[Whodunnit Pt. 2] Let Him Have It…

Back in February I had a long comment discussion with an atheist called Postsimian which started on a post at The Friendly Atheist, but went off topic so I brought it here.

Whilst not intended, this makes an excellent follow-up to that post – Killing In The Name Of…

The gist of the discussion was one of hermeneutics. Postsimian argued that ‘if’ there was a God, he was evil, because of the certain events and commands given by God in the Old Testament, taken literally. My argument was that, as well as the need for proper exegetical context, there is a need for a greater perspective on what is written in the OT, which relies heavily on if we deem the events real or made-up.

The crux of the matter was whether God, assumedly being good, could be capable of evil – i.e. killing seemingly innocent people. Postsimians study of the OT led him to conclude that even if God is good, he is capable of evil, whereas my study of the bible leads me to conclude that certain acts of God which seem wrong on the face of it, are not when understood in context.

It later occured to me that this argument is demonstrated aptly in a film I watched years ago based on the true story of Derek Bentley called Let Him Have It. The premise of the film is of a robbery which goes disasterously wrong. During the attempted arrest, brain-damaged Bentley yells out to his younger accomplice “Let him have it” – referring to the gun, and subsequently his accomplice, Christopher Craig, shoots the policeman. For those not in the know, “Let him have it” used to be a turn of phrase in the UK for giving the go-ahead to attack someone. The question is: Did Bentley order Craig to hand over the gun, or fire it at the copper?

The real-life case, in actual fact, did not hinge upon these words, but it does prove useful for this exercise. For the police, by yelling “let him have it” Bentley was giving the order to shoot, and was therefore intending evil, and rightly deserved the death penalty. For the defence, Bentley was ordering Craig to hand over the gun and surrender.

The fact is, without any supporting evidence apart from the reading of Bentleys words, your view of Bentleys guilt will be based on your own preconceptions and bias. If you were not British and raised in the time of the 50’s you may well think that Bentley ordered Craig to surrender. However, if you were around at the time, you may have thought differently.

By now you know what I’m getting at. This is nearly the same problem when it comes to reading biblical texts literally. No, God is not going around in the OT ordering people to shoot other people, but there are times when he has commanded specific instructions and left it for his people to interpret and then act, or intercede.

More and more, it seems to me that what is not written in the OT scriptures, is more important than what is actually written.

In the end, Postsimian may be right after all about one thing, in some cases it seems like it is a mere subtle nuance. However, I must counterbalance this with the truth that in every instance of the OT where God orders the destruction of human life, as the law required (just like the American justice system), when people either interceded or pleaded for mercy, they were shown mercy.

This is why if you are going to honestly critique the Old Testament, you cannot read it literally. You need to be prepared to study a bit of history and culture at the same time. It is also why I feel I cannot emphasise enough, that God is not looking for people to carry out judgement (under the law), but instead he is looking for people to intercede and carry out mercy and forgiveness (when the law has been broken).

Technorati Tags: bible, old testament, whodunnit, law, mercy, god, killing, murder, forgiveness, atheism, atheists, hermeneutics, good and evil, exegesis, derek bentley, interpretation

[Health & Safety] More Lessons In Killing For The Met

I don’t think I want to be safe anymore. I don’t think I want the police to “protect” me from terrorists, anarchists or active protesters.

I’m not a member of the above groups, which means, being an innocent subject of the UK, my life is at risk when the security services are targetting the above groups.

Once again, security services were on high paranoid alert, itchy trigger fingers, or in this case, itchy baton hand.

And if we are to believe that the slaying of Jean Charles de Menezes was an honest, sincere mistake, WHAT BLOODY LESSONS WERE LEARNED?

I feel sorry for Ian Tomlinson’s widow and family. I feel sorry for the grueling smear and dirty tricks campaign that is about to befall them.

You know the drill by now, check the boxes which apply:

It will probably take about 3-4 years, and in the end they may be lucky to win a simple breach of the Health & Safety at Work Act against the Met, along with a “Sorry” and “Lessons have been learned”.

After all, if they can get away with shooting an innocent man, they can get away with shoving one too.

[Scammy] How Defraud eBay Users – Courtesy Of Paypal

I have been meaning to discuss this one for a while, but it only just popped back into memory recently whilst I was looking through some old emails.

I’m writing this to warn you of the systematic failure of Paypal customer service and how this creates potential for easy, undetected scamming and profiteering opportunities for eBay power-sellers by abusing low-usage eBay users.

