Disturbing Images From The Western World

Whilst the world's attention is focussed on the horrific but also exhilarating revolutions occurring in the Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa, other equally disturbing images have been coming from within our own midst.

Hate Comes To Orange County



I find this video almost too upsetting to watch. Muslims families being tormented and insulted by protesters waving American flags whilst elected US officials spread hate among the crowd. I can almost hear the echoes of the fascists in the 1930s and their anti-Jewish rhetoric. Awful stuff, and we are just not condemning this enough.

EDL Thugs

The English Defense League. It's everything I've worried about when I've spoken about English nationalism on here before. Now they bring in violent unionist imagery (no, I do not understand that either, we're English but we support the British cause? Hmm...). They are just a bunch of thuggish little boys terrified of the Other. We must oppose them thoroughly and consistently wherever they go.

The German Question

German interior minister reopens bitter row over Muslim integration. Certainly, Islam is not part of traditional German culture. Nothing controversial there, that's just a historical statement. But I don't think that's what is being said here, and we all know that. The wink, wink, nod, nod of the anti-Islam crowd is almost as disgusting as what they actually say.

"To say that Islam belongs in Germany is not a fact supported by history."

Well some interpretations of German history might suggest Jews don't belong in Germany (they've spent more time as pariahs than they have as equal German citizens throughout Germany's complex history). But you wouldn't say that because that would sound pretty damn disturbing. Are we to get rid of everyone in our countries whose presence isn't backed up by history? And what history are we talking about? Modern or ancient? Perhaps the German people don't belong there either as my memory of Germany 65 million years ago certainly doesn't back up their claim on residence either. History is useful, interesting and complicated. But it's not a Bible. We make our own destinies whilst learning from our history. But Germany seems to be just repeating the same old mistakes.

It's time we stood up and said no more. I'm no fan of Islam. To me it's just another silly religion. But that doesn't mean I do not support Muslims rights to their beliefs nor that I think they are some holier than thou angels without any issues themselves. But we must have a frank and honest debate not a "Them and us" one. The West needs to wake up to the hate it is brewing before it's too late.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Stonewall Need To Sack Their Public Relations Director

I apologise for my recent absence. I can assure you, it's for the right reasons. I am back in paid employment and making myself useful. Once I've got into the swing of things I'll be back ranting and raving about marriage equality, Tories and my (reserved) love of the Liberal Democrats.

In the meantime we've had a rather interesting list of comments from various LGBT rights organisations on the issue of marriage equality published by Pink News. Interesting both in that all support marriage equality, and that Stonewall (one of my favourite groups to criticise) refused to give it's opinion.

Stonewall have given their opinion to me and, out of fairness, I'll repeat what they said: They are not against marriage equality, they just don't think it's a priority. This is a position I find bizarre. And one it seems more and more are finding strange too.

Check out Zoe's journal and Stephen's Liberal Journal for more.

Normal service shall resume this weekend.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Disabilities Might Annoy You. Get Over It.

Sometimes I wonder about people, I really do.

Apology after disabled man told to leave Medway centre

"A council has apologised to a disabled man who was told to leave a sports centre because he was making noise.

Laurence Morgan, 20, who suffers from tuberous sclerosis and autism was asked to leave Strood Sports Centre after a member of the public complained.

The genetic disease causes tumours to grow on his organs, including his brain, and he communicates through sounds, some of which are high pitched."

Sounds pretty meanspirited already doesn't it? Well just wait:

"Mr Morgan had been waiting for his lunch at the leisure centre, where he has a weekly hydrotherapy session, when the duty manager asked him to leave.

Ms Richardson [his mother] said: "She approached him, pointed at her watch and said 'Twenty minutes, don't you think that's enough of that noise? Take him outside.

"'We've had complaints from the public take him outside'."

Right, so you're a duty manager and a member of the public comes up to complain to you that "that man over there is annoying me with all his noise". Do you

1) explain, politely, to the member of the public that unlike "nuisance" noise this probably can't be helped?

or

2) wander up to man and demand he leaves as he's getting on everyone's nerves?

