From BBC News:
A French council has lodged a complaint against a fast food chain that serves only meat that conforms with Islamic dietary laws at a local branch. The mayor of Roubaix, in northern France, said the halal menu constituted "discrimination" against non-Muslims. The Roubaix branch is one of several restaurants at which the chain, Quick, took non-halal products and pork off the menu in November.

The move has triggered the latest row over France's Muslim minority. Several deputies from French President Nicolas Sarkozy's conservative UMP party have condemned the move, while Marine Le Pen, a vice-president of the far-right National Front, warned of "Islamisation". Their comments came ahead of regional elections in France next month, and against the backdrop of a debate over French national identity launched by Mr Sarkozy's government.

'Going too far'
In Roubaix, Mayor Rene Vandierendonck, a socialist, called for a boycott of the Quick branch, and the town council has filed a complaint for discrimination with a regional court in Lille. "I'm not bothered by the fact that there is a halal menu," Mr Vandierendonck said. "But this is going too far because it is the only menu on offer and it has become discrimination."

Quick decided to take a bacon hamburger off the menu at eight of its 350 branches, replacing it with a halal version that comes with smoked turkey. It said the move was designed to test the "commercial interest and technical feasibility" of introducing halal menus. The Quick manager responsible for the Roubaix branch said there had been a slight increase in business after the introduction of halal menus and that he had not received complaints from customers, AFP news agency reported.

France is home to Europe's biggest Muslim minority, estimated at more than five million people. Debate has recently focussed on the Islamic veil, with a French parliamentary committee recommending a partial ban on women wearing Islamic face veils last month.
---

This really fucks me off. By all means have halal meat for that bunch of pious Muslims who think they should be pandered to at every turn (oh, that would be all of them), but don't fucking force it on the rest of us!

In the UK we allow halal slaughter even though this goes against ALL our laws designed to prevent pain in animals. Why? Because our government are a bunch of vote-whoring fucktards. They allow halal slaughter to mollify the idiotic barbarisms of Islam. It needs to stop. It never used to be so prevalent, but when Labour got into power they started pandering to the minorities in return for votes. That isn't going to help them this time round...

From BBC News:
Ministers are being accused of caving into pressure from faith schools over sex and relationships education. The government is due to make sex and relationship lessons compulsory in England's schools from 2011 through a bill in Parliament next week. But pressure groups and the Liberal Democrats say a late amendment means faith schools will be able to teach it in line with their religious character. The government denied faith schools were being given an opt out.

In a statement on its website, the Catholic Education Service says the amendment was secured after a period of "extensive lobbying". It said the change would allow schools to teach the subject in accordance with their ethos. The body would not comment further on the amendment. Instead, it pointed to a document on its website which said teachers would need to act wisely, "mindful that the teachings of the Church must be upheld in our Catholic schools and the innocence of children preserved". It continued: "This must take place whilst also acknowledging pupils will often be encountering conflicting messages from external sources. This is an example of where good teaching will need to respond to the maturity of children and the environment in which they live, coupled with respect for the dignity of all human persons, upholding the Church's teachings."

Under the plans, all schools are to be required to teach children aged seven to 11 about relationships including marriage, same sex and civil partnerships, divorce and separation under Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education. Secondary school pupils are to learn about sexual activity, reproduction, contraception as well as same sex relationships. Clauses in the Children, Schools and Families Bill require schools to cover these issues in an "accurate and balanced" way, reflecting a reasonable range of religious, cultural and other perspectives and the religious and cultural backgrounds of the school's pupils.

The subject is also to be taught in a way that promotes equality, accepts diversity and emphasises both rights and responsibilities, the Bill says. This requirement could have been problematic for schools governed by religions that are specifically opposed to homosexuality and contraception. But an amendment to the Bill, tabled by the Education Secretary Ed Balls, suggests these principles could be diluted by head teachers and governing bodies of faith schools, so that teaching reflects a "school's religious character".

