No surprise there then! In fact my blogging has been VERY sporadic for several weeks now, as a few visitors may have noticed. I'm sorry about this, but 'real life' has a way of butting in so rudely, don't ya know? So, this light blogging will be a feature here for at least the next week or ten days. On the one hand I am somewhat 'stressed' as a result of a rather tricky family matter - my mother moved to live in a care home earlier this year and whilst it is, I think, a pretty decent place both in terms of the care offered and the physical environment of the home (it is warm and comfortable and, according to my mother, the food is of high quality - and my observations bear this out), she has unfortunately taken against it. Some of the reasons which lie behind her attitude I am party to, but I feel we (the family and her social worker) have still to get to the root of some aspects of the problem. Unfortunately the home she wishes to go to does not have vacancies at present and quite apart from that it is a 'residential' rather than a 'care' home according to the arcane definitions that the governing authorities set so is very probably no longer suitable to cater for my mother's much deteriorated physical condition; she is very much 'on the ball' mentally, if a little forgetful. So I've been losing some sleep in recent weeks as a result. Why else would I be on the internet at 1 a.m,? This has been a pretty frequent occurrence of late, I'm afraid - my internal clock is way out of kilter, because of the worry.
The other factor that is contributing to my light blogging of late is a new website I am designing for the 'urbanisation' where I have my Spanish holiday home, to take over from the former website. Whilst it worked, it had a fairly basic, if cumbersome, design. All of the basic design criteria have been ironed out and I have got the username/password script working as it should (for the private part of the site); there are between 500 and 1,000 users so it is not too large a user-base, but it's not tiny either. However, there is still a lot of work to do if I am to meet the 'launch date' I have set for the middle of next week. There are three major strands to what remains to be done:
- loading and linking to a lot of the data (in the form of .PDF documents in the main, with a few other file-types as well) carried over from the former website; the file structure I am designing will I hope make it easier to maintain the site in the future to cater for additional data;
- putting in place an effective FAQ section, with the ability to handle new queries 'as and when' so that the database becomes more useful over time and keeps pace with changing requirements;
- taking care that all the major language requirements are catered for, principally English, Spanish, German and Dutch with some requirement for documents to be in French and Norwegian as well. Fortunately I am not responsible for preparing translations into most of those other languages (except for French, which I can do pretty competently I think), but certain parts of the site require to have separate sections for each of the languages and other pages require to be multi-lingual. This introduces all sorts of design constraints that take a bit of 'lateral thinking' to implement satisfactorily, quite apart from having to rely on a variety of others to supply the necessary translations in a reasonably timely manner so that all parts of the site say the same thing in the different language areas.
So whilst typing this I've been watching a movie recorded a few days ago on my DVR, but now I must really take myself off to bed, although I'll probably end up reading for a while before putting my bedside light off.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Saturday, 5 December 2009
A quasi-meltdown of SNP-leaning blogs is in progress
Over the past few weeks a couple of SNP-leaning blogs have 'ceased transmissions' ("Wardog" and "The Universality of Cheese") and now I learn that a third, "Subrosa", has gone off-air, too. I had started to write a blog article a few days ago which would have been entitled "SNP-leaning bloggers on the psychiatrist's couch" and the first couple of paragraphs would have read:
