1 Comment October 29th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
The prize for the most stupid sentence I have read today goes to:
… freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. - Rudy Giuliani in 1994 [via Mr Eugenides]
How on earth can freedom possibly be about authority?! They are polar opposites!
That just - and I mean just - pipped this in sheer stupidity:
Libertarians are the True Social Parasites… Unless tax-payers’ money and public services are available to repair the destruction it causes, libertarianism destroys people’s savings, wrecks their lives and trashes their environment. It is the belief system of the free-rider, who is perpetually subsidised by responsible citizens… Self-serving as governments might be, the true social parasites are those who demand their dissolution. - George Monbiot
Tom Paine has ably destroyed this ridiculous assertion, so go there and read his post.
2 Comments October 26th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
There is controversy over the unveiling of a statue of David Lloyd George in Parliament Square. Apparently it wrong to put up a statue to Lloyd George because he ordered bombings in Iraq between 1916 and 1922, which “makes today’s celebration of Lloyd George’s legacy highly topical and disgraceful.”
What on earth are Harold Pinter, John Pilger and Denis Halliday on about in their letter to the Telegraph? Whilst Lloyd George wasn’t perfect, it is hardly “disgraceful” to erect a statue of him in Parliament Square.
The reaction to Lloyd George’s statue is especially remarkable in contrast with the reaction when a statue to Nelson Mandela was erected in Parliament Square. The BBC article on Mandela’s statue has absolutely no mention of his less-than-salubrious past and objections to his statue because of it, whilst the article on Lloyd George has more on the opposition to his statue than support for it.
Mandela was a terrorist. No matter what the cause for which he fought, his actions ticked absolutely every box of that definition. Lloyd George, on the other hand, just authorised bombings during a war! There is no denying that Lloyd George has more right to have a statue in Parliament Square than Nelson Mandela. To start with, he was a British Prime Minister, and not a terrorist!
So why, why was there a deafening silence on opposition to Mandela’s statue but the utter opposite for the far more noble and deserving Lloyd George?
Source: BBC
1 Comment October 22nd, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Christmas seems to come earlier every year. There are Christmas decorations in some shops even before the end of August, most have the by September, and now - the middle of October - they’re bloody everywhere! And the Christmas adverts have already come out on TV, playing the Christmas songs that just get on your nerves long before 25th December.
And now, via an unimpressed Norfolk Blogger, I hear that the Dickens classic A Christmas Carol is to be remade. With lots of “special effects”. And starring Jim Carrey. Why? We already have the best video version of that classic book that could be made: The Muppet Christmas Carol.
4 Comments September 20th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Supermarket staff refused to sell alcohol to a white-haired 72-year-old man - because he would not confirm he was over 21.
Check-out staff at Morrisons in West Kirby, Wirral, demanded Tony Ralls prove he was old enough to buy his two bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon.
Mr Ralls asked to see the manager who put the wine back on the shelf.
The grandfather-of-three said he had refused to confirm he was over 21 as it was a “stupid question.” (BBC)
Yes, this is absurd. But no, Devil’s Kitchen, it isn’t an example of them being “Little Hitlers“. Under the alcohol licensing laws, all supermarkets that sell alcohol are obliged to run a scheme under which all shoppers buying alcohol who appear to be under 21 are asked for ID before they can purchase alcohol. As the penalties for selling alcohol to minors is serious - resulting in a £70 fine and potential criminal conviction for the checkout operator themselves and any supermarket who did this three times in any twelve-month period loses its ability to sell alcohol, a serious revenue cut - many supermarkets have gone for the extreme approach of requiring checkout operators to request ID for every alcohol purchase. They do this to basically cover their own arses. As you may have realised, many checkout operators [and other supermarket workers] aren’t the brightest crayons in the pack.
Yes, to require ID from a man as obviously over 21 as Mr Ralls is absurd - but done simply to cover themselves. The manager’s reaction appears over the top. He should have just told the checkout operator to sell him the bottles of wine. But considering the way in which Mr Ralls also appears to have reacted - such as refusing to confirm he was over 21 because it was a “stupid question” - almost certainly did not help the situation.
