My first impressions of the whole affair (including the ‘protests’)? The country is overrun by single-minded idiots. Sorry, but there we go. I’ll come to why shortly.

As for where I stand on politics, I’m largely neutral. I have no sense of support for any party (major or minor) and long for the day the ’state’ is little more than a thing of the past. I’m also realistic and doubt strongly that will happen in my life time, so I feel I can get involved in little arguments like this. On top of this, I despise being encouraged to vote for a ‘major’ party in order to stand against the BNP – if no-one can give me a convincing reason to vote _for_ them, I won’t. I strongly believe that whilst the argument has limited merit as to what it hopes to achieve, it will never fix the fundamental problem, and as such will just prolong its symptoms from rearing their head again.

Anyway, moving swiftly on to some of the arguments against the BBC playing host to Nick Griffin this evening:

• I don’t want my license-fee being spent on the BNP
  Short answer: tough shit.
  I don’t like _my_ license-fee being spent on far worse and (completely) uninformative programming, such as Eastenders or Stictly Come Dancing, but I’d rather pay it and not watch those shows if it means it can also be spent on pressing political programmes (yes, such as Question Time), or exceptional documentaries (a la Blue Planet, Life, Planet Earth). As it is, I’m prepared to ignore the shit in order to receive the good. If you don’t feel you’re getting that value for money, don’t pay it, and go do something more pro-active, like reading. Either way, don’t bitch about it. Because it’s a baseless argument.
• The BBC has a moral obligation to not host the BNP
  I’m not so sure on the actual truth of this one, nor the morality of it either way. I guess I would come down on the side of, ‘Surely it is more amoral to pretend the voice in the wilderness doesn’t exist (and so let it fester unseen) than it is to give that voice the same chance the others get’. If you’re so concerned that you will be that easily swayed by the ramblings of such a party, I suggest suicide. Before you kill us all.
  If you don’t believe you’re that easily swayed and that the views and propaganda of the BNP are built on a pack of lies then you have nothing to fear. They will embarass themselves in their own time. Either way, face facts: Just because you can’t see / hear them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. If you would rather force them underground and hope that will solve the problem, I encourage you to think harder.
• Nick Griffin as holocaust-denier
  This seems to get brought up every time someone mentions Nick Griffin and the BNP. And whilst I can understand why (citing an easy example as to why this man’s a moron), it carries no real weight in the sense of the argument. I believe the Holocaust occured. And I believe that on the balance of the facts I have seen and studied. In just the same way that I do not believe in a god, based on the facts and evidence I have looked at. Just because I have friends who do believe doesn’t mean I shouldn’t discuss and debate such issues with them ultimately in the pursuit of knowledge.
  Is he a holocaust-denier? Then good for him. Just means he needs to go back and actually digest the facts. Nothing more for me to worry about except that he’s an idiot. Whilst it’s a very good reason he should not be in politics, it does not change the fact that he is and as such deserves the same chance to talk as we would give any other politician.
• Allowing him on Question Time provides a valid platform to spout their racist diatribe
  No. It gives him a valid platform to partake in a public discussion, fielding questions both from the public and his opposition. This is not a BNP Political Rally being broadcast by the BBC, it’s a political debate. And in many ways I would like to think the questions don’t become just a bashing of BNP policies, because that’s not what the debate is about. And if that does happen (as I fear it inevitably will) then the situation has been changed by the very people claiming to protest it. And that gives Griffin every opportunity to use it to his advantage.
  Treat him like any other politician in the way you ask your questions and respond to his answers and he will be exposed as the flawed individual he is. If you try and attack BNP policies and him explicitly, it will be easily manipulated to make you look the fool, and garner further support. Any shouting, pointing person can be very easily made to look like the mad man. So don’t do it to yourself. Let them do it to themselves.
• He’ll manipulate it to appeal to a broad audience  to garner support (disguising the more sensitive views they may stand for)
  See above, largely. But moreover, I disagree in terms of scale. Pissy little protests incorporating such views as listed above do far, far more for the extremist politician in their ability to manipulate that reaction to their own advantage. It’s already happened countless times (MEP Elections, the ‘Egging’ incident, etc.). And here’s the thing – it doesn’t matter if what he responds with is lies (to the general public), he’s still coming across as far more in control of the situation than you will in your hate-filled moments of shouting and demonstration. And that is what’s dangerous.

Well, I wrote a bit more then than I wanted, and it’s nearly time to actually see how it did turn out. I hope at least some of that is coherent, if a bit ranting. I’ll be interested to see what the reaction is to the broadcast in the end.

