Some people may ask if I ever did any kind of online role playing.
I've never done gaming like Second Life because as the initiated know the paws aren't good and even typing a bit can easily lead to a major flare up never mind the kinds of movement involving joysticks and touch pads.
One is having done some a few years back it can be hard to get all the right characters you need as if say it involves something involving say a pretend school setting next to nobody wants to be the one who runs the group and sets the work which in whose contexts are marked.
Another can be the potential for misunderstanding is high as what might be subtitles in more nuanced speech get totally misread and before you know it it's daggers drawn where seemingly nothing can pull either side back and attempts to explain back and forth only back fire spectacularly.
Having gone through the latter rest assured I have no intentions of resuming that in a hurry cos it really hurt me.
I just don't feel any kind of online role playing really works out that well for a variety of reasons really.
Friday 26 October 2018
Friday 19 October 2018
Brexit and that darn border issue that won't go away
No, I'm not about to do a "Blue Peter Reports" from bit as apart from anything else they'd never have have anything political on the show which given it's for children is quite right although sometimes I'd watch some of the current affairs shows in my mid teens just cos I was curious to what the grown ups were talking about.
The last time I said anything about the long discourse that is Brexit I made reference to what this map shows, the Island of Ireland which really is the biggest sticking point in this process.
The problem starts when you look at this map.
The Green portion is what is now called Northern Ireland but what was when I was younger referred to as Ulster which is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Orange portion,The Republic of Ireland aka "Southern Ireland" that since 1922 has been a self governing country in its own right.
For all our bloody history there has been good arrangements made between both halves and between the U.K. and the Republic when it comes to being able to trade and for citizens of each to have good common political, economic and social rights from day one of the partition of the Island of Ireland.
Even during the so-called Troubles mature heads on both sides went to great pains to co-operate.
One we appear to have forgotten and is directly relevant is the UK and Ireland collectively joined the Common Market in 1973 which was formally taught to me as junior child at the time in school and the whole joining marked although it's fair to say I'm not a fan of what is now the European Union.
Part of that was about co-operation about the exchange of goods and services across that border transformed to what was the Common Market and it played a part in the "Good Friday" Peace accords that delivered relative political calm and saw Sinn Fein the Pan-Irish Republican party give up support of terrorism on the streets of Northern Ireland.
Thus this stumbling block around the common Republic/EU border and that of Northern Ireland and UK is a major problem.
There is movement of good and services between both parts of the island which pre 1973 had been agreed although there was a need for checking of paperwork and border posts moreover in this talks it appears to had been agreed such a system - a "hard border" - has been explicitly rejected from being a part of it.
The Irish Republic is strongly opposed it.
This would be fine other than the rejection of any long term staying within the EU Customs Union on the part of the UK Government that makes such activity practically seamless coupled with the opposition of the Northern Irish DUP party and many others to any "except for Northern Ireland" deal that would also put a customs barrier between one part of the UK and the mainland.
I have to repeat my caution I cannot see any way of squaring this without actually having a Hard Border admittedly one where every effort was made to make it as simple as possible with standardized forms and with arrangements such as shared passport/visa checking on trains.
It isn't that one wants it but it seems to be the most honest thing to just accept it, making it the best we can out of realism as only that seems to meet the needs to ensure customs are handled correctly for each party and to provide a realistic trading situation.
It is what it is given we decided to leave and have started that process.
Offering any kind of an extra year of staying in with extra payments to the EU doesn't really solve this enigma apart from uniting the governing party against the Prime Minister which makes the political situation much worse providing less of the stability not just the process needs but business too.
The problem starts when you look at this map.
The Green portion is what is now called Northern Ireland but what was when I was younger referred to as Ulster which is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Orange portion,The Republic of Ireland aka "Southern Ireland" that since 1922 has been a self governing country in its own right.
For all our bloody history there has been good arrangements made between both halves and between the U.K. and the Republic when it comes to being able to trade and for citizens of each to have good common political, economic and social rights from day one of the partition of the Island of Ireland.
Even during the so-called Troubles mature heads on both sides went to great pains to co-operate.
One we appear to have forgotten and is directly relevant is the UK and Ireland collectively joined the Common Market in 1973 which was formally taught to me as junior child at the time in school and the whole joining marked although it's fair to say I'm not a fan of what is now the European Union.
Part of that was about co-operation about the exchange of goods and services across that border transformed to what was the Common Market and it played a part in the "Good Friday" Peace accords that delivered relative political calm and saw Sinn Fein the Pan-Irish Republican party give up support of terrorism on the streets of Northern Ireland.
Thus this stumbling block around the common Republic/EU border and that of Northern Ireland and UK is a major problem.
