?

Will there be toilet paper offsetting? I have a friend who gets a bit constipated; could I have his unused ration?

Will there be a black market in the stuff? - "Here, mate...got some double quilted for you. No questions asked."

And what about the Andrex puppy? Won't he be out of work? And I was sure that Sheryl supported animal rights!

Further down the article another of her ideas was revealed.

I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the heighth (sic) of wastefullness (sic). I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve". The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product.. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.

I'm not sure this is Sheryl's own idea. Wiping your mouth and nose on your sleeve? My children got there first - perhaps I should have patented it.

Interesting that she has a clothing line...no that would be rude of me to suggest...

And there's more.

This next idea I have been saving but I will share it with you if you promise not to steal it. It is my latest, very exciting idea for creating incentive for us all to minimize our own personal carbon footprints. It's a reality show. (I feel pretty certain NO ONE has thought of this yet!). Here is the premise: the contest consists of 10 people who are competing for the top spot as the person who lives the "greenest" life. This will be reflected in the contestant's home, his business, and his own personal living style. The winner of this challenging, prestigious, contest would receive what??.... a recording contract!!!!!

Now leaving aside how you reconcile minimising "our own personal carbon footprints." with the carbon dioxide produced in broadcasting the show and then producing the record for the winner, I am forced to wonder if there isn't a greater threat to civilisation than global warming - reality TV shows!

After reading all this, I did have to check the date but no, April the first has long gone. Then I remembered...

...she's a celebrity!

Now, I am not just being mean here. I believe celebrities have as much right to speak out on any subject they choose. And even if she lacks a rudimentary understanding of the science behind the global warming debate - so what?

The problem is that, these days, we actually take them seriously. The younger you are the more chance there is that you take your opinions about the world from pop and film stars, models and professional TV personalities.

I was reminded of the teacher who was trying to explain the difference between the greenhouse effect and the reduction in the ozone layer. He could not understand why one girl in particular kept insisting they were the same thing. It turned out that the girl had heard it from "the science correspondent" (as if!) on Radio One. In the end the teacher simply had to give up - the girl would not have it.

Perhaps when the Beatles got into transcendental meditation, some of the more loony of their fans may have followed. Certainly the Hare Krishnas benefited from George's support. But I guess most people just smiled indulgently (or got angry when they were thought to have gone too far as in John's "more popular than Jesus" comment).

So there should be no problem with Sheryl Crow's dozy ideas.

But today the cult of celebrity is all...and her voice is another one adding to the unthinking acceptance of the received wisdom...and is that not also a concern for our civilisation?

global+warming Sheryl+Crow music science Al+Gore junk+science

Materialistic morals

2007-04-19T08:57:00.000Z

I see that Ken Ham got himself into trouble over a post he wrote shortly after the shootings at Virginia Tech.

This is from Scientific American.com

The Idiocy of Blaming Science for the Virginia Killings

It's no surprise that the blogosphere contains rampant mis- and disinformation about the tragic events at Virginia Tech. Two arguments I have heard in particular are relevant to science education and make me fume.

One thing I am learning as I take my first tentative steps in the blogsphere (as I gather I should call it) is that blogs are voracious feeders. The SA comment is based on another blog that objects to Ken Ham's comments.

Despicable. Ken Ham couldn't even wait until tomorrow to start blaming godless secularists and evolution for this crime

Well yes, I think it would be - despicable - if that was what he was actually saying. However, having read the article, it seems to me that Ken Ham is actually making a critique of Christians who believe that Genesis does indeed help us to make sense of the evil in the world by describing the fall...but do not accept the literal historical truth of the story. Well, knowing Ken's beliefs on this, we would hardly expect anything else!

But here is another quote...

But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?

...the "Fawlty car" refers to Basil Fawlty thrashing his car in an episode of "Fawlty Towers". The author reminds us that this is funny just because it is so foolish to blame a car for not working...

Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.

This is from the high priest of scientific materialism, Richard Dawkins.

Now in no way am I claiming that he is suggesting that we laugh at the actions of Cho Seung-Hui. But he is clearly saying that any attachment of blame to the killer is laughable (or rather that if only we could only become truly enlightened, we would then laugh at such judgements). ChoSeung-Hui was just a "faulty unit" and a product of his genes and his environment. The logic of this would be that if he had lived, the only valid reason for "punishing" him by, for example, locking him up, would be to remove the faulty "component" from society.