*sigh* Time to get a pot of tea ready me-thinks.

It was signed as being from “Preston Pals: In honour of the men of the 5th Battallion the Loyals”. It’s a name I recognised, but not one I could particularly say I knew where I knew it, or why. A brief search on your Search Engine of choice (ok, Google), should provide some idea. And a quick glance of the opening message soon put me right:

Dear Sir / Madam,

Overleaf we have printed a transcript of an article taken from the underground press which we think is a reasonable summary of our story. We do this because the authorised media have misrepresented our campaign and we wish to make public our side of the story.
We would like to ask the residents of Capernwray to consider the case.

Yours faithfully,

Preston Pals

Sounds enticing, doesn’t it? Just the sort of thing I want to get to read when I wake up on a Sunday morning.

“Oooh, Underground Press you say? My, oh my. But, pray tell, which particular underground publication do you take your story from?”

Because, you see, whilst there is indeed an apparent article written overleaf (written in some quite delicate language and, yes, with big words), nowhere on this leaflet is it detailed the source from which they pulled this “reasonable summary of our story”. I hate to be cynical, but that to me suggests one of two things:

1. They don’t have permission to reproduce this ‘underground’ material
2. They’ve written it themselves, presumably for their own ‘underground’ publications

Neither of which inspire me with confidence. But, hey-ho, I turn the page, anxious to see what literary delights await me. I was not disappointed.

The title of the ‘piece’? “SHOULD MUSLIMS APOLOGISE?”
You see, right there, that’s gripped me. And got me ready to be amazed. It’s almost like something straight out of a top selling tabloid, apparently scrawled down without much thought about content, when in fact it’s probably been very carefully chosen. The headline doesn’t detail what, exactly, they’re asking if Muslims should apologise for. No, they’re leaving that to you’re lovely imagination. You can’t help but carry on to read the piece, can you? I know I couldn’t.

But anyway, enough of that. Onto the actual content. The meat and two veg. The crux of this little story. Apologies if any of those phrases aren’t appropriate.
Before I set about picking holes in an already flawed argument, let me summarise what the piece is about: In essence, it details how the heroin trade is an Islamic trade run – it reads – entirely by Muslims, who are getting massively rich whilst destroying many lives and societies within Britain and, indeed, around the world. That is what they want ‘Islam’ to apologise for.
To read between the lines a little for you, the not-so-subliminal messaging here is that old chestnut, Muslims are destroying the UK and the simple hard-working white Anglo-Saxon man is being discriminated against in his own country. It’s political correctness gone mad! We’re being brain-washed! Yadda, yadda, yadda. Nothing we haven’t all heard before. Put simply, it’s a project aimed at creating further hatred and division within our society by spreading falsities under a thin veil of mis-truths, emotional language, and pseudo-reasoning. The idea is not that this will cause a sudden surge of anti-Muslim sentiment that will help these individuals achieve their ultimate aim, but that it will help in spreading an underlying feeling of mistrust between the (usually) Christian English and Muslim English populations, sowing the seeds for further prejudice. In a not-so-revolutionary stroke of genius, it does it by outwardly appealing towards non-violent sentiments and doing its best to tug the old heart strings of its target population.

So, what shining examples of literary brilliance do we have to commentate on? Let’s have a look. The article starts badly (for the journalist):

For the past twelve months a small group of campaigners have caused an almighty furore across the North West of England. They have specifically targeted the middle classes by leafleting in well healed [sic] areas and by sending personalised letters to university lecturers, doctors, barristers, civil servants, clerics, etc. [My Emphasis Added]

I hate to be a bastard but, “well healed”? Please. Don’t insult me. We all know that should be “well-heeled”, don’t we? Especially seeing as it makes more sense, the phrase literally meaning someone who can afford to have the shoes re-heeled regularly and the like. Unless, of course, they really meant those middle classes who have recently got out of hospital, having made a full recovery? I think not. Amateurs.

What does their [Preston Pals] campaign consist of? They are asking Muslims to apologise for the Heroin Trade. To some their actions appear inflammatory, but given mature reflection is this really the case.[sic]

Yes, that needs a question mark on the end. But besides that, let’s apply some mature reflection and see if we too believe that maybe, just maybe, these actions do more than just appear inflammatory and, in fact, are purposefully inflammatory, behind all the rhetoric.

But I’m being pedantic. Moving swiftly on:

These campaigners claim that the Heroin Trade is far more abusive, exploitative and lethal than the slave trade.

An irrelevance. But despite that, a very, very difficult thing to argue successfully. But I’m sure they, like Baldrick, “have a cunning plan” to be able to twist the facts to their advantage when arguing the above.

Even according to the most conservative of estimates between 20 and 25 million people have been directly killed by the heroin trade

I can’t provide a solid refute to that without having any evidence to hand (incidentally, I question why they don’t cite these ‘most conservative’ sources of information in making such outlandish statements) but I strongly doubt that the above is the ‘most conservative of estimates’ unless, of course, the figures it calls upon and what it considers to be ‘directly killed’ by the trade is very wide-ranging and covers quite a broad period of time. Again, unfortunately, the lack of either of those important pieces of information being provided in that statement makes me question its validity.

… they [the Preston Pals] have witnessed entire communities brought low by prostitution, crime, child abuse, benefit reliance and gang warfare all spewing forth as a direct consequence of the heroin trade.

I want to see the categorical evidence that links all the above “directly” to the heroin trade. I’m fairly confident that not every single instance of the above were “spewed forth” directly from the effect of the heroin trade. Yet, clearly, it is written to do it’s damnedest to suggest that is the case. The omission of facts in all these statements is, to me, telling.

In working men’s clubs up and down the valley the blame for this modern day holocaust is laid squarely at the door of those they have come to refer to as the Muslim ‘invader’.

Whoops, a little Freudian slip there, as the fundamental underlying belief and hatred claws at the surface of the tale. But, as if ‘invader’ wasn’t bad enough, stirring up connotations of the Germans on the beaches, Churchill-esque rhetoric, and other bollocks besides…

I’m fairly sure Craig would have something interesting to say on their use of the term “holocaust” as well. My argument would still stand as to the reason they’ve used it – which is as an emotive gesture, once again tugging at heart strings – but I would be in full agreement with him that it’s use is insulting to any form of intelligent life.

Rumours abound that many of the rich and powerful Muslims who hob-nob with ‘county set’ are up to their necks in the trade.

Emphasis on ‘rumours’ if you’d be so kind, maestro. Thanks. Also, any word on where these rumours originate?

What the Pals struggle to understand is why this highly organised and regulated multinational business that directly employs hundreds of thousands of Muslims and making many of them very rich indeed, manages to escape public scrutiny and condemnation?

First of all, I’m fairly confident it makes all those white drug dealers plenty of money as well. Secondly, where are you getting your facts as regards the numbers directly employed? Does the trade issue monthly statements for its shareholders? If so, how do I get involved?
Of course, I’m being sarcastic. The very fact that it’s a largely illegal trade means its shrouded by mystery, rumours, hearsay. If it was crystal clear as to how it all works, it wouldn’t be half the problem it currently is. I’m pretty sure that saying the Heroin trade “manages to escape public scrutiny” is once more being high liberal in the truths it tells. I would hardly say that heroin is the attractive drug with all that positive press that the above statement tries to allude to. Trainspotting, anyone? I don’t believe the statement about it escaping condemnation warrants a retort.
This statement also comes after some further ‘facts’ about the origins of much of the worlds heroin being from Afghanistan / Pakistan. Very true, because that’s where the opium is grown. Just the same as much Cocaine comes from Columbia and similar. There are two reasons as to why it’s in those regions: (1) It fucking grows there; (2) These are largely lawless areas, or areas where law and order as we understand it is hardly able to be put into effect efficiently. Of course it attracts illegal activity. Just the same as how places like China, with little worker-protection regulations, attracts many multinational corporations to base their manufacturing plants there – they can get away with things they can’t get away with in their home countries, and so they go for the cheap option. This isn’t unique to the Heroin trade, so stop trying to pretend it is.

Attempts to deal with the problem by education and rehabilitation are contemptuously dismissed by the protestors [sic] as a waste of time.

Having read through this already so far, I am hardly surprised that the protesters shun an education-based approach. It would, after all just confuse and destroy their current arguments. And, as we all know, rehab is for quitters.

This whole campaign is built on the belief that the abolition of the heroin trade will only come to pass when Islam decides to abolish it.

Come on, Islam, pull your fucking finger out, sunshine. :rolls-eyes:
In other news, the author broke with his previous tradition of capitalising “Heroin Trade”. Read all about it.

One of the leaflets under investigation underlines this belief by making the claim: ‘if Muslims applied to heroin traders a tiny fraction of the brutality they expend on adulterers the world would see an end to this evil trade in six months.

