Wolfie Zero

All I’ll say is if you ever walked into a post of any sort, then watch this video…

Good idea, but are we really making a mockery of Darwin? Really, the Turner Report should never of been drafted!

Laters.

Channel 4 News is an interesting affair as it seems to step out from being very much broadcasting facts, but also offers up some hard flaming to people in questioning but putting them on the spot in live interviews. But last nights broadcast over Harry serving in Iraq I thought was… well, not to mince word so I won’t; fucking stupid.

There is a point in an interview that when somebody has said something a few times, you gather that’s the answer, and when 3 people say it, you really don’t try and twist it.

Just to bring you up to speed: Yesterday the big news story was that Prince Harry was indeed out in Iraq, but he’d been out there for a few months now and the public was not aware of this until a few publications (namely New Idea) said about it.

Snow put a lot of emphasis on the fact that there was a media embargo on the whole thing that the media in the UK agreed not to publish this story. From the head editor of the BBC to the lowly editor of my home newspaper, The Southampton Echo; all editors made an agreement that they would not publish any story regarding Prince Harry in Iraq. But the key point there was it was an agreement, but for some reason, Snow compared the British government to that of a Totalitarian state where the media was censored.

Few things really bug me in this, but let me clear a few points up…

I am not: pro-government, pro-royalist, pro-war or even pro-celebrity (in the sense of I don’t really care). I am though pro-”I am human and I not your next big story to get senseless over”, and as my belief of being a social-punk, I get to look at these things and be on a more understanding view point rather than just objecting to be cool.

So we have a “person”, be it a royal, who wants to do some good as he sees it; he wants to serve his country and help a few other along the way as he sees it. I doubt he’s doing it as a publicity stunt as he really doesn’t need too. But for some very odd reason, we as the public, or so in John Snow’s head, need to know if a royal is out there…

Why the fuck do we really want to know?

But the interesting part is this how fact he kept on and on and on, compairing the embargo as making Britian a totalitarian state. Now, to be, totalitarian means that the media is not given a choice and is told what to say and do. But the dude who heads all the media reporting for the MOD talked about a “British agreement” that I can understand.

The British service men have a great reputation for doing as they are told, famously done in the hight of Nuclear Weapons production and activating these devices (not going into this as I’m not sure if this is public knowledge); but thanks to British agreement, they kept their word on it. Now, the media followed suite and said “yeah, sure, we’ll keep it under our hats”. Now, it is not like we need to know Prince Harry is out there, the only people that do are his family and friends, like the rest of the soldiers. So why make a big deal?

Watching the news report he was happy he was out there as he feels he is doing his bit, and he was anonymous as a air traffic controller and a guard. He wasn’t even “Bullet-Magnet” as he got a code name like the others to speak over the radios. He was a regular (G.I.) Joe.

So, Mr. Snow; looking out for the public in the sense of censorship? I think not; I think you’re just trying to make shit for others cause we feel better as a public to hate what we think we understand. But if the case you made in that keeping the public informed of what the fuck was happening, why don’t you have a go at MI5/6 while you’re at it. As I’ve said, I’m not pro government, but I sure as hell don’t want to be put as risk as we published knowledge or degrade what we do. We go our freedom, not as much as America, but we are pretty open as it goes, and I feel no need to know who exactly is out there, and I do, I know already.

Laters.

Every now and then, a new innovation comes to the web… this isn’t one of them

Minogue launches networking site (BBC News)

Singer Kylie Minogue has launched her own social networking website for her fans to communicate with each other.

The KylieKonnect [just ’cause they used a “k” instead of a “c” doesn’t mean it’s different, it’s the same - Ed.] website enables fans to create personal profiles and upload images, as well as “keep up to date with all the very latest on Kylie”.

The launch comes amid reports that the 39-year-old has shelved plans for a 2008 world tour to promote new album X.

But her record company Parlophone said a tour was not scheduled to happen in the first place.

Comeback single

“There never was a tour,” a spokesman told the BBC News website, echoing an earlier comment made by the singer’s Australian publicist.

Minogue was forced to end her last tour prematurely after she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005.

She resumed her Showgirl tour towards the end of last year and is currently promoting her comeback single, Two Hearts.

