“ To prejudge other men's notions before we have looked into them is not to show their darkness but to put out our own eyes.”John Locke
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Quote of the day
Some imagine, some are more equal than others - but whom?
The Guardian today carries an article indicating that gay people feel that they are discriminated against because they are gay with the headline “Homophobia rife in British society”, one presumes it is a genuine report and not prompted by the date.
Schools seem to particularly come in for criticism as do the NHS - and the main political parties are mentioned.
All this, not on the basis of any actual quantifiable discrimination, but what homosexual people imagine might happen if they were, for instance apply to run as a Conservative, or New Labour MP. Talk about a story based on nothing but vapours and imaginings. Apparently 61% expected discrimination from the Conservatives and 47% from New Labour – ‘expected’, it says it all. This is based on prejudice alright, prejudice amongst what may be described as the Gay ‘Community’.
One should not forget that people do treat other people badly specifically because of their race, sexuality, etc. and this should not detract from that – but this report is more a problem with how people are imagining they will be treated, not with how they are actually being treated..
One should also keep in mind that someone can dislike someone else who is also male, or female, gay, or straight, black, or white, just because they are objectionable, unpleasant, or difficult, etc.
Apparently there was a perception that gay people might not get as good a service as presumably heterosexual people might when accessing emergency NHS care. I don’t personally recall my sexuality ever being relevant, or even being mentioned on any of the occasions I have needed to use casualty. I don’t understand why anyone else should feel it would.
One thing I have noticed - anecdotal evidence suggests, employees of some public bodies and companies sometimes feel their particular race and sexual orientation can detrimentally impact on their prospects. Male heterosexuals for instance are often concerned they are less likely to succeed in a job application. Gay men suspect they may be correct. None will risk speaking openly about it. Many now refuse details of sexual orientation, or even go so far as to misrepresent them in the ‘equality’ section of job applications. This has the potential to foster resentment.
Perceptions cut both ways.
Schools seem to particularly come in for criticism as do the NHS - and the main political parties are mentioned.
All this, not on the basis of any actual quantifiable discrimination, but what homosexual people imagine might happen if they were, for instance apply to run as a Conservative, or New Labour MP. Talk about a story based on nothing but vapours and imaginings. Apparently 61% expected discrimination from the Conservatives and 47% from New Labour – ‘expected’, it says it all. This is based on prejudice alright, prejudice amongst what may be described as the Gay ‘Community’.
One should not forget that people do treat other people badly specifically because of their race, sexuality, etc. and this should not detract from that – but this report is more a problem with how people are imagining they will be treated, not with how they are actually being treated..
One should also keep in mind that someone can dislike someone else who is also male, or female, gay, or straight, black, or white, just because they are objectionable, unpleasant, or difficult, etc.
Apparently there was a perception that gay people might not get as good a service as presumably heterosexual people might when accessing emergency NHS care. I don’t personally recall my sexuality ever being relevant, or even being mentioned on any of the occasions I have needed to use casualty. I don’t understand why anyone else should feel it would.
One thing I have noticed - anecdotal evidence suggests, employees of some public bodies and companies sometimes feel their particular race and sexual orientation can detrimentally impact on their prospects. Male heterosexuals for instance are often concerned they are less likely to succeed in a job application. Gay men suspect they may be correct. None will risk speaking openly about it. Many now refuse details of sexual orientation, or even go so far as to misrepresent them in the ‘equality’ section of job applications. This has the potential to foster resentment.
Perceptions cut both ways.
Gordon Brown to introduce death penalty for SPAMing
Today, in an eye catching new initiative, designed to ’reconnect’ with the ordinary citizen, UK PM Gordon Brown announced that; if re elected, New Labour would seek to re-introduce the death penalty, specifically for spamming.
A New labor think tank has produced a report recommending a graded series of offences. The most serious being sending out, or causing to be sent out, more than 100,000 SPAM emails, faxes, letters, or text messages.
A YouGov poll commissioned by the think tank showed levels of support for the initiative at over 96%. The reports authors believe support was only that low because some respondents didn’t feel the proposal went far enough.
