Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Its what theyve got on the lot besides the normal KT vermillion and "Fire Engine reds" and the black, silver and white. Ill just have to settle for it. Its only till Saturday anyway.

Nice car! If you can afford it go for it If not keep thinking the way you have been thinking and you will be just fine! "You know the true meaning of conservative and not the one that is a ideology!"

Which must prove something I suppose.

Is there a man in the country who goes to such pathetic lengths to try to hide the obvious fact that he's a Mumsie's little gainsway at heart.

Geoffrey Gorer in The Americans elucidates the mysteries of the sons of pushy Mums and travelling salesmen fathers. The family business was in tea-cosies and cuddly toys.

He is supposed to have "testicular torsion" but I don't what that is if it isn't women having you by the balls.

He claims to hate the USA but he also claims to not believe anything he writes.

He's obviously an equipment fetishist so I assume he's an anti-IDer. He is divorced. And under the cosh at home. He only smokes for effect. He doesn't inhale.

I mentioned the other day my stubborn psychological residues. I'm afraid to say that Jemimah takes no part in them.

The thing is though he makes himself look good by surrounding himself with a couple of gits who are even bigger arseholes than him. I don't know if he's an anti id er, but a lot of people were. I think it was a mistake for Gordon Brown to even consider it. It gave the Con Dems a stick to beat Labour with. I always carry my driving licence with me anyway.

when you spoke of "Clarkson", did you mean Jeremy Clarkson? The autophiliac? We have two simlar old putz's named Tom and Ray Magliazzi who intermix auto technology with humor.
I love the ENglish version of "Top Gear". We tried it here in the US with several geeky gearheads. It failed misreably because their sense of humor was not allowed to creep up on you like the UK version. It lasted like 6 weeks and was dumped. (At least I hope it ws dumped).

I was, unfortunately I hate Top Gear. The reason I wrote about Clarkson and Jemimah Khan is because there's a load of hoo ha over here about superinjunctions. The court has stopped various tabloid newspapers from naming the names of premiership footballers and soap actors who have been shagging slappers. Someone went onto Twitter and supposedly defied a court order and named names. As I am in the UK I cannot name the names I have read on Twitter because I would be in contempt of court. I can name Clarkson and Khan because she went public to say that there are no incriminating photos of her and Clarkson. I'm quite pleased to hear it, because the mental images I have are bad enough.

Especially someone like Clarkson. He seems so "puffy" and self-impressed that imagining him as some kind of lothario is a big stretch of the imagination.

I googled the topic and Im somewhat puzzled. What is a "Super-injunction"? how does it differ from a court injunction?

I'm not sure but I think it is that ordinary injunctions may be mentioned in media so we can all go "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more", and SIs are not allowed that privilege so that we can't go "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more".

PS--I never carry ID of any sort about my person.

Actually the term super-injunction is a bit of a misnomer. These are just injunctions, although the term super injunction has been used as a general response to gagging orders by the gutter press. These stories are not really in the public interest and tend to be about the sex lives of the rich and famous.

The true superinjunction was taken out against the Guardian newspaper when they were investigating the activities of a loathsome company called Trafigura. Not only were the Guardian forbidden to print anything about Trafigura, they were forbidden from reporting that an injunction existed. That's why it's called a super injunction. See below, from the Guardian's archives.

The existence of a previously secret injunction against the media by oil traders Trafigura can now be revealed.

Within the past hour Trafigura's legal firm, Carter-Ruck, has withdrawn its opposition to the Guardian reporting proceedings in parliament that revealed its existence.

Labour MP Paul Farrelly put down a question yesterday to the justice secretary, Jack Straw. It asked about the injunction obtained by "Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton Report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura".

David Heath MP: 'The public have a right to know what is said in the House of Commons' Link to this audio The Guardian was due to appear at the High Court at 2pm to challenge Carter-Ruck's behaviour, but the firm has dropped its claim that to report parliament would be in contempt of court.

Here is the full text of Farrelly's question:

"To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura."

Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, welcomed the move. He said: "I'm very pleased that common sense has prevailed and that Carter-Ruck's clients are now prepared to vary this draconian injunction to allow reporting of parliament. It is time that judges stopped granting 'super-injunctions' which are so absolute and wide-ranging that nothing about them can be reported at all."

At Westminster earlier today urgent questions were tabled by the Liberal Democrats in an attempt to get an emergency debate about the injunction.