There is movement of good and services between both parts of the island which pre 1973 had been agreed although there was a need for checking of paperwork and border posts moreover in this talks it appears to had been agreed such a system - a "hard border" - has been explicitly rejected from being a part of it.
The Irish Republic is strongly opposed it.
This would be fine other than the rejection of any long term staying within the EU Customs Union on the part of the UK Government that makes such activity practically seamless coupled with the opposition of the Northern Irish DUP party and many others to any "except for Northern Ireland" deal that would also put a customs barrier between one part of the UK and the mainland.
I have to repeat my caution I cannot see any way of squaring this without actually having a Hard Border admittedly one where every effort was made to make it as simple as possible with standardized forms and with arrangements such as shared passport/visa checking on trains.
It isn't that one wants it but it seems to be the most honest thing to just accept it, making it the best we can out of realism as only that seems to meet the needs to ensure customs are handled correctly for each party and to provide a realistic trading situation.
It is what it is given we decided to leave and have started that process.
Offering any kind of an extra year of staying in with extra payments to the EU doesn't really solve this enigma apart from uniting the governing party against the Prime Minister which makes the political situation much worse providing less of the stability not just the process needs but business too.
Friday 12 October 2018
Having ones cake and eating it
After last weeks current affairs post comes something kind of similar but not the same this time involving food.
This story starts in Belfast, Northern Ireland at Ashers Bakery a family owned business run by Christians who operate a build a cake service which is popular for such things as weddings.
One Gareth Lee, a gay activist comes in and places an order for a cake which is initially accepted by a member of staff and paid in full for.
This is what he wanted on it.
Later on Mr Lee is contacted by the bakery and informed they cannot proceed with the order as they profoundly disagree with the message. Note the cake makes no reference to any individual.
Mr Lee launches an equality rights case against Ashers alleging discrimination on grounds of sexuality.
This case is won at both the County Court and the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal supported by the UK Equality Commission, a government body set up to tackle discrimination.
This made its into the UK Supreme Court where upon it was rejected unanimously in the middle of the week.
Why, you may ask did that happen?
Actually as someone who did work in prosecution I can tell you straight. In truth there was no one single piece of evidence to suggest Mr Lee was personally deprived of a service nor refused to be served on the basis of his sexuality.
His order was rejected because in law the Ashers have no duty to make or publish anything that they had such a profound disagreement with and that would of applied regardless of the sexuality of the person who would of requested it.
The 2010 Equality Act is all about ensuring people are not prevented or given an inferior service on the basis of race, religion, disability, sex and sexuality.
That did not happen so he had no case under the act.
What I find troubling is how it was nobody in the first two hearings actually understood the law and how it is meant to apply, something a more seasoned gay activist Peter Tatchell did and in fact supported the Ashers over.
Depressingly, I sat listening to an interview by Mr Lee after this ruling standing by his representative clearly showing he had not understood the difference between a personal refusal to serve on the basis of his sexuality and being asked to do something by him that they would not do for anyone.
One more thing, the UK taxpayer, including me is to pick up a £500,000 bill for costs for this botched exercise.ðŸ˜
One Gareth Lee, a gay activist comes in and places an order for a cake which is initially accepted by a member of staff and paid in full for.
This is what he wanted on it.
Mr Lee launches an equality rights case against Ashers alleging discrimination on grounds of sexuality.
This case is won at both the County Court and the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal supported by the UK Equality Commission, a government body set up to tackle discrimination.
This made its into the UK Supreme Court where upon it was rejected unanimously in the middle of the week.
Why, you may ask did that happen?
Actually as someone who did work in prosecution I can tell you straight. In truth there was no one single piece of evidence to suggest Mr Lee was personally deprived of a service nor refused to be served on the basis of his sexuality.
His order was rejected because in law the Ashers have no duty to make or publish anything that they had such a profound disagreement with and that would of applied regardless of the sexuality of the person who would of requested it.
The 2010 Equality Act is all about ensuring people are not prevented or given an inferior service on the basis of race, religion, disability, sex and sexuality.
That did not happen so he had no case under the act.
What I find troubling is how it was nobody in the first two hearings actually understood the law and how it is meant to apply, something a more seasoned gay activist Peter Tatchell did and in fact supported the Ashers over.
Depressingly, I sat listening to an interview by Mr Lee after this ruling standing by his representative clearly showing he had not understood the difference between a personal refusal to serve on the basis of his sexuality and being asked to do something by him that they would not do for anyone.
One more thing, the UK taxpayer, including me is to pick up a £500,000 bill for costs for this botched exercise.ðŸ˜
Friday 5 October 2018
Trump, Ford and Kavanaugh
One catalyst for this blog even being around during the period I seriously wondered if I actually needed it was the need to have somewhere to talk about trends in current affairs that didn't belong on the other blogs.
