Into The Black – Year 4
For a thousand years, it is I alone
Who sorts the students, and gives them their home
The brave, the bold and the cunning, the wise
It is I who says where their future lies
For those who see what darkness holds
The year of strife for you unfolds
The one alone will find a friend
And maybe more by year’s sad end
Four shall fight, and two will fall
The Chosen then then heed the call
But remember the truth you soldiers of light
About what will happen when good men fight
An Appallingly Sycophantic Rant
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/dont-panic/rich-famous-more-legal-protection-180433652.html
So how much does Joe Wade get paid by the tabloid papers to write this drivel? I haven’t seen such a sycophantic rant in a good long while, and quite honestly this guy should be ashamed of himself.
Setting aside the fact that today a man falsely accused of murder gave evidence about how his life was utterly ruined by the press, setting aside the fact that Charlotte Church’s parents (who are not celebrities, by any definition of the term you use) were targeted and setting aside that the only claim to fame Milly Dowler’s parents have were that their daughter was brutally murdered, the fact that someone is in the public eye doesn’t make their private life a public matter.
“Poor super rich Max Mosley” son killed himself because of the press intrusion. And the lack of sympathy and respect shown by Mr Wade is pretty appalling – pretty much as bad as the people who wrote the stories originally.
“our right to know about whether rich and powerful people are behaving in a reprehensible manner”
What right? Since when do we have a right to know how JK Rowling behaves in private? And what possible interest is that to the public? What right does the public have to know about Steve Coogan’s private life?
And while you could argue that MPs’ private lives might have some public interest angle (if the member for Fredonia is demanding that adultery be made a crime punishable by prison and yet all the while is having extra-marital affairs then yes – that is in the public interest), using that argument to defending taking pictures of Anne Diamond at her son’s funeral is the act of an utter fool (and yes, I know that is a weak description, but since the f word, c word, b word and t word would get censored, it is about the best one I can come up with, but suffice to say I am comparing him to a child born out of wedlock).
“The same secret filming techniques that invaded Mosely’s private life were used to expose serious corruption in international cricket”
So because it was once used for a good cause, you can now use it for any purpose you wish without it being an appalling and reprehensible act? So if tomorrow someone hacking Cameron’s phone reveals he is actually a Russian spy, that excuses the activities of the people who hacked Milly Dowler’s phone and Hugh Grant’s phone and Charlotte Church’s phone?
Of course it doesn’t. The fact that techniques can be used for good as well as evil doesn’t mean that they are acceptable when used for evil. The police use telephoto lenses to take pictures of suspected criminals and drug deals, but I think that people would agree using a telephoto lens to take a picture of a child in a swimsuit (just because she happens to have a famous mother) is an entirely different matter.
Every human being has a right to a private life. And if the press can not respect that, and if their “voluntary code” can’t make them respect that then there should be laws to make them respect it.
Which, for someone who believes passionately in the freedom of the press, is not an easy thing to say. Which, in turn, should give you some idea of just how bad the situation has become.
Luna Lovegood – The Evidence Of Things Not Seen
Of all the characters in Harry Potter, I have to admit that my favourite is Luna Lovegood. While a lot of people don’t like her because she is (at first glance) essentially just comic relief, once you look at her in more detail, she becomes a far more interesting character.
And, as time has gone on, I have begun to realise that her core beliefs – or what I take to be her core beliefs – are mine as well. That I have believed in things without any proof or evidence for longer than I can remember, regardless of how many (or how few) other people believe in them.
The Cumple-Horned Snorkack is the key example of this.
Hermione Granger – a very model of a modern young woman – doesn’t believe in the existance of the Snorkack (Crumple-Horned or otherwise) because she hasn’t seen it, and she hasn’t found any pictures or accounts in the various books she has read.
But Luna Lovegood – the comic side-kick – believes in it. Because her father says it is real and because she doesn’t demand evidence that it is real, but evidence that it isn’t.
And I have to say, I side with Luna on this.
I first heard the song “Puff The Magic Dragon” when I was a kid, and even then I found it said that Jacky Paper would grow up and leave his friend behind. But back then, I had no concept of what being grown up was like – no kid really does.
