Longrider

News and Views has been running since February so we’re now into our fourth month. Success or failure in this area seems to be subjective. When researching fora on the Internet I found webmasters who felt that tens of signups within a couple of weeks was not particularly successful. This forum now has 21 signups over a four-month period. While it is desirable to have more in order to increase the level of debate, I consider a steady buildup of members successful. Certainly there is lively debate; although not much dissent yet. Only time will tell whether it will grow much larger and whether we will start to see people posing a different point of view in the discussions.

Meanwhile as an experiment I think it has worked reasonably well. I am content with how things are developing.

News & Views Discussions
—–

Like most people in the United Kingdom I reacted with outrage yesterday at the outcome of police constable Mark Milton’s court case where he was cleared of dangerous driving and speeding when travelling at speeds of up to 159 miles per hour on a motorway near Telford in the early hours of the morning on the 3rd of December 2003. I believe that it was telling though, that none of the prosecution witnesses would state that he was driving dangerously. I can only presume from this that as a highly trained driver, he wasn’t.

While justified indignation was my initial reaction, I’ve since had time to think about it more dispassionately. During my days as a motorcycle instructor I had fairly close contact with the police traffic department, and learned to respect police officers and the jobs that they do. Like most people I tacitly accept that high-speed driving is a part of the emergency services’ response mechanism. Indeed, high-speed response can make the difference between life and death to somebody who has been involved in a road traffic incident or other emergency and everytime it happens the driver is making a judgement between the lives at risk and the lives they may put at risk by breaking road traffic laws. I recognise that there will be operational circumstances that require high-speed driving on the part of police officers, even though in general they tend to avoid high-speed chases due to their high-risk nature. There will however be some cases where a high-speed chase is necessary because it is the lowest risk option available to the police in that circumstance.

So, I can accept that there will be occasions when high-speed (possibly three figure speeds) are necessary on public roads. I can also accept that there will be occasions when having familiarised themselves with their vehicles and practised on a track, that there will be a need to do so on public roads. I do believe however that this will be subject to some form authorisation; under instruction for example.

Overall, I believe that the judgement was wrong. It gives a message to the public that police officers may ignore the law whereas if I were to test my bike at three figure speeds and claim “familiarisation” I would be banned and possibly jailed. The public, quite rightly will see this as “one rule for them and one rule for us”.

Considering all these things though, the outraged public is missing a massive trick. PC Mark Milton has done every driver in UK a huge favour. What he has done is finally put paid to the lie; that appalling mantra; of the “safety camera partnerships” that speed kills. It did not kill police constable Mark Milton.
—–

I was browsing the Internet, as you do, to when I came across something called Blogshares. The concept that this web site works under is that it uses a search spider to find blogs. These blogs are then listed on a virtual stock exchange and people buy and sell virtual shares. The blog’s value is based on incoming and outgoing links. Imagine my surprise when I realised that my blog was listed on Blogshares. As I thought about this my initial mild irritation became an increasing niggle and eventually annoyance. Now like most people who write blogs I want my writing to be seen and read by as many people as possible, that’s why we do it surely. However, those sites were I have listed my blog in order to broaden its exposure such as BritBlog, are sites where I have initiated the contact. I have registered my blog and I have controlled the information shared with that site. Blogshares is different in that it extracts information using a search spider. Therefore my site is listed and registered in the virtual game without my consent or knowledge. Upon delving further, I find that removal is not a straightforward click on this link to remove. No, I have to contact support and prove that the blog is mine.

Excuse me?

I have to prove that the blog is mine? Since when did the owners of Blogshares bother to satisfy themselves about proof of ownership when they listed the blog in the first place?

Thinking about it, even if I were required to register with Blogshares in the same way as I do with BritBlogs or Globe of Blogs, I would probably not do so. A search engine or list of blogs in a particular area of interest, is fine. However, I have no particular interest in online gaming of any sort. Therefore to find that I have been entered in a game with neither my consent nor knowledge is something that I find irritating and discourteous. To me, basic courtesy requires that the owners of the site at the very least let people know what they are doing. Is it not too much to ask that they requested permission to involve people’s blogs on the site?

Or am I just being oversensitive?

Edited to add: Looks like I’m not the only one.

Further edited Well, they’ve honoured my request and delisted my site. So 0/10 for ethics, but 10/10 for a quick response.
—–

I’ve been thinking about the secular nature of the UK recently, prompted by this weeks comment on the Secular Society’s web site regarding the BBC and religious programming. As Britain becomes more secular it seems the Christian groups that are still active become increasingly stark in comparison. Their voices become shriller as they demand of the BBC that it increase its range of religious programmes in order to engage with the BBC’s audience on religious matters. At the same time, we have Parliament attempting to increase the amount of faith schools in the UK - a move supported by all three major parties. Yet, despite the Church of England’s assertion that around 70%of us are Christians, the reality is somewhat different. While most people will nominally regard themselves as being Church of England, particularly if asked when filling in a form for an application or some such, the reality is that they rarely think about it. The vast majority attend church no more regularly than the occasional wedding christening or funeral. Indeed, as with politics, religion is rarely thought about to any great depth.

