Sunday, November 14, 2004

If you're ever at chez Flowers and you need something to cheer you up, then ask me to do something that involves the manipulation of two objects. The easiest example would be to pass me your empty glass and ask for a refill from the wine bottle in my fridge (I tend to disdain red wine in favour of white). Then see if I come back with a full glass of wine or the bottle. I just went to fill my glass with water from the jug, only to find myself wandering back in to the room with the jug, rather than the filled glass. I seem to do that a lot these days, if it's an early sign of some incipient brain disease could someone tell me so I can enjoy myself saying 'bollocks' to old ladies and priests or shooting David Blunkett before I'm too gaga to care any more?

A little over a week ago 'J' left as a comment on one of my posts: You are so far disconnected from reality. Your apparent position that there is some sort of inherent value to tolerance is downright stupid. Get a clue. Not to mention it is also completely inconsistent with YOUR OWN intolerance of Christianity, the right, and (this next one is a pure assumption) Adolf Hitler. Now, Godwins Law dictates I'm legally allowed to set fire to hirs shoes. I doubt this is going to change hirs mind about me, reading their current first post in their blog suggests a fervent desire that intolerance be the cornerstone of someone's ethical framework. I would invite hir to return and expand on that rather cryptic comment somewhat, perhaps in the form of comments that make some sense?

Good news for Tories at last: Two-thirds of UK whites say they are biased against members of minorities. Nothing yet up on the website of Stonewall who produced the report. But if the Conservative party, reeling from the sacking of one of the few members of it's front bench that the public could recognise, is quick it can capitalise on this hatred of people of a different skin colour, lifestyle or religious beliefs before other rascist parties like the BNP or the Labour Party claim it first.

This coming week sees the start of 'Gorgeous' George Galloway's libel trial against the Daily Telegraph. Ten minutes after the end of the Allies invasion of Iraq a Telegraph writer searched through a looted building and found that, although everything else had been ripped out, a shoebox containing documents relating to Galloway being paid money by the Iraqi regime was all that remained. But interestingly Mr Galloway's legal team, headed by one of the country's most expensive libel lawyers, has not disputed that the documents are genuine, and has accepted that the case be heard by a judge without a jury. (My emphasis)

Really? Now, maybe they are having to do this because they cannot prove they aren't genuine, but I thought he'd already won damages by proving they weren't genuine, so the Church and their lawyers might be watching this case with interest. It seems odd that Galloway seems to be going for a fairly weak technicality, that The Daily Telegraph's reporting of the discovery went beyond what was justified by the words in the Iraqi documents.


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?