At the end of one of the busiest weeks of my life, I am now about to have a very busy weekend as well. Since I have a dear friend, whom I haven't seen for far too long, coming to stay I won't be updating the blog at all.

In the words of a certain time travelling robot from the future, are you Sarah Connor? I'll be back.

Article 1: from the Press Gazzette

"Journalists at BBC News could go on strike within seven days if the corporation goes ahead with threatened compulsory redundancies, according to the NUJ's broadcasting organiser Paul McLaughlin... The corporation announced on Tuesday that by the end of March next year it is set to make 108 jobs redundant in the news division."

Article 2: from The Times

"Yesterday, BBC One revealed its new channel “identity” in a £1.2 million rebranding campaign designed to strengthen its bond with viewers who can now choose from hundreds of competing channels... The eight 30-second films, costing £150,000 each, feature surfers, stunt motorbike riders, kite fliers and hippos, whose activities converge in the shape of a spinning circle — or a globe, to older viewers."

Article 3: from The Scotsman

That increase would take the cost of a licence from its current £131.50 to just over £162 by 2017, when the BBC's royal charter comes up for review. By contrast, the BBC's own proposals would take the cost of the licence fee to £180 by 2014, the end of the current licence-fee period.

Article 4: from the Guardian

"The BBC director general, Mark Thompson, and the director of new media, Ashley Highfield, agreed the non-exclusive deal with the Microsoft chairman, Bill Gates, in Seattle.

"A BBC statement said: "The memorandum of understanding will define the framework within which the companies can explore opportunities for the delivery and consumption of BBC content and the evolution of next-generation broadcasting. This includes plans for its online archive, for a radically reinvented website in the web 2.0 world - a second generation of internet-based services - and for ways to share its online content in the future."

Now that your dots are connected you should see the general shape of a national parasite. Even whilst its staff are being made redundant, it spends a ridiculous amount of our money on its programme lead-ins, celebrity presenters, endless new services and now it's planning to infect Microsoft products in a bid to spread itself further and further afield (I wonder what the price will be).

Certainly it's no secret that I'm not a fan of the BBC - if it disappeared completely tomorrow I would neither care or notice all that much really. That said you can see why I believe it is an absolute scandal that the British public are forced to pay more and more money, under pain of harrassment from Capita PLC's Agents (who get paid per prosecution incidently) and criminal proceedings, for the BBC to ceaselessly expand far beyond its original purpose whilst retaining its original method of subsidy.

Times have changed. The BBC certainly has changed. It doesn't make sense that its form of funding has not changed, considering its expansion and the alternatives on offer.

I do like a bit of sign-spotting I have to admit and there are plenty to be seen around University. Today some friends and I came across this one in the politics department and I took a quick snap on my phone.

Now I hasten to add that that it is not my chewing gum placed so disrespectfully on it. It was like that when I got there! Indeed I think it fairly admirable they are willing to be "grilled", though a little strange. I'm trying to imagine it the other way around, with myself advertising to "grill an atheist"... but then again they might take it literally! Just kidding.

I just found out that I got cited in the Press Gazette's blog. Gosh! Though they did have to pick a post where I was whinging a bit - ah well!

But not everyone agrees that 18DoughtyStreet’s “anti-establishment” and anti-BBC stance will have wide appeal. Blogger Martine Martin is sceptical. The station’s limited “politico” appeal means it’s unlikely to become “some revolutionary alternative to established media or an invigorating force in today’s seemingly dwindling politics,” she wrote.

“The biggest virtue of mainstream TV, in my opinion, is its attempt to adhere to impartiality, which means putting both sides of the story through thick and thin. Also, by virtue of having money to splash around, it tends to get talking heads who are generally well informed and quite often expert in their field.”

I'm happy they thought my opinion worthy of a mention. That's always rather flattering.

"I mean if the prime minister says, 'I want to use the rest of my time to try to resolve the Middle East problem in the same way as we tried to tackle the Northern Ireland problem,' I think it suggests he's not talking about a couple of weeks; it's a big problem... Mr Johnson said that Mr Blair's speech had not been a 'farewell concert'."

Uh oh...

Alan Johnson is stirring up some mischief by saying that, now everybody's praised his speech, like the hack actor taking too many encores Tony Blair now plans to stay on a lot longer than expected. Johnson must know that saying that will reopen some wounds and possibly spark further attempts to close the curtain on Blair. Perhaps that's what he wants?


