The BBC report that in relation to the conviction and jailing of some criminals:
Anjem Choudury, one of the march's organisers and fined in a separate case, claimed there was one law for Muslims and another for everyone else.
"This is not a peaceful country. Look at the words of [suicide bombers] Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer who took military action against the UK," he told reporters.
"The more you put Muslims under pressure, the more problems there will be."
Killing people on Tube trains and buses is not military action, Mr Choudry. It is cowardly, criminal, terrorism. Murder. No excuses. You should be ashamed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6903445.stm
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
More Neil Logic
More Neil logic
According to Neil, my opposition to the government’s plan to compel me to supply my fingerprints and possibly other biometric data for their insecure database(s) means I am automatically also opposed to mobile phones and bank accounts and if I have a mobile phone or a bank account or even use the internet I am a hypocrite. This would be a laugh if it wasn’t so offensive.
Neil-
The point about NO2ID is that there [sic] opposition to audit trails and tracking makes them de-facto opponents of bank accounts and mobiles. You cannot get round this.
It’s essential for Neil to write off people who oppose ID cards as dangerous tin-foil hat nutters; otherwise he’d have to accept that opposition to the scheme comes from a wide range of sources. Fellow doubters I’ve come across haven’t expressed hatred of modern technology as Neil suggests but it’s a classic smear tactic to pretend otherwise.
In fact many of the people I’ve come across understand far more about the inner workings of this technology than a bloke like Neil who would rather deal in platitudes than facts. He once claimed he could find out my home address by tracing the IP address I was using to connect to the internet – he even sent a link to site that explained how he was going to do it. Needless to say, he hasn’t traced my home address, despite my continuing use of the internet, but it betrays an interesting mindset.
Neil would make a fascinating study for students of the I’m OK you’re OK branch of psychology – if I disagree with him, it’s important for him add me to one of his lists of bad (and dangerous) people. If he doesn’t do this he’d have to accept that it is possible, for example, that a rich person who went to Eton might have a worthwhile opinion on anything (although I’m not rich and I went to a state school – that’s just an example).
That’s a shame.
What is more than a shame is the twisted logic. My opposition to a universal DNA database apparently makes me in favour of letting rapists roam free. I can’t begin to explain how upsetting it is to have such utter bollocks spouted in my general direction. I am not opposed to the use of DNA evidence in rape and other criminal cases, but I am opposed to creating a database that will encourage lazy investigations that rely on a trawl of a database rather than looking for proper evidence.
Neil accepts that there would be a few mistakes – but seems to feel it’s OK for a few thousand innocent people to be in jail if it makes the streets safer. Maybe we should just all go to jail? The streets would be pretty safe then.
He says you can’t trust the judgment of anyone who believes in God – unless that person happens to be Tony Blair, of course. But apparently for Neil there is no hypocrisy in supporting Blair yet saying anyone else who believes in God is untrustworthy.
According to Neil, my opposition to the government’s plan to compel me to supply my fingerprints and possibly other biometric data for their insecure database(s) means I am automatically also opposed to mobile phones and bank accounts and if I have a mobile phone or a bank account or even use the internet I am a hypocrite. This would be a laugh if it wasn’t so offensive.
Neil-
The point about NO2ID is that there [sic] opposition to audit trails and tracking makes them de-facto opponents of bank accounts and mobiles. You cannot get round this.
It’s essential for Neil to write off people who oppose ID cards as dangerous tin-foil hat nutters; otherwise he’d have to accept that opposition to the scheme comes from a wide range of sources. Fellow doubters I’ve come across haven’t expressed hatred of modern technology as Neil suggests but it’s a classic smear tactic to pretend otherwise.
In fact many of the people I’ve come across understand far more about the inner workings of this technology than a bloke like Neil who would rather deal in platitudes than facts. He once claimed he could find out my home address by tracing the IP address I was using to connect to the internet – he even sent a link to site that explained how he was going to do it. Needless to say, he hasn’t traced my home address, despite my continuing use of the internet, but it betrays an interesting mindset.
Neil would make a fascinating study for students of the I’m OK you’re OK branch of psychology – if I disagree with him, it’s important for him add me to one of his lists of bad (and dangerous) people. If he doesn’t do this he’d have to accept that it is possible, for example, that a rich person who went to Eton might have a worthwhile opinion on anything (although I’m not rich and I went to a state school – that’s just an example).
That’s a shame.
What is more than a shame is the twisted logic. My opposition to a universal DNA database apparently makes me in favour of letting rapists roam free. I can’t begin to explain how upsetting it is to have such utter bollocks spouted in my general direction. I am not opposed to the use of DNA evidence in rape and other criminal cases, but I am opposed to creating a database that will encourage lazy investigations that rely on a trawl of a database rather than looking for proper evidence.
