Devils' Dust Turns Gold

I have no comment. Just click the title and weep.

The rich shall prosper while commuters weep and perish.

Ah, well, I can run a better train company on Railroad Tycoon 3.

The Real Meaning of Religion

Let me tell you a story.

It begins like this:



That's the thief on the right. Well, it's one of them. The one he told would be in paradise with him that very same day. It could not be any other day because they were both about to die. And it could have been the one on the other side anyway. It is difficult to distinguish between thieves. If his hands had not been nailed in then I suppose he could have flipped a coin. But it's pretty easy for him to do that kind of stuff in his head. Gosh, I just tried it. I can flip a coin in my head!!! You get to come to paradise with me and, oh, you on the other side, your just dead.

But they are such nice people really:

Qualms about Freedom

Even my absolute opposition to censorship of any kind was jolted by the above video.

But, it was a momentary judder.

Freedom of speech is the Ace of Trumps. It triumphs over every other concern.

Sarkozy: Drunk, Dizzy or Judged?

Judge not that thee be not judged. That was one of the guy's better sayings (whether he existed or not).

That journalists should judge Sarkozy takes, well, the biscuit. Actually, it takes a whole lorry load of biscuit tins.

Mind you, you have to eat quite a lot of biscuits to buy his running up the stairs explanation too. Maybe it wasn't beer.

Faith Central: An atheist's guide

Libby Purves, the seemingly nice rational person who presents interesting and intelligent programs on Radio 4, has a new religious blog. It is open to atheists but they have to be "grumpy" atheists.

Balderdash! Me, grumpy! I commented as follows:

"The plethora of religions justifies belief in the existence of an instinct to believe in something supernatural but renders extremely improbable the existence of a god to believe in.

The existence of astrologers and the many who read them does not indicate even a tiny probability that astrology is an accurate guide to any individuals' future.

Theists are caught in the same trap. That is why they must rely upon "faith". Faith is a way of ending rational argument. It is the Ace of trumps. Faith = "I believe in X. I can offer you no justification except that millions of others are equally deluded. However, X must be a true belief because I believe in X."

That theists cannot win rational arguments is demonstrated by their final answer: which is to kill you. Islamists are in the news but Christians used to do exactly the same thing."

One might add that many believers in astrology are also theists. They may have a "belief" gene i.e. they will believe in anything.

Not that I have anything against faith (properly regarded):

I have not bought The Satanic Verses but...

We only ban what we fear.

To threaten to kill the author takes it a step further.

I have tried to read a Rushdie book or two once (never twice). I did not get very far because they were not very good. They were too, well, Rushdie. Rushdie is, to my mind, a synonym for "boring".

He should not have been knighted. He's not a very good writer. Subject him to literary criticism by all means - even, if you have the willpower and patience, critically assassinate him. But, put a bullet in his brain because of Tony Blair's shallow literary taste! Come on!

All that has been achieved by renewal of the fatwa is to emphasise the degenerate nature of religious belief at its fundamentalist heart.

If further proof were needed that Dawkins is right, here it is. A god who believes in terrorism to enforce belief in himself is, hopefully, a contradiction in terms. But then, god is just that, a contradiction in terms.

The Judge's Underpants

In executing a breathtakingly brilliant strategy, worthy of the late George Carman QC, Sir Stephen Richard's leading counsel persuaded Sir Stephen to display his old briefs to the judge.

David Fisher QC asked the eminent Court of Appeal judge (all Court of Appeal judges are by definition eminent):

“In order to remove your penis when you’re wearing your Calvin Klein briefs, is it necessary to use one or two hands?”

To this the judge memorably replied:

“If I had a pee, I would use two hands. It is the natural way of doing it.”

This reply was, of course, fatal to the prosecution case that the judge had exposed his penis twice to a lady on the London underground.

Game, Set and Match!

I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service are immediately revising their training manual to include a completely rewritten version of the chapter on Resisting the Underpants Defence.

American defense lawyers have beseiged the UK solicitors actiing for Sir Stephen.

Mrs Charman in The Times (and in the money)

The interview with Mrs Charman reported in The Times is fascinating for family lawyers in many respects but I only want to focus on her extraordinary comment on pre-nuptial agreements.

"The wife who secured the biggest divorce award in British legal history backed the Court of Appeal judges over the need for prenuptial agreements.

Beverley Charman, 54, told The Times: 'I would definitely have one now and I would advise my sons to have them. But at the time we married we had no expectation of money.' "

Let me make absolutely sure that I have understood this:

(1) Does Mrs Charman mean that she would have agreed to a pre-nup, if Mr Charman had wanted one, before they married?

(2) Alternatively, does she only mean that she would want a pre-nup if she were to remarry?

She says "now" so I think the answer to (1) is probably:

Well, who knows, but I am bloody glad I didn't because I would not have this megafortune in the bank.

The answer to (2) would then be:

Absolutely yes. Do you think I want some passing fancy to walk off with my megafortune in the bank?

She then refers to her sons entering into pre-nups. Perhaps she is concerned about them marrying women like herself who are "not greedy"?

She conducted the interview at her solicitor's office. She may have been advised what to say. Who knows?

Whoever wrote the script, the only keyword thhat sums up this comment and, indeed, the whole interview, is hypocrisy - of the breathtaking variety.

"Lawyer apologises over TB flight scare"

This is a headline from the London Times of today's date.

Cynics amongst you will want to comment that the first two words of the title must be unique so far as truthful news reports are concerned.

This reminds me of a joke repeated several times in Michael Connelly's The Lincoln Lawyer (a real page-turner):

"What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?"

"One's a bottom-feeding shit sucker and the other one's a fish."

With minor variations this joke is available all over the internet so the ascription to Michael Connelly is hardly necessary but I still am enjoying his ingenious courtroom drama. I'm saving 50 or so pages for later.