Additional note: Oddly enough, Alan Johnson seemed to contradict what he said there on BBC4 Radio on Channel 4 News this evening. He said that Blair's speech had made it clear, "He's dead - he's as dead as a proverbial parrot". If that's the case, how could he possibly believe the plotting to oust Blair will end and people will want him to name his own departure date if he's such an obvious lame duck?

I spent today helping out Hull University Conservative Future on their Fresher's Stall. We'd signed up around 40 odd people by the time I skipped off home mid-afternoon, most of them true newbies - not bad. I think the Labour Society picked up one or two more but they were handing out Roses chocolates, so what do you expect? I'm not sure how the Liberal Democrats Society did for recruitment but they definitely get a prize for the biggest display!

For anyone interested, the Boris Johnson posters (The Guardian reported on them here) went down marvellously. Only one person didn't know who Boris was and there weren't too many people who were hostile towards him. Generally the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. Whoever came up with those really hit the mark.

Anyway, the purpose of this post (with apologies to disinterested parties) is really just to give a quick shout out for any thus inclined students who missed the fete today but who'd still like to join up. There has never been a better time to get involved. Instructions can be found on Hull Uni CF's website, here. Ah go on. Go on. Go on. Ah you will. Go on.

I had a really good day overall. Only one thing dampened it... I managed to leave without taking home some Boris posters for myself. I am gutted!

The two schools in question are Lea Infant School and Lea Junior School in Slough, which are faced with closure so that an Islamic faith school can be built on the site.

Now, although it's true that I am fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of one-faith schools, I think it's important to first note that Slough has one of the highest populations of Muslims in the country at around 13%, so if an Islamic faith school is going to be built anywhere it would make sense that it would go there.

However there is opposition to this; the schools' governers don't want to be shut down at all. In the case of Lea Infant School they really shouldn't be shut down as their ofstead report is very good, although Lea Junior School's ofstead report show that it needs some work. Ofstead's letter to the infant school in february 2006 says it all really;

"Thank you for being so friendly and helpful when we visited your school. We really enjoyed our visit. It was good to see that you are so happy and like your school so much. Some of you told us how much you enjoy lessons because the teachers teach you so many interesting things. You and your parents think that you are cared for very well indeed and we agree.

Our visit showed us that your school is good and you are doing well..."

According to the Government Report on the decision, it has been based on there being surplus places and a requirement for repairs on the schools' buildings. Okay, if that's all, let's think of an alternate solution.

Firstly, the repairs. That is easily done with a little money being invested. Say... how about the money agreed to be set aside for this new school (by Labour Minister of State for Schools, Jacqui Smith)? Why not use that to improve or even rebuild the schools already there?

Next we need to sort out something for those surplus places. Well surely that's a pretty easy solution too; don't shut down the schools and throw the kids already in attendance out - make some special provisions for Muslim children and invite them to join. You can cater to the needs of that part of the community without segregating everybody (I would say the same for the Hindu section or the Polish section as well).

I realise it wouldn't be the popular option amongst the Muslim community. All faiths dislike their children mixing with others as it lessens the monopoly on their minds. My point however is this; while we can't ignore the demands of the Muslim community for their children to be taught in a certain way, it should not necessitate the building of an entire school for that purpose, and it especially should not come at the cost of two already established schools.

Lately we have heard many commentators saying that multiculturalism has either failed or could never have succeeded in the first place. I don't actually accept that argument. It's just too clean. Too easy. I think multiculturalism can work, but only if it is just that - the mixing of cultures. State sanctioned segregation is what is causing our problems. The loss of an overall sense of what it is to be British, which is the end result of such segregation, is in a way our philosophical Berlin Wall; for how can anyone expect someone from another culture to adapt to ours when we barely even know what ours is anymore?

It all starts with the schools. If we can get it right there, I feel certain we will be able to get it right in other areas. Decisions like the one made for Slough do nothing but store up problems for the future.

Labour lampooned the Tory leader in the local election campaign with cartoon character "Dave The Chameleon"... She said the message had been too sophisticated for voters in her Barking constituency.

