I just encountered this bunch through a reference in this article. Judging by the actions of their party member I instantly assumed they would be a shower of capitalist fundamentalist fuckwits. I was right.
Any party which explicitly advocates a minimum of taxes, global free trade, integrity and moral purpose, personal responsibility and economic prosperity is out to advance the corporate line at every turn at the expense of the less well off.
Wankers.
The moron at the centre of the article was campaigning to have An inconvenient Truth banned from being shown in schools by "Arguing that the film's promotion of partisan political views was "irremediable" and that it contained scientific inaccuracies and "sentimental mush"". Well, I agree that the film contains sentimental mush, but scientific inaccuracies? I don't think so. And what does the moron in question know about it? Well, he's a lorry driver so all those scientists out there working for the IPCC better sit up and take notice because there's a new authority in town!!!
Anyway, the point I want to raise is that the judge in the case ruled that the moron had substantially won his case as distribution of the film breached sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act. These sections ban the political indoctrination of schoolchildren and require political views to be presented in a balanced way.
Does anyone see the flaw in this???
A high court judge has branded climate change as a political view.
Wankers.
The moron at the centre of the article was campaigning to have An inconvenient Truth banned from being shown in schools by "Arguing that the film's promotion of partisan political views was "irremediable" and that it contained scientific inaccuracies and "sentimental mush"". Well, I agree that the film contains sentimental mush, but scientific inaccuracies? I don't think so. And what does the moron in question know about it? Well, he's a lorry driver so all those scientists out there working for the IPCC better sit up and take notice because there's a new authority in town!!!
Anyway, the point I want to raise is that the judge in the case ruled that the moron had substantially won his case as distribution of the film breached sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act. These sections ban the political indoctrination of schoolchildren and require political views to be presented in a balanced way.
Does anyone see the flaw in this???
A high court judge has branded climate change as a political view.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.