Posturing Prats ...

I note with some sceptical disgust that Greenpeace have announced they are sending a ship to the Total Offshore Platform to "monitor the environmental damage." This should be seen for what it is, a cheap publicity stunt aimed at convincing the ignorant among their followers that they are "doing something to protect the planet from the evils of 'Big Oil.'" I lost all patience with Greenpeace some time ago, over the moronic stunts they pulled with the Brent Spar decommissioning. Their usual bunch of idle "activists" succeeded in running a scare campaign on that one claiming that "nuclear waste" and "thousands of tons of oil" were to be dumped when the spar was sunk. As usual, the spineless jellyfish in Parliament bowed to the howling mob and the Spar was dragged ashore and broken up on land, causing far more pollution and requiring a huge expenditure to deal with the problems this caused.

There was no "radioactive waste" and in the end there was less than 50 tons of heavy oil present.

I expect their "morons" to endanger the rig - we already know what is boiling up from the sea bed and we know there is a cloud of gas surrounding the platform - when they break the exclusion zone to put "scientists" (aka activists with a load of equipment they barely know how to use) on board to attempt this "monitoring" activity.

What they will not admit is that their entire effort is aimed at bringing about an end to "capitalism" and the arrival of a socialist Utopia - with, of course, them in charge. They will not be satisfied until they have shut down all oil and gas recovery operations everywhere and made us once more dependent on charcoal (watch that one for Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide emissions!), wood and rubbing two sticks together to make fire.

Their ship, pumping out vast amounts of Carbon Dioxide from its elderly engines, will cruise around the platform, getting in the way of everyone involved in trying to deal with the emergency and endangering themselves and everyone else. It will no doubt burn a vast amount of diesel oil in the process and so will the RIBs they will launch and use to try to prevent anyone from taking any useful action. What really annoys me is that the British and other taxpayers are funding this multi-million dollar organisation to assist them in destroying our economies and our commercial viability.

It is bad enough having to deal with an emergency of this kind, no one needs a bunch of do-gooding morons getting in the way. This is a publicity stunt, pure and simple. It has no scientific purpose and no scientific value - it is just Public Relations at our expense.

Blunt Instrument ...

A friend, a Barrister of some repute, once told a class I was leading, that the "Law is an extremely blunt instrument" and should be used with caution. He was referring at the time to a then recent case, in which the judgement reached by the court, was likely to have a major impact in future on all cases falling under the legislation concerned. This is one of the major problems, in my view, with English Law, it doesn't necessarily mean exactly what it appears to mean - until a court has ruled that it does. Or that it means something subtly different. And that is where the problems start, because now the law impacts upon things those who drafted it, never considered or didn't intend.

In recent years we have seen a number of such rulings, usually made in the application of some recent piece of legislation. Frequently we have seen laws enacted by Parliament - certainly in the last 20 or so years - which are so poorly drafted and so badly thought through that the ultimate interpretation, and therefore the matters it affects, intended to address some 'issue' the denizens of that House deemed necessary, became a weapon against activities and people it was not originally intended to impact upon. Much of the Health and Safety Regulation introduced by the shovel load in the last 15 years has certainly had that impact on the Police, the Fire and Rescue Services, Ambulance Services and even the Voluntary sector. A great deal of the "anti-racist" legislation has had the effect of actually enshrining racism in some ways, with Whitehall "targets" for "ethnic and gender mix" in the workforce of public bodies, or the now frequent use of "race-hate" laws to ban groups or organisations from using public venues because some activist heard a member of the group use an idiom or phrase the activist considered "racist."

I see the problem has reared its head in the US as well, which uses a similar legal process in the interpretation of the law. A recent message from The Postulant provided me with a link to a Journalists Blog which took me to a very interesting article on a court case being brought against Congress for the passage of a law which, among many other things, would permit the deployment of the US Military within the borders of the USA itself for "counter insurgency operations, and the suppression of unrest." The reason this journalist and his fellow litigants are suing over it is that it would also permit the government to stifle the reporting of any action they wished to keep under wraps. Once again, I foresee that the application of this Act would be fraught with ramifications for everyone in the US, but in particular with their much vaunted freedom of expression, action and the right to bear arms.