Yes, it is absurd. But it’s not the fault of the checkout operator, or even necessarily the manager. They should have just sold him the wine - but company policy is company policy, even when it’s stupid.
UPDATE: Re-reading the BBC article I have to fall even more to the supermarket staff’s side - Mr Ralls refused to confirm that he was 21 by not answering the question put to him. If I am reading it correctly, he was not asked to produce ID but to answer “yes” to the question “are you over 21, sir?” - verbally confirming that he was over 21. He is quoted in the article as saying: “I wouldn’t dignify the question [of whether he was over 21] with an answer.” Whilst refusing to sell the wine was absurd, Mr Ralls certainly didn’t help the situation. It was a very simple questions with a very simple [and obvious] answer - but an answer which he refused to give. To a certain extent he has only himself to blame.
Source: BBC
2 Comments September 17th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Lunatics running the asylum? No, even more absurd - school children writing their own tests.
Pupils should mark their own classwork and decide what their school tests should cover, according to the Government’s exams advisers.
Teachers should train secondary school children to set their own homework and devise marking schemes, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority said.
Pupils should then assess the results, grading their own efforts and giving “feedback” to their classmates, the latest National Curriculum guidance said.
The QCA, which devised the new secondary curriculum, said such an approach helps children support each other and develop independent study skills. (The Telegraph)
What the hell? Let’s read that again: “Pupils should mark their own classwork and decide what their school tests should cover”. What? Why?
This is quite possibly the most stupid thing I have ever read. Have they actually thought it through? Obviously not.
Our education system is in enough trouble as it is right now, which the dumbing down of GCSEs and A-levels to extent where more a than a quarter of A-levels are As, and nearly one in five GCSE grades are A or A*. SO this idea really isn’t going to improve confidence in the education system at all. In fact, if it ever comes into practice we might as well just give everyone an A and get it over with.
Can the idiots who devised this even remember being at school or even in education at all? Have they completely forgotten the simple fact that all school children will do anything not to work - or at least work hard. If it is the pupils themselves who pick the exam questions, A-level maths will consist of questions on the level of 2 + 2 = ?.
The QCA report said that:
In order to improve learning, self-assessment must engage learners with the quality of their work and help them reflect on how to improve it.
That ignores the very simple fact I mentioned above - school children don’t want to work. I always found this sort of “self-assessment” of work as pointless and certainly not constructive. It doesn’t help to pretty much waste time going through old work - it is far more useful to get it marked and appropriate feedback written on it. The teacher then knows what areas need work. But trying to “engage learners with the quality of their work” like this is never going to work. Ever.
The dumbing down of education needs to stop and be reversed - this is going in very much the wrong direction. It truly does take us to within one step of rubber-stamping all exam papers with an A.
Source: The Telegraph
Add a comment September 14th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Stating the bloody obvious…
An increasing tendency for politicians, corporations and police forces to tell the public everything it never needed to know, has been highlighted by the Plain English Campaign.
The group said the attitude was that if something was not worth telling once, the “message” clearly required ramming home via a poster campaign or a trite missive on an electronic board.
It cited the plethora of inane motorway signs and the warning by at least one supermarket chain that milk bottles contain milk….
[And] the example of a Hertfordshire police poster that is tackling lawlessness by urging would-be felons: Don’t Commit Crime. (The Telegraph)
I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
2 Comments September 9th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Keep the Queen on our passports!
References to the Queen could be taken out of British passports in a bid to make them more European, it has emerged.
The new documents, which could be in place as early as 2010, would bear reference to the EU constitution in order to remind UK citizens that they are part of Europe.
The first page of the British passport has historically featured the royal coat of arms with a message from the Queen beginning: “Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State”.
The words go on to outline that the citizen has a right to travel freely and has the right to protection and assistance.
