Monday, May 23, 2011
Ryan Giggs has been named as the footballer who took out a super injunction (via Schillings, lawyers to the rich and dubious) to prevent details of his alleged affair with Imogen Thomas.
He was named as such by John Hemming MP in parliament this afternoon. John Hemming later justified his actions because he was concerned that tracking down lots of people from Twitter and jailing them would be wrong particularly as many of them would not have the means to defend themselves.
My understanding is that Ryan Giggs took out the injunction because he was concerned about the affect on his family and in particular his children. Whilst this is an admirable aim, were he that concerned he need not have had an affair in the first place. Even if you are wealthy things things do eventually come out.
On a wider note there is something odd about super injunctions, particularly those concerning corporate bodies such as Trafigura. Whilst they are legal individuals they are not real individuals within the scope of section 8 of the human rights convention and are not entitled to a private family life.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Apparently the world has not ended. It certainly does not seem to have ended here in Mid Sussex on the 21st of may.
(Well, to be fair if you were/are a Liberal Democrat it may have ended on the 5th or 6th of May)
Why do people go in for this end timer rubbish? Matthew chapter 25 makes it clear that we will not know "when the Son of Man commeth" therefore any such prophesy is a false one, and it follows that Harold Camping is a false prophet, albeit one who has made lots of cash from deluding people.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Is the argument that is often proffered by the Likud in the Israeli Knesset and the Ultra Likud who sit on Capitol hill in Washington.
This is given as an excuse for both not moving forward and indeed in many ways moving backwards particularly in settlement building.
Where this all falls back though is a brief examinations of the facts. Firstly it is proposed that a Palestinian state be de militarised. Secondly Israel defended the 1967 borders in the 1956 Suez war (which it started) and the 1967 war (which it also started by pre-emptive strike). In the latter example it expanded it's military sphere of influence.
Israel now has an equal or better superiority in fire power over it's neighbours than it did then.
So what is the conclusion?
Israel has defended the pre 1967 borders, and in one out of two cases expanded them therefore they are clearly eminently defensible so that argument is clearly rubbish.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Not for the first time, Ken Clarke appears to have been at the centre of some controversy, so I thought I would ask the following:
All of the following are legally rape, but do you regard them as equally serious?
1. A boy of just over 16 has sex with his just under 16 year old girlfriend, and they both want to do it so there is no complaint of rape.
2. A boy of 16 or 17 has sex with "his" 10 year old "girl friend" and there is no complaint from the girl of rape.
3. A man of 30 has sex with "his" 13 year old "girlfriend" and there is no complaint from the girl of rape.
4. A man and a woman having spent all evening together, consuming much drink go to one or others home and have sex which turns out to be non consensual.
5. During an evening in a bar a man slips a "date rape" drug into a drink for the woman he is talking to then takes her home and has sex with her.
6. A man jumps a woman he has never met in an alley, drags her away, threatens violence, and forces sex.
7. A man breaks into a house in the middle of the night, uses violence, and the threat of violence, forces sex.
Are they all as serious as each other?
Please note that in all the cases above the perpetrator is always male because the legal definition of rape involves sexual engagement with a penis. Anything not involving penetration with one is not legally rape but may be a sexual or serious sexual assault.
Friday, May 06, 2011
We have taken wards that were safe as houses for the Liberal Democrats!
In short, Conservative hold in Mid Sussex with increased majority.
So far the Conservatives have 40 seats, Labour 1 and the Liberal Democrats 7. That looks like 14 losses for the Liberal Democrats.
Conservatives: 45 (+15)
Liberal Democrats 8 (-15)
Labour 1 (No change).