Archive for the ‘stupid actions’ Category

Islamic schooling in the UK

February 21, 2007

Hi Grit

Your mention of Islamic matters reminded me of what is going on in education over here. There is an organisation here called the “Muslim Council,” whose task it is to see to the needs of their people who have immigrated to this country or were born here. Of itself, I have no objection to such an organisation. However, I do get very irate when organisations of this nature try to destroy our heritage and culture.

The latest example of this is the report that this council has just put together a report, which apparently they are going to present to the government. This report outlines ways in which they feel that “un-islamic” activity and behaviour should be eliminated from school teaching and other activities. I personally find such action insulting, primarily because if the roles were reversed and we were living in their country, we would not be expected, or even allowed to deign to interfere with their religious and cultural traditions. Whatever happened to the concept of “respecting your hosts?” To me this is taking human rights and political correctness just a dozen steps too far. If people want to live in our country they could at least extend us the curtesy of treating our home with respect.

Of course what angers me even more is that, knowing our present government, there will be more than a few who will be prepared to listen to this outlandish idea. After all, they have already stopped the singing of Hymns in school assemblies, in case this offends our immigrant friends. Are we next going to see schools being built facing in the direction of Mecca?

the Brit

Advertisements

Sex five miles high

February 18, 2007

Hey Grit

Have you read the article about the air stewardess who was sacked for having sex in the toilet of the aircraft whilst it was in flight. What makes this incidence more newsworthy is that the male participant was Ralph Fiennes the actor. The stewardess in question, Liza Robertson, at first denied the allegation, but in a story released in the Daily Mail today, has conceded that it did happen and that she was a willing particpant. In addition, the lady further reveals that the fling continued in the stars hotel room that night, but ended after that one night.

What I find amazing about the report itself is that the reporter suggests that the stewardess should be seen as a victim because she lost her job as a result of the incident. It also suggests that the actor has “dumped” her and took advantage of a “vulnerable” young woman. There are several issues here. The stewardess knew full well that she was breaking her employment terms and therefore could have expected nothing less than the sack. Ms Robertson would also have been aware that an incident that started in this manner could hardly be viewed as the basis of meaningful and long-term relationship.

Raking up Ms Robertson’s past life in support of this image is hardly sound journalism, nor can it be used an excuse for the lady’s behaviour. Add to this the fact that the stewardess has been involved with a similar weekend fling with a passenger on a previous flight with Quantas, and the fact that no doubt the paper has paid her handsomely for her story, and I fail to see how the reporter can conceivably promote the notion that Ms Robertson is a “victim.” 

Similarly, the comment that somehow Ralph Fiennes has not helped and is somehow a villan of the piece is absurb. He did not force her to act in this manner, neither did he force her to spend the night with him at the hotel. If anything, the lady herself is the one doing the using. She has blatantly used the celebrity status of Fiennes to make financial gain out of the incident.

Ms Robertson has no-one to blame for the result of this incident but herself. Her actions have proven that she did not respect her position nor the fact that they were both consenting adults and that she willingly entered into this incident.

the Brit 

UK Human rights and Freedom extinguished

February 18, 2007

Hi Grit

The government in the UK, if re-elected at the next election, will be taking the final steps to abolish human rights, freedom and privacy for the individual UK citizen, all in the name of protecting us against terrorism.

If the labour government have their way, all adults over the age of 16 will, by 2009, be required to place their fingerprints on a central computer. The suggested law may even extend to “iris” prints. These moves are in addition to the requirement to provide photographs for driving licences; requirement to provide details for the census and annual local government property occupancy register (for council tax purposes); and the multitude of close-circuit television cameras that adorn our towns, streets, villages and roads. An extra measure of identity that is also being considered is to place our medical records in the same “identikit” of us.

Not satisfied with us already being the most watched nation in the EU, these latest moves will actually increase the gap between us and other countries, turning us into one of the most monitored nations in the world. Some may argue that these moves are positive, but are they? Let us consider the evidence.

