Tory party link
Amid the overnight influx of "spam" I was offered a new link to the Tory party. I think I have more confidence in the penis enlargement ads
Amid the overnight influx of "spam" I was offered a new link to the Tory party. I think I have more confidence in the penis enlargement ads
The Today Programme excelled itself this morning. First The Bishop of Southwark - "I'm a bishop it's what I do" - contrasting firm religious believers with the more sceptical sort. And of course the firm believers were "less altruistic" than the sceptics. How does he know? In any case this sloppy remark conceals a profound ignorance as to the character of belief: I, for instance, have firm religious convictions and deep scepticism at the same time. How else does the bishop imagine anyone ever produces any serious theological work?
Then the nasty shouter Carolyn Quinn slurs Ming Campbell. First she tells him, "You said you'd hammered so and so..." He denied this. So she said, "Well you were reported as saying..."
Ming tried to intervene, "Ah well, if you're going to say...."
She came back shouting him down, "Oh well, we won't debate that!"
Which means that, having first slurred him, twice, she denies him the chance of reply
What a gorgon she is!
All three main political parties in Britain have declared that climate change is their priority. Can anyone think of anything more senseless, less rooted? Global warming is a politically-motivated myth put forward by the anti-capitalist brigade, associated nihilists who want to drag us back to the stone age: people who actually hate humanity and dress up their malignity in phoney idealism. Green is the new Red. And of course it's a great funding bonanaza for research departments
There have always been groups of misanthropic loonies, but that supposedly mainstream political parties could behave as if there is any truth in their lurid apoclayticisms is absurd and shows the paucity of political thought in Britain today
There is always climate change. It's only thirty years since "authority" was telling us we were overdue a new ice age. Give us another twenty years and that view will come back.
There's only one religion in the calendar at Sandhurst Military Academy. Yes, it's the bottoms-up chaps' religion again. Ramadan is highlighted in the Academy's calendar. Christian festivals don't get a look in
The BBC's "Sunday" programme carried an item - seriously! - about Ramadan calendars (like Advent calendars) which go on sale this week. I wish the presenter had had the presence of mind to ask the manufacturer whether every time you open a window you get blown up
This follows quickly on the news that, according to "The Times," half the mosques in Britain are preaching the rightness of terrorist attacks. One Imam is quoted as saying that the Mass is "obviously mumbo jumbo" - and he jokes about it. Why are there no jokes about Islam aired in the media? Its adherents certainly lend themselves to ridicule: sticking their arses in the air five times a day. How about a few little choruses:
"Randy Muslims when they die/Find seventy virgins in the sky"
Sheffield university has produced a report to say that classes in our society don't much mix. Of course oiks and toffs don't fraternise. What do they have in common? Who but an oik would get a tattoo and an earring, a shirt bearing an advertising logo, an Ipod for his filthy music, a pair of designer trainers, ten pints of lager and take himself off to the football match? But it comes as a shocking surprise to Sheffield university researchers that this oik wouldn't meet many toffs when he arrived at the ground. Meetings between classes happen only by accident - as when a homosexual oik might go to see Wagner's "Ring" because he thought it was a live sex show.
I just can't believe this! Is coincidence something basic to Islam? I mean, when I review the terrorist outrages of the last decade or so: the twin towers; Beslan; Madrid; Indonesia; London, Saudi Arabia; Philippines;Egypt and so many other places... why, all the atrocities were committed by Muslims!
Can anyone explain to me this weird statistical phenemenon, please?
A senior British judge says that it is "not fair" that only criminals have their DNA recorded on the national database. He says everyone's DNA should be recorded. Together with the proposal for ID cards, this represents another great threat to individual liberty. If everyone's DNA, then perhaps everyone's fingerprints? The presumption of innocence is a thing of the past
Civil society requires that there should always be a permanent and strong bias in favour of personal liberty. The state has no business knowing anything more about any individual then when he was born and his civil status. If he owns a car, he must hold a licence and register the number. If he earns above a certain amount, he must pay taxes. These are specific and justifiable invasions of privacy in return for social privileges. There must be no general invasion of privacy in a free society. there is a general right to privacy. There is no corresponding right to invade privacy
The BBC refers to Islamic terrorists as "militants." This is absurd, because it is uninformative. Anyone who is engaged in a a fight or other form of struggle is a militant. The British army are militants. The Book of Common Prayer asks us to pray for "the church militant."
If the BBC wishes to continue to use the word, then it should be prefixed by the adjective "Muslim"
But it won't be - for the reason why the BBC wouldn't use the word "terrorist" in the first place is precisely because this would be adjudged critical of Islam. And it is an article of faith in the BBC that Muslims are never criticised
There is a curious method of discussion daily on the BBC. They will discuss anything but the facts. This morning, for instance on The Today Programme, there was a five minutes' discussion about children's refusal to eat school meals since the menus were changed some time ago. In all this discussion, the protagonists managed to argue without either of them once mentioning what the children used to eat and what they are being asked to eat now! So the discussion about school meals was, so to speak, empty of content
I was always taught that in journalism the essential questions are of quantity and location: "Who? What? Where? and When?" And that the establishment of these basic facts is a necessary condition for any meaningful discussion about anything - before we even approach who is right and who is wrong
