Prison won't work for Stephen Fry - Tweet-Tweet!

Working at a proper pace in a disciplined manner

I've read or heard about two things this morning, tenuously linked in my brain. The first is that Kenneth Clarke has been harrumphing about prison not being a suitable punishment for offenders. He'd rather criminals do eight hours a day unpaid work. Stephen Fry has been twittering about going to prison if a certain Paul Chambers, convicted and fined for sending a menacing communication (by Twitter), does not have his appeal upheld. Two problematic issues for me.

First, Kenneth Clarke is often seen as a liberally minded conservative. He likes his Hush Puppies, his jazz (he had his own coalition once with Michael Meadowcroft and John "Johnny" Prescott!) and his cigars. However, I think he makes a good point in a blunt and bruising way. In an interview with The Times, he said the current number of people being sent to prison was “financially unsustainable”. He said, “It is just very, very bad value for taxpayers’ money to keep banging them up and warehousing them in overcrowded prisons where most of them get toughened up.” He insisted that he was not “soft on crime”. He said that offenders would be given tougher community service punishments involving doing unpaid work for up eight hours a day. “I want them to be more punitive, effective and organised. Unpaid work should require offenders to work at a proper pace in a disciplined manner rather than youths just hanging around doing odd bits tidying up derelict sites.”

A proper pace in a disciplined manner? It all sounds good but it gives the impression of not being thought out properly. Perish that thought, maybe? Yes, we have overcrowded prisons but some criminals need to be behind bars. In much of what he says there is truth. But I'm afraid this truth needs to be in far more voter-friendly words and in a policy that will truly convince. The vast majority of the public care little about prisons. They would far rather gossip about perceived crime.

Stephen Fry is often seen as a liberally minded thespian , writer and comedy guru. He has proved to be an all round talent in such shows as Not The Nine O'Clock News, Kingdom, QI and the Blackadder series. And he is a self-confessed Twitter geek. He is apparently taken with computer things, an interest sparked by his friendship with Douglas Adams. It is his twittering that often gets him into the public eye as a controversial character. He has now said he is "prepared to go to prison" in support of the appeal which Mr.Chambers has lodged.

The thing here is that I don't think that banter, fair critical comment or even sarcastic humour enters the fray. This man admits he was suffering from a "moment of frustration" caused by Doncaster Sheffield (Robin Hood) Airport being closed due to snow. He sent a tweet saying, "Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week... otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!". We've all experienced a moment of frustration at airports but we don't tell them we'll blow them sky high. How is this described as banter, as his solicitor David Allen Green suggests?

Nobody at the airport reading this could have taken it as "banter". Quite rightly, they were concerned. This is nothing to do with free speech. Mr Green says, "We should be able to have banter. We should be able to speak freely without the threat of legal coercion." But, going back to Oliver Wendell Holmes, that does not mean being able to shout fire in a crowded theatre.

Where is the scintintilla of humourous banter in saying "otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high"? Freedoms must surely come with personal responsibilities. I don't want Twitter or any other communication method curtailed, but this is not the case to be fighting for freedoms.

If Stephen Fry does go to prison he may not be in for long. He could end up writing plays eight hours a day for no pay, at a proper pace in a disciplined manner! Now that would be something.

BNP charge of Koran burning dropped - but not forgotten

Book Burning Bonfire

A British National Party election candidate accused of publicly burning a copy of the Koran has been freed after the charge against him was unexpectedly dropped. Sion Owens, 41, of Bonymaen, Swansea, South Wales, was arrested and charged at the weekend under Section 29 of the Public Order Act. So reports the North Wales Weekly News. This was apparently due to a technicality rather than a change of heart.

Bryn Hurford, prosecutor in the case, said police inquiries into the alleged incident would continue and a new file of evidence would be collected and passed to the Crown Prosecution Service for review and advice. He added, "I want the defendant and his legal representatives to be in no doubt that the withdrawal of the charge does not mean that no proceedings will be taken. Almost certainly other proceedings will ensue."

In other words, "We'll get you, you bugger, in any event!" Doesn't this lend credence to the belief it's all politically motivated? Mr.Hurford adds his name to a long list of those interfering in the democratic process. Sad day all round. Sion Owens will be on the ballot paper. It's up to the voters of Wales to declare their opinions, not for Mr.Hurford to concoct a case.

