Tag Archives: bishops

New inside look at OCR ICT education…….. …..First hand experience!


Peter Davis

I did this last year at my school, and you could just tell that this task was thought up by the government.  May I point out that the task was to create a video in Windows Movie Maker about recycling.

I think that, well yes, its fair enough that we have to make a video, as we would learn the skills to be able to do it…..But do we have to do it on ‘Recycling’?

Anyway, this was my submission for OCR nationals Unit 23. It got a very high mark, and it took me 20 minutes. I hope you enjoy it … or maybe not.

Yes, you saw it: this is what your children do in year-9 at secondary school it the UK (for foreign readers, this is 13/14 year-olds.)

Blogeditor says:-

Something to do with this stuff would have been more fun…

(…but most of the poor buggers don’t even know what these things are, let alone that they might have even existed.)

Advertisements

‘Ere we go, ‘ere we go, ‘ere we go…


What shall we do with the drunken sailor, eh?

David Davis

Samizdata reckons drunken sailors are all right, since they spend their own cash and not that of others. But….

The bishop , even though it’s one you have never heard of, tells it to you like it is, about alcohol…bishops of course know all about this. Yep, experts. (Gerald Warner has the right idea, totally.)

I have to say, I didn’t know  there was a “Bishop of Chelmsford” – did you?

What on earth has been going on behind our backs?

Food, junk food, and health-Nazis: 2009 will get worse.


David Davis

The whole of this post from Junkfood Science is worth reading, for it perspectivises the more or less articulate refutations which a lot of us have suspected and been trying to focus for all you lot, over the last couple of years.

If libertarians are at all serious, then I’m not suggesting that we should shoot all State-food-bansturbators immediately – in the way Stalin accused an obsequious IRA delegation of not being “serious” because the IRA “had not shot any bishops yet”. But…..we ought to make more of the point that if a human being owns his own body, then it’s surely axiomatic that he can place whatever foodstuffs – or anything else whatever for that matter –  that he chooses, inside it. If certain foods are to be “banned”, then this negates that principle and we have become the State’s Farm Animals in very truth. Cigarettes, (any) alcohol, tobacco and (all) drugs, too, are part of the same argument.

Part of the problem of course is that modern pithed people do not understand the economy of, the present dynamics of, and the ultimate reason for, the DHSS. They think that “it costs” the DHSS money to treat people. No analysis is done of where the money has arrived from. Of course, if you are a DHSS bureaucrat, then it “costs” you some of your ultimate yearly bonus if you have to irritatingly spend some of it on some doctors or beds or medicines, to treat the people who supplied the taxation-take in the first place. But if you pith the population, employing techniques such as “good television”, then they won’t realise the conjuring trick you have performed. Furthermore, they will go about supporting you, saying that “smokers are selfish ‘coz they cost the NHS money” and other similar witticisms which televise well on the Wireless Tele Vision thingy machine.

I am afraid I can find no use for this machine at all these days, except to view videos of The Lord Of The Rings, a couple of times a year – that’s quite enough too. Or perhaps as a source for weird electronic parts suddenly needed to complete a project, and Maplin’s closed. Can anybody illuminate my problem please?

Sean Gabb in “The Times”: Disestablish the Church


Sean Gabb

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article5003179.ece

From The Times October 24, 2008

Should the Church be disestablished? Yes, says Dr Sean Gabb

Yes: Dr Sean Gabb Director of the Libertarian Alliance

“In the British Constitution, Church and State are joined. The Queen is head of both. There are 26 Anglican bishops in Parliament.

The weak argument for disestablishment is that only a minority of people in Britain are Anglicans. Why should Catholics or Jews or Muslims or atheists defer officially to an institution that does not represent their beliefs?

This is not in itself a good argument. Establishment is part of the Constitution. If I move to Pakistan or Ireland, I would have to put up with the existing establishments there. Why should it be different with us? If it should be different, it is because the Church of England has ceased to be either intellectually or theologically respectable.

Anglicanism used to mean Cranmer and Hooker and Tillotson and Warburton and Paley. Malthus and Sydney Smith were Anglican priests. These were men who combined distinction in theological and secular learning with a broadly tolerant outlook.

Nowadays, priests and bishops seem to be less interested in preaching the Gospel than in preaching an embarrassingly naïve socialism.

It may be arguable that the true message of Christ is socialist. It may also be argued that the laws of supply and demand are as much part of the Divine Order as the laws of motion and that Christians cannot validly pronounce on either without some study of the secular sciences that have uncovered them. If this is true, it is not enough for an Anglican priest to read The Guardian, announce that God is love   and then make other than embarrassing pronouncements on interest rates and distribution of property.

Now, the problem here is not that so many Anglican spokesmen appear to be of the Left, but that they seem wholly unaware of any other theological perspective on economics and politics.

With this, I regret, goes their almost casual rejection of the Authorised Version of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer in favour of new versions that are devoid of literary merit.

The Church should be disestablished because it has, in a sense, disestablished itself. It has made itself an object of derision where not of contempt. It should not be allowed to continue representing itself as England at prayer.

The practical argument against disestablishment is that the monarchy would be destabilised. Again, the monarchy has destabilised itself. The settlement by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was that we would regard the monarch as the Lord s anointed. The monarch would, in turn, safeguard our liberties. Without mentioning any other dereliction, Her Majesty this year allowed ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, despite its implications for how we govern ourselves, and despite the promise by the Government in 2005 that what became the treaty would not be ratified without a referendum.

Since the monarchy is at best on probation, therefore, and since the Church of England cannot be defended as it has become, the arguments for disestablishment strike me, however sadly, as too strong to be brushed aside.