Category Archives: News

Drugs and holy rollers

Cocaine powder
Go on - sniff your brain out

Two news stories caught my ear today, both of which made me once again question the sanity of some of the idiots I’m forced to share this planet with.

First up was a revelation that Britain’s cocaine, heroin and so on is at an all time low purity level, often times as low as 20% actual drugs and 80% “filler”. This can be anything from talcum to rat poison to ground glass. You know something? I don’t care.

Much as I believe in a person’s right to do what they want as long as it’s behind closed doors and doesn’t affect anyone else, I’m still rather anti-drugs. Whatever your legal stance on it, class A drugs are addictive and potentially deadly at the best of times. I’ve heard of enough cases of children being left to fend for themselves while parents tend to their smack addiction to know that drugs are pretty much a filthy thing that should be expunged from society.

The fact that people are complaining that their additive brain-destroying chemical is being mixed with something that might make their tummy bleed really is madness.

Got a problem with it? Don’t bloody use drugs, then you fucking idiot. It’s pretty simple. But then, anyone daft enough to snort Columbian marching powder for a hobby probably isn’t intelligent enough to see that.

OK, rant number two: some numpty somewhere (I think the US, but I only caught the end of the story on the radio) has announced that on September 11th they’re going to broadcast themselves burning the Koran. Well, that’s just great. Why not just insult a billion Muslims just to protest the actions of a couple of dozen. Who are already dead.

The high command in Afghanistan have begged them not to do it as the repercussions against troops posted there could be horrendous.

Seriously, does nobody think about the consequences of their actions any more?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Two great adverts for denying religion

I’m not a religious person. At all. I haven’t been for very many years. Today, two news reports make me stand even sturdier in my belief. Or lack of it.

Frankly I’m just staggered that senior religious people can try to pass the buck for things that happen. In the first story, a Mexican bishop says that priests abuse children because of porn on the TV and the internet.

So its not the lifestyle of celibacy or the position of responsibility they’re put in where other people aren’t “allowed” to complain about them? The temptation isn’t an issue either? And the fact that TV and the internet have been around for decades when priests have been abusing the vulnerable for centuries is neither here nor there.

Just when I thought religious claptrap couldn’t get any worse, out comes an Iranian cleric who effectively says that women showing their ankles cause earthquakes.

I shake my head in disbelief and utter the phrase “what a crock of shit”. Seriously, how on earth can people follow idiots like these?

I’m all for people being allowed to believe what they want. But when one bunch are trying to blame society for their own (criminally disgusting) failings and another are attempting to use a natural disaster to persecute women it makes it very difficult for me to find any justification.

As ever, I can’t tar every follower of these faiths with the same “you are an idiot” brush. It’s simply not fair. But I seriously have to wonder why anyone reading these stories can justify believing the same things these senior officials are spouting.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Score one for justice

Excellent news today that murder charges against Omari Roberts have been dropped. You may not know who Mr Roberts is. He’s a young man who defended his mother’s house from two burglars who he caught in the act. One of them was armed with a knife (which, it’s just been revealed, came from the kitchen in the house).

In the struggle, one 14 year old was seriously injured. The other burglar died of injuries received. There was a third who was acting as lookout, but he still hasn’t been caught.

Months after the incident, Roberts was charged by murder by the Crown Prosecution Service as they believed that he had acted with excessive force and that a prosecution was “in the public interest”. This despite the fact that the only witness – key to the trial – was the burglar who was injured.

Who, obviously, wasn’t going to be biased in any way at all.

As it turns out, this little thief’s statements changed over time to the point where his most recent one actually tied in pretty much with Mr Roberts’ – whose statement had never changed.

There are two main points here:

  1. Was what happened an example of excessive force?
  2. Should Mr Roberts have been put up for trial in the first place?

The law’s definition of excessive force is incredible vague. The person charged must be able to prove self defence, and that such defence hadn’t been excessive.

An individual charged with an offence such as assault may claim to have been acting in self-defence. The question that will have to be answered is whether the amount of force used was, objectively, reasonable in the circumstances as the individual honestly believed them to be. In other words, did he really believe that the only way to prevent himself, or someone else, being harmed was to hurt the attacker?

This is a question that will have to be answered by the jury. In answering it the jury will take into account both the particular characteristics of the individual – such as their age, gender and relative strength – and the circumstances surrounding their actions. The jury will have to ask whether the average, reasonable person sharing the individual’s characteristics would have acted in the same way if they had been in that situation. However, if the individual suffers from a psychiatric condition which contributed to them acting in the way they did this cannot be used as an excuse and should not be taken into account.

(the above from http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/)

How is a jury supposed to be able to tell what an “average, reasonable” person does in very unreasonable, perhaps unique circumstances?

While I do maintain that death is a pretty harsh punishment for burglary, I do maintain that anyone who invades your property should by doing so assume that they have forfeited their own human rights. If a cursory examination appears to support the person defending their property then they shouldn’t feel that they’re not at risk of legal repercussions due to an even over which they had no control.

If you’re outnumbered in a fight, the first priority is your own safety. If the people you’re fighting aren’t interested in running away then you have to put the odds on your side. If that means risking killing one of them then so be it – it’s them or you. As soon as they involve a knife, they raise the odds.

I have no sympathy at all for the person who died in the incident involving Mr Robert. I also have no sympathy for the one who ended up in hospital. I do, however, have all the time in the world for a young man who was defending his mother and her property. He should never have had to go through all this legal mess.

With an election coming up, it’s a good time for parties to consider raising this topic.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

It’s a bomb! No… a shoe. No… a ciggie.

No-Smoking Logo
Danger - smoking can lead to (alleged) terrorism

Good grief. the news is alarmist these days. There were reports of a Quatari diplomat trying to down an aeroplane using a shoe bomb during the early hours of this morning. After an hour or so the real story comes out – he was trying to have a crafty smoke in the toilets and – having immunity – won’t face any charges.

Apparently he was “tackled by air marshals” which obviously means he was a terrorist. I can see how this one panned out. Someone smelled the smoke, had a word with the stewardess and he was approached or warned. It’s likely he kicked up a fuss – perhaps refusing to put it out, or simply being arsey. There will have been an air marshal on board who will have seen the commotion and a passenger in some state of annoyance.

Said marshal will have announced who he was loudly enough for other passengers to know he was involved. He may have had to grapple with the passenger to calm him down.

So our scene is a recognised air marshal confronting a man. A coloured man. Perhaps even a coloured man wearing traditional Middle East dress (I’ve not heard what the diplomat was wearing). These being the paranoid days they are and this flight being within the US the obvious conclusion to jump to – the man is a Muslim and a terrorist.

I wonder how many of the “witnesses” who came off the plane told reporters they’d “seen” the man trying to set fire to his shoelaces?

Much as I hate smoking and smokers who assume the rules don’t apply to them it is a bit of a jump from “sly ciggie” to “shoe bomber”. I’m annoyed this guy’s been released without charge – I assume due to diplomatic immunity – when he has committed a crime. However, I also think it’s a disgrace that as soon as a person from an Arabic country causes a kerfuffle on an aeroplane, witnesses’ instinct is to label him a terrorist with such conviction it makes it into the news.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Where are the ASBOs when you need them?

This is insane: Loud sex ASBO woman back on the job

I had a chav neighbour for months who had music on until 4 or 5am (in between the screams from his pregnant girlfriend as he beat her). His friends routinely walked into my garden and on one occasion I caught one peeing on my back door. Nothing was done. At all. Police came out, told him off and left again. At which point the stereo went back on.

This woman makes 10 mins of natural noise once in a while and is facing jail. Will someone explain why she’s “worse” than the chav?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]