Dr Frank N. Steen representing the the BMC accused the government of being short sighted, as they appeared to be missing the opportunity to harvest the organs of those found guilty, for transplant.
Government spokesperson Paul-Edward Legg said: “The key part of the legislation is that this should only target unsolicited communications. We are working on a definitive definition of SPAM”.
“We foresee potential problems with this proposed legislation, if it is not carefully framed, as we carry large amounts of unwanted junk mail.”, stated Post Office representative, Aprille Jape.
A New labor think tank has produced a report recommending a graded series of offences. The most serious being sending out, or causing to be sent out, more than 100,000 SPAM emails, faxes, letters, or text messages.
A YouGov poll commissioned by the think tank showed levels of support for the initiative at over 96%. The reports authors believe support was only that low because some respondents didn’t feel the proposal went far enough.
Dr Frank N. Steen representing the the BMC accused the government of being short sighted, as they appeared to be missing the opportunity to harvest the organs of those found guilty, for transplant.
Government spokesperson Paul-Edward Legg said: “The key part of the legislation is that this should only target unsolicited communications. We are working on a definitive definition of SPAM”.
“We foresee potential problems with this proposed legislation, if it is not carefully framed, as we carry large amounts of unwanted junk mail.”, stated Post Office representative, Aprille Jape.
Monday, 31 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ There is no comparison between that which is lost by not succeeding and that lost by not trying.”Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
‘Natural England’ advocate abandoning large swathes of Norfolk to the sea.
Thanks to the cult of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) the idiots at ‘Natural England’ are planning on abandoning huge swathes of Norfolk to the sea.
Why? Because they apparently believe some of the more alarmist predictions that proponents of the AGW theory make about possible huge rises in sea levels. They seem to have decided that they will be unable to defend against, or more likely to afford to defend against these possible rises. So they don’t even intend to try and are attempting to make a virtue out of this.
I don’t intend to get into if the theory of AGW is right or not, the fact is that some degree of climate change has been going on since long before the advent of humankind. It has been responsible for periods of greater cold and greater warmth than we currently take as normal, even within the last few thousand years.
The fact is that sea defences have protected these parts of Norfolk, the villages and broads and the unique environment they contain for centuries. There is no guarantee that sea levels will rise to such an extent they are impossible to defend against at all.
It is stupid, even bordering on criminally irresponsible, to just throw their hands in the air and just abandon large swathes of the country to the sea until we are absolutely forced to - and there is no guarantee that this will in fact happen.
If Natural England and the Environment Agency are unwilling to do their job and make a reasonable fist of maintaining our sea defences, as they are charged to do, then they should be divested of their authority and resources and these should be allocated to someone who will.
Why? Because they apparently believe some of the more alarmist predictions that proponents of the AGW theory make about possible huge rises in sea levels. They seem to have decided that they will be unable to defend against, or more likely to afford to defend against these possible rises. So they don’t even intend to try and are attempting to make a virtue out of this.
I don’t intend to get into if the theory of AGW is right or not, the fact is that some degree of climate change has been going on since long before the advent of humankind. It has been responsible for periods of greater cold and greater warmth than we currently take as normal, even within the last few thousand years.
The fact is that sea defences have protected these parts of Norfolk, the villages and broads and the unique environment they contain for centuries. There is no guarantee that sea levels will rise to such an extent they are impossible to defend against at all.
It is stupid, even bordering on criminally irresponsible, to just throw their hands in the air and just abandon large swathes of the country to the sea until we are absolutely forced to - and there is no guarantee that this will in fact happen.
If Natural England and the Environment Agency are unwilling to do their job and make a reasonable fist of maintaining our sea defences, as they are charged to do, then they should be divested of their authority and resources and these should be allocated to someone who will.
House of Lords may yet force a rethink on Lisbon Treaty referendum
It’s quite not over yet…
The house of Lords may still force New Labour and the Lib-Dems to honour their manifesto commitments to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
New Labour have consistently tried to pull the teeth of the house of Lords and destroy it’s more impartial, longer term view, in order to force through legislation unopposed, since they came to power. Now it seems they may not have done quite enough.
