They Blew it All, Because Bronze Age Bigotry Came First.

Eunice and Owen Johns lost their high court case to become foster carers because they refused to say that a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable. The social services feared that this would be a problem (and it would be) if they adopted a child who would later enter into homosexual lifestyles. Of course this is being seen as yet another occasion when the rights of Christians is being superseded by the rights of homosexuals.

Well it isn't. No one can force the more "rigorous" practitioners to like homosexuality, but when they are in a position to actually put this belief into practice, potentially on a child then we have a problem. It isn't the thought police. It is saying that a person may have views that may result in an adverse situation that clouds their professional approach. That you may have views that are considered controversial in a private setting, but may create a conflict of interest in professional situations.

The law that has brought about the court case, currently says that the rights of a person to live free from homophobic discrimination supersedes their right to be discriminated against on the grounds of religious prejudice. That is the right of a person who had their sexual orientation determined by matters out of their control has the right to not be discriminated against by someone who signed up for a religion, who has the opinion that gayness is bad because some book told them it was. I'm sorry but it is a strange moral standard when an opinion has more moral worth than someone being persecuted for something they had no control over. And no amount of strongly worded letters by Dr Carey about how Christianity is being trampled on by gay rights (well you want to be free to persecute, so go figure.) changes that fact.

I think stories like this wind me up so much because of the sheer wastefulness of them. This couple (and I'm sure they were pretty good foster parents in the past, who had a lot to offer.) went to court to try to justify being specially immune from the law because some old book said (about twice) that they had to discriminate against a whole group of people. I hope it was worth it. That they went all this way to defend a biblical issue that on the scale of things isn't that big a part of the Christian faith. That any reasonable person might have thought that wasting all that energy on upholding a "value" that is so irrelevant and blatantly morally wrong. Now a child has lost the chance of having some kind of stable upbringing because upholding some piece of Bronze age bigotry was obviously far more important. What a waste.

It is interesting that they sort of issue a similar statement of regret, but obviously without seeing the inherent irony of what they say:

"'Worst of all, a vulnerable child has now likely missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home at a time when there are so few people willing to foster or adopt."

"Sceptic of Sceptics" James Delingpole Defends Homeopathy. Uh?

James Delingpole likes to see himself as some maverick voice, alone in the old wilderness. The only one eyed king in a kingdom of the blind, who can see the whole man made climate change thingy for the elaborate fraud that it is. He claims that this is why he is "reviled" and not because of bad methodology. So it doesn't really help his cause when he writes articles defending homeopathy, and wheels out all the straw man arguments all homeopathic apologists are presumably honour bound to wheel out. You know the "scientists have been wrong before." "It's just like a new religion." and so on.

Tom Chivers has a new post debunking the argument Delingpole makes. He makes perhaps the best counter argument to the claim that people who dismiss homeopathy (or CC deniers) are just as bad as the inquisitors persecuting heretics:

"I’m sure some people do get overly aggressive about some of these things (alas, we don’t all have James’s saintly good manners when it comes to dealing with those with whom we disagree). But the point of scepticism – true scepticism – is that it is constantly evaluating. So, I promise you, if Ben Goldacre, or James Randi, or I (to put myself in some serious company), were to be presented with solid evidence that homeopathy worked, we would alter our position. I don’t even know what “evidence” you could present a Spanish inquisitor to convince them that Jewish children shouldn’t be forcibly converted, or what evidence you could give a witchfinder to show that witches don’t actually exist. The comparison is a nonsense one.

I'll have to remember that one!

New Blog. Ooooooh

Remember I said I wanted to do a new blog, separate from this one. I hadn't canned the idea, it just got a little delayed (what's new there with me!!) but I am pleased to say it is now up and running. I need to change the colouring of the fonts, some of the sidebar information, and put it on the blogroll here. I would have done this yesterday but Blogger templates is a fucking nightmare to edit (The spellcheck has decided to stop functioning about two paragraphs down. What the hell's all that about?) It is just horrible on my main machine, but surprisingly not as bad to fiddle with on the laptop (paradoxically that is just so old it takes 34 years to load up.) So it is now up, but the design creases will be ironed out. Unless I end up shooting myself first in frustration at Bloggers petulant silicon behaviour.

the Northernbloke blog will still continue though.

