MAN SENTENCED FOR POSSESSING INDECENT PICTURES OF CHILDREN - DEPRAVED YES - BUT IS THIS THE THOUGHT POLICE?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22530150

Yes it's sick. Yes, it's depraved. The man deserves to be utterly shunned and left in no doubt about his depravity. But punished by the the law? I'm not so sure.

I mean where is all of this thought-police stuff going? All very Orwellian isn't it?

Where do we draw the line? Who says what should be prosecuted under law and what should not? What do this man's actions prove?
I'll tell you what they prove - they prove he's a sicko - that's what they prove - a poor, sad sicko.

It's obvious that he's a risk to kids - but has he actually done anything to any? Is dreaming about committing a crime a crime? By having sick images of kids in his possession has he actually harmed anyone bar himself?

The things that are beyond man's ken God will judge. Let's not play God - there are things we should leave to him.

Do you know what the cause of this confusion is? I'll tell you the cause. It's Atheism. If society wasn't so stubbornly and stupidly God-hating things would be a lot better.

Because of this state of affairs the approach is always to think that we must pull out all the stops to create a perfect society - a Utopia - a heaven on earth. If people weren't so stupid they would look at the Bible where they would find that God informs us that because of the depravity of man's heart perfection is impossible in this world. Understanding this basic fact would help us get things into perspective to say the least.
The purpose of the law is not to create a perfect world. The purpose of the law is to educate. To teach the difference between right and wrong. Punishment is the deterrent. But man's law must have a point at which it stops. That point must be where reason and logic dictate (if we're wise these will be guided by God's word).

To make it a crime in law to privately possess sick pictures is ludicrous. This effectively means that we have crossed the line from actually having to physically commit a crime before we are guilty under law to now being guilty for just thinking about it.

Because, after all, in reality, regardless of how distasteful it might be - that is all that he is guilty of - thinking about it. There is a world of difference between thinking about a crime and actually committing it. As soon as we start down the road of making thinking something a crime under law immediately we have become dangerous bigots.
Remember the Nazis? They did that.

It's the same as the hate-crime thing. To beat someone up is a crime. But to beat someone up because you don't like his race or beliefs is a worse crime. Who says? Where did this logic come from? I thought a crime was a crime irrespective of what was going on in the chump's head at the time. So a broken head is worse if it's broken by a racist than by someone who just wants to steal your phone is it? Who says we're to analyse the nuances of the depraved thoughts of every screwball we catch.

Are we also going to send out undercover officers to listen in to conversations in pubs, streets and smoke-filled rooms and arrest anyone heard talking about anything anti-social? If we're going to go down that road - maybe we could start with the Muslims raging about cutting people's heads off over cartoons.

It reminds me of the Woody Allen film Bananas: after the revolution the rebel leader becomes president and in his maiden speech he orders everyone to speak Swedish and change their underwear every half hour ordering them to wear them over their clothes so that the police could check that they were clean.
Only they can't make people wear their thoughts on the outside - but wouldn't they just love it if they could?
Imagine how overcrowded the prisons would be then.

EU - "WHY WOULD WE WANT TO JOIN THOSE LOSERS?"
ICELAND SHOWS US HOW TO DEAL WITH THE BANKING CRISIS.

THE LIES OF OSCAR PISTORIUS

OK, here's the case for the defence. You share your bed with your girlfriend. You wake up in the middle of the night. You hear sounds of someone in the bathroom. You don't bother checking whether your girlfriend is still next to you in the bed or not. There's someone in the bathroom and it doesn't even occur to you that it might just be your girlfriend (and you still haven't bothered to check whether she's in bed or not). You decide it's some kind of intruder - and what do you do? Why, of course, without any word of challenge or warning you start shooting through the bathroom door.

What else would you do?

SIR, YOU ARE A LIAR AND A MURDERER.

OSCAR PISTORIUS:

WHY DO PEOPLE COMMIT MURDER?

I'm afraid the case for the defence is just to wild and far-fetched for me to believe. Anyone who's ever appeared as a witness in  a serious court trial and listened to the crazy stories people make up to try and get away with crimes will know what I mean. I've been there. I was stabbed in a gang fight in '85 and afterwards had to endure listening to the cock-and-bull-stories from the defendants as they did their level best to lie their way to a not guilty verdict. For the record, they failed.

I find it equally pathetic listening to pistorius's sad yarn about accidentally shooting his girlfriend four times. Oh yeah, and just how stupid do you think we are?

The truth is of course - there are no other witnesses - apart from the accused. Big problem. Something similar happened in Uist a number of years ago when two men were out goose-hunting. One was shot dead by the other - no witnesses. Oh dear. How did it go? I don't remember whether it was "he fell on the gun and shot himself", or "I accidentally shot him." Both sound stupid to me. The one at my court case was, I had tried to stab him and fell on the knife. Funny eh? Ha ha.

