We are sorry to announce that the 1537 service to Hexham has been cancelled because your God hates you. Please listen for further announcements.

A common problem if the latest statistics are to be beleived. Of all Northern Rail cancelled trains last year, 16% were caused by God. Even Virgins aren’t safe – 114 of those services were cancelled by Him. Which begs the question: Why do we let Him get away with so much?

Or, more prosaically, in an increasingly secular society, why do we continue to use the ill-defined term ‘Act of God’?

The definition of an Act of God is unclear. It could be the weather, judging by the forms the train companies are required to send to the Department for Transport. But weather is also classified as an “external” factor … The department was unable to define an Act of God

How can transport services ever be improved if reporting procedures mean that we don’t even know what the problem is in the first place?

Brilliant comment on some TV channel as I was flicking past:

If Iran’s getting the bomb, surely they’re the last people we want to argue with!

I love it!  There’s nout more entertaining than vox-pops and phone-ins.

Some people have been getting rather het up (to say the least) over the publication of twelve cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. But how can I, in good conscience, post something as potentially offensive as this, and then not post a cartoons like this? To do so would be to say that I respect the beliefs of Muslims above those of Christians, and that’s simply not the case.

I never post with the intention of offending people. So whilst I wholeheartedly apologise for any offence caused by the cartoon, but simply cannot apologise for publishing it here. I accept that it’s against the Muslim religion to depict Muhammed, let alone belittle him in cartoons. But it’s equally against the Christian religion to depict Jesus as a skimpily-clad camp guy doing a Gloria Gaynor impression. As much as it is the right of the holders of those beliefs to follow their relgion in their own way, I have the right not to follow the rules of their religion. If people are offended by my choice, then they equally have the right to challenge my saying it, and even to mock me if that’s what they want to do. But nobody has the right to stop me, or anybody else, from saying something they believe in order to stimulate debate and discussion.

In this particular instance, I’m merely using the cartoon to illustrate a point. I have to say that I think the imagery appears to me to be somewhat offensive. But that’s not stopped me publishing imagery which may be offensive to followers of the Jewish faith for purposes of discussion. In such cases, posting the image clearly does not imply agreement therewith, but merely faciliatates discussion.

As I’ve already said, I intend to offend no-one. That probably can’t be said for the writers of comments on this site, such as this. Clearly, I tend not to agree with the assertion that I am a ‘little shit’ or a ‘fucked up prick’, yet I don’t feel the need to censor the writer’s (misguided) beliefs, but merely debated the finer points of her argument. Was I able to do this without resorting to anger because I’m a really calm guy, or just because I’m certain of my beliefs? Perhaps if shakier beliefs of mine were challenged, then I would have more difficulty in responding, and so feel more angry towards the challenger. Whatever else is said, violent aggression from the defendent can only ever damange his cause – especially when that cause is a basically peaceful religion.

Update
After several requests, I’ve now put the full set of cartoons online here. Please feel free continue to use this page for discussion of them.

Update
For the sake of sensible, reasonable discussion, I’ve removed the cartoon which previously appeared on this page. Read all about why I’ve done that here, and rest assured that you can still view all of the cartoons on this page of the site.

Evidence has been revealed this evening that Mssrs Bush and Blair decided to go to war on January 31st 2003, despite the abscence of another UN resolution. Of course, we all pretty much knew that anyway, but it’s going to be on the front pages for a little while again, mainly because this is further evidence that Mr Blair lied when he repeatedly said no decision had been taken. And there’s the unfortunate photo, right, of them following the meeting where they decided to kill tens of thousands of people, which instead looks more like the engagement-announcement sequel to this.
Earlier this week, the 100th British soldier killed during this war gave his life for someone else’s country. The greater tragedy is that we’ll never know when the 100th, 1,000th, 10,000th, or 100,000th innocent Iraqi civilian was killed, because we never bothered even trying to count.

I’m loving this…  Our civil servants are so overworked that they had time to come up with the following four-stanza poem in response to a parking ticket appeal…

Park only and wholly in a clearly marked bay.
That’s what the signs in the car park say.
Note ‘no exemption’ and just in case, as well.
They add ‘improper use’ as a caution. How swell!

But you parked on the kerb when you might have gone elsewhere,
And you could have let your people out to taste the Keswick air.
Thus returning to your car you find it sporting a new flag.
The parking man has been and you have been had!

Your family’s had a grand time in Cumbria’s premier spot.
The guest house fold were friendly and the food was oh, tip-top.
So much to do, you must return – those Aussies want a spell,
Of staying ‘mong the lakes and hills, though here they call them fells.

I hope you’ll choose a Lakeland base in Allerdale next year.
It’s great to visit, live and work – that’s why I live here.
But when you stop please park with care, be sure you’ll not get caught.
If parking’s hard in Keswick, why not try Maryport.

It entertained me, anyway.  Public money well spent.

Last time he lost a vote, Blair threw his toys out of the pram, then said he’d not lost his authority. Yet, despite having a Parliamentary majority of sixty-six MPs, he still can’t get legislation through Parliament.

Let’s break this down. Mr Blair leads 356 MPs. There are only 290 other MPs. Yet Mr Blair can’t get legislation through Parliament. As much as I happen to agree with the fact that this particular legislation is completely useless, it cannot be denied that Mr Blair is losing his authority.