But now – well now I am all grown up, and I still don’t get how Jacky Paper could want to leave that world behind. A world where you can run, jump and fight. Where you can consort with Kings and Dragons, Pirates and Princes.
I’m all grown up – I have a house, a mortgage, a job. I have responsibilities and lots of grown up things to do. And I do them – I go to work, I pay my bills, my taxes and so on, and I think that I handle being a grown up pretty well.
But where Jacky and I differ – where I tend to side with Luna – is that I refuse to stop living the world I lived in as a child. Or at least, I refuse to stop believing the things I believed in as a child.
No one can adequetely prove to me that Dragons doesn’t exist. No one can adequetly prove that magic isn’t real. No one has shown me evidence to prove that Snorkacks, flying monkies and Arakeen Sandwormds don’t exist.
And while I understand the argument that you can’t prove a negative, however I would counter that if you can’t prove something doesn’t exist suggests that it might exist and you just haven’t seen it yet.
So I believe in Dragons, in Unicorns, in magic and Time Lords, because no one has been able to prove to me that there is a reason NOT to believe in them.
The obvious paralell is with religion – the entire basis of it is faith. You have faith – you believe in the evidence of things not seen. You just *know*.
Except I don’t think that Dragons run and guide my life. I don’t think that a Time Lord is going to make my life better. I don’t pray to Markus The Unicorn for advice or guidance.
But – by the same token – I don’t use the made up teachings of Markus The Unicorn to tell Mr Smith that he can’t marry his boyfriend or that they can’t adopt a child. I don’t use my belief that Dragons exist to blow up all the people who do not believe that Dragons exist.
However, those things aside, my belief in things that other people don’t believe in – that just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it isn’t real – is something I think everyone could do with a little of in their life.
Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.
There are a number of things that, quite frank, I just don’t understand about some people in this country.
And the vast majority of them have been demonstrated in full force over the last few weeks.
Poppies
A few weeks ago, Poundland were heavily criticized for asking one of their staff to remove a Poppy because it didn’t fit in with the employee dress code.
There was general outcry from “the public” – the vast majority of “the public” thought it was appalling that someone should not be permitted to wear a symbol of their pride in our forces and be allowed to honour those who died for this country.
There were also a lot of people blaming Muslims, but that seems to be the case whenever anything happens that is even vaguely political. (I am quite sure that in the next two or three days we will hear a lot of people voicing the opinion that the crash on the M5 was caused by Muslims or immigrants – “these foreign scroungers coming over here, driving on our roads and killing our good British citizens” and so forth. I will come back to this in the next part, because I have a lot more say on the topic!)
People were demanding that Poundland be boycotted because it was clearly unBritish and an offence to good, honest, decent people.
And now FIFA are coming in for the same stick because they are enforcing their policies (policies that have been around for years and years, by the way) by refusing to let the England team wear poppies during their coming match against Spain.
Apparently the world is going to come to an end if 11 men are not permitted to wear a poppy during a kick-around. And, once again, “the public” is up in arms at this INSULT to our troops.
But here’s what I don’t get :-
I went shopping today. And in the time I was in Tesco, I saw around 200 people or so, including a fair number of Tesco staff.
And if you include the people I saw on the street while I was going to and from the shop, you can bump it up to around 300 people.
Do you know how many were wearing a poppy? 3. Just 3. And they were all from my parents generation, if not my grandparents generation.
Not a single person under 60 was wearing one.
So if “the public” is so up in arms about this – because apparently every good and decent British person should wear a poppy at this time of year – then why aren’t people wearing them?
I am also willing to have a bet that most of the people who are complaining have never worn a poppy in their life. That they are complaining because they want to be seen to be complaining, not because they actually care one way or the other.
The whole concept of poppies pretty much depresses me. The idea that you can’t possibly show that you honour the troops without wearing something to show it. That in order to show due respect to those who died defending this country, you have to strap something to the bonnet of your car and drive around with it on.
It doesn’t make any sense. Are we to assume that the 290 people who were not wearing poppies today couldn’t give a stuff about our troops? That they are glad they died, and want even more to be slaughtered?
No – of course not. It is entirely possible to have an understanding and respect for the soldiers who died defending this country without having to buy a bit of plastic and stick it on your chest.
