Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Thursday, June 04, 2009
The use of the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence discourages debate, denies the public access to the full picture and encourages use of the courts to silence critics. The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic through an open discussion in the medical literature or mainstream media.
Today Simon Singh announces that he is applying to appeal the judge's recent pre-trial ruling in this case, in conjunction with the launch of this support campaign to defend the right of the pubic to read the views of scientists and writers.
Join the campaign! In a statement published today, over 100 people from the worlds of science, journalism, publishing, comedy, literature and law have joined together to express support for Simon and call for an urgent review of English law of libel. Please help us with this campaign, sign the statement and tell everyone you know to sign it.
Today Simon Singh announces that he is applying to appeal the judge's recent pre-trial ruling in this case, in conjunction with the launch of this support campaign to defend the right of the pubic to read the views of scientists and writers.
Join the campaign! In a statement published today, over 100 people from the worlds of science, journalism, publishing, comedy, literature and law have joined together to express support for Simon and call for an urgent review of English law of libel. Please help us with this campaign, sign the statement and tell everyone you know to sign it.
Labels: alternative 'medicine', chiropractic, health, law, petitions
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Maximum Bogusity, Man.
Nick Cohen: Why are they trying to gag a top British science writer?. The British Chiropractic Association and the English legal system= MONUMENTAL FAIL.
Jack of Kent is said to be the place to be for up to the minute information on this.
Chiropractic? Bogus. Utterly, utterly bogus. Do pass it on will you?
Jack of Kent is said to be the place to be for up to the minute information on this.
Chiropractic? Bogus. Utterly, utterly bogus. Do pass it on will you?
Labels: alternative 'medicine', chiropractic, health, law
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Christian Voice Watch
Stephen Green, the solo Christian protester who masquerades under the name 'Christian Voice', an imaginary coterie of charmless bigots, takes time out of his busy schedule of looking in gutters and down the back of chairs for loose change to pay off his massive legal costs to call for the restoration of the death penalty. Yep, he's one of those Christians that pay more attention to the Old Testament than the New.
'In the Christian understanding, upon which our laws are or should be based, the death penalty was given to mankind for perpetuity under God's covenant with Noah. That covenant was sealed with the sign of the rainbow (Genesis 9:12-13). 'The Bible verse says: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6, AV) and it goes on to explain why: "for in the image of God made He man."
As ever, the strain of making a logical argument proves too much for Green:
'In fact we set the value of a human life even lower. In the sixties, with the abolition of the death penalty in 1965 and the Abortion Act 1967, our politicians took away the death penalty from the guilty, by the state, where it belongs, and imposed it upon the innocent, within the family, where it does not. The result is a society with no compassion for the victims of crime and their families or for the weaker members of society. We see this today in the callous nature of crimes committed by teenagers on each other and in the increasing brutality of Britain.
Yes, we need to get rid of women's access to safe abortion services and bring back the death penalty to make the United Kingdom a less brutal place.
'The death penalty should not be available to judges for all convicted murderers, just for those convicted by overwhelming evidence: that is on the testimony of two or three eye-witnesses, or the equivalent in forensics.
Why do judges need 'two or three eyewitnesses' before Green lets them do what his God is so keen for them to do? And what about soldiers or police marksmen?
It's worth reading to see how Green doesn't really understand the legal system, which possibly explains why he's in the mess he's in at the moment.
'The Governments' proposed 'seriously wronged' defence will not command public confidence, as most people would agree that the commission of adultery is a serious wrong; yet that is to be specifically excluded.
As I understand it, should someone kill their partner due to discovering they were being adulterous, they will not be able to use the 'seriously wronged' defense to get a lesser charge. So this would be a good thing.
However, it would be right to abolish the defence of diminished responsibility - no-one has the right to diminish another's responsibility.
A plea of 'diminished responsibility' is usually used by someone pleading guilty in the hopes of receiving a less severe sentence. I've never heard of someone diminishing another's responsibility and would love to hear Green's explanation for this.
It all just shows how wrong we can get it when man presumes to make laws which should be made by Almighty God.'
Hmmm, sounds like this Jehova chappy should be arrested and prosecuted for Incitement if you ask me.
'In the Christian understanding, upon which our laws are or should be based, the death penalty was given to mankind for perpetuity under God's covenant with Noah. That covenant was sealed with the sign of the rainbow (Genesis 9:12-13). 'The Bible verse says: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6, AV) and it goes on to explain why: "for in the image of God made He man."
As ever, the strain of making a logical argument proves too much for Green:
'In fact we set the value of a human life even lower. In the sixties, with the abolition of the death penalty in 1965 and the Abortion Act 1967, our politicians took away the death penalty from the guilty, by the state, where it belongs, and imposed it upon the innocent, within the family, where it does not. The result is a society with no compassion for the victims of crime and their families or for the weaker members of society. We see this today in the callous nature of crimes committed by teenagers on each other and in the increasing brutality of Britain.
Yes, we need to get rid of women's access to safe abortion services and bring back the death penalty to make the United Kingdom a less brutal place.
