Sim-O

I read a piece in Asian Voice at the weekend. It was sharing page 2 with Keith Vaz.

It reads…

What is a life worth?

Readers will remember that in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Mumbai, our Kapil Dudakia in ‘Kapil’s Khichadi’ had discussed how our MPs had voted on the Mumbai EDM. Below is a comparison between EDM37 (Mumbai) and EDM585 (Gaza). It does make for some interesting reading

and the little box they have shows exactly that…

The piece itself asks why so few MPs found the time to sign the EDM on Mumbai but did the one on Gaza.

The reasons why could be anything, from simply the Israel/Palestine issue being fashionable, or the ‘Israel lobby’ doing it’s thing to Mumbai being attacked by individual. A group consisting of, basically, criminals, not as in the case with Gaza, a nation state demolishing anothers territory.

The piece continues…

Interestingly the so called self proclaimed champion of the victims of war, George Galloway of ‘RESPECT’ Party failed to sign up to the Mumbai EDM. Even more interestingly he found the time to rush and sign the Gaza EDM. For a party called ‘RESPECT’ it certainly does appear to show any support or respect for the victims of Mumbai. Maybe this says a lot about Mr Galloway, his politics and his perception of right and wrong! So what does all this prove?

It proves nothing. If the wording of the EDMs had been printed would’ve shown…

EDM 37

TERRORIST ATTACKS IN MUMBAI (No. 2)
03.12.2008

Vara, Shailesh

That this House unreservedly condemns the terrorist outrage in Mumbai; offers its sympathies and condolences to the victims and families of victims of the attacks; and expresses its support and solidarity for the government and people of India.

A good, worthy EDM. But it’s also the second on the Mumbai attacks.

The first is EDM 36

TERRORIST ATTACKS IN MUMBAI
03.12.2008

Gardiner, Barry

That this House expresses its outrage and disgust at the terrorist attacks on Mumbai; is appalled and deeply saddened by the suffering of so many victims and their families; sends its wholehearted solidarity to the people of Mumbai and India; notes with pride the support and succour provided by the Indian community in the UK; and urges the world’s greatest democracy to continue to stand as a beacon of peace and tolerance in the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi.

(That in my mind is an even better EDM, but then, that’s just me.)

Now, for the Asian Voice piece to carry, the EDM on Gaza would have similar wording. Wouldn’t it?

EDM 585

DEC GAZA CRISIS APPEAL
26.01.2009

Burden, Richard

That this House is astonished by the refusal of the BBC and Sky to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Gaza Crisis Appeal; considers that the explanations given for this decision by BBC spokespersons are both unconvincing and incoherent; and draws attention to the fact that people wishing to obtain information about the Gaza appeal can contact the DEC by visiting www.dec.org.uk.

EDM 36 and 37 are condemning the attacks on Mumbai and EDM 585 is astonished at the refusal of the BBC to broadcast the DEC appeal. The EDMs are completely unrelated.

Maybe if the Mumbai EDMs had been about an appeal to help the victims that had been refused airtime or EDM 585, the ‘Gaza’ EDM, had been condemning Israel, or the Palestinians for that matter, then yes this piece would have some merit.

It doesn’t excuse or explain why so few MPs signed the Mumbai EDMs, but to compare it to EDM 585 like that smacks of jealousy at best, and at worst trying to imply racism of some kind.

“Winning this competition would validate me as a person” – Carrie, on Paris Hiltons’ British Best Friend.

What. The. Fuck?

Seriously, that girl needs help.

Part One:

Part Two:

See that? That’s the very definition of beauty, that is.

The Mail readers must be creaming their pants at the sight of it.

Not one, not two but three stories about the BBC offending people.
Three! It doesn’t get much better than that, eh?

Two articles I’ve come across today, both relating to the use cameras.

I’m not into photography, I like to take a good snap, but it always ends up blurred and what I think would be a great picture never quite turns out like it should.

But whatever you use a camera for, for your living or for holiday memories, the two stories below are an indication of something that will have an affect on you becoming more common:

Via Tygerland, from the British Journal of Photography (quoted in full cos it’s only short)…

A police officer has destroyed a journalist’s images of people sledging arguing that it represented an act of voyeurism.

According to the St-Albans local newspaper, The Review, reporter Alex Lewis took several photos on his mobile phone in Stanborugh Park on 03 February when he was threatened by a man who apparently thought he was photographing his children for sexual purposes.

The reporter called the police, however, an officer told him that his phone would be confiscated as evidence for a charge of ‘voyeurism’ unless he agreed to delete the images. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced the offence of voyeurism.

‘The act defines a “private act”, in the context of this offence, as an act carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and where the victim’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public’.

The Review has asked Hertfordshire Constabulary how photographs of fully clothed people in a public park are covered by the legislation. No response has been given.

It may be an over-zealous copper, but when someone slaps the Sexaul Offences Act in your face, most people are going to relent and destroy the pictures. That is the fear of the label ‘sexual offender’.

And another from the Devil himself…

From the 16th of this month, you will be liable to a maximum of ten years in prison for taking a photo of a fucking policeman.

Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who ‘elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places.

What the fucking fuckity-fuck is this fucking shit? Ten years and a fucking fine? Fucking hell…

So, I would say that you can expect far fewer pictures showing the police kicking in protestors’ heads, wouldn’t you?

We can be watched what ever we do, where ever we go, but try and return the favour at a demo or protest…

If you’ve got a mate that tells you secrets, then it’s right and propor that you don’t blab. After all, they’re not your secrets. It’s not your place to put his information into the public realm, is it.
Especially if that information was helping you. After all, he might stop telling you all the things that he found out.

But what if your mate was getting that information by, lets say, less that honourable means?
Would you still want the information? Would you try and stop you buddy being bad? Would your mate still be your mate or would you start distancing yourself, in case people started to think you were up to no good?

It must be torture having to make a decision like that.

Via

The kids are off school, and by 9 O’Clock had already built a snowmand and been sledging…

From my window

From the Kitchen

Bagley Wood

Minis at Cowley

email from Mrs -O…

bored

my reply…

join twitter

Mrs -O…

why

me…

I haven’t worked that one out for myself, yet.

Guardian:

Carol Thatcher faces being banned from the BBC after she referred to a tennis player as a “golliwog”.

Thatcher, the daughter of former prime minister Lady Thatcher, made the remark in a private conversation in the green room of The One Show after the broadcast of the BBC1 programme on Thursday night.

Stupid cow.

Didn’t stop the BBC getting her on the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday to do the papers though, did it?

/insert favourite digs at Carols mother here/

Aaron has stuck a post up on Tabloid Lies. About the beleaguered BBC and that gob-almighty Jon Gaunt.

As Aaron says…

Now exhausted and emasculated, having been poked, beaten and punched by both the left and right, the BBC has to contend with the flabby frame of Jon Gaunt piling on like an over-excitable school-yard bully.

At the end of the day, if the BBC stood up to the bullies, the response would be the equivalent of the ‘you have to do as I say, I pay your wages’.
With the likes of News Corp. and the Daily Mail on it’s back, the BBC can be kept cowering in the corner, trying not to offend anyone, becoming poorer and poorer until it truly becomes not worth keeping.

The BBC needs to realise that it’s very presence is the reason for the vitriol, not its’ output. The sooner it does, the better it will be to answer it’s critics.