Mangled Thoughts

Posted by D
Telegraph reports today:

At the time the Israeli govt was releasing terrorists from prison, another blew up a bus, ten killed, others injured.The description is stomach churning.

80 year old Mrs.Newman reflected, `My granddaughter is only 16 but has gone to so many funerals of friends.’

Palestinians (sic ) rejoiced in the Streets, singing:
`Yes to steadfastness: Yes to liberated Jerusalem’.
This evil, monstrous conduct of Palestinians sums up the root of the conflict ; peace would reign after the end of the Jewish people.

Sharon, in the wake of the murders has set a 2 month deadline for the palestinian govt. to eliminate Hamas et al. The Pal. govt. replied, Israel, if Sharon acts on the implied threat, cannot secure peace with the palestinians and, of course,it will be all Israel’s fault that palestinian would thence kill and maim more Israelis.

IDF kills and apprehends vermin, PLO-PLF-Hamas-Fedayeen massacre any who are Israeli. Israeli’s raise their children to enjoy life, the palestinians send their children to schools which are also beneficiaries of `foreign humanitarian aid’ to be indoctrinated into the primitive tribalist crap of Islam and inculcated with hatred for the Israeli people. The cretins in the U.N., the Chirac and Schroeder, the ABC and some clerics in OZ, others, while crying crocodile tears whenver an IDF man kills a murdering terrorist, remain blythe to the real disparity between the actions of each side, and the sheer, unmitigated evil for which Arafat and the palestinian govt are also directly culpable. Somebody should lob a bullet between the eyes of fat greasy pig Arafat’s eyes and a few others including Hamas’ `spiritual leader’.
(Continued)

Posted by D
from the Telegraph:

South Cambridgeshire Council has refused Cambridge University permission to proceed with a new ” monkey laboratory ” for Girton. One of its major functions was to serve neuro-science which entails experiments including vivisection. At first glimpse, the gist seemed to be another dribbling excercise of capricious power by interfering socialists. In a sense, yes it was.

Reason, security of the new lab and the safety of scientists cannot be ensured. Letter bombs, death threats, threats of beatings have been received by those involved with the proposal, from those affiliates of the `greens’ parties, animal libbers.

Cambridge has withdrawn the proposal.

The domestic policies of the LP govt. are sinking Britain, yet on this matter, Blair showed some civilised principal and spine, urging Cambridge and Girton to continue as planned and not be blackmailed into sticking with the Dark Age of neuro-science by the polpotian terrorist greeny-animal lib fronts.

Fortunately, things are not nearly so bad, but to keep screamers happy as the infantile savages they are, Oz scientists proceed under extensive, intrusive controls and regulations.

On the other hand, each state govt has this gem: pupils can excercise `their human rights’ in refusing science classes when dissecting dead animals (mostly the type home to bubonic plague the rat).
Instead, the `guideline’ is: teachers must plan a different `activity’ for the tender aged conscientious objectors to sound science with `planned outcomes’.

Learning and progress in any worthwhile rational discipline is not about `outcomes’, it is about mastery of a sound body of learning and advance, irrespective of what a child might be capable of scholastically ( the old , useful distinctions next to grades which read, incompentent, competent, advanced, penetrating grasp of theory).

Dissection is anatomy and thus the beginning of vetinary science and medicine and surgery. No dissection, no surgeons. Pupils cannot pick and choose what they will and will not do in rational sound fields of learning. Bugger the false sensitivities of juvenile delinquents, and their older counterparts in govts. and departments of education.
(Continued)

Posted by D
As terrible as the suicide of Dr. David Kelly was and the anguish which his family must now bear, the family is amiss on their wistful demand the govt. should act to ensure the same thing doesn’t happen again.

Dr.Kelly could not have been oblivious to the possible uses Gilligan and the BBC would make of what he related to Gilligan. Nor oblivious to the ideological beliefs to which the BBC is transparently committed. It stands, therefore,though Blair and the govt. are socialists, it stretches credulity Kelly was naive in not allowing for, the BBC could and most likely would , as they did , drag him into a remorselessly trying scandal .

One need only compare the ABC and the frequency with which the ABC tries to generate scandals precisely to attack not only ministers of govt. and policies of the wrong ideological hue for ABC’s tastes, but anyone outside of govt. who represents a juicy target. Concoction of evidence, hearsay, assertion by innuendo have dominated ABC’s tactics to mount witchunts which lack a shred of substance but are full of the shit ABC purveys.

Kelly lacked the uncomplicated breezey naivety of a child. Neither, was he, a scientist engaged in the intelligence services, some regular everday chap off the street who is clueless in such matters as the BBC-Gilligan affair. Moreover, employed in the services secret, he was sworn to secrecy.

That Gilligan and the BBC, given the weight of such a `witness’, didn’t bother to examine what Dr.Kelly had said, test rigourously each claim, follows from the above summary of ABC’s tactics.Tactics which BBC is also noted for.For the BBC, however, this time, in their eagerness to see Blair replaced by someone with better politically correct credentials - fighting Saddam being Blair’s evil offence, they believed they had wielded dynamite. Well, yes, like the occasional terrorist crossing into Israel and blowing up earlier than expected and in the wrong place.Like those terrorists, BBC has succeeded in disembowelling itself of some of its stinking guts.

Even so, the possible actions of BBC and confirmed are independent of what Kelly did. On this, the family are wrong. Reason, like a gentleman, withdraws when grief overwhelms.
(Continued)

Posted by D
Proprietor of Shepherds restaurant is suing Telegraph’s food critic for defamation.

Mr. Norman described the joint as `the 8th circle of hell’, ( need to add a chapter to Dante’s Inferno in that case and it works with all the pollies who feed at its trough), the worst restaurant in all Christendom. Cripes, it must be bad.

Its crab abd brandy soup : `were it found today in a cannister in the Iraqi desert, it would save Tony Blair’s bacon.’

Hmmn, sounds like Norman’s is attempting something in the way of a general service, knocking orff a few pollies .

Norman has support : not a few reckon the doings are wmds.
(Continued)

Posted by D
Bracks has put up his blaspehmy `law’ and Heroc. The British govt has made further regression, leads the way quite well.

Telegraph has a a good law report, and has : Hammond versus Director of Prosecutions, Divisional Court ( appeal court).

In a lower court, Hammond was found guilty of breach of section 5,Public Order Act ( 1986 ). The appeal cited some sections European Convention of Human Rights as ground of appeal.

His offence, Hammond is a christian, earnest from what can be gleaned, who bore a sign in public declaring `homosexuality and lesbianism is immoral’. $0-50 onlookers gathered, some were hostile.

Under the P.O. Act , it is an offence, apparently, to display any sign in public in the hearing (?!) or sight of anyone offended, harrassed or distressed by the sign.

The appellate judge upheld the lower court’s judgement.

Common law overthrown, caprice and stupidity reign. For irrespective of whether Hammond’s sign is or is not offence to anyone, opinion has no bearing upon neither rule of common law no general civil order (consequently).

Ludicrous also. One finds the opinions of the poltically correct offensive but also offensive would be to use an Act to stop them putting it in public, no matter that it distresses and harrasses one sorely. The line is drawn, however, at using class rooms to indoctrinate children in to their beliefs , which applies no less to Hammond if he were to do the same, a breech, a serious breech, of trust is involved.

The Act makes not only a mockery of the rule of law, but reacts against the very liberty of the individual which makes a civilsed world possible.
(Continued)