And the Observer doesn't come out of this smelling of roses either!

BNP 'Koran burn' candidate Sion Owens due in court

Sion Owens, the BNP candidate in question

A BNP candidate for the Welsh assembly is due in court on Monday after police were passed a video appearing to show him burning a copy of the Koran. Sion Owens, aged 41, has been charged with a public order offence.

How can it be a public order offence when the act took place in a privately owned garage? Do South Wales Police believe in this prosecution or were they put up to it by the Crown Prosecution Service? Or maybe politicians keen on silencing the BNP?

It is a prosecution that makes a mockery of democracy. Let the debate begin for the Welsh Assembly on the hustings and not in the courts!

Yasmin Alibhai Brown misses the freedom point

"I'm speaking my mind!"

In an article in the Independent, Yasmin Alibhai Brown calls for a democracy where free speech is limited. Limited no doubt by her fellow thinkers and not by those who disagree. She mentions Oliver Wendell Holmes but then pushes that point further. Incitement to racial or religious hatred is whipping the crowd up to create a clear and present danger. Burning a Koran in a privately owned garage, as the BNP candidate did, is absolutely not the same thing. There was no danger created.

In a democracy free speech does upset people. I am upset by attacks on the traditional integrity of Anglicans by liberal Anglicans, but I don't want them silenced. Monty Python was accused of blasphemy, but like the curate's egg, I liked the show in parts. The parts I didn't like I didn't watch. Frankie Boyle is sometimes plainly outrageous and offensive but I can see that the man has a comic talent and can be genuinely funny. His critics should be the ones to tell him he's off limits, not the state.

There are so many words that offend. However, it is not the role of the police to try to stamp out the BNP by suppressing free speech. The way a democracy works is to debate the issues and use the ballot box.

BBC institutionally Left-wing or just plain biased?

Daniel Hannan, in his Telegraph blog, suggests that the BBC is not impartial but that it should be. He asks the question "How is this impartiality to be secured?" and answers by sayng," By the best possible method: the new chairman will be subject to a confirmation hearing by MPs. Instead of being, as in the past, a government placeman, the successful candidate will have to satisfy MPs of all factions – for no party has an absolute majority on the Select Committee – that he will be disinterested."

The BBC is rather peculiar, has irrational tendencies at times and moves through life with some very odd views in tow. I think they are completely and utterly incomprehensible regarding the Ordinariate. It would never suit their purpose to have on Thought for the Day anyone from it. I've never heard anyone from Forward in Faith given airtime, other than to be pilloried for antiquated views, but they've got half a dozen female clerics on hand as if everyone accepts this as the norm. The country may well do. Many have no clue or interest in matters of faith. But why should some be excluded? Has the BBC made a pact with female clerics?

The same is true about those they cannot abide. The BNP is one such organisation. Instead of simply saying that Nick Griffin was able to appear on Question Time in a similar way to Respect or the Green Party due to advancement in electoral support, a whole rigmarole of committee talk is put in place with the eventual programme being a bad joke.

It's as though only certain opinion is permitted, anything else is strictly monitored and given short shrift. We may not agree with some views. That's OK, but a fair hearing is what the BBC should offer, without appearing to be some kind of Stasi-light filtering service. When it came to Griffin's appearance on Question Time all we got was Dimbleby acting like some kind of second rate schoolmaster bating an errant boy.

Peter Sissons has a piece in the Daily Mail claiming standards have fallen at the BBC and accusing producers of being too mired in political correctness to do anything about it. I wish they could see how they are seen by others. Maybe they don't have any mirrors in the corporation?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199104/Peter-Sissons-BBC-standards-falling--bosses-scared-it.html#ixzz1BmnPRd65

Sarah Palin re-emerges with "Blood Libel" offensive

I was wondering why she had been silent. Now, like a shrill volcano, she has attacked as a "blood libel" suggestions that political rhetoric contributed to Saturday's fatal shootings in Arizona. She says it is "reprehensible" and that "journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn".

What she fails to have comprehended is that Loughner was surrounded by anti-government literature in his bedroom. Probably there are any number of similar weirdos with immature political thoughts based on hatreds and angers. She did tell supporters to "reload". She sounded as though the gun and politics were inextricably linked, if only in an allegorical way. Yet she says she is not to blame. Well, not directly so, that is abundantly true. But she must surely see that such language excites the feeble-minded.