- that post had been 'inspired', if that's quite the right word(!), by some blog entries in the SNP Tactical Voting and J Arthur MacNumpty blogs, probably if I recall correctly in Subrosa's blog, too (no longer possible to check there, however) which all seemed to be indulging in what one might politely describe, at least in the case of the first two (the third being, we are led to believe, a lady) as keyboard onanism, as if SNP-blogging is co-equal with all Scottish blogging. There are other bloggers in Scotland than the fantasist SNP-leaning bloggers (and of course one of these two is I understand not actually based in Scotland at all, but is presumably someone with a Scottish heritage). Admittedly the SNP-bloggers have in recent months been generally more 'vocal' than other bloggers here. In all recent SNP-leaning blogging there has been a pretty clear whiff of 'victimhood', that somehow they, and by extension all Scottish/British bloggers are somehow being 'got at', possibly by agents of what is known as the MSM or 'main stream media', who are all castigated as being 'Unionist supporting' or sometimes 'Labour supporting'. Now I haven't ever made a practice of reading the Scotsman newspaper online (or in print) as I find it a pretty mediocre rag, but I have occasionally seen articles in both media - a feature of many of the few articles I have read online was the 'over the top', some might say 'obsessive' nature of many of the comments there, mainly emanating from what seemed to be SNP-supporters. I recall, before 'she' started blogging having occasionally seen the name 'Subrosa' given as the author of some of the comments, a few of which were frankly racist in tone. Nevertheless I found her as a blogger generally interesting, although hardly objective. On a couple of the occasions when she left a comment in my own little blog I had occasion to comment on the unpleasantly quasi-homophobic nature of these comments, but her comments were left in place by me (she may have deleted them subsequently, for all I know or care, as I now realise 'Wardog' has done too over the past couple of weeks, although in his case our debates never touched on homophobia as I never detected any whiff of that in him whatsoever) because the way she expressed her comments was always civil and I put her views down to being those of someone of advanced years. I knew no details of who she was, but she represented herself in her blog as being someone of advanced years.
In any case, one feature is common to the three SNP-leaning blogs which have been taken down recently - they were all anonymous. Shortly before the first two ceased blogging their identities were revealed, in the case of 'Wardog' by himself in his later blog entries and in the case of 'The Universality of Cheese' as a result of investigative journalism. From what I have gleaned from a couple of bloggers who have written about Subrosa's blogging demise, her identity was to be revealed this coming Sunday.
I can understand, at a pinch, why some bloggers wish to blog anonymously, but for the first 33 months my blog was in existence (until January 2005) I simply did not link to 'anonymous' blogs, period. From January 2005 I have relaxed this policy, and plan to continue with that more relaxed policy now, but I have never been entirely happy with the whole concept of anonymous blogging. It is significant, I think, that whilst both the SNP Tactical Voting and J Arthur MacNumpty blogs are written under the mask of pseudonyms, neither is anonymous. I have in the past written highly-critical articles about the author of the SNP Tactical Voting, from none of which criticism do I resile in any way, even if I accept that his writing is often of a high standard and displays a sound analysis on occasion, but of course I agree with neither on the merits of what the SNP desires to achieve in/'for' Scotland. But that is healthy debate with which I have no quarrel and both of these bloggers do write generally very coherent articles (even if they are interminably long sometimes).
In my own case I have never blogged anonymously. I have lost a few friends as a result (not everyone seems to have been willing to accept the 'revelation' that I am gay, but I can do without their acquaintance, quite frankly) and some of my views on other matters have irritated a few people beyond reason to the extent that I did have a stalker at one stage who purported to post scurrilous comments in other blogs under my name, presumably as a means of discrediting me. Luckily I was alerted to this by a couple of other bloggers so was able to overcome the problem. However, even in the recent past (following my recent article about 'Wardog' - linked to above) I was obliged to delete a comment from an SNP-supporting 'nutter' claiming 'victimhood' and various other 'excuses' for why [s]he had contravened my comments policy by writing offensive homophobic comments and alleging that I was somehow a Labour supporter (just as offensive!), which no rational person who has read much of what I have ever written here could reasonably assume to be an accurate interpretation, just because I don't happen to fall at the feet of wee-Eck's phantasmorgical nonsense!