So in other words, they couldn't grasp the subtlety and nuance of a cartoon character changing colour to represent a leader supposedly doing the same? While the average three year old probably understood the premise of that cartoon, Mrs Hodge seems fairly confident that the people of Barking just weren't ready for that sort of intellectualism.

Honestly, she must be Barking mad! Boom boom chhhh

Just a silly photoshop quickie. I noted the use of a lot of hand movements in Brown's speech and sometimes there was a definite Nosferatu claw...

BRIAN: There you are. Hands over money.
EX-LEPER: Thank you, sir. Thanks... Half a denary for me bloody life story?!
BRIAN: There's no pleasing some people.
EX-LEPER: That's just what Jesus said, sir.
- Monty Python's "The Life of Brian"

I don't know, you bend over backwards for the Christian evangelicals, you bow to their wishes and you pander to their prejudices day and night and they still desert you. I almost feel sorry for George Bush and his Religiopublicans. Okay, I admit it, I'm lying... it's hard to feel sorry for someone while you're trying not to pee for laughing so much.

"In addition to voicing more general complaints, Christian conservatives say President Bush and Republicans in Congress have not lived up to their expectations about advancing new abortion restrictions or a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage."

George 'God talks to me in my head and Jesus loves me very much but not in a gay way' Bush isn't Fundamentalist enough for the Fundies! Well blow me sideways.

Obviously the Republicans are rattled by this fall off in support amongst the religious ranks which carried them to victory before. They're bringing out the old "same-sex marriage causes fluffy kittens to die horribly" jargon to try and rouse the Christian support base into voting for the Republicans this November. Sounds like they're getting a little desperate.

I bet there are a lot of Republicans saying a lot of prayers right now.

Iain Dale is reporting that Guido Fawkes is reporting that Bloomberg is reporting that Cherie left during Brown's speech and called him a liar within earshot of a journalist.

Downing Street denied that the PM's wife had blurted out: "Well, that's a lie," while watching the chancellor profess his loyalty to Mr Blair on TV during the speech.

Way to go for solidarity. I bet Tony was thinking exactly what Cherie said though!

• Political betting has punter reactions to Gordon's speech here.
  

UPDATE: (Found via Labour Humanists.) Benedict Brogan's blog at the Daily Mail reports that another 'earwitness' says that Cherie actually said "can I get by?". However the source of that is Tessa Jowell's Special Advisor so not exactly very reliable!

But hey, it does prove that she did say something...

"John Prescott has told allies he will stay on as deputy leader of the Labour Party after Tony Blair steps down, if there is no challenge to Gordon Brown."

Has some kind of special Christmas-esque holiday season been declared just for us Tories? Gift after gift after gift...

Now I'm going to be crossing my fingers that none of the other would-be contenders can pull together the 40 odd votes they need to challenge the Chancellor! Just imagine; Brown shackled to the man who has become the very symbol of everything that is wrong with New Labour. Gordon would probably enjoy more success at the next election with Pol Pot as his deputy. I never thought I'd be behind John Prescott in any endevour but for once he has my wholehearted support.

Yep we are definitely experiencing Torymas.

Deck the halls with GE glory
Fa la la la lah la la la la lah,
'Tis the season to be Tory
Fa la la la lah la la la la lah... (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

Failing to act on the knowledge that 1000 foreign prisoners, some convicted of very serious crimes, had been released without being considered for deportation and subsequently got Charles Clarke sacked. Rightly so since we know that at least one of them have committed murder and another accused of rape since being let out onto our streets.

John Reid came in, declared that the Home Office was "not fit for purpose" and promised to sort out the mess. Apparently his definition of sorting it out is rather lacking however.

"The special police and immigration service unit set up to locate the more than 1,000 foreign prisoners released without consideration of deportation was quietly disbanded three months ago, the Home Office confirmed yesterday... It remains unclear whether nearly 500 of the prisoners have been located."

Obviously he's just another Labour Cabinet Minister who is all spin and no substance. I don't even have the energy to act surprised anymore.

I was beginning to think the Telegraph had wholesale ditched the Conservatives in favour of UKIP or some other far-right group since it has been obsessed with painting anything David Cameron does as a dismal failure lately, even when it isn't (its one thing kicking someone when they deserve it, but quite another doing it when they don't - then again that's the Press for you). Simon Heffer in particular has been relentless in his criticism of him and being an ex-editor with obvious clout the whole thing has become somewhat slanted of late.

