01706713200 – BMS – Still Scum

Posted on Thu, 20 September, 2007 by ATGW

Almost a week ago, I mentioned the problems I have been having with BMS and how they keep phoning me every day from 01706713200. In a nutshell, Bury Marketing Sales (BMS) operate a call centre which basically tries to wear down customers of 3 (telephone provider) until they take up the “Offers.”

Reading round various websites (Google helps) and it seemed that the call centre staff had a tendency to be talkative, which was something I had never experienced. Every single time I answered the phone, all I heard was silence (with call centre background chat) and every time I missed the call, they left me a voice mail which was also about 10 – 20 seconds of silence. I found it quite strange.

On Monday, I had my daily call from 01706713200, I wasn’t too busy, so I answered it. Instead of saying “hello” though, I just accepted the call and waited for about five seconds. Instead of the normal silence, a call centre operator started talking and trying to sell me a new contract. Even when I pointed out my contract was pretty new and had 12 months left to run, he didn’t care. He basically wanted me to take out a second contract with them – when I said it made no sense to have two contracts on one phone with one sim card, he started saying about how different calls would be “routed automatically.” In the end, I tried to be a politely firm as possible but said no thanks. He finished with a “we will call you back to see if you’ve changed your mind.” Blimey.

They certainly kept to their word on this. I now get three or four calls a day. Normally about every two hours between 10am and 3pm. This time it is back to the silent treatment. When I answer there is no one there and when I don’t answer I get silent voice mails. It is like having my own pet stalker (without the fear).

Anyway, on the off chance that there is some one reading this who is in anyway related to marketing or sales: This is NOT the way to do it. At the moment, even if they were offering me the best deal in the world I would turn them down now. It has soured my opinion of 3 (who have apparently sold my details to BMS despite me explicitly saying “no” on the forms) beyond repair and there is no way I will renew my 3 contract when it runs out in two months. (I lied about the 12 months).

For those who are interested (and we get a lot of traffic here on this subject), the registered details of BMS (with Companies House) are:

Bury Marketing and Sales Ltd
47 Sefton Street
Bury
LANCASHIRE BL9 6PR
Company No. 05802107

Their contact emails are (sales) sales@bmsltd.org and (Customer Services) info@bmsltd.org – feel free to sell these addresses on…

If you are feeling aggrieved by their behaviour, you can also fax them on 0845 299 1672, but as this is not a free (or cheap rate) number, I would advise against my initial idea of faxing them mountains of crap.

I have read a few places online where people are suggesting legal action against either BMS (harassment) or 3 (breach of contract), so if you are trying either of these I would love to hear how you get on.

[tags]Bad Shop, BMS, 01706713200, Bury Marketing Sales, 3, Three, Telecoms, Cell Phone, Mobile Phone, Hutchinson 3g, Hutchinson, Bad Privacy, Breach of Contract, Privacy, Consent, Marketing, Bury, Telephone Preference Service, TPS, Rochdale, Company Information, Email Addresses, N Bhatti, Society[/tags]

Blind Faith

Posted on Wed, 19 September, 2007 by ATGW

The tragedy of missing Madeleine McCann seems no closer to ending than it did three months ago. During this time the media personification of the parents has alternated between saint and sinner – sometimes seemingly at random. For the most of it, in Portugal, the McCann parents have been looked at as (at best) negligent parents while (again, for most of the time) in the UK the middle class, white, professional, religious status of the parents has ensured they have been seen as saints who are undergoing a terrible ordeal. This changed recently, when for a short period the tabloids smelt more blood and in the wonderful manner of the press changed allegiances, barely stopping short of calling for their execution (mentioned previously). Given the natural order of the universe, the “truth” probably lies somewhere between the two extremes and I certainly have my own personal opinion. I should stress at this stage that my opinion is based on nothing other than gut feeling and the information made available by the press, so I have no intention of going into detail about it.

Before I go on, I would also like to point out that one of the main search terms which is driving traffic here recently is a variation on the words “Kate McCann Guilty Violent Murderer.” Given that this is generating a LOT of traffic, I can only guess at public opinion on the matter.

I digress. Risking eternal disfavour by the Great Antero Vipunen, I actually read the Sun newspaper today. I know. I am sorry. I will try not to do it again. In it, good old Archbishop John Sentamu writes a piece titled: We Must Have Faith For Maddie

Despite the overt religious tones in which the the piece is written, this is a largely secular humanist bit of writing with the basic theme being that the presumption of innocence is the bedrock of the legal system. For example, he relates this parable:

In 359AD a trial took place where a local governor, Numerius of Narbonne, was accused of raiding his own coffers. There was little proof but that didnâ€™t stop the whispers and accusations. Still, the prosecutor was convinced the governor was guilty and said as much to the judge, the Roman Emperor Julian. At his trial, the governor denied the charges and the case was due to be dismissed.

The prosecutor was furious: â€œOh, illustrious Caesar,â€ he raged, â€œIf it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?â€ Emperor Julianâ€™s response has been repeated in countless trials for the past 1600 years: â€œIf it suffices to accuse, what then will become of the innocent?â€

And, for once, I find my self in total agreement with the Archbishop of York. Scary.

Sadly, despite the valid comments the Archbish makes and the fact the Sun newspaper of all papers prints it, there are a few things which still make me uncomfortable about it. I agree whole heartedly that as a society we should reinforce the automatic presumption of innocence.

Now, with this in mind, have a flick through the Sun news paper (or any media output over the last, say, day) and see how many examples there are where a person accused of a crime is assumed to be guilty. It is a regular occurrence. Take poor Robert Murat for example – due to his past he was largely assumed to be guilty of anything people wanted to accuse him of. He had no support from the various churches, he had no support from rich idiots. He had to defend himself against the court of public opinion.

Not so for the McCann parents. The cynic in me is screaming this is entirely down to their perceived image as “successful” white professionals – anything which implies this part of our society can harbour evil seems to damage the national psyche. In the same edition of the Sun which calls for the return of innocent until proven guilty, OJ Simpson is pretty much called a murderer several times. Is this hypocrisy?

Anyway, enough ranting about this obvious state of the world. Dr Sentamu concludes his article with something that produced mixed emotions:

Our focus must again be upon the love of the parents for their lost daughter, for their hope that they may one day be reunited with her and for their faith that she is still alive.

These must be our watchwords â€” faith, hope and love. For as St Paul once wrote, in the end it is these three which remain: Faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Wonderful words, and I too hope she is alive and unharmed. The adult in me is aware that this hope is pretty much doomed to be dashed against the rocks of reality, but I would like it to be so.

Sadly, and again this is cynic in me now, the plight of poor Maddie has shown that despite all the prayer in the world (and the wishes of his representative on Earth, the Pope), the Christian deity will not intervene to save even one life, nor will s/he take action to return a lost child to an apparently grieving family. From this I can only draw one of three conclusions:

God exists but is evil or totally uninterested in the human race, with no intention to get involved in any of our affairs.
God hates Christians.
There is no God.

It is up to you which option you go for, but I know which one I think is true…

[tags]McCann, Madeleine, Kate, Kate McCann, Maddie McCann, Sentamu, Archbishop of York, Society, Law, Rights, Liberties, Philosophy, Robert Murat, Gerry McCann, The Sun, Tabloids, Media, UK, Culture, Civil Rights, Trial, Crime, Murder, Dr John Sentamu, Church of England, Catholics, CofE, Roman Catholic, Pope, Portugal, Police, Atheism, Humanism, Faith, Hope[/tags]

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in Our Safe Nation

Posted on Mon, 17 September, 2007 by ATGW

Well, it seems the UK tabloid press is continuing its efforts to make “middle England” terrified of shadows without any real basis. Yesterday’s Mail on Sunday has ensured that its readership have “evidence” that Britain is descending into anarchy and the police crime statistics (as well as the victim reported data in the British Crime Survey) is just nonsense.

In a nutshell, the article is about Ms Sarah Schaefer (senior adviser to Foreign Secretary David Miliband) who was “carjacked” in a posh London street last Tuesday. She was driving along the street, when a “thug” jumped out in front of her, forced her to stop and jumped in the passenger seat. Ms Schaefer fled the car and threw the keys away (obviously the car was more important to her than any mere prevention of harm). The unnamed “thug” found the keys, got in the car and fled with it (later crashing).

