• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UK yesterday:Terrorist attacks Stormont, Russian ex-Spy poisoned & relgious fanatic

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
125,723
Location
South East, UK
UK yesterday:Terrorist attacks Stormont, Russian ex-Spy poisoned & relgious fanatic

What a day in the UK.

Yesterday we had a terrorist attack at Stormont:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6181994.stm

...snip...

Stone held over Stormont attack

Loyalist killer Michael Stone is still being questioned by police after he burst into Stormont claiming to have a bomb.

...snip...
Click to expand...

A Russian, ex-spy and vehement critic of the current Russian administration dies after a long battle after being poisoned in the UK by radioactive polonium-210.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6182804.stm

...snip...

The ex-spy's death has been linked to the presence of a "major dose" of radioactive polonium-210 in his body.

Scotland Yard confirmed radioactive traces were also found at Mr Litvinenko's home, a sushi bar and a hotel, but the risk to others was said to be very low.

...snip...
Click to expand...

And a religious nutter looks set to force a change in the dress code of a company on the strength of her fantasy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6182534.stm
...snip...

The Rt Rev Richard Charters said he took his "hat off" to Nadia Eweida for standing up for the British tradition of free expression.

Ms Eweida had lost her appeal against a decision banning her from wearing the cross visibly at the check-in counter.

The airline said it had to reconsider "in the light of the public debate".

...snip...
Click to expand...

I don't know why but yesterday these events just seemed very depressing. They are on one level nothing like the terrible events happening in many parts of the world - but on another they just brought home that the irrationality behind many of the worlds problems and terrible events is just as present here as anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
acuity said:
Which bits are the irrational bits in each story?
Click to expand...
In the third one, the claim that there is a "ban on crosses". The uniform code BA have does not allow any visible jewellery. This applies to symbols of any other religion, or to entirely secular jewellery.

There is also the woman's caim that this means that she is unable to work there, and the complaint that Muslims are allowed to wear headscarves. There is no religious requirement for Christians to wear crosses, as far as I'm aware. She was also offered alternative employment where she wouldn't have been required to follow the uniform code, but she declined to take it.
 
Darat said:
What a day in the UK.

Yesterday we had a terrorist attack at Stormont:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6181994.stm


[snip]

I don't know why but yesterday these events just seemed very depressing. They are on one level nothing like the terrible events happening in many parts of the world - but on another they just brought home that the irrationality behind many of the worlds problems and terrible events is just as present here as anywhere else.
Click to expand...


At least I was given a laugh by the TV news report of the Stormount incident when the reporter seriously delivered to camera (while that psycho was dragged away in the background).

"Michael Stone was released from prison, where he was serving a sentance for murder, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. It is believed that he may have breached his conditions of release."

may... right... :)
 
I also have sympathy for BA's position.

Imagine the serious injury that could be suffered by some innocent unsuspecting vampire checking in for his flight.
 
Mojo said:
In the third one, the claim that there is a "ban on crosses". The uniform code BA have does not allow any visible jewellery. This applies to symbols of any other religion, or to entirely secular jewellery.

There is also the woman's caim that this means that she is unable to work there, and the complaint that Muslims are allowed to wear headscarves. There is no religious requirement for Christians to wear crosses, as far as I'm aware. She was also offered alternative employment where she wouldn't have been required to follow the uniform code, but she declined to take it.
Click to expand...
But spin and exaggeration isn't "irrational". It's what I would expect to see.
 
acuity said:
But spin and exaggeration isn't "irrational". It's what I would expect to see.
Click to expand...

To risk losing your job to wear something that she claims is actually insignificant and is clearly against the dress code that she agreed to abide to when she signed her contract is an irrational act.
 
Darat said:
To risk losing your job to wear something that she claims is actually insignificant and is clearly against the dress code that she agreed to abide to when she signed her contract is an irrational act.
Click to expand...
Hardly. Depends on the expected benefit of doing so. And with the turn of events it looks to have been well worth it to her.
 
Mojo said:
In the third one, the claim that there is a "ban on crosses". The uniform code BA have does not allow any visible jewellery. This applies to symbols of any other religion, or to entirely secular jewellery.

There is also the woman's caim that this means that she is unable to work there, and the complaint that Muslims are allowed to wear headscarves. There is no religious requirement for Christians to wear crosses, as far as I'm aware. She was also offered alternative employment where she wouldn't have been required to follow the uniform code, but she declined to take it.
Click to expand...

Nothing ever changes. Even after two millenia, Christian martyrs are still getting hung up on a cross...
 
Geckko said:
I also have sympathy for BA's position.

Imagine the serious injury that could be suffered by some innocent unsuspecting vampire checking in for his flight.
Click to expand...
The issue is not about crosses specifically: there is is a uniform code which states that visible jewellery of any kind must not be worn. Members of staff who do not wear uniform for work are allowed to wear jewellery. A number of gullible, stupid and/or dishonest people have said that there is a ban on crosses, but that doesn't make it so, even if some of them are bishops or members of parliament (or both).
 
Geckko said:
At least I was given a laugh by the TV news report of the Stormount incident when the reporter seriously delivered to camera (while that psycho was dragged away in the background).

"Michael Stone was released from prison, where he was serving a sentance for murder, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. It is believed that he may have breached his conditions of release."

may... right... :)
Click to expand...

I enjoyed the speaker asking everyone to leave in a calm and orderly fashion. When (by the sounds of it) people weren't responding quickly enough, she added, 'or you can stay her and be bombed'.

That'll get your attention.
 
Darat said:
Then we have different views on what is irrational.
Click to expand...
OK. But wait a minute. If you define an act as "irrational" am I to suppose that you are therefore claiming that you can not (1) understand (2) predict or (3) influence this kind of act in others when you see it? If so, I fear your designation of this as irrational may leave you at a disadvantage.
 
acuity said:
OK. But wait a minute. If you define an act as "irrational" am I to suppose that you are therefore claiming that you can not (1) understand (2) predict or (3) influence this kind of act in others when you see it? If so, I fear your designation of this as irrational may leave you at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...

My definition of irrational is quite standard i.e. reasoning not based on fact or logic.
 
Darat said:
My definition of irrational is quite standard i.e. reasoning not based on fact or logic.
Click to expand...
So's mine.

So if you define an act as irrational would you claim that you can not (1) understand or (2) predict or (3) influence this kind of act in others when you see it?
 
acuity said:
So's mine.

So if you define an act as irrational would you claim that you can not (1) understand or (2) predict or (3) influence this kind of act in others when you see it?
Click to expand...

(1) Yes and no - I may be able to understand it in light of the reasons given by the person behaving in an irrational manner e.g. "I killed him because the voices in my head told me to."
(2) Again Yes and no - I may be able to say "This person will act like this in these circumstances because they hold irrational beliefs"
(3) Depends on what the irrationality is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom