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.
I shake my head in disbelief and utter the phrase “what a crock of ****”. 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.
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:
Was what happened an example of excessive force?
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.
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.
OK, that’s a poor title but it’s the best I can do to encompass the two films I saw this evening – The Ghost and Whip It.
The Ghost
“They can’t drown two ghost writers. You’re not kittens!”
Plot-in-a-nutshell: After the initial ghost writer of a politician’s memoirs mysteriously drowns, a replacement is drafted in – just as some nasty rumours kick off.
First of all, this film is called The Ghost Writereverywhere except Europe. I have no idea why it’s changed here, and the end credits give it its original title. So if you’re in the US, it’s the same film.
Ewan McGregor plays “The Ghost”, a writer whose job it is to take someone else’s words and draft them into something resembling a book. For some reason he’s been cast as English, yet manages to pull off the accent pretty damn well. His job is to work on a near-finished manuscript when the original Ghost drowns while drunk. The subject – ex British Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan).
Lang is very much based on a Blair/Bush combination. Slimy, untrustworthy and possibly guilty of war crimes. A lot of the things mentioned in the film were incidents that happened or were alleged to have happened while the gruesome twosome were in charge of the UK and US. This does influence the way the audience feels towards the character and adds a good dimension to the story.
Lang’s wife Ruth (Olivia Williams) is the other major player. Typical of a politician’s wife, she’s been in the background but it becomes increasingly obvious she’s been pulling his strings for some time.
This is a slow-burning film, but it never loses its way. It’s fairly taught and the central characters aren’t by any means unbelievable. MvGregor’s Ghost really is rather bumbling, not some guy who’s secretly a MENSA candidate or the next… whatever the guy from The Da Vinci Code is called. Throughout, it’s always tough to figure out if he’s making progress or being played. As a result, you really are kept guessing right the way through.
It won’t suit everyone as there’s a lack of high-speed chases, enormous set pieces or fast-cut hand-to-hand combat sequences. What there is, is a damn good story well told. It isn’t perfect – the ending with its superb twist is actually somewhat abrupt – but it’s very enjoyable nonetheless.
Whip It
“Yeah, let’s celebrate mediocrity!”
Plot-in-a-nutshell – girl lives at home with domineering mother, girl discovers outlet in the form of roller derby, girl must keep it a secret from domineering mother.
Bliss Cavendar’s (Ellen Page) mother is typicall mid-American (if the films are to be believed) and wants her daughter to follow in her footprints as a pageant queen. Bliss doesn’t know what she wants until she spies some roller derby bitches, attends her first competition and finds herself turning up for a practice session.
Needless to say she then gets hooked on roller skating, dressing like a tart and smacking other women around. This is by no means a bad thing. She also falls for the local bad boy, falls out with her parents, argues with her best mate and changes the fortunes of the team.
So far, so seen-it-all-before.
Whip It doesn’t stand a chance of pipping Dodgeball to the title of “funniest sports-based comedy ever”. Hell, Dodgeball managed it despite the huge handicap of featuring a Ben Stiller “comedy” character. Still, this isn’t a bad flick. Drew Barrymore is in it, so there’s eye candy, and she also directed it – I believe this is her first attempt. Credit to her, especially for the roller derby sequences which really give a feeling of being in the middle of it all.
Juliette Lewis is also a main character and I still don’t like her. Still, despite this, the cast are fairly strong and up to the task. Pretty much every stereotypical character and plot strand from this type of film is in there, present and correct, but it does hold its own. The ending may not be quite what you’d expect either…
Sorry, I’ve just got to post this. I’m getting roundly sick of the following knee-jerk response on facebook, Twitter and pretty much everywhere else:
PC User – I just had to get rid of virus X. GRRR.
Mac User – Should get a Mac instead.
Or some variation on this theme. The assumption from Mac User is that “I have a Mac and it’s great as it doesn’t get viruses ever”. This assumption is very much making an ass of u and umption as it’s quite simply wrong.
Let’s be fair, here. I’m including all malware under the generic term of “viruses”. Self-replicating viruses are very rare on the Mac, this is true. But malware masquerading as other software is not uncommon. Protective software will help prevent this attacking a system.
Now, I do dislike Macs. Everyone knows this. It’s an opinion and we can argue over that somewhere else. But one thing I’m certain every Mac owner will agree with me on is that malware authors are the scum of the electronic universe. By being so ignorant (or perhaps arrogant) as to state that you don’t get evil software on Macs, owners are leaving themselves wide open as potential targets.
Much as the Guardian’s hardly known for being at the forefront of IT-related journalism, have a check of this short report. The author was “advised by Mac users and Apple support that I do not need either anti-virus or anti-malware software running”. I mean, what the hell?! Random people I could understand, but Apple support themselves stating that the user shouldn’t make an effort to protect themselves?
Full marks to Sophos for pointing out to the author that malware does exist, and even directing them to a YouTube video of such a nasty piece of code being flagged.
Right now, if I was a malware author I would seriously consider concentrating on the Mac. While PCs do make up the vast majority of installed systems out there – and Windows the majority of them – there are still countless thousands upon thousands of Macs… and I’d guess a huge number of them are running wide open and unprotected.
Apple are doing themselves no favours by claiming to be virus/malware free. It’s bad advice and horrendous arrogance which manifests as appalling customer support. Any system is open to abuse, regardless of the operating system being run on it. Some are more secure, some are less targeted – but all are open to some kind of attempt.
To repeat what I said at the beginning, this is not Apple-bashing. It’s advice. Don’t assume your system is safe just because someone waves a hand and says “only Windows machines get viruses”. They couldn’t be more wrong and continued ignorance of this fact will only lead to more malicious being written and successfully distributed.
There are free and commercial products out there for the Mac. Research them, pick one and install it.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?w=840)
