Can I firstly point out that Evans is a vile human being, an unrepentant rapist and if he was offered a contract by my football club I would consider my position as a trustee. However his crime does not preclude him from resuming a career in professional football.

There will be those who contend that his crime rules out any return to a normal life. Those arguing that might point out that his victim has to live with what happened for ever and that there are some crimes so heinous that no return to anything approaching a normal life should be viable. There are crimes of that nature and they are reflected in life sentences- either whole life custodial terms where no release is likely or in life sentences where a licence is imposed.

Evans’ sentence was somewhat short of a life sentence and fell somewhere in the correct range for the offence of which he was convicted; he has served the custodial part of the sentence. Opinions that Evans’ sentence was insufficient or that jail terms are generally too light have no place when considering the footballer’s future. Any criminal who is released has to have the chance of rehabilitation.

Evans’ sentence is too long to ever be spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act but that doesn’t mean it should be a bar to his employment. He is not a candidate for standard rehabilitation schemes as you would hope that his, serious, offence should be a one-off and he comes out with money and a stable social circle. However one of the roles of the criminal justice system is to offer a second chance to offenders, particularly those who offend once or are not persistent criminals. Evans, having served the custodial part of his sentence deserves this chance.

Should Ched Evans be permitted to resume a career in football? There is nothing in the law to stop it. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act gives a clue with details of occupations and roles where even minor offences will not be spent. Some point out that a conviction would rule out Evans working as a teacher, a doctor or a solicitor. This is true but I guess none of those professions are his chosen career path. There are other crimes, even where the sentence is minor, that would rule out an immediate return to many jobs, these would include many dishonesty offences where the occupation involved a position of trust or handling money. Interesting offenders cannot rely on their crimes being spent when seeking employment with football clubs but only as stewards!

Many criminals, even some serious one, have returned to football. These include a number who have killed while committing driving offences, many who have assaulted people including sexually and even armed robbers. Those who have caused death by dangerous driving are well documented however it might be said each as expressed remorse whether you think that remorse in genuine or not. It has to be said that Evans has only apologised for drunken infidelity rather than the rape for which he was convicted.

If he returns to football Evans will not be in an occupation where his offending represents a danger. Football players represent clubs because they are good at the game not as role models. Because they chose football over schooling many players are badly educated. I always enjoy sending players to literacy events at primary schools as many of them can improve their reading by working with the pupils! Clearly Evans will be excluded from much of the community work at any club and I expect that commercial partners will not be queuing-up to use him. Footballers are role models by accident rather than design. Asking a young adult who earns more in a week than some earn in a year to be a community figure-head is always difficult.

Evans’ occupation is professional footballer. With a training regime it is probably that he can resume a career where he might be paid approaching fifty-thousand pounds a month. The law cannot stop that. However for all that Evans is an athlete, his business is entertainment and the bottom-line is selling tickets and commercial endorsements. If he were a soap star his acting skills would not be diminished by his offending. If he were a chart artist then his singing voice might be retained while in prison. If he were a TV presenter then his abilities would not disappear with a spell in chokey. In all these case I would expect his earning ability to vanish if he raped someone.

In the wider entertainment industry there would be little to attract businesses to Evans. In football some clubs might consider whether they might get an international standard player on the cheap. Will the uproar and bad-will be balanced against improved results and the revenue that brings? Most clubs would rule out employing him on moral ground but clearly at least one is considering his options. The public has to show that the commercial risk is too great.

I actually support allowing Ched Evans to train in the same way as I would expect a joiner to brush up on their carpentry skills or a car mechanic to become familiar with new car models. What I do not want to see is an unrepentant rapist stepping back into a highly paid profession as if his crime was only a minor personal inconvenience!

Ched Evans should be allowed to play football again but I sincerely hope no one offers that opportunity.

Eden Hazard was guilty of violent conduct in the match against Swansea and was rightly sent off.  It doesn’t matter what Charlie Morgan did as the player clearly interfered with the ball-boy which is a sanctionable offence.  I am surprised that any can defend the Chelsea player.

I won’t suggest that the Swansea City ball-boy acted entirely properly; I see it is reported that he has apologised for his part in the incident,  However Hazard must know that in football you have to sometimes endure that which is unfair; the defence of provocation is never a successful one.  Had Morgan spat at Hazard, struck him or impugned his Belgian nationality it would not be a defence to striking him.

