They Just Want To Rub Your Face In It....

 ...even when you try to leave the real world behind: 

It isn’t just developers who are resistant to the idea of politics infiltrating their escapist fantasy worlds; many players are, too. Adelle was told on Twitter that: ‘This is just a game, it isn’t a tool for protest,’ and Ebonix says she often encounters Sims players who want to keep politics out of the game. Although, as Ebonix says: “BLM isn’t politics. It’s human rights.”

“Animal Crossing and other platforms like it serve as forms of escapism, which is great, except when real human life and dignity are at stake,” says Kat*, who organised another virtual BLM protest on her island. “Human beings suffering from systemic racism and violence don’t get the privilege of escaping from this reality, and neither should anyone else.”

If you think movements like BLM have anything to do with 'human life and dignity' then I've got a virtual copy of a bridge to sell you for in-game credits... 

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?

Well, Maybe You Ought To Make It 'Two Rules'..?

Edited: I've received a takedown notice over the content of this page, so you'll have to read the antics of Shahin Hashemi-Haeri, 45, at the original link to the 'Daily Mail' (the article is still up).

If they manage to get that taken down too, there's always Court News, where you can read about Shahin Hashemi-Haeri's antics...

Dotti By Name, Dotty By Nature…

A London public relations executive has told of her pride when she discovered her daughter had superglued herself to a window in Topshop.

Wow! Just imagine how empty and shallow your life and aspirations for your children must be, if that’s a source of pride?

You’re not doing much to dispel the stereotype of PR executives, Dotti…

Dotti Irving, 61, of Chiswick, has rejected the increasing pressure on parents to condemn their children's alleged criminality after the London riots.

And just what was little Miss PR Executive’s daughter doing?

Tess Riley, 26, was protesting against tax-avoidance by Topshop's owner, billionaire retailer Sir Philip Green. After spending the night in police cells, she was charged with criminal damage and faces trial next month.

Dotti thinks this is ‘protest’. I wonder how she’d feel if someone was to superglue themselves to her desk?

Today Ms Irving, founder of PR agency Colman Getty told the Standard: "I am proud of Tess. I don't want her to have a criminal record but I fully support her in what she did. The right to protest is one of the cornerstones of our society."

Yes, it is. The right to commit criminal damage, however…

Ms Riley said: "Many of us take direct action because we have little faith that environmental and social injustices are being addressed adequately by those in power."

Perhaps.

Yet many of you take ‘direct action’ (i.e. smash other people’s property and prevent them going about their lawful business) because you’re shallow, spoiled little brats who get caught up in the nihilistic thrill of property damage because, all your life, there’s been no consequences, and you expect that situation to always continue.

I know where I’m placing my bets…

What Is The Welsh For…

…’dim self-obsessed f***wit’?

Children taking part in a run on a mist-covered Welsh mountain lost their way after a man removed safety signs and course markings…

What?! Why would anyone do such a th…

Oh:

… because they were written in English.

/facepalm

Mike Blake, 63, the race’s organiser, said: “We believe the signs were taken down by a person who is a Welsh activist and who is against anything English.

“It is ridiculous. We had put the run on to raise money for the local primary school and we faced a situation where kids’ safety was put at risk.”

They should throw the book at him.

A man who allegedly took the signs was identified and reported to the police.

That court case will be interesting...

A Society Of Whining Teenagers…

Viv Groskop is a writer and journalist. She’s also not exactly a grown-up:

On our wedding day we virtually ran back down the aisle the second the ceremony ended. "I thought you were going to trip up, you were in a such a hurry," I remember one guest saying. Why the rush? Because it wasn't really a wedding at all, but a blessing – and throughout the ceremony the vicar had not let us forget it.

And why was this?

My husband had been married before and, in the Church of England, remarriage is at the vicar's discretion. Our vicar had decided against it.

His choice. You could always have sought a more sympathetic vicar, couldn’t you?

Throughout the ceremony he referred repeatedly and pointedly to "new beginnings" as opposed to just "beginnings". He insisted that there be no exchange of rings, because we were, technically, already man and wife.

By the rules of the church, as he interpreted them, you were.

It did not come as a huge shock, then, to discover this week that the same vicar who married us is now seeking to defect wholesale – with his parish – to Rome.

No, I can imagine it wouldn’t…

I would not describe myself as a religious person but I do have some sort of faith.

Well, clearly, since you insisted on getting remarried in church!

Ten years on I'm disillusioned for the opposite reasons to the angry Anglicans. I would like to see the Church of England be more inclusive not only towards women priests but towards people like me – people who rarely attend church, often question their faith, but who are, essentially, supportive of the church.

So you want to join a club, but you don’t want to abide by any of those icky rules? Are you going to stamp your feet if you don't get your way?

Those, like Bould, who look to Rome would say this is right. That if you want to marry in our church, you follow our rules.

And that’s perfectly correct.

But this is completely unrealistic in modern society.

I can see why you’d think so. You'd think so because, despite your years, you've never really grown up, have you?