The Unbearable Rightness of Ian

Geeky Sci-Fi Meme

2005-10-18T10:27:00.000+01:00

Saw this on Pharyngula. It's the list of the most influential sci-fi films. The ones I've seen are in bold.

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension!
Akira
Alien
Aliens
Alphaville
Back to the Future
Blade Runner
Brazil
Bride of Frankenstein
Brother From Another Planet
A Clockwork Orange
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Contact
The Damned
Destination Moon
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Delicatessen
Escape From New York
ET: The Extraterrestrial
Flash Gordon: Space Soldiers (serial)
The Fly (1985 version)
Forbidden Planet
Ghost in the Shell
Gojira/Godzilla
The Incredibles
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 version)
Jurassic Park
Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior
The Matrix
Metropolis
On the Beach
Planet of the Apes (1968 version)
Robocop
Sleeper
Solaris (1972 version)
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
The Stepford Wives
Superman
Terminator 2: Judgement Day
The Thing From Another World
Things to Come
Tron
12 Monkeys
28 Days Later
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
2001: A Space Odyssey
La Voyage Dans la Lune
War of the Worlds (1953 version)

Quite a few to go, but I'm getting there!

The Ape That Got Lucky

2005-08-27T14:34:00.000+01:00

Great Radio 4 show on at the moment. Unfortunately, the last one has just aired, but you can still listen to it online. It's called The Ape That Got Lucky, and it's a comedy documentary on human evolution. It's Bioanth Comedy!

ID in the Classroom

2005-08-25T19:29:00.000+01:00

Not sure if this person is a secret ID enthusiast, or just a bit wrong.

one of the best ways to explain any theory and its historical significance is usually through contrast and comparison. We must explain what other beliefs exist to explain an observation, and why one is better than another, or why certain beliefs should not be considered scientific by the students. If you don’t tell them what “Intelligent Design” means, they won’t ever know why they should not believe it.

I see where he's coming from with this. Saying "I will not have such talk in my classroom" is not a good solution. However, there is no scientific merit whatsoever in ID, and putting it in the science classroom is wrong for that reason. If ID was going to be taught in science, it would have to be a half hour thorough debunking. And not only that, it would have to come at the very end of the course, and even that might not be good enough. Some of the claims of ID are relatively easy to prove wrong in very simple, layman's terms. However, some of the claims require a good grasp of what are actually quite complex ideas. I suppose each lesson could conclude with "what today's lesson disproves about ID," but in the end it should not be necessary for teachers to have to waste time on debunking claims that are put out by religiously- and politically-motivated individuals and organisations, without a shred of evidence or research.

Even if this was put into the classroom, I doubt that it would satisfy the ID crowd. They would merely be enraged that kids were being "indoctrinated" against their "science". Or told why it's not a science and is utterly wrong, in other words. Also, the ID crowd want equal time dedicated to their claims, which would be disastrous, as there is not enough time to cover more than a tiny scratching at the surface of the mounds of empirical and scientific evidence for evolution in schools as it is. Maybe schools could put on an extra, optional lesson after school to explain why the ID bunch are a load of charlatains and ignorami. Don't think that would go down too well with the parents in the fundie American neighbourhoods where teaching ID is actually considered a plausible course of action. Or teachers could just give out the addresses of Pharyngula, The Panda's Thumb and Talk.Origins.

Siani

2005-08-25T19:24:00.000+01:00

Check out Sian's new blog. Observations on the world and the interweb.

Soggy Biscuit

2005-08-25T18:22:00.000+01:00

For all those rugby players out there, here's an amusing if rather disgusting vid of a teenage geek teaching you how to play soggy biscuit.

Faith Schools

2005-08-25T17:15:00.000+01:00

A poll in the Guardian shows that over 2 thirds of the British public are opposed to more state-funded faith schools. This is reassuring. Faith schools do little more than what normal, secular state schools do. They achieve better results in some areas. This is unsurprising, of course, because they are essentially selective. They are allowed to turn away pupils on the basis that they are of the wrong faith, if they are over-subscribed. Of course, this provides a perfect excuse for problematic and underachieving pupils to be turned away, leaving the other state schools to soak up the surplus of these problematic pupils. This leads to a two-tier education system, with the faith school being the one that everyone wants to get their kids into. Obviously, not all faith schools are run this way, but I would certainly say that it is this phenomenon that causes the relatively high performance of faith schools, rather than anything to do with having faith involved in education.

