Unpleasant people.

Sometimes, when looking at other blogs, you learn about people whose behaviour make you wonder how they managed to end up being paid out of the public purse. More often than not, if you're anything like Mrs Rigby, you just shake your head and 'move on' - because that's what you're meant to do these days isn't it? And because, well, we've seen it, or something similar, all too many times before.

Some people somehow manage to 'get away with an awful lot' of unpleasantness, both online and in the real world. They seem to be able to 'get away with' a lot more than ... than most people. It's hard to work out why, maybe sometimes it's really because of 'who they are' and sometimes it's because of 'who they know' and who's looking after their interests. At other times it could be because they're so belligerent, so caustic, so full of themselves and so, errm, horrible, it'd be hard to choose which particular bit of behaviour or verbiage to target and condemn - so we leave them be.

One such person came to Mrs R's notice in this post at GrumpyOldTwat's blog. In amongst the comments is one from Subrosa, who says

Do you now believe if a red rosette was stuck on a monkey they'd vote for it? (Apology to monkeys).

It makes Mrs Rigby ask herself that if that particular person was the best choice of candidate for Local Government, then what were the worst like?

Anyhow, if you'd like to learn more about this individual perhaps you'd like to follow Mrs R's footsteps by first going to GrumpyOldTwat's place then stroll over for quite a surprising read at Harry's Place. Once you've picked your jaw up off the keyboard maybe you could take a look at a couple of posts at Corrugated Soundbite here and also here. (Don't forget to read the comments).

When you've digested all that, with the help of a cup of coffee or something a little stronger, perhaps you'd like to pop back to GOT's blog and follow some of the highlighted links - there are quite a few.

Oh, and a P.S. - you did remember to read all the comments belonging to all those blog posts, didn't you? If not, it's worth backtracking and doing so.

And to think, this man was elected to a position in local government. He helps shape local policies, he is a so-called public servant ... and, because of the way the last government 'sorted out' local funding, we all contribute towards the financial pot from which he draws his wages, even though he may not work, or live, anywhere near us.

....

Ed Balls R4 interview

Reading this on Coffee House it would be easy to believe that Mr Ed Balls is a reincarnation of Mr Brown. Thing is, Brown's apparently alive and well, well, alive, and is mostly somewhere in Kirkcaldy where he's writing his memoirs and being paid to be an MP - except when he goes to the zoo.

Here's the beginning of the John Humphrys/Ed Balls radio 4 interview. You can read the whole thing over at the Coffee House

John Humphrys: There are two big questions in British politics, the 1st is whether the coalition can hold together; the second is whether the Labour party can hold together. It’s not quite that simple for the obvious reason that the coalition is two parties, and the Labour party isn’t, not officially anyway. But for years it was divided between those who supported Blair, and those who supported Brown. And the question now as the party struggles to decide who to choose for its new leader is whether it can heal that division. It hasn’t been helped by Peter Mandelson, Lord Mandelson’s, book about to be published, and he’s got a lot to say about it. Ed Balls is one of the leadership contenders and he was about as close to Gordon Brown as it’s possible to be and he’s with me. Good morning to you.

Ed Balls: Good morning John.

JH: Do you regret those years of division?

EB: I don’t regret at all the national minimum wage, three-and-a-half thousand Sure Start children’s centres…

JH: No, that’s not what I asked you, I asked you about the division.

EB: But, John, what we had in the last 13 years is a Labour government which achieved more for jobs and social justice, did more redistribution than any government since 1945. I think put our health service on a sound footing, transformed education, so we had the best generation of teachers ever. I think it was a profoundly successful government. And the fact is there were times when Gordon Brown and Tony Blair had disagreements and arguments, but out of that creative tension came some huge achievements and I think the Labour party is very proud of what was achieved in the last 30 years, 13 years and .....

Ever had that feeling of Déjà vu?

Read the rest, you know you want to!

(P.S. Edited to quote more of the transcript)

....

Sham consultation.

It would appear that this site is as empty a gesture as was this one.

Mr Clegg has decided to close the debate on some issues. He has decided that he will not look at reviewing either the death penalty or the smoking ban.

Interesting sort of parallel really, pairing these two regulations or laws. We all know that, in reality, discussion about the death penalty in Britain is little more than empty words. However, we also know that many other EU countries have ensured that people and businesses have the freedom to choose whether to allow smoking on their premises - or not. Britain, and British people, are not to be allowed to even discuss the issue. The debate is, apparently, over - even before it began. It seems an astonishingly illiberal approach.