Now many (most?) people would find this view abhorrent - but that is not my point (and I guess Dawkins would claim that such feelings are just another "fiction" - useful or otherwise).

But it illustrates nicely some of the problems of the naturalistic world view.

After all, if we are no more than products of heredity and upbringing, then why does Dawkins get so upset by Theists. Surely they are just products of their genes and their environment too! They can't help it...anymore than Dawkins can take credit for being an atheist...his genes made him that way. Furthermore, why should it be the Theists that are "faulty" as I assume he believes they are...perhaps its the atheists that are actually "broken".

But the materialist would say that the "faulty" members of society are those that do things that "damage" the human race in some way; that reduce our overall survival chances, and the chances of our genes being passed on to the next generation. Clearly this suggests that Dawkins would regard Cho Seung-Hui to be "faulty" indeed.

However he is not consistent. Millions of Christians (making no point about other religions) are motivated by their faith to do nothing but good for their fellow man - believers or not. And yes, there have of course been some believers who have used their faith as an excuse for some dreadful acts - not that Dawkins would approve of me calling the Spanish Inquisition, for example, "dreadful" as, of course they were just products of their...etc. etc.

Most Christians would argue that such acts were either not truly motivated by faith but often by the desire for power. Also, I find it hard to believe those who burned witches at the stake truly had a relationship with Christ. I know I'm not supposed to judge, but we are also supposed to "know them by their fruits".

But even if I shouldn't make that judgement (that's between me and God, anyway), Dawkins too, makes exactly those type of judgements.

In response to Hitler's ideas he calls them "an insane and unscientific eugenics theory". (From The God Delusion)

Well I'd agree with insane...but "unscientific"? Why unscientific, Richard? It might be science that we find abhorrent, but it's science, nonetheless.

So again, we see the inconsistency. Believers must accept all the evils done in the name of God but materialistic scientists can reject embarrassing history as not really science.

And to return to the irate comments that I started this post with...

...one says Ken Ham's comments "made me fume" and the other calls them despicable. As I said I believe that they have misread Ham. But even if they haven't, why "fume"; how can he be "despicable"? You cannot blame him - afterall he's only acting as he has to, according to his genes maybe...or maybe they don't really believe that...

Finally,I am not saying that this proves atheism is wrong - I have other reasons for knowing that! Neither am I saying that it was atheism's fault that Cho Seung-Hui did what he did.

But I will claim that my beliefs - in the sanctity of life, in loving my enemies as well as my friends, in doing good and blessing those who curse me, of giving, of going the extra mile - to name a few, has a better chance of preventing a "faulty component" than the belief that we are no more than atoms and molecule who have no responsibilities and cannot be blamed for their actions.

As I mentioned early, I am learning that blogs feed on blogs and this one is no exception. While "googling" on these ideas I came across this excellent (and much less long winded) post on Dawkins' views on morality.

Dawkins morals materialism faith Christianity atheism

University Massacre

2007-04-17T20:12:00.000Z

US university shooting kills 33

Student describes shooting spree

After reading a number of blogs and comments on news forums today, I find myself embarrassed to be from the UK.

The hectoring and lecturing on US gun laws is bad enough. Most of us from "over here" can never really get a handle on the gun control argument as we do not have a history where guns played the same role as they did in the USA.

In any case, do people really believe that even a total ban would have prevented this or previous massacres? Do they imagine that someone who is prepared to carry out such acts would have handed in his weapons if they had been banned (say) a year ago? Or that he wouldn't have obtained one on the black market?

We have laws against carrying knives - it doesn't seem to be preventing gangs of youths in our cities from stabbing one another!

But the above may just be ignorance. What is quite disgusting is the almost gleeful comments that attempt to link the situation in Iraq in particular or Bush's presidency in general to yesterday's murders.

I find it personally sad how much of this comes from bloggers that would clearly describe themselves as liberal or left wing - the area of politics that I have spent most of my life in sympathy with.

One of my memories of 9/11 is of groups of Palestinian women dancing in the streets as news of the destruction of the twin towers reached them. I am saddened to find that some of today's comments come from people who are little better; and who certainly should know better.

They should be thoroughly ashamed.

For goodness sake, they were just kids!

My heart and my prayers go out to all caught up in this dreadful tragedy.