Last year I gave up eBay for good. I gave it up after I received 1 negative feedback having achieved in 2 years over 50 positive. The negative feedback was not warranted – it was retaliatory, from an eBay power-seller going by the trader name of notebookspares, offline company name: Rolta Limited, email address: hanspals@hotmail.com. I found a bunch of linked websites too, from googling their phone number: 0208 561 3960 – I wonder how many scams they are running?

I put up this power seller’s details as a warning to other potential buyers – particularly to buyers who do not do hundreds of trades a day and have a large feedback cache. I have copies of all correspondence and other details regarding this transaction, if requested.

Last year I received retaliatory feedback for posting negative feedback after not receiving an item from notebookspares (Rolta Limited). I posted the negative feedback after I’d exhausted all possibilities with Paypal resolutions.

You see, one day early in 2008 I had ordered an item from notebookspares, but on failing to receive it or any communication within 2 weeks I tried eBay’s contact form, then I tried emailing direct and finally a phone call leaving a message – all to no avail.

Since it was now outside of the time limit for escalating no item/no response, I went through eBay to get to Paypals “Item Not Recieved Dispute Resolution Centre”. Despite the power-seller, notebookspares , not being arsed to return my messages or calls, a day later he responded to confirm that the item had been posted and signed as recieved. News to me.

So I took the Proof Of Delivery he provided, plugged it into Royal Mail website and found that it referred to a delivery to a completely different name and address. No other details were provided unfortunately. Sounds like an honest mistake right, either notebookspares had provided the wrong POD, or they posted to a wrong address. Anyone would be able to detect this and make amends – Paypal however didn’t check the POD provided and now wanted to close the dispute.

Therefore, I escalated it, I complained that notebookspares had not bothered with any correspondence and had now provided an incorrect POD. It took 3 weeks for Paypal to respond, in that time, they still had not checked the POD with Royal Mail online, instead informing me that since the power-seller, notebookspares, had provided a POD, the resolution was now closed. I was livid.

Note: The POWER-SELLER had provided POD, so there was NO DISPUTE! It doesn’t matter that the POD was to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NAME AND ADDRESS, the POD had been provided, so PAYPAL concluded there was NO DISPUTE.

Despite escalating this again, stating the facts of the matter again (POD was wrong name/address, power-seller notebookspares, had not responded to any hails), 4 weeks later Paypal concluded once again there was NO DISPUTE – they didn’t even bother to gather facts from the interested parties.

I should mention at this point, I did contact Royal Mail, and attempt to find out where the parcel got delivered and obtain a refund this way, but Royal Mail requested more details about the delivery than I had to give. Which left me with the same problem, notebookspares would not respond to messages or requests for information which Royal Mail needed, and Paypal would do sweet FA about it.

The only thing I had left was the power of democracy, which, like real democracy, is weak. I left a negative feedback on notebookspares. 1 negative feedback against 1000’s of positives, which affected his feedback score NIL. Not satisfied with being an asshat, notebookspares immediately left retaliatory feedback that wasn’t even anything to do with the service or item, which of course brought me down to about 95% positive. I complained to eBay directly – but guess what – they couldn’t give a shit.

Finally, receiving no further correspondence or recourse from Paypal, notebookspares or eBay, I refused to settle my eBay fees which were around the £10 mark- which got my account suspended. The item itself was worth £25, so I made a loss of £15. eBay tried to recover the fees by threatening court action, but I dealt with them like I dealt with my gym recently (for another post, another day) and they chickened out.

Since it was such a small amount, I didn’t bother reporting the fraud to the police (apart from reporting it to the press, what else would they do?), but I did write to eBay and threaten to call in the police. I got no reply from eBay so why bother reply to their emails asking for their fees?

So, hopefully you can now see the potential pitfall?

Here’s how the scam works – Paypal practically endorses it by design!

If you are a power seller, like notebookspares (Rolta Limited) was, and you have built up a large number of positive feedbacks, here is your chance to make a bit of extra profit on the side!

Every now and then, take an order from a low-level user (50 feedbacks or less) for a small item (£50 or less), when you have recieved payment through Paypal, deliver the item to another address you use and get you POD from Royal Mail.

When the buyer inevitably complains using Paypals resolutions, provide the POD – it doesn’t matter what NAME, ADDRESS or SIGNATURE is on the POD, as long as a POD exists, Paypal will close the case and you have made yourself a tidy little profit on the side.

