SSDD
I really do want to stay away from the news but each day brings so many more things to be pissed off about.
I am going to try to combine it into a mini rage so I can get onto important things like lane discipline on roundabouts (you know who you are you bunch of wankers).
First.
The Peers are kicking off about the smoking ban. For all you that don't know, we have parliament where our MPs avoid work, make sheep noises when others are talking, have affairs and generally behave badly and then we have the house of Lords (where the same is done just in a different location). Now, we elect our MPs to represent our wishes (theoretically as they seem to do whatever the fuck they like) the Lords don't seem to be elected but get the job due to their peerage. The Lords can try to block things that have passed in the house. Slightly annoying but no one seems to notice. I am not sure how sensible it is to have unelected people debate anything but that's England for you. Totally unable to ditch a bad idea as it's traditional.
Well these 'lords' have complained about the ban on smoking in public places. They have described it as not justified by the health risks from passive smoking.
Now this law was passed by a huge majority by of elected officials so who gives a shit what the chinless ones think? Apparently the MPs failed to consider the evidence that passive smoking is more risky in the home.
Huh? And? I am sure that guns are more risky in Iraq but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ban them in England. Also if someone decides to smoke in their home they only put themselves and their family at risk.
This ban is not curtailing personal freedom. You can smoke. You can stick a cigar up your arse and try to inhale that way if you like. You are just not being allowed to force everyone else to breathe it too. Whatever your opinion, this has already been decided by landslide voting of people we elected so why should another group get to nix it?
My particular favourite quote comes from Simon Clark of Forrest (smokers lobby group)
"The threat of passive smoking is based on extremely dubious estimates, calculations and guesswork.
"The evidence is highly subjective and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.
"If there is a risk it is very small and it certainly doesn't justify a ban on smoking in every pub, club and restaurant in the country."
Well Simon I take it back. Clearly we were wrong. All those studies showing the links to cancer from passive smoking. Come on people blow your smoke at me. Simon is from Forrest the smokers lobby group (any chance this has funding directly from, or from companies linked to, tobacco companies I wonder?) he wouldn't lie to us. Also however slight the risk is Simon I'd rather not take it, you yellow fingered, smoke stinking wank bucket (I have assumed he smokes for the sake of the insult if this is not the case then please accept my apologies and assume I am simply calling him a wank bucket).
I am hoping that these people get ignored as the asshats they are.
Second.
The home office has decided a specific law to ban forced marriages is not needed. Actually I agree with this. If you force someone to marry you can be charged with Kidnap, false imprisonment and/or rape. I think it's enough. I guess an extra law would give another offence to hang onto them which may get them an extra few months but it's a lot of effort (and public spending) for something that is already effectively banned.
The thing that pissed me off (and amused me a little) was the contention from pragma patel (chair of the Southall Black Sisters) that said
"We don't see the need for criminalisation of forced marriage, which is yet another way of stereotyping and criminalising entire communities at a time when there is heightened racism in this country."
In what way is this stereotyping anyone? It only criminalises the criminals. Either something is illegal or not. If you do it you are a criminal by definition that does not suggest that everyone who lives near you or shares a religion with you is the same. Weird.
The government has gone out of it's way to state they are not attacking the idea of arranged marriages. Neither am I for that matter. It's a cultural thing and a choice of the individual.
If you want to choose who you marry by throwing darts at pictures I am happy as long as we can all choose what we, as individuals, want. In fact I am sure I read some statistic that gave the chances of an arranged marriage succeeding (not ending in divorce) as hugely higher than the English DIY version.
Of course as there tends to be a cultural difference between people who generally have arranged marriages and people who don't it could be flawed reasoning. how about comparing arranged marriages and non arranged marriages within the same culture?.
Three.
An activist from the respect party has urged Muslims in East London to stop co-operating with the police.
This is in response to the raid where that chap got shot and the police as yet haven't turned up any evidence of a dirty bomb despite their claim of specific intelligence. If the police got screwed on intelligence then the bloke has a cast iron reason to be unhappy. I don't see what it has to do with Yvonne Ridley. The police targeted a house containing a couple of Englishmen after intelligence suggested they were terrorists. What else can they do?