We’ve been discussing this trend over at the News & Views forum. A comment made by Jonathan focuses on what I believe to be the area of most concern for me;

"according to the latest national secular society newsline, the UK is one of the most sceptical countries with regard to religion and religious belief yet we still seem to attract Christian evangelism."

Of course we do. Christianity like its younger sibling, Islam, subsumes all other religious beliefs and cultures before it. That is how it works; it is a meme that spreads like a virus. Religious tolerance is not inherent in the younger Abrahamic religions; they are by their very nature intolerant. Convert or die. That is why the extreme Christian groups are so vocal, that is why they will try to convert people on the doorstep or in the shopping mall it is their duty. There was a time when this was done at swordpoint, and those who resisted were put to death. Anyone who has any doubt about what a religious theocracy under Christianity would be like needs only to look at Europe some 500 years ago. Those who did not believe or believed in a different variation of the Christian faith were tried as heretics, usually following a period of torture, and burned alive at the stake. All of this was done for the benefit of their eternal souls, of course. The modern-day equivalent is seen in militant Islam and those theocracies that exist in the Middle East and Asia. Whatever the belief system, it is the overt control of the population that is the most worrying, eptiomised by the use of fear, oppression and ultimately violence to impose itself. The blatant misogyny and persecution of minorities such as homosexuals persists where religious groups still have influence. It is not just their ancient writings that drive this behaviour, it is the persecution of those who are different; a basic tribal instinct that exists in the dark corners of our souls. That primeval instinct to persecute those who are different is used to great effect by tyrants because it is the fear of being persecuted that enables ordinary people to become persecutors themselves and thereby controlled.

Talking of tyrants, while they call it something different these days (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) the inquisition still exists and it still condemns heresy just as it always did; it still condemns homosexuality, just as it always did. Shackled by secular governments, it is unable to try infidels and heretics as it always did - but you can be sure it would like to, given even half a chance. Meanwhile, the more liberal Anglican Church is tearing itself apart over the issue of gay clergy, so can hardly lay claim to being progressive.

For me the issue is paradoxical. I believe that everyone should be free to practise whatever religious beliefs they wish without fear of persecution. Unfortunately while the Abrahamic belief systems are more than happy to demand tolerance from others they are less happy to grant it. The persecuted, given the right conditions will willingly become the persecutors. They made a fine job of it in the past and their rhetoric regarding the heathens and non-believers leaves no doubt that they would again. So, while on one hand I vigorously support anyone’s right to practise whatever religion they wish, I object equally vigorously to any attempts to impose a religious belief on me. I’m content with being an infidel. I have subjected religious mythology to the scrutiny of scientific questioning and found it wanting. I don’t believe in gods and it is unlikely that I will ever change my mind; I’m too rational. So therefore, I do not want to be witnessed.

This brings me neatly back to the BBC discussing how they can engage people with religious belief against the backdrop of the decline of religion in the UK. It is not the place of the BBC to evangelise on behalf of Christianity. While I am happy that they reflect a cross-section of society in their programming, it should always be proportionate. If religion really is declining in the UK, then they should let it. I do not pay a licence fee to have the Christian message beamed into my home. While I can cheerfully use the "off" switch to censor out such propaganda, an increase in religious content means that I will be paying for more downtime as I switch off more frequently.

Mankind will only achieve enlightenment when religion is left behind and people learn to think for themselves; question the nature of what they are with an open mind unbridled by propaganda and seek their own answers rather than rely on the pat "truths" found in the Scriptures. If archaeologists were to discover these writings today, we would look upon it as interesting period literature giving us an insight into early Hebrew culture and its quaint belief system and nothing more. It is time we did just that.

I wrote to the BBC to complain about their intention to "engage" the audience on religious matters. I reproduce their reply below, even though it is probably just a standard response.

As a public service broadcaster the BBC has a responsibility to meet the needs of all audiences. Over 75% of the adult audience claim some religious allegiance (2001 census).

Much of the BBC’s output approaches the world from a secular, non-religious point of view. A minority of the BBC’s output has specifically religious content - some of it celebratory and affirming, some of it journalistic and scrutinising - while other programmes, such as Jonathan Miller’s Brief History of Disbelief, have addressed atheism directly.

On Friday 13 May the BBC Governors held a seminar, attended by Mark Thompson, senior executives and a panel of invited experts, to discuss the BBC’s religious and belief programming. The BBC has a public service responsibility to provide religious programming. The purpose of this seminar was not to find ways of increasing religious output, but to discuss how the BBC can best meet this commitment by providing programmes of the highest quality. The seminar also explored how different faiths and beliefs could be reflected across a range of genres.

