ThunderDragon Blog

Climate change is a complicated issue. This sort of science is open to much politicking, from both sides. My position on this is very simple: Whilst I accept that climate change is almost certainly happening, I do not accept the hypothesis that humans have caused it - affected, exaggerated, accelerated, yes, but not caused. We have been “industrialised” for little over two centuries - to say that this has caused climate change seems to me to be absurd and frankly arrogant. If this planet was really that sensitive to such minor changes as Man has made, it would have imploded by now.

But that is not the point I want to make.

Instead, I want to point out to those who think that climate change is happening that their very language in referring to anyone who dares question their received wisdom as a “denier” doesn’t help them or anyone else. This post [along with this] at The Conscious Earth are prime examples of this enviro-fascism. I mean, referring to “deniers” like this:

“Nobody would spend a decade debating bed time with a 5 year old. It’s now long past due to end the current climate change “debate” and send deniers to bed, without their supper.”

is not exactly seeking any form of debate. As I posted in the comments of that post, to which I received little in the way of a considered reply:

I find the term “denier” related to climate change and global warming inflammatory and offensive. Using that sort of terminology does nothing but make things worse…
I’m not “denying” that climate change is happening. I find the use of the term and your very attitude towards anyone who even slightly disagrees with you quite disgusting. I’m just not convinced that mankind has CAUSED it. That is a big difference, and one which those of you who use the term “deniers” are ignoring, and thus driving people towards the other side of the debate. The more people label me a “denier” because I dare to question their received wisdom, the more I disregard them as idiots.

There is no doubt that this is true. Referring to someone who disagrees with you - even a little - as a “denier” is loaded language, and nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to smear any and all opposition of any sort as some form of neo-Nazi.

This is enviro-fascism. They are saying ‘either you agree with me completely or you are a “denier”.’ And that I find offensive. I don’t “deny”, I’m just not convinced.

Labour’s plan to force children to stay in school until 18 is a bad idea, and it is now claimed by Geraldine Everett, chairman of the Professional Association of Teachers that it will cause “mass truancy“:

“Extending the school leaving age is a potential minefield if not handled sensitively…
Here is a Government that has toyed with the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 in order to promote a greater sense of citizenship amongst our young people.
Yet it proposes to extend compulsory education or training to 18, to compel the already disaffected to, in their perception, prolong the agony…
Enforcement could lead to mass truancy, further disruption to other learners and staff, maybe even needless criminalisation if ‘enforcement measures’ are imposed.”

I have argued against this plan many times - back in November when it was first proposed, in January when it put forward as a plan, and again in March when it was released as a green paper. A brand new group blog, Educational Conscription, was also set up to argue against the plan.

Many school leavers go into work at minimum wage levels and work their way up - supermarket/retail work being a prime example. If they have to provide specific and tailored accredited training to these people, I doubt many shops will bother.

Quite simply, those who want to continue to learn already continue to stay on in school. It doesn’t cost them any money, unlike university, so finances play little part in their decisions - that will be down to not wanting to go to school any more.

Those who want to study, will. Those who don’t will either go and disrupt everyone else who want to learn or just play truant, and face a fine and possible criminal record - something that is unlikely to aid them in getting a job. Instead of making them stay in education now, make it easier for them to return to adult education, when they want to learn.

Please comment at the post over at the Educational Conscription blog.

Source: The Telegraph

Yet another load of interfering rubbish from this government:

“Muslim or Christian guest house owners who refuse to accept homosexual couples must impose a “sleeping together ban” on all other guests, the Government says.
As the holiday season gets under way, Meg Munn, a junior minister, has emphasised that it is illegal to allow married couples to share a room at a guest house or hotel while not allowing homosexuals the same right.
If gays are turned away, the only way a Christian or Muslim guest house owner can lawfully stay in business is if he or she offers single bedrooms to all guests - straight or gay.” (The Telegraph)

To start with, I don’t think that hotels or guest houses are at all right to refuse their services to gay couples. But this is a really stupid idea. To say that you won’t let a gay couple share a room is as bad to refuse to let a black couple do the same. It is bigotry. But for the government to say that “either you let gay couples share a room, or no-one” is just absurd.

Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney and a leading Church of England liberal, said:

“It is nonsense for the Government to allow any loopholes for religious homophobia… Bigotry is bigotry whether it’s dressed up in the language of faith or not.”

This is indeed true - bigotry is bigotry, whether or not based on religion. But I think the demand for what amounts to a sex ban is ridiculous, and taking government interfering to yet another level.

Note: I’m not supporting hotels who refuse to rent rooms to gay couples, but I don’t think that it is the government’s job to force them to do so or go out of business. Society can, and should, do that by avoiding such hotels and guest houses.