Under new changes, however, it has been suggested that the coat of arms are scrapped and replaced by the EU emblem of 12 stars with the message underneath reading: “Every citizen of the Union”. (The Telegraph)
How dare they?! The Queen is, and shall remain, our head of state. We are, first and foremost, subjects of the Queen. The EU should stay away from our passports. We may be citizens of the EU, but we are citizens of Great Britain and subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II first and foremost.
So the EU can fuck off if they think that we will have their twelve-star logo and a passage from their - rejected - Constitution on our passports. We’re still British and not European, and Britain is still, technically at least, a sovereign state. So until we are forced to become nothing more than a region of a United States of Europe, we will continue to have the royal coat of arms on our passports.
Source: The Telegraph
10 Comments September 7th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
If you live in England, get ready to write yet another blank cheque for Scotland…
English students studying in Scotland will have to pay tuition fees while their Scots counterparts will be taught for free, under legislation proposed by Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Holyrood.
Scots who study north of the border will no longer have to pay a “graduate endowment” of £2,289 once they finish their course.
Students from other countries will still have to pay. This has angered critics, who believe English taxpayers are subsidising the Scots.
Plans to table the legislation, part of the 11 bills that Scottish ministers are planning for the next year, could come into force by April 2008….
EU students will also benefit as they must receive the same treatment as the indigenous population. Undergraduates from other parts of Britain will still be expected to pay £1,700 a year for their courses. (The Telegraph)
So, basically, if you’re English [or Welsh] you have to pay tuition fees if you study in Scotland, but not if you’re Scottish or from anywhere else in the EU? Thus, English taxpayers are funding Scottish and European student’s education - but not that of their own kids.
No matter if Wendy Alexander [Scottish Labour leader] thinks that the English shouldn’t complain about Scotland living off of us, we will. Especially when the abuse of our taxes extends to such a level as £1,236 more on every person in Scotland.
As much as Salmond may not like it [politically, though obviously not financially], Scotland is still part of the UK. As such, to discriminate in such a way against students from England is utterly wrong.
This is yet another example of the educational apartheid in Britain. Scottish students shouldn’t get university - or any other - education on a different financial basis, such as no Student Loans for Scottish students, to that which exists in the rest of the United Kingdom. We are one state, under one Government, even if Salmond disagrees even on that level with his pronouncement of the “rebranding” of the Scottish Executive as the Scottish Government with £100,000 of English money.
Has Salmond never heard of equality - as in where everyone is equal? Apparently not.
Source: The Telegraph
Add a comment September 5th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
When a pedestrian was hit by a police car which mounted the pavement, it was obvious who was going to come off worse.
After suffering a broken foot in the collision, however, Daniel Horne thought all the damage had been done.
Until he received an £80 fine - for denting the vehicle. (Daily Mail)
I just can’t believe it. Absolutely gob-smacked. A policeman ran over a man - and then gave him an £80 fine for “causing a dent”?! Running a man over happens - it was an accident - but to then fine him for the pleasure?!
The policeman who issue this fine [pic above] should be disciplined for doing so. The system by which the policeman felt he had to issue the fixed penalty to cover himself also needs to be fixed. Anyone can have an accident - such as running over someone’s foot - but then giving a fine to the casualty is inexcusable, especially when the ticket reads:
You ran into the n/s [near side] front wing of a marked police vehicle causing a dent
When the truth is nearer “I ran you over in my marked police vehicle, causing a dent”.
via Guthrum
Source: Daily Mail
3 Comments August 27th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Yet another example of an outpouring of grief taken into absurdity with the inclusion of celebrities:
Players from Everton Football Club have paid tribute to Rhys Jones during a visit to the scene where the 11-year-old was murdered in Merseyside.
The squad laid flowers, a shirt and boots at the makeshift shrine to the youngster outside the Fir Tree pub in Croxteth, Liverpool.
Rhys, an Everton season ticket holder, was shot outside the pub on Wednesday…
Everton captain Phil Neville urged people to help the police catch the youngster’s killer.
“We are here today to pay our respects and appeal to anyone to come out and give information about the person who did this terrible thing…
Rhys was an 11-year-old lad and massive Evertonian. We just hope this thing never happens again.”(BBC)
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