In her rebuttal, she declares, "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election." What is she trying to say here? That whatever the rhetoric, such criminality as was witnessed on Saturday in Tucson, is nothing to do with the outside world? She must be leaving reason behind. Loughner may not have directly linked her with his actions. But he went out and targeted a politician because of his delusions about the state of the nation. What is being said is that loose talk like hers is dangerous in a febrile political environment. That's all. No reasoned person is suggestion she is the cause. Just that she should acknowledge that her rhetoric is not helpful. In that she has stubbornly and steadfastly refused to concede an inch.

And does she know what Blood Libel means? This Wikipedia entry might help!

Wild rhetoric and vitriolic rantings tend to lead to disaster

People are saying that the massacre in Tucson was in some part triggered by a response to Sarah Palin's cry to "reload". I've suggested it myself. Not to be nasty to Mrs Palin, but to suggest that she tones down her rhetoric. As it happens, she's gone awfully quiet. Perhaps this was her personal wake-up call?

I see that Damian Thompson, in his Telegraph blog, has highlighted the hypocrisy of some Democrats. One such person is Paul Kanjorski. He got all mouthy about Governor Rick Scott of Florida, saying -

“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida. He’s a millionaire and a billionaire. He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook. It’s just we don’t prosecute big crooks.”

The good folk of Florida didn't heed these remarks and voted Scott in. In the US the issue of money doesn't seem to unsettle a lot. Now if Kanjorski was talking about sex......well, that's a whole different ball game.

All throughout history those who shout the odds, using language likely to incite, tend to get results that they may not have foreseen. Bad consequences, you could say. Thomas Becket was described as a turbulent priest by his king. The king wondered aloud if anyone could get rid of the cleric. A number of ingratiating souls suitably obliged and knifed Becket right in front of the high altar in Canterbury Cathedral. A bloody business all round. What the difference between that remark and any of the present day political diatribes is difficult to see. I can't really think there is. Henry II is reputed to have regetted the action for the rest of his reign, remarking "in happier times he had been a friend".

BNP candidate Derek Adams ejected from hustings by police

Democracy is on our minds now. In Arizona and in Oldham. A nutter goes on the rampage in Tucson. In Oldham it's a different matter. Greater Manchester Police are now the arbiters of democratic free speech. Whatever the chief constable might think, and "think" is something that he might be short of here, Derek Adams is a LEGITIMATE candidate. Who are the police to meddle in democracy?

Adams may not be the brightest candidate. He may have petty prejudices. His party is a rather authoritarian statist outfit. If allowed to speak he may well have put his foot in it. Now Greater Manchester Police have just given him every incentive to go out and say we live in a police state. What fools they are!

Let the people decide. Not a bunch of coppers doing some sort of political cleansing on behalf of apparatchiks.

Reload, said Sarah Palin, and one nutter did just that!

I cannot for the life of me understand why so many Americans are infatuated with the hairbrain solutions that Sarah Palin offers them. I know she looks and sounds like your average mom dishing out cookies and desserts to adoring kids. But most of what she says publicly has not much intellectual stimulus in it at all. Using metaphors about guns she tells supporters to "target" Democrats. She exhorts them "Don't retreat - instead, RELOAD!" I bet she thought that immensely funny at the time. Perhaps her porcelain smile has been wiped from her face now?

We can only hope that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords makes as full a recovery as possible. She was doing a very brave thing. Meeting her constituents in public. That surely is the stuff of democratic politics. The local sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, speaks volumes when he says, "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry. That may be free speech. But it's not without consequence." It's not free speech with any meaning, just prejudice and bigotry.

The consequence outside this Safeway store (some irony there!) is a grave tragedy for American democracy. The likes of Sarah Palin need to think before they speak. If not all she will be is a common rabblerouser.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345460/Sarah-Palin-Arizona-sheriff-blames-political-vitriol-triggering-unstable-Safeway-gunmans-massacre.html#ixzz1AXZ5SeBU

Wikileaks leaking like a sieve

Apparently American politicians are getting upset over the Wikileaks. Mike Huckabee is the latest to sound off in a typically non-cerebral way. He’d like to execute Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder. Does Huckabee realise how nonsensical he sounds? Why did he not call for an inquiry as to why the Pentagon, or wherever these computer files were stored, did not have the right encription techniques in place.  I understand that any child could have downloaded these files. Huckabee is like a lot of his ilk. Don’t check the stable over. Don’t examine the stable door. Just go looking for the horse.