Source: The Telegraph

The White House has revealed what George W Bush and Gordon Brown have been eating during the latter’s visit to Camp David:

“Gordon Brown has been given his “pudding” moment with the president…
After a main course of roast tenderloin of beef, mashed potatoes, sautéed green beans and peas with smoked bacon and mint, they enjoyed a dessert of, you guessed it, brownies with caramel and vanilla sauce…
The White House also revealed that today’s lunch will be classic American fare - cheeseburgers, French fries and onion rings, followed by banana pudding.” (BBC)

If you don’t get the cheezburger joke, go here.

Fraser Nelson has posted this over on the Spectator Coffeehouse blog:

“Perhaps the best outcome of these torrid last few weeks is that the Cameron project has been brought down to earth…
Try to finish the sentence “I really want the Conservatives to win the next election because…” I certainly can’t – and to me, this encapsulates Cameron’s problem. Today’s voters want parties to do something for them, and the party without a practical purpose has no future. The good news is that, as Cameron stares at his evaporated opinion poll lead, he’ll by now realise his mistake.
Cameron is off on overseas adventures this week and to Brittany (by train, of course) afterwards. He’ll have much time to think about what’s gone wrong…”
[Click here to read the full post]

I really want the Conservatives to win the next election because… even a bad Conservative government would be better than this Labour one.

Most of what David Cameron has done since becoming leader has been good. He has pretty much successfully “decontaminated” the Conservative brand in the eyes of the public, and enabled it to fight on a pretty equal footing with the Labour Party. But what he has failed to do recently is to remind the voters what the Conservatives stand for. He has waited too long before making a political position, though not manifesto commitment, known. He has become to be seen as politically vacuous, lacking in a defined - or definable - political position. In a way, the “decontamination” went too far. What now needs to happen is not a reversal and reinstatement of fixed old positions, but statements of a general belief in traditional Conservative politics - without the dropping or dilution of his other policies. He must resist the temptation to make many detailed policy announcements after the policy groups report, but gently lay the groundwork for them instead.

Can you finish the sentence?

UPDATE: There is now an offer of a bottle of champagne for the best one.

I’m confused by this:

“Millions of pounds are set to be paid out by the Government to prisoners kept in jail beyond their release dates.
More than 50 inmates, including murderers and rapists, are preparing to submit claims for damages, arguing that delays to their parole hearings breached their human rights. That figure is expected to rise because the number of deferred hearings has trebled from 155 in 2004-05 to 513 last year. Total compensation could top £7 million.” (The Telegraph)

When one thousand criminals were released early just a month ago, and they plan to let 25,000 go early every year, how on earth is this government failing to ensure that those who sentences have ended go free? It seems extraordinarily odd to be releasing some before their sentences are over whilst at the same time detaining other after their release dates have arrived.

When criminals held in police stations because the prisons are full are getting fed takeaway food every night, costing £700 every week at just one police station, why are they enabling criminals to sue the government for breaching their human rights for detaining them after the end of their sentence in prison, and costing the taxpayer £100 in compensation for each and every day of delay?!

They are throwing millions of pounds of our money away because they are too incompetent to fix the prison system. As Nick Herbet, Shadow Justice Secretary, said:

“It is appalling that public money should be wasted like this.
It could have paid for secure accommodation so that violent offenders are not released early onto our streets. Gordon Brown’s refusal when he was chancellor to provide sufficient prison capacity has overloaded the prison and probation services, and re-offending has soared.”

This is a serious problem that needs to be fixed.

But I’m still confused as to how they can be releasing some early because of overcrowding and yet detaining others past the end of the sentence.

Source: The Telegraph

Gordon Brown announced back in July that the Union flag could now be flown from public buildings on any day, rather than the previous restrictions of 18 days a year. However, this now seems to not apply to Scotland:

“Proposals to fly the Union flag every day on public buildings are set not to apply to Scottish Executive sites.
The government published the plans earlier this week, and they follow Gordon Brown raising the issue of celebrating Britishness in January.
The SNP said Justice Secretary Jack Straw assured the policy would not cover executive buildings.
SNP leader Alex Salmond, now first minister, previously said Britishness “went bust long ago” in Scotland.” (BBC)

Whilst it is understandable that on a few places, such as Holyrood, the Saltire [the Scottish flag] be flown alongside the Union flag, it should not replace it. We are all still in the United Kingdom, whichever part you may be in.

What this shows mostly, however, is that despite Gordon Brown’s oft-made commitment to Britishness, he is still at heart a Scot - and will give things to Scotland that he won’t to England. I have no problem at all with Scottish public buildings being allowed to fly to Saltire - but it should not be allowed as a replacement for the Union flag. And if Scottish public buildings can fly the Saltire, then English public buildings should be allowed to fly the St. George’s Cross, and Welsh public buildings the Red Dragon.

We are all supposed to be equal partners in the Union - yet inequality is rampant. If England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are equal constituents of the United Kingdom, then they should all have the same rights and abilities. And it is the English who lose out again and again. It is not acceptable.

Source: BBC