It's a no brainer. Disregarding the man's disability, basic tact would've meant a polite enquiry at the very most rather than a demand to leave. Patience is a virtue when dealing with others, and I am truly appalled that someone can be a "duty manager" without that particularly important attribute.

I will forever be thankful that I was brought up to treat people with dignity in my daily dealings.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Penny Wong Is Very Wrong

Australian Senator Penny Wong has come out against marriage equality. I guess this was a Labor party effort to back up the new Prime Minister's stance. I can imagine the meeting. "Well you know, if we get a lesbian to say she doesn't support it, all the activists out there will go 'Oh well, that's okay then', PENNY COME HERE!"

It appears to have backfired. She originally said:

"On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."

Which of course is silly. Women, Asians and gays wouldn't have got into the Senate in the past for "cultral, religious, histroical" reasons. Perhaps she would like us to return to that? No I thought not.

In the article above Queerty found this statement from 2006

"I hope there will come a time when this country can look back and wonder why some in this place and some in this government were so frightened of and antagonistic to certain types of relationships. I look to a day, to paraphrase a great man, when we not only judge people by the content of their character but also where we judge their relationships by markers such as respect, commitment, love and security and not by the gender of their partners. I look to a day when government policy and articulation is not so mired in prejudice that it can address these issues fairly. One thing I do know is that that will only come under a Labor government." (Emphasis ours.)"

Oh Penny, I think the game is up. Of course she came back with some statement about discrimination which made no sense.

I find this more often than I'd like. The other day I was having a Twitter battle with Chris Bryant, who told me off for questioning his LGBT rights stances. I'm still awaiting his reply to explain why he failed to stand up and even MENTION marriage equality during the Civil Partnership Bill debates. In fact all I found from him was a strong defence of the party line, whilst he threw LGBT rights under a bus.

Never, ever trust a politician who can't even stand up for their own rights because how will they ever have the guts to stand up for yours?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Scientology Never Learns

As Scientologist's complaints about a councillor's comments on Twitter have forced him to face a disciplinary, I thought I'd take the time to just remind people of some resources where they can find out more about the sort of practices Scientology gets up to. (FYI John Dixon's "crime" was to tweet: “I didn’t know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.”)

Operation Clambake is the centre of discussion for ex-members and those interested/concerned by Scientology.

Xenu TV for awesome news from a former Scientologist.

Tory Magoo's Youtube Channel, a "recent" escapee, she helped greatly during Project Chanology.

Let's be clear, Scientology is not any more worthy of criticism than most religions. BUT... that doesn't mean we should give them any slack either. I've not been!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

It's Not Just Murdoch and The Daily Fail Who Spin

Last week saw a feeble flurry of attacks on the Liberal Democrats, and specifically our leader Nick Clegg, by the "right wing press". The Torygraph, the Daily Express, the Daily Fail and the Sun pounced and then drew back (no doubt in wait for another opportunity to attack again shortly).

That is unsurprising. As someone who is in a centre-left party, a homosexual, a sceptic, and a Europhile it is hardly shocking to me to see them launching these sort of attacks. Par for the course, as they say.

I've been a Guardian reader since, at least, the year 2000, I'm under no illusions as to what sort of paper that is and, knowing the editorial slant, can usually read between the lines to the kernel of truth at the heart of any story (or even comment). I assume (no... pray!) that those who read the right wing tabloids do the same.

However even taking into account the Labour bias of the paper, I was disgusted to see today's headline story. What they implied was that Nick Clegg would not form a coalition with Labour if they came third in terms of popular vote. This is not what he said.

"It seems to me that it's just preposterous, the idea that if a party comes third in terms of the number of votes, it still has the right to carry on squatting in No 10 and continue to lay claim to having the prime minister of the country," he said.

"What I'm saying here is pointing at a very, very irrational possible outcome of our potty electoral system, which is that a party that has spectacularly lost the election … could nonetheless according to constitutional tradition and convention still lay claim to providing the prime minister of the country.""

He's said here, in a nutshell, "If the election throws up a rogue result of Labour losing popular vote and coming third but winning most number of seats, they shouldn't get Number 10". Therefore, implying, they don't get their guy (Brown or whoever) to be Prime Minister (a job Mr Clegg will certainly want for himself, he is a politician after all!).