Some feel the fall and subsequent reaction to the kick were exaggerated.  There might be something in this view but we seem to be in a football culture where making the most of any touch or infringement is the norm.  That said the bottom line is that you don’t touch the ball-boys!  There is precedent for bans when players have pushed those kids fielding the balls so there is no excuse.

My view on Morgan and his colleagues is that they had no interests in returning the ball with any haste.  However in most cases having a ball-boy makes the game quicker than not having one despite that in all stadia where all sides are occupied there is no need for the pitch side assistants.

If there are delays because of the conduct of the ball-boys that is for the match officials to assess.  It is possible- even probably, that sluggish ball-boys might prevent the losing team from taking quick restarts when they are chasing the game but in this case it was actually a Swansea restart.  The ball-boy in question seems to have reacted slowly to the ball going out for a goal-kick.  He then got between the Chelsea player and the ball when Hazard wanted to move it to the goal area.  Morgan then fell on the ball when the player touched him resulting in Hazard kicking the ball from under him.

The contact with the ball-boy was enough to penalise Hazard, his kicking at the ball under Morgan made it an automatic dismissal.  Had the ball-boy been a defending player who shielded the ball and fell under contact then it is likely that Hazard’s kick would have been a sending-off issue with the ball out of play.

In retrospect what the Chelsea player should have done was just make sure that Chris Foy noted the delay and added on time.  That added time is an issue in football and the lack of understanding of the rules and inconsistent application might be one of the reasons Hazard over-reacted.

The laws of the game say:

• Many stoppages in play are entirely natural (e.G. Throw-ins, goal kicks). An allowance is to be made only when these delays are excessive.
• The fourth official indicates the minimum additional time decided by the referee at the end of the final minute of each period of play.
• The announcement of the additional time does not indicate the exact amount of time left in the match. The time may be increased if the referee considers it appropriate but never reduced.

In terms of checking the time played the referee never actually stops his watch.  He usually communicates with his senior assistant or fourth official if he is adding time.  Normally there will be no time added for the natural stoppages in the game but he will note when a physio comes onto the pitch, where there are unnatural breaks or where there is time-wasting.

In terms of the latter, if it is a player then his first option is to caution the player involved.  For instances where the crowd or even ball-boys delay the game then it is down to the officials to add time on.  Where a substitution is not instant (it is after all part of the game) or where there is a goal celebration that is prolonged then time will be added.  Thirty seconds is a rule of thumb and is probably correct  where the leading team finds the withdrawn player as far from the bench as is conceivable- if it is the losing team and the player runs off then the process will not take that long.

The time signalled by the fourth official will always be a “minimum” figure.  If the referee determines two minutes 50 seconds then it will be indicated as two minutes.  You couldn’t have the game ending before the added time has elapsed.  With delays and time-wasting becoming more common towards the end of the game then it is always possible that there will be added time on the added-time!  If any team questions that added time the fourth official will have noted the significant stoppages.

In the case of the Swansea match I guess that potentially the actions of the ball-boy would have meant a delay of a few seconds.  Had Hazard waved his arms and complained then he might actually have caused a few seconds more to be added to the stoppages for what seemed to be futile efforts by his team.  In pushing and kicking the ball-boy the player was sent-off and deserved that sanction.

Ring, Ring.  Ring, Ring. Ring…

“Is that Father O’Hare?”

“It is about that wedding, I left a message.”

“Yes that’s right, Paul Miller.”

“No I am not a member of your Church, I am not a member of any church.”

“No, not a Catholic, I don’t believe in any of that shit.”

“Why in church?  Well it is traditional.  I wouldn’t have my future spouse’s lot there either if it was my decision but the whole family and church service seem to be the norm.”

“Well there are other churches but we really wanted to get married in yours…”

“Because it is perfect for the photos and very close the country house hotel we are using for the reception.”

“I don’t know about beliefs or faith, we only want to hire the building.  We don’t want any of the mumbo-jumbo!”

“Well you can come as long as you bring the fancy garb, there is usually a bloke in a dress to host it.”

“Look we only want it for an hour, a bit less if we lose those dirgeful songs.  We can bring our own Robbie Williams CDs.”