Another problem with faith schools is that they have the potential to further increase the segregation and ghettoisation that already occurs in many of our inner cities. Despite the fact that some pupils are admitted to faith schools without being of the "right faith," the overwhelming majority will be of a particular faith. This problem is likely to be exacerbated massively if other faiths are allowed to open state-funded faith schools. Even if (as the Tory candidate for Cambridge once told me during an argument in a pub) they are told that they have to admit a certain percentage of pupils from other faiths or no faith, I should imagine that it would be extremely unlikely that they would attract enough applicants from outside the main community. How many Christians are likely to want to send their children to a Muslim school, for example? This will leave the authorities with two choices. Firstly, they could accept that no-one else wants to go to the school and allow it to become a fully segregated school. Secondly, they could attempt to force people to attend the school against their wishes, which certainly seems like a bad idea, and is hardly in line with New Labour's love affair with choice. Even if extremism is not taught in these schools (I actually think that it is unlikely that Islamic state schools would promote extremism), the very existence of these schools as segregated establishments will only serve to reduce the amount of social cohesion in society, reduce the understanding between communities and therefore lead to increased suspicion and hate. If we are to build a society in which people respect each other and get along, segregation is a very poor way of going about it. I Muslims and other minority groups think it unfair that they do not get their own schools when Christians do, I would suggest that it would be far more sensible to abolish all faith-schools and return them all to secularism than to increase the number of faith-schools of other communities. This would reduce segregation and do something towards dismantling the two-tier education system.

However, Blair seems inclined to continue down this path, as some kind of appeasement to the Muslim community. It also suits Blair to increase the role of faith in education because, as JudgeMonkey notes over at The MonkeyHouse, we may be underestimating the role that religion plays in the way Blair runs the country. Notice the city academy debacle, with evangelical Christians setting up schools, financed by the tax-payer, in order to teach creationism, and literal interpretations of the bible. Maybe this explains why he gets on so well with Bush.

If Computer Games Were Real

2005-08-25T17:11:00.000+01:00

By KFR42 on B3TA.com

--------------------------------------------------------------

Update: It seems blogger doesn't like the gif very much. Click on the link to see the original in all its glory!

America We Stand As One

2005-08-23T14:35:00.000+01:00

This is the worst song ever, and the worst video ever. I was convinced it was a hoax until I heard an interview with the "artist" and now I'm fairly sure it's real. Have a look, and witness the horror.

Theory of Everything

2005-08-18T18:39:00.000+01:00

Been listening to a great podcast called Benjamen Walker's Theory of Everything. It's a great mix of comedy, philosophy, topical observations and just general weirdness. Had people thinking I'm a crazy recently though, because I've been walking down the street laughing to myself. Got a funny look from a couple of French tourists yesterday because I was walking past them just as he started talking about making a new penis out of cottage cheese, a slinky and a hairdryer, causing me to laugh like a simpleton. Check it out.

Galloway Says Something Sensible

2005-08-18T18:22:00.000+01:00

It was revealed yesterday that the police's initial version of the events that led to Jean Charles de Menezes being shot 7 times in the head was untrue. Leaked documents from the investigation showed that de Menezes was wearing a denim jacket, not a heavy coat so would be unlikely to be concealing explosives. He did not leap the barriers, but used his oyster card to get through. He was never told to stop by the police, but was simply grabbed and shot in the head. He was being restrained at the time of the shooting, so could not have set off any explosives if he had had any in the first place. The officer who started the whole chain of events off did not even get a proper look at him. To cap it all off, Ian Blair, the met police commissioner, tried to stop an investigation being carried out. You can see Channel 4 News' take on it here.

George Galloway, in a letter in today's Guardian writes:

If the original story we were spun had had some truth in it, then it could have been argued the police might have had some excuse for shooting Jean Charles in what was a tragic accident. But if the statements that have been leaked are true, serious consequences must follow

Absolutely. If police had good reason to think he had a bomb and, when confronted by police, jumped a barrier and ran onto a crowded underground train, the police may have had good reason to stop him at all costs. However, a man going about his ordinary business, obviously without a bomb and having never been warned, being shot in the head is a completely different situation. It seems a string of failures led to the death of an innocent man and then the police tried to cover it up. It is hard to see how the police can avoid some kind of comeback on this shocking situation.

Cambridge Better than Oxford: Official!