Simples. But the Guardian chose to spin it, and for very transparent reasons; they are terrified Labour is about to collapse. This was no less a smear on Nick Clegg than calling him a Nazi, and in smearing him by suggesting he'd only consider the Tories suitable partners the Guardian was trying to terrify wavering Labour supporters into sticking with the tired old, authoritarian party that Labour has become out of fear of a Tory victory.

I know, it's ridiculous, but I felt almost personally affronted by the article. It's sheer CHEEK in suggesting what it was suggesting in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary was infuriating. I expect more of the paper I read, and have thus made the sad decision to give up on the Guardian. I'm turning to the Independent, whose editorial line I've always found confusing and whose website truly sucks but at least I know my money won't be going to support some backward, regressive paper who is willing to spin a story to prop up a war-mongering, civil liberties destroying, half-heartedly reforming mess of a party.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Jedi Hoodies???

Here is the problem benefit of the laws protecting religions in this country; you can get away with just about anything. Take Jobcentre Plus apologising to a hoodie who believes himself to be a Jedi, after they rather insensitively asked him to remove his hood.

As a fan of Star Wars, I must say the reason for the apology seems somewhat bizarre. Nowhere in any of the movies or in the Expanded Universe is the wearing of a hood proscribed as being demanded by observance of the Force. In fact most Jedi's seem to wear it only when attempting to appear inconspicuous. And female Jedi's seem eager to wear far less than a hood. Thus I would argue there is no scriptural basis for demanding to be allowed to wear a hood in a job centre. However... that's the beauty of a religion. You can make up the rules as you go along. And surely this is where our protections overstep the mark. When one must apologise for upsetting the sensibilities of someone who is either lying or totally deluded (and completely misunderstanding the meaning of being a Jedi *prepares to smite the blasphemer*) then you know you live in a mad, mad world.

Let's get this clear: if you believe in the Force, sky fairies, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or alien creators all power to you. Religious belief, like sexual orientation, is totally a private matter. Write a blog, hand out leaflets on the street or give all your money to L. Ron Hubbard's estate. But don't expect others to bow down before your whims and wishes to be treated differently to any one else doing exactly the same thing as you. Everyone should be treated the same despite whatever they "believe" makes them need to carry knives into schools or wear inappropriate jewellery to work. I don't believe that because I'm gay I should be given more rights than anyone else. So why would I believe that because you are Muslim you should be allowed extra breaks for prayers than I get?? Or that you should be allowed to wear a hoodie in a place where covering your head is not allowed for security reasons just because you believe you are one with the Force?

*sigh* Equal rights seems to mean, more often than not, extra rights for some. At least Tesco's had the right idea... and a better understanding of Jedi:

"We would ask Jedis to remove hoods. Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all went hoodless without going to the Dark Side."

Too true.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

NHS Moving Towards Removing Homeopathy Funding?

With the announcement of a Parliamentary committee's review of homeopathy (decision: homeopathy doesn't work any better than a placebo), we are now moving towards the possibility that the NHS will stop spending £4 million a year on useless treatments (perhaps they might spend it on cleaners/nurses/doctors?).

This is good news, very good news. Now we need the NHS to consider it's funding of chaplains in hospitals who, personally, I think should be funded by churches if they wish to preach in our public buildings.

Soon the NHS might keep it's nose out of faith issues, alternative therapies and start concentrating on actually treating the sick.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Mercy Killing: A Touchy Subject

My political beliefs are a mixture of liberal (for American readers this means something quite different to what liberal means in America) and libertarian tenets and policies. So you'd think I'd be fully behind euthanasia and mercy killings and, logically, be supportive of Ray Gosling as he faces prosecution for the murder of a former partner.

Whilst I am sympathetic to the awful situation he faced, I cannot in good conscience support the concept of someone who not only acted independently to take the life of someone else but who announces it to the world at large later on.