God bless you all...and somehow bring you peace.

university massacre killings shootings "virginia tech"

Easter: religious intolerance

2007-04-10T18:05:00.000Z

Or...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.' (From Through The Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll)

It is interesting how often these days, people act just like Humpty Dumpty...words mean what they choose them to mean...

...sometimes this is just annoying - why can't I be feeling gay, without being errrr gay?
Or why can't something unpleasant be wicked without it convincing anyone under 25 that it's also cool?
And exactly what did Bill Clinton mean when he declared

I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

...OK - lets not go there!

But sometimes this misuse of words becomes sinister.

Take Anil Bhanot, writing in The Guardian Unlimited.

It seems he likes Easter...

Hindus look forward to the Easter bank holiday and few of our children refuse the offer of an Easter egg.

but he clearly isn't so keen on Christian's telling anyone what Easter means to them...

What does affect us is the renewed focus hard-line Christian groups place on evangelism at Easter.

He states...

Hinduism is an inclusive religion respecting other faiths and ways of seeking God.

Well maybe...but it is doubtful that the Christians described here, here, or here would agree.

But this is not about excesses by any or all faiths (or none at all, atheists are by no means innocent of causing pain, suffering and death), we all have groups and individuals to be ashamed of.

But to return to the article...

Hinduism is an inclusive religion respecting other faiths and ways of seeking God. In the final chapter 18 of the Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna declares to Arjuna:

"The Lord dwells in the hearts of all beings,
Seek refuge in Him alone with all your heart;
By His Grace
You will gain Supreme peace
And the Eternal Abode."

Some Christian groups cannot see the beauty in this approach, sticking rigidly to their belief that their "truth" is the only "truth" and they alone have the monopoly on God. Using devious evangelical tactics, they plague our world and threaten our ability to live together in one global village.

So let's just make sure we are clear...we can quote the Hindu scriptures to illustrate the Hindu belief that (to put it another way) all paths lead to God but if one was to quote the bible...

"I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father, except by me." John 14:6

...then presumably that is using "devious evangelical tactics".

Next we have the all too common tactic that accompanies a flawed argument - a personal attack...

If Jonathan Aitken and his ilk really cared for humanity, they could compensate poor children working in India with wages while they attended school.

I have no idea, whether Jonathan Aitken gives money to India or any other charitable causes but I do know that millions of Christians do. They tend not to shout about it but they do their best to follow Christ's commandment to love others in practical ways.

But they also follow Christ's command to tell others the good news of the gospel. they aren't "hard-line" or anyone's "ilk"...just ordinary Christians.

And the snide language used of Jonathan Aitkin...

Former jailbird Jonathan Aitken

...is just a cheap trick. But it does beg the question of just how inclusive Anil Bhanot is...clearly he wouldn't wish to "include" Jonathan Aitkin (and his ilk). Or more probably he would, if Aitkin wasn't an evangelical Christian.

So,

A Christian trying to follow his beliefs and sharing his faith is intolerant...and we will not tolerate them...

..a Hindu telling a Christian not to share his faith is being "inclusive" and "respecting" of the Christian faith.

Humpty Dumpty would be proud.

faith belief christianity intolerance hindu religion

The what centre for what?

2007-04-10T05:33:00.000Z

I used to be a member of something called "The Association for Science Education" (ASE)

Now if I tell you that I am a scientist who taught for twenty five years, you might think that the ASE was an organisation where scientists met, discussed, shared resources and generally helped one another to be better science teachers...and you would be dead right!

So if you saw a group calling itself "The British Centre for Science Education" you might conclude that they were the same type of organisation...but in this case you'd be dead wrong.

Turns out that they're just a bunch of anti-faith nut jobs...with a distinct lack of scientists and/or teachers. In fact this quote...

The membership is open to all who support our aims. Members, in practice, are professional and managerial people from all walks of life who have been through the education system,

...from their web site, suggests what they regard as their main qualification..they went to school it seems!

...what's in a name, huh?

This links to a blog run by a guy who has bravely taken this bunch on.

science faith creationism evolution

Winning Friends and Influencing People

2007-04-10T05:02:00.000Z

Can this story get any more embarrassing?

She also said that there were times during her two-week ordeal when she cried herself to sleep.

Arthur Batchelor, 20, the youngest of the British sailors to be held captive, told the Daily Mirror: "A guard kept flicking my neck with his index finger and thumb. I thought the worst, we've all seen the videos.

Forgive me, but guys...you need to shut up...now!

iran captives media

Bed sharing 'drains men's brains'

2007-03-27T16:00:00.000Z

BBC NEWS | Health | Bed sharing 'drains men's brains'

Ahhh....that explains it - I was worried it was old age.

health humour

Here Is The (Christian) News

2007-03-27T11:08:00.000Z

There has been a small debate running in some of the Christian sites and blogs over the gradual loss of the "religious" section in newspapers and magazines.

For example, from Christianity Today

Religion Sections Deleted

Now, over here (in the UK), this is unlikely to cause much of a fuss. Whatever, the details of any particular column being dropped, the underlying reason will be the secularisation of the culture...here, sadly, we lead America by a distance.

And that's probably a shame.

But might it not be better if, instead of wishing to consign ourselves to a news ghetto - or to only appearing in the mainstream media after the next sex scandal or infighting within one denomination or the other - we were to force our way into the headlines by enlarging our involvement in society.

It's a safe bet that if they had been around two hundred years ago, the blogs, the radio and the TV would have been full of stories about Wilberforce.

christianity news press media

Snoop and Diddy Cancel UK Shows

2007-03-27T10:53:00.000Z

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Snoop and Diddy cancel UK shows

Just occasionally we resist the cries of the pop pr machine and do the right thing.

US rappers Snoop Dogg and P Diddy have been forced to cancel a joint UK tour after Snoop Dogg was denied a visa.

The musicians were "incredibly disappointed and devastated"

Well, yes, they can see a few pound and dollar signs fading away there...

"I cannot control my past - me being an ex-gang member, ex-drug dealer - but I know how to do what's right, how to turn my life around."

Well, yes, everybody deserves a chance to "turn...(their)...life around"

But as the BBC article reminds us...

The 35-year-old musician is currently facing weapons and drugs charges in the US stemming from three separate arrests in 2006.

Earlier this month, he was held overnight by police in Sweden on suspicion of using drugs.

He was cautioned by UK police last year after being arrested on suspicion of violent disorder and affray at Heathrow Airport.

Perhaps getting your collar felt by the old bill five times in around a year made the authorities a tiny bit sceptical...

A google search discovered that this story had been picked up in the USA.
Here, the comment is made...

Now, if only the Brits could have similar guts in denying entry to the far more dangerous Islamists they constantly welcome to their shores . . .

Unfortunately, she may have a point...

music visa snoop entry uk usa

Bullying: calls for national inquiry

2007-03-27T10:50:00.000Z

Bullying: calls for national inquiry | News crumb | EducationGuardian.co.uk

A national inquiry into the scale of bullying should be undertaken by ministers because of fears that the problem is being downplayed by schools seeking to protect their reputations, a report demands today. New guidance is also needed to ensure that victims who dare to fight back are not suspended or expelled.

Bullying exposes one of the worst aspects of human nature...only the very callus; or Colonel Blimp types ("Bullying made me the man I am today...hrumph"; or perhaps bullies themselves can have too much of a problem with anything that might reduce its scale or help its victims.

However, in the midst of the articles and reports doing the rounds today are a number of interesting points...

the problem is being downplayed by schools seeking to protect their reputations

Do we have any evidence to that effect...or is it just another round of teacher bashing?

Government advice says that bullying includes name-calling, taunting, mocking, making offensive comments, kicking, hitting, pushing, taking belongings and "inappropriate text messaging and emailing" or sending offensive or degrading images by phone or internet. But the MPs called for additional guidance on "difficult issues" such as the use of homophobic language and subtle forms of bullying.

Does that mean that all (for example) name-calling is bullying? And why is name-calling in reference to someones sexuality a "difficult issue" whereas (presumably) calling someone "four-eyes" is simple? And if so, could they explain the difference...

And from the BBCs reporting of the same...

There had been "very little evidence" underpinning current guidance - and the lack of accurate, reliable data was a barrier to more effective work, the report said.

The problem is, of course, that these days "bullying" has become one of those words with a flexible definition. It all depends on who is using it.

It is used by pupils trying to get out of punishments because of their own behaviour, it is used by savvy parents who have discovered that its use will get the ear of the headteacher and it is used by interest groups to get their particular issue publicised.

It remains a hugely difficult subject to either analyse or confront.