When the little buyer leaves negative feedback, you can devastate his score by RETALIATORY FEEDBACK. eBay will do nothing about retaliatory feedback so you are SAFE!

Paypal and eBay will turn a blind eye to this as long as you are generating a big revenue for them, so this is not for the little guy – power sellers only.

Just make sure that you don’t do this too often as it will eventually effect your feedback score, but if you do it once or twice for every 100 buyers you have yourself a nice little racket!

Technorati Tags:
paypal, ebay, scams, rolta limited, power sellers, notebookspares, retaliation, fraud, royal mail, feedback, complaints, consumer, proof of delivery

[Legalities] Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

Gavin Ayling thinks the law should be written in plain English. I’d like to expand on his post. I’ve always been amazed at this legal principle that underlines society.

Since there are so many laws and regulations to follows wouldn’t many of us be ignorant until pulled up on one?

And yet how many times have we come up against authorities themselves who play upon our ignorance and ignore the laws meant to keep them in check?

It seems to me laws have been crafted as to cover every tiny possibility and remove as much discretion as possible for a judge to employ. I think an efficient and humanitarian society should look to reducing laws and regulations as much as possible – wording them so that they cover a ‘multitude of sins’ rather than every single little possibility. This would then assure people of (a) their rights and (b) their responsibilities.

For example, what is the point of having a Racial and Religious Hatred Act, a Protection from Harrassment Act, a Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, a Criminal Justice Act, an Anti-Social Behaviour Act, a Female Genital Mutilation Act (yes, there is one), a Sexual Offenses Act, a Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, a Violent Crime Reduction Act, plus hundreds of others I cannot be bothered to reference (but you get the picture).

All of the above acts deal with or touch on violence of some sort. Obviously we could say most reasonable people are not the violent type so many of these rules won’t apply, but this is just an example.

What this tells me is at least one of the following reasons,

• The lawmakers are too lazy, or braindead, to check if something is already covered in exsisting law
• The existing law was not good enough
• The law was created for political expediency, not for genuine practical reasons
• There is money to be made in lawmaking

Is not violence or harrassment against a black person as bad it is against a white person? A gay person or straight person? A child or adult? An immigrant or local? A man or woman?

Does this also mean that any minority not covered by this existing legislation is at risk from lawful violence?

“Your honour, I would like to point out that the man my client attacked is a narcoleptic and is therefore not protected by any existing legislation. My client was therefore acting in a lawful manner and I would request this case is thrown out.”

Would it not be a better society if lawmakers actually tried to include the widest possible interpretation when crafting legislation? Then, leave it for the judges to interpret and decide if a law had actually been broken or not.

What’s wrong with, for example, a law that states “You shall not inflict violence upon another person”. It would then be for a judge and jury to distinguish between a bloody beheading or a playful punch and award compensation and punishments on a scale.

“To make laws that a man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.”
– Elizabeth Candy Stanton

People do not exist for laws, laws exist for people and politicians need to get it into their head that society cannot be controlled or coerced into being happy and nice to each other, but most of us are capable of telling right from wrong. No-one needs to consult various regulations and acts each day before leaving their house to ensure that they don’t commit an offence. It’s time for better laws, not more laws.

law, legal, elizabeth candy stanton, gavin ayling, judges, english, acts of parliament, ignorance, rights, responsibility

Powered by ScribeFire.

[Unconstitutional Alliance] – Where does the Rule of Law come in?

I’m having a state-the-obvious day, because (for want of another reason), not many people seem to be seeing things as they are.

I hold these points to be self evident:

1. The UK has a constitution.

2. The constitution is uncodified but partially written.

3. One of the sources of the constitution is the rule of law.

4. Hence, the government is bound by the laws of the land.

These are pretty simple, fundamental points. The thing is, the rule of law would not allow the wilful suppression of evidence relating to a torture case. So why does Miliband continue to pass off the UK’s spineless response to the USA’s strongarm tactics in the name of ‘national security’? Suppressing evidence is against the rule of law. The relationship between America and Britain enforces the suppression of evidence. Hence, the alliance is (on this front) unconstitutional.

As Crispin Black comments in the Independent on Sunday, the problem stems from the USA’s unilateral foreign policy. We can have a ‘special relationship’ with their government, as long as we don’t step out of line. “There is little cost/benefit analysis of our relationship with the Americans. And absolutely none about the intelligence relationship… We persist in an ‘intelligence cringe’ – the Americans know more, the Americans know better. Well, they did not know what was going on in Iraq… Quite why we should think they understand what is going on any else better than we do remains a mystery.”