Now all in all, this is a reasonably traumatic experience and it is sad that Ms Schaefer underwent it. However as far as the Daily Mail is concerned this is proof that the UK is in a grip of unprecedented levels of crime – despite any claims to the contrary by the police or government. Very early in the (erm) article, the breathless “journalists” write:

The ordeal of Sarah Schaefer is a major setback to Labour’s rubbishing of Conservative claims that the rise in violent crime has led to “anarchy in the UK”.

I know I can be slow on the uptake but I don’t get this. How does ONE crime support the Conservative’s claims? Is there some mystic aura about Ms Schaefer which means she can only become the victim of crime when 75% of the population has been? She is one person. Nothing in the article gives any indication as to the true rates of this type of crime (check BCS if you are that bored) but it has this bit or terror inducement:

The attack on Ms Schaefer is a stark reminder that crimes such as carjacking, once associated only with ghettos in the US and South Africa, are now commonplace here â€“ and can occur in neighbourhoods popular with the middle classes.

This is mind boggling. Carjacking is not commonplace on the mainland UK. For those unfortunate enough to live in Northern Ireland, however, carjacking is more common and has been for 2o years. The sad part is the Daily Mail (and its readership) would never want to let facts or statistics get in the way of a good bit of fear.

Just in case the (insane?) middle England readership of the Mail missed the point they were trying to be given, the article finishes with:

Ms Schaefer is just the latest highprofile person to fall victim to rising crime.

Muggers stole a mobile phone from Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan’s daughter Chloe, 19, while she was making a call in Notting Hill’s fashionable Portobello Road in March.

Chelsea and England footballer Frank Lampard’s Â£8million West London home was burgled in May 2005 as the star and his girlfriend Elen Rives slept upstairs.

And high-profile divorcee Beverley Charman, 54 â€“ awarded a Â£48million payout â€“ was tied up at her Kent home and robbed of jewellery worth Â£300,000 in March.

This is more of the odd way the media seem to blow the lives of the rich and famous out of all proportions. The claim that this is the result of “rising crime” is more than misleading, it has no basis in fact and it certainly is not supported by anything in the newspaper. There are thousands of “rich and famous” people who live in the UK. If you include “high profile” then we could have in the region of 100,000 people to consider. This newspaper article identifies FOUR who have been the victim of crime and seems to cover the period of May 2005 – Sep 2007.

This makes the rate of crime around 1.3 per 100,000 people per year – if this is “rising” how low was it in the past? If this is really representative of the nation (as the article seems to imply) then we have a crime rate of 871 crimes throughout the UK per year. Blimey. What a safe nation.

The only way I can see that this article tries to show “rising” crime is that there seems to have only been 1 high profile crime between May 2005 and March 2007, but since March this year there have been three. Even then it is farcical.

Sometimes I really do wonder what goes on in the minds of people who read this sort of drivel and believe it (check the comments out if you want a laugh). Most of the Mail readers I have met in real life actually hold to the ideas the paper puts forwards (much to my frustration), most are from fairly affluent backgrounds and most have never been the victim of any crime in their life. Despite this all talk about how “bad” things are, how children are unruly, how crime is out of control and how someone they know, knows some one who has been burgled. It almost makes me want to cry.

[tags]Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Rant, Society, Law, idiots, Idiocy, Bad Journalism, Crime, Rich People, Famous People, Crime Rates, British Crime Survey, Statistics, Bad Statistics, Carjacking, Sarah Schaefer, Anarchy, Britain, UK, Criminals[/tags]

Ministry of Peace

Posted on Sun, 16 September, 2007 by Polly Unsaturate

Sorry if you were lulled into a false sense of living in Wallace and Grommit world. Welcome back to Oceania .

Under the title “Big Brother is watching us all” a BBC correspondent, Humphrey Hawkesley, decribes the next generation of surveillance being developed in Maryland University. “Gait DNA” is what they call the unique pattern of personal movements that will allow computers to track people walking through a crowd.

DARPA seemed to be developing a Babelfish style programme. Plus:

“And this idea about a total surveillance society,” I asked. “Is that science fiction?”
“No, that’s not science fiction. We’re developing an unmanned airplane – a UAV – which may be able to stay up five years with cameras on it, constantly being cued to look here and there. This is done today to a limited amount in Baghdad. But it’s the way to go.

“Wow, it’s so safe, there, in Baghdad. It’s obviously working well then. Can we have it here please?”

Unlikely as those sentences may seem to be to issue from the lips of a sentient being, it looks as if the developers of these boon technologies think that we want them.

Interestingly, we, the public, don’t seem to mind. Opinion polls, both in the US and Britain, say that about 75% of us want more, not less, surveillance. Some American cities like New York and Chicago are thinking of taking a lead from Britain where our movements are monitored round the clock by four million CCTV cameras.

Or how about these see through walls things they are developing? The Hawaian National Guard will be testing radio monitors that can read your heart rate through walls next year, in Iraq.

“… it will also show whether someone inside a house is looking to harm you, because if they are, their heart rate will be raised. And 10 years from now, the technology will be much smarter. We’ll scan a person with one of these things and tell what they’re actually thinking.”
He glanced at me quizzically, noticing my apprehension.
“Yeah, I know,” he said. “It sounds very Star Trekkish, but that’s what’s ahead.”

(The idea that a raised heart rate implies a will to murder would probably cause some surprise in a Baghdad gym, if any remain. That would certainly be one way to create a nation of inert people. Imagine taking your chances of going on a crosstrainer if there may be a surveillance bot in the street that notes your heart rate is outside the calm range)

Of course, the meaning of (the BBC man’s ) “apprehension” is “fear”, not “incredulity”. There is little doubt that these things are possible. Whether they are desirable is another matter.

Can it really be possible that most people want more of it?

I value peace and security as much as anyone. I would feel my long-term security was very much improved by a greater willingness to discuss issues and solve them.

I don’t feel my physical safety is improved by blanket surveillance. Anyone serious about circumventing this shit does so. The rest of us just seem to accept it passively.

It’s not inevitable. These are political and social choices. Are we really so pathetic that in the so-called liberal democracies we have absolutely NO control over what our societies are becoming?

[tags]Science, Technology, Society, Culture, Fear, 1984, Oceania, Paranoia, Surveillance, Democracy, Rant, Security, Government, Star Trek, UAV, BBC, Bablefish[/tags]

Nulls Back

Posted on Sat, 15 September, 2007 by ATGW

In case you have missed it, Nullifidian is back blogging – today with a nice catch of Archbishop Rowan Williams claiming that he cant come to terms with humans being created for a “Purpose.” Brilliant. Well worth reading.

Best friends forever

Posted on Tue, 11 September, 2007 by Polly Unsaturate

What is it about dogs? The evidence suggests that the human race is bent on getting revenge on the dog species for our traditional fear of wolves.

A true horror story involving a 5-year-old girl and an abused dog that killed her has made chunks of the news unwatchable since New Year’s Eve. This story has come to an end with the acquittal of her grandmother for negligent manslaughter but “killer dogs” still remain an issue.

Dog fighting is an underground activity for which dogs are specifically bred and “trained” Banned dogs sometimes get seized, whenever there is spurt of public concern. The dogs usually get killed, unsurprisingly, given that they have been turned into blameless homicide machines. In that particular story, it is claimed that:

Two dogs, described as dangerous by the USPCA, training equipment and manuals were seized in the Village area.
The raids followed information received after a recent Spotlight/Panorama programme.
The 17-month investigation uncovered 15 illegal dog fighting gangs in Northern Ireland.

15? In Northern Ireland? Population? According to Wikipedia, it has the population of reasonable-sized city, 1,710,300.

I suppose dog-fighting is a minor misdemeanour in a place where murder and kneecapping are everyday experiences. Still, 15 dog-fighting gangs seems a high number for what you would hope was very much a minority interest, given that they would also need a pretty sizeable supporting population of willing attenders at dog-fights.

I am not suggesting the Northern Irish are any more psychopathic than the general population of the UK, here. Where I live, the number of dogs that exist solely to look brutal when snarling at the leashes of would-be “gangstas” almost defies belief.

I don’t want to go down the route of rightly-discredited Freudian bullshit here but I will anyway. The way that people use dogs speaks too loudly about their own feelings about being male or female. Or, more precisely, their fear of not being “masculine” or “feminine” enough to fit the current stereotypes.