I am really ticked off with this woman saying
(Muslims should) "boycott the police and refuse to co-operate with them in any way, shape or form."
and
"From today until this terrorist's of the Muslim community is stopped immediately, I believe all Muslims should withdraw their support,"
This goes from asking the community copper for directions to passing the time of day with a beat officer
"From today until this terrorisation of the Muslim community is stopped immediately, I believe all Muslims should withdraw their support," she said.
"This goes from asking the community copper for directions to passing the time of day with a beat officer.
"We should enforce non-co-operation."
To me it isn't a terrorisation of the Muslim community. It's an attempt to stop terrorists who may be hiding amongst the Muslim community. When England was suffering from IRA bomb attacks people with Irish accents or passports were targeted, this doesn't suggest to me that everyone who is Irish is IRA anymore that everyone who is British is BNP.
Now England (and I include English Muslims in this though I am pissed off I should even have to state this categorically) is under threat from the Taliban and other nutters of that ilk it seems sensible to look at people who are Muslims. Not exclusively as if we got silly all a terrorist would have to do is shave his head and pretend to be a hare Krishna. The fact is the Taliban is a Muslim organisation. If you want to cut wood the best place to go is to where there are trees.
This assertion that a community should stop cooperating with the police is ridiculous, even more so as it comes from a political party member. How does not helping each other do anything except to cut the Muslim community away from everyone else?
Ms Ridley (in my opinion) is a fucking idiot.
As I hate the way the news is all doom and gloom I am going to include a couple of stories that were ok.
It's suggested that people who get caught having sex in toilets will be fined £50 rather than get a jail term. Lets hope this goes through. I know people don't want to catch other people on the job in public but it's consensual so maybe we can cut them some slack.
British police are collaring hooligans trying to get to Germany for the match and giving them banning orders. Cool. Perhaps we wont need to be embarrassed this year by people who are just out for trouble.
Ok I am exhausted with all the angry news but it felt good to get it off my chest!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5053350.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5054286.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5054888.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5054600.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5054190.stm
I am going to try to combine it into a mini rage so I can get onto important things like lane discipline on roundabouts (you know who you are you bunch of wankers).
First.
The Peers are kicking off about the smoking ban. For all you that don't know, we have parliament where our MPs avoid work, make sheep noises when others are talking, have affairs and generally behave badly and then we have the house of Lords (where the same is done just in a different location). Now, we elect our MPs to represent our wishes (theoretically as they seem to do whatever the fuck they like) the Lords don't seem to be elected but get the job due to their peerage. The Lords can try to block things that have passed in the house. Slightly annoying but no one seems to notice. I am not sure how sensible it is to have unelected people debate anything but that's England for you. Totally unable to ditch a bad idea as it's traditional.
Well these 'lords' have complained about the ban on smoking in public places. They have described it as not justified by the health risks from passive smoking.
Now this law was passed by a huge majority by of elected officials so who gives a shit what the chinless ones think? Apparently the MPs failed to consider the evidence that passive smoking is more risky in the home.
Huh? And? I am sure that guns are more risky in Iraq but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ban them in England. Also if someone decides to smoke in their home they only put themselves and their family at risk.
This ban is not curtailing personal freedom. You can smoke. You can stick a cigar up your arse and try to inhale that way if you like. You are just not being allowed to force everyone else to breathe it too. Whatever your opinion, this has already been decided by landslide voting of people we elected so why should another group get to nix it?
My particular favourite quote comes from Simon Clark of Forrest (smokers lobby group)
"The threat of passive smoking is based on extremely dubious estimates, calculations and guesswork.
"The evidence is highly subjective and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.
"If there is a risk it is very small and it certainly doesn't justify a ban on smoking in every pub, club and restaurant in the country."
Well Simon I take it back. Clearly we were wrong. All those studies showing the links to cancer from passive smoking. Come on people blow your smoke at me. Simon is from Forrest the smokers lobby group (any chance this has funding directly from, or from companies linked to, tobacco companies I wonder?) he wouldn't lie to us. Also however slight the risk is Simon I'd rather not take it, you yellow fingered, smoke stinking wank bucket (I have assumed he smokes for the sake of the insult if this is not the case then please accept my apologies and assume I am simply calling him a wank bucket).
