Today Transport for London banned an advertisement by Core Issues, a christian group, to promote on buses the following: "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!". Transport for London had previously accepted advertisements from Stonewall promoting: ''Some
people are gay. Get over it''. The Core Issues advertisement is clearly meant to be a spoof which is satirising the Stonewall claims. The Mayor for London averred that the Core Issues advertisement was claiming that homosexuality was an illness which can be cured. It was also his opinion that this type of advertisement is offensive.
Try as I may, I cannot see that the Core Issues' advertisement implies that gay people are sick. Their statement is as meaningless as the Stonewall one. The word gay is a colloquialism and it does not necessarily mean "homosexual" it can also mean "light hearted". "Get over it" is just a catch phrase. Two diametrically opposed campaigning groups are using meaningless language to promote their point of view and to criticise one another. Is this the silly season for public relations?
I could not care less whether someone is homosexual or not or whether they are proud of it or not. I am a heterosexual: I am what I am . I am not proud of it; why should I be? No one is going to convince me otherwise no matter what language they use. And I have no need to get over it, whatever that means.
What I do care about is the freedom of speech, the freedom to practise one's religion and the right to be a heterosexual or homosexual without fear or favour. I also believe in the right to be an agnostic or atheist without fear or favour.
Core Issues are not trying to interfere in the political process by their use of this advert. They are not proposing repressive laws either. They should be allowed to publish this advert. They are just as entitled to publish "tripe" as Stonewall is.
Friday, 13 April 2012
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
Sperm Identity
There is talk in Britain of denying sperm donors their anonymity. The whole idea of sperm donation is that it should be anonymous. I suspect that not many men will want to donate sperm only to find that eighteen years or so later someone, who they have never been in contact with, is going to knock on their door claiming to be their son or daughter. Imagine the disruption especially if you are settled down with children that you do know. What would your wife or partner think, as well?
There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in Britian who have not been brought up by their real father and it is probably best if they do not know.
Let sleeping dogs lie, if you want a constant supply of sperm donors.
There are probably hundreds of thousands of people in Britian who have not been brought up by their real father and it is probably best if they do not know.
Let sleeping dogs lie, if you want a constant supply of sperm donors.
Transport woes
Yesterday I travelled by train from Kent to London Waterloo during the mid morning. The school children were on holiday and our four coach train was full to the brim. South Eastern trains had decided not to increase the capacity on the line even though there were as many passengers as their would be in the rush hour. Perhaps, I am maligning South East trains when I say that they had decided not to increase capacity whilst the children are on holiday. Probably, they had not thought to do this and probably they do not care.
At London Waterloo I caught an underground train to the West End; this train was also full to the brim as there had been a problem on the line. Not only was it full to the brim but it was also uncomfortably hot even though the outside temperature was only 14 degrees celcius. What will happen when the Olympic Games are running? All the school children will be on holiday and there will be hundreds of thousands of extra tourists taking to the railways and other forms of public transport. The system will not be able to cope and I have visions of tourists fainting on the overcrowded and hot underground trains. The Public transport system in London is no longer fit for purpose. I shall be avoiding any travel to London whilst the Olympics take place.
Another problem that I noticed on my journey was the failure of any young person to make way for someone who was elderly, infirm or pregnant. It was and is everyman and woman for themselves. No-one could care less as they stare into their "smartphones" whilst oblivious to their fellow passengers around them.This lack of politeness and humanity is not limited to British people. My tube train was filled with people from all over Europe so anyone who is old, infirm or pregnant should be quite used to the fact that no-one is going to give up their seat for the less able when they pay a visit to London: Olympics or not.
At London Waterloo I caught an underground train to the West End; this train was also full to the brim as there had been a problem on the line. Not only was it full to the brim but it was also uncomfortably hot even though the outside temperature was only 14 degrees celcius. What will happen when the Olympic Games are running? All the school children will be on holiday and there will be hundreds of thousands of extra tourists taking to the railways and other forms of public transport. The system will not be able to cope and I have visions of tourists fainting on the overcrowded and hot underground trains. The Public transport system in London is no longer fit for purpose. I shall be avoiding any travel to London whilst the Olympics take place.