The cupiditous-moron-model female carries about an offensively “cute” mini-child dog, with a bow on its head. She’s saying “Look at me. I’m so cute and cuddly and loving. And I’m so appealingly childlike that I carry round a living teddy.”

The would-be-tough-brute-model male drags around a creature that looks as if it’s been dragged up from the Hammer-horror pits of hell. He’s saying “Look at me. I’m so macho and tough that only I can handle this rabid cur. I’m basically an animal myself.”

Yes, it’s tragically pathetic, but I also suspect that it shows why getting ever greater control over human reproduction is potentially very dangerous. We are basically not a very rational species.

If dogs had the level of rationality that we (often mistakenly) imagine that humans have, they would be cursing those ancestral wolves who traded life with their own packs for the easy pickings they could get from allying themselves to our species.

Does anyone else feel unnerved seeing our species gaining more and more control over what our descendants become, when they see what a dog’s breakfast we’ve made of the humble dog? In this context, there was a very short Sunday Herald article by Dawkins that I really have to take issue with. He was makinga point that the association of Hitler with eugenics shouldn’t in itself stop us contemplating it. He said that

But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as “these are not one-dimensional abilities” apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

There are two points here. Firstly, humans generally do breed selectively and always have. We just use criteria of appearance and similarity of interests, etc., to make those “choices.” These choices are already often bad enough. But at least, nature mixes up our DNA to throw up unexpected results. It’s evolution in action.

But, as a more specific argument against even greater deliberate human control over reproduction, I am suggesting that the evidence of the dog, in itself (bred now for its bizarre appearance or its assumed willingness to fight, rather than its herding skills) answers this question well enough.

We are humans. Even the brightest and most well-meaning of us have only the vaguest idea about the long-term consequences of our actions. Our own species is quite disturbed enough already.

Commenting on Comments

Posted on Sun, 9 September, 2007 by ATGW

I was not planning to do a post on the nonsense being spouted by the comments on the John Humphrys article over on the Times Online (see previous post), but the idiocy and madness some of them presented couldn’t be ignored. Please forgive me, Zeus.

In no particular order we get this wonder from “Timothy” in Ross-on-Wye:

Christianity can be tested by whether the Resurrection occurred or not (1 Cor15). Secular and hostile sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, the Talmud and the Toledoth Jeshu testify of the crucifixion of Jesus and the empty tomb. That blood and water flowed from Jesus’ side indicates heart failure and we can be certain He was dead. If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead where is His body? The disciples started proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem where the Priests could have produced the body if they knew where it was, ending Christianity. Why would the disciples steal Jesus’ body?

Blimey, where do I start. First off, shall we look at motivation? The disciples had a vested interest in Jesus’ body not being found, so there is motive for them to ensure the priests didn’t know where the body was.

More interestingly shall we look at the witnesses (Secular and Hostile sources)? For example, Tacitus was born in about AD56 (56CE for purists) and is unlikely to have travelled to the middle east until around AD76 (or 76CE if you prefer). Even allowing for some major errors on the date of Jesus’ birth, it is unlikely that Tacitus was around to see the event and if anything, he is repeating a secondary or tertiary source. Lucian is even more removed as it was around AD125 (125 CE) he was born. Josephus has potential, being born around AD37 (37 CE), but that is stretching things.

So basically this discounts the secular sources as evidence. The Toledoth Jeschu is equally flawed as it was written around the second century after Jesus was supposed to have been born – again this means it is the result of secondary or tertiary sources AT BEST. I will ignore the Talmud because I don’t know it well enough to comment on how it describes Jesus’ life.

From “D Walsh” in Skipton we get:

For the intellectually honest, atheism is also a matter of faith. It is difficult to prove a negative. There is no absolute proof of the non-existence of god(s), though the lack of proof for his/her/their existence is suggestive. Atheism is therefore a belief, rather than a lack of it.

This is a tired old argument. Lack of belief is not a belief unless you have the preconceived idea that the thing being believed about exists. For example, if I chose to believe the keyboard under my fingers right now didn’t exist, this would be an item of faith. While it is unprovable, I have met no (sane) adults who believes that Faeries do not swap children at night. Atheism is not a matter of faith. Ever.

“Virginia” in Australia writes:

The atheist are the stupid ones. They refused to believe that they will burn in hell for all eternity. There is really no point in trying to convince these people as they are the minority as God puts the belief in us when we were created. That is why there are very few geniune atheist if the truth were known. The physical body dies but the spirit lives forever. So everyone has eternal life, it is where you will spend it. Imagine a world full of atheist? There will be no accountability charity justice compassion purpose worth morals mercy regrets guilt sin compassion and hope. Who do think run orphanges, soup kitchens, red cross, Salvation army, life line, op shops, youth camps, and many other charitable organisations? The atheist? CERTAINLY NOT.!! The atheists think about no one except themselves and if the world is full of them, it would be like HELL. So dont be so proud to be one of them, we dont envy you, we feel sorry for you that your life is so worthless.

This is what I love about the loving, caring, compassionate theists… It is a good job that is only Atheists who can be frowned upon for speaking out. It is good job the world isn’t full of evil atheists, isn’t it… “Chie” in Tokyo continues the false reasoning argument about Atheism:

Agnosticism is the only logical position a thoughtful human being can adopt. Once understood properly, it ends the futile and barren debate about whether God exists or not. Atheists (if by this is meant people who believe that there is no God) are in just as a rationally untenable position as believers. This is why it has to be said that Dawkins, although interesting on religion, shows his intellectual limitations. It’s probably due to the influence of Western mind training, which tends to take a binary approach to everything.

Again, this is nonsense. No matter how much woo you try to wrap around the situation, nor how much patronising you do the situation remains the same. If Chie is trying to suggest God is in a quantum superposition along with Zeus, Hera, Thor, Hemidal, Loki, Monkey, Fox, Rabbit and every other god humanity has come up with over the aeons, then he is deluded. A similar argument is suggested by “Richard” in Bexhill, Essex, which proves the point about people from Essex being thick.

“Eugene” from Heildelberg, Germany (I strongly suspect he is an American serviceman, and he reminds me of one I worked with many years ago) writes a diatribe which finishes with the patronising:

If you are truly intelligent, you will come to this coclusion. GOD IS MORE PROBABLE THAN NOT.

Nonsense. He doesn’t even say which god he thinks is more probable than any of the others. It is nothing but an appeal to mystery in funny clothes.

“Warren Toles,” from Canada, goes a long way to prove that Theists really are stupid and opens his comment with:

It is interesting that there are so many brilliant people in this world that will believe Darwin’s THEORY of evolution and completely dismiss the the Biblical account of creation. This can only be accounted for by the fact that those taking this position have not studied either the Bible or Darwin’s life story including the fact that he dismissed his own theory of evolution prior to his death. And yet we continue to teach Darwin’s Theory of evolution in our schools and Universities as though it is pure fact without any doubt attached to it.

It is great isn’t it. First off it is painfully obvious that Warren has no idea what a “theory” of science actually means. I assume he wants alternate theories of gravitation, thermodynamics (etc) to be taught as well. Add in the nonsense about Darwin’s dismissal of evolution on his death bed and you can see why Atheists laugh at the way Theists believe things without questioning… Shame on you Warren, the internet is a great tool – you should use it to learn new things.

“John W” from Oldham lives in a bleak world and writes:

As soon as you say there is no god, you say that there is no such thing as life or as a person. You reduce everything down to its component parts. You say all our thoughts are self interested delusions, lacking any intrinsic value. You forever steal the smile from the babies face, remove the beauty from the sunset and kill all that is noble in the world.

Wow. My being an atheist seems to stop my children smiling… Oddly this is not the case. I find it worrying that some people really do think they only reason they can be happy in this life is because some invisible person has promised them something in an imaginary afterlife. If this wasn’t a world religion, these people would be in a lunatic asylum. I think the idea that people are only “noble” because of god is what really steals the nobility of their actions. It makes them a vessel for others and implies that without Big Brother watching them, they would really be stealing and raping. I find that a sad, sad world.

