tomroyal.com

I don't often find myself swearing at the TV news - no, actually that's a lie, and I very often find myself swearing at the TV news, for various reasons - but this story pisses me off even more than usual. Quotes from the employment tribunal who decided that a registrar was unduly discriminated against after she refused to preside over civil partnerships:

The panel said: "Islington Council rightly considered the importance of the right of the gay community not to be discriminated against but did not consider the right of Miss Ladele as a member of a religious group.

"It decided that the service it provided was secular and that the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community must be protected.

"In so acting, Islington Council took no notice of the rights of Miss Ladele by virtue of her orthodox Christian beliefs."

So, by virtue of this, should I have the right to refuse to interview white/black/Asian/female/male/gay/straight/whatever people for my reporting because an invisible yet all powerful figure whose existence is very far from proven - let's say I believe in a kind of omnipotent yet strangely prejudiced Care Bear, perhaps - tells me that I should behave that way? Should I bollocks.

It's another example of the idiotic idea that having faith is in some way virtuous, regardless of what it is you have faith in. What if I had faith that apartheid was a good thing? Or faith in Satan, maybe - should I be allowed to wreak havoc at work in the name of doing his evil deeds? The whole outcome of this case is imbecilic.

Two more horrible murders up the road in New Cross have once again brought out the worst in the internet's commentators - see the remarks under this Times article, for instance:

You guys don't get it. We are laughing at you for banning guns and a whole host of other forms of defence. If these two frenchmen had guns they would be alive, period.

I don't know about you, but when I hear of a nasty crime in a foreign country my first impulse isn't, generally, to laugh at the circumstances that might have caused it. Also, I'd suggest that anyone who's ever picked up a pen or sat down at a keyboard to type an idiotic comment or equally idiotic article on how the UK's gun control system encourages crime rather than preventing it should take a look at the Baltimore Sun's interactive murder map:

Each red dot denotes somebody shot dead in 2008.

Incidentally, the Telegraph article linked above concludes with a fairly typical prediction of the "crime may be lower in the UK now, but just you wait for the surge that's around the corner" variety:

In 1981, the US [murder] rate was nine times higher than the English. By 1995, it was six times. Last year, it was down to 3.5. Given that US statistics, unlike the British ones, include manslaughter and other lesser charges, the real rate is much closer. New York has just recorded the lowest murder rate since the 19th century. I'll bet that in the next two years London's murder rate overtakes it.

This is quite a clever move, as at the time of publication there's no way to refute the argument other than to say "we'll have to wait and see". Fortunately this article was written in 2003, so we're now in a position to find out if the author was right.

Murders in London, 05-06: 168 (source: Met Police). Incidents of "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter" (please read and digest the definition of manslaughter in English law before complaining about this) in New York City, 2005: 539 (source: FBI). London population in 2005: 7,517,700 (source: GLA). New York City population in 2006 (2005 figures not listed): 8,214,426 (source: NYC city planning). So, estimated murder rate in London, 2005: one per 44,748 people. In NYC: one per 15,240 people. Or to put it another way: the murder rate in the major city without gun control is 2.94x higher.

I'm constantly amazed by that small, relatively ancient group of magazines that manage to include both the most vapid celebrity-fetishism (Hollywood's New Wave, anyone?) and really quite useful journalism, all bound up in the same (high gloss, splattered with lovely metallic inks that us mortals seldom get to use) covers. In any case, Vanity Fair has made space between the above noted actress related drivel and a spread of beach fashion for this article by Christopher Hitchens in which everyone's favourite drink-soaked Trotskyite popinjay gets subjected to waterboarding, a particularly nasty method of torture currently used by the US. It's well worth reading.

Courtesy of Wonkette, please enjoy the "World's Dumbest Website": Hillary Clinton Supporters For John McCain (dot com). Even ignoring the terrible URL (hcsfjm to you too) and the web design, which is held back from Internet '96 status only by the lack of a little picture of a stick man digging, it's horrible. And stupid. Really, really, really stupid, in fact. Check the comments.

First, the SCREAMING CAPITALS

I'M JUST CONFUSED HOW THE HELL THESE WHITEYS ARE VOTING FOR THIS ANTI AMERICAN HUSSAIN OSAMA ON THE TOP OF THAT WHO HAS NO RESUME WHAT SO EVER TO BECOME THE PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES, THE ONLY THING HE HAS IS SCRIPTED SPEECH AND THE SCARY ANTI AMERICAN CORRUPTED FRIENDS . I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR THIS TERRORIST NO MATTER WHO IS IN THE TICKET, I'M VOTING FOR JOHN MCCAIN WE CAN TRUST HIM WITH OUR EYES CLOSED NO MATTER WHO IS HIS FRIENDS ARE NOT HUSSAIN OSAMA AND HIS WIFE

and the CPTLIZD TXT SPK FROM D KIDZ:

HILLARY WUZ CHEATED Y DINT THEY COUNT TEH VOTEZ FROM MI AND FL THAT IS NOT OK 2 DISSENFRANCHIZE VOTERZ LIKE THAT OBAMA IS A MUSLIM DUSNT THAT SCARE NEONE A MUSLM AND PROBLY HAZ TIES 2 TERRORUISTS IN TEH MIDDLE EAST. HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN LIKE SADDAM PPL! HILLARY 4EVER I HOPE SHE RUNS AS AN IND BUT IF NOT I AM VOTING 4 MCCAN.

To be fair, even the hcsfjm editor complained about the legibility of that guy. But then there's the DRUGS!

I'm a small town pizza maker here in Weed, CA.
I've dropped out of the campaign for Hillary with pizza in hand, despondent over the loss of our party to the extreemists of obama.
beside,s he did DRUGS!
We don't need him in the whitehouse, it will be like that mayor from DC Maryan Berry.

Love the idea of "dropping out with pizza in hand", though. Some have done exhaustive research:

I can't stand Obama. If anyone cared to look up his full name on his website, his middle name is Hussein. Who the hell wants a Hussein in as our president. This just goes to prove that our electoral system is so far rigged, it's not funny.

Others have resorted to theology:

I have always said Obama was probably the anti-christ so everyone needs to BE WARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I'm ware. What next? Political theory:

Obama equals socialism pushing Karl Marx agenda - take from those who can and give to those in need

Giving to people in need? Heresy. This guy invokes the name of Louis, er, Ferrykahn:

I called a local radio program here called "take a stand" 570 in asheville nc. I called to say why I wasnt voting for Obama. I prefaced by saying that I voted for clinton, gore and kerry, but would not vote for obama because he was a marxist and hung out with ferrykahn.

And then possibly the only time you'll ever read the sentence:

WHERE IS RALPH NADER WHEN WE NEED HIM???

It's mindboggling. Also check out this video, much beloved of the hcsfjm crowd, which includes the damning indictment "With America at war with Islamic terrorism, can we elect a man with not one, not two, but three Islamic names?". At least it doesn't add LIKE SADDAM PPL, I suppose.

Countryaboveself.com may well have become my new favourite website. Partly because it proves that Poe's Law holds for extreme political opinions as well as extreme religious ones (is it real, or a joke set up by some Wonkette readers with a lot of spare time?), partly because its readers apparently consider Alberto ("I don't recall") Gonzales the greatest American patriot, but largely because of its voting policy.

You see, anyone can nominate a patriot or traitor, casting a vote that affects the rankings on the front page. Very democratic. Except that anyone who disagrees with the prevailing opinion is banned from voting - as shown in this list. So, democrats are prevented from voting - it's a bit like Florida.

Of course, one might very well point out that this kind of policy goes against the great American ideal of free speech. The irony is evidently lost on the site's creators, though, as shown by a quote from Winston Churchill displayed proudly further down the page:

Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.

Quite so. Also, I'd love to know why one user was banned for nominating "truck nut again truck nut" as a traitor. Or, indeed, why they made this nomination in the first place.

Currently reading this. It's an interesting idea and engagingly written, with the possible exception of one chapter in which the author suffers from a minor bout of Gonzo and attempts to stop the crucifiction from taking place in a passion play. In any case, a later chapter mentions this review (currently offline at TNR's site, so sorry for the odd link). Quote:

"Unlike people from religious traditions with long histories of involvement with politics, evangelicals have no firm foundation in history, theology, or experience against which they can judge the words that so easily come out of the mouths of politicians. Sincerity, for them, is everything, which is another way of saying that facts are nothing."

I think this is the one of the more convincing theories I've read to address the seeming concern of many American voters with good intentions rather than good actions; the impulse that drives people to judge leaders based on the idea that they seem to have meant well, rather than the manifest evidence that, however well intentioned they may be, they're leading us into mayhem.

A few days back I had a good old moan about the NF winning thousands of votes in Lewisham. For anyone interested, there's a very interesting discussion on the same subject (also: more cats) on this blog.

This is brilliant, in a rather shouty political discourse kind of way (with that in mind, watch this). US political pundit who compares Obama's policy to that of appeasement is shown up brilliantly as the host demands, over and over again, that he should explain what Neville Chaimberlain actually did. He has no idea. Skip to about half way through if you're short on time.

I'm currently reviewing the Tangent Wi-Fi radio for work. It uses the Reciva system, so you can choose from thousands of stations by location and genre - so, obviously, given this huge choice I've found myself compelled to listen to right-wing crazies on American talk radio. This is always amusing, but today I came across a real gem: Rush Limbaugh speaking about High Definition video. So who won the HD war - was it the movie studios who supported Blu-Ray? Sony's PS3 gamble? The porn industry? Any other often suggested theory? Nope - it was Rush. A few snippets from his thoughts on HD:

• Women don't care about picture quality, as they just want to push the button and have the device work
• People "can thank" Rush for Blu-Ray winning the high def war
• Rush owns every single Blu-Ray disc (except for some "dancing" ones)

Must remember this for my next article on the subject. Bonus technology-related Limbaugh fact: he's also a noted Mac user (insert your own Think Different joke here).

We found out that Boris had won - or was pretty much guaranteed to win - at about 3pm yesterday when Paddy Power paid out winnings to those who had bet on him winning. How depressing. In the immortal words of Kent Brockman: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy doesn't work.

And so we enter four years of floppy-fringed fascism*. I think London should sit on the naughty step until it learns a little about democratic responsibilities such as actually examining manifestos and not believing everything printed in the Baby Mail, which showed its true colours over the past few weeks.

On a local level, though, there were reasons to be both cheerful and horrified:

Good news: the vast majority of the turnout goes to serious parties that had considered policies for the key issues in the city (although these policies obviously varied in merit): Labour, Tories and the Lib-Dems. Also, good news from my perspective: Labour hold the area.

Bad news: eight and a half thousand people - or 5% of voters - in my area saw fit to vote for the National Front. In nearby Bexley and Bromley (easily won by James Cleverly, a Conservative) the NF candidate took over 11,000 votes. Almost 20,000 people in South East London, then, chose to vote NF.

The NF isn't, like UKIP, simply a party of anti-federalists and simpler "save the pound, God save the Queen" types united in a dislike of Europe - it's a party that wants, according to its website, "Britain to remain a white country". Some of the votes it has gathered might be a mere protest against the three main parties - but wouldn't those who simply want to protest against perceived Westminster cronyism vote UKIP, who also ran in the area?

Although this election shows an obvious swing to the right across the board, almost certainly courtesy of petrol pump paranoia (again, no thanks to Dacre and co) and Northern Rock, I'd be surprised if former Labour voters would swing much further than Cameron's Conservatives out of some generalised fear of an economic malaise or simpler dislike of Gordon Brown. Similarly, although some right-wing Tories might want to move away from Cameron and his hoodie-hugging (he hasn't caught me yet, fortunately) I can't see them moving further than UKIP.

And so we're left with the prospect that thousands of people in this city genuinely want a political party that actually wants to deport non-white people from the UK (or "repatriation of all coloured people currently resident here" as it puts it). And that - however it might be caused - is both a terrifying and depressing prospect and something that needs to be addressed. Given Mr Johnson's past I'm not entirely convinced that he's the right man for the job, but this is something that should concern him and his supporters just as much as it does those of us to his left.

* Yes, I'm aware that Boris isn't a fascist, but I adore asinine alliteration.