Finally – I don’t even known why the England team want to wear them while they are playing. When you are running round a pitch, kicking a ball, pretending to be fouled and miming rude gestures at the ref, you are hardly going to be in a frame of mind to be contemplating the sacrifices of soldiers past. I would be surprised if the thought of the troops would even cross their mind from the start of the game to the end.
Freedom Of Speech
Why is it that nearly EVERY SINGLE PERSON who moans about freedom of speech being curtailed, abridged or restricted generally wants to use that freedom to hurl racist epithets at other people?
The most profound and important use of freedom of speech is to be able to criticize the government. The people who have (more or less) ultimate power over our lives.
The fact we get to say what we want about them – that we can criticize their choices, their decisions, that we can poke fun at them through satire (or other means) and that we get a say in how we are governed – is by far and away one of the biggest freedoms we have. And all the other freedoms we enjoy spring from that one.
And yet the vast majority of the people who think it is being curtailed believe so because they can’t call the black guy down the road a ni$$er, or because they can’t say all Muslims are terrorists.
After the riots, there were a large number of people who wanted the BBC to say all the rioters were black, that it was entirely the fault of the black community. And once again they were up in arms that their basic human rights were being stripped away because they weren’t allow to blame the blacks for the riots.
There are countries all over the world where people are fighting and dying for the right to speak freely about their government, and yet people in this country think they are living in a fascist dictatorship because they are not permitted to voice their racist, xenophobic views.
I just don’t get how people can be that stupid, that ignorant of the world they live in.
It baffles me.
This ties in to the poppies issue for two reasons.
Firstly – all the people who wanted to blame “The Muslims” for Poundland banning the poppy were fairly convinced that the reason the news was not reporting it another attack on the basic liberties that made this country great.
Secondly – there has been an erosion (albeit very mild) of freedom of speech over the past ten years or so, but not because you are not allowed to be racist. No – it’s because there are now topics that are “sacrosanct” – that you are not allowed to voice an opinion against otherwise you will be shunned and abused.
The most recent is the right to wear a poppy. If you try to suggest that there might well be a reason why someone should not be permitted to wear a poppy under certain circumstances, you might as well sign your own death warrant.
Even if you make logical, well reasoned arguments, you are berated, belittled and mocked, and generally called a traitor and told go live in Muslim-land.
There are others, but it is this one that has been the most prevalent in recent weeks.
Basic Maths and Royal Succession – A Lesson
After reading a lot of posts on the Yahoo boards about the changes in the rules regarding the Line of Succession, I decided to see if I could calm people’s fears with this post.
(Somehow I suspect not, but hey – it was worth a shot).
Since there seems to be a great amount of fear that this law is going to turn Britain in to a colony of The Vatican, I think that maybe some basic maths might help.
Firstly – the basic maths.
The Queen apparently shows no sign of wanting to abdicate. This means she will stay on the throne for a few years yet. For purposes of this, I am going to guess about five to ten years. (Though I could be wrong in either direction).
Prince Charles is currently 62 years old. So, assuming my figures above are right, this means he will be between 67 and 72 when he takes the throne. On that basis, I would give him around 18 to 23 years of being Monarch (I am limiting it at 90 years old, just for the sake of convenience).
Prince William is 29. In line with my figures above, it will be somewhere between 23 and 33 years before he becomes King, making him 53 to 63 years old. And again – assuming 90 as the end of his reign, he will reign for 27 to 37 years.
At which point the as-yet-unborn child will become King/Queen. A child that – for the foreseeable future – will be CofE (because both William and Kate are).
(Now – here’s where the maths gets a tad more messy. Since the child hasn’t been born, estimating the age they will be when they take the throne is a tad complicated. But I am going to base it on Charles/Diana and William)
William was born more or less one year after his parents married. So – by that reckoning, Eloise or Leo (I have no idea what they will name their child, so go with me on this) will be born around April next year. Meaning s/he will be around 29 years younger than her father.
So – if you have followed all of that so far, here’s the thing you should realise :-
Charles will take the throne somewhere around 2016 to 2021.