Neil accepts that there would be a few mistakes – but seems to feel it’s OK for a few thousand innocent people to be in jail if it makes the streets safer. Maybe we should just all go to jail? The streets would be pretty safe then.
He says you can’t trust the judgment of anyone who believes in God – unless that person happens to be Tony Blair, of course. But apparently for Neil there is no hypocrisy in supporting Blair yet saying anyone else who believes in God is untrustworthy.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
A quick round up
So half the cabinet has smoked dope. We can do it but for you lot it's illegal. It was so much weaker in our day of course. Bollocks - you are hypocrites all of you.
I carry a donor card, but I am dead against the idea of an opt-out system.
I carry a donor card, but I am dead against the idea of an opt-out system.
Oh Goody, more road safety stupidity
Statistics show some young drivers are killing themselves and their friends.
What does the government think would be a fitting response?
How about banning the carrying of passengers aged 10-20 between the hours of 11pm and 5am? What the hell do they put in the water in Westminster? This is crap on so many levels, but here are just a few:
Like all this government’s recent ideas, this will be ignored by the people who don’t care.
Like all this government’s recent ideas, it will be a nuisance for the poor souls who adhere to it and the poor Police – who will be vilified for stopping yougster’s cars by the youngsters (on a practical note – will they just turn out the teenagers, possibly miles from home and the worse for wear whilst demanding their driver clears off without them?), and vilified by the tabloids as soon as car they should have stopped crashes.
It is, frankly, stupid; and it really worries me that MPs can’t see that.
What does the government think would be a fitting response?
How about banning the carrying of passengers aged 10-20 between the hours of 11pm and 5am? What the hell do they put in the water in Westminster? This is crap on so many levels, but here are just a few:
Like all this government’s recent ideas, this will be ignored by the people who don’t care.
Like all this government’s recent ideas, it will be a nuisance for the poor souls who adhere to it and the poor Police – who will be vilified for stopping yougster’s cars by the youngsters (on a practical note – will they just turn out the teenagers, possibly miles from home and the worse for wear whilst demanding their driver clears off without them?), and vilified by the tabloids as soon as car they should have stopped crashes.
It is, frankly, stupid; and it really worries me that MPs can’t see that.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Cornish Liberation National Liberation Army and other sectarian Morons
These tossers are typical of the chippy short-sighted sectarianism that ruins Britain (and certain other places) for me - not least because I'm English. I can't help that and I refuse to be ashamed of it. I'm not some daft blind patriot; but neither am I, under any circumstances, going to be held to account for things that have nothing to do with me, just because some racist hates the English.
Sun report on Jamie Oliver's response to the daft threats.
BBC Story
I have been the subject of anti-English rhetoric in Cornwall and the USA, by people who knew nothing of me and my background. I also got abuse on a US web forum from a person who claimed to be Irish despite being, by his own admission, of hugely mixed descent.
I have only been back to Cornwall once and it wasn't by choice. I won't be going again, and I won't feel I've missed much. I'm also not planning to hurry back to the USA.
The last word on this kind of ignorance ought to go to a taxi driver I met in Dublin recently. He picked up an American from the airport "you guys must hate the English" was the American's opening line. "Why would you think that?" asked the driver "cos they invaded your country" replied the American. "If that's how it works, everyone must hate youse lot" said the driver, and, he said, the American fell oddly silent.
Sun report on Jamie Oliver's response to the daft threats.
BBC Story
I have been the subject of anti-English rhetoric in Cornwall and the USA, by people who knew nothing of me and my background. I also got abuse on a US web forum from a person who claimed to be Irish despite being, by his own admission, of hugely mixed descent.
I have only been back to Cornwall once and it wasn't by choice. I won't be going again, and I won't feel I've missed much. I'm also not planning to hurry back to the USA.
The last word on this kind of ignorance ought to go to a taxi driver I met in Dublin recently. He picked up an American from the airport "you guys must hate the English" was the American's opening line. "Why would you think that?" asked the driver "cos they invaded your country" replied the American. "If that's how it works, everyone must hate youse lot" said the driver, and, he said, the American fell oddly silent.
Just Remind me what I get for my taxes
Now the trial of the 21st July bombers is over, it becomes clear that our wonderful public servants have been taking my cash and spending it on something other than simple common sense.
BBC news - 21/7 failings
It seems Muktar Ibrahim was allowed to leave the UK to go to a jihadi training camp in Pakistan, despite having been charged with threatening behaviour, related to the distribution of extremist material.
Not only that, but his having a criminal record was no barrier to him getting a British Passport:
BBC News Profile: Muktar Ibrahim
Instead of the public servants doing their job, we have the government giving them more powers when they can't even do the simple stuff.
By the way, the armed Police who arrested the terrorists are heroes in my book, but if the whole lot of public servants had done their job, the need wouldn't have arisen.
