Evil policemen?

Evil. Consider that word. What do I mean by it? Evil. Anti-good?  Yeah, let's go with that. Arresting a man for feeding the homeless. Feeding those in want, seems like a "good" to me. So stopping him doing that is...evil.

How can a man, a policeman, arrest someone for feeding a person in real genuine want and need without doing an evil act?

If you're a policeman, and you're asked to do this, surely you ask yourself if what you're doing is right. Don't you?

If you're in the job to "enforce the law" without reference to any moral or ethical code, what makes you different to war criminals who were "just following orders". What is the difference?

There is no difference.

Even soldiers in a war zone have to consider ethical questions. A policeman must too, or he becomes quite literally evil.

Lord Carey, what the hell are you talking about?

According to Ex-Archbishop of Canterbury, Killing is longer a sin. (Or are some sins to be rubber stamped now?)

BBC Article

What actually changed? Has he simply changed his mind, or was the rule of God changed? Either, way the inconsistency is worrying. What and where do his beliefs start and end? Either he believes or he does not.

To quote this easily changeable gentleman...

"Today we face a central paradox. In strictly observing the sanctity of life, the Church could now actually be promoting anguish and pain, the very opposite of a Christian message of hope."
Interesting point of view. Apparently there must be suffering out there that was not there before.  Yet I cant help but believe that there has always been pain and suffering, lots of it. That hasn't changed, has it?

The Ten Commandments seem straight forward in attitude to killing. I wonder if he is wavering on all of them too.


Where is your spine Mr Carey?

I want our societies leaders to stand for something. Even if its something I disagree with. This guy is now colourless and stands for nothing, at least not anything he'll stick with. When the wind blows...

Politicians that can't stop talking out of their anus

We've just had some local elections, the trend is that UKIP have gained a lot of seats at the expense of the Conservative and Liberal parties.

This morning I heard an interview with a Liberal representative and this evening an interview with a Conservative representative. In both interviews the representative was questioned about their partie's losses.

In both cases the politicos responded by saying that was actually a positive sign that their policies and campaigning is paying off...

In what world is that true?

You spineless lying pieces of crap. It's an unmitigated disaster for both of you. Both parties described UKIP and a bunch of racists rats, and then proceeded to lose seats to them. As far as I can see if your party is losing to people you think are scum and filth, but you see it as positive then there really must be something wrong with your perspective. 

Then to have the audacity to meet the media and calmly lie your arses off telling us how good it is...words fail me in trying to describe what total and utterly useless spineless pricks you are.

You lost. Admit it, and move on.  This burying your head in the sand and failing to stand up like men (or women) shows what is wrong with politics in this country.  You're all so lily livered and running scared of the whips (and considering your own career above the people you're supposed to serve) that I feel you all need to be kicked the hell out of power and replaced by people with some kind of a back bone.

Lack of actual reporting

I'm constantly bugged by a lack of editorial control at the BBC news site. Today we have another example of a poor article.

The news story is all about the fact that service in the channel tunnel is returning to normal.  Yet what is the story here.  Some poor sap losing their life is restricted to half a sentence, but is actually lost in what amounts to nothing but an advertisment for the train company who are "battling through adversity".

What kind of Yak Brain thinks that the story is the train company, as opposed to the possible criminality or stupidity that lead to the death of a man or woman. Note how I say "man or woman", which I have to, because the so called "story" doesn't even bother to divulge that fact. The life of this individual means nothing to the BBC.

Cameron wants to stop onshore wind farms

According to this news article our wondrous leader wishes to prevent the building of further onshore wind turbines.

Why?

Is it to pander to nimbies a.k.a. voters, who sell their democratic rights for stupid reasons?

Or is it because of the high premiums that the government guarantees for energy generated in this way?

Or is it because you have a dirty hand in the oil the business?

It can't be the second reason, because the government could just stop offering such guarantees. So that leaves pandering to a few voters (I wouldn't like to suggest the third reason).

So I guess, in his opinion getting his party is more important than the Kyoto Agreement, more important than rising sea levels, more important than a highly energetic weather pattern that will bring destruction onto the entire country.

I have news for you Mr Man, your party, any party for that matter, doesn't matter a flying [mating]! The world, our future, your children's future, matters a lot more. You need to start acting like it matters to you!