Recession turns Limerick village into Father Ted set

The Holy Stump of Rathkeale discovered!

The Holy Stump of Rathkeale

The Holy Stump of Rathkeale

Straight out of a Father Ted script, people in Rathkeale, Co. Limerick are now worshiping a tree stump.

According to a local interviewed on ‘Morning Ireland’ this morning, over 400 people spent up to 2am praying at the stump, which, according to local shopkeeper Séamus Hogan:

“shows a clear outline of Our Lady”.

He goes on to say

“…it’s bringing people together from young and old to black and white, Protestant and Catholic, to say a few prayers…”

Worshiping tree stumps…? Protestants praying at an apparition of the virgin Mary…? (Have I missed something or has Mary snuck into the Church of Ireland?)

Brian Cowan must be pretty pleased – this will at least distract people from the utter bollix his party has made of the country (at least in Rathkeale). They must be pissing themselves Europe!

  • Share/Bookmark

Google Search of the Day

The Archbishop of Canterbury loses the plot…again.

 

Rowan Williams (Steve Punter - http://flickr.com/photos/11051496@N00)

Rowan Williams 2007

He’s up to his old tricks.

 

One year ago the Archbishop fucked up royally by publicly stating that Shariah law was inevitable in Britain and there was growing support for its introduction in the UK.

Shariah is the full body of Islamic law and is about as misogynistic, homophobic, unfair, cruel and anti-reason as any set of ‘laws’ could possibly be. Political Islam revels in each moment where it thinks it has succeeded in moving another step forward in prosecuting its war against the infidel, and so Williams’ utterly batshit crazy public announcement was music to every Islamist’s ears.

Trounced in the press, ridiculed in nearly all quarters, the fellow should have been quietly taken off to a place for some, shall we say, peace and quiet, and that should have been an end to it.

But nope. This maniacally hell-bent multiculturalist is back again in the media, pontificating that he was right all along and that it is abundantly clear that there is increasing public demand for Shariah in the UK, despite there being absolutely no evidence in favour of his assertion whatsoever.

So what’s really going on with this peculiar fellow?

He studied at both Oxford and Cambridge, and so is no intellectual slouch. Perhaps he really has lost his mind, though it seems unlikely. Perhaps it is the case that, with huge downturns in Church of England ovine membership, any faith at all is more worthy of support than none, simply to keep alive at whatever cost a theistic rather than a secular attitude to life. The worst possibility is that he genuinely thinks that he is right. The creeping dhimmitude his bizarre support for Shariah represents is extremely dangerous, not only because it gives encouragement for additions to be made to the already five Shariah courts known to be in operation in the UK, but also because of the succour it grants to every Islamist whose end game ambitions are to see Western civilization brought to its knees under the absolute control of the House of Islam.

Shame on him. It’s high time that superstitious supernaturalist muppets like Williams be ignored and marginalised away from the public eye when it comes to all matters which are not explicitly concerned with some arcane theological hair-splitting. Let him carry on with the latter to his heart’s content, but he should not be permitted to have any further media attention in his official clerical position for any of his utterly dippy and dangerous political ideas ever again.

UPDATE: The cunt of Westminster strikes again: you may have heard of the ‘expenses’ scandals which have elevated the UK press to, for the first time I can recall, a decent reporting institution, giving out hell to the utter gobshites who have been living it large at taxpayers’ expense. Now the faith-drenched fucker rolls up his useless, twatting archbishopal sleeves to say ‘Aw, lay off the politicians, they’re having a hard time’.

The clue that he’s going to talk some shite is his clothes and his open mouth. This sorry fucking Catholic country must have something similar. Or so I thought. When Dermot the cunt Ahern started on his recent ‘anti-blasphemy’ campaign, I tried to work out which was worse – Rowan Williams or Dermot Ahern. There’s not much to choose. At least the UK gets a noisy, shit-filled cunt of a religious commentator distinguished by his bizarre clothes. We are lucky that we have, er, a noisy, shit-filled cunt of a religious commentator in Ahern, who has clearly saved us taxpayers a few bob on clothes. We should all be fucking grateful.

Styrer

  • Share/Bookmark

Google Easter Egg?

 

what are these strawberries doing on my nipples i need them for the fruit salad

what are these strawberries doing on my nipples i need them for the fruit salad

  • Share/Bookmark

Mistake of the Day – allproject.info Mission Statement

The Autonomous Language Learning (ALL) project mission statement (my emphasis):

The Mission of the project is to create a blended learning system, online and offline, with materials for learning and teaching in five languages (Turkish, Romanian, Bulgarian and Lithuanian) and a procedural methodology, which can be transferred to the learning and teaching of other languages, as well.

Ehhhh… that’s four languages…

  • Share/Bookmark

Pope says condom use in Africa will increase prevalance of AIDs

Pope BenedictThe eedgit hadn’t even arrived in Cameroon when he came up with this beauty:

You can’t resolve (AIDS) with the distribution of condoms… On the contrary, it increases the problem.

Of course the potty old fart is completely missing the point. From the WHO page on Cameroon:

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 50/52

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 41/42

I met a guy last year who spent an enlightening 6 months in Cameroon. Over a few beers the topic of women, sexuality and AIDS  came up. His point:

If you expect to die in your 40’s – why would you use a condom?! Hunger is the problem for these people, not AIDS.

There you go Benny, problem solved (as long as life expectancy remains at those pitiful levels.)

  • Share/Bookmark

IRMA slanders Blacknight (or do they?)

Soooooooo stupid (and verging on slanderous) they are that they have taken to writing to Irish ISP’s (not just those that provide Internet access, but also hosting companies like Blacknight).

The generally understated and considered Michele Nealon of Blacknight.ie must have been a bit pissed off with this – as he has posted it for you all to have a look at. Let’s have a look at it shall we (legal interpretation is free of charge):

Re: Illegal filesharing on the Blacknight network

Is this slanderous? Me thinks yes, but let’s read on…

Pursuant to the Copyright and Related Rights Acts…

A paragraph telling you what the Act is. I am a bit confused because you can get a copy of the act on Irish Statute in it’s entirety without some wannabee ambulance chaser paraphrasing it. Basically they are saying “…if you have been notified that you are facilitating copyright infringement and do nothing about it, you can be prosecuted under the act…”. My question: is this a notice that Michele is facilitating copyright infringement? Is there smoke without fire?!

Irish and European Law…

More of the bleedin’ obvious: Irish and EU law allows the courts to injunct people found guilty of breaking the law. NO SHIT HELEN! (Of course the message in the letter is specific to copyright infringement, but that is the gist of it.)

The Supreme Court…

When implementing an EU Directive, member states should interpret their national laws in such a way as to achieve the goal of the directive. (Will Helen Sheehy, of Sheehy Donnelly Solicitors, ever get to a point? No wonder Michele was so pissed!)

In this context…

“We think we can get the courts to inject ISP’s to remove and/or restrict access to copyrighted material.” You can think what you want, but the courts will decide pal!

In attempting to protect its rights…

“We tried to go to court and get an order directing ISPs to give us the names and addresses of people illegally sharing copyrighted material, but it was fuck all use and a complete waste of court time and resources.” Perhaps you should consider what is a waste of time and money – i.e. this piece of correspondence.

You will be aware…

“Eircom agreed to take it up the ass from us.”

The settlement agreement provides…

(You all know about this, but I wonder what the relevance of a third party agreement is to Blacknight… perhaps I should finish reading…)

It is the position of our clients that by this agreement eircom (sic) have agreed…

Surely you should ask Eircom that…? (P.S. Helen – Eircom is a proper noun – Capitalise It!)

Please confirm that Blacknight will also work with the record industry … (and) operate a similar graduated response and that it will disconnect the subscriber in default of compliance.

Comply with a private out-of-court agreement between two companies that have nothing to do with Blacknight? Why?

We should add by way of elaboration that it is not intended that there be any disclosure to our clients of the identity of the persons(s) denoted by the IP addresses at the time in question

Of course not – that would be illegal under privacy laws and it is illegal to encourage someone to break the law. Apart from that a person is not denoted by an IP address any more than they are denoted by their telephone number or by the name tag on their underpants.

In the event of a positive response to this letter…

Good luck with that!

In the event of a negative response to this letter, section 40(4) of the Act will be invoked against Blacknight and proceedings instituted.

We are writing to other ISPs in similar terms.

While we……..

Yours (blah, blah, blah…)

Let’s see – section 40(4) of the Act:

…where a person who provides facilities referred to in that subsection is notified by the owner of the copyright in the work concerned that those facilities are being used to infringe the copyright in that work and that person fails to remove that infringing material as soon as practicable thereafter that person shall also be liable for the infringement.

Am I missing something here? At no stage in this letter did Helen Sheehy say that Blacknights facilities were being used to infringe copyright… or did she? In fairness the heading of the letter (“Re: Illegal filesharing on the Blacknight network”) could be construed as such, in which case the letter is clearly slanderous. If this letter is not a notice under section 40(4) of the Act, then what proceedings can be instituted.

I would imaging the courts might take the view that sending out a form letter to every ISP in Ireland and claiming it conforms to section 40(4) of the Act is a waste of time and a simple ambulance chasers trawl. In any event, the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, is part of criminal law and as such, the normal rules of evidence, reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence apply…

…or were you missing that day Helen?

  • Share/Bookmark

“Lunatic bloggers can have the blog sphere all to themselves”

“Lunatic bloggers can have the blog sphere all to themselves as our people are far too busy driving down the cost of air travel”.

A classic quote from ryanair staff (confirmed that blog came from their offices ip address) after someone found a bug on their online booking form.

Read on…

http://www.jason-roe.com/blog/free-ryanair-free-flight-bug/#comment-9479

  • Share/Bookmark

FAST Redress Act of 2009 – birth of the “Fly List”

Liquids on a Plane by Cory Doctorow This almost writes itself!

We all know of the utter stupidity of the TSA’s Terrorist ‘watchlist’ (and I won’t rehash the arguments here). People caught on it include:

… and many more…

Of course in “Stating The Bleedin’ Obvious 101″ any eedgit learns that a name based watchlist is about as useful as a mans tit… and as a real insult to our intellegence they add (in their hilariuosly titled blog page “Myth Buster“):

TSA doesn’t have a watch list

and

TSA is a customer of the Terrorist Screening Center, a component of the FBI (…) responsible for (the) list

But call a spade a spade – if you’re turfing me off a flight on the basis of a list I don’t give a bollix who’s list you’re using.

So what happens if you find out your on a list? Well up to now not very much. Apparently it takes about 1 to 11/2 months and that is only because the ACLU sued for citizens to have the right to do so. But enter The FAST Redress Act of 2009 which obliges the Homeland Security secretary to 

  1. establish a “timely and fair” process of appeal and redress,
  2. (create) an Office of Appeals and Redress, and
  3. maintain a “comprehensive cleared list” of people who have been inappropriately included on terror watch lists or databases

Ladies and gentlemen – THE FLY LIST!!!

Now I wonder who will be charged with maintaining yet another list for the Department of Homeland Security? Let’s hope the responsibility isn’t given to the fuckwits who create the necessity for the Fly List in the first place!

  • Share/Bookmark

Eircom bend over and take it “sans Vaseline”

Take note: Eircom are taking it up the ass potentially on your behalf…

(In case you been living in a hole for the past few months, this is the latest in the ongoing case between Eircom and EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner – the four main players in IRMA – the Irish Recorded Music Association – over alleged illegal downloading of copyrighted music.)

On January 28th Eircom agreed a settlement of High Court proceedings with four record companies over music downloads. The record companies have been alleging that Eircom were liable because they were doing nothing to prevent the “abuse” of their networks (including your Internet connection) by people illegally downloading copyrighted material (mostly music MP3’s and movies).

The Internet can be compared (in this case anyway) to the plain old telephone service. Eircom provide you with a telephone line and you use it to talk, fax even check your email. If someone uses the telephone to make death threats or to make libelious statements then is the person who made the statements culpable or the person who provided the telephone line?

Don’t like that analogy? What about the air all around us then? Air allows sound waves to travel between someones mouth and another persons ears. Who should be prosecuted in this case? God? And if you are an atheist copyright holder – where’s your remedy then?

Here’s the beef in the Irish Times article:

…the record companies will supply Eircom with the IP addresses of all persons who they detect illegally uploading or downloading copyright works…

Now I may be no high-flautin’-fancy-pants-lawyer, but aren’t there rules under which “evidence” can be collected? Linking an IP address to an alleged offence is no more an indication of guilt than perhaps being in an area when a bank robbery is committed.

Your IP address is like your telephone number. No more, no less. If you want to send information from one computer to another (for whatever purpose) you need to know it’s IP address. If you want to telephone someone, you need their telephone number.

Linking a conversation to two telephone numbers does not tie it down to two people. In the same way, your IP address belongs to a PC (or a modem), not to an individual. The Gárdaí know all about this. Linking questionable content (like child porn for example) to an IP address is not enough to prove a case. They’ll get a search warrant perhaps but no prosecution – and rightly so. Our constitution has a presumption of innocence, and let’s not forget that copyright infringement is a criminal act.

But, unlike your telephone number, your computers IP address can change quite frequently. Imagine how useful called ID would be if your telephone number changed all the time? Indeed, under the Eircom “agreement” it could be the case that you are approached by Eircom over the “abuse” of their network because the last person to have that IP address happened to download a few MP3 tracks.

(Un)coincidentally enough, in the U.S. similar bullying tactics have been used by the RIAA (the American equivalent of the IMRA) and (shock horror) who holds the main interest in the RIAA? Why non-other than EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner!

Ray Beckerman (a lawyer in the U.S.) has a blog page which deals with the U.S. angle in some detail – it is well worth a read. Is is particularly interesting to look at the different ways in which the RIAA deal with alleged infringement cases: for example in 2007 a single mother from Minnesota was ordered to pay USD 220,000 for sharing 24 songs online while the RIAA were having less success in tackling people their own size, as has been the case with some US Universities.

So if you are approached by Eircom with this kind of “evidence”, remember you have substantial legal rights and don’t need to take their word for it (and certainly not the word of EMI, Sony, Universal or Warner.) Let’s see some hard facts please. And let’s have some proper legal scrutiny of this crap.

So here is what will happen in this joint approach aimed at ending “the abuse of the Internet by  P2P (peer to peer) copyright infringers”!

Eircom will:

  1. inform its broadband subscriber that the subscribers IP address has been detected infringing copyright;
  2. warn the subscriber they will be  disconnected unless infringement ceases and
  3. disconnect the subscriber in default of compliance with the warning

Eircom (stupid as they are) have recognised a pretty major hole in this agreement. Therefore:

The record compnaies (sic) have also agreed they will take all necessary steps to put similar agreements in place with all other internet service providers in Ireland.

This is a pretty typical tactic for the recording industry and mirrors similar tactics made in the past (see Beckerman’s site). They know that they have major problems with the burden of proof in individual cases, therefore they make loads of threatening noises in the hope that the victim will bend over and settle.

They had wanted Eircom to install software from a US firm that would detect the unique “fingerprint” of copyrighted music files being sent on its network, but Eircom claimed (rightly so) this would not be technically feasible.

In fairness if your internet connection is being filtered in any way, or if you find certain protocols or web sites are “broken” then in my opinion, you do not have a proper Internet connection and have redress under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980 under the heading “fit for the purpose”, “merchantable quality” or “misrepresentation”.

Now a question for homework:

Do you think a Eircom will actually boot paying customers off their network or do you think that some poor sap will be held up as an example?

They better start thinking quickly because the Alternative Licensed Telecoms Operators (ALTO) group  (whose members include BT Ireland, Magnet Networks, NTL, Chorus, Smart Telecom, Budget Telecom, Cable & Wireless, Colt Telecom, Complete Networks, Digiweb, ESB Telecoms, Verizon and 3 Play Plus) have already released a statement signalling their less-than-enthusiastic response:

“While we obviously do not condone illegal downloading or any illegality on or over the internet, we firmly disapprove of any draconian measures that would compromise the privacy, speed or services offered to broadband users. We do not need measures to further impede the development of next-generation broadband in Ireland”

and

“We’re not party to the agreement with Eircom – we don’t know the details of agreement…”

And as we know only too well, Eircom aren’t the company likely to do anything that might affect their market position…

Funnily enough, Eircom’s News page has no mention of the “agreement” (no link provided because their crap website makes it impossible to link to them) while the IRMA have it screaming from their “Breaking News” page.

For more reaction, off to IrishBlogs.ie with you

To mark the utter futility of all of this expensive High Court messing, check out the link to TOR - a free and Open Source programme that will guarantee your privacy and make the whole the argument between Eircom and the record companies meaningless.

For fucks sake, haven’t we had enough of pissing money up against the wall by now?

  • Share/Bookmark