No doubt Mr Blair will make a big deal of the fact that he only lost by one vote. But that means that at least sixty-seven of the people he ‘leads’ voting against him. That’s nearly 20% of the Parliamentary party. And not only did he lose, he’s so out-of-touch with his own party that he thought the legislation would fly through, and didn’t even bother voting himself. Now that’s losing authority.

Mark Oaten has been forced to resign as the Lib Dem Home Affairs Spokesman, as he has some, erm, Home Affairs of his own to take care of, after some Away-from-Home Affairs to be reported in tomorrow’s News of the World.

The 41-year-old father of two allegedly had an affair with a 23-year-old rent boy. If you’re going to screw up your career, I guess you should do it in style – and a homosexual affair with someone half your age is about as far as one can credibly go, I guess.

Some will no doubt claim that it’s unfair he’s had to resign over something which says nothing about his professional competance, and I have some sympathy with that point of view. But it’s just not a realistic stance to take in today’s society, sadly. He had to resign, because he would never be allowed to talk about the issues.

More surprising is that he gave a classic non-apology in his statement, of the type perfected by New Labour:

I would like to apologise for errors of judgement in personal behaviour and for the embarrassment caused, firstly to my family but also to my friends, my constituents and my party.

He apologises for errors in judgement – that is, getting caught – and the embarrassment it caused, but not actually for the incident itself. Which is surprising, because I thought he’d be the kind of guy to give a grovelling apology practically for being born. But then, I guess he’d have had to resign as an MP as well if he’d gone down that route, so perhaps it’s not so surprising.

On something of a sidenote, it’s been an amazing couple of weeks for the NoTH – Sven allegations last week, more promised this week, a journalist in the Palace, and Oaten allegations this week. Certainly not bad going on their part.
One Springeresque final thought on Mr Oaten: His website hasn’t been updated yet. It says

It’s been an eventful past couple of weeks … I’m looking forward to a quiet weekend with my family before making any decisions on what the future may hold.

Somehow, I doubt he got his wish.

Nick Robinson’s latest blog post seems to suggest that he’s hearing mutterings of Mr Blair’s departure happening later this year.

Could they have reached another agreement on the handover? I just leave that question hanging… for now.

Does this mean he has some info that he’s not ready to share quite yet? Interesting… Or am I just reading too much into it?

I’ve had more emails in the last few days about captioning a picture of Charles Kennedy with the word ‘Quitter’ than I have on anything else about this website. I therefore feel some need to explain myself!

Regular readers will already know that every time someone resigns from anything, I caption the picture ‘Quitter’, and always have (see here and here for prime examples). It isn’t designed to be some kind of cruel insult to the person, and nor is it designed to act as a comment on how their resignation came about. It’s supposed to act as satirical comment on the way that, in tabloids at least, no-one resigns any more: Everybody ‘Quits’. Mainly due to the fact that it makes for a punchier headline.

Similarly, the pictures I choose of people are intentionally ridiculous, again to satirise the way tabloids chose pictures with expressions that suit the story – whether or not the event at which the picture was taken is related to the story.

So, to clarify, calling Charles Kennedy a ‘quitter’ was not some kind of slur on his personality, as I hope was clear from the text. It was just one of my satirical traditions. Please do not be alarmed or insulted!

From the Beeb’s article on Blair’s ludicrous ‘Respect’ laws:

For example, somebody spitting at an old lady in the street would not be prosecuted because it used too much police time and the only result was a fine.

Mr Blair accepted that on-the-spot fines for some offences reversed the principle that people were innocent until proven guilty.

But he argued: “To get on top of 21st century crime we need to accept that what works in practice, in reality on the streets, is a measure of summary powers with right of appeal alongside the traditional court processes.”

Spitting in someone’s face is a great many things, first among which must be disgusting. It is not, however, a 21st century crime. Or does Mr Blair think that this is some newly-evolved ability?

I suspect he doesn’t realise that this provides the perfect example of why legislating in this way will not foster a culture of respect. In times gone by, people didn’t refrain from spitting at old ladies because they thought they might be prosecuted. They did it because they had respect for their elders. Now, respect for elders, and for authority, seems to have been lost in certain minorities of the community. So an authority for whom a youngster has no respect officially saying “Don’t spit in grannies’ faces or we’ll fine you” if anything provides an incentive to spit at them. It doesn’t help the matter.

Respect works two ways. Just as there are sections of the youth community who spit at grannies (something I’ve never personally seen or experience), there are equally antisocial grannies (who I’ve personally experienced, and who have hit, pushed, and shoved me in bus queues). To focus solely on the youth and try and foster respect in youth culture misses the point entirely. And to try and foster a culture through legislation is ludicrous.

And just when you thought this plan couldn’t come any further out of the tree, Mr Blair announces that he wants to reduce crime by making people homeless:

People could be evicted from their own homes for three months if they are nuisance neighbours, under a new action plan for Tony Blair’s “respect agenda”.

Eviction by court order would be a “last resort”, says the government but it could, for example, be used against students who annoy their neighbours with loud music.

Well, I guess it’s inventive, if nothing else.