I am hoping that these people get ignored as the asshats they are.
Second.
The home office has decided a specific law to ban forced marriages is not needed. Actually I agree with this. If you force someone to marry you can be charged with Kidnap, false imprisonment and/or rape. I think it's enough. I guess an extra law would give another offence to hang onto them which may get them an extra few months but it's a lot of effort (and public spending) for something that is already effectively banned.
The thing that pissed me off (and amused me a little) was the contention from pragma patel (chair of the Southall Black Sisters) that said
"We don't see the need for criminalisation of forced marriage, which is yet another way of stereotyping and criminalising entire communities at a time when there is heightened racism in this country."
In what way is this stereotyping anyone? It only criminalises the criminals. Either something is illegal or not. If you do it you are a criminal by definition that does not suggest that everyone who lives near you or shares a religion with you is the same. Weird.
The government has gone out of it's way to state they are not attacking the idea of arranged marriages. Neither am I for that matter. It's a cultural thing and a choice of the individual.
If you want to choose who you marry by throwing darts at pictures I am happy as long as we can all choose what we, as individuals, want. In fact I am sure I read some statistic that gave the chances of an arranged marriage succeeding (not ending in divorce) as hugely higher than the English DIY version.
Of course as there tends to be a cultural difference between people who generally have arranged marriages and people who don't it could be flawed reasoning. how about comparing arranged marriages and non arranged marriages within the same culture?.
Three.
An activist from the respect party has urged Muslims in East London to stop co-operating with the police.
This is in response to the raid where that chap got shot and the police as yet haven't turned up any evidence of a dirty bomb despite their claim of specific intelligence. If the police got screwed on intelligence then the bloke has a cast iron reason to be unhappy. I don't see what it has to do with Yvonne Ridley. The police targeted a house containing a couple of Englishmen after intelligence suggested they were terrorists. What else can they do?
I am really ticked off with this woman saying
(Muslims should) "boycott the police and refuse to co-operate with them in any way, shape or form."
and
"From today until this terrorist's of the Muslim community is stopped immediately, I believe all Muslims should withdraw their support,"
This goes from asking the community copper for directions to passing the time of day with a beat officer
"From today until this terrorisation of the Muslim community is stopped immediately, I believe all Muslims should withdraw their support," she said.
"This goes from asking the community copper for directions to passing the time of day with a beat officer.
"We should enforce non-co-operation."
To me it isn't a terrorisation of the Muslim community. It's an attempt to stop terrorists who may be hiding amongst the Muslim community. When England was suffering from IRA bomb attacks people with Irish accents or passports were targeted, this doesn't suggest to me that everyone who is Irish is IRA anymore that everyone who is British is BNP.
Now England (and I include English Muslims in this though I am pissed off I should even have to state this categorically) is under threat from the Taliban and other nutters of that ilk it seems sensible to look at people who are Muslims. Not exclusively as if we got silly all a terrorist would have to do is shave his head and pretend to be a hare Krishna. The fact is the Taliban is a Muslim organisation. If you want to cut wood the best place to go is to where there are trees.
This assertion that a community should stop cooperating with the police is ridiculous, even more so as it comes from a political party member. How does not helping each other do anything except to cut the Muslim community away from everyone else?
Ms Ridley (in my opinion) is a fucking idiot.
As I hate the way the news is all doom and gloom I am going to include a couple of stories that were ok.
It's suggested that people who get caught having sex in toilets will be fined £50 rather than get a jail term. Lets hope this goes through. I know people don't want to catch other people on the job in public but it's consensual so maybe we can cut them some slack.
British police are collaring hooligans trying to get to Germany for the match and giving them banning orders. Cool. Perhaps we wont need to be embarrassed this year by people who are just out for trouble.
Ok I am exhausted with all the angry news but it felt good to get it off my chest!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5053350.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5054286.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5054888.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5054600.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5054190.stm
posted by Student at 11:46 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home