“CC” from Cardiff falsifies himself with this:

Having read Dawkins God Delusion out of interest, I am still not convinced about religion or atheism. There are strong arguments for atheism in the book, but there are also some weak arguments. Having a scientific background and a career in engineering, I like to see real evidence. Maths and statistics can be used to ‘prove’ anything academically. So what are the weak arguments for atheism:
1. There must be a planet of other beings out there STATISTICALLY. Ok, but then if those planets do exist then the laws of evolution would apply and we might expect that one of them might be more advanced than we are…so where are they?
2. Although we as humans have made fantastic progress is medicine, we are still only tinkering. Until we can CREATE life from the basic elements I remain unconvinced that we can ever do it.
3. The human state of consciousness, how a body gets life in it cannot be reproduced by humans ‘artificially’.
I feel that if I say I am an atheist then I it would be naive

Wow, he claims to have a scientific background but demonstrates no understanding of science or mathematics. Maybe it is true what they say about engineers… Statistically, in an infinite universe, there are an infinite number of planets out there with life. Basic principles state we (on Earth) are not in a unique position regarding time or place, so you must assume that there are, indeed, some alien civilisations who are more advanced than ours. However, and this is important, these basic principles also assume that the laws of physics hold equally at all points in the universe (keep this in mind). Now, we know that statistically, the chances of another planet near to Earth having an massively advanced alien civilisation is low so we can dismiss them, this means that the statistically probably aliens are going to be quite some distance from Earth, the nearest potentially habitable planet is 60 light years away. Why must all Alien civilisations be capable of Faster than Light travel along with a burning desire to visit Earth? The rest of his “reasoning” is even more dribble.

I will finish (for now) with this head ache inducing comment from “William J” in Oban, Scotland: (Dont you just love the case choice…)

The fact we can debate, discuss, and not only argue about belief,but even in extreme situations go to war over beliefs, in anyway detract from belief:
In fact, rather it proves that belief is Truth.
Richard Dawkins is in fact a Belief Meister He Believes in Non-belief. John Humpry is Still Seeking He Believes in Seeking.
I Believe in God.
The only problem occurs if any of us try to force our beliefs upon the other two. I recently read somewhere that Charles Darwin is indirectly responsible for The Horror of The Nazi Gas Chamber and The Second World War. I found this Idea Abhorrent yet then no sooner had this thought registered,when I remembered The French Revolution was a product of Militant Aitheism. Yet There Again , our “Glorious Revolution” The English Civil War was Based upon The Opposite Belief incidentally it Was The Scottish Covenanters who having handed King Charles The First over to The Parliamentary Army were so Horrified at The English Action, The Crowned Charles
2nd

Toutatis knows what he is trying to say here, but I will point to this as further evidence as to the IQ of theists and atheists. Read the comments, they are priceless. Atheists point out logical flaws and are accused of “hateful attacks.” Theists demonstrate ignorance (and more than a little hate towards atheists) and everyone gushes about how wonderful they are.

[tags]Religion, John Humphrys, In God We Doubt, Belief, Christiantiy, Islam, Judaism, Society, Culture, Darwin, Dawkins, Evolution, Creationism, Bible, Tacitus, Toutatis, Zeus, Hera, Loki, Times Online, Nonsense, Delusion, God, Logic, Logical Fallacy, Fallacies, Atheist, Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism, Woo, Lucian, Josephus, Toledoth Jeschu, Talmud, Flaws, Idiocy[/tags]

Missing the Point?

Posted on Sun, 9 September, 2007 by ATGW

I was browsing through the Times blogs yesterday and I came across one by John Humphrys (which was actually an extract from “In God We Doubt” about to be published by Hodder & Stoughton) carrying the title “In God we doubt” with the following tagline:

He went looking for God and ended up an angry agnostic â€“ unable to believe but enraged by the arrogance of militant atheists. Itâ€™s hard to see the purpose of the world, he says, but donâ€™t blame its evils on religion

As you can see, there was no way I wasn’t going to read this!

Overall, this is a reasonably well written piece. While it isn’t good enough to make me interested in buying the book it may well appeal to some people with wavering faith and the writing style is certainly inoffensive on the whole. John Humphrys is basically explaining how he went from being brought up a good Christian to his faith wavering and finally he “deconverted” to agnosticism. I wont go into the nonsensical idea that “agnosticism” is anything other than a complete wet lettuce of a philosophical idea, which has at its root the basic assumption that God does exist but is insufficiently proven for worship, that is for another day.

There is one, possibly major, problem with the whole piece and (I suspect) the line of reasoning from which it flows. After a lengthy and introspective introduction, Mr Humphrys identifies what he sees as “the attitude of those militant atheists who seem to hold believers in contempt.” (It is interesting that he makes a list of seven points, but again this diversion can wait). His reflection on “militant atheists” produces the following list of characteristics, faults and problems: (These are opinions which “militant atheists” are supposed to hold to)

1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, theyâ€™re not as clever as atheists.

2. The few clever ones are pathetic because they need a crutch to get them through life.

3. They are also pathetic because they canâ€™t accept the finality of death.

4. They have been brainwashed into believing. There is no such thing as a â€œChristian childâ€, for instance â€“ just a child whose parents have had her baptised.

5. They have been bullied into believing.

6. If we donâ€™t wipe out religious belief by next Thursday week, civilisation as we know it is doomed.

7. Trust me: Iâ€™m an atheist. I make no apology if I have oversimplified their views with that little list: itâ€™s what they do to believers all the time.

After sharing his earth shattering wisdom the reader is further encouraged to discover each point in detail. It is here that I largely gave up on any hope for him. The explanations and rebuttals follow, now with my rebuttal of his rebuttal…

1. This is so clearly untrue itâ€™s barely worth bothering with. Richard Dawkins, in his bestselling The God Delusion, was reduced to producing a â€œstudyâ€ by Mensa that purported to show an inverse relationship between intelligence and belief. He also claimed that only a very few members of the Royal Society believe in a personal god. So what? Some believers are undoubtedly stupid (witness the creationists) but Iâ€™ve met one or two atheists I wouldnâ€™t trust to change a lightbulb.

In his first sentence he gets it spot on, but possibly not in the way he thinks and despite his scorn for this it is his first point and he goes to great lengths to try and dismiss it. The reality of the matter is no “militant atheist” I know really thinks all theists are dumb and I would be interested in seeing the published information to support this idea. There are very intelligent and well educated theists – this goes without saying – and equally there are retarded atheists. Here, Humphrys has created a strawman and then attacked it. He tried to demolish it with an appeal to ridicule but, come the crunch, he failed. Nothing in what he writes actually says anything relevant to the point he tries to address so I suspect this is actually proof some atheists are dumb.

The strawman used by Humphrys reads that atheists think theists are “mostly” dumb or not as clever as atheists. Nothing that he writes contradicts this idea, except the appeal to ridicule at the beginning – and if it really is so clearly untrue, why address it first and foremost? If he strongly thinks it is false, then why is he using phrases like “reduced to using a ‘study'” (with sneer quotes)? Strawmen are wonderful things, but they need to be used properly…

2. Donâ€™t we all? Some use booze rather than the Bible. It doesnâ€™t prove anything about either.

Here he continues the strawman and again says nothing. I am not sure what point he is trying to make here. Does he mean to imply that religious belief is “good” because some people need alcohol to get through the day? Is he saying that the Bible (or what ever religious belief) is nothing but a crutch for people with problems and then claiming it doesn’t prove the original (yet strawman) argument he presented? If so, he is sadly mistaken.

After what he must feel was a rapier-like strike with the first point, Mr Humphrys descends into meaningless, pointless sentences like point 2. I am sure, somewhere, it means something but reading it on the Times Blog is baffling. He has no means of dismissing the claimed idea, for example with point 2 he does not even attempt to explain why intelligent theists are not simply clinging to their belief like an alcoholic clings to their bottle, he just says (an intellectually lazy) “so what.” For example:

3. Maybe, but it doesnâ€™t mean theyâ€™re wrong. Count the number of atheists in the foxholes or the cancer wards.

Again, he has no point other than a strawman. He has no way of dismissing or even disagreeing with it and finally he trots out the old stalwart of the theist case – Atheists in Foxholes. Now, anyone who has read “God Is Not Great” will know that Christopher Hitchens is indeed someone who has been an atheist under fire, as have I and many, many other people I know. In all honesty, I know more people who have been an atheist in a foxhole than a theist.

But even if we assume the claim is correct, it leaves open the argument that the gods the theists are worshipping are somewhat neglectful. Surely they should be caring for their believers more than unbelievers, so why is it so many of the faithful are made to suffer…?

4. True, and many children reject it when they get older. But many others stay with it.

This leaves me with a massive “eh?” So what? He agrees with the militant atheist claim, so what is his point?