One thing is certain, though. In a world where teachers are already drowning in a sea of administration this...

The Department for Education and Skills should require schools to record all incidents, said the report into bullying from the House of Commons Education Select Committee.

...will do nothing other than give teachers even less time to actually do something about the problem

government education bullying schools

Go green or else!

2007-03-23T21:53:00.000Z

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Panorama | Go green or else!: "Go green or else!
Justin Rowlatt

Justin ponders what can a family do to reduce their carbon footprint
We are told climate change is the biggest threat facing the world but is there anything the average family can do about it?

On Monday we find out. The BBC has forced one of its reporters and his family to 'go green' for an entire year.

Their challenge? To make as big a cut in the family's carbon footprint as they can.

But their efforts didn't just affect the environment."

So you (the reporter and the BBC, one supposes) were "told" that "climate change is the biggest threat facing the world".

Did anyone bother to actually find out? For most people, it is almost impossible to fight through the propaganda of the interest groups that surround the climate warming "debate". (What debate?) But you would think that the BBC, with it's enormous pile of resources might actually investigate a bit here. Perhaps then we might know!

But no...not only do they uncritically accept the party line but they even attempt to foster guilt on their viewers and readers - "Ethical man", my foot!

However, this makes our Justin look like a rampant polluter.

As the blog I found it on says- it's beyond parody.

green global+warming bbc ethical science

8 Questions That Need An Answer

2007-03-23T20:33:00.000Z

1. Why..... Did anyone think we needed a biography of Colleen Mcloughlin?

We all know that fame is cheap these days but what possible interest could her life hold for anyone outside family and friends. And could we not wait until she has actually had a life?

2. Who..... Cares that Elton John is 60?

'nuff said.

3. What..... Kind of idiot is Frank Albrecht?

If it wasn't so unpleasant, this quote...

"The zoo must kill the bear," said spokesman Frank Albrecht. "Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws."

...would be genuinely funny.

4. Will..... Lily Allen please stop it?

...singing, that is...and talking...or writing...and whining...please!!!!

5. Was..... Jane Austin a minger?

"I know you are not supposed to judge a book by its cover. Sadly people do. If you look more attractive, you just stand out more," said Ms Trayler.

If that's what will decide whether you buy the book or not...then don't bother, you'll only be disappointed when you find it contains words of more than two syllables.

6. Where..... Can I sign up?

McDonald's seeks 'McJob' rewrite

Any takers on whether they get into three figures?

7. When..... Will we learn to ignore the hype?

The European launch of the PlayStation 3 has been met by both cheers and indifference across the continent.

Maybe, just maybe we are starting to...there are pile of them left at the local HMV.

8. Which..... Witch?

White witch 'sacked for days off'

Clearly, her "witchy powers" don't run to seeing into the future otherwise she might have worked out that her employers were going to be hacked off with her missing 21 days in a six month probation period. Of course she could have been genuinely ill...obviously the healing potions didn't work.

lily+allen elton+john Colleen+Mcloughlin polar+bear ps3 mcdonald's witch wicca

Why Are Peace Activists So Warlike?

2007-03-22T22:43:00.000Z

It really is a puzzle. How can those who claim they are the ones standing for peace, so often use tactics that border on, or actually are, violent?

And you do have to wonder what they think they are teaching their children!

(click photo for link- Michelle Malkin)

And then this (warning - language)

Whatever you may think about the war, the troops deserve more than this!

Go figure

iraq war troops peace protest

Come On You Spurs

2007-03-22T21:30:00.000Z

BBC Radio Five Live can be a childish, amateur production. (In fact more than often it is)

But occasionally, it comes up with the odd gem. This morning, Thursday 22nd March, it found one. The "phone, text, email" segment was based around...

..."How has following your (football) team affected your life?"

Now I think, I'm a pretty good example of a supporter that too often falls the wrong side of the obsession line.

But I realise I have nothing on some of the callers.

We had those who had run up credit card debt in following their team; at least one who had lost his job; another who had lost his girlfriend; even one who had believe watching his team was better than sex. (This becomes even more crazy sounding when you realise he supports Middlesborough!)

Now of course we also had some callers who went down the "what an idiot" road...

... but I kind of understand (well maybe not the "sex" comment!).

I was thinking back over my support for God's own team, Tottenham.

