ThunderDragon Blog

Camilla shouldn’t have been pretty much forced not to go to the memorial service for Diana.

Camilla was invited by Princes William and Harry. They asked her to go to the memorial service. What possible business is it of one of Diana’s friends if her sons want their father’s wife to go? Since they don’t blame her the break-up of their parent’s marriage, on what grounds does anyone else have the right to? They are the ones it affected more than anyone else.

Since Camilla was invited and asked to go by William, Harry and Charles, she should go. Ignore those “friends of Diana”, who basically claim that Camilla is evil incarnate, and do it. It wouldn’t “overshadow” the memorial service in reality - unless certain people came out to condemn for doing what her stepsons want her to.

Source: The Telegraph - article 1, article 2

In response to a post of mine yesterday, James Higham at Nourishing Obscurity has written this post:

Certainly yes on Boris for London, but Cameron is the Leader of the Conservative Party, and should stay in that position. During the leadership election, I voted for David Davis, but since two thirds of the members disagreed and preferred David Cameron he is, and should be, leader.

The leader of the party deserves loyalty as a whole. It is fine - and beneficial - to disagree on bits and pieces, such as on particular policies, over political strategies etc. But by in-fighting we harm no-one but ourselves. We all have the same very basic core beliefs and ideas - that is why we are all members of the Conservative Party. There are always going to be differences of opinion within large political parties. It comes from the nature of having lots of opinionated people together. To win, and to be able to enact them, we have to cast aside, or at least not shout about, our differences but stress the things we do agree on and work together to achieve them.

I think Cameron’s not doing a bad job overall. He’s done good things and bad things, but he is currently still in the positive by my point scoring. No matter what, he is the leader, and deserves the support of all Conservatives. We could in-fight and end up with another four years of Labour (mis)government, or we can pull together properly and have a Conservative one. No matter what anyone can claim about “Cameron not being much better than Blair” or any other such crap, he is and will be a better PM than Brown.

David Cameron is the leader we have. He was elected by the members by a comfortable margin. Whether or not you supported him, we must get behind him now. The choice is simple - unite and have a strong fighting chance of ousting Labour and re-establishing good government in Britain, or fighting within and suffering a deserving defeat. Unite and win, in-fight and die.

Yet another example of an outpouring of grief taken into absurdity with the inclusion of celebrities:

Yes, it is tragic when someone - anyone - dies, but they do so every day. People, even 11-year-old boys, die every day and in every way.

The way that a few of these are picked up and exploited - by the media, politicians, and general public - can really be quite sickening. Why does Rhys deserve more than any other 11-year-old whose life is brutally cut short? Why does the search of Madeleine McCann get so much more media attention than many of the other missing children? The same question can be asked about all of the other media stories of this ilk - Damilola Taylor, Stephen Lawrence, et al. The answer is the same for all of them - nothing makes them more deserving. The only difference is that their deaths/disappearances got into the news.

This outpouring of, and wallowing in, grief just revolts me. Yes it is tragic. but where is the traditional British stiff upper lip? What happened to grieving in private and getting on with your life? Especially when you didn’t even know the deceased.

Source: BBC

I am now no longer a student. I had to quit writing my Masters dissertation because I was severely stressed, behind, and not enjoying it. Which is a great pity. I have moved away from University and am now back living with my parents, and looking for work.

It is a strange feeling no longer being able to refer to myself as a student. For four years I have lived at uni, and it became where I referred to as “home”. But not for any longer. Now I am an ex-student, and join the burgeoning ranks of those searching for work. No longer being a student is going to require a shift in thinking.

I didn’t want to move back in with my parents, back lacking a job and in the crippling financial situation created by being a postgraduate student for the last year - since it lacks any Student Loan support - has financially destroyed me and left me with no choice.

Applying to jobs has been pretty soul-destroying so far. Every application is almost absurdly long, and asks inane questions such as “tell us about a time when you have done customer services” and the like. Completely and utterly inane. However, there is no choice.