5. This is also true in many cases but you canâ€™t actually bully someone into believing â€“ just into pretending to believe.

Mr Humphrys is misrepresenting the “militant atheists” claim here so that he can simply add a rebuttal in the form of a twist. Obviously he is thinks it is ok for religions to bully people into observing their practices because, deep down, the person doesn’t believe in them. Madness.

6. Of course the mad mullahs are dangerous and extreme Islamism is a threat to be taken seriously. But weâ€™ve survived monotheist religion for 4,000 years or so, and I can think of one or two other things that are a greater threat to civilisation.

It seems his liberalised anglican upbringing is showing here. Fundamentalist Islam is, indeed, dangerous in the short term violence aspect but the reality is no amount of terrorist attacks can destroy civilised democracy. Yes, people may die but then people die every day. The destruction of civil liberties that is following the fear of Islam provides a more long-term worry. The destruction of education being forced upon the west by Fundamentalist Christianity is more likely to do long-term harm to our societies ability to exist than people with semtex strapped to their chests. (Even “liberal” Holland is suffering – for example). The “harm” caused by religion is not always exemplified by planes flying into towers – think of the oppression of homosexuals, the subjugation of women, caste systems, refusal of medical treatment for minors etc.

Also, I am not sure his history is up to speed either. While Judaism may have been around for 4000 years, it is certainly a lot shorter period of time in which monotheistic death cults have been dominant on a global scale – let alone people who get their orders from ~~the voice in their head~~ god having access to nuclear weapons.

7. Why? For those of us who are neither believers nor atheists it can be very difficult. Doubters are left in the deeply unsatisfactory position of finding the existence of God unprovable and implausible, and the comfort of faith unachievable. But at the same time we find the reality of belief undeniable.

Again, we have the illusion of a middle ground which is more reasoned, more acceptable, than the non-belief of Atheism. This middle ground has been largely created by theists who seek to undermine the idea that atheism can exist. It is not logical to have no opinion on the subject unless you have given it no thought. I am confused by the concept of finding the existence of god implausible but the reality of belief undeniable. Working through what passes for logic is giving me a head ache but I will try:

Mr Humphrys is asserting he is an agnostic because he finds the existence of god implausible but the reality that people “believe” in god is undeniable so he can’t think of himself as an atheist.

Did I get it right?

It has that wonderful ring of being “true” but it isn’t. Just because lots of other people “believe” something with all their hearts does not mean it is true. For centuries people believed that the Earth was the centre of the solar system, that the solar system was the universe, that stars were ancient warriors, that the gods sat on top of Mount Olympus and interfered with mankind and so on. Not one of these things were true and all the belief in the world will not overturn that.

It strikes me that, although Mr Humphrys describes himself as an “agnostic” and ridicules the idea that children are indoctrinated into religious beliefs, he is suffering from this indoctrination. He (I assume) will certainly agree that lightning is not the result of Zeus’ anger, that Neptune does not control the oceans and Loki is not spreading global mischief. He (again, I assume) will agree that there is a continent across the ocean from Europe, that the Chinese are not devils, that elves do not live in woods, dwarves do not mine gold in the Norse mountains, faeries do not steal Irish children and the tooth fairy is not responsible for the coin under the pillow.

All of these things have at some point been believed to be true by people over the world. All of them. They all have as much evidence for existing as the Christian God. If the existence of belief is proof of existence, then they exist. The existence of the things I mentioned is implausible and unlikely, but this seems not to matter to Mr Humphrys.

I find myself wondering if he really does doubt the existence of god.

On a final note, and getting back to the subject of this diatribe, Mr Humphrys closes with:

As for the fanatics â€“ religious or secular â€“ history suggests they succeed only to the extent that we allow ourselves to be defeated by our own irrational fear. For every fanatic there are countless ordinary, decent people who believe in their own version of a benevolent God and wish no harm to anyone. Many of them regard it as their duty to try to make the world a better place. It is too easy to blame the evils of the world on belief in God. In the end, if we make a mess of things, we shall have ourselves to blame â€“ not religion and not God. After all, he doesnâ€™t exist. Does he?

While I actually agree with the first part of this (and this is why I feel the “fear of Islam” is more worrying than the effects of actual terrorism), he finishes it up by missing the point completely. I know of no atheists who blame god for the world’s troubles. The blame has, at times, been placed on religion which, despite the assertion he closes with, is something he seems to be agreeing with. The people are making a mess of things. They are making a mess of it under the idea that they are working to a higher power and worldly suffering will be followed by a reward in the afterlife. This is the result of religion not secularism.

(I will leave looking at Giles Fraser to others for now but if you have spare time read the comments, they are priceless – even Fr Brian Storey pops up!)

[tags]John Humphrys, Humphrys, Religion, Belief, Christianity, Faith, Delusion, God, Bible, Logic, Fallacy, Strawman, Appeal To Ridicule, Philosophy, Society, Culture, Understanding, Times Online, Logical Fallacy, Confusion, Islam, Monotheism, History, Agnostic, Atheist, Militant Atheist, In God We Doubt, Book[/tags]

Illogical ranting is wrong

Posted on Sat, 8 September, 2007 by ATGW

Some people get all the luck and manage to cultivate their own crop of fundamentally hatstand commenters. I was reading the generally excellent Effect Measure blog over on scienceblogs today and I came across a post titled “Osama visits Bush in Oz, says it’s all a misunderstanding.” It is well worth a read but I know how you all like to stay here so I will summarise it.

Basically, the President of the US was on a visit to Australia. As you can imagine this resulted in all manner of high security perimeters being established and all manner of security guards employed to keep bad people away. A bunch of Australian comedians mocked up a Canadian diplomatic convoy, with one of their number dressed as Usma Bin Laden and made it through the outer perimeter – getting to the door of the hotel the President was staying in. It is only when the comedians pretty much out themselves that the police jump them and arrest everyone who moves.

All in all, this is mildly amusing – on a par with any other one of the stunt-comedy shows on TV at the moment. Still comical, but with a more serious twist, this shows that the vast sums of money (apparently $A165 million) spent on “security” are actually pointless. Yes these were comedians, but they did nothing a terrorist group couldn’t do and being able to drive a limo to the ground floor of a hotel is a good way of delivering several hundred pounds of explosive. (Brighton and the Hotel Europa provide UK based examples of hotels being hit). On this blog we have often ranted about the costs that the illusion of security are incurring and this is highlighted by these events. Every day we are being asked to sacrifice liberty, time and money for “security” measures which, in reality, are empty gestures.

Anyway, this is a side issue now. As always, the comments have gems. It seems that Effect Measure has a dedicated commenter who is so convinced about the inherent “rightness” of his beliefs that he will keep posting, no matter how incoherent or illogical the posts have become. This is some one who KNOWS they are right. Scary stuff. Why do we never get nutters like this commenting here?

The commenter in question here goes by the name “M Randolph Kruger” (which is strangely apt) and the first comment made opens with this line:

I likely would have just shot them and then said, “Its just a misunderstanding.”

And just think, people wonder why Americans kill so many people who are non-combatants or allied troops. It seems there is a significant proportion of the population there with a “shoot first so there is no need for questions” mentality. Wonderful, isn’t it? M Randolph Kruger continues:

I wonder of the Canucks think it was funny too?

Probably. Most Canadians I have met actually know what a sense of humour is.

In 1979 Revere while I was in San Antonio the base was locked down because of a credible threat against the airmen at the base. Along about 3 o’clock in the afternoon and I think it was the first week of August a car carrying some long haired anti establishment types charged the gate. A stop sign went up, they accelerated. Warning shots were fired, they accelerated more, then they opened fire on the SP’s. Bad move. 30 seconds later the assailants were all dead. Over 1000 rounds were fired and the engine was shattered. So in todays world, especially at our embassies and restricted areas to shoot or not to shoot is the question. Screw it. Shoot them all and let God sort them out.

Now, I can only assume this is largely bravado rather than a real boast. Any modern, first world military which needs to expend over 1000 rounds of ammunition to stop one vehicle has many, many problems. As an example, Lee Clegg managed to do it with four rounds and also managed to kill the occupants. Are American service personnel really that badly trained? More importantly this smacks of a military which has lost its purpose in life. The armed forces are not there to protect themselves from the people, but to protect the people from external threats. Was the base so badly defended with physical security measures (ever heard of barriers and gates?) that the vehicle could not be stopped without such firepower and loss of life? Still, I suppose the sign of a healthy democracy is that people need to be scared of the men in uniform, carrying guns…

These guys think this is funny. Okay, hows this? Say Osama bin a Bomba or one of his cronies made it thru and to the proximity of the PM and the Prez and got them both. That makes Dick Cheney President of the United States. Feel better now?