1) COST:

Naturally, there is the cost of the citizen ID rules. The government suggest that this will amount to just over £5.4 billion ($10.8 billion). However, independent sources put the figure at £19.3 billion ($38.6 billion). This represents over £300 ($600) per annum, per citizen. In addition to this, it is compulsory for people to give this information at one of 69 centres through the UK, at their own cost. In some cases this means travelling up to 100 miles, irrespective of age, financial situation or infirmity. A round trip of this nature, taken in work time will cost the worst affected another £100 at least. Of course, this does not take into account the annual running costs of the scheme.

2) PRIVACY

A basic human right is that of privacy. The ability to live our lives without fear or favour, and to keep parts of our lives free from the prying eyes of others. From 2009, if these plans go ahead, this will no longer be possible. Some will argue that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, but that is not the point. Do I really want my health, age, medical condition, financial status and life history potentially exposed to every form of media and individual nationally and internationally? Our data protection act suggests that such information should be secure but, in view of the fact that the government has incorporated rules to allow certain organisations, commercial as well as government and non-government organisations to access the data, this guarantee no longer holds true.

3) DISCRIMINATION

Such a system will also lead to discrimination, both intentional and by devious means. Employers will be tempted to access medical and financial information about potential employees, therefore leading to unfair bias against certain applicants. This is particularly the case in medical issues. For example, take the case of a person who may in the past have had cancer. Although possibly totally cured, when such a person is set against an applicant who has not past health problems, which is the less than totally honest employer going to chose?

Medical, legal and financial practitioners will be able to access medical records, providing a situation where they can discriminate against those they do not want to assist.   

4) MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE:

No computer or other registration system is infalible and the identity system will be no exception. With personal and biometric information on around fifty million people on file, the incidences of misinterpretation, incorrect identification and transpostion of information will rise. As a result this is bound to lead to an increase in the incidence of miscarriages of Justice. Add to this the fact that none of the biometric identity measures are 100% accurate and it can be seen that this will compound the issue. A small example of this might occur with twins for example. Especially in cases of identical twins wrong identification is even more likely.

5) THE CONCEPT OF INNOCENCE

The United Kingdom laws have always been founded upon the rule of “innocent until proven guilty.” It is bad enough that in recent decades tax and other laws have led to a reverse of this process in such areas. Now, with the introduction of of these measures, such a foundation has been totally eroded. The onus on the citizen will now be to prove their innocence in all cases.

Does this mean that in future one has to keep a daily diary of life events to ensure that one cannot get into a situation where lack of evidence to suggest otherwise leads to automatic guilt? I work from home and, during the day, this means that there is no-one to provide an alibi for my whereabouts, especially if I am not on the computer. If I take two hours off for a bath and rest, will I in future have to log this and provide photographic evidence? 

6) IDENTITY THEFT

Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes of the past decade. It is also one of the least obvious to the victim, unless it has been committed for financial purposes. How can we be sure that our identity will not be stolen or duplicated for other criminal purposes? What is more important is, if such an event does occur, how will we know until a crime, using our identity has been committed?

7) PROTECTION AGAINST CRIME AND TERRORISM

The assumption that identity laws will offer protection against crime and terrorism is flawed in so many ways as to make it laughable. It only works if one starts from the premise that every hardened criminal and committed terrorist is going to abide by these laws. Naturally, Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists, and underworld criminals are going to assist the law by coming forward voluntarily to offer their biometric identity to the authorities. I think not! Such an assumption is, at best, insane.

There are those who argue that it is easier to catch someone who does not possess an identity card. How does that work? There are 60 million people in the UK and it is certain that there are not enough law enforcement agencies or officers to check each indicvidual. Add to this the fact that there is unencumbered travel in the EU through 25 countries and a determined criminal or terrorist has more than adequate escape routes. These are in addition to the many illegal ways of escaping from the country. Furthermore, why should such persons worry about being apprehended when there is always the route of identity theft to cover their tracks?

