He wasn't very good, was he?
But that isn't really the point. Are there points of view which are so unacceptable that they should not be simply treated as others? Should the BNP be regarded as any other political party?
I'm asking a rhetorical question, because I think not, but if so, then should they be permitted to exist?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Religionist events
Well, the evils really are having some fun, aren't they. The Albanian government wants the bones back of mass murderer and epitomy of evil, 'Mother' Teresa, who specialised in infecting and killing the poor and taking money from dictatorships which she gave to Vatican plc whilst spending her time in hospital in the very best surroundings. This evil bitch epitomises Vatican plc and its priorities as it ensures the death of millions whilst trying to promote over-population and preventing women from controlling their own fertility. I am sure that the awarding of 'sainthood' will be made by Hitler Youth member Ratfinger and it will maintain the level of morality of this truly distasteful organisation
So what fun to see them making a bid for the misogynists and closet queens of the Forward in Faith cult. Of course, the reason this particular group of hypocrites won't go is that they fear the likely purge of gay men from the Catholic priesthood and/or that they actually don't really go for the somewhat 'low' character of Catholic worship. What was particularly sickening was to see Chief Backstabber Rowan Williams on the platform - caught out again by Vatican plc, even though he has done everything they want, down to betraying his friend Jeffrey John. What a spineless waste of oxygen he is - and so amusing that despite his efforts, the whole thing is going to crash around his ears in any case. He won't have a single friend left given that he inspires mockery amongst his new found conservative friends, and the liberals regard him as a hypocrite and simply not to be trusted.
But when one looks at the whole affair, one can only conclude that the church has nothing to offer. I should have seen this for myself a lot earlier. It is desperately sad to see so much manipulation and power-chasing in something which is meant to be 'spiritual'. And if conservative religionism is 'spirituality' one can understand why other spiritualities and humanist alternatives are growing in popularity
So what fun to see them making a bid for the misogynists and closet queens of the Forward in Faith cult. Of course, the reason this particular group of hypocrites won't go is that they fear the likely purge of gay men from the Catholic priesthood and/or that they actually don't really go for the somewhat 'low' character of Catholic worship. What was particularly sickening was to see Chief Backstabber Rowan Williams on the platform - caught out again by Vatican plc, even though he has done everything they want, down to betraying his friend Jeffrey John. What a spineless waste of oxygen he is - and so amusing that despite his efforts, the whole thing is going to crash around his ears in any case. He won't have a single friend left given that he inspires mockery amongst his new found conservative friends, and the liberals regard him as a hypocrite and simply not to be trusted.
But when one looks at the whole affair, one can only conclude that the church has nothing to offer. I should have seen this for myself a lot earlier. It is desperately sad to see so much manipulation and power-chasing in something which is meant to be 'spiritual'. And if conservative religionism is 'spirituality' one can understand why other spiritualities and humanist alternatives are growing in popularity
Friday, October 16, 2009
Scum and homophobia in the Daily Mail
I'm not going to dignify the disgusting material written by Moir, which has already received more complaints than any other ever written to the PCC
But this is a good commentary
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir
There is not a scrap of evidence in the article, and whilst one expects no better from the Mail, it is quite unacceptable before Stephen has even been buried, and it would never be acceptable, because it is fantasy and homophobia of the worst order.
Please complain via http://www.pcc.org.uk . The article breaks clauses 1, 5 and 12 of the code
But this is a good commentary
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir
There is not a scrap of evidence in the article, and whilst one expects no better from the Mail, it is quite unacceptable before Stephen has even been buried, and it would never be acceptable, because it is fantasy and homophobia of the worst order.
Please complain via http://www.pcc.org.uk . The article breaks clauses 1, 5 and 12 of the code
Those weren't the days....
My partner and I (ooh, we sound like Queens!) are reasonably similar to look at. We often get asked if we are brothers or not. I don't know if anyone saw the programme on hotel renovation on C4 earlier this week, but it featured a pair of brothers running a Blackpool hotel. I can only assume they were separated at birth. One had a Middlesbrough accent, the other was Scouse. Or certainly sounded it
I have no evidence to say that they are not brothers, but it was quite bizarre...and in Blackpool? Hardly a problem?
I have no evidence to say that they are not brothers, but it was quite bizarre...and in Blackpool? Hardly a problem?
Monday, October 12, 2009
Thought it was too good to last
Yet more nonsense regarding parliamentary expenses. I cannot understand the extreme gullibility and stupidity of the British public and their usual hysterical over-reaction. The typical 'anti-politics' populism, the envy, and the hypocrisy all out there to see.