The Bill to rubber stamp the treaty without a referendum squeaked through the Commons in March with a majority of 63, thanks to the slavish unwillingness of new Lab and Lib-Dem MPs to honour what Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg presumably now regard as inconvenient election promises.
Now there is a possibility the house of Lords may yet try force them to honour their election commitment to a referendum anyway, by amending and returning the bill to the house of commons.
Lib Dem peer Lord Falkland, who clearly likes to be able to look himself in the eye in the mirror, unlike so many of his colleagues in the commons, said: ”I will be voting for a referendum and, if I am brave enough to withstand the glares of my colleagues, I will speak in the debate.”. “When you give an undertaking, as we clearly did in our last manifesto, you cannot have it both ways. A manifesto commitment has to be sacrosanct.”
Still, it is the whole weight of the European political elite and the European ‘Project’ behind the ‘Treaty’ - don’t hold your breath waiting for a referendum folks.
The house of Lords may still force New Labour and the Lib-Dems to honour their manifesto commitments to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
New Labour have consistently tried to pull the teeth of the house of Lords and destroy it’s more impartial, longer term view, in order to force through legislation unopposed, since they came to power. Now it seems they may not have done quite enough.
The Bill to rubber stamp the treaty without a referendum squeaked through the Commons in March with a majority of 63, thanks to the slavish unwillingness of new Lab and Lib-Dem MPs to honour what Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg presumably now regard as inconvenient election promises.
Now there is a possibility the house of Lords may yet try force them to honour their election commitment to a referendum anyway, by amending and returning the bill to the house of commons.
Lib Dem peer Lord Falkland, who clearly likes to be able to look himself in the eye in the mirror, unlike so many of his colleagues in the commons, said: ”I will be voting for a referendum and, if I am brave enough to withstand the glares of my colleagues, I will speak in the debate.”. “When you give an undertaking, as we clearly did in our last manifesto, you cannot have it both ways. A manifesto commitment has to be sacrosanct.”
Still, it is the whole weight of the European political elite and the European ‘Project’ behind the ‘Treaty’ - don’t hold your breath waiting for a referendum folks.
Zimbabwe’s 'elections'
The results of Zimbabwe’s elections have still yet to be announced. The longer they take the more one worries.
It is clear that the old fraud Mugabe has stacked things as much in his favour as he can get away with - but will that be enough to keep him and his cronies in power?
The much abused opposition are certain they have won, but that is based on the counts at the polls, the results after they have been 'officially counted' may not necessarily be the same, or reflect reality.
Mugabe has managed to turn a country that was the breadbasket of Africa when he first became it’s ruler into the basket case of Africa. South Africa has been reluctant to intervene or criticise his regime. Most other African states have taken a similar or even more equivocal stance.
It would probably be the best result for Zimbabwe if Mugabe did the decent thing and stepped down. If the country could begin it’s probably long recovery, free of his corrupt racist incompetence.
I am sure the ‘Islington Tendency’, don’t even want to think such a thing – but he is clearly racist and/or cynically uses and panders to racism for his own purposes. I am not sure what is worse.
If this does come to pass, the UK should be very reluctant to become involved.
Zimbabwe was in a very strong position when it declared UDI. The UK worked to try to ensure a peaceful transition of power to majority rule, the country was prosperous and had an honest fair and functioning legal and political system at that point.
The terrible state of the country today is entirely due to the dishonesty, incompetence and corruption of it’s rulers since the advent of majority rule - and not the responsibility of the UK.
Though one feels for the ordinary people, when the time finally comes that the country gets the chance to recover, let Zimbabwe make reparations to their citizens who they have driven off their farms and let Africa repair the damage in their own backyard. The UK should not become any more involved than any other country.
Zimbabwe should not expect any more from the UK than any other country, except perhaps their immediate neighbours.
It is clear that the old fraud Mugabe has stacked things as much in his favour as he can get away with - but will that be enough to keep him and his cronies in power?