What politicians need to get to grips with is that many of us “ordinary folk” don’t want the same old stuff in the 21^st century that we got in the last. Basically that means cut the crap, putting it bluntly.  For example, we were told that the Lockerbie bomber was only released on humanitarian grounds and it had nothing to do with oil. Now that all appears to be a lie and it was indeed all about oil and being scared witless that Gaddafi would chuck out the Brits and their contracts and that the Scottish governmment didn’t want a dead man on their hands. Are they more concerned about being found out or about  being truthful? The saying is that truth will out. It seems to be doing just that here.

Now if porkies have been told about Libya are there more porkies about the Lockerbie bombing to come out? This is the trouble with lying, as Matilda found. She told such dreadful lies!

Wikileaks is really a symptom of the disease afflicting us in the world today.  The Afghan war seems based on deceit as the the road to democracy is still full of potholes. Do the Afghans want western democracy? Probably not. But all these wars help the arms industry, the corruption merchants and the fevered brows of politicians. I’d be all in favour of a war in Afghanistan if I was convinced the Aghans were either going to invade Britain or bomb us. I’d also be in favour of war if they’d invaded a neighbour. But neither is true. All we’ve got is a re-education programme for Taliban types who don’t really want re-educating. What they need is something else. They need to be told that the poppy crops are going to be ploughed up.  Without the drugs trade they have no power. The Islamic world would support that. But they will not take kindly to so-called western imperialism. Will we ever learn?

With the Wikileaks still leaking, politicians are getting jumpy.  If they think that trumped up charges are a good way to deal with this then they will get it back in double doses. Whatever one may think of Julian Assange and his motives, it will look very bad indeed if the rape charges against him are found to be the work of “operatives in the field”. That will just make matters worse. In fact, it will be a calamity all round. Nobody will feel safe from such draconian ways which will inhibit free speech and democratic discussion.

Most people concur now that the House of Commons did wrong in having an expenses culture that they had. Nearly everyone concurs that they were wrong to try to suppress it in the devious way some of them tried to do. Now we see the possibility of the American government going after Assange. If they do it illegally or in an underhand way then many more will rise up to vent against them.

In Britain the coalition government pledged honesty and transparity as its hallmark. Is it tarnished already?

Arrest over fire extinguisher throwing at student march

The police have found the student who allegedly chucked the fire extinguisher from the roof of Millbank Tower. The object narrowly missed a policeman. A 23-year-old student is being questioned by police in Cambridgeshire on suspicion of violent disorder. I'm not sure what the penalty is for "violent disorder" but any sane person who does such an act, knowing that there is a crowd down below, surely knows that death is a distinct possibility for someone.

Maybe there is a new definition of violent disorder?

BNP in new court battle over membership

It seems to me that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is on a crusade to impede democracy and stifle debate. They have an idea that, by going after the BNP, they can get the party to implode under a mountain of court costs. So they have come up with the ridiculous notion that loads of ethnic minority people should be allowed to join the BNP. All this in the name of equality. Of course, it has nothing to do with equality or discrimination. It has everything to do with trying to outlaw those you find objectionable.

The EHRC is alarmed at the 1 million voters who support the BNP. So by killing off the party they hope to change the minds of those voters. An absurd notion, but only those with absurd notions run the EHRC. If the BNP goes, another will take its place. Far better to debate and show why the BNP policies are not right.

If this ridiculous court case results in a form of entryism, then there will be all sorts of bogus demands, such as women forcing themselves into the Catholic ministry. It is a can of worms unleashed by those who are no better than Pharisees.

Mindsets are not changed by draconian laws. If that was so, then the glorious German Democratic Republic would still be up and running.

Claire Rayner's last rant!

I've never intended to speak ill of the dead and hope I don't, but reasoned comment is fair I think. Claire Rayner died this week and we all know she was a humanist and a detractor of religious belief. That's OK. But it strikes me as very peculiar that so-called liberals can be such vituperatively spiteful souls. I saw from her recently updated Wikipedia entry that she said this as she neared her deathbed.