The more I learned about the law, the legal process and the manner in which laws are created and framed, the more convinced I became that we needed less specific laws and fewer laws of compulsion on the Statute Book. Yes, we do need laws, every society needs to have clearly defined and understood boundaries of behaviour, what we do not need is a plethora of often overlapping, sometimes contradictory and seldom clearly understood legislation. My former profession, the Fire and Rescue Service, is affected by some 900 different pieces of law, a lot of it duplication, and some of it actually flat out contradictory. The Police have a similar problem.

Sadly, since the legal profession has a vested interest in making all law as opaque as possible, I doubt we'll see it reformed short of a major overthrow of the present syste, - and even that is only likely to make it even worse ...

Faith versus Religion

Josephus sent me a link to a interesting article in The Spectator. It is an interview with the now retired Bishop of Edinburgh, an interesting man in many ways, with an unusual (for a bishop) faith. As the bihop puts it, God hates religion ... If I'm honest, I think that I share that view to a very large extent, though I would not go as far as he does in some other aspects of his statement. I do believe in the empty tomb of Jesus, though I may have a different interpretation from the mainstream of what exactly happened there. I do believe that the essential teachings of the Christian Gospel are sound, that they have made a huge and positive impact on humanity - despite the many instances when "religion" or "religious politics" have given rise to some serious abuses.

I agree entirely with the bishop's view that attempts to reduce everything to certainties - something religious people are often accused of, frequently with justification - is a major failing, but not just within religious circles. The same failing can be seen in science, when one encounters declarations of certainty couched in religious style 'certainties.' As most scientists are quick to point out, todays certainties are often tomorrow's embarrassing failures. As Josephus and I have frequently chuckled over, 'scientists' just over 200 years ago were convinced that something called "Phlogiston" was the active ingredient in combustion. We know now that this is not correct, but it took a lot of argument to lay this one to rest. Likewise 19th Century ideas on the shape, size and appearance of dinosaurs has been completely revised in recent years and so has the evolution of humanity - with big chunks of that still the subject of furious debate.

Faith and "religion" are often confused, one can have "faith" without "religion" though it has been observed that someone with a high degree of conviction on some matter, can then cling to it with a religious fervour. To challenge their conviction in, say, Anthropomorphic Global Warming, is to challenge the very articles of their faith and meets with the same sort of impassioned response one gets challenging the beliefs of a fundamentalist member of any "religion."

I do agree with the bishop's view that religion is bad for faith. One of the things one often encounters in a church is a set of legalistic "laws" (referred to as Canon Law) which regulate virtually everything about membership, activities and even charitable activity. Often these are used to stop someone exercising their faith in some form of ministry, or to prevent any exploration of something society has long adopted. In my time as a Church Warden and as a Reader in the Anglican Church, I had, on a number of occasions, to deal with that sort of activity.

Churches can be frustrating places. What most people forget is that the "church" is a vehicle, a means of transport, not a destination. It provides a place and a means in which "faith" can be explored, developed and grown through. There will be frustrations, there will be conflicts, there are very few certainties. What it must not be is a strait jacket. That is the "religion" God hates.

The danger of live microphones ...

Gordon Brown learned the hard way to be wary of speaking his mind while there was a 'live' microphone present, now it seems Mr. Obama has made the same fundamental error. While Mr. Brown merely insulted and questioned the integrity of an elderly voter when asked an awkward question he didn't like, Mr. Obama appears to have been trying to get the Russians to do some trading on armaments in the interests of his re-election campaign ...

I should imagine that isn't going to play well in certain quarters in the US.

We all know, or at least suspect, our leaders get up to these things and trade off everything including security of the nation and peoples' jobs in their determination to be re-elected time after time. What we don't like, is being confronted with it. Yet here we undoubtedly have an example hitting us right between the eyes, the US President openly saying, "you have to give me something on missiles. This is my last election, once it's over we can ..." The response says a lot about who has and who wields the real power in Russia as the Russian President replies - "I'll tell Vladimir (Putin)..." I'm not sure the Russians wanted that broadcast either!

Just shows how easy it is to shoot yourself in the foot these days. All you need is an 'open' microphone and a 'live' broadcast ...

Triumph over bureaucracy ...