My beliefs about individual liberty mean that, if someone leaves a living will stating that if a) or b) occurs then they should be allowed/helped to die, I must accept there is a place in our world for euthanasia. But I cannot accept that informal agreements between individuals that are not even written down should serve as an excuse to allow a mercy killing to pass unchallenged. If we turn a blind eye and allow such flimsy, unsubstantiated excuses to stand then our murder laws will become meaningless.

Euthanasia should be legal. I have MAJOR personal reservations about it's morality and it's affect upon medical staff, but my beliefs in your right to do what you want with your body far outweigh my own petty concerns. But there must be accepted, agreed standards for when and how this can happen and I believe Ray Gosling's case cannot ever meet any such FUTURE standards that as yet remain unagreed. He should be tried for murder, and his fate decided by a jury of his peers.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Leader Debates: Healthy For Democracy?

For many years the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have been very important positions in our land. They are flattered and insulted in our press depending on the political mood and looked to as leaders. That goes without saying really doesn't it?

But despite these natural developments, our system is not a Presidential one. Well, at least, it shouldn't be. The Prime Minister should be the "First Among Many", working with powerful allies in their Cabinet to carry out the business of Government. That's how it should be. But these days, and I suppose (with a brief exception for the Major years) since the days of Thatcher, our system has begun to tend towards making the Prime Minister all powerful and destroying the power of the House of Commons in the process. Once the House was littered with rebels, strong orators and those of an individual character. But now, as all attention turns to the Prime Minister at the expense of all others, they have seemingly disappeared.

Now we have the much heralded leader debates, that shall precede our impending General Election. Here the leaders (of those parties carefully selected by the media, of course... can't have the crazies rocking the boat!) will appear groomed and rehearsed to engage in a game of political jousting little seen outside of PMQs. It shall be so much fluff, and these extra Parliamentary debates will no doubt be low brow stuff, aimed at the less intelligent voters with soundbites and easy to digest "policies" (for which read: things we'll change later). And all it shall serve to do is to allow the Prime Ministerial position to take on ever more characteristics of a President in the American style.

This will only encourage people to blindly vote by Party preference for candidates they don't know, just because they like their leader.

This is wrong! We must speak out in defence of our Parliament, of our representatives, in defence of our very way of being. The Prime Minister will always be top dog, but they must never become supreme. It's time the Government got off our telly's and back into the Houses. It's time for leader debates to be kept in Parliament where other Members can intercede and hold the leaders to account.

Grr.... Parliament needs to act, and act soon, to stop the Westminster way from becoming extinct!

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

The Sun's Done It Again

As anyone who knows me knows, I hate The Sun. It is a singularly foul mouthed rag masquerading as a newspaper. Now that I've declared my position let us begin...

Grief. It's an awful emotion. When one is struck by the loss of someone very close to you, as most of us have been, the vast amount of conflicting emotions can overwealm you. There is often anger mixed up with grief, usually at yourself and perhaps some missed opportunity for a final goodbye, which can manifest itself in ugly and unpleasant ways.

There is no doubting the grief of the mother of Guardsman Jamie Janes, who sadly lost his life in the conflict in Afghanistan. And it is somewhat unsurpising that something as seemingly insignificant as bad handwriting might, thanks to her grief, arouse her anger at a Prime Minister who presides over the very conflict that killed her son. This is all clear enough, and somewhat understandable. Despite my feeling she was being unreasonable, I find it hard to blame a grieving parent for almost any action they made in the months following the death of their child.

The Sun however has no such excuse. I'm no friend of The Sun, but I'm also no friend of Gordon Brown. But surely even those of us who dislike the Prime Minister cannot fail to be slightly forgiving towards him should he make a mistake/a mess whilst taking the time to write a personal message to the family of one our armed forces fallen? I find it rather disgusting that the Sun would choose to exploit this woman's grief and the death of a soldier to score cheap political points.

But then again... this is The Sun... what else should one expect?

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Rubbish Media

There used to be a difference between bloggers and the "old" media. Bloggers were depicted as ranting nutters who obsessed over the most inane and pointless things whilst the old media held itself up as the defenders of liberty through truth and intrepid reporters from whom nothing could be hidden.