I don't see them "in the flesh" as often these days, having moved away (pah - excuses!) but there were many years when I followed them home and away, rain or shine, win or lose. I would hate to add up the money I spent at the time.

A few random memories...

Going to Norwich City, sometime in the 1980s, in freezing weather and being frisked roughly by the police (my wife too) before being crushed inside a metal cage. Then watching the match to the sound of the "clink" of the coins thrown by the Norwich fans as they bounced off the cage. (The coins, that is, not the fans) Followed by being held back by the cops for about an hour - and then being forced to walk away from the car for about half an hour.

Away at Watford, deciding I really didn't need the loo at half time - when I saw the river of urine running down the slope from the toilet. Having said that, I also saw Hoddle score one of the best goals ever that day!

Finding myself in "the wrong end" at QPR when we scored...trying to hide my elation...but then the feeling of relief when hundreds of Spurs fans surrounding me started cheering!

And of course, the worse thing about being a Spurs fan, having David Pleat as manager (four times!)

But despite this, I was back the next week.

If your reaction to this is, like some of the callers to Five Live, "stupid" then you won't get it, whatever I or anyone else says.

As someone once said "If you have to ask, you won't understand."

football tottenham spurs fans obsession

Go To The Bottom Of The Class

2007-03-22T19:59:00.000Z

In which crazy world could this possibly work?

Learning drop -outs could be fined

Teenagers who drop out of school at 16 and refuse any further education will face fines or prosecution under new plans to raise the leaving age.
Education Secretary Alan Johnson said that by 2015, all youngsters in England would have to be in school or some form of training until their 18th birthday.

Now, of course, any initiative that encourages or extends access to education, is to be welcomed.

But let us remember who we are talking about here. These so called drop-outs have been in education for eleven or so years by this time.

If, in that time, all the system has done is to get them to a point where they cannot wait to leave, does Alan Johnson really think that forcing them into two more years is suddenly going to turn them around?

Of course, this is not the only time that this approach has been proposed. In the '90s a Modern Foreign Language was made a compulsory subject at KS4. It was hoped that the government had admitted the failure of this tactic when they announced the reversal of the policy three years ago. But no, the latest idea dreamt up in Lord Dearing's bath is to force seven-year-olds to study them.

Why, oh why, do they never ask "why?"

Why do pupils want to leave school at 16? Why do pupils not wish to learn French or Spanish or...?

Why do girls not like Physics?

Because it is not just Blair's government. Going back further, before science was compulsory at what we now call key stage 4, there was an abysmal take up of the physical sciences by girls. Rather than asking why girls disliked the subject, the "answer" was to force all pupils to take it to sixteen.

There are two reasons why governments take this approach.

First, there is the "something must be done...this is something...let's do this" approach. At least they look busy!

Second, is that if they actually asked why things weren't working, they might get an uncomfortable answer; and then they might really have to do something.

education school alan+johnson teaching blair school+leaving+age

The Gospel According To Archer

2007-03-21T18:56:00.000Z

Jesus was no miracle worker: the gospel of Jeffrey Archer

Jesus did not turn water into wine, nor did he calm the storm on the Sea of Galilee or walk on water, according to a “gospel” published with Vatican approval and co-written by Jeffrey Archer.
The Gospel According to Judas, introduced yesterday at a press conference chaired by the head of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, also denies that Judas accepted 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus. The book will be launched in London today at Westminster Cathedral.

Well now. we can believe this totally - seeing as how it is written by such a reliable author!

jeffrey+archer christianity gospel jesus religion

Not the sharpest tool in the box

2007-03-20T14:42:00.000Z

...but a tool nevertheless

OK let's play spot the idiot...

Your team loses against the Russians. But you decide to climb onto the pitch and go after one of opposition players.
So now, not only are you not in the semi-final but you're now banned for life and there's a good chance that the club will get fined (the FA being one for knee jerk reactions).

And as you went after Lampard rather than Terry, the whole of football knows you're a bit girly!

...Idiot

chelsea spurs football hooligan

Equality - but for who?

2007-03-20T12:39:00.000Z

Gay adoption rules 'rail-roaded'

The government has been accused of "rail-roading" through gay equality laws that, Catholic adoption agencies argue, will force them to close.
Some Tory MPs criticised the "unseemly haste" with which ministers sought to pass regulations through Parliament.
But an attempt to get them thrown out was defeated, by 310 votes to 100.

