Bomb threat traced to police

A bomb threat which emptied the offices of a newspaper in Luleå in northern Sweden last week has been traced to the town’s police headquarters…?

Where’s Wallander?

See story HERE.

Advertising by WIZARDS andWITCHES to be banned…

You’ll all be reassured by the news that Russia has finally introduced legislation to BAN the advertising of WIZARDS, WITCHES and FAITH HEALERS!

‘Bout bloody time, too!

“Only last year in Moscow 300,000 people turned to the services of wizards and healers according to the Interior Ministry.”

See more HERE!

And HERE.

Woman ‘deceived females into sex’…?

Incredible! What more can be said? Samantha Brooks, twenty-five, has appeared in court accused of tricking a couple of women into sexual contact by masquerading as a man! Not only that, but, it’s alleged, kept up the pretence with one of the alleged victims for SIX YEARS! 

No!?

Read more HERE and weep.

Volcanoes, Banking, and Crime – the Big three…

Oh, Lor, planes across Europe are grounded! Because of the Icelandic Volcano…or more accurately, the ash from same, expelled forcefully into the atmosphere – perhaps, like the dinosaurs we’ll all die out, become extinct?

No doubt these clouds of volcanic ash will block the sun’s rays, cause temperatures to plummet. Soon the World Government EU will be appealing for us all to burn more fossil fuels to warm things up…

What a world we live in. The Banks perform like morons, lend money that can never be repaid, throwing good cash after bad – then, who can really honestly say why, we give ‘em shitloads of cash as the economy goes to hell in a handcart.

Well, it we didn’t bailout the banks, sez accepted wisdom, they would have collapsed. It would have been chaos. It would have undermined faith in our financial services sector.

Is that right?

Does that mean our banks have the “right” – like a God-given right – to act as if they were total fukwits? Not only that. But having lost shitloads of cash, the taxpayers underwrite those losses, and the tossers all slap ‘emselves on the back, and payout bonuses all round!!

Who are the real idiots, do you think?

Going back to poor old Iceland. They’ve recently released a report on the collapse of their three major banks. This has revealed a number of cases of “potential illegality and acts of ‘gross negligence’ within government preceded their demise”.

Ummm. The report alleges there “was possible share price manipulation and exaggeration of asset values within the Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki banks.” It also suggests that the three banks were controlled by five investors who had ‘unlimited influence’ and pressured the banks to make loans to their companies and friendly clients…”

Doesn’t seem possible, does it?

“Among those alleged to have received ‘excessive’ loans were property entrepreneur Robert Tchenguiz who received £1.4 billion, retail tycoon Jon Asgeir Joannesson and former chairman of Landsbanki Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson. The report said: ‘We consider that Kaupthing’s loans to Robert Tchenguiz and companies have been in excess of that which could reasonably be considered a commercial assumption. Rules on large exposures were not followed.’ The report goes on to accuse Iceland’s former prime minister Geir Haarde of acting with ‘gross negligence’ and claims former Icelandic central bank manager David Oddsson refused help from Bank of England governor Mervyn King.”

But there are bigger problems highlighted by this crisis worldwide:

Well, I know coz of the ash spewing from Eyjafjöll I can’t fly off anywhere today, but I can consol myself with the knowledge that the proceeds of organised crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks (worldwide) on the brink of collapse in 2008. Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result of the worldwide banking crisis…

Bit hard on the Colombian drug cartels, eh, what? Still, we should realise from all of this, it’s organised crime generates these hundreds of billions of £s and $s and €s – and as we all know, it’s money makes this world go around. Crime is also one of the biggest growth areas in wealth generation…

Shirt-lifters and Pope Benedict XVI…

Old news this, but I thought I’d vomit up some commentary – as I do, periodically. First, to those of you easily offended, best eff off now. You know what old Peedeel can be like when he gets the bit between his teeth.

So, you’ve been warned.

Remain at your peril.

To begin I’d like to state the obvious: there’s nothing stranger than people! The media, the Blogosphere, even the local pub is a hotbed of gossip, of accusation, of condemnation of poor old Pope Ben…but why?

Yes, yes, yes, we’ve all heard the tales of shirt-lifting priests and cover-ups. A situation that has led to no less a figure than the Archbishop of Canterbury recently suggesting the Irish Catholic Church has ‘lost all credibility’ due to their paedophile priests. And the allegation that in 2007 while still a lowly Cardinal, Thomas Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI, issued a “secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church’s interests ahead of child safety…”

Why should anyone be surprised that Ratzinger – an ex-member of the Hitler Jugend (yes, membership was compulsory in Germany), an ultra-conservative Catholic, ‘enforcer’ of Pope John Paul II in everything but name, and head of the powerful “Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith”, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith – would act in any way differently from the way he has acted?

Ratzinger may well have followed the teachings of Christ – you know? Being a Christian and all that. “Let him who is without guilt cast the first stone”, “turn the other cheek”, and various other pronouncements of forgiveness. Perhaps, naively, he thought these monsters in their bible-black guise of priests were simply misguided, had slipped temporarily from grace, and would now return to the straight and narrow?

Today, of course, as Pope he is Christ’s Vicar on earth. His words are spoken on behalf of Christ. The Catholic Church maintains that he is “preserved from even the possibility of error” in his many decisions and pronouncements. Consequently he is not answerable to any civil authority. He is a head of state, as well as leader of the Catholic faith. Catholic dogma gives him Christ-like characteristics – in part we must come to see him as semi-divine: Christ made flesh. And if you think my concept of God incarnate a tad strong, see HERE I’m not alone in this view.

Yes, the “word turned flesh”. So how could Pope Ben do anything other than forgive? The devil offered temptations and weak souls faltered, strayed from the path. They confessed and repented, forgiveness must follow…

Mustn’t it?

On the other hand, he could have adopted the stance of the leader of the Church in Germany who ‘denounced past failures and mistakes in the Church’s handling of complaints of child rape and other abuse. The Church in the country of the Pope’s birth is in crisis after dozens of people came forward alleging that they were abused as minors by priests.

“Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg said that news of sexual and physical abuse by priests left the Church with sadness, horror and shame. He said that clerics failed to help victims by a “wrongly intended desire to protect the Church’s reputation” and called on the Church to face this painful reality. He added: “Wounds were inflicted that are hardly curable.”’

So Pope Ben might have cared a little less about an institution and a lot more about the souls of his “flock”. Might have, but didn’t. For here we see an example of “corporate religion” in action: the importance is “the singer not the song”; the imposing edifice of the Roman Catholic Church seen as an entity in its own right – somehow independent of the hoards of Catholic faithful, who assume secondary importance in these affairs of their Church – and of the Church’s leader.

In-effin-credible, in’it?

Man selling his son online…

“A US man tried to sell his son online for $5,000.

The unnamed man – who left an advert on Craigslist, a local classifieds website – said he was putting his four-year-old son up for sale because he had run out of child care options.

The Spokane County Sheriff Department in Washington believes the advertisement is real and are currently trying to track down the father who set an asking price of $5,000.

See HERE.

Unpublished drawings and Uncompleted novel of Kafka at the centre of Israel Legal Battle….

There is a struggle going on between Israel and Germany, between a Jewish refugee family from Prague and Israeli public opinion over a collection of papers that might include unpublished works by the celebrated 20th Century writer Franz Kafka.

Kafka became famous in spite of himself. Just before he died in 1924, the young novelist, who suffered from various mental and physical illnesses, entrusted his friend, Max Brod, with a collection of handwritten documents.

He asked him to destroy the unpublished manuscripts after his death. Brod ignored his friend’s last wishes, allowing the world to enjoy great works such as The Trial and Metamorphosis.

The rest of the papers, possibly including great literary treasures – no-one is quite sure – are locked in safety deposit boxes in Switzerland and in Israel along, it is thought, with money and other private belongings of Esther Hoffe.

Scholars believe the deposit boxes contain unpublished drawings by Kafka. Maybe even the original manuscript of Kafka’s uncompleted novel, Wedding Preparations in the Country.

See more HERE.

Democracy, the rights of the child, and the crucifix

Let me make it clear to begin with that I’ve never needed the prop of a primitive Hebrew sky God to get me through life – never needed the support of any desert derivatives of that God, either! No praying; no rituals; no icons or relics of varying degrees of religiosity.

Even as a little boy at school with morning assembly and prayers every day, I didn’t “believe” (couldn’t “believe”!) in this “personal God” (of the Jews and of the Christians) who listened in to everyone’s prayers, occasionally answering them, more often not bothering; this God who was interested in my daily transgressions, regardless of how big or small they may have been; this God whose power and actions appeared totally arbitrary to me then (and now); and whose “outlook” and “expectations” seemed more those of an ill educated desert patriarch than a “God”! I saw him (her? It?) as some sort of Jewish, Christian, Muslim Zeus! And equally as mythic!

However, I did like some of the hymns, and I absolutely loved the Christmas carols!