Although there may be rules and laws in place to address breaches of the protections in place, these are an “after the event” remedy, by which time the damage is done. Once the security of information has been broken, one cannot recapture the privacy, irrespective of how much money has been recovered in damages.

The hypothesis that these measures are a protection against crime and terrorism, as has been clearly demonstrated, is totally wrong. They will have little to no effect in these areas. 

In conclusion therefore, one has to observe that these new laws will have limited impact upon detering any major crime and terrorism attempts. What they will do is to damage the human rights of the innocent citizen.

the Brit

What?

February 16, 2007

Hi Brit,

I just read this, U.S., developing nations accept Iran aid cut plan, where we learn that, “Western and developing nations broadly accept a U.N. nuclear agency plan to cut almost half its aid projects in Iran.”  OK, I, and all rational people, know that the UN sucks and is run by corrupt twits that should not be trusted to run the local dog pound, but this is beyond belief!  Why in the hell has anyone ever given nuclear aid to Iran, ever!  Now that this insane policy has come to light, why are we not cutting every tiny shred of aid, any kind of aid, every kind of aid to this rabid, Jew hating, terrorist sponsoring state!  For that matter, why does the UN have a nuclear aid agency in the first place?  Excuse me while I take some more pills and pour myself a strong drink.

the Grit

Anti-smoking police – £29.5 million

February 15, 2007

The UK government are at it again. Just when one thinks that they cannot waste any more money, the powers that be come up with yet another crazy scheme to waste our money. Not satisfied with all the cameras that are spread around the country, nor with the increasing powers that are given to police and local authorities, they have decided that we still cannot be trusted on our own.

This time it is all to do with the impending “smoking ban” which comes into force later this year. Under the new laws we will be banned from smoking in all public places. That includes bars, shops and resturants. The owners of such establishments will also be liable to fines if they allow people to breach the ban in their premises. However, as is this is not enough incentive to uphold this law, the government have decided to spend nearly £30 million ($60 million) of our money to train what they call “smoking” police. 

The task of these officers (undercover of course) will be to wander around all of the establishments trying to spot the illegal smoker in the act. What has to be borne in mind here, is what happens if a smoker is standing outside of a shop and the smoke from his/her cigarettes drifts into the shop? No doubt they will be fined for a “passive” smoke offence.

With this, and the recent case of smoke penetrating the wall into a neighbours house, it is not hard to imagine waking up one day to find one of these new “fag” detectors encamped in the cupboard under the stairs.

the Brit 

Britney and the church

February 14, 2007

No this is not a story about Britney being converted to religion. It is actually a plea from a celebrity Rabbi.  The rabbi has suggested that the current and recent antics of Britney, which have been spashed across the papers, may have a detrimental effect on her children in the future. He is pleading with her to mend her ways and consider the fact that she is now a parent and should act responsibly.

the Brit

Pay as you go driving

February 12, 2007

Hi Grit

It seems at last that the UK public are actually trying to get their voices heard over government laws that are, to say the least, crazy and unacceptable. The regulation causing the problem is their intention to charge £1.34 per mile for drivers to use their vehicles during the “rush hour.” As the average distance for rush hour drivers in the affected areas is around 10 miles a day return, this could cost over £60 ($120) per week. No one but a fool (which obviously includes our government ministers) could suggest that this would work.

However, a petition drawn up against this measure has already attracted well over a million signatures. Mind you, so far this does not faze the transport minister who said recently “of course we will listen to people. But parliamentary democracy doesn’t just involved the expression of views.” Well, that is news to me! I thought democracy was all about expression of views.

Let’s hope the petition numbers continues to grow.

the Brit

Nudity and Penis lead to fines

February 10, 2007

Hi Grit

I was wandering through the weekend news when I noticed two unusual items. The first of these involved a university student in Cambridge (UK). As you know we have recently had a lot snow. Thus, this particular student thought it would be appropriate to build a snow sculpture on one of the university lawns. However, instead of creating a suitable work of art, such as a snowman or igloo, the student plumped for a more original work, a penis. He was apprehended by police and given a fixed penalty for causing a public offence. I think this was a bit harsh bearing in mind that the structure would melt, therefore it can hardly be classed as fixed. No doubt he was trying to melt the ladies hearts.