Image: Ian Parker

There is no doubt that David Davis has scored a significant goal against Home Secretary Jacqui Smith with this open letter [extract below]:

There is just nothing I can add except to say go and read Dizzy’s post on the issue and watch this amusing video: Labour: Tough on crime, tough on manipulating the statistics of crime.

Video hat-tip: Daily Referendum
Source: The Times

Charles Kennedy, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, forced out because he was - and had been for years - an alcoholic, is refusing the rule out a return to front-line politics and challenging Ming the Merciless the doddering old fool Campbell for his old job. His reply to the question “Are you going to be the comeback kid?” was:

He does seem to show some signs of still being under the influence, however, since he seems to have forgotten how many hours are in a day, and how many days are in a week, saying:

Of course, that could also have been meant as a joke, and a subtle sideswipe at Ming’s leadership.

Will, or can, Charles Kennedy ever return to front-line politics? I’m not sure it’s possible. Wherever he goes, whatever he does, his alcoholism [former or otherwise] will always hang over his head. Whatever happens, the Liberal Democrats should not be stupid enough to put him back in the leadership position. He may still be popular, and more so than Ming, but to put him back as leader would be a huge mistake. For one, it would be a step back in time. Like Hague could never really be Conservative leader again, Kennedy can never be Lib Dem leader again. In these jobs, you only get one chance. For a party to go back to an ex-leader makes them look weak and backwards-looking, rather than strong and forward-looking.

Kennedy, unlike Hague, shouldn’t return to front-line politics at all. No matter what he does or where he goes, the shadow of his alcoholism will always hang over him. Commentators will question everything he does through that lens, and it will always come up again and again in any interview. Since he resigned [or, rather, was pushed] over a personal issue, there is no getting over or away from it in the public mind. He should instead concentrate on building a non-political career. After all, it’s not like the Lib Dems are ever going to make it into government!

Sources: The Telegraph, BBC

For crying out loud, why?

Why, for fuck’s sake, why?! Why is Ken Livingstone apologising for something that has not happened for nearly two centuries? Slavery is not something that has been done by, or even in the lifetime of, anyone alive. Many generations have been and gone since slavery was abolished, through the 1807 and 1833 Abolition of Slavery Acts, and the efforts of William Wilberforce.

As I wrote not long ago, you can’t apologise for something you didn’t do. It is just an empty gesture! How can you apologise for something that you (a) didn’t do, and (b) weren’t alive to do anything about anyway? No, slavery is hardly a high point in British history, but since it was carried out before, and after, by Africans, any claim that we should apologise is just a load of utter bollocks. It annoys me that anyone can claim any apology from a descendent of the guilty party, especially when they themselves have never been affected by it - like the recent apology from a Papua New Guinea tribe for their ancestors eating someone else’s ancestors. It is all just a load of rubbish. You can’t apologise for what someone else has done, and neither should you.

Why is Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, apologising for slavery? He said:

But you don’t have that right, Ken. No elected official does. You can apologise for yourself, if you really think it’s worth it, but not for anyone else.

It has been claimed that Ken has set “an example” by apologising, one which Anti-Slavery International thinks

Just fuck off, Anti-Slavery International. Just fuck off. I’m not apologising for something I didn’t do, and neither should anyone else. In Britain and her Empire, the slave trade ended two hundred years ago, and slavery as a whole 174 years ago. Don’t you think it’s time you just let it go? Just move on with your life and stop dragging up old, divisive, arguments about slavery. Everyone considers it a bad thing, it;’s not going to happen again here. Go look at Africa and stop it happening there right now, rather than wasting your time asking us for a pointless and totally illogical “apology”. If we were to take the argument they make for an apology, everyone would have to apologise to everyone for some minor slight back in the mists of time. Let’s just move on.

Source: The Guardian

If you do, then head over to the Wardman Wire. If you send Matt a 468×60 banner, he will add it to a rotating list which displays at the top of the blog. He says:

I’ve sent Matt a banner [below] which is the rotating list, and looks excellent - as do the others. If there is anyone who isn’t able to design a banner themselves, send me an email and I’ll help out, for the simple price of a link!

So if you want free advertising, head over to the Wardman Wire!