Ah, the old Sharia Law argument. Because, surely we all know, it’s an absolute fact that every single Muslim in the world applies Sharia Law and in every case Sharia Law dictates brutality.
Of course, I’m bullshitting. The truth is Sharia Law covers every aspect of life and in many, many cases, there is no reference to brutality to be had. There are exceptions, of course there are, in much the same way that not all Roman Catholic priests bugger children, but that by no means proves the rule. It also lies heavily with interpretation by the cleric in overseeing events. So, to return to the original statement, I want to see the research that translates putting a fraction of that brutality against adulterers into the fight against heroin would miraculously bring about the complete dissolution of the heroin trade. Because, of course, opium isn’t a naturally occurring product on this planet [I am of course taking the proverbial here] so provided Muslims clamp down on it hard, it’ll just vanish. *sigh* I wish people would think things through before putting pen to paper.

These ex-military men believe that the nation of Islam will only be able to do its duty and deal with the Heroin Traders after undertaking a cathartic process of introspection and self-examination similar to the one embarked on by the Roman Catholic community. Before the Roman Catholic community could effectively deal with the problem of paedophile priests there had to be a profound and universal recognition that by fostering a culture of cover-up, denial, and whitewash they were, in a very real sense, collectively responsible for the suffering inflicted by Catholic paedophiles. Islam, these old soldiers protest, must be brought to the same alter [sic] of repentance.

Hmm, where to start? Ok, well, can someone please tell me where this ‘nation of Islam’ is? Is it Saudi Arabia? Is it Egypt? Is it Syria? How about Palestine? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iraq? Iran? You see, all those countries have very different approaches to their laws, their governance, their religion and, above all, their leaders, spiritual or otherwise. Because Islam as a term is the same as Christianity. It doesn’t specify the individual sects, such as Evangelical, Methodist, Catholic etc. And as such it’s hard to say it has a ‘leader’ or a ‘leading body’, besides the Deity itself of course. So how can it signify it’s universal recognition?
The argument is made weaker by the fact it compares its desires to the actions of the Roman Catholic church, a church with a very clear head of state and, hell, it’s own state. The fact that many other Christian organisations around the world condemned the stories as they were coming out regarding the cases of paedophilia didn’t matter (by the authors own admission) until the Roman Catholic church itself finally made its feelings known (many, many years too late, by the way, if you want my opinion on it). So, sorry, but they are in no way “similar”, and trying to claim they are is to do your readers a huge injustice, and insults their intelligence. So, please, pack up your weak arguments and go do some reading.

Muslims must be made to acknowledge that they are guilty of nurturing a culture of cover-up, denial and whitewash with regard to the Heroin Trade that has allowed this evil industry to bloom. It is only following a profound acknowledgement [which will be signified by the profession of public apologies] that the Islamic world is indeed guilty of inflicting this monstrous blight upon humanity that Muslims around the world will be shamed into doing the ‘right thing’ and deal with the heroin traders that hide and thrive in their midst.

Wow. +1 for the attempt at provocative and moving language. Repetition of the previous statements over ‘cover-up etc.’, ‘evil industry’, ’shamed into doing’, ‘hide and thrive in their midst’.
Because, of course, this is purely a Muslim problem. No heroin dealers live within the white man’s midst. Heavens, no! We’d never allow it! We’re proud and upstanding members of the community, and did we say ‘white’?
Regardless, if this day ever comes to pass (and I highly doubt it – and hope it never – will) I propose that we – the good people of the UK and the world who are able to sift through poorly constructed arguments and feeble attempts at propaganda – launch a similar campaign for a public apology on behalf of all good people everywhere for allowing such hate to be fostered within our communities, and shame ourselves into doing the ‘right thing’ and dealing with the professors of hate that hide and thrive in our midst. Black or white.
In all seriousness though, the idea itself is ludicrous. Walk on.

Given that the Pals have received a number of blood curdling death threats, no one should be surprised that they believe Muslims are more interest in silencing talk about the trade than ending it.

Of course, this doesn’t hint at to what the received threats are about. Are they about the heroin trade or are they, perhaps more likely, about a strong-handed reaction to the hate these fellows are preaching? Also, are these death threats all from Muslims only? How can you tell? You certainly don’t make any effort to make it clear, you just hint at it with your dreary attempt at language.

A belief reinforced by the fact that an initial investigation into this campaign was dismissed by the CPS only to be reopened following pressure from the Muslim Police Officers Association. In submitting to Muslim pressure the authorities may genuinely believe they are working towards social cohesion, but this is not how the veterans see it.