'Homophobic'
A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families denied faith schools would be able to opt out of statutory sex and relationship lessons when they come into effect in September 2011. "All maintained schools and academies will be required to teach the full programmes of study in line with the principles outlined in the Bill including promoting equality and encouraging acceptance of diversity," he said. "Schools with a religious character will be free, as they are now, to express the views of their faith and reflect the ethos of their school, but what they cannot do is suggest that their views are the only ones. The bottom line is that all young people must by law receive accurate and balanced information so that they can make informed, positive choices."

But Liberal Democrat Children's spokesman David Laws said the amendment was "a serious and undesirable U-turn" by Mr Balls. "The government has already given an opt-out from sex and relationship education up to age 15. This looks like it will further water down the information which all young people should be entitled to before they reach the age of consent."

'Violated'
The Accord Coalition - which calls for an end to what it sees as religious discrimination in school staffing and admissions - also criticised the amendment. Its spokesman Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain said: "It is astonishing that the government plans to deny young people of their right to accurate, balanced PSHE and Sex and Relationships Education (SRE), and allow state-funded schools to teach the subject from one religious viewpoint."

Chief executive of the British Humanist Association Andrew Copson said the amendment effectively gave a licence to faith schools to teach SRE in ways that were homophobic, gender discriminatory and violated principles of human rights. They both called on Mr Balls to withdraw the amendment.
---

So, Catholic schools lobbied extensively? And what exactly were they lobbying for? Yes, that's right - the legal right to discriminate based on their religious views. And, given that they are "specifically opposed to homosexuality and contraception", it would seem that they lobbied for the right to continue to be specifically opposed to homosexuality and contraception. This is not balanced education. Religious schools are a blight on our education system. We are legally separating children based on the religion of their parents, and teaching them that they are different (superior) to people of other faiths. And then we have bishops, archbishops and other random levels of church hierarchy saying we need to be more inclusive and accepting of others! That smacks of hypocrisy.

I like how the Catholic church says, "respect for the dignity of all human persons". Yeah, unless you happen to be homosexual, or in favour of using contraception... In those cases you are merely someone the church doesn't care about specifically because you go against the teachings of their church and dogma. Doublespeak, pure and simple.

I think we need to stop supporting faith schools. If you wasnt a faith school, then you pay for it. If you want to use state funds, then you need to teach what the state wants you to teach. If that means you don't get to discriminate then that's what happens. I'm fed up of religious schools. Absolutely fed up. I went to a CofE school, and I was excused from the 'daily act of worship' because I simply didn't believe in it. Granted, our sex education was a bit lame back then, but I turned out fine. And I managed to finish school without being a God-bothering, sandal-wearing, discriminatory, pious little pratt which is what religious schools want.

From BBC News:
Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers - known as Kirpans - to school and other public places, Britain's first Asian judge has said. There have been a number of cases of Sikhs being refused entry to venues because they wear the Kirpan or other religious artefacts.

Sir Mota Singh QC, who is retired, has criticised schools over the issue. "Not allowing someone who is baptised to wear a Kirpan is not right," Sir Mota told BBC Asian Network.

'No objection'
Last year, a Sikh police officer, who had been told to remove his turban during riot training, won a discrimination case against Greater Manchester Police. A schoolboy was also banned from wearing his Kirpan at the Compton School in Barnet, north London. And, in 2008, 14-year-old Sarika Singh won a High Court case against her school after it excluded her for breaking its "no jewellery" rule for wearing a Kara (steel bangle), which is another symbol of Sikh faith. The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

"I see no objection to a young Sikh girl or boy, who's been baptised, being allowed to wear their Kirpan if that's what they want to do," said Sir Mota, who received a knighthood in the 2010 New Year Honours list. "I wear my Kirpan and I've always worn it for the last 35 to 40 years, even when I was sitting in court or visiting public buildings, including Buckingham Palace." Sir Mota, who is now retired, added: "I think these are issues that can be dealt with with a certain amount of sensitivity.

