h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've said it before, but the standard of writing on the BBC News website is atrocious. I don't think they bother with proof-reading, on the basis that they can correct it later if they need to. Very sloppy.

True. And they haven't corrected it yet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-12160124

I think this one fits in under the 'Seriously?' category!

I tend to agree, but I do wonder what's meant by "Clearly the decision to dismiss Mr Tremelling was the right one given the circumstances and his disciplinary record."

A hint of other factors behind the decision that the article doesn't mention.

Hmmm, must admit I hadn't noticed that bit on the article - I saw the story on Sky News online which didn't mention any past record but the link was too long so looked for a BBC one and didn't read all the way through.

Cool sledge though!

I'm sure *I'd* have asked for a go on it, too.

I read that one this morning too and wondered about his "disciplinary record", but I was also quite staggered by the bureaucratic hoops he was supposed to jump through just to let a couple of kids ride on a sledge! Written risk assessment, permission, headgear, elbow and kneepads? Kids have been riding sledges (and falling off them) for centuries.

Fact is though, despite all the flak that schools, councils etc might get for all their health and safety rules, they're only covering their own arse against litigious individuals and a media thirsting for the blood of anyone who does anything that has even the slightest consequence.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I'm really glad I grew up before kids' lives had all the fun taken out of them by nonsense such as this.

Let me amend one part of that.

...thirsting for the blood of anyone who does anything that has even the slightest consequence, or might have had even though said consequence never happened.

I'm looking at you, Eddie Mair.

This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12132543 however, deffo belongs in this thread.

The bloke's explanation was accepted and he was told no further action was taken. And then he gets a bill for £137.50? For something he didn't do? And his name goes on a register? Seriously?

The story doesn't make it clear whether or not he paid the sum but I sure as hell hope he didn't.

As well as the caution of his previous disciplinary case which raises eyebrows the other comment is that he..'ignoring cautionary words of warning from colleagues.'

That raises a point as well if the other teachers and colleagues had said it was a bad idea maybe he should have listened?

I wondered about that one too, but there's always the possibility that the other teachers had bought into the over-cautious health and safety mentality and were being Cassandras.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12417924
"It was a matter of luck that this man did not die, you could be here being sentenced for murder."

So he only gets a five stretch? He could be out on parole in three For doing that to somebody. Seriously? I think His Honour needs a little refresher course in reality.

God. That photograph is definitely not for the squeamish, huh?

It's something I've thought about before. Someone can get a much lighter sentence for exactly the same deed, depending on whether the victims live or die - which is down to luck and the skill of the surgeons, not that they've committed a less serious offence.

Quite so. Plus, he tried to conceal evidence. The story doesn't say whether or not he plead guilty. He messed up another person's life, possibly for many years, possibly for the rest of that person's natural life. Perhaps that natural life might end up being shorter than it otherwise would have been. He also cost the NHS a considerable sum of money, which I reckon he should be made to pay back once he gets out of chokey and starts earning, no matter how small a sum his wages might be.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12624539
Seriously? I'm speechless. I really have no words to describe my astonishment at that judgement, but then I grew up in a country where there are laws against people doing what Phelps and his misguided followers do. I'm glad to have those laws and an unwritten constitution that constantly changes and depends on the courts deciding what's right for the current times, not what some people in a time of high political passion several centuries ago might have meant.

But it was the judges and the courts deciding in this instance, too. The judges didn't all decide the same way, either, so it's not like the constitution had tied their hands. They were just as unfettered as the Law Lords are in the UK.

No, I can't agree with that last assertion. The UK MPs are far more able to make more assertive laws against hate speech because there is no written constitution and therefore no bill of rights with a freedom of speech clause that must be adhered to and which people can pervert and twist to their own ends. An unwritten constitution that depends on precedent, acts of law passed in parliament, and the common law (which might be the same thing as precedent - I'm no constitutional or legal expert) is far more flexible and less open to abuse, in my opinion.

But doesn't the fact that even a minority of one gave that opinion show that it was an option that was open to them, whether or not they chose to take it? It was ultimately their call...

I'm tempted to speculate that the one dissenting judge might have done so purely to make a point, knowing that constitution tied the hands of the court as far as free speech is concerned, but I have no idea of the workings of the Supreme Court or what went on here, or if they even sit down like a jury and thrash out the case or if they make each judgement on their own, having no contact with the other eight judges.

Either way, that doesn't change my opinion over the benefits of an unwritten vs written constitution as far as cases like this which involve a written and codified freedom are concerned.

I'm on the side of the court on this one. It's definitely a major difference culturally between us. I prefer to have a strong, written constitution. As much as I find the Phelps reprehensible and disgusting, I'd rather they win this case than to see the first amendment weakened any more. I'm one of those who'll defend your right to be a complete and utter .

I would have defended the Illinois Nazis as well.

What the WBC are doing still qualifies as "peaceful protest", and they know precisely what lines and limits they can cross. The WBC "protests" aren't even about free speech, they're about the lawsuits. The only career children in the church study for is law. That is their prime directive.

I'd really hate to see the first amendment weakened on behalf of these s. They'd just find some other way to antagonize folks into court anyway.

Most importantly, we've seen how fragile our civil liberties are recently. Your right to privacy is GONE! Due process is right behind it. Weaken the 1st amendment even a little and more liberties will disappear as well.



I don't know what can be done about the WBC. I wish someone would think of some way to make them go away. I'd like to see an investigation into their financing, maybe revoke their tax exempt status as a church. There's gotta be some seriously shady things in Fred Phelps' past. Maybe, now that they've riled up Anonymous (by pretending to be attacked by them) maybe something useful will be discovered about them.