How times have changed. Whilst the new media has evolved, even if it does still contain plenty of us ranters!, and now the old media seems to be relegated to reporting what we are saying. Who publishes the things the old media (other than perhaps the Private Eye) is too scared to? We do. Who has the time to truly research a subject and report on it in depth whilst the old media is too busy chasing readers/viewers and always looking for the next big thing? Us again.

Yesterday someone I follow on Twitter, @brumplum, made a very innocuous tweet about Stephen Fry's tweets being somewhat boring. @stephenfry took offence to this and major Twitter butt hurt occurred as per usual. After bandwagons were set off and idiots aroused, all was resolved and everyone should have moved on.

But despite this the BBC, the Guardian, the Times et al. decided this rather pointless exchange warranted prominent reporting. We live in a world in which hundreds of thousands of people languish in North Korea gulags, in which people are murdered on the streets of London just for being gay, in which elections are rigged and yet, in a sector crying poverty at every possible opportunity, time and resources are wasted on reporting a storm in a teacup.

The worst part is that. whilst I'm under no illusions that the old media has ever been the paragons of virtue, reading foreign media shows just how good reporting can be when done well. It's a shame that our media falls further and further behind the standards one would expect of them.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Jan Moir: Another Bow In The Daily Mail's Armour Of Hate

Yesterday I was in the pub, and after finishing the Guardian I headed over to where the newspapers are kept in a futile search for the Tech section. On the way back one of the regulars helpfully said "There's a Daily Mail over there if you want it Jae" at which I gave him a withering look and informed him that I don't "touch that sort of thing". He returned with "Don't blame ya, it's a piece of trash", which somewhat warmed my feelings towards him.

As if proof was needed of this obvious truth, Jan Moir decided to provide us all with a reason to hate that "news"paper. The evidence is here. I'm not going to go into detail on why it's wrong (check this out for that) instead I'm just writing this post to make sure everybody has the link as to where to make a formal complaint about it. Go here to help fight the conservative Daily Mail regressive agenda and stand up for honest reporting and human freedom.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Boy In Balloon Over Denver

BBC News here,

Live Footage here



This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

The Tory Agenda IS The Same As The New Labour One

I have a distinct dislike of public/private partnerships. I believe that if a Government believes something is in their "realm" of responsibility then they should ensure they have all the skills and facilities to carry out that duty. Otherwise they should stand well clear and leave the market to deal with it. I have faith that in the right hands both public and private options can be successful.

But I have little faith in using private resources to advance Government policies. This is why I'm not so keen on the welfare reform offered by the Tories. David Cameron promises more of the same by advancing the idea of private training companies training the unemployed. This is happening now! It's hardly reform. It's not going to change the situation we have whereby people are living on benefits for many years. Forcing people to take training they don't want to do, to get jobs they probably won't care about is hardly going to keep the long term unemployed off the benefit books. I don't have answers, but I do know doing the same things New Labour has been doing is not going to help!

And the Conservatives are failing to present a clear policy on Europe. They won't even say what they're policy will be if the Lisbon Treaty is successfully ratified in the Czech Republic (and almost shoo-in Poland). Labour too have been unclear and indecisive on this important issue.

Grr... same old, same old.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Women Good, Men Bad

I consider myself a true fanatic for gender equality. I was listening to a podcast the other day about the Eastern Front of the Second World War and they were yabbering on about how awful it was that the Soviets used women in front line combat duties. It got my blood boiling. They said it as if women should not be made to experience such things, whilst it was perfectly suitable for men to. I believe women should not be banned from any job in which they are able to complete the physical requirements of the tasks that need to be carried out (that's any job, by the way!). Women should be free to do whatever jobs they wish, as should men, as long as the individual is the best candidate for the role. Combat duty, firefighting, nursing or teaching. Whatever. Women are not shrinking violets, not wall flowers for men to get all mushy over and protect. They are equals.

But it pains me, absolutely makes me feel sick, when I have to sit and read an article which denigrates men to sexual deviants
whilst celebrating women's joyful appreciation of the male form.