Wow. Prime example of how the angry rightwingers nearly always miss the point by such a degree they end up arguing with themselves. This is brilliant. The whole funny part of the stunt was the apparent ease with which the security was circumvented. Still, it just shows that deep down the ranting-right want to agree with the people they despise…

My point? This is classic treat a war like its a police action stuff. This leaves the point of good sense and fun at the first checkpoint. They could have been killed. Might have to do that once or twice to make the point that it wont be tolerated.

I think MRK’s point is that MRK has no understanding what he is talking about, but needs to sound off on some right wing talking points. I struggled to follow the line of reasoning here, so I might be wrong. I have read this that MRK is saying people who take part in these stunts should be shot to show that the stunts wont be tolerated. The fact that the overall security is a farce is something which should be disguised so that the general public can sit happy. Is that right? What makes this even more ironic is that the security cordon were not able to identify the imposters in time to have shot them anyway. Shooting them after they get to the bomb detonation point is somewhat pointless. What really should have happened is the security actually earned its money and prevented the incursion.

Ranting ~~Freddie~~ Randolph Kruger concludes:

There is a LOT of chatter on the internet right now about an attack along or about next week. Specific target?

Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Say it over and over again. There is a LOT of chatter on the internet about alien abductions. There is a lot of chatter on the internet about Elvis being alive. Neither of them are real so why is this “chatter” more believable? It is interesting that MRK uses a term which TV (24, Alias, Spooks etc) and Film (Bourne, Bond et al) have implanted in the collective conciousness as being synonymous with “intelligence” and spy agencies. Chatter is people talking. It means nothing. Don’t be fooled by buzzwords.

For extra comedy points, MRK posted his “next week” dire warning on 6 Sep 07. Come 13 Sep we may know more…

Manhattan…. Keep it in mind about the above post. If they take New York, they take the country with it. It would knock the markets to the ground, it would flatten our economy with it.

Really? Well the last attack didn’t manage to take the country with it. What is special this time?

Should have shot the bastards…… Then they would have my opinion on being funny around the leaders of any country and that includes Clinton.

Aha, again we see a democracy where the people need to fear and bow to their leader. The leader is no longer “of the people, for the people” but in a special class above the people. In the presence of the glorious leader, the general public must learn to modify their behaviour.

M Randolph Kruger is a nutcase of the highest order. I could spend weeks taking his froth filled rants apart, bit by bit, but I will spare you for now. However, as it has been some time since I got to rant at length online, please excuse one more bit of snippets. This time from MRK’s later comment: (Replying to someone called Troff who has ripped him apart)

And it would seem that everyone there in Oz is in la-la land about this and that its no big deal. You dismiss the fact that if it hadnt been a “giggle group” attack that it could have indeed been a valid one Hell bent on taking out the PM and Bush. I think its absolute bullshit that these guys got this close and Troff I really dont care whether you think I am right or not. But I do expect that you would be somewhat open minded to the facts and that is that they could have been anarchists just as well. Full blown wars have broken out over this exact same thing Troff. Archduke Ferdinand ring a bell? Bush wasnt around then old son and thats a fact. I guess that WWI never happened.

What? No, I mean, really, what?

Following this line of “logic” (sneer quotes intended) gives me a headache. MRK is still 180 degrees away from getting the point and arguing with himself. It is bullshit that the comedians got that close, but the shame is not on them for doing it – it is on the “security” for charging millions for nothing. MRK really is missing this by such a wide margin, I have to wonder if he can tie his own shoelaces.

The bit about WWI really is insane.

Anyway, do you see what I mean? Why does this blog only ever seem to get sane comments? This MRK makes Raphael seem “normal.”

[tags]Nutter, Scienceblogs, Society, Australia, Terrorism, Culture, Security, Safety, America, Osma Bin Laden, Philosophy, Effect Measure, Democracy, Rights, Liberties, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Civil Disobedience, Rightwing Idiot, Rightwing, Military, Scaremongering, FUD, Fear, Terror[/tags]

The Law According to the Tabloids

Posted on Fri, 7 September, 2007 by ATGW

Now my enforced hiatus is over, it is time for me to rant a bit about some of the borderline insane things the UK media has been getting up to during the traditionally quiet months at the end of summer. (What summer?)

Unusually, I think I am going to try and be a bit tactful about this and I really don’t want people to get the wrong impression here. Before I go on, I can not imagine the trauma and heartache that the McCann family are going through right now but I am going to use them as an example of the amazing double standards that the tabloid press can hold themselves to. This is in no way meant to imply that I think the McCanns are guilty of any crime.

Over the summer, the tabloid press (especially the Daily Express and the Sun newspapers) have been clamouring about how our (UK) society is going down the pan and coming up with such “common sense” solutions as harsher sentences, more police powers etc. Generally speaking anyone even suspected of a crime which makes it to the press is assumed to be guilty, and if a court finds differently there is outrage about how we need stronger laws etc. (For an example, see the nonsense that a terminally bad singer has been spewing out in the Sun (and alun’s excellent comment))

Almost daily we hear from a distraught relative about how the accused is actually guilty and anything which seems to say otherwise is just flawed. Opinion pages and talking heads on the TV go on about how our “human rights act” means the suspects are treated too lightly and this is preventing the police getting convictions. The trial by media is almost total and almost totally ignores the actual progress of the case or the final verdict. It goes as far as the farcical comment that if they are doing things which aren’t crimes it just means we don’t have strong enough laws… It is, in short, madness.

Stepping into this world of chaos, vitriol and bile we have the poor oppressed McCann family. After months of tabloid coverage showing the distraught family on their world tour to raise awareness of their lost daughter, and months of UK tabloid coverage saying how bad the Portuguese police are (largely because they don’t tell the press every single thing they do, but that is a rant for another day), recently there has been a slight change of events. Slowly the Portuguese press started to consider that the parents may have been involved in the death of the child.

Under normal circumstances this would have been the first line of investigation and, sadly, most child killers are family members (feel free to Google the UK Home Office statistics if you don’t believe me). In most serious crime cases, police officers being police officers, family members are the first to be suspected — especially in cases where there is no obvious signs of forced entry or violent struggle.

Now, slight sideline, there have been lots and lots of murders and abductions in the time since Madeleine McCann went missing. Can any one name any of them? If you search through the news footnotes (mostly local news items), the family are invariably picked as suspects and hammered by the investigators. Although not 100% relevant this is a snapshot from recent news here, here, here and here – all examples of relatives being found guilty of the torture and death of a child. If anything, it is pretty amazing to me that the McCann’s were not brought in by the police and interrogated for hour after hour to find out what happened. Part of me feels that the media circus which sprung up around the case almost from the onset caused this…

Anyway, eventually the Portuguese police have followed on from the media claims and begun to investigate the possibility that one or both of Madeleine’s parents may have been involved. It strikes me that if this was any other case this would be normal and perfectly acceptable. However this is not any old case, it is the McCann case… This means that the papers which print speculation that the McCann’s may be guilty get taken to court for libel (this must be making more than a few UK paper editors worry) and the UK news is now filled with tearful footage about how cruel the police are to even begin to suspect either parent. Even the BBC (which is now pretty much a tabloid as far as “news” goes) seems to be falling in step with the common idea that the McCann’s are saints who would never hurt a fly. Call me cynical but comments like this don’t make me feel the person must be innocent :

“They made a series of ridiculous allegations. Kate is a loving and caring mother who sincerely believes her daughter is still alive. She was absolutely horrified. Kate is a lovely mother to her children, she’d never hurt them. Anyone who knows Kate would say that to make an allegation of this kind about her is absolutely ridiculous.” (Family spokesperson Justine McGuiness)

Leaving aside the “Family Spokesperson” aspect, what criminal (this does not imply I think Kate McCann is a criminal) wouldn’t have a statement like this? Can you imagine the prelims to a murder trial where the defence spokesperson says “my client is a murderous scumbag who hates everyone and loves to kill people”? Does the family spokesperson really think this will sway the police? Obviously, yes is the answer to that – or there is a sinister undercurrent and the spokesperson is actually getting ready for a criminal trial but that is a route I wont go down for now, I will hold to good faith and assume Kate McCann is innocent.