The other story, which can be seen to be linked with the first, concerns a New York man who has been accused of riding nude in a ski-lift gondola and indecent activity. The man’s excuse was that the weather was too warm for clothing.

It is a weird world.

the Brit

How long can you hold your breath?

February 9, 2007

Hi Brit,

I just read this, Congress eyes legislation to fight climate change, and immediately asked myself “how long can I hold my breath?”  After all, each of us expel the Evil Greenhouse Gas CO2 with each breath, and, now that Nanny Pelosi has the issue firmly clinched in her dentures, I expect that soon we will be faced with a Breath Tax, to encourage us to slow down our individual contributions to Global Warming.  By my quick, and not necessarily totally accurate, calculations, we in the US can offset her jet set life style if we each take 30 fewer breaths per day.  Of course, this increased interest in decreasing our breath rates will have at least one benefit, that being, getting some of the joggers off the road.

Although, considering that:

The White House said Snow was referring to figures from the International Energy Agency that from 2000 to 2004, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion grew by 1.7 percent, while in the European Union such emissions grew by 5 percent.  From: U.S. cuts emissions better than Europe: White House.

It would seem obvious to any rational person, thus excluding most Democrats I admit, that we are on the correct path to achieve the liberal agenda of reducing CO2 emissions without further Government meddling.  With liberals in control, of course, they will ignore the facts, raise taxes and piddle around in our lives until they manage to, not only, increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions, but, also, screw up our economy.  Typical.

the Grit

Shilpa, Jade, Danielle and Jo – a week later

February 8, 2007

Hi Grit

Just thought you would want an how the people from the big brother house have got on since leaving just over a week ago.

Shilpa Shetty

Yesterday Shilpa Shetty went to Westminster to meet Tony Blair and other Members of Parliament. The crowds were so large that the police moved the following press conference for fears of security issues. Following this she travelled to Leicester, which has a large Asian community, where the crowds were even larger, forcing the police to not allow Shipla to get out of the car for the arranged Radio interview.  

Jade

Jade’s planned trip to India has been called off for the present, on advice of doctors who say that she still needs treatment to deal with the psychological affect of her recent stay in the house. Mind you she got into more trouble for taking a ride with her three year old son sitting on the top of the petrol tank of a quad bike. Jade’s agent has also confirmed that she has no work as all previous engagements have been cancelled.

Danielle

Danielle, after being interviewed by police, has decided to take a holiday in the sun with her parents. Apparently, she has still not met with her boyfriend, Teddy Sherringham, an English football player, so that does not look very promising. In addition to all the modelling contracts Danielle has lost, she is also being sued for £100,000 by the Miss GB organisers for bringing the pageant into disrepute by appearing topless in a magazine and having an affair with one of the judges – you’ve guessed it, Teddy Sherringham.

Jo O’Meara

Like Jade, Jo has spent the week getting psychiatric help. Out of the three, Jo is the one who has kept the lowest profile, partially due to death threats that have been made about her.

Other news is that the police are planning on interviewing seven of the big brother housemates, so there is more to come on the potential for criminal charges.

They say a week is a long time in politics. In entertainment it is proving to be even longer when one considers the dramatic effect that it has had on these four ladies lives.

the Brit

Get the taboggan out – snow is coming!

February 6, 2007

Hi Brit

The met office in the UK has issued a weather warning for tomorrow (Wednesday), saying that there is likely to be up to 6 inches snow in some areas tomorrow, which is likely to disrupt just about everything.

As we have had the occasional spurts of weather like this during the past three decades or so of my life, if not longer, I fail to see why suddenly it is becoming such a big issue. Of course it is a natural excuse for railways to use to explain erratic services; highway rush hour jams and millions of people to take the day off work, but what’s new?