Anyway, on to my point. Why do people commit murder on a whim?

If we think back to the account of Cain and Able in Genesis 4 we are told that Cain was angry at his brother because God accepted Able's offering but not Cain's. To put it simply, his pride was hurt. God's revelation to Cain that he had not done well made him so angry that he lost all reason and murdered his brother in a jealous rage.

Proverbs 27: 4 states: "Wrath is Cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?"

The Bible makes it plain that the only problem the human race has is sin - that's it - nothing else. Who can fully understand it? To get so mad at your girlfriend that you want to kill her. It happens. But oh, spare us the sad, wretched stories about how it was an accident. Pathetic.

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16: 18).

Pride. Men love it with a passion. They'd give up anything before that. They'll even kill for it.

"JUDGE NOT, THAT YE BE NOT JUDGED."

I think the following text may be the most misquoted in the Bible. People quote the first sentence - the first seven words - leaving out the context. When read in its context we can see that it's a warning against hypocrisy. What it does not mean is 'never judge'. The idea of going through life never making judgments is absurd and the opposite of what the Bible requires.

JUDGE NOT, THAT YE BE NOT JUDGED. FOR WITH WHAT JUDGMENT YE JUDGE, YE SHALL BE JUDGED: AND WITH WHAT MEASURE YE METE, IT SHALL BE MEASURED TO YOU AGAIN. AND WHY BEHOLDEST THOU THE MOTE THAT IS IN THY BROTHER'S EYE, BUT CONSIDEREST NOT THE BEAM THAT IS IN THINE OWN EYE? OR HOW WILT THOU SAY TO THY BROTHER, LET ME PULL OUT THE MOTE OUT OF THINE EYE; AND, BEHOLD, A BEAM IS IN THINE OWN EYE? THOU HYPOCRITE, FIRST CAST OUT THE BEAM OUT OF THINE OWN EYE; AND THEN SHALT THOU SEE CLEARLY TO CAST OUT THE MOTE OUT OF THEY BROTHER'S EYE. (Matthew 7: 1-5).

TAX: THE RUSSIANS SHOW US THE WAY

Like me, you may have been wondering why the government are so determined to have a different (higher) rate of tax for the rich (and not terribly low for the rest of us either) if it's not just gesture politics. I'm sure any accountant worthy of the title would agree. The above picture is an example of someone rich and famous (Gerard Depardieu) upping sticks and moving from France which has high taxes to Russia which has lower taxes. The story points out that Russia has a flat tax rate of 13% across the board. Genius? No, just basic common sense.
It seems obvious to me, that this situation of having higher and lower bands of income tax is not only pointless, but a recipe for discontent and argument, which it has proved to be.
It's simple business logic. Why are the biggest, most successful companies those that keep their prices low? Because it attracts custom. In the same way, if taxes are lower people will be more willing to pay them which means less tax avoidance. It also encourages local and attracts foreign business. The supermarkets know this very well because they must operate in the unforgiving atmosphere of the real world. Unlike our pampered politicians who, comparatively speaking, occupy cloud-cuckoo land.
POLITICIANS, LOOK AND LEARN, LOOK AND LEARN.

WHY IS COUNCIL LEADER ANGUS CAMPBELL PERMITTED TO 'DECLARE AN INTEREST' AND REMAIN SILENT ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE WESTERN ISLES COUNCIL FOR YEARS?

Rather convenient I would say. Considering every man and his dog is craning their necks to hear what he has to say on the matter. After all, he's the only councillor who makes his living out of selling fuel. You would think he'd be the first to be summoned - champing at the bit even. But no. Where is he? I get a picture of him at home with his head under the rug hoping it all goes away. Now why would that be? Perhaps he's making too much money out of this fuel scam and if people knew what was going on it would open a whole new can of worms. Well, Angus, it won't go away. Scottish fuels could see the writing on the wall and implemented damage-limiting measures. I would advise you do likewise before it's too late. Perhaps it's already too late.
I have in the past few minutes watched on BBC News the inquiry into the tax affairs of online retail giant Amazon, where one of the bosses was ridiculed by MPs for not being open about the company's finances.
Perhaps he should have 'declared an interest'.
Of course this would be ridiculous. Just as in a court of law or during any inquiry it would be ludicrous to allow someone to hide behind such a plainly stupid rule.
So the Western Isles Council allows people to 'declare an interest' and not be required to give account of themselves.
Sirs, you need to 'wake up and smell the coffee'. This kind of nonsense was supposed to have been done away with when we chopped the head off Charles the I.
Perhaps it's time to 'chop off the council's head' if he doesn't give proper account of himself. Who does he think he is, the king?
If there's one thing I hate it's institutionalized secrecy. We have the same problem in the church - a few individuals who get carried away with their own importance and deem themselves 'above' the rest and start creating rules to suit themselves.
It's not on boys and girls, it's not on.
I, as your employer, wish you to know this.