"The girl not allowed to wear the Kara is a petty thing for the administrators to have done and it doesn't do them any good. It is the right of every young girl and boy to be educated at the school of their choice. For him or her to be refused admission on that sort of ground, as far as I'm concerned, is quite wrong. It ought not to happen but it does. I think it's wrong to be discriminated against for that reason."

The Compton School offered the boy the option of wearing a smaller knife, welded into a metal sheath, but his parents refused and withdrew him - an action by the family that Sir Mota said he supported. He later told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "But on the other hand, I am also conscious of the health and safety position. I accept that, because I think as one realises the increase in crimes of violence involving the use of knives and other offensive weapons, I can see that. But there has been no reported case, certainly none that I know of, of a Sikh using a knife in order to cause injury."

'Worn discreetly'
Asked about the possibility of substituting a smaller knife in place of the traditional Kirpan, the judge said that might be an option for debate between school and Sikh authorities. But he told Today: "It's a little more than ceremonial. It's a requirement of the religion."

In Sikhism, the Kirpan and Kara are two of the five "articles of faith" that must be carried at all times by baptised Sikhs. The others are Kesh (unshorn hair), Kara, Kanga (comb) and Kacha (special underwear). The Kirpan is carried in a sheath attached to a cloth belt. It is normally worn discreetly under clothes and most people would be unaware that a person was carrying one.

Guidelines from the department for Children, Schools and Families indicate it is up to individual governing bodies to make their own policy on the carrying of the Kirpan, and if challenged, it would then be up to the courts.

Dabinderjit Singh is an adviser to the Sikh Federation UK and he says he regularly receives calls from worried Sikh parents whose children have been prevented from wearing the Kirpan at school and in public areas. Although Sikhs carrying the Kirpan are exempt from prosecution under the offensive weapons act, Mr Singh believes objections about the ceremonial dagger have increased following the September 11 attacks and instances of knife crime. "There have been problems for Sikhs going to tourist attractions," he explained. "Part of it is education. We're actually working with the government to introduce a code of practice which would then be used to educate people in the security industry so they are aware of the different articles of faith," Mr Singh told the BBC Asian Network.

Campaign groups such as United Sikhs and the Sikh Federation UK have welcomed Sir Mota's comments over issues which the judge himself has not had to encounter during his career.

'No eyebrows raised'
Sir Mota was raised in Nairobi, Kenya, before coming to England in 1954 in order complete his studies in law. He joined the English bar in 1967 and made headlines with his appointment to the bench in 1982 when he wore a white turban in court instead of a wig. "The fact that I'm a Sikh matters more to me than anything else," he said. "If, for instance, when I was appointed the suggestion had been made that I could not appear unless I wore a wig and discarded my turban, I would have refused. I would have said I would not accept the appointment, but the question never arose and no judicial eyebrows were raised at all."
---

You know what? It's a knife. If you allow children to take a knife to school, they may not use it, but someone else might. That is enough reason to ban children from wearing it at school. You are sending your child to SCHOOL. Just because they are religious, it does not mean they should be allowed to flout common sense and the safety rules that are designed to keep all children safe.

Just last week a Muslim man walked into an elementary school in the US with a knife. Because of that, all doors at elementary schools over there are now being locked during lessons. This is designed to protect children. Wearing a KIFE to school is NOT safe.

I'm really not surprised that a Sikh judge has called for them to be allowed; he's a Sikh. You don't hear a Muslim calling for the Sikh kirpan to be allowed in school, do you? Ann Widdecombe hasn't called for them to be allowed. Religious people want their own religion put ahead of the law of the land. Religion does not deserve respect; it must earn it. Kirpans should NOT be allowed in schools because they are DANGEROUS! Would my child be allowed to take a steak knife to work because my (just made-up) religion says they must carry a steak knife around with them everywhere? No.

From BBC News:
A secularist group has lodged an official complaint against Cherie Booth QC after she spared a man from prison because he was religious.

