Ethical Companies – The Blog

I just learned today that Alex “Hurricane” Higgins, the bad boy of snooker, has died:

How the hurricane finally blew himself out: How Alex Higgins’s charisma was matched only by his talent for violent self-destruction.

I’m a bit of a former snooker anorak myself on the quiet and have played for a local team etc.  My father was a pretty good snooker player as well, and even played John Spencer (a former world champion) once.  Alex Higgins was a character, and a damn good snooker player.  Ok he was also a drunkard and a chain smoker ….  RIP Alex, I aspired to be as good a player as him.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

What happened when a woman driver tried to park her car as she stopped to admire the view – but forgot to put the handbrake on.

They say you learn from your mistakes – so it’s safe to assume this woman will never ever ever forget to put on the handbrake after parking on a slope again. Maria Rizzo, 34, stopped to admire the spectacular view from the street above this house in Alassio in northern Italy. But she was so intent on taking a picture that she forgot to put on the handbrake.

Her car rolled away, smashing through a barrier and plunging down the hill onto the house below. It broke through the roof and landed in the bathroom, with the front end wedged in an iron bath which broke the fall and stopped the Fiat Panda plunging further into the house. A police spokesman said: ‘Luckily no one was home at the time – so nobody was hurt, but the owner of the property did have a surprise when they arrived home.’

I know it’s a bit bad taste to poke fun at women’s parking …. But hey I had to snigger at this one

Steve

Tweet This Post 

As you may already be aware (and if you weren’t you soon will be) that the Daily Mail website, amongst its articles has little “mini polls” where you can click yes or no in response to a topical question. Questions such as “Does Britain still have a special relationship with America ?” After selecting yes or no you get to see the results.

You may also be aware that I don’t believe in banning the burka, from my recent posts on the subject. So on this article here: The burka empowering women? You must be mad, minister. I spotted a poll (presumably some of the polls on the specific pages are contextual and bear a relationship to the article surrounding them) entitled “Should Britain ban women from wearing a burka in public ?” and voted no. Here are the results at the time of writing this article:

Now maybe I just don’t “get it”, but do 88% of British people really want to ban the burka in Britain ? I just don’t understand the problem here. I get the whole thing about possible coercion into wearing them and the idea they are a “walking coffin” (in some people’s minds) but do 88% of British people (well 88% of the Daily Mail readers who do polls at least) care one way or the other about burkas ? Is banning them not just replacing one form of control with another ? Maybe I’m just stupid, but I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. If you’re one of the “yes” crowd then please explain what the problem is you have with them.

Thanks in advance.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

A few snippets from the news on food I don’t want to write long articles on:

Is this Britain’s unhealthiest snack? Chip shop launches calorie-laden deep fried ECCLES CAKE

Well, sounds interesting, I like Eccles Cakes after all. Why not ?

The world’s first ‘lasagne sandwich’: The new ’snack’ from Tesco that rivals even the most fattening American treats.

Apparently these are quite common. Never tried it myself, sounds revolting.

KFC introduces ’sandwich’ with buns made of CHICKEN instead of bread (but at 1,228 calories, it’s not exactly healthy).

Sounds divine I love KFC.

Just can it: U.S. inventors dream up ultimate convenience food… sandwiches in a TIN.

Sounds like a good idea, but I get the feeling it will taste revolting.

Tourists beware: London voted ‘Europe’s worst city for food’.

Not surprised. I can never decide what to eat in London. Unless you go “expensive” it’s hard to find anything worth the money in my experience. I suppose it depends on what they mean by “London”, I’m sure the suburbs have some decent places.

Sell-by date to go in war on waste: 450,000 tons of good food are dumped every year.

About time too ….

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Female minister insists women must be able to choose their own clothes as ban on burka is ruled out.

Banning the burka would infringe a woman’s right to ‘choose each morning when you wake up what you wear’, Cabinet minister Caroline Spelman said today. The Environment Secretary claimed it was ‘empowering’ to be able to choose your own outfit, and this must not be taken away.

Do men not have the right to ‘choose each morning when you wake up what you wear’ then Catherine ? Not sure about the “empowering” bit for the majority of us, after all we’re talking clothes here. However, the point being made is that we should be allowed to basically wear “what the bl*&^%$ hell we want”, and that applies to the burka as much as it does to any other items of clothing.

It came after the immigration minister, Damian Green, resisted demands from within the Tory party to ban the burka – which critics claim is actually a symbol of oppression.

And banning the burka is not oppression ? Taking away somebody’s right to wear something they want to wear sounds oppressive to me. This of course is the problem with people and politicians demanding specific rights on the grounds they are being oppressed, they can often end up oppressing others. Not with me ? Well let’s take the smoking ban as an example, people demanded the right to clean air etc, because they were being oppressed in where they could consume beer etc. However, all the ban has done has shift oppression to another sector of society, in this case the smoker. You’ve seen the quote at the top of my blog ? “Do as all pragmatists do, compromise”, but of course the anti smoking brigade didn’t compromise did they and now they are hammering away again to oppress the smokers even further. You may of course be under the impression that I smoke, but I don’t. I do, however, respect the rights of people wanting to smoke and I believe we should have shown compromise all round. Anyway I digress, back to the burkas (where compromise was not needed as wearing one is hardly a health issue to others is it ?)

Mr Green said a ban would be ‘rather un-British’ and run contrary to the conventions of a ‘tolerant and mutually respectful society’.
This is despite a YouGov survey that found that 67 per cent of voters wanted the wearing of full-face veils to be made illegal.

Hmm. I guess he’s right, it does seem somewhat un-British, although I’d have preferred the suggestion that such a ban was pointless, and would be demeaning and oppressive to the burka wearers. As for YouGov, more information please. How many voters ? What ratio of men to women ? What quantitative methodology was used, or was it a straight yes/no ? What are the demographics of the “average” YouGov user (I could think of a great many examples but I will not comment) ?

Some Tory MPs also back a ban, including Philip Hollobone, who has tabled a private member’s bill that would make it illegal for anyone to cover their face in public. Mr Hollobone, the MP for Kettering, said that he would refuse to hold any constituency meetings with women wearing burkas.

Bigot.

He said: ‘This is Britain. We are not a Muslim country. Covering your face in public is strange, and to many people both intimidating and offensive.’

I don’t find it intimidating and offensive, I don’t find it “anything”, I have no views one way or the other from that perspective.

But Mrs Spelman made the counter argument that wearing a burka is important for women’s rights. She said: ‘I don’t, living in this country as a woman, want to be told what I can and can’t wear.’

Damn right. By the way Caroline that dress you’re wearing is too “loud”, you are no longer allowed to wear it (yes this is sarcasm).

‘I’ve been out to Afghanistan and I think I understand much better as a result of actually visiting why a lot of Muslim women want to wear the burka. It is part of their culture, it is part of understanding that they choose to go out in the burka and I think those that live in this country, if they choose to wear a burka, should be free to do so. We are a free country, we attach importance to people being a free and for a woman it is empowering to be able to choose each morning when you wake up what you wear. ‘

Let’s not forget the men Caroline, we want to “empower” ourselves and wear what the hell we like as well. Today, Steve is wearing a white silk shirt, black jeans and holey socks …. Conclusion: I need some new socks.

French parliamentarians voted last week to outlaw full-face veils, including burkas, in public. Mr Green said he did not think that the French vote for a ban would have an impact on immigration into Britain, as Muslim women move here instead. He said: ‘I stand personally on the feeling that telling people what they can and can’t wear, if they’re just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do. We’re a tolerant and mutually respectful society.

‘There are times, clearly, when you’ve got to be able to identify yourself, and people have got to be able to see your face, but I think it’s very unlikely and it would be undesirable for the British Parliament to try and pass a law dictating what people wore. I think very few women in France actually wear the burka. They [the French parliament] are doing it for demonstration effects. The French political culture is very different. They are an aggressively secular state. They can ban the burka, they ban crucifixes in schools and things like that. We have schools run explicitly by religions. I think there’s absolutely no read-across to immigration policy from what the French are doing about the burka.’

Ahh the French, they certainly do things differently to the English. As for the point about security and proving identity, that’s fair comment, sounds reminiscent of the compromise I mentioned above.

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, told the Sunday Telegraph he is not in favour of an outright ban on the burka. But he added that they should not be worn if doing so ‘compromises public or personal safety, endangers national security or impedes professional or social interaction’. The new head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Farooq Murad, said that Britain was the most welcoming country in Europe for Muslims. He pointed to the spread of mosques and sharia, or Islamic law, as positive signs of the greater freedom Muslims are given in this country. Under the French ban, a woman wearing the burka can be stopped on the street by police and ordered to a police station, where she will be compelled to remove the veil. The woman faces a possible fine. Muslim men who are deemed to have ‘forced’ their wives or daughters to wear the burka will also be fined. President Sarkozy has said that the burka ‘is not welcome’ in his country. He claims that it is ‘oppressive’ to women and reduces them to ’servitude’. He said: ‘The burqa is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.’

I thought it was piece of clothing myself …. If it must be a sign then it’s a sign that these women shall wear what the heck they want.

Catherine Heseltine from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said UK MPs should not waste their time discussing a ban. She said: ‘Britain is a free country. We value our freedoms and we don’t want MPs or the government telling British citizens what they can or can’t wear. How does it hurt anybody else if a woman chooses to wear a small piece of cloth across her face ? Quite frankly, MPs, there’s a £160bn debt; shouldn’t they be busier worrying about what they’re going to do about that, than a small piece of cloth that a few women choose to wear ?

Nicely put Catherine, straight to the point. I guess this will all die down and we’ll move on. I’m glad though that it won’t be banned, but I must admit I’d love to know the reasons why 67% of YouGov users voted for banning the burka.

Steve

Tweet This Post 

“Flesh sells. People don’t want to see pictures of churches. They want to see naked bodies” – Helen Mirren

Well, it’s worked for her ….

