Yet another non-story…

Yep, whatever you say Edgar. Move along, nothing to see here…(!)

While i have no sympathy for him it doesn’t sit well with me the way it happened.

Thank you for showing that others don’t have to agree with the likes of the haters (above) – the story was created by that journalist purely to be reported by him for money, there has been no indication that the MP had any previous history in this ‘field’.

It’s easy to point the finger at journalists or papers, but idiot MPs like this guy leave themselves open to blackmail, subversion or “persuasion”, no sympathy whatsoever.

Yet you would agree that if a man tried to convince a young teenager to send them a naked ‘selfie’ then that would be abuse, yes? Why should a man, journalist or not, pretending to be a woman, get away with leading another man on in a sexual fashion, MP or not?

No journalist should be allowed to set up a ‘honey trap’. Report facts by all means but do not create falsehoods.

Totally! Just the facts, as Joe Friday used to say (on Dragnet).

My own belief is that the journalist has made a grave mistake with his so called freedom and may force the government to enact its politically draconian measures. For this we will all pay dearly as no one will be able to hold our masters to account. Beware what you wish for and be ready for any unintended consequences that flow from those decisions.

True. For the sake of a few quid and an unseated Tory MP he has created trouble for the industry which could strengthen the governments hand.

I’m not aware of any concerted move by atheists to kill believers.

…Believers of one credo killing believers of another, though, that is utterly commonplace.

Yes as Leninists who loathed the Russian church showed.

One example, not recent, whereas we can point to ISIS in Iraq, the Rwanda genocides or anything involving Israel and the Palestinians as better contemporary illustrations of religions in conflict.

I acknowledge that there was some chatter about legal compulsion but it was quietly shelved. Education did the trick.

Did it? Not everywhere though…

Children under the age of 14 will have to wear a helmet when cycling after a new law came into force in Jersey.

The legislation was originally approved in July but the Transport and Technical Services Department decided to delay its introduction until October.

The department says this was to give parents time to buy helmets that met international standards…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-29428094

‘Spect the bit about international standards will grate on you a bit…;o)

And most of you act like sheep !

You might find that useful when you make your attempt at getting into power.

For the umpteenth time, the seatbelt law affects only the individual.

It didn’t in that road safety advert Julie knew her killer – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE

How about a law that means you can get fined if you don’t tie your shoelaces? I tie my laces so that I don’t fall and break my nose….

Don’t believe there is a statistic to qualify any requirement here.

Mind you, it would have been amusing to have continued the whole clunk, click, every trip thing with Jimmy Saville – the punishment being the threat of being locked up with him if you didn’t: such a shame he snuffed it when he did…

And I was always amused with having to wear a hard hat on site – most of the time, if anything heavy being demolished or built was to fall on you, its only purpose would be to preserve enough of your skull for a quick identification to be made.

What science knows and can proves is the equivalent of how much water a gnat crapping in the ocean would displace.
If they would spend more time to see how God might have done what God did, with or without the word God, rather than trying to prove what they think is how it should have been done, there would be no quarrels as they would go about it admitting they know nothing and are onlytrying to learn what might, or might not, have happened.

But…they know how much water a gnats dropping would displace in the ocean – without needing to believe in a deity too.

And where should they look to see how a god might have done something? That well known work of science fiction, or any of the other similar works revered by religions the world over? Or should they chat with the clergy, priests, mullahs, pole sitters, lamas, padres, any other number of holy persons, men of the cloth and other associated child abusers? And what logical experience do these men of god have to talk about matters scientific – are they mathematicians, geologists, biologists, engineers, or have knowledge about anything other than what happens daily in their empty temple to a bygone fear?
That you cannot prove of any godly existence does not inspire belief; that thousands of others over hundreds of years have also not proven anything other than that if you threaten people with believe or die then they will submit to nearly anything doesn’t make it true either. I would believe you and your arguments more if you happened to instantly convert ISIS into not being a murderous bunch of religious freaks, but that isn’t going to happen any time soon so I guess my own lack of faith in invisible friends and things that go bump in the night is utterly safe.

In one post you claim to be atheist and then spent the rest of the thread rubbishing science, evolution, knowledge, yet defending the concept of god.

Can you point out that post, please. RpR is a dedicated god-botherer and anything that says different is likely to be someone making a mistake.

You rubbish evolution, yet the fossil record says otherwise, you rubbish “big bang” theory, but there is a growing theory that “big bangs” have been happening across the universe for millions of years and probably still are. We know for instance that stars (ie suns) have a tendency to implode or explode taking any attendant systems with them, all the energy and material is either trapped or scattered, it is still there, for all we know new suns and new systems may be forming right now, the problem being of course is that we only see these events millions of years after they occurred due to the distance involved.

Unfortunately whatever you say about evolution and big bangs, etc, will cut no ice with him because these theories used science in their discovery and development – which therefore rules them out of being a serious and acceptable answer to those for whom a god is the only possible explanation.

It strikes me that there must be another side to this belief ‘coin’ – where the gullible believe in a god there has to be a devil, doesn’t there? No one has mentioned those other fictional, man-made, anti-deities…

The bible is filth!!! :eagerness:

You should see the bit about incestuous rape – two daughters getting their father drunk to ‘preserve’ his seed…;o)

The Bible says God finds homosexuality to be an abomination, that is it.

Indeed it does, and yet nothing is said in reproach about David’s love for Jonathan…

1 Samuel 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

1 Samuel 20:42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.

2 Samuel 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

Another example, and one of the few mentions of lesbians:

Luke 17:33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

Luke17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

…the Baptist church you mention has been/is loudly condemned by all Christian denominations.

It is condemned by athiests as well the superstitious, but for such a tiny part of the god-bothering system it achieves remarkable international recognition. Isn’t it wonderful what the oxygen of publicity can do for extremist organisations?

If one were to proclaim such insults about Mohammed one would be subject to a death sentence that is officially proper by Muslim dogma.
Boy are Muslim and Christian dogma alike, yeah sure.

Salman Rushdie had a fatwa issued against him for his (rather boring) novel The Satanic Verses, and he is still around (although his Japanese translator was stabbed to death, his Italian and Turkish translators had attempts made on their lives, and his Norwegian publisher was shot three time but survived. Religion, eh!). Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard had a fatwa declared on him for representing Muhammad in art form – and Osama bin Laden wanted him extradited so that an Islamic court could carry out the death sentence – but he too is still around.
They will have official protection, of course, but even so…