“Come-on we don’t even want a speech from you!  Just the ‘repeat after me’ and ‘You may now kiss…’”

“Look it is about the only way you will ever get a full house, someone has to pay your wages, those six people and a dog on Sundays don’t!”

“Just take the money and you can go back to “accepting penitence” from young choirboys…”

“Jesus Christ, how much?”

“That is almost as much as for the centre-pieces at the hotel!”

“In that case I’ll take-it!  August 6^th it is then.”

“Thank you, Father.  Just one more thing, does that magic book of yours do ‘I now pronounce you husband and husband?’ ”

From me (the wisher) to you (hereinafter called the wishee). Please accept without obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, politically correct, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the  bogus religious persuasion of your choice, or preferably secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

Further my wish for a financially successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2013, but with due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures or sects whose contributions to society have helped make Britain great, (not to imply that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is necessarily greater than any other country or nation), and having regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform or dietary preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting you are bound by these terms that-

This greeting is subject to further clarification or withdrawal

This greeting is freely transferable provided that no alteration shall be made to the original greeting and that the proprietary rights of the wisher are acknowledged.

This greeting implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes.

This greeting may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions and/or the restrictions herein may not be binding upon certain wishees in certain jurisdictions and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher.

This greeting is warranted to perform as reasonably may be expected within the usual application of good tidings, for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first.

The wisher warrants this greeting only for the limited replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher

Any references in this greeting to “the Lord”, “Father Christmas”, “Our Saviour”, or any other festive figures, are on the understanding that they are fictitious and so shall not imply any endorsement of them in respect of this greeting, and all proprietary rights in any referenced third party names and images are hereby acknowledged.

I don’t think gay couples should be married in church; then I think it is a bad idea for any couple to get married in such a ridiculous institution!

It doesn’t matter one bit whether a couple is of the same gender when deciding if they can marry.  The Civil Partnership offers most of the equivalent benefits but anything short of full marriage is discrimination.   What makes people happy without hurting others is what counts.

I am pleased that a Conservative administration that just a few years ago passed the draconian legislation under the Local Government Act is now championing equality for gay relationships.  The infamous clause 28 of that 1988 Act stated that no local authority should “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.”  Now Cameron seems to be fighting the bigots in his own party to force equality through.

It looked for a while that churches and religious institutions would not be considered in the forthcoming legislation.  However by not legislating specifically it might mean that superstitious groupings who do not want to allow all loving couples to avail themselves of the facilities might find themselves under pressure from Human Rights interventions.

Now if the those with big buildings who believe in sky fairies don’t want to include certain people in their silly games then I suggest that any sensible prospective brides and brides or grooms and grooms keep well clear.  As far as I know all that Yeshua/Jesus  thought on the subject was that a wedding needed wine and he wasn’t going to pay for it!

Some married theists think that allowing gays to marry somehow undermines their own relationships.  I am not sure how such a positive step should change what they get out of their own loving partnerships; they should just not stop others having the same opportunity.

I have even heard some suggest that allowing same-sex marriages in their churches has some effect on them as worshippers.  I have a suggestion- if you don’t like the idea of two men or two women marrying then don’t go to the wedding!  I am sure the happy couple will be even happier not to have you there.

The church my family is associated with have Weight Watchers there on a Monday night.  This has no real consequence for my family or any of the religious attendees.  It does not mean that by osmosis that they cannot eat cream cakes or gorge on bacon.

I hope that gay couples will soon be able to marry.  I don’t care whether this means they can wed in church as for most it is a nice setting rather than a commitment to any superstition.  I also hope they can still eat cream cakes!

You might know I am a football fan.  The national team I support is England.  My football following siblings also support England as do almost all my friends.  I do have a colleague who looks firstly for the Scotland result and a bare handful of friends with allegiance to other nations.  For example I play football with two who support Italy.

I think it is an amazing coincidence that all of my family and practically all of my friends follow the same team as me.  It must be a statistically anomaly.

Now I wouldn’t claim England are the best team in the world.  They are consistently in the top ten nations and usually make the knock-out stages of the global competitions.  However if I were to make a logical choice I perhaps currently ought to support Spain whose results are better and who certainly play a much more attractive style of play.  If I was looking throughout my lifetime then Brazil with three World Cup wins would be my best choice to follow.