So what does all this boil down to? Firstly, I am sorry to see these three bloggers (so far) disappear, because I do believe in free speech, however objectionable I may find some of the views expressed. On the other hand all three of these bloggers did pretty regularly post scurrilous obsessive nonsense either in their own blogs or in the comments pages of newspapers - and some people take exception to this. My view generally is that if I have something to say, I say it. Of course I do often self-censor so that what I think does not pass my lips or appear in print in my blog or in comments I occasionally make elsewhere, because I am not a complete idiot. Some idiots (i.e. these three bloggers), however, seem to think that they can say whatever they choose under the cloak of their supposed anonymity, then claim some kind of victim status when someone 'calls' them on it. My attitude is that I must accept responsibility for whatever I write here - sometimes I have written some pretty pointed things about various individuals but so far, luckily, this has not brought me more than minor 'grief'. Fundamentally I do think anonymous blogs are cowardly - it's rather like some of my closeted gay acquaintances over the years who have made all sorts of excuses for why they remain closeted, pretty pathetic in most cases, with a few exceptions admittedly (if I were gay and living in Iran or Nigeria, for example, I'd keep quiet about it too, very probably). Just what was it that people like Subrosa, Wardog and The Universality of Cheese were trying to achieve by their anonymous blogging and why is it considered such a disaster for them to have their identities revealed? I may be a 'libertarian', but I am not an 'anarchist' so I do accept there are certain limits to what one may say or write even in a democracy, without potentially being subject to legal sanction; anonymous bloggers seem to hope to skirt around this basic rule of living in a society governed by law. The attempts to portray them as 'victims' does not, in the final analysis, wash with me, however much I may regret their cessation of blogging. Live by the sword...
Reading quite a few of the SNP-leaning blogs over the past week or so has been like being an observer at a global mind-dump; the snide remark might be (and slap me hard for typing this lol) that there's been a lot of trash accumulating in them there minds to dump. But that would be cruel. The current cycle of introspection amongst this cohort of bloggers seemed to kick off a couple of weeks back with the sudden disappearance of the 'Wardog' blog, which I wrote about to high-light the dangers to wider freedom of speech which his 'silencing' seemed to represent. |
- that post had been 'inspired', if that's quite the right word(!), by some blog entries in the SNP Tactical Voting and J Arthur MacNumpty blogs, probably if I recall correctly in Subrosa's blog, too (no longer possible to check there, however) which all seemed to be indulging in what one might politely describe, at least in the case of the first two (the third being, we are led to believe, a lady) as keyboard onanism, as if SNP-blogging is co-equal with all Scottish blogging. There are other bloggers in Scotland than the fantasist SNP-leaning bloggers (and of course one of these two is I understand not actually based in Scotland at all, but is presumably someone with a Scottish heritage). Admittedly the SNP-bloggers have in recent months been generally more 'vocal' than other bloggers here. In all recent SNP-leaning blogging there has been a pretty clear whiff of 'victimhood', that somehow they, and by extension all Scottish/British bloggers are somehow being 'got at', possibly by agents of what is known as the MSM or 'main stream media', who are all castigated as being 'Unionist supporting' or sometimes 'Labour supporting'. Now I haven't ever made a practice of reading the Scotsman newspaper online (or in print) as I find it a pretty mediocre rag, but I have occasionally seen articles in both media - a feature of many of the few articles I have read online was the 'over the top', some might say 'obsessive' nature of many of the comments there, mainly emanating from what seemed to be SNP-supporters. I recall, before 'she' started blogging having occasionally seen the name 'Subrosa' given as the author of some of the comments, a few of which were frankly racist in tone. Nevertheless I found her as a blogger generally interesting, although hardly objective. On a couple of the occasions when she left a comment in my own little blog I had occasion to comment on the unpleasantly quasi-homophobic nature of these comments, but her comments were left in place by me (she may have deleted them subsequently, for all I know or care, as I now realise 'Wardog' has done too over the past couple of weeks, although in his case our debates never touched on homophobia as I never detected any whiff of that in him whatsoever) because the way she expressed her comments was always civil and I put her views down to being those of someone of advanced years. I knew no details of who she was, but she represented herself in her blog as being someone of advanced years.
In any case, one feature is common to the three SNP-leaning blogs which have been taken down recently - they were all anonymous. Shortly before the first two ceased blogging their identities were revealed, in the case of 'Wardog' by himself in his later blog entries and in the case of 'The Universality of Cheese' as a result of investigative journalism. From what I have gleaned from a couple of bloggers who have written about Subrosa's blogging demise, her identity was to be revealed this coming Sunday.