"I have no language with which to adequately describe Joseph Alois Ratzinger, AKA the Pope. In all my years as a campaigner I have never felt such animus against any individual as I do against this creature. His views are so disgusting, so repellent and so hugely disgusting to the rest of us, that the only thing to do is to get rid of him."

I had no desire to get rid of Claire Rayner whilst she was alive. Pity she got so bitter about her animus. The repellent thing is that liberals can be such illiberal folk with some very nasty things to say at times. A real pity, indeed!

Teacher who spoke at Tory conference ‘suspended’ by Head

This story is admirably told on Archbishop Cranmer's blog. Read it and weep! Oh and he mentions that "the sponsors are the Church of England". I'd think that had very little relevance to the subject matter. Will Rowan Williams being saying anything today?

US bans abusive teenage emailer for life!

I don't think it right in any way shape or form to send abusive letters or emails or telephone calls. It is scary at worst, but basically implies a total loss of the argument. If something is worth saying it is worth saying properly.

Luke Angel is a 17-year old British teenager who has been banned from America for life for sending Barack Obama an abusive email, in which he calls the President a p***k. Luke said,"The police who came round took my picture and told me I was banned from America forever." A Bedfordshire Police spokesman confirmed, "The individual sent an email to the White House full of abusive and threatening language. We were informed by the Metropolitan Police and went to see him. He said, "Oh dear, it was me"." Officers will take no criminal action.

So Bedfordshire police don't think much of it then? But what about the FBI and their nerves of steel. Seems Luke, being no angel, has shaken them up. So instead of being dealt with in a reasoned manner they get him banned for life. If he lives for another 80 years, will he still be banned.

American justice can be both summary and swift. Some hardened criminals are doing 200 years in jail. Of course, no living being could do that, but there has to be this savage revenge element in American justice which seems to be based in the dark recesses of the Puritan mindset. Woe betide the wrongdoer. Justice is battling on those scales with vengeance.

Luke Angel appears to be just a silly stroppy teenager. If the FBI can't deal with silly stroppy teenagers then they should let those who can. By banning him for life they show themselves up to be petty-minded authoritarians who should be told to stand at the base of the Statue of Liberty and have an hour's reflection.

Manic Street Preachers

Cumbrian Police know a thing or two about democracy, free speech and liberty. Yes, a thing or two! That's about the sum total of their knowledge. A 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for years, has been charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships. The preacher, Dale McAlpine, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.

The police took him to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked him in a cell for seven hours on April 20. Mr.McAlpine said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life. “I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know," he said. Needless to say he got the full DNA, fingerprint and record-keeping treatment.

The police have no business rounding people up like this. Street preaching is not against the law. John Wesley was a prominent preacher. There have been many down the centuries. In fact, I wonder if it passed the minds of the Cumbrian Police to consider the greatest street preacher of them all. The New Testament is basically all about street preaching, or if not in the streets, on the hillsides, by the sea, and in the fields!

No doubt this will come to court. It will cause a rumpus. And the whole sorry saga carries on.

Nasty intolerent liberals come bubbling to the surface

I've now found out what Tory election candidate Philip Lardner said. This is it, probably in part, but I took it from the BBC's website.

"As your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage. I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but the state promotion of homosexuality is quite another."

David Cameron has apparently gone ape about this. Why, may I ask? There are very many people who do not think homosexual activity is normal or correct. Are those who think so to be expunged from political life. I say to David Cameron, get a life yourself. A proper political life that allows diversity of opinion. Otherwise you are fast becoming a just another no-it-all liberal who is exactly the opposite of liberal.

Chris Bryant says "These comments are completely unacceptable and betray the nasty, judgmental truth behind the Tory camp". Really? This from a man who posed in his underpants on a gay porn site looking "for fun". I'm afraid I can't take Bryant seriously.

This action over Mr. Gardner is political intolerance. It is political censorship. It is very un-British. It is a kind of selective political brainwashing. David Cameron should look in the mirror tonight and ask himself if he is becoming just a tad too precious. Oh, and he still hasn't explained that wisteria removal to my satisfaction!

