Sim-O

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.

Come on, get over your self and donate.

Labels: Health

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.

So if you have a link to Desertpeace.blogspot.com in your sidebar, it needs changing to desertpeace.wordpress.com.
It’s well worth it.

Labels: Blogging

The Telegraph:

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?

Labels: Government, Law/Legal

What John Huttons statement about nuclear power should’ve said.

Labels: Energy

Have we got to sit through this another 48 times?
I’m bored shitless of it already. Surely it would be better to get it all over with in one night.

Labels: Politix, USA

The Independent:

Proposed changes to copyright laws will allow owners to move their music legally from CDs to MP3 players.

They would also let owners copy music from a PC to a portable player or to CDs

That’s good news. Very sensible.

Labels: Capitalism

…again.

The Guardian:

A British Airways worker who was suspended for wearing a cross around her neck to work has lost her case alleging religious discrimination.
Nadia Eweida, 56, from Twickenham in south-west London, took her case to an employment tribunal after complaining that a manager had banned her wearing the Christian symbol.

Nadia turned down £8500 to settle out of court, and then went and lost the tribunal.

Get over it woman!! Bloody hell, you’re worse than al-Fayed for not being able to let go. After you’re initial appeal BA changed to rules so you could show a cross. But, no. That’s not good enough for you. Is it?

“I’m speechless really because I went to the tribunal to seek justice,”

Never is justice when the decision goes against you, is it, love.

” I cannot be gagged about my faith. It’s not over until God says it’s over.”

Maybe God has said it’s over but he’s done it in a way that means “Pack it in woman. Your embarrassing me!”

Labels: Religion

Blasphemy.
My MP, Dr Evan Harris (who still hasn’t signed EDM 401, or asnwered my many emails) is introducing an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill which is seeking to get the UKs’ blasphemy laws repealed.
read why from the horses mouth, in a letter in todays Telegraph:

Sir – In the light of the widespread outrage at the conviction of the British teacher for blasphemy in Sudan over the name of a teddy bear is it not time to repeal our own blasphemy law?

The ancient common law of blasphemous libel purports to protect beliefs rather than people or communities. Most religious commentators are of the view that the Almighty does not need the “protection” of such a law.

We are representatives of religious, secular, legal and artistic opinion in this country and share the view that the blasphemy offence serves no useful purpose. Yet it allows partisan organisations or well-funded individuals to try to censor broadcasters or intimidate small theatres, print media or publishers.

Far from protecting public order – for which other laws are more suited – it damages social cohesion.

It is discriminatory in that it only covers attacks on Christianity and Church of England tenets and thus engenders an expectation among other religions that their sensibilities should also be protected by the criminal law (as with the attempt to charge Salman Rushdie) and a sense of grievance among minority religions that they do not benefit from their own version of such a law.

As the Law Commission acknowledged in 1985, when it recommended repeal, it is uncertain in scope, but lack of intention is no defence, and the law is unlimited in penalty.

This, together with its chilling effect on free expression and its discriminatory impact, leaves it in clear breach of human rights law. In the end, no one is likely to be convicted under it.

The Church of England no longer opposes its abolition on principle and the Government has given no principled reason to defend its retention.

We call on MPs to support the amendment proposed by Evan Harris, Frank Dobson and David Wilshire tomorrow to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill and on the Government – which rightly criticises countries like Sudan for their blasphemy laws – to give it a fair wind.

Philip Pullman, Rt Rev Lord Harries of Pentregarth, Ricky Gervais, Nicholas Hytner, Shami Chakrabarti, Professor Richard Dawkins, Rt Rev Lord Carey of Clifton, Professor A.C. Grayling, Sir Jonathan Miller, David Starkey, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Stewart Lee, Michael Cashman, Joan Smith, Lady D’Souza, Peter Tatchell, Lisa Appignanesi, Hanif Kureishi, Lord Desai, Roger Smith and Hari Kunzru

So, getting your emails out, write to your MP and get some support for this thing.

Via Dave Cross

Labels: Freedom of Speech

I’m not going to link to him, because I find his blog very offensive he’s a cunt. It’s all war talk, as if Britain is going to ‘fall’ to ‘the moslems’.

Innocent children and their families across Great Britain are relying on each of us to stand our ground in the face of this Islamic savagery that is being inflicted upon us, our children and our society.

For fucks sake, get to the psychiatrist and stop being so fucking paranoid.
Yes there is some Muslims that have extremist views, but nothing like the amount this fuckwit talks like.
Apparently he goes about getting Al-Queada (however the fuck you spell it) nicked in Luton and Dunstable for drug dealing. Fine, grand job, get the nasty dealers off the street. But how many of them are actually fucking terrorist and not just fucking dealers who are bigging themselves like the Lyrical Terrorist. Not fucking many, I’ll bet. Do you go after non-Asian/Muslim dealers?
Lionheart talks like our women and children can’t sleep safely in their beds with all those brown people with their funny language thinking about them all the time and what they want to do to them.

He’s a cunt. I am embarrassed and ashamed that he’s British. Fortunately, unlike all those ‘Moslems’*, us British aren’t all the same.
He’s going to be interviewed with regard to inciting hatred of some sort or another, religious or racial, because of the stuff on his blog.
There is stuff like:

This fight for my freedoms and liberty, is a fight for your freedoms and liberty also, and at the end of it, it is for those children of the next generation, because if we do not stand up for ourselves now and our way of life then who will?

which to me is a call to arms, but he doesn’t say explicitly to physically attack anyone, not that have seen with a cursory look at his site.
So. Do I stand in solidarity with him?
Reluctantly, yes. Only in the fight for freedom of speech. And he needs a good slap to bring him out of his hysteria.

Religion. Someones always got to take it too seriously and spoil the fun.
*Sarcasm

Labels: Freedom of Speech

The Times:

Amy Winehouse was arrested yesterday by police investigating an alleged bribery plot for which her husband is already in custody.

The singer is believed to have been questioned about an alleged attempt by Blake Fielder-Civil to halt a trial by offering a barman £200,000 to drop grievous bodily harm charges against him.

I don’t get it. There must be something subtle that I’ve missed.
What’s Amy done wrong? Surely, this is just ‘settling out of court’?

Also:

She was arrested but that is common practice for someone being interviewed by police.

Is it? I’ve only been arrested when I’ve ‘been helping the police with they’re enquiries’, never when I’ve just been helping police with they’re enquiries.
Didn’t a politician use that line recently?

Tip: PDF

Labels: Law/Legal