Shamso Miah, 25, of Redbridge, east London, broke a man's jaw following a row in a bank queue.

Sitting as a judge, Ms Booth - wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair - said she would suspend his sentence on the basis of his religious belief.

The National Secular Society claims her attitude was discriminatory and unjust.

'Acceptable behaviour'
Inner London Crown Court heard that Miah, 25, of Redbridge, east London, went into a bank in East Ham and became embroiled in a dispute with Mohammed Furcan about who was next in the queue. Miah - who had just been to a mosque - punched Mr Furcan inside the bank, and again outside the building.

Ms Booth told Miah that violence had to be taken seriously, but said she would suspend his prison sentence because he was a religious person and had not been in trouble before. She added: "You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour."

The National Secular Society has complained to the Office for Judicial Complaints, suggesting that Mrs Blair acted in an unjust and discriminatory way, and suggesting that she might have treated a non-religious person less leniently.
---

Yet another example of how religion is breaking down our society. If I, as a total non-theist, broke a man's jaw you can be pretty certain I'd get sent to prison. It s ONE RULE FOR ALL.

This man got a suspended sentence because he's religious?! Hey, Cherie Booth, I hate to have to point this out to you given that you're apparently quite intelligent, but he was religious when he broke the man's jaw! His religion didn't stop him from breaking someone's face!

Hitler was a Catholic, so should he be let off his crimes? No. Tony Blair (your husband) is (now) a Catholic. Should he be let off his crimes? NO.

This picture comes from this article at The Guardian. It has been, erm, slightly modified by me.

Darkpaw attacks Pope over being an old, ignorant fuckwit
From BBC News:
The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal". Pope Benedict XVI said the legislation "violates natural law" and could end the right of the Catholic Church to ban gay people from senior positions.

The Pope has confirmed he will come to the UK this year, the first papal visit since John Paul II in 1982.

The government said the bill, which is currently going through Parliament, would make the UK a fairer place.

'Unjust limitations'
The Pope told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales gathered in Rome: "Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

Gay rights charity Stonewall condemned the Pope's comments, saying equality had to apply to everyone.

Senior parliamentary officer Jonathan Finney told BBC 5 live: "People should not be denied access to services and employment purely because they are gay... We've got to guard against sweeping exemptions seeming to protect one person's freedom, which actually really impact on other people's." He added: "What you can't start doing is saying that religious people have hard-won freedoms, we'll now restrict those, we won't give them to gay people, we won't give them to women."

Religious leaders have voiced concern that the Equality Bill could force churches to employ sexually active gay people and transsexuals when hiring staff other than priests or ministers.

No official itinerary has yet been drawn up for the Pope's visit but officials at the Vatican and in the UK told the BBC it was likely to take place in September. A spokesman for the Catholic Communications Network said further details were expected in early March. The pontiff is expected to visit Birmingham - as part of the planned beatification of Cardinal John Newman - and Scotland.

'Ill-informed claim'
The National Secular Society said it would mount a protest campaign made up of gay groups, victims of clerical abuse, feminists, family planning organisations and pro-abortion groups among others. President Terry Sanderson said: "The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of some £20m for the visit of the Pope - a visit in which he has already indicated he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination."

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the Pope's comments were a "coded attack on the legal rights granted to women and gay people". His ill-informed claim that our equality laws undermine religious freedom suggests that he supports the right of churches to discriminate in accordance with their religious ethos," he said. "He seems to be defending discrimination by religious institutions and demanding that they should be above the law."

But Catholic MP Ann Widdecombe said: "This isn't a debate about homosexuality, this is a debate about religious freedom." She told BBC Radio 5 live: "If a faith teaches, as major faiths do, that something is wrong, then quite clearly you cannot have somebody who believes that it's right actually occupying a very senior position. That we have accepted as natural justice for a very long time." She added: "Nobody else is saying that the teachings of the Catholic Church should influence what non-Catholics do - this is about allowing Catholics to pursue their own faith."