I can understand, at a pinch, why some bloggers wish to blog anonymously, but for the first 33 months my blog was in existence (until January 2005) I simply did not link to 'anonymous' blogs, period. From January 2005 I have relaxed this policy, and plan to continue with that more relaxed policy now, but I have never been entirely happy with the whole concept of anonymous blogging. It is significant, I think, that whilst both the SNP Tactical Voting and J Arthur MacNumpty blogs are written under the mask of pseudonyms, neither is anonymous. I have in the past written highly-critical articles about the author of the SNP Tactical Voting, from none of which criticism do I resile in any way, even if I accept that his writing is often of a high standard and displays a sound analysis on occasion, but of course I agree with neither on the merits of what the SNP desires to achieve in/'for' Scotland. But that is healthy debate with which I have no quarrel and both of these bloggers do write generally very coherent articles (even if they are interminably long sometimes).
In my own case I have never blogged anonymously. I have lost a few friends as a result (not everyone seems to have been willing to accept the 'revelation' that I am gay, but I can do without their acquaintance, quite frankly) and some of my views on other matters have irritated a few people beyond reason to the extent that I did have a stalker at one stage who purported to post scurrilous comments in other blogs under my name, presumably as a means of discrediting me. Luckily I was alerted to this by a couple of other bloggers so was able to overcome the problem. However, even in the recent past (following my recent article about 'Wardog' - linked to above) I was obliged to delete a comment from an SNP-supporting 'nutter' claiming 'victimhood' and various other 'excuses' for why [s]he had contravened my comments policy by writing offensive homophobic comments and alleging that I was somehow a Labour supporter (just as offensive!), which no rational person who has read much of what I have ever written here could reasonably assume to be an accurate interpretation, just because I don't happen to fall at the feet of wee-Eck's phantasmorgical nonsense!
So what does all this boil down to? Firstly, I am sorry to see these three bloggers (so far) disappear, because I do believe in free speech, however objectionable I may find some of the views expressed. On the other hand all three of these bloggers did pretty regularly post scurrilous obsessive nonsense either in their own blogs or in the comments pages of newspapers - and some people take exception to this. My view generally is that if I have something to say, I say it. Of course I do often self-censor so that what I think does not pass my lips or appear in print in my blog or in comments I occasionally make elsewhere, because I am not a complete idiot. Some idiots (i.e. these three bloggers), however, seem to think that they can say whatever they choose under the cloak of their supposed anonymity, then claim some kind of victim status when someone 'calls' them on it. My attitude is that I must accept responsibility for whatever I write here - sometimes I have written some pretty pointed things about various individuals but so far, luckily, this has not brought me more than minor 'grief'. Fundamentally I do think anonymous blogs are cowardly - it's rather like some of my closeted gay acquaintances over the years who have made all sorts of excuses for why they remain closeted, pretty pathetic in most cases, with a few exceptions admittedly (if I were gay and living in Iran or Nigeria, for example, I'd keep quiet about it too, very probably). Just what was it that people like Subrosa, Wardog and The Universality of Cheese were trying to achieve by their anonymous blogging and why is it considered such a disaster for them to have their identities revealed? I may be a 'libertarian', but I am not an 'anarchist' so I do accept there are certain limits to what one may say or write even in a democracy, without potentially being subject to legal sanction; anonymous bloggers seem to hope to skirt around this basic rule of living in a society governed by law. The attempts to portray them as 'victims' does not, in the final analysis, wash with me, however much I may regret their cessation of blogging. Live by the sword...
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
World AIDS Day 2009
In remembrance of those lost to AIDS.