In a message posted on Friday, Minogue welcomed fans to her new website and said she would be “dropping by from time to time”.

[ hat-tip: Kerrie ]

I’m pretty sure there are gay social networking sites out there so no need for another. Mind you, can’t be as bad as the local social networking site in my neck of the woods, My Bordon; it’s just shit on a stick and I want the webmaster to know this so he shuts it down!

Sure enough, roll on the pun that is the bubble goes “pop“.

Laters.

Lessing says 9/11 ‘not that bad’ (BBC News)

Nobel Prize-winning author Doris Lessing has said that the 11 September attacks were not as significant as the terror campaign waged by the IRA.

She acknowledged the events in the US on that day in 2001 were “terrible”.

But she told Spanish newspaper El Pais: “Some Americans will think I’m crazy… but it was neither as terrible or as extraordinary as they think.”

The 88-year-old added that “people forget” the IRA bomb attack on Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1984.

“September 11 was terrible, but if one goes back over the history of the IRA, what happened to the Americans wasn’t that terrible,” she said.

“Many people died, two prominent buildings fell, but it was neither as terrible nor as extraordinary as they think.”

She described Americans as “a very naive people, or they pretend to be”.

“Do you know what people forget? That the IRA attacked with bombs against our government.

“It killed several people while a Conservative congress was being held and in which the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was [attending]. People forget,” she said.

Five people died and 34 were injured when an IRA bomb exploded in a hotel in Brighton where leading members of the Conservative Party - including Mrs Thatcher - were staying for their annual conference.

‘World calamity’

Lessing won the Nobel Prize, worth £763,000, honouring her 57-year career.

She was recognised for her “fire and visionary power”, and is due to collect her award at a ceremony in Stockholm on 10 December.

The writer, whose novels include The Golden Notebook and Memoirs of a Survivor, also branded US President George W Bush “a world calamity”.

“Everyone is tired of this man. Either he is stupid or he is very clever, although you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars.”

The writer also said that she “always hated Tony Blair from the beginning”.

Odd for somebody who believes in the rights the IRA was fighting for, just not how the renegade groups went about fighting (remember, it was for civil rights and to make Ireland a Republic while the British wanted power for the Brits and cut back help for the Irish). But somebody had to say it; it’s often forgotten what went on over here.

Not that’s I’m pro-England or such; I consider myself Irish but belong to no land.

Laters.

Vicars urged to drop ‘risky’ dog collars (Telegraph.co.uk)

Vicars have been told to stop wearing dog-collars because they increase the likelihood of them being attacked.

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, should abandon the traditional dress, according to the Church of England’s security adviser.

A new report warns clergy that the collars make them an “easy target” and says they should adopt more casual clothing in a bid to give them greater safety.

It was commissioned after the murder in March of Paul Bennett, vicar of St Fagan’s Church in Trecynon, near Aberdare, who became the fifth cleric to be killed in a decade.

Other safety measures proposed include disguising the whereabouts of the vicarage by taking down signs and ensuring that the front doors of their homes do not have a letter box that people can look through.

However, it is the recommendation that they should cease wearing dog-collars in public that is most controversial. They have been worn since the early 19th century and many priests are not seen without them.

The report, called The Clergy Lifesytle Theory, says: “One of the factors in the assaults away from the vicarage is the fact that clergy are easily identifiable as they tend to wear a ‘clergy collar’ which clearly informs people that they are a clerk in Holy Orders.”

Research has shown that half of attacks against clergy take place on the street or in the church when the priest is on their own.

“The problem comes when the people leave the event and the vicar is left on their own to lock up, or the service is one that no-one attends or that the offender asks the member of the clergy to speak in private after such an event,” the Church report says.

[..]

Dunno why, but the train of thought goes “Oi! That vicar is wearing a dog collar! Weirdo! After ‘im!“.

Despite having a variety of questions that no religion can answer, and being against a belief system; the ideas are sound in most cases, just they are pushy in the wrong way. But I understand the significance of people being different from others, not in the sense of rank, but who they are. So for a vicar to get get attacked as they can be seen singled out is wrong.

The issue is rather that telling vicars to stop wearing them, find who is causing the issue and stop them.

Damn the UK and it’s easy answers!