It seems to me that the media is again using “drama speeches” to help support their “Global Warming” circus.

the Brit

Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Lyndsey Lohan: Prosti-tots

February 6, 2007

Hi Grit

I think I must have come across brit_paris_lindsay_002.jpgthe only article that mentions all of the above mentioned girls in one breath. Recounting how at one time all of these girls were friends, and their ability to be able to individually or together garner fame, usually by actions or photographs that are less than tasteful, the newspaper in question reveals that yet again they have come together in a media circus.

The story is that time, in a recent issue posed the question whether the three girls have too much influence on the youth of today, with the cover asking whether we are raising a youth of prosti-tots. Surprisingly 77% agreed with this hypothesis. I find this surprising in that this must mean that the other 23% disagree. Based on internet statistics, it would seem that the lower percentage are either far more vocal and active than those who agree, or the agreeing percentage still go off and buy the papers, read the magazines and click on all the stories about them.

It’s a strange world sometimes.

the Brit

Britney Spears knickerless is catching.

February 3, 2007

Hi Grit

It seems like the knickerless trend started by Britney Spears is catching. The latest celebrity to get in on the Act is Jemima Khan, who decided to attend her 33rd birthday party in a PVC dress with nothing left to the imagination. This from a lady who was totally covered at her wedding to Imran Khan.

Popular opinion has it that Jemima was trying to keep her boyfriend’s (Hugh Grant) mind of his ex-flame Liz Hurley. In police terms over here they would call that entrapment!

I must be getting old because I really don’t see the point of this sort of behaviour. Are all these ladies just trying to put flesh impetous into their careers?

the Brit

BBC double standards

February 2, 2007

The BBC, a UK media organisation that has been at the forefront of the issue of Global Warming, has come under attack from one of its own presenters. He says that, despite all their talk about the need to reduce the danger from things such as carbon emissions, the corporation is doing exactly the opposite.

Jeremy Paxman says the the BBC are guilty of double standards. On the one hand they are promoting restraint and conservation to members of the public, whilst still sending journalists around the world in jets and other so-called “damaging” transport, making no attempt to seek to reduce their “carbon footprint.” Why is this not a surprise? The term “do as I say, not as I do” springs to mind.

The BBC’s response when Paxman asked the questions was that their programmes were helping by airing the issue. As he says, you don’t solve the problem by just talk!

Situations like this devalues the argument significantly when someone or body pontificates about what we as individuals should be doing on issues such as Global Warming, relying on the underlying guilt factor to press home the message, whilst at the same time they are ignoring their own advice and warnings.

To me this type of action only confirms that the media is in Global Warming for the money and increase market share. Such reports are not likely to persuade people that the issue is to be taken seriously.

the Brit

Man’s penis can be seen from space

February 1, 2007

Hi Grit

My apologies for lowering the tone, but I just could not resist this piece of news. It appears that two schoolboys from Southampton (UK), used weedkiller on their school field, to burn the shape of a penis into it. Obviously, the school reseeded the area as soon as they found out, but this was not before the image was picked up on a satellite image.

Do you think the women from Venus might be having second thoughts? Perhaps this is why Aliens are not that keen to visit.

the Brit

Kylie and a mini affair

January 31, 2007

Hi Grit

I have this question to ask. What is a mini affair? The reason I ask is because I have read today that Jean Claude Van Damme claims that he had one of these in 1994 with Kylie Minogue.

I am sure that he cannot be referring to the small car that is often and, therefore, I assume that he is talking about some romantic interlude. If this is the case then I would have thought it would be classed as an “affair”, because either one is physically involved or not. Surely there is no half-way house in these matters? On the other hand I suppose there is a chance that there little “affair” took place in the small car he is referring to, but it would seem a bit un-celebrity like.

the Brit

Are you over there crazy?

January 31, 2007

Hi Grit

My apologies Grit but methinks that some of you over there are having sanity problems. No! this time it is not the politicians. Whilst flicking through the news today I came across a strange piece about a funeral parlour in Madison.