Anti-Tea party teacher back in class

Americans are going to tea parties again. I'm not sure if much tea is drunk at them. Most of the tea in the United States ended up in Boston Harbor and it's been a suspect drink ever since. Iced tea is OK, so is a pot of Earl Grey for the refined, but your average tea bag gets short shrift.

But now it's all changed. "More tea, Vicar?" isn't exactly what you'll hear (except in select Episcopalian parishes!) - no, it's more like "More tea, Governor Palin?". For it is she who appears to have galvanised these modern day tea party gatherers into something of a political movement.

I get the impression, though, that this is something for the more waspish conservative than the Conservative WASPS! I mean, the very thought of a dainty doily being sullied by the hairy hand of a redneck, well, it's unthinkable.

In Oregon, a teacher behind an effort to embarrass the tea party movement has been allowed back to work. Good news, I say. Conestoga Middle School teacher Jason Levin was put on paid leave for about a week and a half while officials investigated whether he used school time and resources to build his website, Crash the Tea Party.

District officials determined Levin was not a danger to students and did not share his political views with them. The investigation is ongoing. I wonder what they hope to find? When I was last in Oregon there were road signs up (apparently aimed at those venturing in from another state) which said "Do not Californicate Oregon". Now that may have worked, but in the defence of free speech it may not have.

The very fact that some penpusher has thought it fit to "expose" the teacher as a weirdo liberal says something about American politics currently. Free speech is always to be cherished. It's a pity that in the Land of the Free some are not expected to be as free as others.

Stephen Gately PCC complaint rejected

The article written in the Daily Mail last October by Jan Moir upset quite a few people. In fact the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) received a record 25,000 complaints about the comment piece which was perceived by many to be homophobic. Now that the PCC has ruled it met the criteria of free speech more complaints are coming in about the PCC's judgement.

Free speech in Britain is being seriously undermined by certain interest groups that say you cannot express an opinion if that opinion is trenchant and totally opposite to a specific interest group. Any discussion of homosexuality that introduces opinions that see it as "not normal" is rounded upon as being "homophobic". Homophobia is only a perceived phobia against homosexuals and not against men in general or against similar things. So a person cannot be held to be homophobic about heterosexual men or twins or semi-detached houses. The English language is hostage to those who want to create their own words and meanings. Humpty Dumpty was not wrong.

The article was indeed strongly-worded. I did not read it then but have done since. Regardless of whether Gately was a homosexual or not, the article was prurient and disrespectful. My humble opinion, of course. If Moir wanted to write about such stuff she could have done it in a different context. But this raises the question of rights and privileges. It seems that certain sections of the community (community meaning us all and not an interest group) want their position to be outside the scope of criticism or discussion. But it is fair game to denigrate and abuse others because they are seen as "old-fashioned" or "reactionary".

I find it upsetting that the media in general finds it amusing to mock and denigrate religious symbols and sacred beliefs. But I'm not going to try to get the perpetrators arrested, or fined, or censured. Because I feel free speech, so long as it does not incite violence or physical hatred, is something to be cherished. If we do not have the freedom to speak our minds, then we need to accept we will become a cowering breed of pyscophantic followers.

Last night I was shopping and the supermarket was throwing away bagloads of bread (which happens nightly). I pointed out this to a girl who was filling a plastic bag full of donuts, bread rolls, anything that she could get her hands on. As I disapprove of this arrogant wastage policy of supermarkets I spoke up. The reply was "It get's recycled". One has to wonder whether as bread or as fertiliser for the next wheat crop. A fellow customer felt this was a standard reply that they have "been told to say".

Without free speech we get no change. We cannot highlight rights and wrongs. I trust we can continue to speak our minds without fear or favour, so long as it is with the pen and not the sword.

A Sign of The Times!

The Times may have changed quite a bit since Murdoch got his hands on it but that's no excuse for the BNP to manhandle a reporter in such a way that he nearly got his nose ripped off. Dominic Kennedy is quite at liberty to write what he wants to write. If the BNP bosses think this behaviour is likely to get them votes then they are living in a dream world. If Nick Griffin thinks that the House of Commons will be a delight, he needs to tone things down. In the unlikely event of him being elected he better not let his goons near the place. Anyway, he will be on his own.

This picture is a good example of why nationalist politics is so odious. Mr Kennedy was only doing his job in a democratic environment. I'd give them a wide berth but then I'm not an investigations reporter.