Robert Mickens, Rome correspondent at the Catholic newspaper The Tablet, said the Pope's position was "nothing really new - this is part of the classic Catholic teaching on human sexuality". What the Pope is doing is trying to encourage the bishops to keep their resolve in very fluctuating morals in cultures and societies today."

'Prejudiced employers'
He added: "It's not that the Pope is wading so much into the particulars of British society or British law - I think this is very much a piece of his longstanding teaching."

Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who sits on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said all Britons - including Catholics and gay people - were protected by UK equality laws. "Religious people can be reassured that there is nothing in the Equality Bill which imposes gay priests on religions, but it does protect the general workforce from prejudiced employers," he said.

A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said: "The Pope acknowledges our country's firm commitment to equality for all members of society. We believe everyone should have a fair chance in life and not be discriminated against. The Equality Bill will make Britain a fairer and more equal place."
---

Let's take a look at what the old bastard has said: "In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed." Now, is homosexuality natural? Yes. It is seen all over the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is merely one part of the whole spectrum of human sexuality. The Pope cannot claim that homosexuality is unnatural, since it exists in NATURE. If anything, the clothes he's wearing are unnatural - they don't exist in nature. Hospitals are unnatural. Cars are unnatural (and therefore so is the Pope-Mobile). The palace he lives in is unnatural. FUCKING CATHOLICISM ISN'T NATURAL!!!

Are we surprised that Ann Widdecombe is siding with the Pope? After all, she's a Catholic.

Could you imagine what would happen if a company decided not to employ Catholics? There would be outrage. I mean, Catholicism is a choice. You believe it and treat it as your way of life. Non-Catholics subscribe to other beliefs and other ways of living. What makes Catholicism, and "religious freedoms" so special? What makes them more equal than everything else? Nothing. Religion should earn respect, not be given it gratis.

I see it's going to cost us £20mn to have this old bastard visit this country? Well, how about he pays for it himself? How about he refunds us the £20mn cost of policing HIM? After all, he sits atop a vast pot of money. £20mn is small change - probably not even as much as they have to pay out every week in compensation to victims of people in their particular religious cult.

The Pope is an old fart. That he is trying to sway the politics in our country is a vile intrusion that must be stopped. If a bishop is sitting in Parliament, then that bishop's FIRST duty is to THIS nation and to the people of THIS nation. Their duty is not to the Pope. Fucking old bastard.

Go here for 1m 20s of fun involving the Pope and a random woman who attacked him. Brings a smile to my face every time I see it.

From The Telegraph:
A Christian police group which believes that the power of prayer can help catch criminals has been given a £10,000 Home Office grant to fight crime. The Christian Police Association (CPA) was handed the one-off cash payment to help publicise its message, which includes encouraging members of the public to pray that criminals are swiftly brought to justice. The group believes that praying can help police to solve crimes, protect officers from injury on duty and reduce anti-social behaviour.

The cash helped the group launch the CoAct project - which encourages Christians and police to help fight crime together and even provides a set of guidelines advising people what to pray for.

The guidelines include praying for:
* Neighbourhood police officers and frontline police
* Success in preventing and detecting crime
* Catching offenders and bringing them to justice
* Sick and injured officers
* Officers to 'resist corruption' and to be able to 'relax' when they are off duty
* Local streets or housing estates plagued by crime - they are told to pray for 'God's peace and protection' for the area
* A reduction in crime

The guidelines also suggest that worshippers find out about trouble hotspots in their area and pray for their salvation.

The CoAct website states: "Do some research, read local newspapers, talk to your Neighbourhood Police Officer, check out the police web site, find out the trouble hot spots, listen to local radio and TV news and use relevant items as prayer fuel.

"Be informed when praying and be specific. As you find out about a particular issue, continue to pray about every aspect of it. Keep praying and keep watching. It is important to let groups know you are praying."

Asked whether the power of prayer could help reduce crime or be used to solve crime, a spokesman for the CPA said: "There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that prayer may help to reduce crime and community tension."