The important part is the media reaction to all this. The local news and radio stations (sadly, I cant find any links at the moment) have been hammering on today about how cruel it is to interview Kate McCann, how ELEVEN hours in questioning is a monstrously long time and so on. On breakfast TV, I watched a reporter go on about what an ordeal Mrs McCann had undergone and the comparisons with the much fairer, reasonable English justice system.

This is mind boggling. Compare the compassion and feeling being poured out towards Mrs McCann with the vitriol and hatred thrown against people like the early suspect (Robert Murat) who was pretty much found guilty during the Trial by Media. Compare this with the demands for harsher laws, tougher police powers to question suspects and the like – all being touted by the same tabloids who are now saying how 11 hours is a long time to be questioned. Imagine how “tired and distraught” a terrorist suspect must feel after 28 days of police questioning. Ironically newspapers cry out how cruel it is to suspect Kate McCann, ignoring the speed with which they demanded the conviction of Mr Murat — not to mention the furore around any other suspect unfortunate enough to make the news pages. As always, the Sun Newspaper (in the loosest sense of the word) is truly blind to the irony and has the following “sun says” editorial comment:

PLODDING Portuguese police have not covered themselves in glory over their probe into the disappearance of four-year-old Madeleine McCann.

For over four months her devoted parents Kate and Gerry have done everything in their power to help detectives find the missing girl.

But while cops have refused to give any public details about their investigation, the Portuguese media is now awash with rumours and innuendo leaked by police sources.

Yesterday, bungling police called Maddieâ€™s tragic mum, Kate, in for yet another agonising grilling.

If this is just another fishing expedition, they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Hasnâ€™t she suffered enough?

It is almost enough to make you want to vomit.

[tags]Madeleine McCann, Kate McCann, McCann, Police, Portugal, Portuguese, Media, Tabloids, Society, Culture, Philosophy, Rant, Law, Justice, Murder, Crime[/tags]

Authority figures

Posted on Wed, 5 September, 2007 by Polly Unsaturate

The Angel (Archangel?) Rafael has commented on a blog post, here. There must be a good few thousand words in the comment, at least a dozen of which are connected.

Sadly. I can’t discuss what Rafael says as the translation from the angelic language to English seems to have passed through the Tower of Babel on the way. Unspiritual human requirements for comprehension – such as paragraph and sentence breaks – have been omitted. I assume that this is so that nothing as dull as grammar disturbs the flow of inspirition from angel to mortal.

I had to Google the “angelic language” to see if there was supposed to be one. There doesn’t seem to be a name for it. I had a vague idea it was called Adonic or something (based on thinking it’s in a poem by William Blake or Milton. Yes, I know they have less than nothing in common. And yes, it will almost certainly be neither of them and the language will be called elohimic. You’ll find no authority here, sorry.)

Although, no less an authority than one Ashley_StarFIRE seems confident of their knowledge, in a comment on a post about angelspeak on belief.net (As so often, the clue’s in the title. If you can find someone to take the bet, you could stake a fair sum on belief.net not being on Planet Humanism or Planet Atheism or the atheist blogroll.)

Angels do indeed talk together….. Furthermore, angels speak Hebrew, and their written language (and possibly also their spoken language) is known as ‘Angelic Script’ based on the formations of stars (angels are also referred to as stars) or the Alphabet of the Malachim (Hebrew for angel/Messenger).

Hence, angels speak Hebrew, then? (Or a spoken script – which is pretty impressive even for semi-divine beings, unless script doesn’t actually mean writing in the angelic sphere.)

You have to marvel at the certainty with which Ashley_StarFIRE holds forth on the tongues of angels.

Equally impressively, “GIRLS ALOUD star NICOLA ROBERTS” (a/c the Sun). a minor pop singer, of whose existence I was mercifully unaware until now, is holding forth in the Sun newspaper about crime and punishment. In a PVC catsuit.

The Sun contrasts her with the new Home Secretary, not given to wearing PVC catsuits as part of her job, although the Sun presents this fact as if it reflects badly on her. As they do with the fact that she has a degree from Oxford. Straight from the Sun:

WHO WOULD YOU VOTE TO BE THE HOME SECRETARY?
Jacqui Smith
AGE: 44
EDUCATION: BA Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Oxford.
POLICIES: Give yobs voluntary acceptable behaviour contracts.
CAREER: Home Secretary, 2007.
STYLE: Smart suits, but has flashed cleavage in the Commons.
Nicola Roberts
AGE: 21
EDUCATION: St Chadâ€™s High School, Runcorn.
POLICIES: Lock up criminals after first first offence, build more prisons.
CAREER: Joined Girls Aloud at 16 and topped charts.
STYLE: Miniskirts, high- heeled shoes,skintight PVC catsuits.

This is just to give you a flavour of the quality of the standard of political discussion in the biggest-selling newspaper in the UK. You may be confused as to how having an opinion on law and order qualifies you to challenge for the post of Home Secretary. Clearly, it’s so rare for a Sun reader to process a fully-formed thought that having any opinion at all would make Nicola Roberts well worthy of the job.

The actual interview with Nicola Roberts is so masterfully ironic that you suspect it was scripted by a Sun writer with a secret sense of humour.

Talking about a recent particulalrly horrifying murder, she is reported as saying:

And I blame TONY BLAIR and GORDON BROWN. We donâ€™t have tough enough laws â€” the people that did this to Rhys need to be locked up.

I imagined that murder had already been illegal for quite some time but I may have been misled here. In that case, we really do probably need a law against it. Well done on spotting a gaping hole in the UK legal system, Nicola.

And another one – nothing is being done to lock up people who’ve committed crimes that aren’t against the law:

….They are bound to have committed other crimes but no one can do anything about it because the laws arenâ€™t in place to get them put away…

Throughout this silly piece, the Sun’s suggesting that Nicola has some opinions on law and order, hence is more suitable to be Home Secretary than the implicitly over-educated and non-fun Home Secretary, who probably couldn’t sell a pop record to save her life.

So it’s nice that it says:

Nicola believes youngsters should be taught about politics at school so they learn how important it is in their lives.
She explains: â€œI was never taught anything about politics….

Who’d have thought it?

Has the best tunes?

Posted on Fri, 31 August, 2007 by Polly Unsaturate

A post on Rupture the Rapture talked about atheist musicians being obliged to perform religious music and bemoaned the absence of atheist equivalents.

..Tenor voiced his frustration at the “dearth of music” heard at various humanist gatherings, conventions and the like. I may be wrong here, but what I believe Tenor is looking for is accessible music with a humanist bent – music that would be appropriate for such gatherings, but that is of such a nature that the audience could relate to and/or actually participate in. (Humanist karaoke?)…

I suppress a shudder at the prospect of an atheist equivalent of Christian rock. Please, no.

Still, I like the idea of a musical expression of humanism. I did a youtube search for atheist music. Hmm, most of it falls toward the Eastern-European-Heavy-Metal end of the spectrum but there’s plenty there. (I know there’s a well known atheist rapper but I couldn’t find a link and I remember getting distracted by the wonderful existence of genres like ‘nerdcore’ last time I tried it.)

In fact, thinking about “atheist music,” most music fits into this category. It’s not so much “atheist” as “nothing to do with religion” or inherently anti-religion in celebrating the things that organised religion tends to object to.

Sad to say, a lot of religiously-inspired music is pretty damn good. (Gregorian chants, Victorian hymns, Sufi chants, roots reggae…..)

I can’t see a problem with appreciating it as music and poetry. Music exists to move us and, among other things, it can express wonder and transcendence. Just because some people filter these emotions through religion doesn’t imply that we have to buy into their beliefs to appreciate their expression.

If everyone were to start only listening to music that precisely expresses their own beliefs, the world would be pretty silent.

(I obviously don’t like the idea but I’d have no problems recommending it to the people who think everyone else on the bus wants to listen to their tinny mono phonetunes.)

In any case, no one is put off Renaissance paintings because they tend to be brimming with biblical figures. Apart from anything else, we all understand that artists have to make a living. If you live in a world where the Church gives out most commissions, you paint the Nativity or write music for monks.