In the meantime, I'm being told I need to pay for ID cards and put up with a lot of extra security checks - why?
BBC news - 21/7 failings
It seems Muktar Ibrahim was allowed to leave the UK to go to a jihadi training camp in Pakistan, despite having been charged with threatening behaviour, related to the distribution of extremist material.
Not only that, but his having a criminal record was no barrier to him getting a British Passport:
BBC News Profile: Muktar Ibrahim
Instead of the public servants doing their job, we have the government giving them more powers when they can't even do the simple stuff.
By the way, the armed Police who arrested the terrorists are heroes in my book, but if the whole lot of public servants had done their job, the need wouldn't have arisen.
In the meantime, I'm being told I need to pay for ID cards and put up with a lot of extra security checks - why?
Monday, July 09, 2007
Gordon Talks Arse on ID cards
I listened to Gordon Brown's first Prime Minister's question time with interest. He seemed to be telling David Cameron that by opposing ID cards, he was hampering the fight against Terrorism.
This is flawed logic to say the least. There doesn't appear to have been any confusion about the identity of the blokes who tried to ram Glasgow airport with a burning Jeep. Even David Blunkett and Charles "Safety Elephant" Clarke admitted that ID cards wouldn't have stopped any of the terror attacks we've seen recently.
So this was just Gordon thrashing around for a way to make the Tories look "soft" on terror and security in order to cover up the failings of his own administration.
This is flawed logic to say the least. There doesn't appear to have been any confusion about the identity of the blokes who tried to ram Glasgow airport with a burning Jeep. Even David Blunkett and Charles "Safety Elephant" Clarke admitted that ID cards wouldn't have stopped any of the terror attacks we've seen recently.
So this was just Gordon thrashing around for a way to make the Tories look "soft" on terror and security in order to cover up the failings of his own administration.
Alastair Campbell
Alastair Campbell raised a lot of interesting points in his interview on Today this morning. I switched over to R4 after listening to Chris Moyles droning on about how successful he has been on R1.
Back to Campbell; he made a good point about the position that the Labour Party was in when they were in opposition. The press was almost universally hostile to Labour and issued attacks often based not on policy issues, but on personal and even physical attributes of Labour politicians. This was always going to be difficult to counter.
Where the mask starts to slip with Campbell, however, is that he seems to be in denial about his role in this style of journalism and contributions to it. I have no great love of John Major's contribution to our national life - he seems to have been recast in history as a harmless cricket lover - this is to ignore the political and economic effects of his actions whilst Chancellor, boss of social security and Prime Minister.
That said, I don't feel Campbell's apparent description of John Major as a "second-rate, shallow, lying little toad of a man" added much to the sum of political debate.
What the interview revealed to me about Campbell is a thread of thinking that, sadly, seems to run through the thinking of any political party that's been in power for a while:
All this is what I find depressing - if people are cynical about politics, and as Campbell and Blair seem to feel, this is all the fault of the press, then Campbell surely has a case to answer at least in part, but he seems to think a few denials and weasel words are all that is needed to escape it.
He is part of the problem, not the solution, and the fact that he can't see that is the reason why ordinary people like me remain cynical, not because of the papers.
Back to Campbell; he made a good point about the position that the Labour Party was in when they were in opposition. The press was almost universally hostile to Labour and issued attacks often based not on policy issues, but on personal and even physical attributes of Labour politicians. This was always going to be difficult to counter.
Where the mask starts to slip with Campbell, however, is that he seems to be in denial about his role in this style of journalism and contributions to it. I have no great love of John Major's contribution to our national life - he seems to have been recast in history as a harmless cricket lover - this is to ignore the political and economic effects of his actions whilst Chancellor, boss of social security and Prime Minister.
That said, I don't feel Campbell's apparent description of John Major as a "second-rate, shallow, lying little toad of a man" added much to the sum of political debate.
What the interview revealed to me about Campbell is a thread of thinking that, sadly, seems to run through the thinking of any political party that's been in power for a while:
- More than once Campbell talked about not getting the message over effectively. This is the exact same language that the Tories used to use when being challenged on unpopular policies. They can't imagine that people don't like their crap policies - it must just be that they haven't "explained" them properly. This is an insulting attitude.
- He avoided a question about the information given to the press about Peter Mandelson's first resignation. In my opinion, he seemed to imply that that the press weren't told the truth in order to protect Peter Mandelson's feelings - and that such behaviour was OK, but his answer was so slippery that no doubt he could spin it to mean the exact opposite.
All this is what I find depressing - if people are cynical about politics, and as Campbell and Blair seem to feel, this is all the fault of the press, then Campbell surely has a case to answer at least in part, but he seems to think a few denials and weasel words are all that is needed to escape it.
He is part of the problem, not the solution, and the fact that he can't see that is the reason why ordinary people like me remain cynical, not because of the papers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
