Somehow, I Don't Think 'Ask Julia' Will Ever Catch On...

Well, L.P. (may I call you L.P.? I take it it stands for Low-information Parent...), it seems you've failed in your first duty as a parent, since you've clearly allowed your son to have the password, which we all should really know by now is a bit of a no-no.

You aren't the first, mind you, and even those who should know better have been caught out. But it's still pretty dim of you, even so.

And...because he was at school, it couldn't possibly have been him? Really? You think your son obeys all the rules..?

You're too dim to own an iPad. I wonder how you managed to breed successfully.

Lovely Shot Of An Osprey In Flight...

...pity your story is about peregrine falcons.

Sunday Funnies...

Let's hear it for over-egging the pudding!

You Just Can’t Win, Can You?

In Australia, Verity Firth & Rebecca Huntley think you must sacrifice your child’s educational success to the socialist agenda to keep the dream of state schooling alive:

If anxious parents take their kids out of the local school, it starts to do worse, forcing more worried families to depart. New families then bypass the local school altogether, either sending their children to an out of area government school or to non-government options. But, the local school will only improve if these families stay and new families join the school. There is some recognition among the public that with parents pulling their kids out of the public system, that system suffers. If enough parents persisted with the public system to improve it, then the benefits would flow.

Meanwhile, in England, Michele Hanson will treat your decision to use state schooling with contempt, as a mere publicity stunt:

The Goves have got their daughter into Grey Coat Hospital School. First choice on their list. What do they want? Praise? … Give me strength. Grey Coat is the highest performing and most over-subscribed state school in Westminster (1,036 applicants for 150 places). It is religiously selective and single-sex and the Fair Admissions Campaign, which opposes faith-based selection, says the school is one of the least socially inclusive in the country.

Make up your minds!

Redefining ‘Fairness’…

Nearly 70,000 job seekers have had their benefits withdrawn unfairly …

Oh..? Without cause? At random? Just because someone in the DWP felt like it?

Policy Exchange says almost a third of all people who break their job search conditions for the first time have their benefits taken away by mistake and face unnecessary hardship as a result.

Ah. I see. There are rules. They break ‘em. What’s so hard to understand?

Guy Miscampbell, the author of the Policy Exchange report, said: "It is clear that there are a significant number of people who have their benefit taken away from them unfairly. Four weeks without any money is driving people to desperate measures including a reliance on food banks".

Oh, food banks! Those much needed charitable…

Wait. What?

The claim is made in a BBC Panorama documentary broadcast on Monday evening, which found that over a third of local authorities in England and Wales were providing funding for food banks, despite government claims that charity food is not a part of the social security system.

"Food banks are an inadequate plaster over a gaping wound," Dowler said.

Really? Because, to me, they seem like a combination of a middle-class employment generation scheme and a way of ensuring that, once again, there are no consequences…

Policy Exchange suggests issuing first-time offenders, who may or may not have been fairly sanctioned, with a 'yellow card' in the form of a benefits card. It says this would be a more compassionate way of trying to help people back into work. Benefits would be accessed via this card for a maximum of eight weeks.

If the claimant continues to breach job search conditions, the card and benefits would be taken away. This system would provide a safety net, mitigating hardship while a sanction is appealed, forcing claimants to re-engage with Jobcentre staff and deterring non-compliance through the added inconvenience of daily sign on.

Inconvenience? Well, I suppose having them miss a live episode of ‘Jeremy Kyle’ is something (they’ll just set their Sky 3D box to ‘series link’, though) that a think-tank drone believes is a fitting trade-off for throwing taxpayer’s money at ensuring there are no possible consequences to the workshy.

Pass the biscuits and the fancy coffee round the table again. What’s next on the agenda?

Quick! Throw Chaff And Deploy Flares!

Sam Jones helps the pushback against Denmark’s truly progressive (in the real sense of the word) move:

Blackwell's suggestion that the UK "may well" have to follow Denmark's example if British Jews and Muslims refuse to allow animals to be stunned before they are killed did not please the groups concerned. Nor did his assertion that cutting the throat of an animal without stunning it caused prolonged and unnecessary suffering.

Well, he’s head of the vet’s union – he really ought to know.

"They will feel the cut," he said. "They will feel the massive injury of the tissues to the neck. They will perceive the aspiration of blood they will breathe in before they lose consciousness."

Which seem like a pretty un-challengable statement to me. We don't execute condemned prisoner this way, because it's so 'humane', do we?

… Blackwell's intervention has met with a swift and furious response from Jewish and Muslim groups, who argue their long-practised methods are completely humane.

Yes, I’m sure it has. So what? It's 2014, and it's time they adapted.

"He has made the extraordinarily misleading statement that what Jews do and Muslims do is to slit animals' throats and allow them to bleed to death," said Jonathan Arkush, vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

"That is unbelievably misleading because he must know that the way the animal is killed is to cut its throat so as to bring about an immediate and irreversible loss of sensation and death."

Suggestions that the animal had its throat cut "and you just watch it while it bleeds to death", said Arkush, were pejorative, misleading and "could not be further from the truth".

He's a vet. Not a god-botherer. So he deals in reality. Not fantasy.

Shimon Cohen, campaign director at Shechita UK – which campaigns for the right to carry out Jewish religious slaughter – described Blackwell's calls as "an extraordinary dereliction of duty" and asked why he had decided to focus on an issue that affected only a tiny minority of animals.

Is he talking about the livestock, or..?

Arkush also said he feared that the Danish government had introduced the ban as a reaction to increasing public discontent over Muslim immigration.

Ah, of course! It's all a big conspiracy!

Dr Shuja Shafi, the deputy secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said he was disappointed that the issue of religious slaughter had been brought up yet again. "Halal is a humane method; it's a clean, clear method and has got rules and regulations about how it's carried out," he said.