2005-08-18T18:17:00.000+01:00

Cambridge has risen from 3rd to 2nd in the list of the best university in the world, overtaking Stanford and losing out only to Harvard. Oxford was the 2nd best UK university, but dropped from 8th to 10th. My other alma mater came in as the 4th best in the UK, 26th in the world.

A Bit of a Buerk

2005-08-16T21:43:00.000+01:00

Michael Buerk has had a big whinge about the increased status of women in modern society (1 2 3 4). He complains that women now have too much power and that "the pendulum has swung too far the other way." I agree that in some cases this might be true. There is some evidence, for example, that the increased success of girls in school has been a result of changing teaching and examination methods. Girls tend to do better at coursework, and boys better at written examinations, for example, and there has been an increase in the amount of coursework and a decrease in the importance of written exams. However, Buerk does not make these points. He seems to go off on random pet peeves, complaining that "almost all the big jobs in broadcasting were held by women - the controllers of BBC One television and Radio 4 for example. These are the people who decide what we see and hear." Two high-level executives does not equal a female conspiracy. Someone has to be in these jobs, and those people can either be men or women. Why should it not be women? I really fail to see why it is so distressing to Michael Buerk to see women with successful careers.

He also complains that the majority of middle managers are women. I don't know whether or not this is true. If it is, however, it could just as easily be the result of women failing to get into upper management positions, because of family commitments or other factors, and therefore hitting a ceiling at the middle management stage. I have worked for women in several jobs, and do not have a problem with this. In fact, women are often more approachable and understanding than men in such roles.

He complains that men are losing their place in society and, to an extent, this is true. Men are no longer the main breadwinners in many households, and are losing many of their other traditional roles. However, this should not necessarily be seen as a crisis. It would be much more constructive for men to adapt to meet the demands of the modern world than to sit there complaining about being left behind. Men would do better to learn to appreciate many of the opportunities that are being opened up. For example, the role of father is a much more diverse role than it once was, and the role that men can play in the lives of their children potentially much richer and more rewarding.

It is true that if legislation or other societal rules are restricting the rights of men, then this must be resolved. We should not begrudge women the freedoms that they earn, however and should instead take control of our own destiny. It must not be taboo to discuss the rights and responsibilities of men and women in modern society, as dismissing the genuine concerns of people never helps anyone, but we men must find a way to adapt to a changing world.

The Empire Pays Back

2005-08-16T13:35:00.000+01:00

Last night, on Channel 4, there was a programme called The Empire Pays Back, in which Dr Robert Beckford argued that the descendents of slaves should be financially compensated for the injustices of the slave trade. He put together a team of an actuary, a compensation lawyer and a historian to calculate how much should be paid. The figure they came up with included unpaid wages, compensation, and the profits and economic growth resulting from the slave trade. The figure was around Â£2.5trillion, approximately double the GDP of the UK. He argued that this money should be used to compensate Africa, and to invest in community, education and other services for the black British community. Unfortunately, however, Beckford was wrong on just about every point he made. He was right about one thing: the slave trade was bad. However, slavery and empire are not unique evils of the British Empire. More or less every civilisation in history, and certainly every large, powerful civilisation has done exactly the same thing. The Romans had an empire and slaves, as did the Greeks, the Arabs (including white slaves from Europe), and even the African nations and tribes at the time. Britain was not the only empire to have had slavery and imperialism, it was just the biggest and quite recent. In fact, some African nations still have slavery today, and many of the slaves that were shipped across the Atlantic were in fact sold to the slavers by Africans. Therefore, Africans were just as guilty as the British. Beckford does address this issue in his programme. However, he glosses over it, and makes the case (in the approximately 5 seconds that he dedicated to the point) that African nations probably did not benefit from the slave trade in the long term, and therefore cannot be expected to pay compensation. However, his compensation figure was not calculated solely on the long-term benefit to the British economy, but also included compensation for injury, death, mistreatment, unpaid wages etc. The African slave traders were just as complicit in these aspects of the suffering of the slaves as the British slave traders.