There is so much to say about this but Mrs R is taking the easy route of merely pointing to the eloquent opinions of :-

Dick Puddlecote
Leg_Iron
Freedon2Choose
Frank Davis

It's worth, as always, taking the time to read not only the posts but also the comments.

....

Christian Professor’s hand hacked off for ‘blasphemy’

Christian Professor’s hand hacked off for ‘blasphemy’

A group of unknown assailants severed the hand and the right arm of a university professor accused of defaming Mohammed months ago. ...

According to the police, Prof. TJ Joseph, was returning with his family from Sunday service when a group of people in a Maruti Omni van drew up beside him stopping him close to home. After forcing Joseph to get out of his car, they attacked him with knives and swords, then cut off his hand and right arm throwing them away after about 200 meters.

The professor was immediately transported to a hospital in Muvattupuzha and then to another specialized in surgery, where doctors are trying to mend his severed hand. The professor has also suffered deep wounds to his body and is in need of plastic surgery.

Joseph ... a professor at Newman’s College, Thodupuzha, is free on bail. Last March he had prepared a questionnaire for examinations in the private college and according to the Muslims had included questions offensive to Muhammad.

Ugh! This is yet another thing that Mrs R can't write about without feeling nauseous, and having managed to discuss the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani she has to repeat her belief that such 'punishments', it doesn't matter who they're carried out by, are barbaric and should have no place in the 21st century world.

Britain and 'the western world' moved away from proselytism and doesn't think apostasy is such a big deal, because we're used to having the freedom to choose a faith, or not, and there are all sorts of national and international laws that enshrine the right to freedom of speech and expression - so it's awfully difficult to be classed as a heretic.

It's because of all these things that, when we hear or read about people being punished or threatened because of their religious beliefs, we're left almost open-mouthed. Very many people think it really is time the high-ups in some parts of the world caught up. It's time they learned from Europe's old mistakes and realise that sensible people don't look back at, for example, The Inquisition, with awe and wonder, we view it with contempt and are actually much more likely to turn to the release of humour - and think of Monty Python!



Human nature doesn't change that much. Humans are innovative and inquisitive, and often want to rebel against overbearing authority. It doesn't matter how powerful the particular individuals, theologies or organisations thought they were at the height of their power, historians will always, eventually, mock, belittle, deride and criticize bullies and thugs who abused their positions of authority - not least because it's also human nature to think something that has banned is interesting and appealing, and worth investigating to see what all the fuss is about. So being too pushy can be a bit counter-productive in the end.

Mrs Rigby knows that this incident is no joke. It's merely the latest of a long line of indefensible persecutions of Christians by power-hungry and intolerant Muslims who want to have their own way.

If you'd like to read more (and Mrs R really thinks you should) please stroll over to Real Street for more information and comment.

....

Battle of, and for, Britain.

Between 10th July and 31st October 1940 a battle raged in the skies above Britain, mostly over England. Parts of the country were flattened by German blitz bombing, which is why the centres of some port towns and cities, for example Liverpool and Southampton, have so few ancient buildings.

During the 'Battle of Britain' the country was protected by "The Few",

'The Few' were 2,353 young men from Great Britain and 574 from overseas, pilots and other aircrew, who are officially recognised as having taken part in the Battle of Britain.

Each flew at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the Royal Air Force or Fleet Air Arm during the period 10 July to 31 October 1940.

544 lost their lives during the period of the Battle, and these are marked by an asterisk (on The Battle of Britain Roll of Honour).

A further 791 were killed in action or died in the course of their duties before the wars end ...

In a speech to the House of Commons on 20th August 1940 Churchill praised these young men

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few".

Some today would have us forget those times, and forget the astonishing and selfless bravery of those 2,927 men. Mrs Rigby can't forget, because she wasn't alive then, but she is very aware of the importance of those battles and is also aware of what might have happened to Britain had we lost the war.

Some say we are still fighting a battle for Britain, others say there's no point because politicians have surrendered our sovereignty to Europe. But, well, this is Britain after all, and we don't take kindly to takeover bids, no matter how subtle they may be.

So let's remember those brave Airmen, and their ground crews, and the men in the factories who worked long hours to make the planes, and the munitions workers who made the bombs and bullets. Let's also remember the men and women of the Civil Defence and all other non-combatants who 'did their bit' when called upon to protect this country from harm - and they did it without computers too!

We Rigbys would like to say, "Thank you," and would like to share these two videos.