Well, bugger me with a pitchfork – the veterans don’t see it that way? Say it ain’t so! But, regardless, this is the trump card, that last stand to really get the moderate blood pumping. The hint at Muslim-favouritism. It would be them who re-opened the case wouldn’t it? Bastards.
Erm, excuse me, evidence? Please? I want to see the paperwork that categorically states that they re-opened the case? Not that I doubt it. The very wording of everything I’ve seen so far aims to spread an air of mistrust against all Muslims by suggesting they all know the ins and outs of the heroin trade and do their best to cover it up. Like some huge – Mafia-esque organisation hell-bent on destroying the earth. If that sort of information (even as badly presented as this is) ever made an real headway, then  would Muslim policemen and women be able to be respected by the mixed-race communities they work within and aim to police? I can fully understand why they would want to campaign for such a case to be looked at more closely.

From their [the veterans] point of view the authorities are collaborating with the Muslim invader to suppress a legitimate grievance honourably expressed.

Lofty language, wonderful. The fact that Muslims are every bit a part of British society as British Christians, British Hindus, British Pagans, British Atheists, British Buddhists, ad infinitum means that the authorities are also acting perfectly within these duties in following up on “a legitimate grievance honourably expressed”, even if it runs at odds to your own grievance. To coin a popular phrase (probably American in origin): get over it.

What should concern us all is the perception that as shepherds to their people, the authorities are seen as not only failing in their duty to defend, protect and care for their flock, but appear to have taken the side of the wolf pack.

The most important thing here, and in the last few statements, is to note the lack of apostrophes surrounding terms like ‘wolf pack’ and ‘invaders’ that existed in earlier paragraphs. We’re done with pretending to be civil, it seems to suggest. Time to hit hard.
Again, the very fact that the article assumes all Muslims are in this together shines through, and ignores the fact that the vast majority of UK Muslims are also part of the proverbial flock and should be treated as such.

It was with the tone of man [sic] who felt betrayed that one of the Pals remarked: ‘the real inflammatory behavious occurring in our valley comes from Lancashire’s Muslim colony which is inflicting a tsunami of suffering, misery, and death upon those who have been forced to give them a home’.

Hmm, quite. Let’s forget what we set out to argue and get to the bottom of it shall we? You don’t like Muslims being here. Yet you need them. Because without them you’d have to blame the white man for all your little ills and feelings of being hard done to. So for now, you’ll just use them as pawns in your game, just as you yourselves are being used by the (presumably also white) man who’s feeding you the propaganda you need to make you feel better about yourselves.
The language used is important. ‘Tsunami’ is a very evocative turn after the terrible effects in Thailand of a few years ago. It conjurs up images of absolute destruction. ‘Colony’ harks back to our own days of Empire, where we would bravely set forth to colonise (and conquer) far off lands often against the desires of the local population. ‘Forced to give them a home’ is, besides often being a pack of lies, conjurs up imagery of the downtrodden white man having to step aside to provide warmth and shelter to the ‘invaders’. You know, human warmth and kindness – urgh!

Conclusions

You may have already worked out that I am not sold on any part of this argument. By and large I have quoted segments of the entire piece, from start to finish, and feel I have only omitted odd sections where I feel there is little to actually comment upon, or I have referenced them in the next piece. I will endeavour to scan this anyway, and make it available for you to read through at your leisure, should you wish.

I have no doubt that many of the grievances the “Pals” feel is real, and it clearly affects them dearly. What I do doubt is that their grievances have managed to manifest themselves this way without a ‘guiding hand’ – that lone friend or group of friends they all know that was their to provide them with a reason, an excuse, and a target to blame their grievances upon. It is no doubt the same friend or group that inspired some of the rhetoric they now preach. In short, they’ve had their trust abused, and they’ve been manipulated to further the friend’s or group’s own aims. They are just pawns in the game, being pushed around and used and abused as is seen fit. Because of this, they are in many ways the nmost dangerous. They’re people you know, people you trust, people you value. And as such, their arguments (no matter how flawed) seem to be able to resonate with you as you sympathise with what they’ve been through and, in your own way, attempt to make what they’re saying fit in with your own lives and troubles. Because, simply, things seem so much easier if you have someone else to blame.