Another problem that I noticed on my journey was the failure of any young person to make way for someone who was elderly, infirm or pregnant. It was and is everyman and woman for themselves. No-one could care less as they stare into their "smartphones" whilst oblivious to their fellow passengers around them.This lack of politeness and humanity is not limited to British people. My tube train was filled with people from all over Europe so anyone who is old, infirm or pregnant should be quite used to the fact that no-one is going to give up their seat for the less able when they pay a visit to London: Olympics or not.
Friday, 30 March 2012
Petrol Panic
There is only a possibility that fuel delivery drivers will go on strike in the UK. A week's notice has to be given before a strike takes place. Despite all this there is panic buying at the fuel stations with some garages running out of petrol whilst yesterday fuel purchases rose by 170%. Who knows what will happen if the fuel delivery drivers really decide to go on strike? Why does there have to be panic buying when the situation has hardly changed?
The attitudes of some people never cease to amaze me especially when taking advice from the government. When govern ministers offer sensible advice about not drinking too much every one ignores it.
When the government tries to recommend that we fully adopt the metric system like most other civilised countries we have protests. Perhaps avoirdupois sausages taste better than metric ones. So we ignore the recommendations.
When a government minister suggests something daft, rather than stupid, like filling up your tank even though it is unnecessary many people comply without question. What has happened to commonsense? Perhaps it's the early hot and sunny weather? Why waste petrol and time to fill up unnecessarily? This form of behaviour just gets in the way of people who have to fill up out of necessity like policemen and doctors.
Hopefully all this madness will quietly die down and there will not be a strike. I hate to think what will happen if there is a disruption to fuel supplies - fuel rage at the pumps? Luckily, commonsense usually prevails, even when there is an industrial dispute too.
The attitudes of some people never cease to amaze me especially when taking advice from the government. When govern ministers offer sensible advice about not drinking too much every one ignores it.
When the government tries to recommend that we fully adopt the metric system like most other civilised countries we have protests. Perhaps avoirdupois sausages taste better than metric ones. So we ignore the recommendations.
When a government minister suggests something daft, rather than stupid, like filling up your tank even though it is unnecessary many people comply without question. What has happened to commonsense? Perhaps it's the early hot and sunny weather? Why waste petrol and time to fill up unnecessarily? This form of behaviour just gets in the way of people who have to fill up out of necessity like policemen and doctors.
Hopefully all this madness will quietly die down and there will not be a strike. I hate to think what will happen if there is a disruption to fuel supplies - fuel rage at the pumps? Luckily, commonsense usually prevails, even when there is an industrial dispute too.
Friday, 16 March 2012
Resistance to Antibiotics
The Director General of the world health Organistion has warned us that the resistance of disease causing micro-organism to antibiotics is increasing at an alarming rate. There is a risk that every antibiotic which has been developed will be rendered useless. If true, this might have enormous implications for the health of everyone in the world. It is possible that diseases such as Tuberculosis will be rendered incurable. A contributing factor to microbial resistance is the use of antibiotics in farming on an industrial scale and the inappropriate use of antibiotics by the medical profession.
This problem has implications for all of us. Antibiotics have made a major contribution to world health. They have also made a major contribution to the growth in the human population. We have come to rely upon antibiotics and our survival without them may now be imperilled.
Is it possible, now, that the growth in our population will be curtailed by the spread of untreatable diseases?
Urgent work is required to find new methods of controlling infectious disesase; perhaps by the use of Bacteriophages?
Our vulnerability to infectious diseases and our increasing inablity to control them points out that we are not immune to the the processes of nature. Despite all our hubris and cleverness, we are not completely able to protect ourselves from natural or man made catastrophes. We need to intervene in nature with the utmost care, intelligence and understanding, otherwise we could easily damage ourselves or even wipe ourselves out.
This problem has implications for all of us. Antibiotics have made a major contribution to world health. They have also made a major contribution to the growth in the human population. We have come to rely upon antibiotics and our survival without them may now be imperilled.