'The death penalty should not be available to judges for all convicted murderers, just for those convicted by overwhelming evidence: that is on the testimony of two or three eye-witnesses, or the equivalent in forensics.
Why do judges need 'two or three eyewitnesses' before Green lets them do what his God is so keen for them to do? And what about soldiers or police marksmen?
It's worth reading to see how Green doesn't really understand the legal system, which possibly explains why he's in the mess he's in at the moment.
'The Governments' proposed 'seriously wronged' defence will not command public confidence, as most people would agree that the commission of adultery is a serious wrong; yet that is to be specifically excluded.
As I understand it, should someone kill their partner due to discovering they were being adulterous, they will not be able to use the 'seriously wronged' defense to get a lesser charge. So this would be a good thing.
However, it would be right to abolish the defence of diminished responsibility - no-one has the right to diminish another's responsibility.
A plea of 'diminished responsibility' is usually used by someone pleading guilty in the hopes of receiving a less severe sentence. I've never heard of someone diminishing another's responsibility and would love to hear Green's explanation for this.
It all just shows how wrong we can get it when man presumes to make laws which should be made by Almighty God.'
Hmmm, sounds like this Jehova chappy should be arrested and prosecuted for Incitement if you ask me.
Labels: Christian Voice, Fundamentalists- Christian, law, Stephen Green
Friday, March 07, 2008
Poor old Stephen Green, head/sole member of charmless bigots Christian Voice. He's not having a great time of things at the moment. First, The Law Lords have ruled that his spat with the BBC and producers of Jerry Springer: The Opera has indeed reached it's end.
The decision of the House of Lords, in conceding that there was a point of law at issue - that of whether theatres and broadcasters have a legal loophole to blaspheme - but declining to hear it on a pretext, brings the Jerry Springer the Opera case to an end. It means there is no redress in British law against those who portrayed Jesus Christ on stage and on the BBC as an infantile coprophiliac, told by the character of Jerry Springer in the show to 'Grow up for Christ's sake and put some f***ing clothes on.' Apparently Jesus Christ, Mary the mother of the Lord and Almighty God may now be ridiculed and insulted on stage and by broadcasters free from the sanctions of the law.
Stephen Green said, 'Contrary to the finding of these Law Lords, it is indeed a matter of great general public importance at this very time that the Almighty Creator of the universe and the Saviour of mankind have been insulted and vilified in this United Kingdom. It brings down the judgment of God on us all. I love my neighbour and I do not want that to happen.
'Christians will now have to take matters into their own hands when Christ is insulted on stage and on screen. As it happens, our campaign against the theatre tour of Jerry Springer the Opera was highly successful, by the grace of God. The producers and theatres lost a fortune and Stewart Lee himself said it was 'ruined'. Blasphemy isn't going to happen on stage in the United Kingdom, it's just that unless and until this loophole is closed, Christians will have to find avenues other than those of the law.
Notice that? If Stephen Green had dark skin then surely the Plod would be feeling his collar and he might expect a visit to Camp X-Ray, seeing as we have a barely coded incitement to violence right there in the third paragraph.
Unfortunately it gets worse for the Christian extremist hate-peddler as, in an as-yet unreported move, the UK blasphemy laws are taken round behind the shed and humanely put down. The National Secular Society celebrate, though the Government will still be trying to bring in the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill which will do much the same thing. Still, anything that pisses off Stephen Green is a good thing.
The decision of the House of Lords, in conceding that there was a point of law at issue - that of whether theatres and broadcasters have a legal loophole to blaspheme - but declining to hear it on a pretext, brings the Jerry Springer the Opera case to an end. It means there is no redress in British law against those who portrayed Jesus Christ on stage and on the BBC as an infantile coprophiliac, told by the character of Jerry Springer in the show to 'Grow up for Christ's sake and put some f***ing clothes on.' Apparently Jesus Christ, Mary the mother of the Lord and Almighty God may now be ridiculed and insulted on stage and by broadcasters free from the sanctions of the law.
Stephen Green said, 'Contrary to the finding of these Law Lords, it is indeed a matter of great general public importance at this very time that the Almighty Creator of the universe and the Saviour of mankind have been insulted and vilified in this United Kingdom. It brings down the judgment of God on us all. I love my neighbour and I do not want that to happen.
'Christians will now have to take matters into their own hands when Christ is insulted on stage and on screen. As it happens, our campaign against the theatre tour of Jerry Springer the Opera was highly successful, by the grace of God. The producers and theatres lost a fortune and Stewart Lee himself said it was 'ruined'. Blasphemy isn't going to happen on stage in the United Kingdom, it's just that unless and until this loophole is closed, Christians will have to find avenues other than those of the law.
Notice that? If Stephen Green had dark skin then surely the Plod would be feeling his collar and he might expect a visit to Camp X-Ray, seeing as we have a barely coded incitement to violence right there in the third paragraph.
Unfortunately it gets worse for the Christian extremist hate-peddler as, in an as-yet unreported move, the UK blasphemy laws are taken round behind the shed and humanely put down. The National Secular Society celebrate, though the Government will still be trying to bring in the Incitement to Religious Hatred Bill which will do much the same thing. Still, anything that pisses off Stephen Green is a good thing.