The British Empire was in fact the first major empire to ban slavery from all its colonies, in 1834, and then forced this on other nations. By the mid-19th century, Britain had largely eradicated the world slave trade. This date is also important, as it is 172 years ago, approximately 7 generations. This means that there is not a single person alive today who has ever been a slave in Britain, or any British territory. It also means that the freed slaves and their dependents have had 172 years to do something about their predicament. To blame the social problems of the black British community on a phenomenon that ended 172 years ago seems to me to be a cop out. Even if one takes the view that racism is a direct legacy of slavery, - and there is a case to be made for this - most of the problems faced bytoday'ss black Britons are not due to racism alone. To suggest that it is so is to absolve black people from all blame for anything that goes wrong in their lives, a horribly patronising stance to take. The sooner people like Beckford realise that the only people who can make a genuine difference to the lives of black people in Britain is themselves, the sooner they can get to work on achieving their goals.

But the reasons why financial compensation should not be paid to the descendents of slaves are not purely historical. Any decision to pay damages for slavery, especially on the scale suggested by Beckford, would simply result in the alienation of other groups, particularly white working class communities, who would see it as confirmation of the perception that they are already put at the bottom of the waiting list. This would likely see a huge surge in the popularity of the BNP and other far-right organisations, resulting in more racist attacks and breakdown of community cohesion. It is therefore in the interests of British society and all its communities that such a path is not followed. Black Britons, and the rest of British society, would benefit far more from moves to bring communities together in a situation of respect and understanding than from seriously divisive moves instigated by black nationalist intellectuals.

It could also be argued that Britain and the West have been paying huge compensation to African nations and black Britons for many years, through aid schemes. Britain gave Â£720million to Africa in aid last year (not including charity donations) and the amount of aid from the West to Africa between 1960 and 1997 is approximately Â£220billion. Whilst it can be argued that this figure should be higher (as has recently been the case at G8 and Live8), more may be achieved by ensuring that this aid is used wisely, rather than siphoned off by corrupt African leaders and officials.

Whilst I think that it might be appropriate for Britain to make an apology for the slave trade, I would not want to see this play into the hands of corrupt African rulers, who have also been calling for compensation (despicably, as it was likely the rulers' own ancestors selling their "African brothers" into slavery in the first place), whilst abusing aid, bleeding their own countries dry and starving their people to death. A recent report estimates that the amount of money stolen from the Nigerian people by corrupt leaders since independence in 1960 is around Â£220billion.

The only way for Africans and black Britons to improve their lot is to accept responsibility for the task, and to begin to put things right. The constant blaming of empire and slavery for all of their ills will not help anyone.

Musical Meme

2005-08-15T14:07:00.000+01:00

Just found a music-based meme: 10 songs that sum up your weekend...or were on your weekend playlist...and one picture that relates back. (oh, and if you feel like it, tell us why you picked the songs you did). Here goes:

The Smashing Pumpkins - Zero (OK, you were right: they do rock hard)
Joy Division - Love Will Tear Us Apart (dum. dum de dum de dum dum. Again)
Radiohead - Fake Plastic Trees (just rediscovered The Bends)
Miocene - Colloquial Drug Terminology (Good tune. Fantastic name. And the band named after the age of the apes!)
The Smashing Pumpkins - Bullet With Butterfly Wings (Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage)
The Postal Service - The District Sleeps Alone Tonight (Check them out - a great American nerd-rock band)
Burt Bacharach and Mack David - The Blob Theme (it gets inside your mind!)
Bob Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone (Just voted most influential ever!)
Carter USM- God Created Brixton (The only time I will countenance such creationist sentiment)
Orbital - Halcyon + On + On (Chilled)

The picture's because I watched all 3 episodes back to back. Marvelous.

Islamo-fascism

2005-08-13T00:22:00.000+01:00

Just read this post complaining about the use of the term "islamo-fascism" on the following grounds:

Seriously, "Islamofascism?" Are the terrorists winning the sympathy of the common folk by promising to get the trains running on time? Is contemporary Islamic terrorism characterized by a militaristic aesthetic? Are there rumblings of a return to paganism? Is there an industrial-style operation currently attempting to exterminate one or more races of people? Is this supposed Islamic version of fascism an attempt to ward off the danger of communism in the face of the injustices brought about by rapid industrialization? Is it focused in on a messianic leader who speaks publicly to crowds of thousands? Are the terrorists of a nationalistic and expansionistic bent? Do they actually hold power in a legitimate nation-state at all?