William will take the throne somewhere around 2034 to 2044
Eloise/Leo will take the throne somewhere around 2061 to 2077
So – even if Eloise or Leo marry a Catholic and have a child that is raised in the Catholic faith, it is going to be probably about 80 to 90 years before that child will sit on the throne.
By which point I am pretty sure everyone posting on this board will be dead. And hopefully we will have moved past the desire to have a Monarchy, and instead will have a head of state elected by popular vote (since everyone seems to be wild about the idea of referendums).
Secondly – this law only bars Catholics. So whether it passes or not, Leo/Eloise could still marry a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, a Jedi, a Hufflepuff or an Atheist. There is NOTHING to prevent that from happening.
Thirdly – when news stories surface about British Muslim girls being murdered for wanting to marry outside their faith, we are rightly outraged. And yet now a law is being passed to allow the Monarch of Great Britain to marry outside their faith, and the response is apparently the same – outrage.
Fourthly – As far as I am aware, there is no law preventing a Catholic from being an MP in this country. Nor from a Catholic being in government, in The Cabinet or even being Prime Minister. And since MPs, members of the government, members of The Cabinet and Prime Ministers have FAR more power over our lives than The Monarch does, getting outraged about a future Monarch being Catholic seems a tad pointless.
A Good Day’s Work
So – my Bella was supposed to be coming down for this weekend, and spending the week here (including her birthday).
However, due to the op she had two months ago, she has a wound that is still healing, and the nurse/doctor scheduled appointments for her next week, meaning that she can’t come down here.
Which makes me very sad, and not at all happy.
So today, to break up the monotony of a long, lonely weekend, I rearranged bits of my front room – specifically the poster over my fireplace and (what I refer to ) as my Army Of Doom.
The First Ten Years
When I moved in, I put this picture up above my fireplace, because I always liked the picture. It features most of the main characters from Lord Of The Rings, and is very pretty. (See here for a better image)
However, recent I decided I need a change. And, with a recent trip to CollectorMania (which I should write about some day – it was a fun weekend with my Bella!) I had some pictures that needed putting up.
And so, this morning, I did this
The Next Ten Years?
I realise I have light issues, and hence the reason I am not a photographer, but it does look quite good when you are looking at it.
The top picture is the 10th and 11th Doctors, the picture on the left is Amelia The Pirate, the picture on the right is a Silence, Rory, Amy, The Doctor, River and The Astronaut in front of The Pyramid, and the picture at the bottom of a montage of very adorable pictures of Amelia Pond (bought for me by my lovely and very understanding girlfriend!).
I am quite happy with the result, and think it will last for a fair while before it gets changed again.
My next task was organizing my Army Of Doom. Which is the collective name for various action figures I have acquired over a fair number of years. Quite a few were presents (again, from my beloved) while the rest I have bought either as souvenirs of various trips (for example, my last trip to London for the MRI, I picked up The Impossible Astronaut) or just because I felt like it :)
I have kind of been putting them at random for the last year or so, and I figured I could use this time to sort them out and have some kind of plan.
So now my mantelpiece is home to the Doctor Who portion of TAOD (including such luminaries as young Amelia, Rory The Roman, three Weeping Angels, The Master, Rassillon, The Astronaut and Ghostbusting 10th Doctor), and part of the Buffy portion (Tara, Willow and Bunnified Anya), while my stereo and speaks are home to the Harry Potter Portion (including two Lunas, Bellatrix, The Twins, Ginny, a dementor, Death Eater, Mad-Eye, a thestral and The Veil), the other half of the Buffy portion (including Ghost Willow, Cat Cordy, The Master, Darla and Drusilla) and the other half of the Doctor Who squad (aka The Time Squad – 10th Doctor, Daleks, Davros, a scarecrow and a pyrophile). Finally my blu-ray player has a model of Hogwarts, a tiny Harry and a giant Goddess Willow.
Amelia And The Angel
All in all, I am quite happy with how The Army is arranged, and I think if they ever come alive and decide to rise up against me, I am very, very screwed :)
So – that’s been my day.
And now it is time for tea.
The Human Rights Act II
Okay – I have (once again) re-read The HRA, and there is something I am now VERY confused about.
