Things that make me come over all ‘Daily Mail Reader’

Taking a short break from my trip through Trekdom, as there’s been a couple of things today that, in the words of the great Peter Griffin, ‘really grind my gears’.

I’m normally an affable, likeable chap, not taken to extremes, and I’ve been known, on occasion, to walk away from political discussions. Yes, that’s actually true.

However, sometimes there are things that you read on the news websites, or hear on the radio or tv, that just can’t be left alone.

One was reported today. Apparently there’s an ‘educated’ Cambridge don who has come up with this theory about the Turin Shroud. It’s only fair that he gets full credit for his staggeringly dumb theory, so I’m pleased to pass his name on. He is Thomas de Wesselow .

Now, don’t get him wrong – Tommy believes that the Turin Shroud is real. He debunks the 1988 carbon dating activity, which stated at the time that the cloth dated from the 13th Century – although this date is not completely accepted now. Tom states he believes that the cloth is 2000 years old, and did cover Christ’s body when it was placed in the tomb after his crucifixion, and that the image on the cloth is indeed an image of Jesus. But it’s the events three days after that crucifixion that makes Tom’s theory remarkable.

He says that the image on the cloth fooled the Apostles into believing Christ had come back to life, and the Resurrection was in fact an optical illusion.

Yes. That the resurrection didn’t actually happen, but was some kind of visual effect caused by a picture on a strip of linen.

Apparently this illusion was so real, it walked out of the tomb, and spoke to people. It later cooked them a meal, ate with them as well, visited them in their home in the city, and walked with others. Now even these days, that’s a pretty impressive piece of cloth.

Where Tom’s theory falls over, is…. well, as soon as he opens his mouth. There’s nothing in his ‘theory’ that has any basis in scientific, historical, religious or logical thought. Just goes to show that not everyone who comes out of Cambridge is clever. Certainly not as clever as Stephen Fry.

Fry’s association with the BBC brings me onto the second thing that has made me mad today, as I heard many ‘experts’ talking about this on Radio 5 Live. At one point, I was led to switch stations, something I usually reserve for those occasions when Peter Allen utters the immortal words “Let’s get the opinion of Harriet Harman…”

Today marked the publication of a new report into last summer’s riots, which brought anarchy, violence, theft, property damage, arson, and in a few tragic instances, murder to our city streets. The report aimed to explain the root causes of the riots, and mentioned such things as ‘forgotten families’, lack of police response, poor education standards, absent fathers, poor parenting, poverty, and other items of utter drivel churned out by the apologists of our so-called ‘disaffected youth’.

Sorry – and I apologise for the use of profanity here – but that’s bullshit. There’s few other terms I can use.

I have family that live in Croydon, where some of the worst scenes took place. And I have friends that live in Ealing, and in Manchester, and in Birmingham. And I don’t know how I would have managed, had the things they witnessed from their windows happened outside my house.

So let’s cut to the chase. The rioters were not on the streets because of a lack of parenting, or a lack of education – they were there because they thought they had a lack of trainers and iPads. Someone on the radio said there was a lack of a sense of wrong. Well, I cannot believe that there is a single person in this country that does not know that theft, fire-setting, assault, shop-lifting is wrong.

No – what we saw last year was pure greedy, opportunistic theft for personal gain by people who thought that, in the midst of so much other criminal activity, they would get away with it.

Apparently, this isn’t clear to the ‘experts’. And just as ‘experts’ such as Cambridge don Tommy de Wesselow can say anything they like and ignore the established evidence, these social ‘experts’ have ignored the common denominator in their drive to provide a get-out clause, letting people abdicate any responsibility for their actions. I’m not saying that families, education, and poverty don’t need addressing, but there’s no realistic connection between a kid not being able to read, and his sudden ability to pick up a brick and hurl it at a policeman. Or between a family’s lack of money and the decision to go smash up a store and carry off a bag full of gadgets.

It’d be good if, just for once, a report into this kind of behaviour didn’t seek to justify the events, but just admitted that rioting, arson, theft, and violent assault is wrong and needs to be punished.

And today, that’s what has really been grinding my gears!

Advertisements

One thought on “Things that make me come over all ‘Daily Mail Reader’

  1. Ben Cox says:

    Love the article Paul – I’m afraid I am not of the star trek generation so struggle to relate or find an enthusiasm to match yours with that, haha, but this one was really good, really enjoyed reading it, look forward to seeing your next one

    Ben

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s