This is a "Battle of Britain. Tribute to the Few" with music 'Conquest of Paradise' by Vangelis.




This is an extract from the film "Battle of Britain"



(P.S. Edited to add link to Roll of Honour)

....

Standing room only?

Sometimes reporting errors can make you smile.

From this BBC report about a fire near Heathrow, where "50 firefighters are containing the scene". The report tells us that

More than 200 people were evacuated from the area

Mrs Rigby thinks they must have been living in remarkably cramped conditions because

A five metre exclusion zone is in place

Five metres?

That's about, oh, (5x3) +10% = 16ft 6 inches.

....

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani

'We stretch our hands to the people of the world. No matter who you are or where in the world, save our mother.'

The plea in an open letter written by Sajad Ghadarzade and his sister, Farideh, whose mother faces death by stoning.

Mrs Ashtiani's case has been written about in many blogs and in many newspapers - none have condoned the punishment. William Hague, our Foreign Secretary, has rightly spoken for the people of Britain by saying he is 'appalled'.

As a result of the international outcry it would appear that the stoning has been at least postponed, although the lady still faces the death penalty - for adultery. Adultery is a word rarely used in the western world these days, morals have become looser. During the last century Western 'society' became more tolerant of sexual misdemeanours and wanderings - except for the few who are supposed to 'uphold standards' such as the Royal Family and some members of government, but adultery and sex outside marriage is no longer taboo, no longer an offence apart from offending dignity.

Mrs Rigby is strongly opposed to the death penalty in any form. She doesn't believe it is a suitable punishment for any crime, and she doesn't think any person, no matter how legally important they may be, should be given either the power or the right to instruct 'the authorities' to take the life of any individual - no matter what they may have done wrong. As for stoning, Mrs R finds it hard to think of a more horrible, more barbaric, more terrifyingly brutal, means of execution. Taking a life in this way demeans not only the individual being put to death, it also demeans those carrying out the punishment and indicates nothing more than a lust for power, for power's sake, in those who think this punishment is appropriate. Stoning to death, carefully contrived to be successful by ensuring the victim is buried in a hole in the ground, is a means of killing that should have stayed consigned to the history books, and let's hope this is where it is returned.

The authorities in Iran and indeed many other Muslim countries are trying to rule by fear - in other words they are trying to tell their populations that if they don't behave in a given way then they will be punished and may be given the ultimate penalty. Mrs Ashtiani is being used as an example, in an attempt to enforce a moral code of behaviour where women are subservient and, it appears, where women get the worse punishment for sexual offences - because in Iran and other Muslim countries it's women who are meant to keep themselves covered up, so they don't make men do naughty things. In a way it's no different from somebody in Britain telling a girl who's been raped that, because she wears short skirts, she was 'asking for it' - and it shows an unpleasant mindset that suggests that some men can't control their sexual appetites and so shouldn't be punished when they err.

A system of government, indeed any system of government of whatever political or religious hue, that tries to rule its population by legislation and through fear of consequences, no matter how petty, trivial or brutal has to be condemned, because that form of government is nothing more than dictatorship.

And if you haven't already signed the protest letter and would like to, it's here.

....

iMac Cat

Taken from There I Fixed It!

....

Section 43 and photographers.

You may recall the incident less than a fortnight ago when young Jules Mattson was taken to one side by several Police officers during the Armed Forces Day events in Romford.

It appears that it's happened again, a mere 10 days later, and this time in London - when he was photographing Cadets near Buckingham Palace. He had "received approval from the cadets' supervisors as he was shooting images for the cadets' website". (link to BJP)

The Police have, perhaps, at long last been told that using Section 44 is out of bounds - because the BBC tells us it was ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights in January 2010 a fact that was brought to the public eye again in June 2010 when the BBC announced that "Thousands of anti-terror searches were illegal" - but didn't mention that the last government had lodged an appeal against the earlier ruling, which was lost.

Today the Police chose another section of the Terrorism Act 2000 - they chose to use Section 43. But this isn't the first time. (Also mentioned here in February)

Here's what Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (link OPSI) says :-

43 Search of persons

(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.

(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.

(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.

Mrs Rigby thought it was odd that a teenager, legitimately taking pictures in a very public place could be 'reasonably suspected' of being a terrorist. She has absolutely no idea what the young man might look like, but she thought he must be very unusual, perhaps of striking appearance, perhaps wearing outlandish clothes, and maybe looking a bit unkempt?

