Archive for February, 2006
David Irving
Posted by: Miss Anon in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 26th, 2006
I just wanted to give you a thought on the David Irving case.
I support David Irving’s imprisonment for two reasons: One, he broke the law in a sovereign country and two, lied about something that continues to affect people’s lives today. The Jewish people continue to be a target of extremists and Islamists.
That said, we support this law because it is about truth. While the holocaust is undeniable because of the evidence available, so is evolution — and yet large numbers of people continue to deny it…
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 24th, 2006
What use is an English Parliament if it can be usurped? Don’t walk blindly into the end of democracy for Britain…
Blame Hull
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 24th, 2006
Parliament?
Inconvenient
Shoreham’s excellent MP had a written answer provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about areas of outstanding national beauty. The man also known as the man who said “Labour created the green belt and we plan to build on it” made this response: here.
I will pass no judgement as I do not know the specific circumstances and I, for one, am for Falmer’s stadium (see the last entry on his list). But I will ask you to continue to tell everyone you know who lives in Hull to vote him out!
An aside: during the Council meeting where the Council Tax settlement was voted upon in Adur District Council the Leader of the Council had prepared an answer in case a member of the public attended who attended the previous year. The question was words to the effect: “What would our Council Tax settlement be if we had the same central government grant as Prescott’s Hull?” The answer, surprising not because of the answer but because of the figure, is that Adur’s Council Tax bill could be cut by 87.2%.
A caveat on that: Hull is more deprived (of a good MP too!) and does have more social problems (which shouldn’t necessarily go with levels of employment, but often does) so we should expect the local Council to need more funds (but not 87.2% more).
Quote of the Day
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 23rd, 2006
Quote of the Day is this week [sic] from Alistair Darling on why it is right that from May 2010 it will be illegal to sell in our culture’s measures: pounds (lbs) and ounces (ozs):
“Err, well, erm… You’ll have to accept it…”
Watch this week’s Question Time again to see UKIP’s Nigel Farage attacking Labour’s unprotected underbelly here.
Oh, and since when has it been acceptable for the presenter to include an anecdote that supports, whether intentionally or not, one particular point of view?
Protests in England over Samarra atrocity
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 23rd, 2006
What’s more important, people or buildings?
Obvious, say the respondents, people. And yet, when I first heard and saw what happened at Samarra on Tuesday, I knew this was more serious than a few people being blown up. It’s obvious why really. An attack on an individual is an attack on that individual, his family and anyone else who knew and loved them. While an attack on a holy shrine is an attack on all people and especially all people who have a religious interest in that shrine. As Shakir Al-Anbari of Al-Mada said:
An attack on what is holy insults mankind.
When the Taliban destroyed those ancient statues in 2001, I literally felt sickness in my heart. What short-sighted, arrogant and evil minds must be behind such wanton vandalism?
(Update: Video showing destruction)
The same is true, now, of the golden dome of the shrine in Samarra. That someone could find it in their heart to destroy something that, regardless of your religion, was beautiful, saddens me greatly. Every time I see the before and after shots on the news, I want to believe it is a computer mock-up.
People are more important — but when a building or other object is attacked that means a lot to people (for any reason) it is an attack on more people. Those behind the destruction must have known the fall-out it would create. Anyone wanting to trigger Civil War in England would need only destroy the tower containing Big Ben to see their cause furthered. The new series of Doctor Who showed the spaceship crashing into it for that reason.
It would be wrong of me to call for calm from the Shia following this. I just hope peace can win in the end.
The reason for my headline, though, is that I thought I would say what many people are thinking in their darker moments. An atrocity that can be seen and experienced by all, and especially Muslims, has occurred. This situation, I imagine, calls for demonstrations on the streets of London, Bradford, Paris, Amsterdam… dare I say it, Copenhagen. If the people involved in protests following the cartoons were on the streets I would expect even more vehement and zealous demands for heads.
And yet there is a silence. Maybe everyone’s too shocked at what happened? Maybe they’re taking a considered view of the likely impact of their protests on the unstable position in Iraq? Maybe the media is not reporting it for the same reason?
Or maybe the cartoon was an excuse to attack the hosts that they don’t respect?
Where are these protesters now? Did they really believe that a cartoon was more serious than the destruction desecration of a religious burial place?
Islamic Broadcasting Corporation (paid for by tax)
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 23rd, 2006
The BBC is a taxpayer-funded organisation. The ONS accepts that it is a public body for the purposes of taxation and yet they think this is acceptable:
Constitution for Britain
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 20th, 2006
Great Britain
MatGB seems to have set a Indiana Jones-type ball rolling… First I agreed, tentatively, to support a coalition of the willing to remove our dangerously authoritarian government, and now we have a British Constitution effort.
My response is this:
An important aspect that must not be forgotten if we’re to look at this at a UK level is the inequity caused by devolution and especially the Scottish Raj.
As Bishop Hill said yesterday (though not in these words) we must be very careful about creating a Constitution that enshrines a partisan political view. The EU Constitution, IMHO, made that mistake.
And now I discover that things have moved on some more… There’s a lot out there, but if you’re at all interested in the future of British governance, take some time to read it: Liberty Central — planned layout.
The First Post
Posted by: Gav in Gavin Ayling's blog on February 20th, 2006
Daniel Hannan has started writing a bite-sized piece each week in the First Post. And this week’s should answer Richard Gadsden’s comment: Click here to read it.
