A nudge in the right direction

Over at the enemies of reason Anton has commented several time in recent days about how some of the Mail's nastier articles are not of the Littlejohn variety, they don't need to do that to get the reaction they seek out of their readers. No, some times they just give them a nudge in the right direction.

This morning we have another example, a story about Muslim friendly uniforms for fire fighters. The story itself could be worse, but look at the headline

"Now fire service introduces hijab headscarves for Muslim workers"

All it needs is that one word, "Now", it implies some kind of endless and pointless load of PC nonsense, when it's nothing of the sort of course. It's that one nudge in the right direction. No comments yet but it's the crack of dawn. I'll be checking back later and will be braced for something nasty.

Watch this space!

Update

I hope my fellow Christians will excuse the expression but, sweet Jesus. It really is worse than you could possibly imagine.

The comments, of course, have the usual PC gone mad, pandering to minorities blah blah blah shite. Yet I totally underestimated the stupidity of Mail readers, of I underestimated a long way indeed.

You see most of them have not read the article because they are all rambling on about how could you fight fires or climb ladders in the head scarf and skirt. It clearly says in the article though that it's for wearing in the station, school visits etc. IT'S NOT FOR FIGHTING FUCKING FIRES.

And then the best bit, oh the best of all, one comment says this

"Oh for goodness sake, read the article properly. This uniform isn't for fighting fires in, it clearly says:

The hope is that the uniforms, designed for wearing round the station and outings such as school trip."

Tina, Netherlands"

Note, the comment offers no opinion, just points out the mistakes of others yet at the time of writing this has a rating -237!!!! now given that I gave it a green arrow that's at least 238 people who either can't read or have decided to ignore basic facts for the sake of their own prejudice.

Either way, it's blodoy worrying.

Quick! Lets all kick Beardy!

Lying awake last night suffering from yet another bout of insomnia I listed to Radio 4 quietly murmur away in the back ground and that was when I first heard of this story. The Archbishop of Canterbury making a speech about the actions of humans on the environment and the fact that God will not intervene to prevent our trashing of it. Now regardless of whether you are a believer or not I don't think you can really deny that the central premise that it's about time we collectively took some responsibility for the state of the environment is a very sensible one.

And I have to confess that, and call me a boring old obsessive if you so desire, my first thought was "I wonder what the Mail and its readers will make of all that".

Well to be fair, the coverage by the Mail itself is quite reasonable, it just seems to be a straight forward reproting of the key parts of the speech. No slant, no agenda, in fact well done Daily Mail! (Fuck, did I actually just write that?)

When it comes to the comments though its a different story. And it highlights something that I love about Mail readers, they seem to think that the Church is about promoting conservative values and not Christian values. Now some of you may think they are one and the same thing, I happen to disagree, why should Christian values go either way, should they not be an interpretation of the teaching of Jesus? But I digress, lets take a look at exactly what the punters have to say.

Of course, remember the ten commandments: "Remember that thou need to find ways of promoting environmental responsibility through Government policies." I warn Roman Catholic priests to be prepared: they will be receiving more and more converts from the Cof E if we have more speeches like this one.
Click to rate Rating 8
- George, Bolton UK, 26/3/2009 9:50

Do you see what clever old George did there? Do you? Caring about the environment and taking responsibility is all about politics. It would seem. Of course it is George, of course it is.

Of course he wont, neither will he protect us from the Archbishop.
Click to rate Rating 38
- Chris, Yorkshire, 26/3/2009 10:03

What you mean the Archbishop that actually gives a toss about the world his kids and grand kids will inherit. Is that the one you mean Chris?

Just as God hasn't protected us from weak liberal Archbishops of Canterbury, he means?
Click to rate Rating 27
- Simon, London, 26/3/2009 10:06

Why would he Simon? Explain? Or do you just want the right to do what the fuck you want to the world and ignore the consequences?

