RandomJottings.co.uk

The Sunday Express leads today with FAMILIES HIT BY BBC ‘FILTH’ warning that children as young as five can access sex and violence through internet services such as iPlayer.

The article goes on to demand that children should be protected. Personally, I think that they are targetting the wrong people…

Children should be protected from post-watershed content, but it is the role of their parents to supervise and control what their children view. Just like the TV before it, computers shouldn’t be used as electric babysitters, keeping the kids quiet so that the adults can ignore them.

Shockingly, 3% of children between the ages of five and seven have a internet connected computer in their bedrooms, no doubt to go with their TV, DVD-player and shelf full of video nasties!

These people would probably be the first to complain that they can’t let their children play out for fear of them getting abducted, yet they are more than happy to leave them to roam the occasionally seedy world of the web without a second thought.

Any responsible parent makes sure that the PC is in a visible place where they can cast a weather eye on what their child is doing until such an age that they can be trusted to be cautious and at least semi-responsible.

Why do we allow these feckless parents to dodge their duties whilst insisting that everyone else should pick up the slack?

How many billions of pounds are lost to the economy each year due to road-works?

Why does nobody take any notice of the way our arterial roads are constantly clogged with the cholesterol of cones?

Road-works themselves may be a necessary evil, but as you pass mile after mile of cones with a 50mph speed limit, how much of it is actually necessary.

The national speed limit on even a single carriageway is 60mph, so why do cones on the motorway inevitably lead to a 50mph speed limit for the whole section?

I’m all for slowing down for the safety of those working, but let’s just slow things down for 100 yards or so that they are actually working on and raise the limit again once the danger has passed.

Going up to Edinburgh and back this weekend I must have passed miles of cones at 50mph and only one small section needed the restriction. In fact road widening on the A1 had a bank, ditch and half a field between the slow moving traffic (policed by average speed cameras) and the nearest workman!!!

By removing the restrictions when unnecessary it will also make things safer for those working as drivers will know that the reduced speed limits are there for a reason and so will be less likely to ignore them.

No suprise that police made dozens of arrests at the English Defence League demonstration  in Bolton yesteday, what does suprise me however, is that the police have admitted that the majority of arrests were from the anti-fascist demonstrators.

Ever since the Oldham Riots, I’ve suspected that the Anti-Fascist League (AFL), Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and similar groups are more dangerous (physically) than the people they are protesting about. My understanding of the situation in Oldham was that protesters turned up to confront a BNP rally that was rumoured to be taking place but when the BNP failed to arrive they got on with the rioting anyway!!

As with the BNP, the English Defence League’s (EDL) motives are open to interpretation. They say that they are not bothered about race, are non-political and non-violent but are concerned about the rise in radical Islam throughout this country. How you wish to take that is up to you.

What is clear though is that these high profile anti-fascist groups are thoroughly and violently against the freedom of speech (unless of course it agrees with their views). This is a right that the anti crowd would have you believe that they are defending.  They have an equal right to demonstrate against the views of the EDL, but the way these evendts descend into violence is a worrying trend.

If Nick Griffin’s accusations are true about the political financing of these groups then I would call on those parties to hold an urgent review of what is essentially the funding of terrorism.

Fresh from my introduction to Swedish cinema, I decided to buy the book. Luckily, someone called Reg Keeland has taken the time to translate it.

Suprisingly, the film is actually very close to the book and the understandibly condensed film version misses few of the plot elements (hopefully the planned Hollywood version will take note).

Usually I wouldn’t recommend reading the book before the film, as disapointment usually follows, but this time it certainly wasn’t the case.

The book clarifies that Lisbeth (the hacker with the dragon tattoo)  is investigating Mikael (the reporter) as a prelude to his being hired by Henrik Vanger.

While certain events and characters were condensed for the film, the plot follows the same investigation into the disapearance of Harriet, Henrick’s neice 40 years previously and the grim discovery of a series of brutal murders across Sweden.

The book further fleshes out the relationship between Mikael and his business partner Erika Berger and members of the Vanger family as he pursues his quest for the truth and details how he fell foul of the law in the first place.

British Waterways is appealing to members of the public to report sightings of Kingfishers on our rivers and canals, feaing that their numbers have been devastated by this year’s cold snap.

No doubt, the cold weather has been detrimental to a number of species of wildlife, but then no doubt these species had similar problems in the regular cold winters we used to get 20-30 years ago before all this global warming hysteria took a hold. These are animals that also survived the Little Ice Age a much colder period in recent(ish) history.

They survived then, and in all honesty are more likely to survive now as the human race is more interested in avoiding and repairing the damage to the environment that has come about since the Industrial Revolution. With the human race doing less damage, the flora and fauna will rebound in the warmer years (which should become more common due to global warming)

Of course if you believe the cause of global warming to be the lack of Toyota Priuses on the road then cut down your carbon footprint, but spare a thought for the poor kingfisher subjected to even colder winters and gradual extinction.

The choice is yours.

It seems moves are afoot to try and con pensioners into shelling out for the controversial National Identity Card.

Meg Hillier, the Home Office minister in charge of scheme, said “a number of local authorities” had been in touch to ask whether they had to continue to issue bus passes, if the card proves age why do we need to have bus passes for 60-plus year-olds?

My question is, if the local authorities only see a need to prove age, why not accept other forms of ID? Passports and driving licenses have been around far longer and have a better take-up than the despised identity card.

Should we really start hammering cash strapped pensioners with a £90 charge for their mobility as a way for the government to push its pet white elephant?

Catholic Care a religious adoption society has won a High Court battle to allow it to continue refusing to place children with gay couples.

Jonathan Finney, head of external affairs at gay rights charity Stonewall, said: “It’s unthinkable that anyone engaged in delivering any kind of public or publicly funded service should be given licence to pick and choose service users on the basis of individual prejudice.”