Anyway, finally here's a nice balanced article by Iain Martin (no relation) which just tells it like it is in my opinion. I just have to add that this part amused me;

"The strategy had its first success with Cameron's recent speech on foreign policy, attacked in some quarters as anti-American when it was no such thing..."

'Some quarters' being code for... the very paper he's writing in. Does he mean, some quarters of the office perhaps?

Having witnessed Tony Blair's complete inability to form any sort of coherant legacy (of a positive nature, that is) Gordon Brown has actually come up with something quite cunning.

If he becomes Prime Minster, and if he manages to carry this out, he'll never be forgotten. He'll be taught in every history book and prescribed on every course in politics for all time. Naturally, it's a biggie, there's no doubt about it.

"Brown suggests he would deliver the UK's first written constitution, a document enshrining the roles of the monarchy, government, parliament and the judiciary, as well as the legal rights of citizens."

I'm in two minds about this idea really. On the one hand, we have now seen what can happen when someone who is happy to award himself any powers he likes regardless of precedence and good sense becomes leader. What has happened with Blair does suggest that we need a codifed document to prevent a future PM taking on inappropriate almost Presidential powers in such a way with no one able to prevent it.

Then again, if everything in our unwritten constitution was written down it would probably make War and Peace look like a short story. Even in a basic "bones" version, there is bound to be huge problems. Who gets to decide what goes in and what stays out? And there are much bigger questions that would need to be asked before we even think about pressing pen to paper.

For example, what about religion? In the last UK census 70% said they were Christian, but only 25% said they were actually members of a religion and just 7% actually went to church. 16% were non-religious. (Here's an anecdote; in that census, I put Christian just because I went to a Christian school and had no particular belief in anything. Just goes to show though...!) So which demographic do we appease on this brave new Constitution? All written Constitutions (to my knowledge) make a preamble statement at the beginning which enshrine either the secular or religious nature of the country. Would this country be prescribed as Church of England despite its increasing secularism, or secular despite its lack of seperation between church and state? That seems hardly a question that could be avoided without accusations of being deliberately vague. Whatever is decided somebody will be angered.

Another point has to be its relation to the European Union. The EU has made itself sovereign over our laws and has tendrils running throughout just about everything. A Constitution written for Britain now, in this day and age, surely could not avoid mentioning that fact. Would we be the first to actually have our subordination to the EU as part of our Constitution? And if so, would that make it next to impossible to ever get out should we ever wish to?
This is like opening Pandora's Box...

*** big giant hat tip goes out to Weekend Pundit for that borg/EU graphic - class!

Could it really be this anticlimactic? The man responsible for thousands of deaths, the driving force behind the cult of martyrdom currently making all of our lives so miserable... could he be dead at last?

Reports are coming in, though they do look shaky at best, that Osama bin Laden died a month ago of typhoid in Pakistan. If it's true then I'm glad that he didn't die in some sort of martyr setting. Of course it would have been preferable that he was caught and punished for his crimes but then again, that too might have made him seem like a martyr in the eyes of his followers. No, if he's dead, this is probably the best way; killed off in an entirely unremarkable way with no grandeur whatsoever.

If only the twisted ideology he has left behind, if he is indeed resting with the dodos, could be snuffed out so easily.

"We have been very tough on security and people want us to be," he says. "But we have to stress that we are a Government that is not about a big brother state; it is about individual liberties as well. We have to get the balance right.

"I don't think we have worked hard enough to say that if Labour is about anything it is about the fight for individual liberty."

So says Peter Hain (going out on yet another self-publicating limb).
And in other news, pigs are to be equiped with small-scale propulsion packs in their backsides which will allow them to migrate south during the winter...

At first glance this new idea of Blair's to create an "NHS Constitution" based on the BBC's one seems like just another paultry noisemaker. However, on second thoughts, there is a certain compatibility between the two...

1. Differentiate between which cases to officially report and which to ignore or conceal on the basis of how good it will look for the government's figures
   
2. Always be compliant and as sympathetic as possible to the government's agenda in order to retain certain financial perks
   
3. Ensure all those in Management are sufficiently rewarded for their hard work with incredibly bloated pay packets, even whilst frontline staff are being made redundant
4. Demand more and more public money to plug any gaps in service rather than identifying areas of pointless waste and fixing them
5. Spend ridiculous amounts of money on snazzy IT projects (such as the 3D weather map or the IT modernisation project - take your pick) that nobody seems to either like or understand

I'm sure there are a few more comparisons out there. Either way, I think you'll agree, it's actually a match made in heaven.

