Posts Tagged ‘Human Stupidity’

Do you have the freedom to restrict others freedoms?

That in essence is the case before the Human rights courts. Can religion be grounds to insist or refuse on behaviour in the workplace.

It is unfortunate that they seem to have swept up several cases into one as they are very different. But I think boil down to this. Are you free to give offence or can you stop someone offending you?

First up is the wearing of crosses or religious symbols. Work places prevent them on the grounds it may offend someone. As long as it doesn’t interfere with your work or constitute a hazard, and breaks no laws what’s the real problem? If someone wants to be offended by the sight of them – Vampires for instance – then they should of course free to do so.

By the same token refusing to carry out work because the customer offends you. For example Islington Council registrar Ms Ladele who refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies. She is free to believe what she likes but not to be employed by all the taxpayers but to refuse to carry out work for those that personally offend her. Fine, be offended, and do the work you are paid for. You do not have the right to make the world fit your views. She does of course have the freedom to leave and seek other employment.

Of course in a court of law if any of the applicants can supply evidence that their particular brand of fairy tale nonsense is actually true then the courts should listen. But I guess we’re not expecting any breakthroughs there are we?

+++UPDATE+++
Bloody hell. Sense prevailed.
The court took my advice on each and every case!

The Daily Fail has a campaign to keep the kiddies safe from all the porn and paedos that lurk on the internet…

As everyone knows when a child goes online a light flashes at paedo central and they are bombarded by grooming requests every 5 secs*. As a result only a massive censoring campaign will stop a legion of Jimmy Savilles literally leaping through the computer screen the moment your back is turned**

To this end they’ve managed to scare a statement out of the PM, a man so full of concern for kids he lets his go free range in his local pub.

Let me reiterate the key points: with our new system, every parent will be prompted to protect their child online. If they don’t make choices, protection will be automatically on. No other Government has taken such radical steps before. And once all this is in place, Britain will have the most robust internet child protection measures of any country in the world – bar none.

To get all this underway, I have appointed Claire Perry MP to be my adviser on preventing the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood.
Claire is a passionate campaigner for internet safety and mother of three. Her job will be to see this through, to get internet companies on board, to do what it takes to protect children and young people online.

So, basically companies should be forced to filter the internet by default.

Here’s an outrageous idea. How about parents should be responsible for their kids?

Would you let your child talk to strangers on the street without keeping an eye on them? Then why do parents abdicate responsibility for kids online? Would you let them talk to strange people on the phone in the bedroom late at night without supervision? then why let them skype or chat with them?

Of course it makes no odds. Kids know far more about computers than their parents anyway. Any teenager worth his salt can circumvent copy protection that Record companies spend billions on producing, you think a net filter designed to be simple enough for parents to use and set to off the moment it interferes with watching strictly-come-x-pap-idol online will be a problem? Who do they think sets up most of the computer gear in houses?

*like most Daily Fail facts this is bullshit
**Possibly. If you believe newspapers.

Ah, the age old question of free speech, freedom of belief and so on.

Today I saw a post on a buddies timeline

Being an atheist is okay. Being an atheist and shaming religions and spirituality as silly and not real is not okay. Being a Christian is okay. Being homophobic, misogynistic, racist or an otherwise hateful person and blaming it on your religion is not okay. Being a reindeer is okay. Bullying and excluding another reindeer because he has a shiny red nose is not okay

To which I replied…

if they didn’t want to be described as silly and not real, then they need to stop pretending silly and unreal stuff isn’t. But like the sentiment of lets have a beer regardless!

I was quickly slapped back into place by one of his friends…

…Ah, so you’re talking about superstrings, particle/wave duality, quantum tunneling, time dilation, quantum superposition etc. Silly and unreal things that I don’t understand but am happy to accept as helpful ways of explaining things. I have the same approach to God, and hoped that more than 3 minutes would pass from *** posting the picture I like, to a comment that actually misses the point of the picture entirely.

Okay… not fair to barge in on a friends timeline and start an argument. But this is my blog so I’m free to vent here

First up the assumption that I was talking about those things. Wrong. I was talking about religious claptrap being peddled as true. As the t-shirt slogan say. I will convert for evidence. If you peddle or defend ridiculous ideas that are plain silly, then do not be surprised or offended when someone calls it such.

As for “superstrings, particle/wave duality, quantum tunneling, time dilation, quantum superposition etc. Silly and unreal things that I don’t understand”. The fact you do not understand fully something does not make it silly and unreal. It merely shows you do not understand something. The scientific theories you mention are just that. Theories. Conclusions based on the best knowledge to hand that will be improved upon as we gain in scientific, experimental and theoretical knowledge. It’s called progress, and as I’ve stated before I’ll take a conclusion over a belief every time.

As for equating an intolerance of religious nonsense with homophobia, misogyny and racism. You mistake my intolerance of pandering to religion with an intolerance of religion. You are perfectly free to believe what delusion you choose. You may even hold beliefs the rest of civilisation find objection such as homophobia, misogyny and racism. But you are not exempt from having those beliefs criticised or ridiculed, and if you wish to inflict your beliefs on others or act in accordance with you beliefs then be expected to be asked for evidence or to justify your behaviour.

I think the point I “missed” is that I am not supposed to have the temerity to criticise an idea if it is labelled a “belief”. Well you’ve shit out there mate… As for “shaming religions”? They can only be shamed if they have done something shameful. Why on earth would an organisation guilty of a shameful act be deserving of special protection?

Finally, of course being a reindeer is okay. Reindeer have learnt from Santa that bullying is wrong and are never nasty to other reindeer now. To suggest otherwise is just plain stupid.

On a more cheerful note, if you want to see reindeer in action you can track Santa’s progress here

This time it’s the Mayans lack of foresight in extending their calendar that is causing consternation. It has been nearly two years since the last end of the world after all…

Russian government ministers have issued re-assuring messages, Bugarach in France has banned travellers to the UFO garage that could save the faithful.

Meanwhile in Oz, when they’re not calling up the NHS…

I am of course certain it is yet more religious ignorance writ large. The only end of the world we are witnessing is the gradual slide into a new dark ages as religion, extremism, ignorance and over population condemn the planet to a slow painful extinction.

So certain in fact, that if the sky pixie peddlars are right and it’s the second coming/end of calender/Ragnarök (delete as applicable) and I’m wrong and the world does in fact end I will buy every reader a pint at the winchester tavern

Last orders please…

Just so you know how long you have…

Two news stories that have been dragging on that to me share some bleak and disturbing similarities.

First up Jimmy Saville. Now bereft of headstone, reputation and venues named after him, despite as yet being convicted of nothing. It is alleged he carried out decades worth of abuse of children and vulnerable adults in places such as the BBC, Great Ormand Street, Leeds hospital (where he was a volunteer porter), and numerous other places.

Now a multitude of voices crawl out of the wordwork to pour fuel on the flames as they stoke up the witchburning. Now the man is dead, now the abused children are damaged, now the accusers have nothing to fear, now the horse has well and truly bolted, they speak out.

That Saville was a weirdo and probably a molester is no surprise I think. What shocks is the sheer number of people that must have known, must have covered the facts, in effect must have facilitated his abuse.

If you knew what was going on, truly knew, and did nothing, you are an accomplice. You left children and sick young adults unable to defend for themselves to the clutches of an abuser. You put your job or career before them. You should be named and shamed.

Second story is that of Lance Armstrong. Wonder boy and darling of the new super-sport cycling now exposed as drugs cheat and bully. He is alleged to have systematically doped and encouraged others to do so. He is alleged to have threatened other riders to capitulate to his demands, threatened reporters who wrote articles he disagreed with or that threatened to tarnish his teflon reputation as the hero who defeated cancer. Again people knew, and did nothing.

But the thing that really joins the two events, the thing that makes my blood boil, is the defence I have seen on more than one occasion.

“But think of the charitable work they did”

They got away with their crimes in part because they raised cash for good works. They were shielded and tolerated because they helped fund hospitals, or research. They used photogenic kids in dire medical need as a cover for their activities. In effect, allow me to carry on or little timmy suffers. People rationalised the harm they did as it allowed them to keep their job, or carry on their research. They put their own goals first and profited from the crimes.

The fact they raised a few million that was put to good use does not absolve them from their crimes. Or do we just put a price on abuse? Million quid per small child? or 2 years of drugs cheating?

They perverted what should have been good and noble activities to be little more than covers, and if you use that answer in any way as an excuse for allowing them to continue you were an accomplice too.

I believe that “but think of the charity they bring in” will now be termed the Armstrong-Saville defence…

Therapy session for me this.

Took Mrs Spider to an art installation at Dunstanburgh Castle last night, great place and interesting piece. Poetry and Art. Yep, I know what you’re thinking. Spider? Poetry? Culture? You never knew did you? (Some pics here if you’re interested)

Anyway. What put a little bit of a dampner on the evening was during the drive home. Well after midnight, no traffic, plodding along in my old wagon past Newcastle when someone decide to chuck a rock at us from a bridge.

Close shave


Missed my windscreen and Mrs Spider by about 2 feet. Or to put it another way (rough maths at 65mph) about 0.02 secs earlier and they would have killed or seriously injured someone.

I’ve no idea why. To be honest I really don’t fucking care. As far as I am concerned someone tried to kill Mrs Spider.

The Police were quick to the scene, no chance of catching anyone mind you once 2 sets of blue disco lights had turned up. But made all the right noises. Apparently they don’t have a history of this problem. Or maybe the fuckers have never managed to hit a car before.

So two things struck me (pardon the pun). One, I am really capable of wanting someone dead. It comes a quite a shock when you really do want it to happen. Not necessarily hurt. Just dead. Ended. No longer a threat to anyone. Anyone who considers this sport is defective and if it were a dog you would have it put down without a second thought. Instead an army of do-gooding shit-stains with guilt issues of their own lay in waiting to make excuses that he wasn’t breast fed enough, or maybe one of his numerous temporary bastard inducing fathers wouldn’t buy him shiny enough trainers. Don’t care. They need to be turned into fertiliser before they hurt someone who isn’t a similar waste of O2. Probably do the planet some good if anyone sharing more than a passing genetic link was as well.

The other thing is how fragile things are and we rarely consider it. I’m glad we had a great evening to balance the event or I really would be a spitting ball of anger still. An hour or so playing with the photos from last night helps you realise which part of the evening was important and you should make memories of. The other should be relegated to that passing thought that occurs to you when hopefully you read about the fuckers being thrown off a similar bridge to meet a sharp and hopefully not too painless end.

0.02 secs. Not much is it? If this provokes anything in you. Let it be a resolution to do something nice with a loved one, and if you see some little shit on a bridge with a rock, maybe mount the pavement briefly. Both make the world a better place.

The advertising, the endless drip of North Korean style you must be happy hysterical propaganda, the relentless stream of (LOCOG approved naturally) advertising.

Now this… You are not even allowed to post a link to their website unless…

Links to the Site. You may create your own link to the Site, provided that your link is in a text-only format. You may not use any link to the Site as a method of creating an unauthorised association between an organisation, business, goods or services and London 2012, and agree that no such link shall portray us or any other official London 2012 organisations (or our or their activities, products or services) in a false, misleading, derogatory or otherwise objectionable manner. The use of our logo or any other Olympic or London 2012 Mark(s) as a link to the Site is not permitted. View our guidelines on Use of the Games’ Marks.

So no saying nasty things about them ok? Like it’s a colossal waste of our money when we’re broke. That for a glorified egg and spoon jamboree that was supposed to benefit the country it only seems to benefit Coke and MacDonald’s. That it is simply fucking outrageous that troops have lost leave to provide cover for the farce that is the home office and G4S. That from now on I will do my best to avoid any product or service that is an official supporter of the Olympics

Of course I can’t link to their website now so you can find which corporations to avoid for yourself.

I can link here though

And again, it fails because once you are outside the UK their law does not apply to the internet you morons.

Want to know why Blair (evil) and Brown (Bonkers) headed a non-stop roller coaster ride into bankruptcy and beggared a nation? This explain it all. He is their shadow education minister minister.

I especially like the bit where he claims to be giving a maths lesson as well.

Here we go again!

The Church has written in vehement disgust and appaled anger at the Governments plan to allow gays to call their union marriage. If this heinous and outrageous crime is permitted they claim they will break with the state (and all those subsidies?) and threaten to stop conducting weddings on behalf of the state.

Despite the fact fact that the Governments proposed legislation granting all orientations the same partnership rights specifically will not force Clergy to conduct gay marriages they are up in arms that anyone else be allowed to do something they disapprove of. They go further in insisting they be allowed to retain their bigoted and discrimatory church rules because they fear it could be challenged in the European courts. Which is somewhat strange, as they appear to be a fan of these coursts when it suits them?

I’ll forgo reiterating all the usual arguments about religion, and ask this.

If they break with the state, refuse to carry out state work (ie; marriages) then what is the church but a social club with some funny rules and charitable status?

In order to keep charitable status, any charity must abide by the equality act which unlike the rules they call laws, is in fact a Law, that states;

…makes it unlawful to discriminate against anyone because of a protected characteristic in a wide range of areas including employment and the provision of services.

The following are protected characteristics:

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation

Failure to comply with this should mean a charity loses it’s charitable status. Should be fun when they have to pay some tax on their income, property and investments. Maybe then they can contribute to helping the poor in society instead of sitting in churches and mansions and spout outdated prejudice against minorities.

We may as well as we get another knee jerk law to combat Trolls!

It displays the staggering level of ignorance the judiciary has for the internet. It will be a criminal act to upset someone. Will there be an official list of insults available? What about sites hosted internationally? If I host my website in the Caribbean or South America how exactly would they prevent publication? On Twitter will we see a repeat of the twitter joke trial where a man is arrested and tried for an obvious joke, but the thousands who re-tweeted the exacts same words are ignored?

Farcical, and another attempt at censorship. freedom of speech means people will get offended. So what? be offended; you are free to. Be as offended as you like. But we all know the only use to which laws like this end up being put to is to “protect the privacy” in hiding rich and powerful wrongdoing.

So frankly and as this is about bad language on the net, you can all go fuck yourselves if that’s the case.

I don’t find trolls particularly amusing. Like a playground kid shouting names. Just ignore them, if they threaten actual violence then they have broken existing laws and should be arrested for that. There is no need for more ill conceived rubbish masquerading as law.
 

Categories