In the words of Shami Chakrabarti, “Despite best efforts to shine a light on the grubbiest aspects of the ‘war on terror’, the Foreign Office has claimed that the Obama administration maintained a previous US threat to reconsider intelligence sharing unless our judges kept this shameful skeleton in the closet. We find this Foreign Office allegation … surprising.”

The bottom line is that by withholding evidence, both sides are implicit in torture, regardless of whether they were before (and I’m pretty sure they were). Yet another nail in the coffin of the War of on Terror that will no doubt have no effect.

[Comment Sharing] The Wrath of God

Over at The County Shrink, a heartfelt response to a reluctant atheist:

Believe it or not, I at one time, was in a similar position. You have a
lot of questions about Christianity. So did I. And we are not alone.
All believers have doubts at times. In fact, I think doubt is a
necessary part of faith. It wouldn’t be called faith, if there was no
doubt.

Reluctant atheist Nick, left a further comment below the post:

I badly want to throw the towel in, and believe again. but i can’t accept the unmerciful side of God.

I didn’t want to risk an online debate particularly because it’s my first comment at TCS but I felt compelled to make a respond with the following (now I just wish I could find the motivation to write my own blog posts):

For me, doubt has been an essential component of my faith. It has been doubt that has steered me to believe.

Each time I question the bible, God, events or my experience, I find simple reasons to walk away from it all.. which is a problem for me, it’s too simple. Christianity is complex and causes a serious enquirer such as myself to think. On the other hand, as an atheist (11 years ago) I never really had much to consider.

There are places in the bible where God intervenes which makes him appear unmerciful, angry even. Once again this indicates that God is a rational being, not just a one-dimensional character-piece in a made up religion.

Nick, I can see you are wrestling with some deep-seated theological questions. May I suggest you read CS Lewis – The Problem of Pain. Also I find the bible itself lends a hand when it comes to understanding Gods mercy – Romans 9:22.

In the UK here we have just had a horrific case of child abuse that has hit the headlines. If we accept that God can see the future and destinies of all people, would it be fair for God to intervene before the abuse happened (eg. prevented the child from being born in order to spare it). For God to then strike down the adults involved before the child was born, punish them before society was even aware of their evil nature?

Perhaps, and we can’t say for certain whether this is already happening since we only have the benefit of hindsight and not the ability to predict destinies.

However, the very existence of evil in this world is an indication of Gods patience and mercy. If one examines the old testament, one sees that when God planned to wipe out a city or a tribe, he always revealed his plans to his prophets first, or he would make his people agents in the destruction. Since God is God, and can destroy as easily as bring to life, why would he approach his people beforehand, or even request they carry out these actions?

Perhaps it is easier to frame it in terms of modern law. Say I was caught speeding, but when I was pulled over the officer can see I have my pregnant wife in the car who is in labour and needs to get to the hospital. What police officer will hold me up, read out my rights and issue me with a ticket whilst my wifes contractions get shorter and shorter in the seat next to me.

I have broken traffic law by speeding, for sure, but any reasonable police officer is going to make a decision to allow the law-break in this instance. Even if some jobsworth officer still decides to issue a ticket.. it’s likely a judge would cancel it on appeal – despite the law, as set by government, being broken.

Laws make society work, but they are never meant to be nor should be used to totalitarian effect. A government that becomes totalitarian in application of its laws will lose the support of its people and risk uprising or rebellion.

In the same way, God made laws for his people, and offered them the choice to live by them or not. When they chose to live by them, and signed the contract, then the law had to be obeyed. But God, rather than simply enforce the law with impunity, instead entrusted the enforcement to his people, continually involving them in his plans to carry out the actions and punishment related to the laws being broken.

So again we must ask, why would God approach prophets before carrying out punishment; Why does the government employ judges to effect it’s laws (considering where the concept of ‘judges’ was taken from)?

My belief is this: God was not looking for people to carry out his wrath, he was looking for intercessors, perhaps even people to debate with him and refuse to carry out said wrath.

How would we know mercy, if there were no laws, no righteousness or ultimate authority to ensure they were carried out.

And how would God reveal his mercy without giving power to judge and carry out punishment, to his creation?

god, bible, religion, christianity, mercy, wrath, atheism, justice, judges, law, jesus, old testament, the county shrink

Powered by ScribeFire.

[Government Policy Announcement] Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang… You’re Dead

Since I don’t contribute enough to my own blog, I sometimes take the liberty of reproducing stealing a comment I leave on someone elses blog, the following is what I just left over at The Osterley Times:

It’s about time the truth started to get out. I never believed the official police or media account when certain witnesses were coming forward to say he had a heavy brown winter jacket on and “wires sticking out”.

The Met police have shamefully and barefaced tried to obfuscate and bury this incident from day 1.

Mr De Menzes reputation has been dragged through various incarnations of a rapist, drug user, illegal immigrant (overstayed visa) and such with the complicit help of evil publications like The Sun.

We have had dark days in the last 5 years with the political and authoritarian spin machine and though I may sound like a conspiraloon there are far too many questions and nefarious subplots going on around our government and that of the US.

Someone should lose their job- possibly go to prison over De Menezes, unfortunately I think all that will come out of this inquiry is a fine at the most.

Lastly, I hope the worst for Cressida Prick.

She has openly admitted that this could happen again, and with the same forked tongue has the gall to defend their actions and say that there was no way it could be prevented, no lessons learned, no changes to policy.

And it requires a change of government policy that’s for sure. The announcement of a shoot-to-kill policy came in the form of a bullet through one of our own heads (‘one of our own’ as in ‘innocent civilian’).

Policies like this should not be made in secret and I find it shocking that Tony Blair, Ken Livingstone and Ian Blair are not all sitting in jail now awaiting sentencing. Gordon Brown of course may not have been the man to order this policy but he is also complicit in that he allows it to now continue.. just as he allows the Iraq war to continue.

And watch for the announcement of troop withdrawal from someone with balls like Obama, will Brown then follow and withdraw our own?

Someone in the Met needs to lose their head for this, otherwise it could be any one of us travelling the tube one day.. best not to go on any foreign holidays and risk getting a tan!

[/rant]

Sorry but De Menezes the whole thing just makes my blood boil- I’m so angry with the people who did this and have got away with it.

Anyone following the events surrounding Jean Charles De Menezes murder unfortunate identity crisis, the media spin, government and police spin and inquiry would be well aware of the gross amount of lies misunderestimations about what happened that day.

Many of us who didn’t swallow the media and Met police official pill have now had our suspicions confirmed by at least 2 witnesses that this was a cold execution of an innocent man who was given no warning.

Next time you board a tube, you may want to make sure that you (a) don’t have a tan, (b) aren’t foreign, (c) don’t have a heavy rucksack (though this seems to make no difference) and (d) better warn your family in advance there is a slight chance you may not survive the journey.

Also, you may want to prepare your family that if you are ever killed by anti-terrorists whilst travelling on the tube or generally minding your own business, that you are in no way a sex offender, rapist, peadophile, drug dealer, illegal immigrant, know a muslim who knows a muslim or anything else which may slightly damage a reputation because, garaunteed, this is what you will become as the anti-terrorists attempt to clear themselves of all wrongdoing in the eyes of the Daily Mail.

God Bless you all, as I frequently travel the tube, and have just written a peice of anti-government hate speech, I cannot garuantee I will survive my next tube journey to blog again.. however please be assured I’ve never raped, sexed a minor, dealt in drugs, illegally entered the UK… but I did overstay a visa in Switzerland! – oh shit that’s it then.

anti-terrorists, terrorists, de menezes, innocence, iraq, government, labour, gordon brown, met police, londonland, murder, crime, sex offenses, immigration, stockwell tube killing, political assasinations, policy announcements

Powered by ScribeFire.

[High Noon] Bwankers vs Sheriff of Chicago

From the Consumerist:

“Chicago’s sheriff has placed a moratorium on evictions for mortgage foreclosures, angering bankers who say he’s breaking the law.

Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said he understood he was flouting the
law in refusing to have deputies carry out the rising number of
eviction requests, but mortgage holders must be accountable.”

Could this be a good reason to introduce Sheriffs back into the UK, Sheriffs who live in the community they work, have jurisdiction and character?

If only British bobbies and the very few (if any) honest bailiffs would step up to the plate here in the UK… unfortunately here in the UK we suffer from a disease of predatory systems and tick-box culture.