Is it possible, now, that the growth in our population will be curtailed by the spread of untreatable diseases?
Urgent work is required to find new methods of controlling infectious disesase; perhaps by the use of Bacteriophages?
Our vulnerability to infectious diseases and our increasing inablity to control them points out that we are not immune to the the processes of nature. Despite all our hubris and cleverness, we are not completely able to protect ourselves from natural or man made catastrophes. We need to intervene in nature with the utmost care, intelligence and understanding, otherwise we could easily damage ourselves or even wipe ourselves out.
Syria and Chemical Weapons
The UN is now concerned that Syria has chemical weapons. This is another disturbing development for peace in the region. If true, this is another considerable threat to peace in the region. Syria has been involved in so many wars. It is, of course, a major threat to Israel which is obliged to defend its citizens; so it is no wonder that Israel is determined to maintain a nuclear deterrent.
Syria is also becoming a destabilised state so what would happen if chemical weapons were to fall into the hands of terrorists?
It is time for the UN Security council to insist that all nations in the Middle East divest themselves of all types of weapons of mass destruction to prevent another calamity from happening.
Syria is also becoming a destabilised state so what would happen if chemical weapons were to fall into the hands of terrorists?
It is time for the UN Security council to insist that all nations in the Middle East divest themselves of all types of weapons of mass destruction to prevent another calamity from happening.
Wednesday, 14 March 2012
Afghanistan,War and Military Occupation
Afghanistan is another international tragedy which will be difficult if not impossible for western powers to resolve. I agree with the new policy to withdraw our troops by 2014 and to start reducing their deployment in 2013. Evens so, we have a duty to try and prevent chaos during the period of withdrawal. There was very little justification for invasion in the first place. It is better to prevent terrorism by policing operations and the use of intelligence; intelligence in all the meanings of the word.
It is difficult to completely control the actions of a nation's servicemen even when those servicemen completely share common values. Atrocities have been committed by soldiers on duty even though their political masters have have ordered them to act with restraint. This is one of the unfortunate consequences of both war and occupation.
If it is difficult to completely control soldiers who share the same values as you , what chance do you have to control or influence a nation which does not share most of your opinions?
It is my view that war and occupation of another state can rarely be justified on either moral or pragmatic grounds. In recent history, I can only support one war and that was the Second World War. Diplomacy had failed to prevent, Hitler, a crazed maniac from subverting liberal secular democracy to impose a tyranny based on semi-religious beliefs. However, war could not prevent him and his henchmen committing some of the biggest crimes in history.
The occupation of Western Germany by American, British and French forces was accepted, in peace, by the German people for a number of reasons: fear of the Soviet Union, shared values with the USA, Britain and France and perhaps a sense of guilt. It should be remembered that most of the German people did not support Hitler or his policies and he never received majority support in any election.
The Soviet Union was un-able to occupy the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe without resentment or in some cases violent opposition. Even though Russia shared European values with the states that it occupied it ultimately failed to impose its will.
The Second World war had undesirable and unforeseen consequences. The USA was almost forced into developing nuclear weapons because of the fear that Germany would acquire them first. Hitler, without doubt, would have used them without restraint against any nation that opposed him and there would have been a worse holocaust. The cost of using these weapons, against Japanese civilians, was then assessed against the benefit of shortening the war and saving military lives. A diabolical inhuman calculation was, therefore, imposed upon the most liberal of politicians. This was the unfortunate result of the opposition to tyranny.
There are now dangers of another war breaking out in the Middle East. Israel has been allowed by the Western Powers to obtain Nuclear weapons. Israel is allowed to defend itself. The Israeli nation has an absolute right to exist. Every nation should consider what happened in the Second World war especially Middle Eastern neighbours. This does not mean that Israel should not act with restraint. Its policy of occupying Palestinian territory will eventually be seen by history to be a diplomatic mistake. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was an error which should not have been allowed to happen. It looks as though Iran too wants to arm itself with Nuclear weapons to protect itself from perceived threats from its neighbours. This is the dangerous consequence of allowing Israel to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction. Can we expect Israel to act with restraint when the leaders of Iran have stated that they want to eliminate its nation completely? Would the USA, France or Britain act with restraint if confronted with a similar situation? I don't think so; there would be a pre-emptive non-nuclear strike. Their citizens would expect nothing less. There will, therefore, probably be another war in the Middle East. It looks as though diplomacy will fail because of fear and hatred.