Steve

Tweet This Post 

‘Wicked’ woman who cried rape is jailed for three years despite being seven months pregnant.

A young woman who ripped her clothes and gave herself a black eye to support her rape lies was yesterday jailed for three years. Leyla Ibrahim, described as wicked by a judge, is seven months pregnant and will give birth in prison. Her false rape claims started a £150,000 police investigation in which four students were arrested and subjected to humiliating examinations. They were questioned for nearly three days during which time one attempted suicide. They were later victims of public abuse, and one has since left the area. But the 22-year-old woman had invented the whole incident in order to teach her friends a lesson after they abandoned her at the end of a night out, a judge said.

Words fail me.  The damage this “woman” (I use the word very loosely) has caused to these men’s lives is utterly disgraceful.  Yet more fuel to support the argument that men accused of rape should be granted anonymity UNLESS they are actually convicted of the charges.  How many men have had their lives destroyed by false accusations of rape and/or ended up in prison for a crime they didn’t convict ?

The four wrongly accused – two of whom were under 16 – are still suffering as a result of the stigma caused by the false allegations, Carlisle Crown Court was told. All were ’subject to name calling and abuse in the street’ following their arrests, with one describing the ordeal as torture. Another said he was devastated by the harrowing experience and had been unable to eat or sleep. One suspect complained: ‘We were treated like s*** and not a stint (sic) of an apology.’

Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty” ?

Even the doctor in the case described the examinations as ‘intimate, embarrassing and uncomfortable’. A senior police source said the four were still ‘really struggling’ with the aftermath of the case. Detectives had initially taken Ibrahim’s account that she had been raped or sexually assaulted on her way home from a night out seriously, launching a massive manhunt involving 40 officers.

The frilly dress and leggings she had been wearing had apparently been ripped in the attack, clumps of her hair had been hacked off and she had a black eye and scratches to her breasts and legs. But police became suspicious, and tests showed the Libyan-born former children’s holiday rep had ripped her own clothes and inflicted the injuries herself to back up her fabricated claims. After failing to withdraw her allegation she was charged with perverting the course of justice and convicted. Judge Paul Batty, QC, told her such false allegations made it harder for women who genuinely had been raped to secure their attacker’s convictions. ‘Not only did these false allegations have an effect on four young men, but also a considerable effect on your own family,’ he said. ‘You were convicted on clear and compelling evidence of wickedly fabricating a grave crime, causing countless anguish to all involved. Your behaviour was thoroughly irresponsible and some may say wicked. I’m entirely clear in this case that you craved attention and wanted your friends to think they left you and you were then attacked. You wanted to teach them a lesson.’

So, when the “game was up” and she had a chance to withdraw the allegation she still carried on with these charges ?

Ibrahim, who had been denied bail following her conviction, smiled and waved at her family as she was led into the dock. Her mother Sandra covered her face with her hands following the sentence, calling out: ‘It’s OK darling, we’ll always be with you.’ The family insisted they would ‘fight forever’ to clear her name. Ibrahim, who came to Britain from Libya with her family when she was nine, worked at a petrol station at the time of the supposed attack in Carlisle on January 4 last year. She had argued with a male friend who refused to lend her the money for a taxi home after a night out drinking. She told police two youths had knocked her to the ground and assaulted her as she walked home. She claimed she grabbed a pair of scissors from her handbag, only for one of the pair to snatch them and cut off a clump of her hair. Crown prosecutor Linda Vance said: ‘This sort of case, where someone fabricates an allegation of sexual assault, and continues with that allegation, is very rare.’

Really Linda ?  I wonder how rare it really is ….  It may be rare in actual reported cases, but I’ve known at least half a dozen women over the years who claimed to have been raped and not reported it, and in some of those cases I had serious doubts as to how truthful they were.  For some women is it not simply a cry for attention (albeit an evil one) ?

I’m glad to see this woman sent to prison, but only 3 years ?

Steve

Tweet This Post 

Today’s birthday greetings go to ….

• David Hasslehoff – Of Baywatch and Starcrash (classic sci-fi, one of the Hoff’s earliest appearances).
• Camilla Parker Bowles – Not sure what she’s called now she’s married to Prince Charles. Tom Parker Bowles’ mum as well

Steve

Tweet This Post 

“Being around people with whom you feel a connection, on many levels, not just a professional one, is very relaxing. Your ears are more open to someone who is not a cantankerous bastard” – Jacqueline Bisset

Steve

Tweet This Post 

You know those “spot the difference” quizzes you get in puzzle books etc  where you see 2 pictures and you have to spot the difference(s) ?  Someone sent me a sort of internet version, where you have to spot the difference between 2 internet pages. Here’s the 2 pages (will both open in new windows):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1294610/Calls-burka-ban-grow-Britain-French-outlaw-Islamic-walking-coffins.html

http://ethicalcompanies.co.uk/testing/Calls-burka-ban-grow-Britain-French-outlaw-Islamic-walking-coffins.html

The difference is subtle, but ….  Well if you look hard you can see it

Steve

Tweet This Post