Everyone seems to be in a state of excitement over this upcoming internet TV show, 18 Doughty Street. Guido is predicting the end of establishment media. Iain Dale thinks it's the answer to "dumbed-down politics". Tim Montgomery speaks of breaking the BBC's monopoly.

Forgive me for being such a cynic, but come on. I can sort of see how it might appeal to politicos sure. I don't see how it's going to be some revolutionary alternative to established media or an envigorating force in today's seemingly dwindling politics. The biggest virtue of mainstream TV, in my opinion, is its attempt to adhere to impartiality, which means putting both sides of the story through thick and thin. Also, by virtue of having money to splash around, it tends to get talking heads who are generally well informed and quite often expert in their field.

This is four hours an evening of any old body whining about the state of Britain and the current government; Grumpy Old Men/Women without the celebrities and a rightwing slant. Okay that's a bit harsh but you see what I mean. It's not that I doubt the basic principle of bloggers expanding into the moving medium. I just doubt that it'll be all that riveting no matter how rebellious it tries to be.

The fact is right now there are literally thousands of internet TV channels out there and until we are actually able to watch them through our television sets like digital channels, they will remain somewhat obscure due to sheer volume (example: the last thing I watched on internet TV was some short movie about a pair of monster slippers that had a thing for sucking the colour from multicoloured stripey socks. I still don't know what the purpose of that was. I can't even remember whether it was in English). The timing may be right in some ways, in that by the time internet TV gets more mainstream, 18 Doughty Street will be well established. I just don't think it'll take the nation by storm in the way they are clearly hoping it will - in the manner that political blogs sort of have (honestly I'm not sure there would be such excitement over this if the blogfathers Iain Dale and Tim Montgomery weren't so heavily involved).

I wish them every success in the world, I really do, but I don't think it's quite the big exciting deal everybody's making it out to be. Of course I'll be first in line to eat my hat if it takes off like Superman!

What a vacuous piece of libelous trash this extract in the Guardian is. I read it and had the overwhelming urge to take a shower. Ugh!

"Diana exploited her difficulties with the royal family to gain public sympathy, and Cameron, somewhat distastefully, makes political play with his disabled son."

That is a terrible thing to suggest. Sure nobody is a saint here but Diana was cheated on by a husband who only married her as a breeding machine, so she deserved a bit of sympathy frankly, and I'd like some times and dates for when David Cameron has ever "made political play with his disabled son". Times and dates, please.

"In his more mawkish mode it is possible to discern in the Tory leader's political pitch a faint echo of Diana's Christ-like affectations. With her, it was a scrupulously choreographed contact with people sick with Aids. With Cameron, it is an ostentatious tolerance of the lower orders: suffer the hoodies and the hoodlums to come unto me."

I can hardly contain myself. And I'm not posting any more extracts of this disgusting piece of mindnumbing ranting. I wouldn't even bother printing that out for toilet paper. A perfect example of the worst aspects of lefty mentality. Same old grudge against some imagined "elite" and belief that anybody with money must have the worst intentions at heart. Utterly ridiculous.

A new ICM poll is out (details at UK Polling here, or the Guardian has the story here). It's mixed news for the Conservatives I'd say:

CON 36%(-1)
LAB 32%(-1)
LDEM 22%(+1).

So we're down a point. But it's good news overall for David Cameron. If it were a celebrity grudge match he would have made Gordon Brown eat the dust overall. Here's what I gleaned from the Guardian report:

• Best Prime Minster: David Cameron (35% against 32%)
• Will make the right decision in difficult circumstances: Gordon Brown (32% against 25%)
• Most likeable: David Cameron
• Most cooperative: David Cameron
• Most potentially honest: David Cameron (8 point lead)
• Most able to work with colleages: David Cameron (17 point lead)
• Most enthusiasm for the job: David Cameron (12 point lead)
• Most pleasant personality: David Cameron (52% against 17%!)
• Most arrogant: Gordon Brown (36% against 15%)
• Most likely to stab colleagues in the back: Gordon Brown (23 point lead, though that does sound like a bit of a leading question to me)
• Most likely to take Britain in the right direction: David Cameron (5 point lead)

Generally the Conservative Party is more popular in marginal seats, and ICM records that in Labour's 100 marginal constituancies, 72% think it's "time for a change". 70% think that overall. Generally it's all very bad news for the Labour Party.