"Stunning has got lots of problems in itself … and if it's not done properly, actually animals are a lot worse off."

That’s odd, Dr Shafi, because… that’s not what these Muslims say? So which part do you belong to?

”The stunning of animals for halal meat was until recently a non-issue. However, over the past few years many people have mistakenly been informed that stunning animals renders the meat as haram. This is a complete fallacy. As with most things in Islam there are differences of opinion.

The origins of this fallacy originate from a certain halal food authority that has decided not to certify any company that uses meat from stunned animals. On closer inspection of their position it is clear that they are simply implementing this policy as a "caution". They do not state, and can not state, that the meat from stunned animals is haram. This is because it is well documented that meat of stunned animals is completely halal under certain conditions.

Scholars of fiqh, the people who understand, interpret and explain the shariah, are more or less unanimous that the meat of stunned animals is halal.”

It’s clearly that ‘less unanimous’ part, then, Dr Shafi?

Well, at least you are ahead of the Jews for once, since they don't even have an alternative viewpoint, at least, not one I could find.

He also said that focusing on minority religious practices "could give ammunition" to the far right, which already uses halal slaughter as a means to try to attack the Muslim community.

Ah, of course! The only reason to dislike this form of slaughter is because you dislike Muslims - it can't possibly be for any other reason.

"People should be more responsible in how they tackle this. It's going to cause confusion and will be used by elements to have a negative effect."

What's 'negative' about reminding these people that the law should apply equally to all, without exception?

Whoever Wins, We Lose – Again!

‘We’ not including lawyers, of course. They make out like bandits no matter what...

The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales believes the UK is in breach of its international law obligations to protect young women and girls from mutilation.

Kirsty Brimelow QC, the committee’s chairwoman, said: “During the period of the UK’s breach, thousands of British girls and young women have been unnecessarily exposed to the risk of mutilation and have suffered irreparable physical and emotional damage. Many could — and should — have been saved.”

And where there's possible dereliction from the State, there's a claim!

Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell QC said: “This authoritative report raises fundamental questions about the government discharging its international obligations.

“It may well be that victims would be entitled to sue the government.”

Stephanie Harrison QC, from Garden Court Chambers, told The Standard: “There is obviously precedent for the State being sued where it has failed in its duty of care.”

But 'the government' doesn't have any money...

Move Along, Nothing To See Here (So Long As We Try Hard Enough)…

RSPCA officers found the horse near the Smite Caravan Site at about 5.25pm on Wednesday, February 12.

It was wearing a blue nylon head collar which had become so tight it had cut into its nose right down to the nasal bone.

The collar was also restricting its breathing and eating so it had become extremely thin. It is thought that it had been in the condition for some time.

The RSPCA officers called a vet to the scene who made the decision to put the animal to sleep due to the extent of its injuries.

Shocking, I’m sure you’ll agree. Will the mighty arm of the justice system stop searching the Internet for people being mean on Twitter long enough to do something about it?

A spokesman from West Mercia Police said officers did not attend the scene as they were satisfied the RSPCA officers and the vet had it under control.

She added no arrests had been made as a result of the incident and the investigation was being handled by the RSPCA.

That’s a ‘no’ then…

Maybe The Owner Should Have A Contingent Destruction Order Too?

Dog behaviour expert David Ryan, who said that having observed Mist he would not have had her rehomed in a house with young children, but her reactions were quite normal.

He said: “It was completely apparent to me that the dog did not like close social contact with children.”

The court in Prestatyn heard the animal, who has gone back to search and rescue work, would have ‘been under stress’ by being restrained close to children ‘when his normal instinct would have been to move away.’

Wait, what?

Little Rose had gone for a walk on Graig Fawr where Shorrock often took Mist for training. The girl approached Mist and Shorrock held the dog’s collar as the toddler patted her on the head before the attack.

Shorrock was fined £900 and ordered to pay Rose £1,500 in compensation. He must also pay court costs of £440. A contingency destruction order remains in place.

Sadly, only on the dog…

Great! I Now Work In An ‘Alcohol Action Area’!

I hope that means I get served at the bar quicker…

A hospital consultant has welcomed Southend being declared an Alcohol Action Area.

Hmmm, really?

… but says tougher action is needed.

Given any description of the ‘action’ to be taken is woefully lacking, I’d like to know how he reaches that conclusion, but still…

Dr Gary Bray, consultant gastroenterologist and hepatologist at Southend Hospital, spoke after it was announced the borough was to be one of 20 areas where new measures are to be introduced.

These include fighting drink fuelled crime and disorder and the damage caused to people’s health.

Details..? Anyone? Bueller?

He said: “As someone who sees a lot of liver disease and other alcohol related problems caused by rising alcoholism and consumption of cheap drinks, I find it very concerning.

“Being able to stay in a club, drinking until 4am, must fuel violence and problems.

It must? Gosh! That’s based on…what?

“I welcome any action which gives local authorities more control.

Well, of course you do, you are clearly a nannying little NuPuritan fussbucket with a god complex.

“I think, however, that expecting big drinks companies to act responsibly is very unlikely, especially as they lobby so consistently in Parliament.

Unlike doctors, who never, ever do such things…

“If the Government was serious about alcohol reduction, it would introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol, which has been shown to reduce alcohol related deaths in Canada.”

Well, that’s not necessarily so, and it seems they are already reducing quite nicely all on their own:

The most recent figures of teenagers treated for binge drinking illnesses at Southend Hospital show they are falling.

In 2010, the number of under-18s treated as inpatients at the hospital was 18. This figure fell to 11 in 2011, and to ten in 2012.

Up to the end of June last year, just three children were seen at the hospital for alcohol-related illnesses.

Whoops!