UAF Fascists

I don't know whether the EDL started off as a racist organisation. But it does appear to have been infiltrated by racists and become a racist organisation now (and I mean racist - I know Islam is not a race, so I'm not talking about Islam).

But they have a right to protest. They have a right to free speech. This is a historical right and one of the hallmarks of a free country and a non-fascist society.

So does nobody find it strange that, in 2010, the so-called "Unite Against Fascism" (UAF) group wanted to completely ban the EDL from a standing demonstration? Not a march - a static protest.

And Muslims seem have generally supported this attempt at fascism by the UAF. Well frankly, if you're going to be a fascist, I don't care what colour you are, what race you are, or whether you were born here or not: leave the country! Saudi Arabia would suit people such as the UAF nicely, along with their ignorant supporters.

Disclaimer: I am exercising my right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Human Rights Act; the Magna Carta of 1215; the later Magna Carta of 1297 - The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, andof the Liberties of the Forest; and in the long tradition of free speech as valued by the English people, and any interference with such rights as laid down by statute and common law is illegal

No, You Don't Have a Special Right Not to be Offended

When a Christian attacks someone for insulting their religion, the Christian is rightly arrested and told that's no excuse. If there was genuine religious discrimination, the Christian should have used the law instead.

When a Hindu attacks someone for insulting their religion, the Hindu is rightly arrested and told that's no excuse. If there was genuine religious discrimination, the Hindu should have used the law instead.

Yet when a Muslim attacks someone for supposedly insulting their religion by saying things that may be offensive but are true (such as the fact that the Qur'an says to beat your wife and rape your captives, or when someone mentions that most Muslims don't read the Qur'an), the Muslim gets let off and the person who said the supposedly intulting thing gets admonished instead!

You may think otherwise considering the way our cowards know as "the police force" act around you, but no, as a Muslim, you do not have a special right not to be offended. People make fun of Christians. They make fun of Hindus. They make fun of Pagans. So why the fuck do you think you're so special, so much more amazing than everyone else?

You're not special, and you do not have a special right not to be offended. I don't care if someone said Allah raped several goats. I don't care if someone claimed Muhammad had sex with a kid (which is actually true according to Islamic scriptures). I don't care if someone said Allah and Muhammad were gay lovers who loved to rape each other with barbie dolls! (Well actually I do care about those things but you don't have a special right not hear them) It's offensive - but it's not harming you, it's just pissing you off. Again, you do not have a special right not to be offended. If you believe you do, then fuck off to an Islamic country.

If, however, you are one of the (rare, whatever propaganda you may hear that says otherwise) who is tolerant, who doesn't think Muslims have a special right above everyone else, who is caring and who will actually look up circumcision before forcing such a barbaric procedure on your kids because some book says so, then feel free to stay here.

Disclaimer:
I am exercising my right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Human Rights Act; the Magna Carta of 1215; the later Magna Carta of 1297 - The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, andof the Liberties of the Forest; and in the long tradition of free speech as valued by the English people, and any interference with such rights as laid down by statute and common law is illegal.

AVOID the JET Program ( Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme )

This isn't going to be a blog all about sexual attacks, but since this is important I'm posting it here.

http://www.zen13795.zen.co.uk/jetsurvey/Assault.htm

Sexual assault on the programme and the people who are supposed to help have not only done nothing about it, they've even bullied victims!

If you're already on the program, quit. You may get a massive bill for fees, but just ignore it. And I mean ignore it - don't respond to a single letter and if you get a phone call asking "is that [your name]?", ask "who's speaking?" and don't give your name until they tell you. If it's some debt collecter, tell them you're someone else ("I bought this mobile (cell phone) off some guy/girl", "I just moved into this house"). Sure it may mess up your credit rating, but what's better - bad credit rating or sexual abuse?

Is Google Tracking Us?

As if it wasn't enough that Google is invading privacy by taking photos of people in places that the public would not normally see (e.g. back gardens), the company now appears to be tracking internet use.

A bit of background info: On various webpages, Google adverts are displayed. These are usually put their by whoever runs the website, or whoever owns the website. The adverts display information based on what is written on an individual webpage. So if a webpage mentions dogs, adverts about dogs may appear. Ironically, if a vegetarian website mentions meat on one of its webpages, adverts for meat products may appear!

However, the adverts are always either based on one or more words on the page, or are non-profit or charity adverts (or rarely adverts about Google products).

Yet this happened: I searched for cat tracking devices on Google and looked at various websites. A lot later, I went onto a forum that had nothing to do with cats, and the specific page I was looking at had nothing about cats mentioned. Yet on the page was a very large advert for a cat tracking device.

The only reason for this has to be that Google is using some sort of tracking software to follow my internet locations (follow me to different websites), and then displaying adverts based on what I've previously searched for on Google. I've now deleted what I could from the Internt Options on my computer, but the fact that staff at Google are having a nosey at whatever websites you happen to visit is pretty fucking sinister.

PERVERTED AMERICAN OFFICIALS CAN GROPE YOUR KIDS

The paedophile who lets it happen (top left) and more paedos (bottom left).

Yep. You read that right. TSA (Transportation Security Administration) now have free reign to grope anyone who goes through a U.S. airport (update: and now train stations and bus stations too).

I'm not talking about the alread-perverted pat-downs. I'm talking about "enhanced pat downs". In other words, sexual assault - just like torture was given a new name of "enhanced interrogation" by the Bush administration.