What Johnathan fails to see, is that the prospective parents (gay or otherwise) are NOT the “service users” here (and what a horrendous term that is to use in this context), the important person is the child awaiting adoption. It is the child that has the right to be placed with good parents, any rights  the parents themselves have are secondary.

The problem with pressure groups like Stonewall is that even if gay couples were considered for adoptive parents, the group would still cry foul if an arbitrary quota of gay couples weren’t allowed to adopt!

Whilst each case should be judged on it’s own merits and I’m sure some gay couples will tick all the boxes for material and physical care of a child they face a huge stumbling block when it comes to the child’s mental care.

It’s actually not the fault of the prospective gay parents themselves, the problem comes from peer pressure. Puberty is a hard enough time in a child’s life to start with, trying to fit in and make your place in the world, add the uncertainty that comes from being adopted and it becomes even harder.

Added into the mix, a child at that age is suddenly confused by all the chemical changes in their body caused by their developing sexual maturity which makes homophobia rife in that age group. It doesn’t matter how politically correct our children are brought up, you’re dealing with primal forces which define their actions during that period.

It’s going to take a very strong child to deal with all that plus the unfortunate stigma of having gay parents. Without the benefit of hindsight, how can we judge which chilren will be able to cope and which won’t?

If we can’t be sure, is it right to add another element of risk or should adoption agencies stick with a more natural family make-up?

This was my third free screening in just over a week, an Irish wedding comedy.

The story follows the wedding day of two couples who happen to have booked the same hotel for their reception. Freddie is marrying for the second time to the same girl and Maura having dodged marriage for 30 years is marrying for enough money to keep a roof over her’s and her daughter’s heads.

Both couples stumble from disaster to disaster, with a psycho father-in-law, a missing bride and  the immigration service featuring prominently, eventually the two marriage parties are forced together by Maura’s daughter.

This is a film that had huge potential, unfortunatly it never meets it. The action is funny in places, but once you’ve laughed there’s nothing to take it up another notch and the storyline isn’t strong enough to satisfy in the gaps. Since you already know what the ending of the film is going to be from the moment the oposing bride and groom set eyes on each other there’s no suprises either.

All in all, the film was OK, but I wouldn’t pay cinema prices to see it.

Michael Nyqvist – Mikael Blomkvist
Noomi Rapace – Lisbeth Salander
Sven-Bertil Taube – Henrik Vanger
Peter Haber – Martin Vanger
Marika Lagercrantz – Cecilia Vanger
Lena Endre – Erika Berger
Björn Granath – Police Inspector Morell
Ingvar Hirdwall – Dirch Frode – Henrik’s lawyer
Peter Andersson – Bjurman
Michalis Koutsogiannakis – Dragan – Lisbeth’s boss
Ewa Fröling – Harriet Vanger
Gunnel Lindblom – Isabella Vanger
Gösta Bredefeldt – Harald Vanger
Stefan Sauk – Hans-Erik Wennerström
Jacob Ericksson – Christer Malm
Sofia Ledarp – Malin Eriksson
David Dencik – Janne
Well, the first thing you need to know about this film, and something I didn’t realise before it started, it’s in Swedish. Luckily someone was kind enough to add subtitles.

Having lost a libel case and waiting to be sentenced Mikael Blomkvist is asked by wealthy industrialist Henrik Vanger to investigate the disapearance (and supposed murder) of his neice Harriet over 40 years ago.

In the mean time, tattooed and pierced punk hacker Lisbeth Salander (who for reasons that escape me is investigating Blomkvist) has been assigned a new guardian to oversee her financial affairs due to problems in her youth. The new guardian only releases money to her after brutally and sexually abusing her.

The two tales run side by side without connection until  Lisbeth decodes a message that she ransacked from Mikael’s computer and she joins him in his investigation.This leads to the discovery of a string of horrific unsolved murders across Sweden that Harriet had discovered just before her disapearance.

Once you get used to reading the subtitles, the film opens up into a gripping thriller that hopefully won’t be ruined with the planned Hollywood remake. The world weary journalist and the emotionally scarred young hacker are made believable by the acting tallents of Michael Nyqvist and Noomi Rapace leaving you in no doubt as to the confusion both character’s face as their relationship unfolds.

I’m looking forward to getting hold of the books (I assume they’ve been translated into English) and will be watching to see if they make the rest of the trilogy (in Swedish or not)

With Jon Venables, one of Jamie Bulger’s killers, back behind bars there are calls on the government to reveal the details of why he has been recelled.

You may believe that Jamie’s killers didn’t serve a long enough sentence (or should never have been released) but our justice system has determined that they have served the penalty for their crimes so they have the right to go out and live within society. In this case (and several others) this has meant a great deal of expence thanks to the mob-mentality stirred up by the tabloids.

At the moment Venebles has recalled for breaking his licence (there are still strict conditions on his freedom) in Jack Straw’s words “extremely serious allegations” have been made against him, but until it is determined whether these are true or not – probably through a trial, it seems right for his anonymity to remain protected if only to protect the financial investment already made in providing it.

If he is found guilty of further crimes it will no doubt be seen as proof that these types of offenders can’t be rehabilitated, but we have to bear in mind that to our knowledge Robert Thompson is still following the straight and narrow and Mary Bell, who was convicted of a similarly shocking crime at the age of 11 has remained free since 1980 with no allegations of reoffending.

Personally, I belive that the anonymity given to these people should be limited to a ban on reporting, a new name and a new location in this country. It should then be down to the convicted criminal to keep their heads down and not draw attention to themselves (if as rumoured Maxine Carr was given plastic surgery and moved to another country that would be  going too far in my opinion)