I have to disagree. I think the phrase "islamo-fascist" definitely has some merit. Apart from anything else, it goes some way towards separating these far-right, fundamentalists from the mainstream of Muslim opinion, something the left is always complaining about. Also, I don't think the phrase islamo-fascism has to refer to any of those properties. It surely refers to the fact that it is a far-right ideology, which advocates the killing of dissenters (apostates); the annihilation of the Jews in the believers' homelands; opposition to democracy; destruction of its enemies through violence, and their incorporation into a new empire; the reunification of a people, etc etc. The poster does seem to live up to the strange phenomenon of the liberal, Western left allying itself with an abhorrent ideology that seems to be opposed to everything that the left is supposed to hold dear. Islamo-fascism, if I am permitted to use the word, represents patriarchal, misogynistic, racist, anti-democratic and anti-libertarian views, and should be opposed on these grounds, quite apart from the fact that its followers seem to be intent on our destruction at the moment. There are quite legitimate left-wing justifications for opposing islamo-fascism. The fact that most of its adherents happen to be brown does not excuse the despicable nature of the ideology, and neither does the fact that they hate Bush. In this case, our enemy's enemy is most certainly not our friend!

---------------------------------------------------------

Update: Just looked at the original version of the post, and he actually made some of the same comments that I did. I withdraw the accusation that he is allying himself with islamo-fascists (or whatever you want to call them.

Stupider than Peter Griffin?

2005-08-12T23:56:00.000+01:00

Found this picture on British Bullblog. From Family Guy. Harsh but fair

Sweet Jesus

2005-08-12T23:27:00.000+01:00

Who knew Jesus was buried in Korea?

True Libertarians: Just Plain Wrong

2005-08-12T18:49:00.000+01:00

Recently, I seem to be encountering more and more Libertarians on the net. If you don't know what they are, they basically believe that everyone should be able to do what they like and that everything should be deregulated. They're basically capitalist anarchists. Over at Pharyngula, PZ Myers mocks Libertarians on their denial of climate change science, and their blind faith in free market economics. However, listening to some of the big advocates of Libertarianism, over at Free Talk Live is a scary experience. They not only advocate complete deregulation, but also the effective dissolution of the powers of the state. One of the things that makes me the most worried about them is their belief that the world would be a better place without state education. They seem to believe that this would mean that everyone would get better education. This view is so ridiculously stupid, it's hard to take it seriously. Perhaps they know full well that this would shaft a large number of people, but don't care. As long as they get their tax cuts, the poor can fend for themselves.

The removal of state education would be to the great detriment of all. The poor would not be able to afford education, and would therefore be deprived of their best opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty. If the Libertarians had their way and removed all state benefits as well, poor children would not be able to go to school even if free schools were set up by charities (which, incidentally, would probably be bastions of religious fundamentalism) as they would have to go to work in order to support the family. In addition, the cohesiveness of society would be damaged, and the number of desperately poor would increase. This would lead to a large increase in crime which, if the Libertarians got their way on gun control, would likely be violent and armed crime. Since Libertarians would probably disband or at least greatly reduce the police, private security would have to be hired by those that can afford it, and those that can't would have to fend for themselves, leading to even greater lawlessness. Since the Libertarians also demonise free healthcare, those that were poor and most likely to get shot or stabbed by the new lawlessness would also be least likely to get treatment. In short, we'd end up with a situation a bit like the worst bits of South Africa, with no-one trying to make it better.

Perhaps in some kind of rural idyll, with vast wealth and real "old-fashioned community spirit", some of the policies of the Libertarians might work in some way. In the real world, however, it would be a disaster. Do they really think that it's a coincidence that those places with the most social-democratic systems, like Sweden and Denmark, also have the smallest rich-poor divide, best-educated children, highest average wage, lowest violent crime, lowest drugs problems and lowest teen-pregnancy rates? If so, maybe someone could explain why.

John's New Blog

2005-08-12T18:05:00.000+01:00

Check out the new blog from TigerBear. It promises to be a mish-mash of evolution, right-on political rants and random funnies.

Uneducated Fool on ID

2005-08-11T16:45:00.000+01:00

I've just come across this woefully ill-informed little rant about the "bias of left-wing scientists". It starts off as a typical ID "it's not fair" whinge, but then comes out with this utter bilge:

An ocean of doubt exists between Darwin’s flawed theory of natural selection and the perfectly functioning intricacies of human biology. So much doubt, in fact, that one wonders why the fossil record is not littered with failed species whose mutations never caught on or left them ill-equipped to compete with the luckier ones.