Once the God-botherers get involved, you know there's nothing in it.
Click to rate Rating 7
- Steve, Cambridge, UK, 26/3/2009 10:29

Go on Steve, you tell them. none of its true, none of it. It's all a lie! Twat.

The C of E is infested with liberals. Give the C of E back to the English!
Click to rate Rating 89
- john, bristol england, 26/3/2009 11:17

Because liberals are all er... foreign?

Of course there are those backing Beardy up but they all get lots of red arrows, people like this

Congratulations to the Arch Bishop for exposing how our selfish greed allows us to do what we want because it suits us. Those who believe that God does not allow us to face the consequences of our own actions have not read their Bibles. Those who think God had better pray they are right!
Click to rate Rating 31
- Simon Lissak, London, 26/3/2009 10:29

Not sure the last sentence makes any sense but Simon does generally and has lots of red arrows for his trouble.

At last ! He has said something sensible and relevant! Whether you believe in God or not The human race must take responsibility for all of its actions in relation to the use of the world resources. At the moment the human race and its predatory approach to everything is the worst thing to happen ever to this planet. Surely we must change our ways reap the rewards of non concern greed avarice etc?
Click to rate Rating 16
- jasbo montrose, montrose angus, 26/3/2009 10:17

More red arrows. I fucking despair, I really do. I would have thought Jasbo's comment would be the one everyone could subscribe to but clearly not.

Once again I find it terrifying just how many people read the Mail and what their attitudes are. The Great British Public. And to think I'm one of them.

Dear Diary..... Bugger

What have I done? Why have I done it? I fear I have made a school boy error. I have just confirmed that my cubs will be bag packing at Sainsburys at the weekend. My little band of horrors, lovely though they are, will be set lose on the great British public. Supposedly being helpful. Yet I can see the horror of it all now, the broken eggs, the squashed tomoatoes, the dropped and split packets.

Oh the horror. THE HORROR I TELL YOU!!!!

Moan, Moan, Bloody Moan

Everywhere I go at the moment I seem to encounter people that are moaning about how "confusing" or "troublesome" the recycling scheme run by their local council is.

And they are all wrong. All of them. It's not confusing, it's very simple. All of them are. Here is how it works where I live, please point out to me what is confusing about the following.

Green bin - Cardboard, food waste, garden waste.
Black box - paper, tins, glass, foil.
Blue box - plastic, but not hard plastic.
Black bin - everything else.

Now true not every council works this way. Some, and wait for it, wait for the great intellectual leap that this concept requires, actually want you to put glass in with the plastic! That's right folks, you actually have to read the leaflet that comes with your council tax bill and remember to put it in the right bin.

Quantum physics? Kids stuff. Relativity? Easy. Recycling? Oh my God head for the hills! What witch craft can this possibly be?

I have no sympathy, none at all, with people that can't cope with this. It's there for everyone's good so that we don't have to fill fucking great land fills full of waste, now get a grip and get the fuck on with it.

Ah yes, the great British public, one of my pet subjects. It never fails to amaze me just how dumb they can be. With the whole "teddy gate" fiasco in Sudan finally resolved I returned toone of my favourite websites the BBC have your say section. One post on their stodd out, it said the following.

"She should never have been charged let alone found guilty in the first place.The president is alleged to be embarrassed. I would have thought that was putting it mildly.Coudl I ask why it was necessary for two Muslim peers to go and argue her case? What was the diplomatic service and British government doing? They too should be ashamed that they could not seemingly get her immediate release, even if it meant saying "Release her or else".

Now it does not take the brain of Britain to figure out what was happening in Sudan, this poor woman who was at worst a little insensitive, and frankly that's an exageration, was used as a pawn in the government's wish to be seen to standing up to the west. Such is life.

So this man thinks that using the bog standard diplomatic procedures is going to resolve things. They were never going to. In fact the government dealt with it very well, by letting moderate muslims in parliamnet go and do the negotiating they saved a lot of upheaval.

This man seem to think that threatening war is better than putting two peers on a plane to Africa.

Once again the great British public leaves me astounded.