If indeed they are being honest when they say that there will be no increase in religious programming, then I am content. However I question their reliance on the 2001 census information, which claims that 75% of us have some form of religious allegiance. If this were true, the churches would be full to overflowing. That they are not therefore, begs the question of whether reliance on such data is a reasonable thing to do. Far more likely, is that those who claimed some form of religious allegiance do so when filling in such forms out of habit and indeed do attend church at "hatchings, matchings and despatchings". Such people may be nominally be religious, but how religious are they when, say, the Jehovah’s Witnesses call at their door to bring them the word of the Lord? So while the majority of these "religious" people do not wish to have the word brought to them on their doorstep or in the shopping mall (watch to see peoples’ reactions to street preachers and you will see my point), why should we we therefore believe that they wish to have it beamed into their homes courtesy of the BBC? I suspect that the majority do not.
—–

Today the new parliament was opened by that Saxe Coburg woman. A small gathering form No2ID was there - including our own dear old Longrider…Ahem.

I dunno, here I am at 47 going on a protest. Whatever next. The whole thing was good natured and the boys in blue were bemused when the group got separated by the crowds and they had to arrange an escort to take us across Parliament Square to rejoin the main protest. He even asked whether he should check our identities… Okay, so it was weak and he had the decency to look a little embarrassed.

The evidence for the occasion is below. I’m the one behind the camera.

On a serious note.

Identity cards will not:

• Combat terrorism
• Combat benefit fraud
• Do anything to make our borders more secure
• make any difference to organised crime (unless you include helping to increase it)
• Reduce identity theft (by the way, the £1.3bn a year figure is bollocks)

Identity cards will:

• Criminalise swathes of the population
• Create a “Papers Please” state
• Make identity theft easier to execute
• Create an opportunity for the Home Office to fuck up 60 million people’s data in spectacular fashion that will make the passports fiasco look like a practice run

There’s more, but it gets depressing…

Just over 3½ weeks ago, Thutmose our grey and white tomcat went missing. As he usually disappears for several days at a time we were not too worried at first. Then as the days dragged by and one week became two weeks, we started to worry. We decided perhaps now was the time for action and set in motion the usual activities involved with missing pets; posters in the local Post Office and veterinary surgeons, contacting the pets search agencies, the local dogs and cats home, the RSPCA, and of course taking walks out where we know that he haunts. Near to the back of our house is a cycleway that runs through the common. This is cat heaven and I spent several trips walking and cycling in the area looking for him.

Then after nearly 3½ weeks he breezes in large as life, sits down and demands food. As if nothing had happened in the last 3½ weeks. It is only when the animal returns alive and well, that you start to realise just how worried you had become. I spent much of yesterday telephoning and e-mailing various agencies that we had contacted regarding his disappearance to let them know that he had turned up. Meanwhile, Thutmose is under house arrest while we arrange a trip to the veterinary surgeons for microchipping and of course the dreaded snip. Hopefully this will curb his wandering habits. And my, isn’t it good to have him back.

George Galloway is in the news again merely a week after he won the Bethnal Green parliamentary seat. A U. S. Senate report says two veteran French and British politicians were granted potentially lucrative oil allocations by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. It accuses George Galloway and former French Minister Charles Pasqua of accepting oil vouchers under the United Nations oil for food scheme from the Iraqi dictator.

I’m not in a position to judge the evidence or lack thereof so I cannot comment on whether George is guilty or not. So he supped with the devil and was careless about the length of the spoon he used. But guilty of corruption? If he were, surely there would be some sort of evidence of his newly found riches. Why is he not basking on a remote Caribbean island having resigned from politics and living the life of luxury?

What concerns me about this case though, is that George Galloway offered to appear before the Senate committee to provide evidence that refuted the allegations made against him. This seems to me perfectly reasonable. Yet the select committee did not even bother to respond to George’s communications. Indeed, the Daily Telegraph paid dear for making these allegations.

“I have never traded in a barrel of all,” said Mr Galloway, formerly a new Labour member of Parliament but re-elected as a MP for his own Respect party last week after campaigning against the Iraq war.

He told the BBC it was “blatantly absurd” to think that, as an MP being closely watched by UK security services, he could have become an “oil billionaire ” on the sly.

And he blasted the Senate investigation, which he said had never written to him, spoken to him, or responded to his offers to testify.

“This cannot possibly be called an investigation,” he said.

Quite. There is an expression for this behaviour; kangaroo court. Or as George Galloway would put it:

“This is a lickspittle Republican committee, acting on wishes of George W. Bush.”

That’s what I like about George Galloway, his way with words.