When you compare an "event" of male strippers, to a seedy female strip club what do you think the results are going to be? What she absolutely ignores are the sort of places women frequent (mainly abroad) which are just as seedy as the men (just check out the trade for male escorts in Thailand with Western women). Her attempts to desexualise women seem more Victorian than honest. Has she not ever met a woman who is actually secure with her sexuality?

She should go to any place where they have a mixed crowd with male and female strippers on (such as The Church, an antipodean club) and there they shall find both men and women truly enjoying themselves, having a laugh and getting generally excited ala a Chippendales event.

This is not to say that those working in the stripping trade are not open to exploitation and abuse. Don't get me wrong. But we must stop making accusations against entire sexes based on little research, and prejudice.

When I've been to strip shows (yes, Dear Constant Reader, I've been to some!) I don't go because I want to sleep with the stripper. I go for a laugh, a good time and a bit of excitement. And I don't go alone!! And when a stripper tries to get me involved I go all shy and refuse. Isn't that what she says makes women so virtuous??

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Sarah Palin: FAIL

How can anyone defend Sarah Palin? She tries to espouse Christian values on one side and on the other she defends greedy corporations, has a child who has a child out of wedlock and is now getting a divorce after she decided to give up the responsibilities of being Governor of Alaska (despite have stood for election to that office and reasonably being expected to carry out her duties until the next election).

Now there's nothing wrong with getting a divorce or having a child out of wedlock. I live with a divorcee and I am that child so who am I to judge? Well I'm someone who says if you espouse the values of a certain religion you better live by them or you have no right to judge others according to that religion! Grr...

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

The Problems Of Science In Mainstream Media

The major problem I have with science reporting (and there are more than a few issues!) is that they treat everything as "new". New study confirms/finds/discovers the following EXCLUSIVE. Except the following had been proved a million times before and it really shouldn't come as a surprise.

Take this news story: Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study. Anyone with a vague interest in science will know this is not a new thing!!! It goes on to suggest the study has found evolutionary advantages to homosexual behaviour, which the article treats as a revelation. Sorry guys, this too is OLD news.

I mean really if you have half a brain you'd think "Hmm... all these gay animals, it can't just be random." It's not. Each species involved has got to that point for various reasons. In a few it'll have no advantages, but in most it will and the advantage will be individually tailored to the species involved (like gay black swans, who find a female, breed with her, then drive her away and bring up the chick. With two males looking after the chick it has a higher likelihood of survival hence the evolutionary benefits). It's a no brainer. There's even a very extensive study published in 2006 on the evolution of homosexuality (here).

If only studies were reported with this in mind.

Maybe it's because I spend hours listening to sceptic/science podcasts every week, but the state of science reporting is something to be sad about (thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for Ben Goldacre)

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

English Democrat Mayor U Turn

Amazing how quickly politicians go from radicalism to keeping the status quo. The English Democrat Mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies, has gone back on his plan to cut funding for pride. Whilst I don't applaud the decision to fund pride (I believe all suck frivolous things should be beyond the scope of Government, including any "national" parade), I do laugh at how quickly this one turned. Next we'll have the new BNP Euro MEPs voting for equal rights measures.

This, I think, disproves the idea that Mr Davies is not homophobic. I originally felt he was, based on the wording of his statement to stop the funding. If the cut had been because he believed in a reduced Government role in such community events and value for money for the tax payer, then he would not have gone back on it. Instead when he found that such events would benefit local businesses (if not all taxpayers) then he decided to continue the funding and forget his obvious dislike for the GLBT community in the name of more money for local business. Disgusting. Not only do taxpayers have to fund events they might not agree with (such as a St George's Day parade!) they now get to subsidise local businesses they might now wish to support!!

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from

his wishlist

Charlie Brooker Says Everything I Wanted To Say But Didn't Know How

In his latest Guardian article Charlie Brooker distilled my thoughts, made them witty, and put them on paper. Is this man psychic? No but he sure is clever...

It was the first time I was explicitly told that racism was unpleasant and it was a lesson served with a side order of patriot fries. Or rather, chips. Our headmaster had fought for his country, and for tolerance, all at once. That's what I understood it meant to be truly "British": to be polite, and civil and fair of mind.

Well said indeed.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist