It was all a damp squib. Under judicial review rules, judges can only say whether the government complied with its own rules; if the judge finds it didn't, the government just changes its own rules. As WOAR pointed out in the comments on my previous post.
Meanwhile, The Thought Police has been having a go. Apparently:
- This is "another attempt by the well organized and ruthless climate denial lobby". Wot? The 'climate denial lobby'? Nobody's disputing the existence of 'climate', for f***'s sake.
- By extension ... "A similar case could be made for issuing guidance on films about the Holocaust ...". Right. So because he doesn't like the tone of a pseudo-scientific film, he must be racist scum who deserves to die, a bit like Ahmad Inadinnerjacket, you piece-of-shit, Szamko*?
- Stewart Dimmock stood as a candidate for The New Party, whose Philosophy And Principles seem fair enough to me as they are writ.
- Ah, here we go, the chap is only a lorry driver ... so clearly his opinions count for nought against those of a cosseted son of a US Representative and Senator. As an aside, may I point out that at UKIP's conference, we passed a Branch Motion in favour of charging foreign lorries for using UK roads?
* CV: "Ex-student of history, now a refugee from the academy - trying to put those hard learned research skills to some practical use"
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
Stewart Dimmock, champion of commonsense (2)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Paxman put in a good performance against the Friends of the Earth representative on Newsnight. The bloke looked shaken; they are so used to being deferred to and hugging up to ministers that a raspberry, even the fairly mild one by Paxman's standards, left him gasping.
Paxman nailed down the key points
1) The film contains material inaccuracies
2) It's polemic and was written as polemic by those production standards. Or propaganda, if you prefer. The FoE bloke conceeded that immediately, in fact seemed quite proud of it.
If it is agreed that it is polemic which was intended for voluntary adult consumption then it is by definition unsuitable for a child's compulsory science class.
I think this can be used to put pressure on schools to show it in the correct context, which is either the RE or perhaps the citizenship class.
Children understand the conventions of these classes, which is that they are all rubbish and mostly in there for the sake of politeness.
Joke spotted the other day: "It was all a damp squid".
Please pass along to Mr. Dimmock the gratitude of many Americans, including me, for his pursuit of education equity as counterweight to AlGore's travesty mockumentary. It is also gratifying to see a logical response from an English court; which occurs on this side of the pond as an increasingly random event.
Post a Comment