Nuclear proliferation has been one of the biggest threats to world peace and all this has been a result of un-preventable tyranny, war and occupation. Nuclear weapons must be removed from the diplomatic equation otherwise at some time in the future a maniac like Hitler will use them. The dangers of Nuclear war do not recede because of increased "deterrence" they only accumulate. Every nation needs to rid itself of these weapons as a matter of priority. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will ever happen. Human Beings, underneath it all, are just animals that are unable to control the dangers of their own ingenuity.
It is difficult to completely control the actions of a nation's servicemen even when those servicemen completely share common values. Atrocities have been committed by soldiers on duty even though their political masters have have ordered them to act with restraint. This is one of the unfortunate consequences of both war and occupation.
If it is difficult to completely control soldiers who share the same values as you , what chance do you have to control or influence a nation which does not share most of your opinions?
It is my view that war and occupation of another state can rarely be justified on either moral or pragmatic grounds. In recent history, I can only support one war and that was the Second World War. Diplomacy had failed to prevent, Hitler, a crazed maniac from subverting liberal secular democracy to impose a tyranny based on semi-religious beliefs. However, war could not prevent him and his henchmen committing some of the biggest crimes in history.
The occupation of Western Germany by American, British and French forces was accepted, in peace, by the German people for a number of reasons: fear of the Soviet Union, shared values with the USA, Britain and France and perhaps a sense of guilt. It should be remembered that most of the German people did not support Hitler or his policies and he never received majority support in any election.
The Soviet Union was un-able to occupy the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe without resentment or in some cases violent opposition. Even though Russia shared European values with the states that it occupied it ultimately failed to impose its will.
The Second World war had undesirable and unforeseen consequences. The USA was almost forced into developing nuclear weapons because of the fear that Germany would acquire them first. Hitler, without doubt, would have used them without restraint against any nation that opposed him and there would have been a worse holocaust. The cost of using these weapons, against Japanese civilians, was then assessed against the benefit of shortening the war and saving military lives. A diabolical inhuman calculation was, therefore, imposed upon the most liberal of politicians. This was the unfortunate result of the opposition to tyranny.
There are now dangers of another war breaking out in the Middle East. Israel has been allowed by the Western Powers to obtain Nuclear weapons. Israel is allowed to defend itself. The Israeli nation has an absolute right to exist. Every nation should consider what happened in the Second World war especially Middle Eastern neighbours. This does not mean that Israel should not act with restraint. Its policy of occupying Palestinian territory will eventually be seen by history to be a diplomatic mistake. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was an error which should not have been allowed to happen. It looks as though Iran too wants to arm itself with Nuclear weapons to protect itself from perceived threats from its neighbours. This is the dangerous consequence of allowing Israel to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction. Can we expect Israel to act with restraint when the leaders of Iran have stated that they want to eliminate its nation completely? Would the USA, France or Britain act with restraint if confronted with a similar situation? I don't think so; there would be a pre-emptive non-nuclear strike. Their citizens would expect nothing less. There will, therefore, probably be another war in the Middle East. It looks as though diplomacy will fail because of fear and hatred.
Nuclear proliferation has been one of the biggest threats to world peace and all this has been a result of un-preventable tyranny, war and occupation. Nuclear weapons must be removed from the diplomatic equation otherwise at some time in the future a maniac like Hitler will use them. The dangers of Nuclear war do not recede because of increased "deterrence" they only accumulate. Every nation needs to rid itself of these weapons as a matter of priority. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will ever happen. Human Beings, underneath it all, are just animals that are unable to control the dangers of their own ingenuity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