Bloggers were active this morning in speculating about what lay behind the ban on the Guardian reporting parliamentary questions. Proposals being circulated online included plans for a protest outside the offices of Carter-Ruck.

The ban on reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds appeared to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today's published Commons order papers contained Farrelly's question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian was initially prevented from identifying the MP who had asked the question, what the question was, which minister might answer it, or where the question was to be found.

The only fact the Guardian was able report was that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients including individuals and global corporations.

The media lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC said Lord Denning ruled in the 1970s that "whatever comments are made in parliament" can be reported in newspapers without fear of contempt.

He said: "Four rebel MPs asked questions giving the identity of 'Colonel B', granted anonymity by a judge on grounds of 'national security'. The DPP threatened the press might be prosecuted for contempt, but most published."

The right to report parliament was the subject of many struggles in the 18th century, with the MP and journalist John Wilkes fighting every authority – up to the king – over the right to keep the public informed. After Wilkes's battle, wrote the historian Robert Hargreaves, "it gradually became accepted that the public had a constitutional right to know what their elected representatives were up to".

Try not to be so direct . SO then, a super injunction is merely a court directed "Gag porder" against media coverage of an event??
Seems that the erosion of your rights are going along at a quicker pace than ours.

Spendius says

PS--I never carry ID of any sort about my person.

I'm sure you don't need to, you being a minor celebrity and all that.

I never think of myself as having rights fm. I see them as privileges. In that way I can honour those who won them for me whereas rights are something like the skin you are born with.

I don't for a moment think that your rights would survive any emergency just as my privileges wouldn't.

I find people standing on their rights to be exceedingly tiresome and vastly uneducated.

I think the idea that people freely elected to levy and disburse funds should be hamstrung by some mouldering old documents written for another time and place to be an abdication of responsibility and a safe place to hide.

The 27 ammendments tell the tale.

Farmerman says

Seems that the erosion of your rights are going along at a quicker pace than ours.

You may have a point there, but the gutter press' right to print which premiership footballer is cheating on his wife, with some slapper, isn't a right that I'm prepared to fight for.

No matter the high minded topics that NYT tries to hawk, we always come down to bin Laden's porn obsession.

He may have been a proponant of burping the worm, but at least he wasn't a gooner.

Jon Stewart did a segment on bin Ladens porn stash last evening.
It was entitled"weapons of Mass Turbation" and "News from al Jizzera"

I do watch him if there's nothing else on, but I don't find him really funny. They used to show the Colbert report over here, now that I found hilarious, but they stopped showing it about two years ago.

They have no right to publish anything. They are licenced. The system is subtle and a tweak in it is what is now in dispute. We should beware of the judiciary having more power over it than absolutely necessary. I certainly don't think that the opponents of super-injunctions have no arguments on their side. And it's obviously a serious argument from the amount of space it takes up just as the evolution argument obviously is for the same reason only much more so. Editors of large media outfits are quite important people.

Opponents of evolution lose their case, from any sort of humanist viewpoint, by their fanaticism. The evidence is out of their own mouths. I read a lot of it thinking that there's a bloody Calvinist trying to break the bonds of unimportance. The language they use betrays them. That the anti-evolutionists have no arguments is a dogma to them. A faith. When a sensible argument against teaching evolution is put to them they resort to pale echoes of how Calvin would have responded. Apart from once when fm mentioned some sort of government controlled intelligence realignment , or mental correction, centre, a sort of budding inquisition I suppose, for both the anti-evolutionists and the humanists who try to see both sides of the issues, both being as bad as each other but in different ways. The latter are, of course, their deadliest enemy. Reason is not to their liking just as it isn't to their opponents. The humanist is like a greasy bear. He didn't appear at Dover from the reports I saw.

They can't afford to put the pro-evolutionists on Ignore. They would have to deal with the humanists or shut up if they were to be so foolish. When I caught them izzy, you were in short pants A2Kwise. They were jumping with glee all over the fundies. Some lady with a nice username was providing them with big wide target at close range to sling their cliches at. It was a cuddly-motherly sort of username. I forget it. She couldn't defend herself and eventually left us in emotional circumstances.

I think it comes down to free will. Both Darwinism and Calvinism exclude free will.

I think Stewart is geared to Americans , whereas Colbert is a perfect "idiot" who is portraying the right wingers really to the max.

Sorry they took im off.

Stewart doesnt stop at humor. He sometimes gets rather ascerbic in his attacks of the "other guys" on TV.

And I dont think that youre not so unintelligent