So, you see, I have no particular axe to grind over organised religion: orthodox Jews who wish to practice three thousand year old rituals today, well, good luck to them. Christians who hijacked the Hebrew sky God two thousand years ago, and gave him a Son made flesh, good luck to them too. And to the followers of Islam, the religion of submission, that flowered into existence in north-west Africa in the seventh century, if it provides the necessary crutch for them to face each fresh day, well so be it, and best of luck to them, also. May they all live in peace and harmony with each other and their God (Gods?).

After all each of these religions are primarily about guilt, it’s only the holidays (Holy days?) that differ.

So, what’s my point? Well, yesterday someone mentioned my blog to me: in particular they happened to mention my comments on the European Court’s ruling on the crucifix; they were “puzzled” (and I quote) by my response. It took me a moment to understand exactly what they were referring to: it’s this HERE, harmless enough on the surface, but apparently it was my subsequent comments that caused concern and confusion.

I am of an age where I’m able to create confusion wherever I go (or so it frequently seems to me and to others?). There’s no defense against this. It’s a totally natural phenomenon with which I find myself gifted (a gift bestowed, perhaps, by the smile of Vishnu; or there again, the subtlest hint of early onset Alzheimer’s? I can’t be certain which). Anyway, I digress. Confusion has arisen. So I dedicate this blog entry to clarification of what for me is a particularly difficult subject:

Democracy, the rights of the child, and the crucifix – for crucifix you could, if you wished, substitute any religious iconography: the crescent, for example; the Star of David; the depiction of Mary with little Jesus. It really doesn’t matter. For according to the European Court, Italy, by displaying crucifixes in the classrooms of state schools, is breaching the rights of the attending children.

One question I would ask at the outset: exactly what “rights” does a child have in reality? I thinks this is important: not theoretical “rights”, but actual “rights”? Do they, for instance, have the “right” to choose whether to attend school or not? Can they decline participation in any or all of the various activities found in the average school, assuming they wish to attend in the first place? And are the child’s “rights” the same regardless of the age of the child?

I would suggest that the answer to my first question is NO! Within Europe school attendance is mandatory for children. So, there is an element of compulsion involved in school attendance. A child, possibly against his or her will, is forced into school. But what of his or her “rights”? A child may have the “right” to an education, but if he or she doesn’t wish to attend school – what then? Isn’t compulsion a breach of that child’s human “rights”?

Apparently not. It seems there’s a universal desire on the part of European governments / societies to say “BOG OFF! You go to school and that’s it! End of story!” Children have no real say in the matter; no “right”, in fact, to object.

At this point I will introduce a personal anecdote from my own school days. I hated…no! I HATED geometry and Latin. Learning by heart all those bloody theorems and then having to stand up in class and recite them – without really understanding what the hell they meant – caused me more psychological damage than any morning assembly with its twee prayers and motivational sermon.

Often at night I’d lay awake and imagine my Geometry master being burned at the stake as a witch or idolater; or by mistake, instead of the straw-filled Guy on the fifth of November. His pain as those flames licked about his feet and legs was as nothing in comparison to mine struggling with all those theorems!

And the Latin? The Latin was hell, too!

“O Emmanuel, Rex et legifer noster, expectatio gentium, et Salvator earum: veni ad salvandum nos, Domine Deus noster.”

My Latin master was a Frenchman (this gets better: my French master was a lovely gentleman from northern India! Consequently, all over France when I speak to people for the first time, they frown, puzzled, and they ask: ‘Excuse-moi. Êtes-vous sur les Indiens?’ Apparently it’s my French accent that’s the problem). Our Latin master was also mentally unstable. Any error in Latin translation by one of his pupils would be rewarded by an hysterical outburst where he’d jabber away in French, and literally froth at the mouth!

On such occasions where were my “rights”? Where were the “rights” of children then?

Answer: Off to hell in a hand cart! We didn’t have any!

However, this digression aside, the European Court has decided that a Child does have “rights” which by its ruling seem confined to a “child’s right to freedom of religion.”

The Strasbourg court found that: “The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities… restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions.”

Ummm, I see.

It also restricted the “right of children to believe or not to believe”, the seven judges ruling on the case said in a statement quoted by AFP news agency.

The “right of children to believe or not to believe” – so, what about all those children who have to attend church, synagogue, mosque on a daily, weekly basis in company with parents or guardians? Especially when they don’t want to be there. What about them?

What about those children “forced” into a faith school?

Oh, wait, I see. A parent has the “right” to inflict their convictions on a child; but not the state. Is that it? Is that what this nonsense is about? The child has the “right” to be subjugated to the religious convictions of parents/guardians, and all the religious iconography that may entail. Oh, WOW, that’s quite a “right” to have, isn’t it? Bet all the children across Europe are sleeping happily in their beds with that knowledge to comfort them.

But the more one studies the ruling of the seven Strasbourg judges all dressed in their Bible black gowns, the more absurd it seems!

The case was brought by Soile Lautsi, a mother of two who claimed public schools in her northern Italian town refused eight years ago to remove the Roman Catholic symbols from classrooms. She had maintained that the crucifix violates the secular principles the public schools are supposed to uphold, and the right to offer her children a secular education.

The court’s final decision created uproar in Italy – understandably so. Because 55.8 million (96%) of the population of Italy (57.6m) is Roman Catholic! But worse still, believer or unbeliever, they see this as an imposition from OUTSIDE of their country; and from OUTSIDE of their culture!

And that, too, is what I have a problem with! This solution is being imposed from the OUTSIDE without due consideration of the majority of people living in Italy.

The court said the crucifix: “could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion”.

No kidding? They wouldn’t have realised this from the thousands of Churches all over the country, or from the 50,000 Roman Catholic Priests working in the country, or from the situation of the Pope in the Vatican in Rome? No? Or from the many Priests teaching in the state schools which they attend?

Like it or not, even without the crucifixes, Children will still feel they are being educated in a “school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion”. Unless they’re plain stupid? How could it be otherwise?

The Italian government launched an immediate appeal against the court decision.

The EU Parliament decided in December to postpone its vote on a resolution concerning the judgment of the European Court. MEPs held a heated debate on the issue but decided to check the admissibility of the vote and the resolution!

It gets better and better!

Meanwhile, the Italian Constitutional Court have quietly ruled that where conflict exists between Italian legislation and rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, only the Italian legislation will be seen as legitimate and enforceable:

“where rulings by the European Court of Human Rights conflict with provisions of the Italian Constitution, such rulings lack legitimacy”.

In most areas of the country, local officials have acquired dozens more crucifixes to display in public schools; in Montegrotto Terme, the digital billboards normally used for public information are now displaying the crucifix with the phrase, “We will not take it down.” And according to the Italian daily “Avvenire,” the mayor of Sezzadio, Pier Luigi Arnera, has leveled a fine of 500 euros against anyone who removes a crucifix from a public place!

Oh, well, that’s one piece of legislation that worked! Bless the European experiment! It’s united Italians almost unanimously behind the Roman Catholic Church and the crucifix.

On a personal note this situation has introduced an element of déjà vu into my life. There have been a number of confrontations in the past between Catholic Italy and the European Court. None of them have been particularly uplifting experiences.

The Court has made a number of sweeping pronouncements over the years; it is present, like God, in every aspect of its “creations” and, unlike God, it makes mistakes; upholding the ban of female headscarves in Turkey. The new Turkish government simply shrugged (metaphorically speaking) and ignored the ruling. Even more controversial has been the Court’s support of France in suppressing or removing religious iconography and dress in public places. Unfortunately, some of these rulings, while well meant, cause cultural dislocation. These decisions do not take into consideration the desires of the majority of the population concerned. They are undemocratic, if you will.

Put simply, all this is yet another example of “one size does not fit all”.

For a child it may seem they exist in a monstrously unjust society. All is compulsion and coercion. In an ideal world crucifixes or religious symbols would not be on school walls – any school walls. But change will only come through increased consciousness not compulsion.

The European Court’s decision is stupid. Logically, if their concern is the child, then wouldn’t it be more consistent to ban children under the age of eighteen from attending ANY church, synagogue, mosque, whatever, when they will be of an age to make up their own mind about religion?

Instead we have this peculiar, semi-logical elastoplast of a ruling which has pissed off a whole country and done nothing, absolutely NOTHING for the “rights” of children in Italy or anywhere else come to that!

Does this clarify my comments in the earlier blog entry? I’m not sure.

My final suggestion would be for the passing of “constitutional” laws making it impossible for anyone who believes in an intelligent God, bearded or otherwise, to be elected to any important position in government in the UK, the EU and the USA. Will it happen? No, it won’t. Nor will they take the crucifixes down in Italian schools within my lifetime. No matter what the wise and the good of Strasbourg may have to say about it.

Metamorphosis

So you wake up one morning as a Chav – in fact you could be king of the Chavs, for all I know!

No, scrap that, EMPEROR of the flaming Chavs! In fact, you’re behaviour could make Ming the Merciless look like Mother Teresa of Calcutta (Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu – now, of course, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, since her beatification by Pope John Paul)!