Well there's a surprise! But to those currently getting their knickers in a twist about this issue - where have you been for ten years? It could be argued that the legacy of the Blair years will be just as much about the curtailing of genuine debate as it will be about Iraq.

This piece of legislation is, of course, part of the Equality Act (pdf here).

Now, the idea that we should not refuse goods and services on the basis of race, religion, gender or disability and now sexual orientation is one that I hope most people would find it hard to disagree with.

To quote the PM himself...
There is no place in our society for discrimination.

But hold on one moment. That's not quite true, is it Tony?

There are exceptions in the Act, some of which cover religion; and they would seem to allow a religious body to withhold services precisely for the reasons that the catholic church is putting forward. Surely this means that the law has actually agreed that it is right and proper for there to be some "discrimination".

And we know why this is; for example a church can refuse to appoint someone as it's leader who doesn't hold to the beliefs of the church. Apart from the loony end of the humanist movement, most people would see the sense in this.

So is what the government is saying is that they want us to all be equal but they want some to be more equal than others? (To misquote Snowball)

That may be unfair; perhaps it is better just to say they do recognise that, in some situations, one person's human rights overrule another's. In this instance they are saying that a gay person's "right" to adopt overrules a catholic's right to believe that a particular lifestyle is harmful for children to be brought up within.

If we have a society containing differing views, ideas and standards they will sometimes compete. The question is; how can we best fit these together - and which "rights" come first? Do some need to be legislated away completely?

Now clearly some rights need to supersede others. My right to life needs to come before the "right" of someone to kill me - whether it be because of the colour of my skin, my sexuality, my religion or just that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But what about self defence? There, we would argue that someone could lose his right to life because of his action in trying to kill me. Or what about a rapist? Would we not argue that a woman (or man) was hardly acting unreasonably when they grabbed the gun of their attacker and killed him.

Now this is not philosophy for philosophy's sake. the point is we make value judgements about people and their actions all the time; and we act upon those value judgements (and sometimes enshrine them in law).

We would expect, even demand, that adoption agencies make such value judgements; to make moral decisions about which families will make good parents. In fact if they did not, if they allowed adoption at random, to anyone, we would soon have outrage (no pun intended) in the press and parliament.

To use an extreme case, would we not expect an adoption agency to refuse to place a child with someone on the sex offenders register?

And that is where the debate should be; what are the "qualities" that we believe make people suitable to adopt. Which lifestyle choices are going to help, or harm?

One can hardly have missed that it is just a few days to the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in Britain. We now regard the slave trade with abhorrence; but clearly this was not the case 200 years ago. Our "moral compass" has shifted (and thank God - and Wilberforce - for that!) But it took debate to get the slave trade outlawed - and one of the good things about debate is that you can change people's minds! And if you change their minds, the legislation, if needed at all, becomes only a "back up" for cases of those who cannot be persuaded.

But the problem is that there is no debate here!!!

We are supposed to simply accept whatever the current fashion of the "liberal" elite and popular media happens to be. And if we don't agree - well they'll bring in a law to force us to "behave".
And God help you if you dissent; you will find yourself shouted down and probably given the "hater" label. So, to use the current subject if you were brave (foolish) enough to voice opposition to such legislation, "homophobe" will be the cry. Well, maybe, but maybe not. Maybe it is just a different moral position - and are we not supposed to live in a country that espouses free speech? Or is that only when your speech agrees with the prevailing view?

Now I can only think of one reason for not debating - because you don't have a credible argument to put forward!

labour equality debate equality+act adoption christianity

Sir, he's bullying me!

2007-03-20T10:55:00.000Z

I missed this at the time...

Labour MP (West Bromwich East) Tom Watson discovered a figure that suggests one in four OFSTED employees feel that they have been harassed or bullied at work.

Quite right too Mr Watson, that you should be "genuinely taken aback".

I trust that you will be similarly vigilant in finding out how many schoolteachers have felt harassed or bullied by OFSTED.

Sunday

2007-03-18T10:47:00.000Z

OK...I have to confess...I am a real newbie to all this. I've read the help files; and other blogs, of course, but I'm not yet sure where I'm going with this.

But one thing I thought is that one day a week, Sunday, I'd just post links to some stuff that I found funny or unusual......or whatever.

So...

This is cool...

