• The 10 Commandments of Using Images on Church Websites

    old camera photograph1 – Thou shalt remember that a burning candle is not the only image of all that is holy and all that is true.

    2 – Thou shalt not put the vulnerable at risk by revealing their identity and location.

    3 – Thou shalt remember when using pictures of people that the Lord thy God made them in great and glorious diversity.

    4 – Thou shalt not waste bandwidth and so shall learn how to reduce the size of thy photographs tenfold, fiftyfold or even a hundredfold.

    5 – Thou shalt not use photographs of church meetings to illustrate the life of the church for to believe that the meetings of the church represent the life and joy that the Lord thy God brings unto thee is to have heard and believed the lies of the Evil One.

    6 – Thou shalt not use photographs of groups of people where half the people have their backs unto the camera.

    7 – Thou shalt not include more than one photograph of the bishop (or the moderator, the pope or the Lord High Executioner of Titipu) standing around in robes next to other people standing around in robes.

    8 – Thou shalt love thy neighbour’s photographs as thine own, by setting up a Flickr group for them to post their images to so that you have a greater range of photographs to use on thy church website.

    9 – Thou shalt respect the copyright of every image that thou shalt use and give credit where it is due.

    10 – Thou shalt change thine images once in a while for to worship one image alone is not merely idolatry but risks the masses believing that the house of the Lord thy God is dull. And dullness is the sin against the Holy Ghost whereof many have spoken.

    Photo Credit: Afonso Lima of Brazil

    If you’ve any further commandments – do chip in with them in the comments.  “Why just 10?” as Moses said as he staggered down the mountain…

2 responses to “Human Rights Petition”

  1. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Kelvin

    I strongly agree with your sentiments and intend to sign the petition. As a practising barrister I can say that the incorporation of the Convention has had a hugely beneficial effect across society – especially in creating a rights aware culture amongst the judiciary.

    I have successfully relied on the Convention to (1) ensure that the state continues to support destitute asylum seekers whilst they are appealing an asylum support decision (2) prevent the removal of a mentally unwell Brazilian amputee who is awaiting further surgery in the UK (3) ensured that those detained under immigration powers are not held in “ordinary” prisons and (4) prevented the deportation of a Turkish national for a crime committed whilst a child. The Convention naturally “benefits” those on the edges of society – whose cause might be unpopular. That does not mean, of course, that it is unworthy. Quite the opposite.

    I have of course relied upon the Convention in cases which stretch the reach of the various articles. That is how the law develops. Judges do not embrace such claims uncritically. Unfounded and weak claims are rejected as such and so the public perception of an “out of touch” judiciary is misplaced. Thank God for the Judges who – if they were to follow the whims of public opinion would “string em up”, “bring back the birch” and “throw away the key”!

    The Human Rights Act 1998 still retains parliamentary sovereignty in any event. This means that Parliament can still introduce laws that are in breach of the Convention. All that a Judge can do when faced with such legislation is declare it to be “incompatible” and that is it. This may create political pressure (especially at a European level) but it means that the “Queen in Parliament” is still sovereign.

    In addition the HRA 1998 has become entrenched as an almost constitutional statute. Repeal or significant amendment would not create less litigation. On the contrary, as the Daily Mail might put it, lawyers would have a “field day” arguing about when a particular right ceased to exist under the ECHR in the UK and the extent to which rights survived repeal or amendment. It would create a legal mess, a constitutional back-step and a political nightmare.

    In fairness though a solicitor did ask me if they could bring a case to challenge a refusal by the police to allow a man more regular smoke breaks on the basis of his Convention rights (he was being questioned for murder)…I reminded the solicitor that the drafters of the Convention had in mind the ashes of Auschwitz when drafting the Convention and advised him to, as they say in Ulster, “catch yourself on!”

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Thanks Steven. It us really helpful to have your perspective and some concrete examples.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • A Pebble

    A pebble came home with me yesterday. I spent part of the morning watching waves throwing up stones onto concrete sea defences. The power of the waves turning water to foam and the roar of the shingle in the undertow were mesmerising.A single pebble now sits o­n my desk. Khaki in colour, it is divided in two…

  • Sermon – 9 January 2005

    I was walking through Tescos in Alloa this week when I encountered two women who had just met for the first time since new year. One hollered to the other: ?A good Christmas then?? and the reply came, ?Aye!? They got a bit closer. ?A Good New Year then?? The reply was the same, ?Aye!?…

  • Jerry Springer the Opera

    Well, I'm looking forward to the BBC screening Jerry Springer the Opera o­n Saturday evening at 1000.Having missed it at the National and then missed it again when I was last in London, I feared that I had missed it altogether. So, delighted to get the chance now.

  • Organ Safari

    Off to listen to organs today, one in Cramond, the other in Greenock. Not a terribly convenient journey, however it will be useful to be able to compare two instruments from two different companies on the same day. There are worse ways to spend a day.