Its website adds: "Praying specifically for your local policing situation may well bring tangible results. Individuals and churches in neighbourhoods can, so to speak, ‘adopt a cop’ by praying for specific officers, staff and teams at their local police station, as well as places and issues, and so offer that prayerful support. Specifically find out the names of your local neighbourhood policing team and commit to praying for them." Don Axcell, the executive director of the 2,000-strong CPA and a retired sergeant for the Met, told Police Review today (Thurs): "In one particular area, an officer was investigating an incident but he had not been able to apprehend a suspect. He encouraged a church to pray for him and within days a suspect had been arrested and charged.

"In another area, an officer encouraged churches to pray about domestic burglary and over the year it came down by 30 per cent.

"We do not discount good police work, which is why we call it circumstantial evidence."
---

Someone is given cash for merely BELIEVING that prayer can reduce crime? One might go so far as to link the reduction in crime to the fact that those people committing the crimes might now, possibly, be sat in a room somewhere praying. I mean, why bother committing crime at all if you're given £10,000? (Kind of parallels with PM Gordon Brown's wish to give $500mn to the Afghan government to buy off the Taliban.)

Seriously though, why does a group need to be given £10,000? Can't they just pray? Do they need to be given taxpayers' money to publicise their claims?

If I believe that prayer *doesn't* reduce crime, then can I have £10,000 to publicise my message? Clearly not.

Also, I was beaten up by three Asian men last July. None of them have been caught. With all this extra cash this group has to spread their idea, I can be sure of these three cowards being brought to justice any day now, right? Right?

From TUAW:
Despite all odds, the Mac has survived to its 26th birthday.

On January 24th, 1984, Steve Jobs pulled a 128K Mac out of its case in front of a crowd of reporters, turned it on, and let the computer introduce itself to the world. The rest, as they say, is history.

We've seen our favorite computer go from an awkward infancy, to almost dying in its teens, and now being a profitable prodigy in adulthood.

It has spawned a popular family of siblings, from the iPod series of media players to the iPhone. Somehow, it's fitting that we may see the birth of the newest member of the family later this week.

Watching the "Story of Macintosh" video in the past few weeks has introduced the young minds behind the first Mac to most of the current generation. For those of us who are a bit older, the video served as a reminder of the brash individuals who created a computer that still speaks to those who "Think Different."

Here's hoping that the Mac and all of its family may live a long and fruitful life.

From BBC News:
Churches have warned new equality laws could force them to go against their faith when hiring staff. They say the Equality Bill may force them to employ sexually active gay people and transsexuals when hiring staff other than priests or ministers. Churches currently have special status allowing them to turn down certain candidates for ministers or priests.

The government says it is not trying to narrow the churches' ability to employ lay people who share their values. The Equality Bill - which is due to be debated in the House of Lords on Monday - would allow churches to avoid appointing homosexuals to clerical roles.

'Special status'
However, bishops claim that they could lose the right to ensure other important staff - such as key representative and teaching roles - had lifestyles compatible with church beliefs. Anglican bishops have written to members of the House of Lords, appealing to them to vote against what they see as a weakening of the churches' special status under the Equality Bill. Churches are allowed to turn down candidates for jobs as ministers or priests if they are actively homosexual or have changed their gender, or especially relevant to the Roman Catholic Church, if they are women. That exemption currently extends to key staff such as youth workers or the heads of Catholic schools, but the bishops claim that changes proposed by the government would remove it.

The government says it is not trying to narrow the churches' ability to employ lay people who share their values, but bishops have been recruiting allies in the Lords for a protracted battle over the bill.
---

" Churches fear Equality Bill will conflict with faith" - Yes. That's the good thing about equality. No one is allowed to discriminate, and the fucking Church needs to understand that.

How can we be in the 21st century and still have legal discrimination? Should the Church be allowed to discriminate against people because of their colour? No. We wouldn't accept that. That would be racism. The Catholic Cult can discriminate against someone because of the gender. I find this absolutely stupid. No one has the right to discriminate legally.