Labels: Christian Voice, Fundamentalists- Christian, Jerry Springer The Opera, law, Stephen Green
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Archbishop defends Sharia remarks. But can Rowan Williams survive The Sun's frothage?
Arch enemy: Bash the Bishop.
Nearly 15,000 Sun readers rang our You the Jury hotline urging him to go.
That phone number being 1111 1111111.
Meanwhile our phone lines and email queues were flooded by furious responses.
Brian Fuller, 46, of Luton, said: "This is the guy who leads our country’s religion and it sounds like he’s given up. He’ll soon be asking us all to face Mecca when we say our prayers."
That sounds like someone who has his finger on the pulse of current debate. Williams wants a discussion on letting Muslim courts decide things = Turning this country into an Islamic state.
Fiona Jones, 38, from Lincoln, said: "I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I thought we were a Christian country."
Wherever did you get that idea from? And if you'd like to believe it is, why are you reading The Sun, which surely breaks any number of the Christian God's laws?
The Sun bus visited the Archbishop’s Lambeth Palace residence in South London with Page 3 girls Mel and Peta — and blasted out Rule Britannia.
Again with the whole turning Britain into an Islamic state thing. And when will The Sun do a media stunt of which the main part of it doesn't involve their page three girls?
We got honks of support from drivers, but Dr Williams stayed firmly indoors.
I don't know, maybe he only wanted to talk to people who understood what he'd said the other day?
As it is, I think Williams is wrong, but I'm not standing with the mentally challenged halfwits whose idea of political debate begins with The Sun speak your brains phoneline and ends with the words of an ancient Australian put into the mouth of some girl who has taken her top off.
This is much the same as when Williams threw the Church of England behind the Catholic Church's attempts to get an opt-out for their homophobia from equality laws. Williams is playing the long game, he doesn't mind a religious plurality, he just wants more religion in the country. If we have Sharia courts dictating what Muslims do (and there are also Beth Din courts that work in a similar fashion in Jewish communities) then we can have the courts for the rest of us getting back to good old fashioned Christian values, abolishing gay marriage and gay rights, rolling back womens rights, abolishing divorce.
I'm not claiming that Rowan Williams wants society to go back five hundred years but I am rather dubious of the claims I've heard from some quarters that just because he looks like Great Uncle Bulgaria he's cuddly and friendly and would just love to let gays live openly in Anglicanism if only those horrid African bishops wouldn't cause a fuss.
I tend to think we could do with less religious jurisprudence rather than more, but then I'm the godless atheist so I would think that wouldn't I?
Arch enemy: Bash the Bishop.
Nearly 15,000 Sun readers rang our You the Jury hotline urging him to go.
That phone number being 1111 1111111.
Meanwhile our phone lines and email queues were flooded by furious responses.
Brian Fuller, 46, of Luton, said: "This is the guy who leads our country’s religion and it sounds like he’s given up. He’ll soon be asking us all to face Mecca when we say our prayers."
That sounds like someone who has his finger on the pulse of current debate. Williams wants a discussion on letting Muslim courts decide things = Turning this country into an Islamic state.
Fiona Jones, 38, from Lincoln, said: "I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I thought we were a Christian country."
Wherever did you get that idea from? And if you'd like to believe it is, why are you reading The Sun, which surely breaks any number of the Christian God's laws?
The Sun bus visited the Archbishop’s Lambeth Palace residence in South London with Page 3 girls Mel and Peta — and blasted out Rule Britannia.
Again with the whole turning Britain into an Islamic state thing. And when will The Sun do a media stunt of which the main part of it doesn't involve their page three girls?
We got honks of support from drivers, but Dr Williams stayed firmly indoors.
I don't know, maybe he only wanted to talk to people who understood what he'd said the other day?
As it is, I think Williams is wrong, but I'm not standing with the mentally challenged halfwits whose idea of political debate begins with The Sun speak your brains phoneline and ends with the words of an ancient Australian put into the mouth of some girl who has taken her top off.
This is much the same as when Williams threw the Church of England behind the Catholic Church's attempts to get an opt-out for their homophobia from equality laws. Williams is playing the long game, he doesn't mind a religious plurality, he just wants more religion in the country. If we have Sharia courts dictating what Muslims do (and there are also Beth Din courts that work in a similar fashion in Jewish communities) then we can have the courts for the rest of us getting back to good old fashioned Christian values, abolishing gay marriage and gay rights, rolling back womens rights, abolishing divorce.
I'm not claiming that Rowan Williams wants society to go back five hundred years but I am rather dubious of the claims I've heard from some quarters that just because he looks like Great Uncle Bulgaria he's cuddly and friendly and would just love to let gays live openly in Anglicanism if only those horrid African bishops wouldn't cause a fuss.
I tend to think we could do with less religious jurisprudence rather than more, but then I'm the godless atheist so I would think that wouldn't I?
Labels: Christianity, courts, Islam, law, religion, Rowan Williams