Will the Daily Star Start Openly Supporting the EDL?

This headline is an utter misrepresentation of course. All the actual story boils down to is that EDL leader Tommy Robinson (or Stephen Lennon as he is really called) wants to turn his ramshackle mob into an official political party, somewhat in the manner that Nick Griifin did. Apparently one of his key policies will be, [he] is going to outlaw the Quran and make it more compatible with British traditions. WTF??!!* The story may just be a case of if wishes were horses; we would all ride, on the part of Robinson. No, what is striking is that the Star seems to be ratcheting up support for the EDL. This headline is actually not the most tacit of the signs that Richard Desmond may be allowing his paper to support such a dodgy group. The Star claims in the same article that a phone poll they conducted resulted in a staggering 98% (that figure has been revised to 99% in later articles.) of readers agreeing with the EDL policies**. Admittedly a tabloid phone poll is as dubious as a Jeremy Kyle lie detector test, but what about this loaded strapline from another article, this one about two Muslim Respect councilors not giving a standing ovation (though they both claim to have smiled appreciatively) for a soldier awarded a George Cross medal.

Admittedly the colon does imply that it means that is just the stated intent of the EDL (why not word it ....EDL say they will fight for ....?), but it could be interpreted [by the readers] as an endorsement of the group by the Star, and I am certain this was intentionally done.

If that wasn't bad enough, we then get the following editorial piece, that I will paste in full, as it has to be seen in it's entirety.

"Critics say the English Defence League is a racist, extremist organisation that's filled with hate. The group's leader Tommy Robinson strongly denies this. He says members have no problems with race.

But he admits he is against 'barbaric' Islam and the way it affects Britain. Whatever side of the fence you fall, one thing's for sure.

There is a visibly growing support for the EDL. It is attracting people across Britain to its ranks who feel the same way.

This should be a warning to the major political parties. Key voters are so fed up with them that they are looking elsewhere.

And there are real underlying issues here with Brits who feel abandoned by their leaders.
The EDL are now planning to field election candidates. If the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems don't heed this and address key issues they could soon become a political force.

Then, whether you like them or not, Tommy and his followers will have to be taken very seriously."

Hmmm.

Although not quite a "Hurrah for the Blackshirts.". Is this an all but endorsement of the EDL, from the most racist tabloid in Britain? Which I might add has pumped out the most appalling lies that can only be seen as an attempt to shit stir community relations in this country.

I do wonder if Desmond is using his dying papers, now not "pressured" by the IPCC; as vehicles for his own bizarre xenophobic views. I'm not just talking about the rumours of him singing "Deutchland uber Allies" to his execs whilst goosestepping about in his offices. Check out this article from as far back as 1994 pointing out how his pornos were peppered with an obsessive level of racially related material. What with the whole "Pull out of Europe" thing at the Express and now this. All I do know is that as far as I am concerned, the Star and the EDL thoroughly deserve one another.

Twats.

This post from Roy Greenslades blog, has heaps of interesting stuff on the whole affair.

This post from Ian Burrell shines much more light on the behind the scenes decisions to run with the "endorsement" front page headline. That it was the editors decision and not Desmonds, as I had suspected. And that the EDL are making capital on the publicity.

*This isn't an atypical display of Robinsons buffoonish ignorance. This toe curling performance on Paxo's show gives you a clear indication of Tommy's towering intellect.

** Without being privy to the wording of the phone poll, and how broad the level of "agreement" (though not support) with EDL is, we can take such a lofty figure with a pinch of salt. Likewise there is the fact that those who support the EDL are much more likely to ring in.

Steve Coogan Fights the Good Fight

Oh just what we need! More privileged men abusing their status on telly by picking on an easy target. Not women this time as with Gray and Keys, but with the Top Gear trio on the Mexicans. Captain Slow (who should know better) exclaimed Mexican food looked like sick. Hamster, who doesn't know better said they were all lazy and overweight (a lot of Mexican immigrant workers seem to keep a fair few of the cogs nicely oiled in the US service industry from my experience), and Jeremy Clarkson lambasted them for searching for better opportunities elsewhere. Which is a bit rich from a man who fucked off sharpish out of South Yorkshire to move down south when the offer came. The only thing that ever went faster than the Stig was Jeremy heading south from Doncaster on the M1. What is it with wealthy men pissing on those lower down the ladder? There is something so criminal about this I sometimes want to hit someone repeatedly with a heavy shovel? Enough of the impulse towards random acts of violence, it seems Steve Coogan feels the same and takes them to task in this very good smackdown article. Don't know if you'll be around the Top Gear track again though Steve!

But keep the good fight up.

The Pen is Mightier than the Sword

I had decided to myself to not really comment on the whole Sky football sacking thing. I don't know a lot about football and it wasn't really an incident I knew all that much about. However there have been a series of correspondents to the incident who have followed one familiar theme. That football is a mans game, and that a bit of sexist banter (though telling a female colleague to shove a microphone into your pants seems like stepping over the line a bit.) is just something that women should have to put up with. This is a pet hate of mine. It seems that a certain generation of some men (and it is usually men) have the opinion that casual racism and sexism is both trivial and indeed rather daring. Some of those with this world view have sent letters into the Bolton News (my local paper), one from my old friend Arnold Harrison, the stupidest man in Lancashire, and this offering of verbal crud from Colin Higson of Over Hulton.

ONCE again Steve Jones[1], leading exponent of the PC brigade and all things thereto, twists the facts to suit his argument.

First he says Gray and Keys are entitled to their own views (that itself is an astounding admission for one of his ilk).

Then he goes on to say they should keep their views to themselves (he could take a bit of his own advice and stop lecturing the rest of us with his drivel). If he had taken the trouble to obtain the facts he would have known that they were doing exactly that. It was some other PC maniac that decided on his or her own bat to broadcast a private conversation (nice people, these PC nuts).

If Mr Jones (I apologise if it is wrong or sexist to call him Mr) has ever attended a football match he would know that spectators male and female accuse match officials of not knowing the laws of the game, being blind (sorry visually handicapped ) and having all sorts of afflictions.

He should have heard the woman near me berating the referee’s assistant at the Reebok this week.

Was that sexist? No. She was just doing what all football fans including Gray and Keys do all the time and if by some unfortunate circumstance we are to have female officials forced upon us they will get it, make no mistake, every match as their male colleagues do.

If Mr Jones doesn’t like it he should take up his bed and walk to the top of Rivington Pike away from his keyboard never to regale us with his boring comments ever again.

Colin Higson Over Hulton

This is precisely the kind of mentality that get on my royal tits. Notwithstanding that asking is calling someone "Mr" unPC the stupidest rhetorical question in the history of the universe. No it is that this, and the comments lie it is just blatant apologism for sexist bullying. So I e-mailed this response to the letters page, trying to articulate as best as I can my distaste for this kind of attitude. Hopefully they may actually print it as well.

There have been some worrying letters on this page (Colin Higson “All football supporters have a rant” Feb 5th 2011) and others, as well as in general discussions about the nature of Sky football pundit Andy Grays sacking and Richard Keys resignation in regards to the whole off air furore about their comments about referee Sian Massey. It seems that some people seem to think that blatant sexism is just “something women should put up with.” Because as Colin Higson et al can tell us, just because something like arbitrary discrimination on the basis of someone’s gender is one of this biggest insults to female dignity and liberty going – doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a bad thing[2].

Let us summarise what happened, and why Gray and Keys left. Gray and Keys dismissed the competency of a referee of who they knew nothing about, almost purely on the basis of the XX composition of her chromosomes. How, may I ask; is that any more morally justifiable than when I overheard a guy I once worked with; who upon seeing the new manageress (she was a black lady) sneered “they’ll promote anyone these days.”[3] That comment and this incident highlight why racism and sexism are such moral evils. Writing off the collective worth of a whole subset of humanity on nothing more than them being “the wrong sort.”

Prejudiced comments in (supposed) privacy may be one thing. But school bully boy Grays compounded the sin by making lewd comments about placing a microphone to a female colleague, whilst his trusty little sidekick Keys cackled along like the snivelling little toady he is. Anyone who made these comments would have been disciplined by their boss in any workplace in the UK.

I am sick and tired of chauvinistic bigots dismissing their abuse as a “bit of friendly banter”. Spineless bullies who victimise easy targets always “justify” it in this way.

So let us not say these two buffoons are martyrs to the PC brigade, because they aren’t.

[1] Steve Jones isn't me by the way, and his letter was very good and well argued IMHO.

[2] Yes I blatantly nicked that pun from Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" book.

[3] I have to confess that this never actually happened in the way I said it did. It is a retelling of a quip Tory MP and twat David Heathcote Amery reputedly exclaimed when he saw the black MP Dawn Butler in the members gallery at Westminster. I changed the details as there is a tiny chance that the letters editor might have got cold feet about printing something potentially seen as libelous. But the sentiment of my argument still stands.

The Expresses "Pull Out of Europe" Crusade is Just Like that Bit in Braveheart, But Quite a Bit Shitter.

The Daily Expresses petition to Downing Street about pulling out of Europe has taken a distinctly "you will not take our freedom" sort of slant, but considerably more shitter than Braveheart was. They had Mel Gibson and a huge army pretending it was the olden days, standing in a field. The Express had to make do with a load of gaudy bin bags full of petitions and a self conscious looking man pretending to be St George and holding a shield made out of cardboard (and I bet this was what he went into media for.). Hollywood this aint! To be fair though they recruited a small army though. They may not have had woad smeared over their faces, or dirty hair and mucky beards (though they should have done this in fancy dress, it would have been well funny.), and an Irish guy with pluck. No all we got was a few dowdy looking Eurosceptic MP's, an Express columnist who was probably there on pain of sacking, and one of the readers who had obviously been paid to turn up and offered a free pub tea into the bargain for showing up.

So far so shit. Why do I even comment on this ridiculous PR stunt? Well it is the wording of the article that tickled me. The Express bigged up the whole thing with this ludicrous comment that shows they haven't quite figured out how this democracy thing works.

"DAVID Cameron was yesterday given the clearest message yet that the UK should leave the European Union."

Hell, we aren't going the way of Egypt are we?

"Editor Peter Hill led a delegation to hand over the bulging sacks of petition coupons signed by 373,000 of our loyal readers."

Er. No. Cancel the threatening flybys of the capital.

373,000. Fucking hell I mean a skateboarding cat on youtube can get more hits than that! I actually checked to see what sort of thing could get 373,000 people to be vaguely interested in something, by getting a comparative viewing figure on youtube, and a video called "I'm Nicki Minaj!! Ask Shane #26" actually topped that by a few thousand. (It's well over 400,000 at the time of writing.) Yes a spoof video of a Noel Gallagher lookalike wearing a Lady Gaga wig, and dancing to a comedy rendition to the tune of "Video Killed the Radio Star" with some camp Jango Fetts as backing dancers (honest) drummed up more interest than a political campaign by a piss poor national newspaper. Why doesn't Richard Desmond ask Shane to do a comedy video of himself dressed up as Gwen Stefani, accompanied by some Hobbits, who take it in turns to shit on a large pretend Euro, whilst dancing to backing music of Hazee Fantasees "John Wayne is Big Leggy" that has had the lyrics changed to "Fuck you, Hermann Van Rumphoy" It could work.

I mean seriously for a national paper crusade, 373,000 signatories for a petition is pathetic. the Express has a daily circulation of around 640,000. That's just circulation. It is reckoned total readership is roughly 2.5 people per single paper. So about 1.6 million perhaps saw this crusade. There were apparently four petition cut outs per paper, so it isn't a case of to few slips to go round. Hell one person could potentially post all four to have four fake signatories. How the hell is this a clear message to David Cameron that we should cut our losses and leave the EU? On the basis of a petition signed by 0.74 percent of the UK population aged over 18. That's the level of popular support the Monster Raving Loony party had for it's policy to paint grey squirrels red to balance the numbers out a bit! Not a monster blow to the establishment that the Express editorials are claiming was it?

I had to laugh at this comment by a Downing Street spokesmen:

"A Downing Street spokeswoman said: “We will respond in the usual way.”

Which translates to "We'll wait till you've gone home and then we'll burn the bloody lot of them."