Imagine, in order to "protect" you (supposedly), a TSA agent feels up your kid. Using the front of their hand, they poke, prod, and have a good feel. Well I hate the idea of being locked up in a foreign country, but if someone did that to my kid I'd punch them in the head until they were unconscious.

What's next, anal probes? People used to joke about that but I can seriously imagine that, maybe called "super enhanced pat downs". Americans need to wake the fuck up and do something about this, and the rest of the world needs to condemn, boycott, and impose sanctions on the U.S.A. until the government stops this happening (TSA agents work on behalf of the U.S. government).

There's a video about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InM3Mzt1uU8

Media Keeps Lying About Pope - HE DID NOT APOLOGISE

This is a public domain image of an abuse facilitator, thus breaking no copyright laws. Even if the pope doesn't like the use of the image: in all but a few circumstances, under English law, it is the person who actually took the photograph who has the say in how it is used (unless it is taken in a private setting), including a say on how others may use the photograph. As for the 'abuse facilitator' stamp, I am exercising my right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Human Rights Act; the Magna Carta of 1215; the later Magna Carta of 1297 - The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, andof the Liberties of the Forest; and in the long tradition of free speech as valued by the English people, and any interference with such rights as laid down by statute and common law is illegal, so the pope can go stick his head in a hot oven

Yet again, Joseph Ratzinger (the pope) has refused to apologise for the handling of the sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests and nuns, instead doing what politicians do - making it look like he is saying something that people want to hear, but actually using weasel words to absolutely avoid saying it.

And yet again, the media is claiming he apologised. The BBC, supposedly known for it's independence and unbiased reporting (rubbish!) has even stated on BBC Radio 5 (which has many listeners) "The pope has said sorry"!

Frankly the way the media is dealing with the pope's avoidance of an apology is a blatant attack on victims. This is because anyone who does not know what the pope actually said, but who has heard the bull from Radio 5, will be annoyed at the "way the victims are refusing to accept the pope's apology" - thus creating a state of affairs where people are actually angry at the victims of abuse - and all because of the BBC and other media outlets which clearly support the pope.

This is original artwork, not the official BBC logo (which incidentally looks crap anyway), therefore I am not breaking any copyright laws so the BBC executives can go stuff themselves. As for the 'liars' stamp, I am exercising my right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the Human Rights Act; the Magna Carta of 1215; the later Magna Carta of 1297 - The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, andof the Liberties of the Forest; and in the long tradition of free speech as valued by the English people, and any interference with such rights as laid down by statute and common law is illegal

If the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) had asked Prime Minister David Cameron: "Despite idiotic Daily Mail reports to the contrary that focus on a tiny minority of individuals who manage to cheat the system (and a few made-up individuals in order to sell the Daily Mail), it is a fact that people on Jobseeker's Allowance (a state benefit) get just £65 a week - this does not realistically meet the cost of living, therefore can you confirm that Jobseeker's Allowance will increase to a more acceptable level that takes into account the current cost of living?" and his response was "I really care for poor people. I can assure you that they are very important to me, and that there will be no reduction in Jobseeker's Allowance. We are currently looking at the current rate of payment and we want to protect the most vulnerable in society", the media would be all over him as he had clearly avoided actually saying what people wanted to hear - "yes, the amount will increase to a more acceptable level". The media, especially the BBC, would certainly not be going around claiming the PM had stated that Jobseeker's Allowance will be increased. Yet when the pope speaks in a similar way to avoid giving an apology, the media instead claims he has apologised.

This just goes to show that the Vatican still wields a lot of power. In fact if you do some basic "googling", you can find that it has a lot of shares around the world, and I'm willing to bet that those shares include the BBC, MSNBC, and other media outlets which are currently engaged in lies about the pope in order to make it look like he has apologised and the abuse victims are being unforgiving - lies made worse by the fact that Christianity, of which Catholicism is supposedly part (despite obvious ignorance of various biblical teachings), considers forgiveness to be important.

To be clear, the pope expressed sorrow. I feel sorrow at what has happened yet I had nothing to do with it, and I'm sure most people with a heart feel sorrow, so clearly that is not the same as an apology.

Ratzinger has consistently refused to utter the word 'sorry' and I want to know why. Considering the fact a number of priests (and no doubt many nuns) who were involved, either directly or indrectly, in the abuse scandal, are still serving members of the Catholic Church, I think I have my answer: he does not care a jot about the victims, and only cares about those who sexually abused children and those who facilitated the abuse.

One more thing: let's be clear about this. The media is engaging in 18th-century "it's not as bad when it's a woman" sexism. Nuns abused too and that abuse is no less traumatic for the victims*. He disgusts and sickens me, and so does our supposedly "independent" media.

*See http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/complaints_abuse_by_nuns.htm for example.

Aliens and Maths and How to Give First Aid to a Cat

I've found a website (http://www.croad.jimdo.com/) -apparently also called The Croad Website- (and shows up in google if you google that name, about the fourth link down) and it has mad stuff on it as well as a load of useful stuff.

As just an example, it's got stuff about protecting yourself from aliens (the extra-terretrial kind) -WTF?- and stuff about Exorcisms and Spirit Release, but it's also got more sensible stuff like benefits information, homelessness stuff, games, first aid for some animals (none for humans strangely, except a choking page), maths stuff, helplines, and all sorts.

Needs a shorter web address (but then so does my blog!), but just google 'The Croad Website' and you should find it. And if you like it, there's a button on almost every page where you can share it!