Apparently the Sun won’t be using any photos taken by paparazzi hounding Kate Middleton.
Doesn’t stop the Sun hounding her themselves, though.
It seems that the Government really does not care whether or not we are all raped or murdered in our beds:
Twenty-five Britons convicted of rapes abroad may have been cleared to work with children and other vulnerable people because of a Home Office blunder, it emerged today. … More than 27,500 case files - including those for paedophiles and murderers - may have slipped through the net before the situation was rectified last May, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). (From the Telegraph)
Hilarious, if it weren’t so terrifying.
Excellent article in the Telegraph from the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
His Lordship is exercised by the Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation Regulations, which are being debated in the Lords’ today.
The new law came into force in Northern Ireland at the beginning of the year, and is expected to take effect in England in April. The Government claims that the effect of the law is to prevent businesses discriminating against gay people in the provision of goods and services.
The law affects not just private businesses, but also religious bodies and charities. Critics of this law make the valid point that it violates their right to freedom of religion and of conscience. Many religions frown on homosexual acts, and some adherents of such religions would feel that they were placed in an invidious position if they were forced to provide goods and services that would facilitate these acts.
In the final analysis, it is a case of competing interests; freedom of conscience versus the undesirability of discrimination. The Government has leaned heavily in favour of the latter, without stopping to consider thoroughly the effect on the former.
UPDATE: It was only a matter of time before Peter Tatchell emerged, shouting abuse. He is accusing critics of the proposed law of homophobia and hypocrisy. It is nothing to do with that. Why is it so hard for him to understand that one can disapprove of certain practices without being bigoted? Take the commonly cited example of a Christian bed-and-breakfast owner. If he wishes only to admit married couples into his establishment, what is the problem with that? I would rather he had the freedom to say so outright. Why should he be forced to compromise on his convictions because he wishes to run a business?
What would Peter Tatchell prefer? That the owner be forced to throw open his doors to couples he may not want to admit? Would gay couples even wish to go to a place where they were only being tolerated because the law decreed that it must be so?
There is no need for this law. In the provision of private and charitable services, let people act according to their convictions. The way I see it, the only person who stands to lose from turning away business is the business owner.
A bit busy with work right now. Be back in the next few hours.
Meanwhile, over at Ellee’s, an interesting article on the Ruth Kelly story.
Worth checking out.
I’ve been tagged by Tony Sharp.
Five things you didn’t know about me:
1) I was a Marxist in my university days.
2) I don’t drive.
3) I speak six languages.
4) I am passionate about the poetry of W.B Yeats, and can recite many of his poems from memory.
5) For a long time, I seriously considered joining the clergy.
I’m in a wonderful mood today, so I won’t tag anyone.
Police have refused to issue ‘wanted’ posters of two escaped murderers, claiming that doing so might breach their human rights.
Apparently, the public have ‘no right’ to know what these men look like. Interesting, that. In these days when we cannot even rely on the police to protect us from violent criminals, the very least the police can do is enable us to protect ourselves. They should tell us what these men look like, so that we can cross the road if we see them out on the town.
Police internal guidance states that issuing posters should only be done in ‘exceptional circumstances’, such as where the person is believed to be a danger to the public. Call me a mistrustful old soul, but I would have thought that an escaped murderer should immediately be classed a ‘danger to the public’. How do the police assess this ‘danger’? Does it depend on how many murders an offender has committed, the nature of the killings, what exactly?
I understand that the murderers’ ‘rights’ are one factor in many that the police take into consideration. My question to the police is this: what more must a convicted murderer who has absconded from jail do before they deem him to have forfeited his ‘rights’?
UPDATE: The photographs have now been released. Has someone had a word with the police, I wonder.
A judge in Israel has ruled that cremation is legal in that country.
This has angered many in Israel who believe that cremation is not supported under Biblical law.
I am conversant enough with the Bible to set out its position thus:
The Bible does not expressly recommend cremation, but is instead full of references to burial as the customary practice of the Jews. Contrary to general belief, the expression ‘ashes to ashes, dust to dust’ (which some have used to state the Biblical case for cremation) does not appear anywhere in the Bible. However, the fact that the Bible is silent on cremation as a custom does not necessarily mean it prohibits it.
In the few instances that the Israelites in the Old Testament set fire to bodies, this was generally done after they had invaded a town and killed every living thing. Their express instructions were to kill everyone, man and beast, and then set the bodies on fire, to destroy them utterly. They were also supposed to destroy every inanimate object in the same way. This was one way of enforcing the ’separation’ message to the full, to create a new start untouched by the previous inhabitants of the place, and their possessions. Interesting to note that on one occasion that an Israelite did not follow this instruction, he was himself killed and burned with fire.
Another reason the Israelites of the Old Testament did not cremate was because in some cases, they felt the need to preserve the bones of the deceased. One such example was when Joseph died, after years of living in Egypt. He instructed that his bones be preserved and taken along with the Israelites when they eventually left for the Promised Land.
There is an instance, however, when someone was cremated, and not as a punishment. After the death of Saul, the first king of Israel, his body was retrieved by the people of Jabesh Gilead. They burned his body and buried his bones in Gilead. Biblical scholars have differing views on what seemed to have been an unscriptural practice by these people. They are however agreed on one thing: the Gileadites had acted out of respect for Saul.
My conclusion? The same as the judge’s. The Bible does not prohibit cremation. I understand that quite apart from religious reasons, some Israelis may have objections to cremation because it stirs up memories of the holocaust, but that is another matter.
(I know this topic is well outside the scope of my blog, but I thought it interesting enough to comment on.)
An article in the Grauniad by former New Labour spin-doctor Lance Price, sympathising with the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett. Apparently, the poor darling is in a difficult position, twisting herself in knots to endorse the execution of Saddam Hussein, when she is herself strongly opposed to the death penalty. She was also unhappy about the Cabinet decision to update Trident.
Our poor Maggie needn’t suffer so. She could always resign.
Just a thought.
Here’s wishing you all a Happy New Year.