I was just watching Question Time. David Dimbleby asked Charles Kennedy at least three times whether being leader of the Liberal Democrats again might be in his future and every time he managed to wriggle out of giving a straight answer.

As Dimbleby concluded, it sounded a like definite yes...

Now I do support the Stop the War Coalition's position to a certain extent - in that I was against the ill-judged war in Iraq - and in many ways I applaud their dedication to their cause. But this is just going too far;

"To symbolise this appalling carnage resulting from Bush and Blair's illegal war in Iraq, we are organising a MASS DIE-IN, for those who wish to participate, as a feature of the TIME TO GO demonstration in Manchester on Saturday 23 September. We want to stress that joining the die-in is of course entirely voluntary. For those who wish to participate, we are asking that they bring a white sheet or clothe to lie on, if possible with splashes of red poster paint on it. Our aim is for a few minutes to symbolise as graphically as we can the horrific levels of violent death which now characterise daily life in Baghdad and many other towns and cities in Iraq."

It smacks of sensationalism. Gratuitous media-stunts in that vein do nothing but harm their case, because it makes it oh so very easy for politicians to point at them and call them extremists. Nobody, the politicians they're trying to reach especially, have to take them seriously. And I think that's a shame because they do have a valid point to make.

Whatever happened to dignified protest?

"Channel 4 is to broadcast a documentary showing a human corpse being hung on a cross to depict Christ's suffering... Although Channel 4 insists the body will not represent Christ specifically, a memo leaked to the Evening Standard states that it would indeed portray Jesus."

I happen to be a fan of Gunther von Hagens's work. His Autopsy series was hugely enlightening, although very disturbing. Watching made my skin crawl but it left me in awe at the same time.

Crucifixion obviously isn't Jesus-specific, it was the Romans' execution method of choice; their version of the electric chair or the lethal injection. I actually think it would be very worthwhile to explore the effects it had on the human body. Perhaps we can finally get to the bottom of the old question of whether nails were put through the hands or the wrists (an important question since the latter would conclusively indicate that the phenomena of stigmata is purely psychosomatic).

Channel 4 only have themselves to blame if they are targeted by Steve Jenkins and the other regressive old bores from Christian Voice. If they are planning to bill it as depicting Jesus' crucifixion what else did they expect? Idiots.

Soon after I first started blogging, I was somewhat bemused to be featured over at the Labour Humanists blog, with the line "rarer than a red squirrel... a Tory Humanist!". It is a very valid point though that Christians tend to be rightwing and atheists tend to be leftwing. But why?

I stumbled upon an interesting (though old) article today about the Christian fundamendalists getting a foothold in the Canadian Conservative Party, and found this in the comments section;

"On a different note, I find one aspect of this phenomenon terribly odd: why is it that the Christian fundamentalists seem to gravitate to the political right? I have read nearly every book and chapter in The Bible (some parts dozens of times), and I am quite familiar with the ideas and values espoused by the various paradigms along the left/right political spectrum, and I can't-for-the-life-of-me figure it out.

If a Martian studying Earthlings learned about our religion and politics, and encountered this question on the final exam, which answer would be circled? (Question: Devoted Christians are most likely to embrace the ideals of... a) socialism, b) fiscal and social conservatism) Based on his/her reading of the various texts, the Martian would feel pretty confident guessing (a), but the little alien would get that one wrong... Go figure."

I would have to agree. Christians (fundies especially) by definition are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ and according to the Bible, he was the ultimate far left-winger, teaching that the rich should give all their possessions to the poor to get into paradise for example. He was a definite advocate of the welfare state!

Now I can identify some reasons why your bog standard moderate Christian (the kind who isn't really big on the church apart from the odd Christmas karaoke session - you know who you are) might become right-wing, in that we favour the family unit and are big on maintaining certain levels of personal and societal morality. I can just about figure that one (although I hasten to add that those things are not the exclusive preserve of the right).

However I just can't understand why the fundamentalists are so rightwing. You would think they'd be incredibly far-left if they are really following the teachings of Jesus to the letter, as they claim. Or does their extra adherance to the Old Testament, with its PMT-ridden big-on-punishment version of God, tip them in the completely opposite direction into being at the swivel-eyed semi-fascist spectrum of the far rightwing?

I doubt I'll ever figure this one out really. Yet it does appear to be a fact, universally acknowledged, that whilst you do get religious leftwingers (Tony Blair, Ruth Kelly), and you do get comfortably non-religious rightwingers (me, um... Oliver Letwin), you very rarely get non-religious far-rightwingers. They seem to be the rarest squirrel of all.

Found at livejournal antitheism.

Ain't it the truth!

I almost feel sorry for Tony Blair. It looks like absolutely everybody wants him to quit as soon as possible, and will make up any excuse to that end. This one has to be the best so far though...

Dr Patrick Bowler, head of the British Association of Cosmetic Doctors, said: "My advice to Blair would be to resign tomorrow."

Why? Because he has a wrinkle. On his forehead. Bless 'im. Definitely grounds for telling him to resign in a hurry.

No really, I'll take anything. Boil on his butt. Facial tick. Split ends... Something's got to work eventually!

In January this year, we had reports [PDF link] that party membership of the Conservative Party was at 290,000, including a rise of 16,000 in the first month of David Cameron's leadership.

Now we're hearing that around 6,000 have not renewed their membership in the last few months. The Independent says this:

"It [Built to Last] secured an overwhelming majority of 92 per cent, but only 26.7 per cent of eligible members voted on it. The total number eligible to vote fell from 253,689 when he won the leadership in December to 247,394. Although the fall was small, the party had hoped his style of leadership would boost Tory membership."

The article above would seem to imply that the reports at the beginning of the year of membership being at 290,000 were dirty lies (or that the rise attributed to Cameron was actually 46,000, which I doubt). That aside, I think we need to ask... what of the 16,000 who joined after he became leader?

Here is what I mean. We apparently started with around 254,000 in December 2005, got roughly 16,000 more members joining January, which should give us a membership of 270,000 or so.

If membership is really at the 247,000 mark now that would represent a fall of 23,000 members since January!

But if we have only lost 6,000 since last December, factoring in the 16,000 joining in January, that would represent an overall rise of 10,000 members since David Cameron became leader (254,000 + 16,000 - 6000 = 264,000).

I'd be the first to hold my hand up and admit to being fairly useless at maths, but something just isn't adding up here. Have we got more members now than then or not? Anybody?

Okay yes that was sarky even for me. We all know that the BBC is a bit of a shady organisation nowadays, taking backhanders from the EU and getting into bed with the government in exchange for maintaining the TV Poll Tax License Fee. This latest accusaion of lying is pretty blatant though if it's true.

I watched the Newsnight in question where Sam Allardyce was accused of taking bribes and it was very strongly worded and unequivocal. I came away thinking it was a proven fact. However...

"Today, however, a defiant Allardyce insisted that neither he, or his son Craig - who was also accused of taking bungs in the programme - had done anything wrong. "I am very angry at the lies told about me," he told reporters. "The individuals who appeared in the programme, making accusations against me have already confirmed in writing to my lawyers that they lied to the BBC. They lied in the hope of being able to make millions offered by the BBC undercover reporter to buy their sports agency businesses."

If he's telling the truth about actually having it in writing that people lied, presumably the BBC will be called upon to explain why they made such strong allegations on flimsy evidence. I'm not counting on it since they're as slippery as the government. Still, I live in hope.

You know, I'm actually rather sad that John Reid has ruled himself out of the race. After all, running for leadership is tantermount to handing out "kick me" signs to all of your colleagues. Since I'm really no fan of the man I was hoping for some dirt to fly.

Oh well. There's still plenty to of fun to be had elsewhere. A leadership contest is evidently just about the worst thing that can ever happen to a party since everybody concerned is suddenly acting as if sodium pentathol has been slipped in with their vitamin doses.

People who have had no reason not to tow the party line before now have to make a case for the changes they in particular would bring. Unless they want to run on a ticket of "no change" (like Gordon Brown is, for obvious reasons) they can only do this by slagging of what has come before. Every concievable fault line is exposed and every failure of the incumbant leadership highlighted. For example:

John McDonnell: "Face the facts, New Labour has failed"
Harriet Harman: "Voters distrust foreign policy"
Alan Johnson: "We must ensure that the self-indulgence of what was literally macho politics does not escalate into self-destruction."
Peter Hain: "I am very concerned about the disconnect that there has been - policies often handed down from on high and communication with the party often feels like a lecture rather than a dialogue."

Don't imagine they would being saying anything other than "New Labour is great - wheeeee!" right now if they weren't positioning themselves for the race. Ahhh, if only a few more were in the running, the opposition could just pack up and go home for a few months!

I originally just started making these to adorn my own laptop, but it seems a shame not to share them. So I've duplicated according to screen resolutions and uploaded them for your downloading pleasure.

If you want to take any feel entirely free. I might make more in the future, it just depends on whether the Photoshop craving hits or not.



GORDON BROWN (* bad language)
[800 x 600]
[1024 x 768]
[1280 x 768]







DAWN OF THE LIB DEMS
[800 x 600]
[1024 x 768]






DAVID CAMERON
[800 x 600]
[1024 x 768]
[1280 x 768]






DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
[800 x 600]
[1024 x 768]
[1280 x 768]

Here's a handy guide on what else the Pope thinks, courtesy of the Guardian today (found via antitheism):

Homosexuality
"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living-out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

Buddhism
"Auto-erotic spirituality."

Ordination of women
On the excommunication of seven women who called themselves priests: "... the penalty imposed is not only just, but also necessary, in order to protect true doctrine, to safeguard the communion and unity of the church, and to guide consciences of the faithful."

Same-sex marriage
"Call[s] into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make[s] homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality."

Rock music
"[A] vehicle of anti-religion"; "the complete antithesis of the Christian faith in the redemption."

Cloning
"[A] more dangerous threat than weapons of mass destruction."

So woe-betide any cloned gay married Buddhist female rockstars. I'm actually rather intrigued by the notion that Buddhism equates to "auto-erotic spirituality" though... Perhaps he's talking about tantrism?

* Hat tip to Dresden Codak for the illustration

Avast ye mateys! Today be "Talk Like a Pirate Day" and upon such an occasion I thought it right and proper to have a special postin' on a special theme, which is somewhat related to my lebwog's antitheistic leanings.

Gather round ye wee ones and grab a hearty draught of rum, for this be a story of great peril and desperation. A tale so dark it'll shiver yer timbers for ten seconds at the very least (unless you already know this yarn, in which case be off with you!).

'Tis the story of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the grand patron of all pirates, and his blessed prophet Bobby Henderson. A cornerstone of this religion, which be known as "Pastafarianism", is the belief that the matter of global warming and all the natural disasters that be happenin' 'pon the earth are a "direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s". Thus this seemed a good day to recount the tale.

Now then mateys, the story begins in the first month of the year 2005 when the great prophet Bobby Henderson was visited in a dream by His Noodliness. He was told that he was to write a letter to the Kansas School Board which had decided to teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution in science lessons, to make sure that all theories of ID were included. The prophet wrote this letter to the school board demanding that the belief that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe be taught.

"Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith."

When no reponse came, the great prophet posted his letter 'pon the internet and within days it became a worldwide phenomenon. Lured by the promise of "beer volcanoes" and "a stripper factory" awaiting believers in the afterlife, many a reader were touched by his noodly appendage and became Pastafarians. Shiver me timbers!

Since the FSM finally made himself known to the world through His prophet, He has been sighted across the length and breadth of globe and many a poster and T-Shirt devoted to Him. Despite some brief holy wars between those believers arguing over the type of pasta the FSM is made out of, Pastafarianism be a peaceful religion. All proceeds from the sale of gospels and merchandise are bein' saved up to purchase a Pirate Ship, so that the prophet may spread the word to those who be without the internet and help to combat global warming in adapting to the pirate lifestyle.
As for the Kansas School Board, some of the members who ruled on teaching Intelligent Design were ousted this August, arrr they were. Since the FSM's followers have made their folly known across the seven seas the embarrasment has made the board see the very great error of their ways, and come 2007 evolution be going back into the science classrooms in Kansas. Aye it be a triumph.

Happy "talk like a pirate day" mateys!

* Pirate Day graphic from here, found via Moonlight Over Essex