No where in the text of The Human Rights Act does it mention deporting foreign criminals, or suspected terrorists. No where does it say “you can’t deport a person if they are going to be subject to torture or death when they arrive in the country to which they are deported”
Now – I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I would have thought that if it was the case that The HRA prevents such a thing, it would be fairly easy to find in the text.
I suppose Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 could be interpreted this way, but the way people are talking this is not a matter of interpretation, but a matter of what is written.
The European Court of Human Rights has said that Article 3 of the European Convention explicitly covers extradition, but the European Convention is NOT the same as The Human Rights Act – they are two distinct pieces of legislation (albeit with the same intent and mostly the same provisions).
So, as far as I can tell, the right of criminals not to be extradited/deported to countries where they face torture/execution is not a function of The Human Rights Act, but of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Which means that every single person who wants the HRA scrapped so we can start “sending criminals back where they came from” is going to be HUGELY disappointed, because it would still be illegal to do so.
You would think that Teresa May – being the Home Secretary – should already know this.
And if she does already know this, you have to wonder what she is hoping to achieve by promising things that are blatantly impossible.
The Human Rights Act
- In March 2006, the parents of a severely ill child used the HRA to stop the hospital turning off the equipment that was keeping their child alive.
- the HRA was used by a prisoner to try to get hard-core porn while in prison. However the judges rejected this because the HRA did not provide for that.
- the HRA was used by a “school boy arsonist” to seek compensation for being excluded from his classes. The judges rejected this claim as well, because the HRA did not cover it.
Three sample cases where the HRA did not, in fact, protect the rights of criminals over “normal, decent people”. And these are just a tiny fraction of the cases brought since its inception.
The HRA also brought the powers to decide these things to UK courts. While it is true you can go to the European Court of Human Rights, that can take upwards of five years, and cost you thousands of pounds. Under the HRA, you can have your case heard here, by British Judges, in far less time and for far less cost. Which, given the Tories unilateral decision to scrap legal aid for those who need it most, is probably a good thing.
The HRA grants the following to each and every person in this country
- the right to use lethal force in self-defence if necessary (given the large number of posts about the right of home-owners to defend their houses, I would have thought this would be something people wanted)
- the right not to be tortured or abused
- the right to challenge your detention or arrest
- the right to a fair trial
- the right to not be punished under retroactive legislation
- the right to privacy
- the right of freedom of expression, worship, conscience and assembly (or, in other words, the right to post bigoted, racist, insulting or homophobic comments on boards such as these)
- the right to marry who you choose
- the right to not suffer discrimination
- the prevention of the government to abuse this act to limit your rights
- the right to an education
- the right to free elections
Now, to me, those all seem like rights that are worth having and worth protecting.
Even setting aside the ones that relate to criminal law (fair trial, retroactive legislation, challenging your detention/arrest etc), that is a fair body of rights that you are granted, and you can use.
But when you include the ones about criminal law, it is even more impressive. And while the vast majority of you reading this might be thinking “Well – I am not a criminal, so why would I need them”, you should give some thought to this – they all apply to suspected criminals, as well as actual criminals.
And if you really believe that there is no possibility that you will ever become a suspected criminal, then you are deluding yourself. It can happen as quick as you like, through no fault of your own.
(To give you an example, I used a “pay at pump” petrol machine, and paid for my petrol and drove off. Two days later, the police came to my house telling me I was accused of taking petrol without paying for it. Turns out, the machine was broken and hadn’t registered the petrol I paid for. But I had a receipt, so all was well.
But right at that point, I was a suspected criminal through no fault of my own, having done nothing wrong.
And while this is a pretty trivial example, I would hope you can make the connection between this and other, more serious cases, such as murder, rape, child abuse and terrorism).
The public see people they don’t like using the HRA, and never consider that people they DO like use it as well, because the vast majority of cases don’t get reported – only those that will create scandal and sell papers.
The HRA doesn’t just protect criminals. It protects everyone. You, me, them, the guy down the road, the woman in the flat opposite.
If you scrap it, you are throwing away all the protections you have against the unbridled power of the State. And, given the mood of the public, it is highly likely anything that is put in its place will not be as strong, as robust and as good as this is. And people will come to regret it.