The rukes were as they were. You can't then turn around three or four years later and say, "oh, they were wrong, and so you have to pay money back". And the main reason the expenses system worked as it did was thatcher's reluctance to raise MP's salaries. Any job which requires people to maintain two homes will inevitably be costly. And its no good for the Stupids (the British electorate) to then whinge on about 'too many professional politicians' or their MP not being around. They can't have it both ways. If you want people in normal relationships, with families, to become MP's, then they need to be enabled to live in two places, and if you want people with external work experience to become MP's, its no good paying salaries which are considerably less than many professional jobs which don't require two homes!
What will happen is that a lot of people will work out that being an MP means spending most of the year in a cramped bedsit never seeing one's family, working ludicrous hours for less than many could get elsewhere. So there will be two sorts of MP's still attracted to politics. Those with independent financial means who already run the Tory party. Or political obsessives who don't want a partner or family and are willing to live, eat and breathe politics.
Well done, great British public. What a result!
The rukes were as they were. You can't then turn around three or four years later and say, "oh, they were wrong, and so you have to pay money back". And the main reason the expenses system worked as it did was thatcher's reluctance to raise MP's salaries. Any job which requires people to maintain two homes will inevitably be costly. And its no good for the Stupids (the British electorate) to then whinge on about 'too many professional politicians' or their MP not being around. They can't have it both ways. If you want people in normal relationships, with families, to become MP's, then they need to be enabled to live in two places, and if you want people with external work experience to become MP's, its no good paying salaries which are considerably less than many professional jobs which don't require two homes!
What will happen is that a lot of people will work out that being an MP means spending most of the year in a cramped bedsit never seeing one's family, working ludicrous hours for less than many could get elsewhere. So there will be two sorts of MP's still attracted to politics. Those with independent financial means who already run the Tory party. Or political obsessives who don't want a partner or family and are willing to live, eat and breathe politics.
Well done, great British public. What a result!
So, the conference season
Could you raise any enthusiasm about it?
My thoughts....the LibDems appear still to have no real reason for existing. Under Charles Kennedy they had carved themselves a place to the left of Labour, and that would be very welcome now - but under Clegg they appear to be unsure of what they are for other than to sound like David Cameron. Should there be a hung Parliament I would be surprised if they managed to hang together. There are some who are aching to join the Tories in government, others who wouldn't touch them with a bargepole
Labour appeared tired and resigned to defeat. Its not really surprising. Their problem is first, that people appear to want to be 'led' and Brown isn't that sort of inspirational figure. and that their recent past means that it is harder for them to be as critical as they should be with regard to the market.
But the Tories - well, they make the right noises, and the gloss is there, and the electoral cycle means they are buoyant. Inevitable. However, they have two glaring problems. First, that their economic policies would be a disaster. Monetarism should be utterly discredited yet they are still angsting about the debt and suggesting cuts - the fast route to stagflation. The second is that they rant on about big government whilst praising both SureStart and the NHS, two products of it - remove government and they seem to be under the illusion that somehow Something Would Turn Up. I don't think it would. In my experience people like the idea of community participation as long as its others who actually do it. Too often initiatives end up being taken over by a small, unelected and unrepresentative group, such as our local residents association which appears to be entirely self selecting. No doubt the Tory plans will give them encouragement but I'm not convinced.
My thoughts....the LibDems appear still to have no real reason for existing. Under Charles Kennedy they had carved themselves a place to the left of Labour, and that would be very welcome now - but under Clegg they appear to be unsure of what they are for other than to sound like David Cameron. Should there be a hung Parliament I would be surprised if they managed to hang together. There are some who are aching to join the Tories in government, others who wouldn't touch them with a bargepole
Labour appeared tired and resigned to defeat. Its not really surprising. Their problem is first, that people appear to want to be 'led' and Brown isn't that sort of inspirational figure. and that their recent past means that it is harder for them to be as critical as they should be with regard to the market.
But the Tories - well, they make the right noises, and the gloss is there, and the electoral cycle means they are buoyant. Inevitable. However, they have two glaring problems. First, that their economic policies would be a disaster. Monetarism should be utterly discredited yet they are still angsting about the debt and suggesting cuts - the fast route to stagflation. The second is that they rant on about big government whilst praising both SureStart and the NHS, two products of it - remove government and they seem to be under the illusion that somehow Something Would Turn Up. I don't think it would. In my experience people like the idea of community participation as long as its others who actually do it. Too often initiatives end up being taken over by a small, unelected and unrepresentative group, such as our local residents association which appears to be entirely self selecting. No doubt the Tory plans will give them encouragement but I'm not convinced.
RIP Stephen Gately
Very sad news about Steven's untimely death. Made me remember a good friend of mine who died young - too young.
Seems so pointless.
Seems so pointless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