UK database of all kids

Posted on Mon, 27 August, 2007 by Polly Unsaturate

The spread of the database-driven society proceeds apace. Today’s Times reports that

Senior social workers have given warning of the dangers posed by a new government register that will store the details of every child in England from next year.
They fear that the database, containing the address, medical and school details of all under-18s, could be used to harm the children whom it is intended to protect.

Not being a newspaper writer or a member of the Association of Directors of Childrenâ€™s Services, I don’t have an interest in claiming that the danger of child-abusers getting details is the biggest problem here. (After all, children have most to fear from people they know. ) But still, they have a point. Any database that has an estimated 33,000 users is going to be leaky as a broken sieve.

The database, which goes live next year, is to contain details of every one of the 11 million children in the country, listing their name, address and gender, as well as contact details for their GP, school and parents and other carers. The record will also include contacts with hospital consultants and other professionals, and could show whether the child has been the subject of a formal assessment on whether he or she needs extra help.

Every child in the country it says. So you have to love this bit:

….. information about the children of celebrities and politicians is likely to be excluded from the system.

Lap this up

Posted on Sun, 26 August, 2007 by Polly Unsaturate

The Internet is Father. The Internet is Mother. The Internet reached out its hand and gave us all life.

So it sort of pains me to say that the goal of achieving one laptop per child may not necessarily be a good thing…

The Mission Statement of the one laptop per child foundation

… is to stimulate local grassroots initiatives designed to enhance and sustain over time the effectiveness of XO laptops as learning tools for children living in lesser-developed countries.

local grass-roots initiatives, sustainability, learning tools, children, lesser-developed countries? Blimey. How worthy is that? These eco-friendly words could never be used to promte a BAD THING, surely?

It’s been a while since I’ve been to a less-developed country, but I seem to remember that, after food*, the crying needs for learning tools were for pencils and paper. Pencils, ffs. They don’t cost more than a couple of pence wholesale. You could probably pass one out to every needy kid in Senegal, say, for less than the cost of a handful of these laptops.

Well the BBC said:

A team of US-based researchers, backed by a billionaire, have re-invented the computer in an attempt to revolutionise education in the developing world.

I love the “backed by a billionaire” touch. Another selfless billionaire who couldn’t possibly be looking for new products and new markets. Or have an interest in spreading consumerist values. Or in getting national governments to support setting up digital network infrastructures.

Who is this mystery philanthropist?

Well, Internet research isn’t an exact science, so bear with me here.

MIT’s Nicholas Negroponte? Wow, that name sounds oddly familiar. Well according to wikipedia, among a range of other distinctions, he

is the younger brother of John Negroponte, current United States Deputy Secretary of State.

About whom wikipedia is also pretty forthcoming. It starts with:

He is currently serving as the United States Deputy Secretary of State. Prior to serving in this capacity, he was the first ever Director of National Intelligence.
Negroponte served in the United States Foreign Service, from 1960 to 1997. He had various tours of duty as a United States ambassador, including a three-year ambassadorship to the Philippines, from 1993 to 1996. He subsequently served as U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations from 2001 to 2004, and was ambassador to Iraq from June 2004 to April 2005……

What a career! Studded with involvement in such uncontroversial American adventures as Iraq and anti-Sandanista actions.

From 1981 to 1985, Negroponte was the U.S. ambassador to Honduras. During this time, military aid to Honduras grew from $4 million to $77.4 million a year, and the US began to maintain a significant military presence there, with the goal of providing a bulwark against the revolutionary Sandinista government of Nicaragua, which had overthrown the Somoza government and then created a state with close ties to both Cuba and the Soviet Union.

Now, I know some brothers are estranged and all that. For all I know, the Negroponte extended family observes no kinship rituals. So it’s more than possible that John and Nick don’t even exchange Christmas newsletters. And that they don’t share any social and political goals. So don’t jump to conclusions…..

Just saying.

(Compare and contrast the media fuss over government workers adding the odd “allegedly” to Wikipedia entries with uncritical media presentation of one laptop per child programme. There are also several techy blogs welcoming it as ironing out the digital divide E.g. Live stuff)

* plus a few other things like “staying alive till their tenth birthdays”, “accessible clean water”, “not getting shot”, “not living on the streets” or “not working on rubbish tips” and so on, but let’s not lose our sense of humour here……..

Ministry of Truth

Posted on Sun, 26 August, 2007 by Polly Unsaturate

Imagine you work for the Australian government. There you are, sitting in your work cube in front of your PC, staring into space. You’ve finished estimating next year’s value of Western Australian lamb exports per acre. What will you do in the seemingly infinite 40 minutes till lunch-time?

Ah ha. Skim through Wikipedia. Try for the “random” entry. See something you know something about – your specialist subject, in fact – the development of the Perth Railway Modellers’ Club, 1990 to 2002.

But the entry shows the name of the 1997 Chairman as Ken Brewster and you know it was Ben Baxter!…. Blimey, you can’t allow this blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Future historians of the Perth Railway Modellers Club will be completely misled. So you make a quick correction.

Go forward a few weeks. Wikiscanner becomes available. Everyone can find out what organisation’s IP address has been used to make a wiki-edit.

This sparks a media-led conspiracy frenzy over evidence that people from various corporations or government agencies have edited encyclopeadia pages.

Oh look, surprisingly (not), people from the CIA have edited entries. People working for the BBC. And, – oh my Poseidon! – people working for the Australian government have edited entries. Oh dear…. You get called into the boss’s office and shouted at. …Misusing your internet privileges…. Bringing the government into disrepute, and so on…..

Largely because some people eitehr never learned, or are incapable of applying, the most basic tests to judge the validity of information. E.g:

Does this seem inherently reasonable?
Who said it?
Is this information contradicted or supported by other sources?
Who benefits if I believe this?

Are you surprised that CIA employees have edited pages that concern the CIA or that workers for the Australian government have toned down critical articles?

If so, then it’s about time you took some courses in critical thinking and analysing information. Because you lack even the most basic skills at identifying propaganda.

Indeed, Wikiscanner might serve as a basic tool for identifying potential misinformation or propaganda, going some way towards giving an answer to the second question above.

But even so, some people sit in work reading, even editing Wikipedia, Some of these people work for corporations or government agencies. Some of them are carrying out their master’s instructions. Most are just bored workers tryng to interject some purposeful activity into the boring functionary’s day.

Some are even acting as whistleblowers.

Do we want to shut up the whistleblowers just because we are too idle to develop the thinking skills to detect spin or outright lies?

The outcome of this editing-Wiki frenzy is, surprise, surprise, that more workers get their internet access circumscribed.

In a BBC story, the Australian Prime minister reacted to the story that government employees had made edits by ruling that:

…. the department said on Friday that it had acted to block staff from editing the site.
“Defence has closed personal edit access down, though employees will still be able to browse Wikipedia for information purposes,” a spokesman said.

Throughout the world, internet access is getting curtailed for employees. In the UK, for example, at the beginning of August, the Defence Department ordered members of the armed forces to get the permission of superior officers before they blog.

The Ministry of Defence last week ordered British soldiers to stop blogging, putting videos on YouTube, joining online chats or sending text messages without a superior officer’s permission. But the soldiers carried on regardless, posting caustic commentary on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was a mini digital mutiny.
I’m surprised the MoD has taken so long to deal with the problem of khaki samizdat. Censorship is part of military life. Imagine if Tommies had been able to blog about the trenches in October 1914. There would have been an outcry back home. The war could well have been over by Christmas.

“Oh look, this is from a government computer. It must be part of an evil government plot!” Come on. Let’s learn to evaluate information properly to protect ourselves from propaganda, rather than shut people up or jump at the first half-baked conspiracy theory that fits our prejudices.

Will ill-judged kneejerk conspiracy theory reactions based on the IPs of Wikipedia editors become the pretext for more internet censorship? Well, yes, it looks like they have. What a great win for free speech…

Deprecated: ltrim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 3030

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$link is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 749

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Term::$id is deprecated in /homepages/34/d43362328/htdocs/ydontu/blog/wp-includes/category-template.php on line 750

Why Dont You Blog?

Challenging the Zeitgeist

Tag Archives: Society

01706713200 – BMS – Still Scum

Blind Faith

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in Our Safe Nation

Ministry of Peace

Nulls Back

Best friends forever

Commenting on Comments

Missing the Point?

Illogical ranting is wrong

The Law According to the Tabloids

Authority figures

Has the best tunes?

UK database of all kids

Lap this up

Ministry of Truth

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: