Now this is how you show the powers that be what fools they have been.
Bloggerheads:
Grab yourself a coffee or a nice hot cup of tea and settle in for a little over 7 minutes of me sharing a few things the Home Office – and you – should be aware of:
• genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to these crimes under Sections 51 and 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001.
• a crime against peace and complicity in a crime against peace under Articles 6 and 7 of The Nuremburg Principles.
• murder, incitement to murder and conspiracy to murder under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• conspiracy to commit genocide, a crime against humanity and war crimes under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
I don’t see what the problem is with ‘presumed consent’ for organ donation.
After all, when you’re dead, you’re dead. Right?
Of course, various religions and faiths have their own take on it. The Egyptians for instance, kept their insides, albeit inside jars.
When you die, your soul floats off to whatever after life you believe in, but your body stays around for a while. Surely, if your body is needed in the afterlife, surely you’ll be needing it straight from the off. After a while it all turns to mush anyway, which is no good to anyone.
What is needed is a change of attitude. Once that happens there will be plenty of spare organs to give people a new lease of life.
What do you reckon your god would say, if you went to the afterlife after donating your kidney or retina to someone? Do you really think the ultimate beings place isn’t set up for people with sight problems, or not enough toilets for the people with kidney trouble? I reckon any benevolent spirit would probably give you pat on the back for recycling.
Desertpeace, formerly of blogger, has a new home.
After a bit of trouble at the beginning of this year has gone over to WordPress. And a good looking blog it is too, to go with some quality content.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has called for an independent inquiry into the decision [of dropping the investigation into BAE/Saudi Arabia]. “Commercial relations are an improper basis under international law to suspend a legal investigation,” he said.
“Knowing this, why did Tony Blair persist in pursuing a legally improper line of argument which could amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice?”
If nothing else, can’t we get the bastard to court on that?