With hope for those living with HIV and AIDS today.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
FMQs in the "wee pretendie Parliament"
I rarely watch Thursday's First Minister's Questions from Holyrood (shown on BBC2 in Scotland), but there isn't an episode of 'Poirot' on ITV3 rights now (a joke, or perhaps a revealing glimpse of how exciting my life is!), I thought I'd give it a whirl. What strikes me though it that I am not alone in paying this make-believe 'tribune of the people' little heed - for the chamber seems to be pretty empty of MSPs, you know those folks we pay to be there! There seem to be as many (or more) spectators in the public gallery as in the chamber! Mind you, flicking across to the BBC Parliament Channel to see what's happening in the House of Commons shows a similar almost deserted chamber - but usually the folks at Westminster can be bothered to turn up for PMQs on a Wednesday.
"This programme may upset some people"
This is the 'cover yourself legally' warning which is usually trotted out when something upsetting and/or violent is going to be shown on television. I'm just watching a recording of Channel4's pretty good documentary, shown last evening on More4, to mark the first anniversary today of the Mumbai terrorist outrages last year and this is the warning that was issued before the programme and after each ad-break before the programme resumed.
Who would not find such a programme disturbing? Being shown at 10pm, it was way after the 'watershed' when younger children should certainly not be watching. No, it's really often just used as a blanket 'watch your back' legal 'out' in case some viewer claims it has traumatised him/her and tries to sue the makers of the programme for the distress caused. I don't really blame Channel4 for trying to protect themselves in these circumstance, but still it strike me as a bit odd - but that's the society that we live in.
Similar rather idiotic warnings are shown on some packaged food products - one of the most extraordinary being the warnings which often appear on packs of nuts which say something like "Warning - May contain nuts.". I know nut allergy sufferers can become seriously ill, or even die, if they consume products containing even trace amounts of nuts or nut oils so some products where these ingredients may not be obvious do require to bear a warning, but on a pack of nuts? End of rant ... (for now)
NB/ My permament memorial pages in respect of recent terrorist events are linked to fairly near to the top of the right column under the sub-heading 'Memorial Pages', or you can visit the first page in the series here, or go to the Mumbai page direct.
Who would not find such a programme disturbing? Being shown at 10pm, it was way after the 'watershed' when younger children should certainly not be watching. No, it's really often just used as a blanket 'watch your back' legal 'out' in case some viewer claims it has traumatised him/her and tries to sue the makers of the programme for the distress caused. I don't really blame Channel4 for trying to protect themselves in these circumstance, but still it strike me as a bit odd - but that's the society that we live in.
Similar rather idiotic warnings are shown on some packaged food products - one of the most extraordinary being the warnings which often appear on packs of nuts which say something like "Warning - May contain nuts.". I know nut allergy sufferers can become seriously ill, or even die, if they consume products containing even trace amounts of nuts or nut oils so some products where these ingredients may not be obvious do require to bear a warning, but on a pack of nuts? End of rant ... (for now)
NB/ My permament memorial pages in respect of recent terrorist events are linked to fairly near to the top of the right column under the sub-heading 'Memorial Pages', or you can visit the first page in the series here, or go to the Mumbai page direct.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Four decades after the Sexual Offences Act this kind of nonsense still happens?!
We are told often that life is so much easier for homosexual people in the UK now than it was pre-1967 when the Sexual Offences Act partially decriminalised homosexual acts in private and I am sure it is, even if I don't have relevant personal memories of the period before this, having been only about 15 years old at the time. However, every so often something happens that brings me up with a jolt. Some joker in Portsmouth thought he could make a 'fast buck' by pretending to be an undercover police sergeant and making blackmailing married men 'cruising' in a gay haunt a lucrative proposition, by extracting 'instant fines' from them. The apparently genuine threat of the 'shame' of a court appearance on charges of 'gross indencency' made some of the men involved willing to hand over several hundred pounds each. Presumably one of his potential victims decided to go to the real police (who mostly react somewhat differently now than they would have 40 years ago), leading to Lee Creamer (aka 'Sergeant Perry') being gaoled at Portsmouth Crown Court for three and a half years. Judge Peter Henry correctly summed-up this despicable individual:
Even though homosexuality was decriminalised quite a long time ago, many gay men (and women) are still reluctant to 'own' who they are, so leaving themselves open to this kind of nonsense. To some extent this is understandable because however 'right on' we may like to kid oursleves that Britain is today, there are still a lot of prejudiced people around who don't hesitate to make life difficult for gay people if they think they can get away with it (just remind yourself how successful a number of major religions are in having their prejudices accepted and in a number of cases enshrined in law). Whilst this is in some respects a depressingly familiar type of case, at least it has a 'happy' outcome - the culptrit has been brought to book.
