1000

 That last post was titled "Back to free speech" for a reason. It was post number 1000 on this blog since starting it in April 2010. And what was post number one about? Freedom of speech of course.

Back to free speech

 DZ does not generally advocate the burning of books. Having said that, if someone buys an item it is then their property, and they are perfectly at liberty to destroy it, by burning, or otherwise. It shouldn't be anyone else's business. 

But it's no surprise that if the book in question is a religious tome, and it's burned in public, then that is going to cause some sort of backlash. Particularly in some of the more regressive, fundamentalist countries where such an act would be called blasphemy, and might even attract judicial execution.

The problem is that the "faithful" have this bizarre idea that this sort of oppression should be applied in more civilised liberal countries, as is seen in this case.

Lets take this article step by step. 

First and foremost, those complaining don't seem to understand that it's perfectly legal to criticise religions in the west. Indeed most countries have laws protecting freedom of speech and religions are not given a special pass. "Blasphemy" is not a crime in Sweden.

The Saudi foreign ministry is quoted as “calling for the importance of spreading the values of dialogue, tolerance and coexistence, and rejecting hatred and extremism,” 

This from a nation that is third in the list of those that executes  it's own citizens including children and the mentally ill.

An institution calling itself the "Arab parliament" has also weighed in calling for“total rejection of such disgraceful acts, which are considered a violation of all international laws" They don't seem to care that the "international laws" they desire don't actually exist. But they do seem to live in a fantasy world. They're most vociferous in their condemnation of the European Parliament when that body criticise human rights abuses in Arab countries

The Arab parliament also has  "called on the international community to assume its responsibilities and enact laws and legislation that criminalizes insulting religious sanctities and provides the necessary protection for Muslims in practicing their religious rites on an equal basis with all other religions."

Now firstly DZ does not understand how someone burning a book in any way curtails the ability of others to practice their religion. Could it possibly be that fundamentalists of all religions see it as part of their religion that they should be allowed to shove it down the throats of sceptics and secularists?

And as for "criminalising insulting religious sanctities". They really don't get it do they?

In case people think that I am particularly directing my comments at Islam I'd like to reassure that I regard all religions equally. With equal contempt.

Annnnnd.............another one.

 Another what, you ask. Yet another instance of a doctor who, over a period of years committed such a massive series of sexual assaults that he had to be brought to court from prison, where he is serving three life sentences already, to have another two added.

And throughout those years he was being appraised regularly, like a good boy. I expect he forgot to mention his practices on his form.

He was caught by the old fashioned way that most bad doctors are caught, by police complaints by his victims, and concern from his colleagues. The appraisal system played no part in his apprehension whatsoever.

What on Earth is it actually for?

Journalists!

 DZ has commented before on newspaper articles seem to be increasingly written by sloppy lazy journalists, and published by indifferent editors.

Here is another one.

To read the headline you'd think this was an event of clear negligence. As if the normal theatre procedures were not diligently followed, and the patient went on his way with everyone involved blissfully unaware of the problem. 

If you read the article it's obvious that, in fact that was not at all what happened. The end of surgery instrument check obviously did correctly identify that an instrument was missing, and the correct procedure for finding it was followed. While the patient was still anaesthetised. There was then a clinical decision made to leave it where it was and retrieve it at a subsequent procedure.

It's highly unlikely that the patient would come to any harm as a result of this, and in reality it's a complete non story. yet another case of some hack writer trying to generate copy out of nothing. 

Nurses

 So our nursing colleagues finally lost patience with the government over pay. What took them so long? 

This table shows starkly how poorly their pay has kept up with those who control the purse strings.

So nursing pay has risen only just over 11% over the last 12 years compared with almost 30% for MPs.  To put this in perspective inflation over the same period totals 34%, equating to a serious fall in real term earnings for Nurses. House price inflation over the same period exceeds 53%, so even more of their income has to go on simply providing a roof, eating further into their dwindling pay.

Only it seems a few months ago the nurses, and others were being lauded and applauded as "essential workers" putting their lives at risk to keep the NHS from total collapse. They know now that they have to make a stand to prevent this ongoing downward spiral. The various so called "independant" review bodies have totally failed in their function of ensuring fairness and adequate pay, having simply fallen into line as government puppets. 

And in those 12 years corporations continue to make record obscene profits and their CEOs take home seven figure salaries.

And don't even talk to me about fucking professional footballers, who can earn more for kicking a ball around for 90 minutes than a nurse for a year's work.

Oh dear, did you hurt yourself you fucking parasitic pansy!

Progress

 Last year's census for England and Wales has revealed some very interesting trends in the area of religious observance, as is covered very well in this article.

DZ sees the two main points as, first, a rapidly advancing move to a secular population, and second, within those who practice religion, an increasing diversity. Also, even those who describe themselves as "christian" are not all members of the church of England.-

Bearing these two points in mind is it not long overdue that the UK should disestablish itself from the Anglican church? That religion should be separated from the state, and that the bishops should be removed from the house of lords?  Not forgetting of course that the house of lords is itself an insult to the concept of democracy.

While the present government is unlikely to disturb the status quo, Mr Starmer is a more hopeful prospect, as is seen here and here.

Worth considering.

Why so coy?

 DZ has today come across this article in "the Independent" today. It talks about an increase in the incidence of oral cancer over the last 10 years, and particularly the increased incidence in young people. DZ actually knows what the increased incidence is due to, but the newspaper doesn't mention it explicitly. It mentions smoking, which has declined over the relevant time period, and alcohol, but the newer cause they skirt around. It's referred to as "lifestyle factors", which is not very helpful. Also they briefly mention Human Papilloma Virus, but don't elaborate.

They have completely failed in their duty to educate the public in a display of ridiculous prudishness, totally unbecoming a modern news outlet. Presumably they think that if they specify what exactly they're talking about there will be an epidemic of pearl clutching among their readers.

DZ is not so inhibited. What we are talking about here is (gasp) Oral Sex! There, I've said it! Clutch away.