Ooof. Where to start? I suppose the first thing to point out is that it is individuals, not species, that have mutations, and those with disadvantageous mutations are less likely to survive and reproduce, so new species with poor mutations are unlikely to arise. The other point is that species that are ill-equipped to compete go extinct. And there are numerous examples of species going extinct due to a failure to compete, normally after coming into contact with the "luckier ones". The dodo, for example, went extinct after contact with humans, rats and pigs. The red squirrel has become extinct from southern regions of Britain, after coming into contact with the grey squirrel, which has out-competed it. So, to quote Richard Dawkins, speaking on this show, "go and read a book."

He also says this:

Of course ID, like natural selection, is just a theory and needs mountains of research to help it, ahem, evolve into something more concrete

No no no! ID is not a theory. It has no evidence to support it. It is a political tool designed to mislead the frankly gullible American public. Evolution on the other hand is not "just" a theory. It has the prestigious title of being a theory, due to its well-tested nature and mountains of evidence.

Finish Her

2005-08-11T15:23:00.000+01:00

Another horrendously poor taste picture from the Ruthless forum.

Murder on the Dancefloor

2005-08-11T15:11:00.000+01:00

I can't decide where I stand on this one really. A guy from San Diego has taken pictures of himself dancing on Ronald Reagan's grave, and posted them on the internet. On the one hand, it is quite a sick thing to do to dance on anyone's grave, and it has vague echoes of the Iraqis celebrating when troops get killed. At the very least it's not exactly sportsmanlike. On the other hand, however, it is Ronald Reagan so maybe he does deserve it a little bit. And it pissed off the far-right retards at WingNutDaily so much that they quote a far-right radio DJ as saying "I have personal interest in getting this individual and trying to protect the desecration of presidential graves against First Amendment rights." That's right kids, the US right now believe that protecting Ronnie from slightly morbid pranks is more important than the 1st amendment. Says it all really.

Be Careful of the Blob Theme Tune

2005-08-11T12:34:00.000+01:00

Last night, there was a showing of The Blob (1958), starring Steve McQueen in the gardens at Darwin College. The organisers were having a bit of trouble with the equipment to begin with, which resulted in the theme tune playing over and over again. Which resulted in me having the bloody song going round and round in my head ever since. Due to my ridiculous masochism, I went looking for it this morning, and came across this site where you can stream it. Over and over again. Until it's indelibly etched in your mind. "It creeps, and leaps, and glides, and slides across the floor..."

Geekiness and Nerdiness

2005-08-10T10:47:00.000+01:00

Just come across this post about the reasons why evolution is important in the real world. In the process, the author comes clean about his nerdiness, and this has inspired me to make a similar confession. Whilst I vigorously deny being a nerd, I am proud of my status as a geek (the difference? Nerds are like the comic book guy in The Simpsons, geeks are normal people with slightly dubious hobbies, like Tim Bisley from Spaced). So, what is it about me that makes me a geek? Well, where do I start? I've just finished a post-grad degree in biological anthropology; my last job was in a laboratory; I enjoy reading science fiction novels; and online gaming; I'm a member of the chess club; unless I sort something out pretty soon, I'm perilously close to becoming a KIPPER at the age of 24. No wonder my girlfriend's abandoned me for another country. Bugger.

On Holiday? Trembling With Fear More Like!

2005-08-09T20:11:00.000+01:00

The BBC reports that Omar Bakri Mohammed, "radical" Muslim preacher is considering returning to the UK, unless the government asks him not to. John Prescott told him "enjoy your holiday. Make it a long one." That sounds like a fairly plain request to stay away to me. Whilst obviously not being a part of the government, I'd also like to add my request. Stay away, you evil, cowardly man. No one apart from a few of the idiots you've managed to brainwash wants you back. The fact that you scarpered at the first sign that you might be held accountable for the vile, far-right, racist, murderous bile that you preach shows how much courage you have in your convictions. Here's a little tip for you: if you hate Britain so much, don't live here. That goes for everyone else too, regardless of skin colour and nationality. If I lived in a country that I hated, I'd move somewhere else or try and change it through democratic means. What you should not do is try to force your twisted version of religion on a population who don't want it, by trying to convince young, disenfranchised men to kill themselves and those around them. Doing that is not going to help anyone, least of all your fellow Muslims, who are going to get stopped and searched at train stations and victimised by the right-wing press. Also, if Islamic law is so great and the democracy of the infidels is so evil, why not live in a country where they have Sharia? Saudi Arabia perhaps?