CCTV boom 'failing to cut crime'

CCTV boom 'failing to cut crime' (BBC News, Tuesday, 6 May 2008)

From the data, sensible people would conclude the loss of privacy due to surveillance cameras cannot be justified by the insignificant portion of crimes that they help prevent or solve. But no, the solution is a "new database", and no doubt more cameras in the near future.

There are more than 4.2 million cameras in the UK

That is roughly one camera per 15 Britons, but it's still not enough to reduce crime to a measurable degree. Perhaps we should go for one camera per person, implanted into our foreheads after birth, so no crime need ever go unsolved.

Passenger 'moons' at speed camera

Passenger 'moons' at speed camera (BBC News, Thursday, 1 May 2008)

The story is without merit in itself, except as cheap entertainment for the typical braindead BBC audience. The way it is presented however deserves some thought. We witness here that voyeurism takes precedence over any critical attitude towards Big Brother.

Officers have the registration of the car, which was not breaking the speed limit, and intend to contact its owner. [...] no driving offence was being committed.

The passenger was obviously not wearing his seat belt, but that does not seem to be the main concern to the police. Now I wonder, if the car was not breaking the speed limit and no other driving offence was being committed, why was any policeman looking at these pictures in the first place? There is mention of a speed camera, but under the circumstances, it seems more appropriate to talk of a surveillance camera, as if we didn't have enough of those in Britain.

"Not only is it disrespectful, but distasteful and offensive, particularly to children who may have been exposed to this nonsense.

Was it disrespectful to the policeman who is wasting taxpayers' money checking whether all car passengers are properly dressed? He deserves all our heartfelt disrespect. And are we Americans, who think that the sight of an inch of bare skin will unavoidably turn children into sex criminals?

In this country, it does not suffice that we tolerate being observed by CCTV cameras all the time, we are actually supposed to give them friendly smiles. Give one the finger, and we are personally rebuked by a copper who has nothing better to do.

Foreign beef 'is sold as British'

Foreign beef 'is sold as British' (BBC News, Thursday, 1 May 2008)

Aren't we glad the BBC is so concerned with our welfare.

They claim consumers do not realise when they are being served poor-quality meat from parts of the world with lower standards of animal welfare and hygiene.

Of 188,535 documented cases of BSE world wide, 183,823 occurred in Britain. Of 193 documented cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob, 163 occurred in Britain.

Enjoy your British beef!

When does kinky porn become illegal?

When does kinky porn become illegal? (BBC News, Tuesday, 29 April 2008)

Real perversion is seeing one's own inclinations as the norm, and calling anything else a disease that needs to be rooted out. To Britain's eternal shame, homosexuality was not fully decriminalised until the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, and some draw the line as late as 2003 when Section 28 was repealed in England and Wales (in Scotland in 2000). The same sentiment that underlies homophobia is also the cause of misogyny, racism, religious fanaticism, and a few dozen other evils.

With queer-bashing being no longer socially acceptable, how do we accommodate the unappeasable desire of common folk to see 'abnormal' people suffer? For the bunch of perverts also known as the Labour Party, this has proven to be rather easy: think up new kinds of sexual crimes. They can't be blamed for lack of imagination.

"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," he said.

With that partly in mind, the government is tabling an amendment that would allow couples to keep pictures of themselves engaged in consensual acts - but not to distribute them.

How about two couples engaged in consensual acts together? Can the pictures be distributed among themselves as long as each of the four participants appears in the pictures? But then who is to operate the camera?

All this would be comical if the bill did not represent yet another excuse to put thousands of people in jail for victimless crimes.

the new act is designed to reflect the realities of the internet age

This cannot be said enough: You can free yourselves from some of the scourges inflicted on you by a totalitarian government, simply by encrypting your hard drives and any sensitive internet traffic. FreeOTFE and TrueCrypt are free.

Don't rely on NuLabour to protect what is left of your civil liberties.

Searches follow Muslim festival

Searches follow Muslim festival (BBC News, Tuesday, 22 April 2008)

The BBC is not known for its accurate reporting, especially where delicate issues are involved.

The posters, displayed during the annual "March for Mohammed" in Burton upon Trent on 23 March, apparently contained anti-US remarks, police said.

What on earth does that mean, "anti-US remarks"? If it is "Kill all Americans!", I might understand why houses were searched. If it is "I met this American the other day and I didn't like his shoes!", then it becomes a completely different story.

In the police state we live in, search warrants are issued for about any silly reason, such as taking pictures in a public place in a 'suspicious' way, or not having a TV license (irrespective of whether one has a TV). The sanctity of the home is at best an imaginary concept in British law. If houses in Burton upon Trent were raided because someone hinted at the irrefutable fact that George W. Bush is a dangerous lunatic, then I want to know so that I can flee the country before they come after me too.

When Muslims become Christians

When Muslims become Christians (BBC News, Monday, 21 April 2008)

The BBC could raise the average intelligence of its journalists by recruiting Miss South Carolina.

The introduction reads:

There's a widespread belief that the penalty for leaving Islam is death - hence, perhaps, the killing of a British teacher last week. But Shiraz Maher believes attitudes may be softening.

One would then expect evidence, however circumstantial, that apostasy is becoming more accepted in the Islamic world, and that prosecution of converts to say Christianity is less frequent than some time in the past. Regrettably, the text is one long string of non sequiturs. It is reported that some imams hold the Quran does not dictate that apostates should be punished, but it is not clear whether this was any different say 5, 10 or 100 years ago.

Shiraz Maher is guilty of two more fallacies. The first is that he equates a religion with the main text on which it is based. A religion is much more (and often much worse) than any text, by including various practices that have established themselves through many generations, sometimes as particular interpretations of the holy texts and sometimes based on independent sources altogether. The issue here is that Sharia is based on the Quran, Hadith, etc., and generally prescribes the death penalty for apostates.

The second fallacy is to expect anything good will come out of a more 'truthful' interpretation of the Quran (or Hadith, etc.) and a corresponding change in the attitudes of Muslims. How nice that the Quran does not dictate the death penalty for apostates per se. But at the same time Sura 9:5 is interpreted by some as a license to kill all unbelievers, which one may assume includes apostates. The alternative interpretation of that verse as referring to only one time and place is wishful thinking by apologists more than anything else. And let's not forget the punishments mentioned by the Quran and various Hadith for homosexuality, adultry, blasphemy, etc. As a frequent fornicator, I wouldn't really appreciate one hundred lashes if Sura 24:2 were put into practice as it was intended.

Yours truly,

A fornicating pig, ape, mule, or worse. (And a passionate blasphemer.)

Recommended reading: Islam for pigs, apes, mules and other beasts

There may be trouble ahead

There may be trouble ahead (BBC News, Friday, 18 April 2008)

What is the world coming to! The NHS is slashing funds for homoeoquacks, religious beliefs are subjected to critical investigation, and now even psychics aren't safe anymore. How's an honest swindler to make a living?

Spiritualists are delivering a mass petition to Downing Street and complaining that a genuine religion is being discriminated against.

I agree. This new law should not be restricted to any one religion.