It's hard to get into a warm fuzzly little girl feeling while there's grown up stuff around war, politics and gender discourse going on all around you.
Anyway the whole business around Brett Kavanaugh while still subject to FBI investigation does give me some cause for concern.
One difference between the UK and the US is the Head of State in the UK doesn't appoint representatives to the Supreme Court nor does a serving Prime Minister appointments being made by a non political panel and judges not being aligned to one political party.
This means such appointments rarely cause political controversy of themselves and the appointee is seen to be above politics without stopping discussion of views on topical issues being stifled.
Brett's appointment in the context of the U.S. system was therefore likely to prove controversial for being seen as the Presidents choice AND their conservative views around such staples as Abortion in what was a finally balanced chamber.
In that context the party whose President was in office was always likely to have their candidates background looked deeply into and that typically would involve their own lives.
The allegations of Professor Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez of attempted sexual assault and of indecent exposure in that context were always likely to surface as were accusations of lying about drinking all around the period he was in his teens and in university.
All three may be true - I don't profess to know one way or the other - and do tell tell us something about Brett's character but the question one has to ask here is: in the long intervening years has he changed?
How many of us did things that were unacceptable in our teens that no one involved at the time acted upon either through law or the disciplinary systems of schools, colleges and universities?
A good number I suspect and the bigger question is have they learnt anything from from that and have been clear of such behaviours in adult life since?
If these acts were part of a pattern that still are part of Brett's life there would be good reason to consider if he should stand for Supreme Court and be appointed but if not one cannot put them in that tiny list of things that no matter how long back ought to be investigated such as the abuse of a minor by a adult.
Remember accused and accusers were all in their teens and early twenties at the time.
The Donald's public ridicule of Ford's testimony while this investigation is ongoing is something that concerns me as a former part of the prosecution process quite seriously.
In order for an investigation to be fair AND seen as such, all parties need to keep their comments within that and no politicians attempt to sway opinion in advance of that not least if there is any possibility of a trial.
The failure to can lead to a situation for the accuser not be seen to get a fair trial and for the whole business to become politicized.
That is never acceptable. The politicians set the law complete with guidelines and THEN leave the running to the justice system.
Donald Trump may have a point when he suggests some have an issue with men plus may have a anti-male agenda and it is possible raising such matters may have an element of political opportunism but the interests of justice are not served by such outspoken behaviour during the investigation, Ever.
It's hard to get into a warm fuzzly little girl feeling while there's grown up stuff around war, politics and gender discourse going on all around you.
Anyway the whole business around Brett Kavanaugh while still subject to FBI investigation does give me some cause for concern.
One difference between the UK and the US is the Head of State in the UK doesn't appoint representatives to the Supreme Court nor does a serving Prime Minister appointments being made by a non political panel and judges not being aligned to one political party.
This means such appointments rarely cause political controversy of themselves and the appointee is seen to be above politics without stopping discussion of views on topical issues being stifled.
Brett's appointment in the context of the U.S. system was therefore likely to prove controversial for being seen as the Presidents choice AND their conservative views around such staples as Abortion in what was a finally balanced chamber.
In that context the party whose President was in office was always likely to have their candidates background looked deeply into and that typically would involve their own lives.
The allegations of Professor Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez of attempted sexual assault and of indecent exposure in that context were always likely to surface as were accusations of lying about drinking all around the period he was in his teens and in university.
All three may be true - I don't profess to know one way or the other - and do tell tell us something about Brett's character but the question one has to ask here is: in the long intervening years has he changed?
How many of us did things that were unacceptable in our teens that no one involved at the time acted upon either through law or the disciplinary systems of schools, colleges and universities?
A good number I suspect and the bigger question is have they learnt anything from from that and have been clear of such behaviours in adult life since?
If these acts were part of a pattern that still are part of Brett's life there would be good reason to consider if he should stand for Supreme Court and be appointed but if not one cannot put them in that tiny list of things that no matter how long back ought to be investigated such as the abuse of a minor by a adult.
Remember accused and accusers were all in their teens and early twenties at the time.
The Donald's public ridicule of Ford's testimony while this investigation is ongoing is something that concerns me as a former part of the prosecution process quite seriously.
In order for an investigation to be fair AND seen as such, all parties need to keep their comments within that and no politicians attempt to sway opinion in advance of that not least if there is any possibility of a trial.
The failure to can lead to a situation for the accuser not be seen to get a fair trial and for the whole business to become politicized.
That is never acceptable. The politicians set the law complete with guidelines and THEN leave the running to the justice system.
Donald Trump may have a point when he suggests some have an issue with men plus may have a anti-male agenda and it is possible raising such matters may have an element of political opportunism but the interests of justice are not served by such outspoken behaviour during the investigation, Ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)