Ireland produced one of the greatest victories in cricket's rich history by beating Pakistan on St Patrick's Day amid unbelievable tension in Jamaica.
Led by their brilliant wicket-keeper batsman Niall O'Brien, they reached a rain-adjusted target of 128 with three wickets remaining in near darkness.
Ireland's fans, who had been there to witness the tie against Zimbabwe, could barely contain themselves afterwards.

So it still is possible for the little guy to beat the big one!!! Full Story.

And another sporty story.

Tottenham keeper Paul Robinson scored a remarkable goal from fully 80 yards as the hosts moved up to sixth with a fine win that piled the pressure on Watford.

Robinson lined up a free-kick from five yards outside his own penalty area, but his hoof floated over the defence, bounced over Foster, and drifted into the corner.

Hahahaha - full story here.

And there's a good chance you've seen this already...but just in case (and especially if you like pancakes)

And the funniest thing I've read for a while can be found here or watched here.

MrTinkles

Games turn kids into killers...

2007-03-17T14:25:00.000Z

...Or never let the facts get in the way of the chance to hang blame on someone.

Despite the paranoia of the tabloids, the chances of getting shot, stabbed or even blown up when popping down the shops, is still very small. The UK remains a relatively safe place to live. For example, the number or deaths due to stabbing has remained relatively constant for the last ten years.

However, that must be small comfort to the family of Kodjo Yenga as they grieve for their son. And it is natural for the “general public” (whoever they are) to be shocked by such stories and also to wish for someone to come up with both an explanation and an answer.

But no one is helped by apportioning blame where it doesn’t lie or by suggesting quick fix solutions that won’t work.

Radio Four’s “Mr News”, John Humphreys, conducted an interview (listen) this morning, with an expert on knife crime. What made him an expert was of course never really explained – he had “written” on the subject, we were told.

And as you would expect, he trotted out the usual material. These youths carry knives because – they are concerned for their safety or there is nothing for them to do or they live in deprived areas or poor parenting or… well, you get the idea.

However, our John had other ideas; it’s down to violent video games, says he. And surely we can do something about them! What he means, of course, is ban them.

Now, OK, if a half hour on Battlefield 2142 or Counterstike could be shown to cause kids to pick up their Scar 11 or AK47s and hit the streets, perhaps there is a debate to be had over this. Mind you, then we would also have to ban The Sims – good grief, all that woohoo going on!!!

But what Mr Humphreys conveniently forgets to mention (as did his expert guest) is that there is no clear evidence of any such link. On top of that, do we know if the group now charged with the crime even have a computer or games consol let alone whether they are “obsessed” with games, violent or not? Of course we don’t but that won’t worry the BBC. If it turns out that copies of the games that work him into such a frenzy are found at these kids’ houses, you can bet John will report it. On the other hand if it turns out that they pass the time reading Jane Austin and playing the violin, will he withdraw his accusation.

If this rubbish were being spouted in a pub, it wouldn’t matter, but this is being broadcast to millions of people – repeatedly. Say it enough times and of course people believe it.

Of course, politicians are no better.

Witness David (call me Dave) Cameron’s wacky idea to force absent fathers to live with their children and ex-partners. As if that will foster good parenting!

Despite its (thankfully) rarity, such crime is so shocking that we need to look at whether we can do anything to make it even less common.

But, for heavens sake, let us have a proper debate on the subject. Let us find out if there is anything we can do.

I guess the problem is that if we did so, the answers won’t be so conveniently simple and those who the real blame lies with might not be a nice convenient group such as gamers or even absent fathers.

God forbid that any responsibility might lie with successive governments or even the media!!

gamers games knives politicians bbc crime

Everybody's Doing it

2007-03-16T17:25:00.000Z

Blogging, that is..

So why shouldn't I?

It seems that these days, the web is bursting at the seams with blogs...everyone wants to share their opinions on just about every topic imaginable.

It's a bit like an evening down the pub...but without the beer, or the smoke...oh wait I have some beer...and I don't smoke anyway!

- Neither will anybody else in a pub in just a short time, in any case! ;p

Some (a few, to be honest) are interesting, fewer still thought provoking, while perhaps a larger number are (at least occasionally) amusing.

So, how much longer can I resist joining this great movement of web free speech...clearly no longer.......

I'm betting this will all end in tears...or boredom...or both...but we will see

MrTinkles