"The people you were targeting undoubtedly would have been in that frame of mind where they weren't going to think straight. You were relying on the fact they were going to panic and pay the money." |
Even though homosexuality was decriminalised quite a long time ago, many gay men (and women) are still reluctant to 'own' who they are, so leaving themselves open to this kind of nonsense. To some extent this is understandable because however 'right on' we may like to kid oursleves that Britain is today, there are still a lot of prejudiced people around who don't hesitate to make life difficult for gay people if they think they can get away with it (just remind yourself how successful a number of major religions are in having their prejudices accepted and in a number of cases enshrined in law). Whilst this is in some respects a depressingly familiar type of case, at least it has a 'happy' outcome - the culptrit has been brought to book.
Sunday, 22 November 2009
What did they do wrong?
I must confess to being startled when I first heard that Gordon Brown and David Cameron had felt it necessary to apologise for visiting the Field of Remembrance on Armistice Day. What exactly has either man done that is wrong?
It all seems to boil down to the fact that a) they didn't ask prior permission of the Westminster Abbey authorities (although David Cameron said this morning on the Andrew Marr show that he had, but only on the day at the last minute) and that b) they both used it as a 'photo opportunity'.
I don't wish to be rude (be honest, you do - Ed.), but I really do think the Westminster Abbey authorities need to get over themselves! The Church of England is the 'established' Church and by virtue of that status receives a lot of benefits, both material and in terms of the influence it wields (and that's the right word in this context!), far beyond what its current levels of membership nationally justify. Like all churches (as charities), it receives significant tax breaks. As for the photographers, well I think there may be a slight case to answer, but only a minor one. Does anyone really think it is credible that either Brown or Cameron coould have carried out a low-profile visit to such a nationally-symbolic spot, specially if they had already arranged it as a major feature with the Westminster Abbey authorities?
It is really sad to me that this non-story has been talked-up by the Westminster Abbey authorities, naturally enough gleefully taken up by the ever-hungry 24-hour media machine. Brown and Cameron have obviously been left with no choice but to apologise, because it would be political madness for either man to do anything else, given the media-driven and changing (i.e. fickle and easily-manipulated) public opinion that we all have to live with. However in my view neither man had anything to apoligise for - I'd have been far more upset if they had simply toddled off and not bothered to visit the Field of Remembrance.
PS/ It perhaps needs to be said that if this so-called 'gaffe' had been made by Gordon Brown alone and not by David Cameron as well, I would still have formed the view of the kerfuffle that I have; I don't care for Brown at all (that's no secret), but fair is fair.
It all seems to boil down to the fact that a) they didn't ask prior permission of the Westminster Abbey authorities (although David Cameron said this morning on the Andrew Marr show that he had, but only on the day at the last minute) and that b) they both used it as a 'photo opportunity'.
I don't wish to be rude (be honest, you do - Ed.), but I really do think the Westminster Abbey authorities need to get over themselves! The Church of England is the 'established' Church and by virtue of that status receives a lot of benefits, both material and in terms of the influence it wields (and that's the right word in this context!), far beyond what its current levels of membership nationally justify. Like all churches (as charities), it receives significant tax breaks. As for the photographers, well I think there may be a slight case to answer, but only a minor one. Does anyone really think it is credible that either Brown or Cameron coould have carried out a low-profile visit to such a nationally-symbolic spot, specially if they had already arranged it as a major feature with the Westminster Abbey authorities?