Perhaps like this a younger version of this chap? (image Telegraph)

Or maybe he looked like a youthful tramp - such as the one at the front right of this picture? (image HeraldSun)

Perhaps he was tidy-ish, but was smoking a cigarette - like this chap (source)





Mrs R isn't at all sure whether the famous people pictured above might be 'reasonably believed to be terrorists', but the Police must have reasonably thought Jules was one, from either his behaviour or his appearance - otherwise they shouldn't have detained him. That is what the law clearly says.

Here's how some people who know Jules Mattson describe him ... According to this person who says ...

I know Jules and he couldn't really be any more the opposite of the above description. He's polite, courteous and very unobtrusive as he goes about his business.

and another person says ...

knowing people who teach him and help him and guide him while shooting along side him, and his dad being a well know photo journalist, he is trained very well from what I am told and remains very quiet and invisible where he can, I am talking about marc vallee, david hoffman and many other well know shooters. I doubt he was causing any trouble at all. I feel a harassment case coming on very soon.

So, maybe today some 'MOP'* pointed to Jules and his camera and said that he was a terrorist, maybe somebody or other has complained that the pictures on his Flickr pages are unsuitable (they're of politicians, and protests, and other things like that) or maybe somebody has told the Police they're not happy with his blog?

Who knows? It seems that earlier today the Police weren't too sure either because (link to Amateur Photographer)

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police did not have a record of the incident when contacted by Amateur Photographer this afternoon.

There's a saying, isn't there, it's something like "Once is an Accident, twice is a Coincidence, and three times ..."

..........
*
MOP = Police-speak for Member of the Public.

P.S.
Just noticed that the same issue is mentioned by Al Jahom along with some other tidbits - please read what he says.

....

Arming the Police?

Because of the actions of one Raoul Moat, Inspector Gadget has written a piece that seems to call for routine arming of all Police

The actions of this individual, and the police response outlined above (recalling all officers to stations for fear of further casualties) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current unarmed police service in Britain is no longer fit for purpose.

and ...

Northumbria Police has had to bring in ARVs from other Forces so as to offer a measure of protection to citizens and officers alike.

Within the comments we can read that,

... all unarmed (the vast majority) of Northumbria officers are grounded, apart from going to “I calls”(I take it they will know which ones are genuine and which is a trap).

The call for routine arming of all Police seems to be widely supported by comments left, so Mrs Rigby, naturally, jumped in with both feet and wrote this. She wouldn't normally repeat comments she's left elsewhere, but this is an exception.

With the greatest of respect to you all, because you do a grand job, and I can see my comment comes after some who are asking for Police to be armed, but maybe you don’t understand why we ordinary mortals are a bit bothered to hear even more talk about having ‘all police armed’.

You see, it’s because we read about things like this (inserted extract ... "One of the hostages was then apparently shot by mistake with a Taser...")

We think most people will recover from being hit by a tazer, we fear that being mistakenly shot if wrongly identified will result in a very different outcome. And, you see, some Police are already telling us it’s illegal to take photographs and some of those are being a bit too pushy about it too. How long will it be before a photographer is tazered for arguing about his or her rights, or for pushing back when a police officer wrongly grabs their expensive camera?

Some people are a bit concerned that some – only some – Police are a bit more worried about looking after themselves, or covering their own backs when they make a mistake, instead of looking after us ‘members of the public’.

We know it’s only a few bad apples, but in the wrong hands a gun is lethal. That’s how we ended up with the knee-jerk legislation that made British gun laws so stringent.

There are lots of legally held guns in this country, their owners are very careful to keep themselves legal. But, you see, as somebody else has pointed out, our gun laws are so strict that decent people and aren’t even allowed to pursue a challenging hobby they once enjoyed. Some of our excellent Olympic shooters have to train in France – yet this chap managed to get a weapon within 12 hours of being released from jail.

How could he do that? It’s against the law!

Aren’t your demands to be armed yet another knee-jerk reaction? We don’t hear you calling out for the same when ordinary folk, including children, are shot dead. Be honest, and ask yourself if you’d be making the same demands if this man had stopped after murdering Chris Brown.

Would PC Rathband have been able to use his weapon, if he’d had one? Would it have made any difference?

Why aren’t we hearing more about pressure and significant efforts to prevent and shut down the illegal gun trade?

The important things now though are to hope PC David Rathband makes a full recovery and the maniac who shot him is quickly captured before he does any more harm.

So why is this comment repeated?

It's because 'Smithyknows' replies to 'Mrs R', 'Crux' and 'JuliaM' with this,

So if you consider how rare it is that fires actually occur why do most people have smoke alarms?

Most rtc’s are minor but most people have airbags.

So why can’t I- who faces danger more often than I have ever had an rtc, a house fire or any kind of such near misses- why can’t I be afforded the same protection of safety when facing seriously armed individuals.

Don’t judge someone until you’ve walked in their shoes.

Once you have dealt with incidents of such violence or volatility that you are chuffed you’re still alive, tell me your opinion.

Do I not have the same Human Right to Life?

It would be very easy to fully fisk this comment and to take up space on Insp Gadget's blog to do so, but that isn't really fair, so Mrs Rigby is responding here on her own blog.

First of all, Mrs Rigby has not, can not, and does not want to 'walk a mile' in a Police officer's shoes - but she has family and friends who have, and who still do. And she knows which of these individuals she would trust to be 'routinely armed'.

Don’t judge someone until you’ve walked in their shoes.

But, 'Smithyknows', you aren't walking in our shoes are you?

You don't know who we are. You don't know how we live our lives. Nor do you know what we, our families and friends, 'do' to make a living - you're making a sweeping assumption that all apparently non-Police commenters know nothing of policing, violence or firearms, and because of that you're claiming that we can't relate to the issues raised when you call for Police to be routinely armed.

You're also suggesting that you should be allowed to protect yourself because of your job, when you know of Britain's very restrictive firearms legislation - drawn up as a reaction to serious incidents, rather than being carefully thought through. Maybe if that law was rigorously enforced then this current 'arming' debate wouldn't be happening, and there wouldn't be questions raised elsewhere about allowing ordinary people, who some Police refer to as MOPs, being permitted to carry firearms or sidearms - and thus being able to protect ourselves when we go about our everyday lives, and when we're doing our jobs, or visiting the park (can't find the link).

Talk about being disconnected! Have you any idea how cynical and self-seeking that looks?

You want a gun because your job is sometimes dangerous. Yet, in the heat of the moment and wanting to join in the debate you don't seem to have thought it through. Or have you?

To make us really understand how tough and dangerous your job is you compare the protection afforded by an airbag and a smoke alarm with a firearm - even an infant will know which of those three tends to save lives and which, in the wrong hands, will take a life.

If you're successful, who'll be next to make the same demands? Will it be the fire brigade, paramedics, night club bouncers, security guards, parking attendants – anybody with a badge who comes into contact with those terribly dangerous MOPs who could turn awkward when they don't want to do as they're told?

And then how long would it be before all these 'official firearms users' are allowed to have them at home - just in case some nutter MOP (who isn't allowed to have a firearm because it's against the law) takes a dislike to them, the job they do, or doesn't like the look of their uniform?

And in the meantime, law-abiding MOPs who go out for the day and take a picnic with them, get their forks taken away - when they visit a museum, because presumably somebody has decided that cutlery is a dangerously offensive weapon.

We are told the Police form a service that is ...... a varied, multi-layered, responsive institution working to ensure your safety - the 'your' refers to us MOPs, it isn't inward-looking, self-protecting.

..........

There are currently 168 comments left on Insp Gadget's blog please take the time to read them, if only to see how they highlight what seems to be a widening chasm opening up between the Police and those they're supposed to serve - because the Police is still called a Service - and that's what we expect, a service. And, oddly enough, we also expect them to know the law.

And, as an aside, it's important to remember that we MOPs tend to follow instructions, especially at airports which we're told are very dangerous places these days. We take off our shoes and belts, and bracelets, ear rings, rings and watches whilst waiting patiently in the 'security' queue and we put indescribably small liquid items in a see-through bag. Sometimes we get frisked because a filling or a metal screw in a knee has panicked a machine, or maybe it's because there's a target to chase. We often have our hand luggage publicly dissected by uninterested officials who don't even speak to us and now, at some airports we can be x-rayed - refusal means not being able to travel. All this is meant to deter the bad guys, so we do as we're told.

So why is it that Mrs Rigby hasn't a clue what she and her family, as ordinary members of the public - MOPs - are supposed to do if, and when, one of those 'routinely armed with scarily big guns' black-uniformed Police she sees at an airport shouts out a warning and then instantly opens fire? Should we try to run and hide? Should we throw ourselves to the ground, and try to merge with the floor? Or are we meant to turn into statues in case any small movements are seen as threatening and we're mistakenly identified as a 'target'?

....