It appears that the gentleman in question has filled his waiting room with stuffed animals – for the kids he says. The idea is to stop them crying. Well, excuse me, but if a child walks into a funeral parlour upset about the loss of someone close, I fail to see how spotting a stuffed squirrel, especially if they come from the country, is going to make them feel any better. Surely the reverse will be the case?

Can you imagine what the animal rights people will make of this.

the Brit

The real face of liberalism

January 30, 2007

Hi Brit,

I’ve been mulling this story over all day.  It’s such a disgusting saga that I almost skipped it, then, it hit me that we can’t progress as a people by sweeping the dirt under the rug.

Anti-war protesters spray paint Capitol building

Add that to the scene of Hanoi Jane back in action, and, without an extreme act of will, I would be leaning over the rail on the back porch puking my guts out.  Our country has a putrid, festering boil, and its name is Liberal.  Sadly, it seems that the only effective treatment will be lancing.  The future seems unusually bleak today.

the Grit

NGO’s empowered

January 30, 2007

Hi Grit

I read with interest your comment about power being delegated to committees and am really thinking that you and your fellow Americans would not feel at home in the UK, despite popular beliefs.

The problem with where power lies and decisions can be made in the UK is even more complex than the US. Like you, we have a system where governments, when they get into power, think “don’t need the electorate now!” so they delegate some of the most difficult laws and regulations to those who do not have to vote on it. For example, when there was all the furore about big business, ancient men (notice I did not use the word wise?) were gathered together to define new regulations to control corporate governance. This produced a regulation that, whilst not law, was orchestrated in such a way that if a corporation did not implement, they would be delisted from the stock market. No voting on that then!

Similarly, the government passes a lot of regulations that it does not want to bother Parliament with, to outside NGO’s, probably because they feel that we as voters, apart from being surplus to requirements, would be too confused by the issues to make a sensible decision. Of course the other way that the politicians can sidestep the due process of democracy is to take a leaf out of John Reid’s (the Home Secretary) book. He changed the way our legal system worked within twenty four hours by simply writing to the Judges and asking (so he says) that they stop imprisoning guilty criminals.

Finally, as if this wasn’t enough, we in the UK have another non-democratic “big brother” showering us with laws and regulations like confetti at a wedding. It is called the EU. In my view the European Union structure is an ideal place for politicians who are tired of allowing themselves to be subjected to the vagaries of democracy. They sit in their ivory towers constructing regulations about matters in which they have no knowledge nor have been asked to interfere with, and churn these out at the rate of knots. Of course no-one outside of the EUSS (European Union Secret Society) is asked for opinion or allowed to cast judgement. Thus suddenly us mere mortals find ourselves waking up in the morning to find that we cannot have milk in our coffee because the EU have deemed that milk should not be cream in colour or something stupid like that.

The moral of this of course is that there is always someone worse off than you 🙂

the Brit

Shilpa Shetty wins

January 28, 2007

Hi Grit

It is over. A few moments ago Shilpa Shetty, the 31 year old Indian Actress walked out of the house for the final time, as the WINNER.  Shilpa, the target of racial abuse and bullying during her stay in the house, collects a £100,000 prize, collected 63% of the vote, beating Jermaine Jackson into second, and Dirk Benedict into third place. None of the three finalists were British.

Even in the post winning interview, Shilpa was magnanimous in victory, asking people to forget what had happened and thanking everyone in the UK for the opportunity she had been given. This despite having to sit through some awful comments that were made about her behind her back in the house by others.

Whether this will be the end of the incident remains to be seen, but at least Shilpa has acted like a lady and a deserving winner. Let’s hope that the media and everyone else takes her lead and lets the incident alone from now on, although I doubt with the English media that this will happen.

Anyway, congratulations to the Lady and to your two American contestants who did so well. America should be rightfully proud of the way that Jermaine and Dirk conducted themselves during this show. It is a shame some of the British contestants could not have acted more like the three finanlists.

the Brit