Have a read of this story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7077934.stm and tell me what exactly was wrong with the poor guy's comments?
OK, it may not exactly be constructive to say that immigrants are given the world while local residents are left to rot, but he is voicing the opinion of the man on the street - and isn't that his job? Don't we pay the wages of our MP's to represent our views in Parliament? Apparently I am mistaken!
And to lambaste someone for agreeing with comments made by Enoch Powell which have proven to be true, seems like pandering to political correctness. If he had quoted a similar sentiment from someone who is not seen as a racist figure, would he have had to justify himself?
This country is slowly growing mad - we fight against ID cards, CCTV and yet stand by as our freedom of speech is slowly taken from us - in the guise of 'isms' whether by sexism, racism or any other 'ism' - and don't seem to bat an eyelid... Just expressing an opinion that may upset someone is now forbidden under the law of 'isms' and quite frankly, as ling as you are not offensive in your expression of your opinion, and you accept others may not share your views, then you should be able to express your opinion about anything at anytime.
Stop the Madness - before it's too late and we are living as Communists!
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Ian Blair versus Jean Charles de Menezes
Picture the scene - 7 days ago 4 psycho freaks blew up 3 trains and a bus killing dozens of people in the centre of London. We are still in the midst of mass hysteria and the majority of people in the country are jumping at their own shadows - paranoia is rife.
Our thoughts drift to a suspected suicide bomber who is under surveillance. Armed police follow this suspect to Stockwell tube station and fearing he will detonate a bomb, shoot him.
Now, I agree it is a tragedy that it turns out an innocent person was killed, and I sincerely feel for his family. However, we do tend to forget the context. I am not trying to claim I know what happened - I don't know why he wasn't stopped before he entered the station and I don't know if he was asked to stop. The bottom line is that the police HAD to treat him as guilty as they would all suspected bombers as they couldn't risk another massive loss of life.
It seems to me that in this situation it is wrong to try and apportion blame. It was the first terrorist attack on London since the IRA ceasefire (for which the police generally got warnings) and the terrorist attack on the WTC. It was a new procedure and all new procedures are prone to mistakes.
Let the police learn the lessons from the incident - and yes, if they are repeated in the near future, by all means sack someone. But give them the chance to learn the lessons first!
The upshot of all this is really to beg the media and the public to ALWAYS keep events within the context in which they occurred.
We were all scared of anyone who looked a bit Muslim at the time - and what if the police HAD been right? They'd all have got medals... You can't have your cake and eat it! Sorry!!
Our thoughts drift to a suspected suicide bomber who is under surveillance. Armed police follow this suspect to Stockwell tube station and fearing he will detonate a bomb, shoot him.
Now, I agree it is a tragedy that it turns out an innocent person was killed, and I sincerely feel for his family. However, we do tend to forget the context. I am not trying to claim I know what happened - I don't know why he wasn't stopped before he entered the station and I don't know if he was asked to stop. The bottom line is that the police HAD to treat him as guilty as they would all suspected bombers as they couldn't risk another massive loss of life.
It seems to me that in this situation it is wrong to try and apportion blame. It was the first terrorist attack on London since the IRA ceasefire (for which the police generally got warnings) and the terrorist attack on the WTC. It was a new procedure and all new procedures are prone to mistakes.
Let the police learn the lessons from the incident - and yes, if they are repeated in the near future, by all means sack someone. But give them the chance to learn the lessons first!
The upshot of all this is really to beg the media and the public to ALWAYS keep events within the context in which they occurred.
We were all scared of anyone who looked a bit Muslim at the time - and what if the police HAD been right? They'd all have got medals... You can't have your cake and eat it! Sorry!!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Internet Explorer is a VIRUS in itself...
That may be a little harsh, but as 99% of viruses/trojans out there on the web are targeted at Internet Explorer and are activated by using Internet Explorer, but are harmless (at the moment) if using a different browser.
Have a little read of this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7067962.stm - the captchua security stops programs from automatically submitting forms and creating forum accounts.
Most of you will probably wonder why that is a problem - if an automated program creates user accounts on forums, it is generally because they want to post spam or material of an adult nature.
It is dangerous and does have the potential to affect you.
PLEASE GET INTO THE HABIT OF USING AN ALTERNATIVE BROWSER TO IE.
Try different browsers:
http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/ - Firefox
http://www.opera.com/download/ - Opera
Have a little read of this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7067962.stm - the captchua security stops programs from automatically submitting forms and creating forum accounts.
Most of you will probably wonder why that is a problem - if an automated program creates user accounts on forums, it is generally because they want to post spam or material of an adult nature.
It is dangerous and does have the potential to affect you.
PLEASE GET INTO THE HABIT OF USING AN ALTERNATIVE BROWSER TO IE.
Try different browsers:
http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/ - Firefox
http://www.opera.com/download/ - Opera
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Euthanasia - my right to die
I want parliament to seriously debate the question of Euthanasia.
Question: Why do we see fit to put animals 'out of their misery' but fail to accept the same could be true of humans? We put animals down because it is in their best interests - they have no say but they still may wish to live.
I accept that Euthanasia is open to misuse - that is why it needs to be debated. There are a lot of people who agree in principle but are worried about it being misused. Fair enough.
I am not religious and if I decide while I have all my faculties that if I then get brain damaged or a degenerative disease that I want to be 'put out of my misery' when I reach a certain point, where's the harm?
The system as it stands is horrible - you are basically starved to death as we can't cope with the thought of killing someone - starving someone is obviously far more acceptable in the eyes of the law. It we can devise a system where you are given a lethal dose of something that kills in seconds then it needs to be discussed.
We need to devise a system that means that doctors who do not agree with euthanasia do not have to practice something they do not believe in.
We need to stop wasting money on prosecuting people who fly to suicide clinics in Switzerland with family who help them to commit suicide - and then get chucked out of court.
There will always be a debate about ethics - there still is about abortion. The bottom line in this country is that everyone should have the choice. As medical research progresses then yes laws are changed and adapted. But we can't legislate for things that may be discovered in 100 years time.
I do not believe in a God and so religious views should not be imposed on me.
I have the right to decide how and when I die - I can choose to let my God take me or I can make the decision myself. The right to make my own decision should not be taken from me just because I am physically or mentally unable to complete the process at that time.
GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHEN MY LIFE ENDS.
Question: Why do we see fit to put animals 'out of their misery' but fail to accept the same could be true of humans? We put animals down because it is in their best interests - they have no say but they still may wish to live.
I accept that Euthanasia is open to misuse - that is why it needs to be debated. There are a lot of people who agree in principle but are worried about it being misused. Fair enough.
I am not religious and if I decide while I have all my faculties that if I then get brain damaged or a degenerative disease that I want to be 'put out of my misery' when I reach a certain point, where's the harm?
The system as it stands is horrible - you are basically starved to death as we can't cope with the thought of killing someone - starving someone is obviously far more acceptable in the eyes of the law. It we can devise a system where you are given a lethal dose of something that kills in seconds then it needs to be discussed.
We need to devise a system that means that doctors who do not agree with euthanasia do not have to practice something they do not believe in.
We need to stop wasting money on prosecuting people who fly to suicide clinics in Switzerland with family who help them to commit suicide - and then get chucked out of court.
There will always be a debate about ethics - there still is about abortion. The bottom line in this country is that everyone should have the choice. As medical research progresses then yes laws are changed and adapted. But we can't legislate for things that may be discovered in 100 years time.
I do not believe in a God and so religious views should not be imposed on me.
I have the right to decide how and when I die - I can choose to let my God take me or I can make the decision myself. The right to make my own decision should not be taken from me just because I am physically or mentally unable to complete the process at that time.
GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHEN MY LIFE ENDS.
Madeline - update
Has anyone bothered to think that the media may have sealed Madeline MaCann's fate?
Regardless of who took her or why she was abducted, let's just assume it was a random kidnapping. If you were a kidnapper and trying to sell a young kid into the sex industry or slave trade, and her picture was all over the news, you know that no-one is going to touch them with a barge pole. The cheapest and safest thing to do is to 'dispose' of them. So the media involvement may have actually caused her death - if she is dead. Something to think about...
On another Madeline tack...even if the parents are guilty, they will never be found guilty in this country as the public (advised by the media and the police) seem to think it is impossible.
There are many things that don't add up and should be investigated with an open mind - the twins were sedated - why? There was a babysitting service available but they chose to leave 3 kids under 4 years old alone - why? There was a 2 hour gap between checks on the kids, then 2 checks in 20 minutes (if news reports are to be believed) - why?
On their side, the DNA evidence the Portuguese police is weak - the blood spots in the car are an 82% match - for DNA that is weak - you would expect it be high 90's.
Then you have the 'feeling' that you get about a case. Something just doesn't seem right...
I am happy to keep an open mind - for the moment. As long as ALL authorities do. So if a council tenant goes our for dinner one evening and checks on their kid every 2 hours, that should be fine then.
Regardless of who took her or why she was abducted, let's just assume it was a random kidnapping. If you were a kidnapper and trying to sell a young kid into the sex industry or slave trade, and her picture was all over the news, you know that no-one is going to touch them with a barge pole. The cheapest and safest thing to do is to 'dispose' of them. So the media involvement may have actually caused her death - if she is dead. Something to think about...
On another Madeline tack...even if the parents are guilty, they will never be found guilty in this country as the public (advised by the media and the police) seem to think it is impossible.
There are many things that don't add up and should be investigated with an open mind - the twins were sedated - why? There was a babysitting service available but they chose to leave 3 kids under 4 years old alone - why? There was a 2 hour gap between checks on the kids, then 2 checks in 20 minutes (if news reports are to be believed) - why?
On their side, the DNA evidence the Portuguese police is weak - the blood spots in the car are an 82% match - for DNA that is weak - you would expect it be high 90's.
Then you have the 'feeling' that you get about a case. Something just doesn't seem right...
I am happy to keep an open mind - for the moment. As long as ALL authorities do. So if a council tenant goes our for dinner one evening and checks on their kid every 2 hours, that should be fine then.
Formula 1 - exciting?
Is it just me or does the situation at Maclaren, with Alonso and Hamilton remind anyone of Ferrari, Senna and Prost? Now, I am no expert and F1 bores me to tears these days - in fact, it always did! It was just that I was forced to watch races by my evil babysitter (my brother) and recognise drivers from their helmets and name their team-mates... Anyway, I digress! I remember the last race of a season sometime where Senna took Prost out at Suzuka to make sure he won the Drivers Championship! Wonder if Hamilton will do the same to Alonso? After all, Ron Dennis and Maclaren have nothing to win or lose in the Constructors Championship after being chucked out...
The thing all Hamilton lovers seem to forget is that the reigning World Champ SHOULD get preferential treatment from the team...in fact, don't all teams have a number one driver? The fact that Alonso is saying everything is equal in the team is actually him pointing out that he should be given a better car and a better shot at retaining his title - yet he is being given the same chance as a rookie - or to phrase it better, Hamilton is being given the same chance as a reigning Champion. Ask yourselves a question...would Alonso have gotten involved in the whole Ferrari spy scandal if he felt like the number 1 driver at Maclaren. Hamilton is Ron Dennis' pet and will always be treated as such.
If I were an F1 driver, I would steer clear of Maclaren - at least until Hamilton has forgotten his roots and who he owes his success to...
My brother would have been better than Lewis Hamilton given the same chances...it's all down to money at the end of the day. No F1 driver has ever had to work for a living and they are all ungrateful arses at the end of the day!
F1 rant over!
The thing all Hamilton lovers seem to forget is that the reigning World Champ SHOULD get preferential treatment from the team...in fact, don't all teams have a number one driver? The fact that Alonso is saying everything is equal in the team is actually him pointing out that he should be given a better car and a better shot at retaining his title - yet he is being given the same chance as a rookie - or to phrase it better, Hamilton is being given the same chance as a reigning Champion. Ask yourselves a question...would Alonso have gotten involved in the whole Ferrari spy scandal if he felt like the number 1 driver at Maclaren. Hamilton is Ron Dennis' pet and will always be treated as such.
If I were an F1 driver, I would steer clear of Maclaren - at least until Hamilton has forgotten his roots and who he owes his success to...
My brother would have been better than Lewis Hamilton given the same chances...it's all down to money at the end of the day. No F1 driver has ever had to work for a living and they are all ungrateful arses at the end of the day!
F1 rant over!
Monday, September 24, 2007
Stay away from VirginMedia! You have been warned...
"Instead of being charged per second for your phonecalls, we will now round up to the nearest what?" J asks me.
I reply "five minutes" says I, thinking that would just be ridiculous.
"Correct" says J.
"You are having a laugh aren't ya? You serious?" says I.
You get the gist anyway.
Yes, today J received a letter from Virgin Media (despite having cancelled his contract) stating that for a phonecall lasting 4 mins 50 seconds, you will be charged for 5 minutes - meaning a 10 second call will be charged as though you had been on the phone for 5 minutes.
Virgin are taking the piss and everyone should move away now - they have terrible customer services (bar 1 nice woman) and they are about to rip you all off.
I reply "five minutes" says I, thinking that would just be ridiculous.
"Correct" says J.
"You are having a laugh aren't ya? You serious?" says I.
You get the gist anyway.
Yes, today J received a letter from Virgin Media (despite having cancelled his contract) stating that for a phonecall lasting 4 mins 50 seconds, you will be charged for 5 minutes - meaning a 10 second call will be charged as though you had been on the phone for 5 minutes.
Virgin are taking the piss and everyone should move away now - they have terrible customer services (bar 1 nice woman) and they are about to rip you all off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