It is really sad to me that this non-story has been talked-up by the Westminster Abbey authorities, naturally enough gleefully taken up by the ever-hungry 24-hour media machine. Brown and Cameron have obviously been left with no choice but to apologise, because it would be political madness for either man to do anything else, given the media-driven and changing (i.e. fickle and easily-manipulated) public opinion that we all have to live with. However in my view neither man had anything to apoligise for - I'd have been far more upset if they had simply toddled off and not bothered to visit the Field of Remembrance.
PS/ It perhaps needs to be said that if this so-called 'gaffe' had been made by Gordon Brown alone and not by David Cameron as well, I would still have formed the view of the kerfuffle that I have; I don't care for Brown at all (that's no secret), but fair is fair.
Saturday, 21 November 2009
Labour and the 'truth' - not if you believe in 'fact'
Thanks to GuidoFawkes and his 'video production team' we have an excellent dissection of the eliding of truth and fiction that the Labour Party habitually tries to pass off as history, focussing on their 'Budget Day' party political broadcast earlier this week:
- as one of the first commenters in Guido's article, someone who styles him-/her-self 'jgm2', observes correctly:
- as 'jgm2' observes in his final sentence, I too will be very surpised if left-leaning MSM outlets The Mirror and The Guardian have (or ever will) run a similar story lampooning the outright lies!
- as one of the first commenters in Guido's article, someone who styles him-/her-self 'jgm2', observes correctly:
"It really is pure 1984. It’s on a par with Kim Jong Il claiming to have invented manned flight. "It’s beyond parody. Emily Pankhurst banned from joining the Labour party ‘cos she was a woman? Yet Labour claims credit for the universal franchise and women’s votes?" |
- as 'jgm2' observes in his final sentence, I too will be very surpised if left-leaning MSM outlets The Mirror and The Guardian have (or ever will) run a similar story lampooning the outright lies!
Wardog - now an "ex blog"
(Please see UPDATE at end)
I just read an article in the Wardog blog tonight in which he indicates that he is hanging up his 'blogging clogs'. Unfortunately I haven't been reading his, or any other, blog much in the past few days because I have my own family concerns right now and besides been very busy with setting up a new website and these matters have been consuming more or less all of my waking houurs (not to mention giving me sleepless nights of late), but his final message indicates that he has been going through a rough time and has had various pressures exerted upon him which he says have left him with no alternative but to cease blogging. All his earlier articles have now been removed, as well as all his links, etc. (NB/ Note added 21NOV09 19.25 GMT - the 'Wardog' blog has now been taken down completely. Let's hope the writer is resurrected elswehere.)
To be clear, I always found Wardog a stimulating read. I rarely agreed with anything he wrote - he being what I would call a 'rabid' Nationalist and me being unapologetically in favour of Scotland continuing as a partner in the United Kingdom. I have absolutely no truck with the aims of the SNP, nor really the Devolution disaster that Labour has saddled us with, even if I've come to accept reluctantly that there is no going back to the status quo ante. In the greater scheme of things, Labour have more serious things to answer for - just as an example they have trashed the economy, just as every Labour government before it has done; Mr Brown is the very last person I ever, and not just in the past couple of years, could associate with the term 'prudence'.
However, I don't need people to agree with me before I am happy to acknowledge that they have worthwhile (if in my opinion often misguided) things to say. I certainly don't like people being coerced into silence because of what sound like the tactics of a Police State. But as I have been writing here for quite a few years now, that is just what the UK is becoming, or indeed may well have become if this latest incident and a number of others in the recent past are any indication; I've been writing as much for several months now. Freedom of expression, however objectionable some of the opinions expressed may be, is a vital thing and not to be surrendered lightly.
I have never made any secret here of the contempt in which I hold Labour (and the 'New' variety is just as objectionable as the traditional version of that noisome Party), nor frankly do I have a higher opinion of the fantasists in the SNP, or their sympathisers such as I think it safe to say Wardog numbered himself. But that does not mean to say I am not outraged when I learn that he has felt threatened both personally and professionally by what seem to be the actions of people who take have taken exception to what he has been writing. It is truly, truly outrageous!!