Anyway, you wake as a Chav (like Gregor Samsa in Kafka’s ‘‘Die Verwandlung’’ – “The Metamorphosis” – who woke terribly transformed), so what are you going to do about it?

Let’s give this a little thought: Samsa in Kafka’s novel found himself transformed into a giant earwig-like or cockroach-like insect; subsequently he became a burden to his family who kept him locked up and isolated in his room. Obviously Kafka used Samsa and his fate as a metaphor for oppression (in this instance the oppression of Capitalism and duty) and alienation (from society).

Now, as a Chav, duty won’t be much of a problem for you – other than excise duty, that is. And likely the only oppression you experience is the cost of Stella, aka “wife beater”, and the whiney neighbours who secretly (illegally?)film you taking a dump on their front lawn after a night down the pub with mates. Naughty, naughty, neighbours.

In fact, chances are after your metamorphosis, you could become an oppressor yourself – to neighbours, local authority officials, police, you name it. So you’ll soon come to realise being a Chav does have advantages. You, most likely, will alienate society! You’ll certainly piss off your neighbours at the very least (but not the really hard cases, eh?).

So, as a brand new Chav, what should you do to begin?

Make a “to do” list, prioritise your objectives: a five point list is good; ten points is better. But remember – it’s best to include a “time scale”, a deadline by which to achieve your chosen objectives! You should also keep in mind, as a Chav, you’ll no longer be numbered among the seven million or so semi-literate individuals living within UK borders; instead you’ll have joined the vast number of happily illiterate folks, the unintelligentsia, who spend their time watching six year old repeats of Big Brother on digital TV while consuming Doner Kebabs and dripping rancid lamb fat on the sofa.

So, the list (an example):

1. Fink upmarkit – go fer Shish Kebab. An not a crappy half a pitta with chips stuffed in, niver. Go the ‘ole hog. Big bits of burnt greasy meat. Yum, yum, yum. From tonite.
2. Get an ASBO. ASP. Aim to win three of these special Nu Labor awards by end of Feb. Show yer a man (sorry) MAN and not a big woman’s pee thing.
3. Don’t take ketamine wen you’ve bin sniffing Bostick or nail varnish remover or doin a lot ov weed – unless yer Income Support or other benefit payments are late. From next week.
4. Each time a cop car passes, shout in yer loudest voice: “Can I smell bacon?” From Today.
5. If it move, shag it (not yer stupid sisters/bruvers, unless nofink better about/available).

Over Arching Goal:

Wot would everyone say if we Chavs behaved like the countries of the world? I’ll tell yer. They would say wer stupid, crass, ignorant, hopeless. That’s right, init? Yet they’re worse, in they? So it’s about time we took over.

So, to recap: you’ve woken one morning, climbed from bed, glanced in the mirror and quietly said: “My God, I’m a Chav.” Despair not. While the word Chav supposedly stands for “Council House and Violent” later usage has diminished the need of a “Council House” though a particular attitude of mind, supported by irrational tantrums, violent outbursts and total selfishness, is essential. Make your “to do” list now.

Remember: fail to plan and you plan to fail!

Today is the first day of the rest of your life. Your behavior from this point on must (MUST) have far reaching social ramifications. When approached or arrested by police officers, you say: “No comment” to each question asked. Confronted by Social Workers explain you are suffering from ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder) which will be sufficient mitigation for even the most extremely aberrant behavior imaginable (especially with your now much lower IQ).

Remember: The World Is Your Oyster.

In particular you should express (with me) a particular debt of gratitude to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Nu Labour whose policies (pursued with such single-minded vigor) constitute one of the biggest experiments in social engineering ever witnessed in this nation; and without which the concept of a “Chav” could never have existed! The bright fabric of our day-to-day lives would accordingly have been seriously diminished. Socialism for the oughties has ensured a growing gap between rich and poor. It played the part of Robin Hood in reverse. It ensured we have a Police Force more concerned with “quotas” and “equality” than actual “policing”. The rise of the Chav coincided with an upsurge in the problem of binge drinking and anti-social behavior.

So, a final word or two from our new born Chav?

“Big shout out to all da boys, its fer life an yous knows it! Nu labor is fookin’ beeest! Them Conservative r all twats! I’ll fookin’ kill ‘em! The BNP is like Nu Labor, init? So okay. Izzit right, this election stuff? Fookit, I sez. Lets get twatted , go fookin’ mental, like. Lets just hav a government for life.”

Act on Co2