Cue endless ill-informed and tedious wanking on and on about how the Evul Turrerists done gonna kill us all. Give it a fucking rest already…
If my son, who I believed to be straight, died in a kinky gay drugged-up S&M accident, I might spend some time in denial: “yes, he was raped and murdered, that’s it – he obviously didn’t just take a lot of drugs, have a lot of rough sex and then fall in a pool and drown”.
But while a father’s denial is understandable, I’m sceptical that it should form the basis of a hugely expensive police operation and a series of speculative arrests. Indeed, but for Michael Barrymore’s fame – and hence the potential for media superstardom in the eyes of the publicity-whoring senior copper inside of the case – I very much doubt it would have done in the case of Stuart Lubbock.
Side note: can we ban all policemen and policewomen from media appearances? Go and solve some fucking crimes rather than playing The Great Detective on TV…
The BAe bribery scandal has been moderately entertaining. The latest news is that the Yanks want to investigate, presumably on the basis that shafting foreign competitors is a Good Idea.
But while it’s quite funny to watch the accusations piling up, it’s worth bearing in mind that there’s no moral justification for the case.
If BAe does anything that’s morally wrong, then that would be selling arms to corrupt tinpot dictators for the oppression of their own people and their neighbours.
It doesn’t make a blind bit of difference whether the dictators also use the BAe contracts as an excuse to steal money from their own people, or whether they merely use the BAe weapons as a tool to ensure they can continue stealing money from their own people.
In other words, anyone who thinks that BAe’s core business is acceptable, but that paying off a few dodgy princes is unacceptable, is a sanctimonious cunt talking sanctimonious cant. And the fact that the law allows us to sell guns ‘n’ bombs to third world hellholes, but not to slip their rulers the occasional baksheesh, is fucking stupid.
A burglar or shoplifter commits a malicious act of evil each time he commits his crime. The results may be less painful to the victims and their families [than being killed by a Mr Toad driver], but the stain on the soul of the criminal is much darker.
Now, burglary is a horrible thing to experience, so fair play, sort of. But the idea that shoplifting is a “malicious act of evil” is frankly one of the maddest things I’ve ever read.
There is no moral aspect to shoplifting. Simply none. Nobody is harmed by it. I repeat, nobody. If you think shopkeepers or shareholders are harmed by it in any morally meaningful sense, then you are an idiot.
We need laws against shoplifting, because otherwise the current economic system would not be sustainable. But they are like laws against revealing commercial secrets and copying creative works – only people with no understanding of what morality means can believe that the breach of such laws is a moral offence rather than merely an administative one.
[Some poor sod being libelled] is the one writing messages to himself, sending Miss Lowde anonymous letters, pressing his face against the window and sending her pictures of dead nudes. He has thrown women downstairs in the past, and only escaped his crimes by stating that he went to Oxford University
I didn’t realise an Oxford education was accepted as an excuse by a court of law (I wonder if the Magistrate can confirm?) – I’ll have to try that next time I send people pictures of dead nudes and throw them down the stairs.
(yes, I know that Felicity Lowde has made life genuinely threatening and horrible for Rachel North and others – I’m glad that Rachel can also see the funny side).
1) If a fanatic kidnaps and beheads someone, while filming the results for a DVD, should that be a criminal offence? Should the beheader go to prison? How long for?
2) If someone in a market buys a DVD produced by a fanatic of someone being beheaded, should that be a criminal offence? Should the purchaser go to prison? How long for?
3) If the beheading DVD is uploaded onto YouTube (or fanatic equivalent), and then someone downloads it – hence not funding terrorism or inciting the acts to take place – should that be a criminal offence? Should the downloader go to prison? How long for?
4) If you think the person in example 3 should go to prison, should the people who downloaded Saddam Hussein’s execution video also go to prison? If not, why not?
5) If the police’s head of anti-terrorist operations says that the person in example 3 should not necessarily be sent to prison, but should receive a criminal record and be put on a security watch-list, is that an insult to the victims of terrorism, or merely sane?
Discuss, with reference to the obvious analogy.