UPDATE: (Sunday 22NOV09 21.30 GMT) I've just come across an amusing, and pretty accurate, commentary today on Wardog's woes in the Nationalist Mythbusting blog (written by someone who operates under the perplexing of name 'sm753') - you can read it here. Incidentally, and I should have mentioned this when I was writing this article a few days ago, but in some of the articles in the Nationalist Mythbusting earlier this month there are many of what can only be described as 'obsessive' comments from said Wardog. I always try and be fair to people when I write my articles, but it's only fair to point out that Wardog often came across in his online persona as a bit of a 'nutter'; my view is simply that even 'nutters' should have the right to express themselves verbally within reason - and if someone has a genuine grievance that they have been libelled then they can take the matter to law. However the behind-the-scenes threats that evidently have been made against Wardog are noisome in the extreme.
I just read an article in the Wardog blog tonight in which he indicates that he is hanging up his 'blogging clogs'. Unfortunately I haven't been reading his, or any other, blog much in the past few days because I have my own family concerns right now and besides been very busy with setting up a new website and these matters have been consuming more or less all of my waking houurs (not to mention giving me sleepless nights of late), but his final message indicates that he has been going through a rough time and has had various pressures exerted upon him which he says have left him with no alternative but to cease blogging. All his earlier articles have now been removed, as well as all his links, etc. (NB/ Note added 21NOV09 19.25 GMT - the 'Wardog' blog has now been taken down completely. Let's hope the writer is resurrected elswehere.)
To be clear, I always found Wardog a stimulating read. I rarely agreed with anything he wrote - he being what I would call a 'rabid' Nationalist and me being unapologetically in favour of Scotland continuing as a partner in the United Kingdom. I have absolutely no truck with the aims of the SNP, nor really the Devolution disaster that Labour has saddled us with, even if I've come to accept reluctantly that there is no going back to the status quo ante. In the greater scheme of things, Labour have more serious things to answer for - just as an example they have trashed the economy, just as every Labour government before it has done; Mr Brown is the very last person I ever, and not just in the past couple of years, could associate with the term 'prudence'.
However, I don't need people to agree with me before I am happy to acknowledge that they have worthwhile (if in my opinion often misguided) things to say. I certainly don't like people being coerced into silence because of what sound like the tactics of a Police State. But as I have been writing here for quite a few years now, that is just what the UK is becoming, or indeed may well have become if this latest incident and a number of others in the recent past are any indication; I've been writing as much for several months now. Freedom of expression, however objectionable some of the opinions expressed may be, is a vital thing and not to be surrendered lightly.
I have never made any secret here of the contempt in which I hold Labour (and the 'New' variety is just as objectionable as the traditional version of that noisome Party), nor frankly do I have a higher opinion of the fantasists in the SNP, or their sympathisers such as I think it safe to say Wardog numbered himself. But that does not mean to say I am not outraged when I learn that he has felt threatened both personally and professionally by what seem to be the actions of people who take have taken exception to what he has been writing. It is truly, truly outrageous!!
UPDATE: (Sunday 22NOV09 21.30 GMT) I've just come across an amusing, and pretty accurate, commentary today on Wardog's woes in the Nationalist Mythbusting blog (written by someone who operates under the perplexing of name 'sm753') - you can read it here. Incidentally, and I should have mentioned this when I was writing this article a few days ago, but in some of the articles in the Nationalist Mythbusting earlier this month there are many of what can only be described as 'obsessive' comments from said Wardog. I always try and be fair to people when I write my articles, but it's only fair to point out that Wardog often came across in his online persona as a bit of a 'nutter'; my view is simply that even 'nutters' should have the right to express themselves verbally within reason - and if someone has a genuine grievance that they have been libelled then they can take the matter to law. However the behind-the-scenes threats that evidently have been made against Wardog are noisome in the extreme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
