Another fine offering from Pat Condell:



Don't sit on the fence Pat, say what you really mean!

How many people do you think lie to get sex?  I'm not talking about serious fraud here, I mean the old 'of course I love you' or 'Yes, I will respect you in the morning' as well as the embellishment of one's own achievements or attributes.  When stationed with the Army in places where it was not really advisable to admit to the civilian population that you wore green on a daily basis, I have been known to tell members of the opposite sex a few 'white lies' about my employment.  In fact when I think of it I have probably been everything from a helicopter pilot to the bloke that sticks the little labels on bananas.  On the (admittedly rare) occasions that this tack succeeded I would inevitably confess and as far as I recall the harshest reproach I ever received was one lady calling me a 'Twat!'

Which is why it is probably a good thing that I was never stationed in Israel.  Where, apparently lying to a potential mate and having consexual sex can then lead to a prison sentence for 'Rape by deception'.  According to the Guardian article:

Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.

 When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault.

WTF?  This has got to be taking the piss, right?  Nope, horny old Sabbar was sent down for 18 months for lying about his ethnic/religious background.  Now I can understand this fine, upstanding Jewish lady (sex in a nearby building, really?) being upset about her new beau's deception, but criminal charges?  C'mon, this woman quite readily had sex with a man she had just met because he told her he was Jewish and interested in a serious relationship.  What really pissed her off most do you think?  The fact that he wasn't Jewish or the realisation that her casual sex with a stranger didn't lead to a 'serious relationship'?

Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not "a classical rape by force," the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.

 The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," they added.

Sex under false pretences?    It doesn't say in the article but I wonder if Sabbar actually had any intention of forming a long-term relationship with this woman?  He didn't lie about his identity and it doesn't seem as if the police had any problems discerning his location after the rape accusation.  That leads me to wonder if this woman had casual sex with a Jewish male stranger she had just met who then told her he was not interested in a relationship, if the same 'Rape by deception' charges would have been brought?

Rape is a serious crime.  As far as I am concerned perpetrators should be strung up by their testicles with cheesewire.  This was not rape, and this Jewish female has done a dis-service to all victims of rape everywhere.  She should be thoroughly ashamed of herself and the judges who handed out this sentence have made a mockery of 'justice'.

Wait...what?  It's not the Cybermen?  But the news article quite clearly says in its headline that the Vatican has been subjected to a cyber attack, well silly me, maybe I should have read further than the headline.

Oh, I get it now.  It was an attack on the Vatican web-site.  I wonder what terrible effects were utilised to carry out such a terrible event.  DOS attack?  Hacked server?  System compromise? I'll let the Catholic press explain:

On Saturday, any user who typed the word "Vatican" into the search field on Google's Web page was directed to the site "www.pedofilo.com" as the first suggestion, rather than the proper Vatican Web page.

 Users who entered this site proposed by the search engine viewed a blank page.

So not really a 'cyber attack' then Zenit? So much for the sensationalist headline. The Vatican web-site suffered no more than a Google Bomb.  Still I shouldn't really be surprised that an organisation steeped in Middle Age thinking and values fails to understand the simplest of modern concepts.  What made me chuckle in the linked article however was this paragraph:

Although the person who caused this problem has not been found, the indications suggested that the operation may have been carried out by someone who had significant knowledge of how Google functions.

Or anyone over the age of 11, don't those priests talk to the children they 'minister'* to?
 
*And by 'minister' I quite obviously mean rape, abuse, chastise and then cover up and lie about it.

Another good one from Atheist Cartoons

From Atheist Cartoons

Lots more excellent cartoons on that site, well worth a look.