Resumption of Service (Ha, and indeed, Ha)

The Tee-Hee Resumtion of Service One person not a family member said I should resume this blog. So, for EA, I do so. For the rest of you (a miniscule band of accidental visitors)blame EA, not me, for the fleeting ennui your distracted click may bring. Leave immediately. You have a duty to mitigate your loss. Any damages for mental suffering you subsequently claim for will be limited to millisecomds of anguish as a result of this warning. And you will need money. This disclaimer will severely restrict your access to lawyers who are willing to bring bad claims on a no win no fee basis. There are, I hasten to add, no such lawyers. John Terry For Fuck's Sake On a more topical note, Terry is now officially not a racist despite the words that he admitted saying. In America, the tribunal of fact would have been examined pre-trial on any sporting affilliations or other prejuduces precluding them from determining matters impartially. I support that idea and would apply it to both juries and magistrates. I am not, of course, suggesting any impropriety in the Terry case. My point is general.

I Despair

I have just been listening to the Moral Maze on radio 4 and questioners and answerers were just simply swapping prejudices. It is a question of applying scientofic method but that is only another descriptive term for thinking and speaking logically. It is also important to think first.

The Missing Question

I was just listening to Any Questions and there were no answers. For instance, "I am absolutely opposed to nuclear power" is apparently an acceptable answer. Similarly, "We should derive all our power exclusively from wind farms" is an acceptable rejoinder. They are not. 2 + 2 = 4 may be said unencumbered by detailed reasoning (unless you ase talking to a child, who deserves more respect) but anything more complex requires at least a minimal attempt at answering the qesrion Why? The paradigm should be I believe x because y. Thus: I believe in God because [fill in irrational gobbledygook of choice]. Even better, state facts but include the magic "because" word: There is a God because there is fairy dust on the moon [or the bible says so and I am a credulous fool]. Then at least we can have an argument, even if only about the existence or otherwise of fairy dust and its presence (or otherwise) on the moon. Fairy dust obnviously does exist and there is a plentiful supply of it on the moon because that is where fairies live. so it is possibly a bad example.

Jeremy Clarkson and the Workers: A Balanced View

Jeremy Clarkson went completely over the top by suggesting that the strikers should be executed in front of their families. It will be quite sufficient for them to be publicly hung, drawn and quartered before a disinterested crowd of independent observers as is the traditional treatment reserved for traitors in this free country. There should be no compulsion for members of their family to attend. That would be a barbaric abrogation of the rights guaranteed to them following Magna Carta. Neither, of course, should they be prohibited from attending, for the very same reason. There are no doubt many mothers-in-law out there who would welcome the opportunity to witness the disemboweling of errant sons and daughters in law. Their rights are also deserving of our respect.

Reflecting

So I listen to the Northern Irish vicar on Radio 4 reflecting on 50,000 lives given in war. Why not reflect on the existence of your insane despotic god who created what you call the "horror and desolation"? Reflect that warriors did not give their lives but had them taken from them by the predecessors of those gathered now in commemoration.

The Foundation of Morality

...is not founded in christianity. They believe that the rest of us go to a burning pit for all eternity. Muslims believe that christians go to that self same pit. Choose something else. American christians are the worst, however. They will not tolerate even the expression of a belief that the rest of us do not go to hell. They have shown their colours in the debate over Rob Bell. Just google his name and see how christian these christians are!

BBC Censorship

The good old BBC (bastion of free speech) blocked the following comment:

There are lots of good bits in the King James version. The best thing about it, however, is that reading it shows how hilariously stupid it is to be a theist (mono or multi). Read all about Abraham and his chats with god you dimwits. Omniscient? All knowimg? Did not know how many righteous people there were in Sod Them? Bartered it down to ten and then saved the one who offered up his daughters to be raped as fair recompense for not bumming the guests? Oh ye stupid jews, christians and muslims:

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. (KJ 19.36)

You have all signed up to the pentacheuch and therefore all of you miserable little sinners ought to be on the Sex Offenders Register. See, I can use capitals when I want to. I can't be bothered with apostrophes, tho'.

When I put it in quotation marks it slipped through. See the link.

I have not bothered with this blog in a while because no-one reads it but the BBC charlatans just got my goat.

MIGRATION

Currently migrating. Should redirect if Blogger tool works. Otherwise, oh, well.

This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://divorcingreality.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://divorcingreality.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Vanishing

This site will vanish soon. It no longer interests me and it has never interested anyone else. I am just checking whether I could make it available for open posting.

Burning Tiger Woods: A New Year Story in Pictures

Tiger, tiger, burning bright

We are ending our sponsorship agreement with you and wish you well in the future...

In the forests of the night.


What immortal hand or eye
Dared frame your fearful symmetry?



In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of your eyes?


On what wings did you aspire?
What hand did dare seize your fire?


And what shoulder and what art
Twisted your sinews and your heart?


And when your heart begain to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet?


What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was your brain?


What the anvil? What dread grasp?
Dared your deadly terrors clasp?


When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,


Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee?


Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,


What immortal hand or eye
Dared frame thy fearful symmetry?

Happy New Year

IS THIS LAWYER HAPPY?

Why am I posting again? Simple. I am unhappy. So, I thought I'd share a little bit of my unhappiness around in the hope that unhappiness divided by you will become less. Oh, alright, I'm just asking for more shit. Post it. Go on. I love you too.

So, this is news? Bobbies Like a Bacon Sarnie? In a Nice Comfie Station? Instead of Going out in Nasty Cold Weather catching CRIMINALS.

FURIOUS POLICE ARREST JACK STRAW

A nice cup of tea and a bun as well, please.

“Some police officers - whatever they may say - actually enjoy staying in the police station in the warm. We are dealing with human beings, but we are also dealing with the kind of discipline and culture in the police service.”

Mr Straw added: “It is very striking around this country that if you go to one police force it is up for it, getting crime down and really motoring, while the adjacent force - serving very similar communities - has not got it together.

“It is not about money, it is about leadership, organisation and culture.”

The police are of course "furious", just like MPs were when their expenses were exposed to scrutiny.

Hetty the Hotty Goes Mad Or Is It Someone Else Who Is Equally. Or Even More, Insane?

Hi Steven

My name is James Dean, and I'm your new best friend. I came across your blog while looking for something else, but you're perfect! Your combination of smug and needy is perfection! I'm going to follow every move you make. You will never be alone again!
BTW, what is it with you and Hetty Baynes? Did she turn you down some time? Little case of hurt pride?
Oh, and the novel-writing ambition - fab! - you couldn't make it up! xx

20 October 2009 00:31

Hi there, my new best friend. You are no doubt going to become the star of this blog - well, as previously posted, I have lost interest and no-one else appears to be interested.

You may be a thicko, and that will entertain the readers that I do not have, but did it not occur to you that your IP address is now in my log files?

Maybe, I will broadcast it. Oh, sod the maybe. I will make time just for you.

Hetty Baynes Again: Losing a Grip on Reality

It seems that it is not only Chris Keil who wants to post inane comments to the Hetty Baynes blog:

As there is no e-mail address to send you a discreet communication - I'm having to post it here on your site:

What you have written is very distressing and unprofessional and an outright defamation of character towards someone who has done nothing to deserve your venom.

I'm kindly asking you to remove them and request that you refrain from passing judgment on people or cases you know nothing about.

If this is truly a blog about legal matters - where are all the OTHER legal matters you are supposed to be 'commenting' on???? Funny isn't it that it is just this case you mention... Seems to me that you are acting on someone's behalf - sour grapes to say the least!

You do not need to be reminded what the consequences of libel are... Do you?

For reasons set out in the previous post I have not been checking up on this blog much recently. This is posted by another "Anonymous" (I will find you dear). I suppose that is because he or she wants to remain "discreet" or, possibly, not expose themself to ridicule. Too late!

1. No-one else has difficulty emailing me. Oh, alright, try going to The Firm.

2. You are either a very bad lawyer or a very badly advised lay person and clearly have no understanding of the law of defamation.

3. If you think this is a blog about one case then that can only be because you accessed one page. Either (a) you are fixated on Hetty Baynes and/or (b) you are Hetty Baynes and/or (c) you are off your rocker and/or (d) you are a perfectly nice sane human being who just had one too many on 17th September this year.

3. Sue me. Go on, I dare you. Your brain is addled.

4. Ooo! You can only sue me if YOU ARE HETTY BAYNES! Well, at least that would explain 2 above.