It has taken 23 months, numerous visits to the Standesamt, more telephone calls, emails and letters than we care to remember, apostilles, certificates, certifications of authenticity and a couple of affidavits - but we've finally got permission to get married in Germany. The bureaucrats finally surrendered and stopped sending us demands for more certificates, more proofs of nationality, marriage anullment, income and residence, and have issued the necessary clearance.

Now all we have to do is set a date when those we'd like to invite are likely to be able to attend - and the necessary officials, priest and venues are available ...

It's only taken 23 months so far, what's another six or so?

RIP Old Friend ...

Paddy Paws

1990 - 2012

This little lady walked into my life in April 1999 and into the hearts of everyone she encountered over the next 13 years. She'd had a tough beginning, either being kicked or run over aged around 2 and rescued by a neighbour who's son spotted the injured cat following him home. They had her patched up and she lived with them for seven years though they already had several cats and a dog. She moved in on me when I bought the house next door, having spent several days assessing us and our house to make sure there were no other animals in residence.

She has moved house with me twice, once only a matter of a few miles, the second time to Germany and travelled from Tewkesbury to our new home in the Taunus loose in the car. In the last twelve months though, she has developed a number of problems, her kidneys giving trouble, her hind quarters with arthritis and finally, in the last weeks, her bladder with kidney stones and persistent infection. For the last few days she could barely eat and refused to drink, so today we took her to the vet yet again.

Madam Paddy Paws was one of a kind. Vocal, demanding, persistent, but always loving and always a comfort and a joy. 

She died on my lap at 12.04 today. Loved, missed terribly, but no longer in pain or distress. We think she knew this was her last journey, she lay quiet and peaceful in my arms on the journey and made no sound at all as she received the final injection. The house is not the same without her.

She may no longer be with us physically, but she will always be remembered. 

Education? Who needs it?

The local radio station here has a limited range of music. We listen to it as it is really a "news" station and we like to keep abreast. I realised recently that one song from the 70s should have been listed as the most stupid and ill-informed lyric ever recorded. Who the heck thought a Pop Song with the lyric -

We don't need no education, 

and

Teacher, leave those kids alone ...

was a good idea? I can't escape the feeling that there is an entire generation out there who think the song was right. After all, if you're on the dole, you don't need an education. That's only for wimps who go out to work. Strangely it came on the radio just as I read an article on the BBC Website (We're barred from receiving it even on the internet in Europe!) entitled The Church of England Reaffirms its Committment to Education.

Of course that got an immediate response from the Chairman of the National Secular Society (Membership 7,000 and falling. The CofE currently has 3 million and other Christian denominations make up several million more - but don't tell Mr Porteous-Wood, it might depress him) accusing the church of "indoctrination" and declaring "religion belongs in the home and has no place in public society." At a guess I would suggest the Chairman is a member of the generation that sang along with the lyrics "We don't need no education ..." Certainly, having read a number of his statements on the subject of religion and what it stands for I can only say he is a perfect example of someone who is "illiterate" as far as matters of faith are concerned.

To quote the BBC report -

Keith Porteous-Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said by putting schools at the centre of its mission, the Church was acknowledging its churches were failing.

"Turning up the volume of religiosity in schools will cause greater resentment among the non-Christian parents at these schools.

"Religion is something for the home and the place of worship."

Church schools were only successful because they kept out the "difficult-to-teach" children, he added.

What this tells me is that he is very good at sterotyping and not much good at being objective or factual. First, the law forbids selection and discrimination, yet he is here suggesting that Faith or Church Schools do both. Church schools generally have better behaved children because the teachers are better motivated by and large. Though there are examples where that is not the case, they are rare. His remark 'Turning up the volume on religiosity ...' is typical of the sort of blanket denial that anyone has any faith and is instead caught up in some sort of empty ritualistic process made by someone who is utterly ignorant of what faith really is.

Something the Secularists hate is that the entire "Free Public Education" system was started by the much maligned Church of England just over 200 years ago. It took another 50 years before the "Captains and Kings" of Parliament and the "Great and Good" of the moneyed classes conceded that an educated workforce might be useful. I sincerely hope and trust that the CofE continues its involvement in schools and expands it.

Education? Who needs it? It seems to me that there is an entire class of supposedly intelligent and supposedly qualified people out there who do. Somewhere between starting school and reaching their current standing in society they seem to have missed being educated in anything at all - other than their prejudices and ignorance.