This is nothing new. It is a technique that has been used for centuries by politicians and would-be politicians to leverage themselves into a position of power and further their own aims. To give one popular example, Hitler used it extensively from him first getting into politics, using the Jews as a target that ‘real Germans’ could land their blame on. They were a large enough minority to have everyone relate to, yet small enough that they can’t efficiently fight back in any reasonable way.

What disappoints me most about this piece is that, for those people who are teetering on the edge, who are disappointed, don’t have everything going their way, or who just fail to attempt to read between the lines, this will come across as moderately convincing, and may well push them further in extreme ideologies. And, contrary to that author’s point of view, I do believe that you can’t police against that, it can only be rectified through ‘education and rehabilitation’. Please don’t let yourself fall into that trap.

Being able to blame others won’t take your problems away, it will just blind you to the fact that you have no one to blame but yourself.

Seven fucking hours.

That is the total amount of time I have spent travelling to and from Manchester this weekend. Let me just point out that, according to schedules, that seven (count ‘em, 7) hours should be 2 and a half. I just got nearly three times my money’s worth. Bargain? Hmmm.

Anyway, that’s by-the-by because, despite delays, I actually thoroughly enjoyed them.

The first delay was on the way down to Manchester, when the train came to a stop jsut after Chorley because the previous train had disrupted the ‘points’ or some such technical train-like term. So we stopped, for the best part of an hour, in what I like to consider a No Man’s Land of the train world.
Yet, it was remarkably refreshing. Sat at the end of the carriage as I was, we were a cluster of maybe 6 or 7 people. And after a short while being stopped everyone started to open up. There was no frustration, no excessive tutting and shaking of heads, just light-hearted amusement. Simple jokes, shrugging the situation off, and genuinely just making the most of an unfortunate situation. People opened up, started talking about where they were heading, a few of us had drink on us that we were toying with cracking open if we were delayed much longer, and the like. It was how I imagine the war-time atmosphere was (granted, the bombs weren’t falling). It restored my faith in the public.

Anyway, before we knew it (and before we resorted to drink) we were movijng again and arrived at Bolton, where it terminated because of the delays. Lots of concerned people ushering their children everywhere and tutting wildly. I laughed a little. To myself. And then jumped on a train to Victoria instead, as it looked like it’d be quicker. Soon enough, I’d arrived.

The return was funnier still.

I did the quick walk to Picadilly in my remotely hungover state, got a good ol’ Pasty to help me on my way, then got on the 12:25 train destined for Blackpool via Preston, where I was hoping to change to Lancaster.
It started with a decidedly dodgy edge when the train we got on was originally Stockport-bound, but got terminated for us to jump on. It got as far as Oxford Road before stopping, the crew jumping off, and no replacement crew being available. I could do little else but chuckle as I continued to read.

Then the engines stopped. Sighs all round, but, once more, smiley faces making the best of it. Public confidence restored, once more. After a little while, general pleasantries were swapped and I got talking to the lady sat opposite me who, as it happened, was also trying to get to Lancaster. Others left, jokes were told, and amusement was had by all as we finally started moving again and finally got into Preston and rushed to get much needed refreshment. During this process, we managed to miss the connection to Lancaster, so opted for beer whilst awaiting the next train. The bar tender did an excellent job and also joined in the banter spawned from random events. Most amusing, and more or less settled my ailing body.

Finally got the train, and got into Lancaster at 16:00, a mere 3 hours late. Super stuff.

But the important thing that came out of all this? The banter, the chat, the getting along with strangers and genuinely just meeting nice, nice people. Lovely stuff.

Sophie – thanks for the chatter – it was much appreciated and lightened my day after feeling pretty terrible from drink after effects. Genuinely very nice to have met and thanks for a fun couple of hours chatting shite. I hope you enjoyed the brief spell in sunny Lancaster and enjoy your course / being back in Manchester.

To the others I didn’t catch the names of – thanks for just being nice and restoring my faith. Dramatic? Probably. But it was lovely.

The strange part is that I almost certainly will never see any of those people again but… it doesn’t matter. I feel better because we had the banter and were nice to strangers. It would be nice to make and keep friends with everyone you meet, but it doesn’t have to happen that way. Lovely jubbly.

As to why I was in Manchester, I was there for Craig’s birthday. And I failed terribly at drinking.

To the people who met me at Craig’s, and to Craig and Lehna – I apologise. I have no excuse for seemingly being as drunk as I was as quick as I was, and I certainly have no excuse for locking myself away and sleeping on the bathroom floor. I’m still at a loss as to what actually caused my downfall. I’m sure I could sit here all night and come up with excuses, but that is all they’d be and it wouldn’t actually fixed anything. Sorry anyway for playing the drunken fool, it was lovely to meet you all.

