Comments for gregmelia

Comment on Volvo gives children Anti-Volvo Protection Devices by lorna

lorna — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:07:37 +0000

Looked at the picture for a long time and felt very sad. Then amazed. Then thankful.

Comment on Volvo gives children Anti-Volvo Protection Devices by admin

admin — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:30:29 +0000

Not yet but I think I may. I’ll see what mental state I’m in after the weekend’s audaxing.

Comment on Volvo gives children Anti-Volvo Protection Devices by Charlotte

Charlotte — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:06:20 +0000

Good post – did you actually send it to the Swedish bike-slayers? I’d love to hear their response…

Comment on Fixie Culture finally hits York by Simon

Simon — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:56:57 +0000

Get down to York College if you want to see some major-league fashion victims, complete with the so-called ‘dildo’ bars (you know, the unfeasibly narrow ones with nice, rounded ends), deep-section rims in various shades of *bleugh* and, by and large, no brakes (someone should tell these idiots that brakes are a legal requirement unless you’re riding on the track)

That said, having ridden a fixed gear for the thick end of 20 years, it’s almost nice to be fashionable for a change

Comment on Let the Little Children come unto Me by bookgazing

bookgazing — Mon, 03 May 2010 16:24:43 +0000

‘They’re ruling on whether or not the Church’s morals are legitimate’ – I’m not really sure how we’d maintain equal rights without these kinds of judgements. Many people’s sense of morality differs from what is legal, but if we were to take their different stance on morality into account in legal cases we’d produce a partial and unfair system of justice. Say an employer was to say they felt homosexuality was immoral and so they wouldn’t employ anyone who was gay, you can argue that that’s a case of their morality differing from legality and that it’s not fair to judge whether their morals are legitimate. It’s no different because the Catholic church is a large, religious organisation.

On another note any measures that allow religious groups to circumvent the law by stating that their religious beliefs conflict with it opens the door to cases brought by individuals and businesses. It sets a really dangerous precedent that would negatively impact on the sturggle for equality in the UK.

Would you let other religious groups circumvent UK law because it conflicts with their morality?

Comment on Same Old Cliché by Mzee

Mzee — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:53:09 +0000

No! -not Nigel Farage!, -he is doing a great job both for my beloved UKIP and , ridding us of the dreadful `Bercow worm’

Comment on Let the Little Children come unto Me by admin

admin — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:06:52 +0000

Helen, the Catholic church has been around since Britain was run by the Romans, and has survived through the Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans, the Reformation, the Civil war, the Restoration and up to the present day. I’ve no doubt that there’ll be a Catholic presence in these isles long after our current civilisation’s ended. The nouveau-morality promoted by Nu-Labour is descended from Europe’s Christian tradition. Whoever’s supposedly in charge for the next decade (a blink of an eye by Catholic standards) will probably have won due to their hustings in a church hall. So what gives them authority to impose their bastard-son morality on the church, or any of the major religions?

Yes, we have to live together, which means that our representatives need to regulate just enough to keep the peace. If they step beyond that and start lecturing on morality to their philosophical parents, they’re getting beyond their station and need taking down a peg.

Oh yes, and the government are hardly white as snow themselves, are they?

Bookgazing, thanks for the comment. I think you’re making ‘morality’ into a much narrower and more partisan word than it really is – the government have stopped many Catholic agencies operating according to their own morals, so how is that not “lecturing on morality”? They’re ruling on whether or not the Church’s morals are legitimate, which puts the gov’t as the chief arbiter of morality. That’s what gets me, as I don’t see how it has any right to that place.

My point about Stonewall is that their language makes the issue out to be about the potential parents rather than the children, whereas to my mind, the child should hold all the rights in this type of case.

Comment on How would Jesus vote? by admin

admin — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:44:37 +0000

Hi Hann, it’s good to see you here! I suppose the really big question is whether God gets one vote or three. Hmmm.

Graham, I can’t see anywhere where I say that, could you cite me chapter and verse, please? Are you sure you’re not tilting at windmills? If you recall, I said, “neither the traditional leftist or rightist moralities are totally right, but they both contain an element of truth, and shouldn’t be rubbished”, so it really doesn’t bother me whether or not Jesus fits in some sort of stereotypical right wing authoritarian mould, since I never claimed that. While we’re on this subject, I’m glad that you’re all for personal freedom and hence I expect to hear you’re joining the Adam Smith society right away.

Comment on How would Jesus vote? by Hann

Hann — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:22:40 +0000

Strangely enough, I was considering this myself. I think, that as the Christian deity seems fond of the concept of free will, They’d either not vote – allowing (UK) humans free will in their own elections – or They’d vote for a party that promised “a better sort of democracy”, whatever that might be. Then again, Their omniscence should mean that They already know the results of the election, and any vote of Theirs would be futile.

Comment on How would Jesus vote? by Graham Martin

Graham Martin — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:07:50 +0000

I think what you get wrong here is to assume that the government should be doing something about personal morality as you see it fit for them to do. If people are supposed to be accountable for their individual actions, what good is it to enforce social norms on people? Kind of takes away this whole “personal choice” thing.