Let me explain.. the powerful (now nationalised) elite design the system, which is predatory and designed to be as inefficient and unhelpful as possible, utilizing holding actions against those they serve. They then train a portion of the monkeys that the predatory system is designed for, to abandon rational thought and follow a strict protocol of rules and tick boxes.

holding action, sheriff, chicago, debt, renters, bankers, predatory systems, mortgages, stock market crash, house price crash, police, tick-box

Powered by ScribeFire.

[Acts of God] Hearts and Minds

Two pieces of good news today which gives me pause for thought… Filesharer Jammie Thomas has been granted a retrial by the judge who sentenced her last year.

“Minnesota Federal beak Michael Davis said he had given an incorrect instruction to the jury on the level of proof required by the Recording Industry Ass. of America. He had told jurors last year that the act of “making [music files] available” via a peer to peer network was sufficient to prove unauthorised distribution of copyright material without evidence that others had downloaded the files.”

<snip>

Although he wasn’t considering the fine levied against Thomas in the original trial, in his judgment Davis said Congress should re-examine the law on copyright infringement, calling it “wholly disproportionate”. “Her alleged acts were illegal, but common. Her status as a consumer who was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages unprecedented and oppressive,” he wrote.” – RIAA filesharing target Jammie Thomas wins retrial – El Reg

The second bit of good news, however it comes with a twist, is the European Parliament have wisely thrown out the “Three-Strikes” law when it comes to copyright infringement.

“The amendment, drafted by Guy Bono and other members of the European Parliament, was adopted by an overwhelming majority. 573 parliament members voted in favor while only 74 rejected. Satisfied with this outcome, Bono stated in a response to the vote: “You do not play with individual freedoms like that,” and said that the French government should review its three-strikes law.” – European Parliament Says No to Three-Strikes Law – TorrentFreak

Could this be a possible turning point in history, are our leaders finally coming round to the 21st Century and understanding of technology and innovation?

I’ve always believed in a God that is involved with life on earth in both a grand and intimate scale. I don’t believe God sends earthquakes and tornadoes in order to bring punishment to any region, I don’t believe he speaks and commands suicide bombers or terrorists to fly into buildings, but I do believe he is intimately involved in human affairs to bring about creativity and invention, justice and mercy.

I believe in a creative God, a God who fashioned humans in his image – that means we got his characteristic creativity as well. It is on display everywhere we look; invention, design, industry and the arts. Creation is in us and is a part of our human identity. I also believe, in a broader sense, that Jesus was and is a file sharer.

Jesus’ primary goal was to get the good news out. He didn’t care much for any authority that stood in the way, and he certainly didn’t issue copyright disclaimers on his stories or words. If he had, we might never had heard of the carpenter from Galilee. If Jesus was physically walking the earth today, I believe that he would be utilizing p2p networks to share all sorts of Christian media – words, songs and movies. The RIAA would probably play the part of the Romans (on behalf of copyright owners such as Hillsong) and do their bit to crucify him for this, of course.

The point is, BitTorrent is a creative invention. It is a great invention for spreading information more quickly and efficiently than any other source on the tubes. I believe God has had a hand in human invention from the beginning, gifting us with ideas and intellect, and I believe he has his hand in technology even today.

They burned the first man to translate the Bible into English in an attempt to supress the free sharing of this valuable information with the common people. How quickly they forgot that sharing of information and communion is at the core of the Christian message, and how lost are we now that the church employs the very same techniques as the world to ‘protect’ it’s ‘intellectual property’? The church has forgotten the words of the psalmist in Psalm 24:1.

So although many on both sides may disagree with me for different reasons, I believe that God has had his hand on proceedings in both of these cases today. I believe God wants us to have an open and free society more than anyone can realise or imagine. He doesn’t have to place the literal ideas in our head, or force our hands to work, he has already created the desire, the passion and the spirit, this is all that is needed for justice and creativity to prevail.

Powered by ScribeFire.

[Accountability] Obama Will Review Bush Executive Orders

If this is true, then the world is about to witness a defining moment in history, and I can’t wait!

“If elected president, Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama said one of the first things he wants to do is ensure the constitutionality of all the laws and executive orders passed while Republican President George W. Bush has been in office.” – Deborah Charles, Routers Blog

We may never see Bush in the Hague, but let’s hope that he is exposed for the propaganda, profiteering, puppetry and the general disregard for humanity that his administration represents.

We can only hope that some of this will spill over and finally stick on Tony ‘Teflon’ Blair.