Or maybe we should allow the Church to discriminate - perhaps that will push more and more people away from them? If I were in a position to employ people would I be allowed to say, "No, because you're gay you can't have a job that has nothing to do with your sexuality"? No, of course I wouldn't. Why should churches get away with it? Because they have a book written hundreds of years ago that tells them to discriminate? Well, what a load of fucking tosh. Believe what the fuck you like but don't you dare use your unprovable beliefs to get your own way. No fucking more!

I call for a massive revolution in the UK. I call for people to totally ignore churches. I call for politicians to stop pandering to the whimsy of religious dickwads. I call upon my fellow countrymen (and women, and gays, and lesbians etc.) to take a stand against the Church. They are a bunch of idiots. Do all you can to ignore them. Slam the door in the face of religious callers. Don't buy anything from shops that are run by religious people (mainly corner shops). Actively choose not to employ someone who is religious. Don't use any tradesperson who follows a religion.

There are so many reasons to hate religion, and very few to like it. Does the Haiti earthquake prove there's no god? Yes. An all-loving, merciful god wouldn't allow that to happen, but it did. Fuck gods!

Edlington attack boys had 'toxic' upbringing
From BBC News:
Two brothers who brutally attacked two young boys witnessed serious domestic violence against their mother and had a "toxic home life", a court has heard. The brothers, aged 10 and 11 at the time, attacked their victims in Edlington, South Yorkshire, last April. Peter Kelson QC, representing the older brother, told Sheffield Crown Court the boys' father threatened to slice their mother's face "to bits" with a knife. The court heard the boys were also shown "extreme" horror films.

The sentencing hearing, which is expected to conclude on Friday, was adjourned for a short time after the younger brother became distressed. The boy put his head on the desk in front of him and cried as Mr Kelson began to outline the brothers' violent upbringing.

The judge, Mr Justice Keith, has heard how the brothers threatened to kill their victims, then aged nine and 11, stamped on them and attacked them with broken glass, bricks and sticks. One victim was forced to strip naked and perform a sex act and a metal ring was used to strangle one boy.

The brothers have admitted causing grievous bodily harm with intent. They have also each pleaded guilty to robbing one of the boys of a mobile phone and the other of cash and have admitted two counts of intentionally causing a child to engage in sexual activity.

'Gruesome movies'
The boys' mother, who has seven sons including the two defendants, described to a consultant psychiatrist being subjected to serious violence by their father. Mr Kelson described one incident when her partner said he would "take a knife to her and slice her face to bits". He added: "These threats were made in front of the children." The barrister said his client's upbringing could be summarised by a reference in one report to his "toxic home life". Mr Kelson said his client had been shown horror films at his home when he was as young as 10. He said the films were "extremely violent" and "gruesome movies in the extreme". The barrister said the boy also had access to his father's pornographic DVDs. Mr Kelson said his client would also drink cider, had 10 cigarettes a day and smoked cannabis grown on his father's allotment from the age of nine.

A BBC investigation has already revealed the two attackers were well-known troublemakers and that social services were heavily involved in their lives. A Safeguarding Children Board report, seen by BBC Newsnight, found the attack could have been prevented. Mr Kelson said he did not want to blame the state for the older brother's behaviour but said he had been "let down repeatedly". He added: "Children, young children, should be protected from themselves and the failure here is that nobody ever seems to have protected (the older brother) from himself and (the victims) have all suffered so terribly."

The hearing was adjourned until Friday.
---

Oh, boo hoo. Poor little kids. Nothing to do, eh? Bad upbringing? So what the FUCK gives you the right to nearly kill two young boys? NOTHING. I hope these two are sentenced to life in prison. Unfortunately, it seems they would be out before their 18th birthdays and given anonymity for the remainder of their lives. Why? Why are we protecting these evil little bastards? Let 'em rot in prison. They are notsafe to be in the community.