The much abused opposition are certain they have won, but that is based on the counts at the polls, the results after they have been 'officially counted' may not necessarily be the same, or reflect reality.
Mugabe has managed to turn a country that was the breadbasket of Africa when he first became it’s ruler into the basket case of Africa. South Africa has been reluctant to intervene or criticise his regime. Most other African states have taken a similar or even more equivocal stance.
It would probably be the best result for Zimbabwe if Mugabe did the decent thing and stepped down. If the country could begin it’s probably long recovery, free of his corrupt racist incompetence.
I am sure the ‘Islington Tendency’, don’t even want to think such a thing – but he is clearly racist and/or cynically uses and panders to racism for his own purposes. I am not sure what is worse.
If this does come to pass, the UK should be very reluctant to become involved.
Zimbabwe was in a very strong position when it declared UDI. The UK worked to try to ensure a peaceful transition of power to majority rule, the country was prosperous and had an honest fair and functioning legal and political system at that point.
The terrible state of the country today is entirely due to the dishonesty, incompetence and corruption of it’s rulers since the advent of majority rule - and not the responsibility of the UK.
Though one feels for the ordinary people, when the time finally comes that the country gets the chance to recover, let Zimbabwe make reparations to their citizens who they have driven off their farms and let Africa repair the damage in their own backyard. The UK should not become any more involved than any other country.
Zimbabwe should not expect any more from the UK than any other country, except perhaps their immediate neighbours.
Friday, 28 March 2008
BA’s Terminal 5 misery rolls on into day two.
Is it me or does anyone else wonder why they didn’t test the systems at Heathrow’s new terminal 5 before opening it?
A full dress rehearsal or two, with a dry run involving fake luggage might have helped. I wouldn’t mind betting they have a few unclaimed cases lying around they could have used, but empty cardboard boxes would have probably told them something useful.
I understand when Eurostar services were migrated to St Pancras they managed to come up with enough volunteer passengers to test it all out and snag any last minute glitches before they ever hit any paying passengers.
As I understand it most of the problems are due to the supposedly brilliant new baggage handling system having some sort of bottleneck or failure.
BA seem to be waffling a bit claiming the backlog was due to a number of things, including, but not limited to, delays at the staff car park and security hold-ups affecting baggage handlers. Again a dry run would surely have told them something.
They certainly seem to be making a real mess of dealing with the poor old customers.
No clear information is one thing and frustrating in it’s self for customers - I heard they threatened to have at least one guy arrested when he quite justifiably complained - but the press release was very bare bones.
Although the words were technically regretful the tone was anything but and their spokesperson just read it out - badly, no personal input at all. Do they get training in dealing with the media?
Excellent public relations work! I am really glad I flew the other week and not this one.
A full dress rehearsal or two, with a dry run involving fake luggage might have helped. I wouldn’t mind betting they have a few unclaimed cases lying around they could have used, but empty cardboard boxes would have probably told them something useful.
I understand when Eurostar services were migrated to St Pancras they managed to come up with enough volunteer passengers to test it all out and snag any last minute glitches before they ever hit any paying passengers.
As I understand it most of the problems are due to the supposedly brilliant new baggage handling system having some sort of bottleneck or failure.
BA seem to be waffling a bit claiming the backlog was due to a number of things, including, but not limited to, delays at the staff car park and security hold-ups affecting baggage handlers. Again a dry run would surely have told them something.
They certainly seem to be making a real mess of dealing with the poor old customers.
No clear information is one thing and frustrating in it’s self for customers - I heard they threatened to have at least one guy arrested when he quite justifiably complained - but the press release was very bare bones.
Although the words were technically regretful the tone was anything but and their spokesperson just read it out - badly, no personal input at all. Do they get training in dealing with the media?
Excellent public relations work! I am really glad I flew the other week and not this one.
Thursday, 27 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ A welfare state is frightened of every poor person who tries to get in and every rich person who tries to get out.”Harry Browne
“ The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.”Bertrand de Jouvenel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