And, Craig, happy birthday, you old bastard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7580261.stm

That is all.

In all seriousness, so much could be said of this story but – I’ll be honest – right now, I’d rather laugh my tits off reading it.

Over the last couple of weeks I’ve spotted a noticeable sprouting of (largely) orange signs declaring proudly:

Liberal Decocrats – Winning Here!

Now, ignoring the blatantly obvious graffiti opportunities of daubing ‘And only here’ or ‘but nowhere else’ underneath*, these signs irritate me. Even the highly conservative blue Conservative ones (see what I did there..?) that I saw strategically placed in neighbouring gardens and carrying similarly optimistic messages manage to annoy me.

Why? Because I question what their point is. The only thing I can come up with the more I think about it and run it over in my head is that it’s to encourage other people to vote your way… or intimidation. “Oh, everybody else is voting that way, we might as well do the same.”
Of course, the flipside is that, I hope, there’s many people like me who simply don’t care which way you’re voting. That’s why we have private ballots, surely? So that nobody needs to know which way you’ve decided to vote.

Maybe I’m just turning ever more cynical in my old age, but it did just strike me as one huge waste of time and resources that seems to go into these things. On the flip side, if I ever live somewhere where this sort of thing is prevalent, I need ideas as to what hugely ironic, incredibly invasive, and downright ballsy signs I can stick in my garden. I’m thinking something to be done in Neon, perhaps with flashy bits. And lots of shiny stuff. That’ll learn ‘em.

* – I don’t have anything against the Lib Dems but, let’s face it, they’re neither Republican nor Democrat (sic) so they’re not going to win long term.

Original Item:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7289051.stm

What an absolute miserable bastard this fellow is. Please, read the article, it’s not too lengthy.

In short, a London accountant is trying to sue Marks&Spencer after slipping over and tearing a tendon in their car park in 2004.

The reason he believes he fell over is because he found a grape stuck to the bottom of his shoe that could have become attached either inside or outside the store… so therefore it’s their fault…

Thankfully M&S are contesting this and I sincerely hope they win it and bring the scrounging little prick back down to earth with a bump.

The reason he’s suing? ‘Loss of Earnings’. Good one… nobody ever tries that, do they? Something confuses me though… he’s a sodding accountant. How critical is a tendon in his right leg to his work? It’s not as if he’s a footballer, rugby player, cyclist or any other ‘active’ job that sort of requires the full and proper use of his right leg. Would it have made things more difficult while he was recovering? ‘Course it would, but it’s not bloody impossible.

This little section particularly gripped me

Mr Martin-Sklan, who is representing himself, is claiming for lost earnings on top of his general damages, because “loss of confidence” and depression following his injury led to him being unable to recruit new clients and contacts for his business.

… Stunning. He hurts his leg and suffers loss of confidence and depression as a result. To me, that screams that he needs psychiatric attention, not financial. I am not doubting that tearing a tendon works, but if something that simple knocks your confidence and induces depression which in turn affects your ability to do your job then you’ve always been an accident waiting to happen good sir, and should be thankful it happened know rather than later. In fact, you should be paying M&S as a little ‘thank you’ for bringing your clear instability to your attention before it got too far.

Either way, you need to grow a pair of testicles and move on, you whiny mother trucker.

EDIT: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7292657.stm ROFLCOPTER. You fail. Now dig deep to repay those fees…

News Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7258437.stm

I’m genuinely curious to see how they try to implement this. And the inevitable workarounds that will appear the next day.

Also, this comment:

“ISPs are in a unique position to make a difference and in doing so to reverse a culture of creation-without-reward that has proved so damaging to the whole music community over the last few years,” said John Kennedy, head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).

Yeh, because the music industry’s on it’s arse… *sigh*

It really does get tiring hearing the same fat cats argue that the music industry has been damaged by so-called piracy. Apparently though, it’s not obvious enough, so people like the RIAA have to try and make it look like all media ‘pirates’ are up-and-coming terrorists.

Of course, what the various groups are avoiding from admitting in this sort of lobbying is that… wait for it… DRM does not work. But, of course, they can’t say that, because the other hand is still trying to push DRM.
For those not full aware, DRM is that little thing that means if you buy music through the iTunes store, you can’t play it on your Sony Walkman. Or if you buy music from nearly any other store* you can’t play it on your iPod. In some parts of the world, that would be considered an attempt at creating a monopoly, or at the very least, consumer lock-in. Apparently though, it’s not. It’s for national security… Erm, right.

* Full credit to Play.com who ahve recently opened their completely unrestricted digital downloads store, with quiet a healthy selection of music on there. My advice is, if you want to buy music online, buy it through Play. If you can’t find it there, buy the CD f(as long as it doesn’t have that super-smart copyright protection on it that doesn’t play on some CD Players, or under Linux boxes, usually, and only sometimes work with Macs.
Play.com, I salute you. And all that.

I have to be honest, I don’t endorse piracy. But I also like the right to at least have _some_ control over the items I have legally bought, whether it be making a copy so I don’t have to keep a £10 (minimum) CD Album in my car – where it’s at greater risk of being stolen – or putting a copy of a song on my PC or iPod (my PC runs Linux and my iPod runs Rockbox, so DRM is not an issue I can really consider, unless I want to use one of x number of limited CD burns I can make with it, or download it again from another PC after I’ve reached my limit for ‘Registered Computers’ etc etc grumble grumble.

piratebay.org has some interesting views on the subject as well, and some useful links.

Original Post:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7257695.stm

Do we really need to have such articles on worthless news like this? Does it really go anyway to being helpful? I think you’ll find the answer is a categoric ‘no’.

Besides the fact that a Whitehall inquiry stated that the school provided ’satisfactory education’, the headline is still chosen to be as it is.

Granted, the teacher in question, Mr Cheetham, may well have been dismissed unfairly – but that has fuck all to do with what the school teaches, seeing as, from the article, he claims he was sacked after ‘blowing the whistle on students cheating in public exams’. The school claim he was sacked for misconduct. The truth is though, under a headline like that, what he was or was not sacked for comes across as highly irrelevant. Feeding the fire and all that.

In fact, Mr Cheetham, by his own confession, states he was only ‘informed’ about the school ‘preaching race hate’ after his employment was terminated, and he can’t prove that the passages he was shown were ever actually used in lessons. Mr Cheetham said:

“Without any evidence to support it, it’s not worth a jot,”

No, it isn’t, you fucking moron. Because it’s not illegal to own a book. So why are you moaning about it? If a school dismissed you because you rattled on them for allowing cheating to occur, then bollock them for that – it’s bad enough and it’s what I’d rather hear about. I’d also want to hear about it _whatever_ the background of the school is. But that apparently isn’t very newsworthy these days.

‘What? A Muslim school accused without evidence of preaching race hate? Yeh, print that, they’ll fucking lap it up.’

It’s a shame as well, because I’ve always found the BBC site to be more or less ok in giving me the news I want to read in a fairly straight-forward manner. Of course, the actual text of the article was fine, it just proved that the headline was completely ridiculous tabloid-style stuff.

So, Mr Cheetham and the BBC – grow up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7247160.stm

^^ THIS ^^

I can’t really think of a better way to sum up my support of this article, besides using bold and CAPS LOCK. Digital Generation? Hmmm, maybe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7245533.stm

Yes, it’s a shame, yes they should have the right equipment for the task, but at the end of the day, two basic facts remain:

1. They are soldiers… one of those risks you take when signing up for that shit is that you can get shot… and bullets kill.
2. The solider in question, and his superior (who I believe testified in court that they had insufficient equipment) are human beings… if you don’t feel the equipment is dequate, don’t follow through with the task.
   Granted, this is the armed forces, but Afghanistan is highly unlikely to invade the UK. You denying the mission does _not_ (whatever your propagandha may tell you) endanger British lives. It’s the Ministry of (fucking) Defence for a reason. Given the modern age in regards legal matters, you would be hard pressed to be prosecuted for disobeying orders, except maybe by the Yanks who may take you to Guantanemo on terrorist charges ( ). *sighs*

Sorry, but I felt it had to be said. Yes, a soldier has died fighting ‘for his country’. Yes, it appears he had inadequate equipment (I haven’t read a full report that details exactly what he did or didn’t have – my guess is he had more than the Afghans). Yes, he should have been better equipped. Yes, he was a soldier. It’s one of those ‘Risks of the Trade’.

Shit happens. If you want to blame anyone, why not look to America, who claimed the war there was won 4 years ago.

I have various friends who have served in the forces, and I have the utmost respect for each and every one of them. But each and every one of them were plain about the risks they faced – and fair play to them. I wouldn’t have the balls to go out and serve as they did.

But if I did, I wouldn’t expect such a fucking hoo-hah when the possibility became reality.