Why then do I support England?  Basically it is an accident of birth, the same reason as everyone I know.  I was born and brought up bang in the middle of England; this means I support England in every sport.  Had I been born in Spain I would support the current World Cup holders.  If my place of birth had been Rio de Janeiro then I would be following the most successful international team.   My friends who follow different teams were either born in those countries or have a family heritage linked to them.

Of course had I been born in Spain my first language would be Spanish and in Brazil, Portuguese.  This would have been another factor determined by my birthplace and culture.  It would have no basis in logic.  I am probably best sticking to English as the international language of commerce and of the internet.  However a case might be made for Spanish or Mandarin as useful additions

All of my family and most of my friends were brought up Christian.  All of those I know that came from that tradition that worship do so in the Christian Church.  I don’t think I know any practising Jews but all those I know who are Muslim or follow the South Asian religions are first or second generation immigrants to the United Kingdom.  They are rather like my “Italian” friends in that respect..

With a true statistical spread a quarter of my family would follow Islam; none of my family is a Muslim.  However had my birth been in Pakistan or parts of the Middle-East there is every chance that every one of my family would be Muslim.  There is no logic to it at all,  While a small number of the religious start to follow a faith other than the one they were born into it is rare.  Almost every religious person follows the faith of the culture they wre born into.  No god selects them as special people, their faith is as much an accident of birth as their language or national football team!

So logically we should all support Spain.  We should speak and write in English with a smattering of Spanish and Mandarin.  And of course if we are being totally rational we should worship no gods at all.

Ring, Ring.  Ring, Ring. Ring…

“Is that Father O’Hare?”

“It is about that wedding, I left a message.”

“Yes that’s right.”

“No I am not a member of your Church, I am not a member of any church.”

“No, not a Catholic, I don’t believe in any of that shit.”

“Why in church?  Well it is traditional.  I wouldn’t have her mother there either if it was my decision but Mother of the Bride, church service seem to be the norm.”

“Well there are other churches but we really wanted to get married in yours…”

“Because it is perfect for the photos and very close the country house hotel we are using for the reception.”

“I don’t know about beliefs or faith, we only want to hire the building.  We don’t want any of the mumbo-jumbo!”

“Well you can come as long as you bring the fancy garb, there is usually a bloke in a dress to host it.”

“Look we only want it for an hour, a bit less if we lose those dirgeful songs.  We can bring our own Robbie Williams CDs.”

“Come-on we don’t even want a speech from you!  Just the ‘repeat after me’ and ‘you may now kiss the Bride.’”

“Look it is about the only way you will ever get a full house, someone has to pay your wages, those six people and a dog on Sundays don’t!”

“Just take the money and you can go back to “accepting penitence” from young choirboys…”

“Jesus Christ, how much?”

“That is almost as much as for the centre-pieces at the hotel!”

“Take-it!  August 6^th then.”

“Thank you, Father.”

The Paralympics is not the sporting equivalent of the Olympics.  An Olympic champion can claim to be the greatest measured athlete on the planet (of a particular gender in all but equestrian events).  A Paralympian Gold Medallist usually represents the best in a narrow band of a particular disability.  That doesn’t make the Paralympics any less of a celebration of human achievement than the Olympics; in most ways it is a far better representation of all that is good in humanity.

Paralympians are some of the most incredible people you can find.  Often they put in the hours, make all the sacrifices and raise the finances that any able-bodied athlete does.  In the main it is more of a struggle for that disabled athelete to get the support, money and recognition even before you consider the practical restrictions that come with various disabilities.

However I don’t consider Tanni Grey-Thompson to be a better athlete than Kelly Holmes or Mike Kenny better than Becky Adlington.  In the Paralympics there are so more categories in which to compete but most of us are lucky enough not to qualify for those categories.  This doesn’t mean that those disabled individuals are not  superb athletes but I think Baroness Grey-Thompson’s work as an advocate for disabled people is the equal of her 11 gold medals.

The current games include events for mobility disabilities, amputations, blindness, and cerebral palsy.  In many of those disabilities there are several categories to ensure that athletes of similar classification compete together.  For example this means swimming has 14 classes

There are more than double the number of medals available at the Paralympics than at the Olympics.  A much smaller pool of athletes qualify for those events than for most Olympic events; this where it differs from the Olympics.  Part of any legacy of these Games is increasing participation not just among western disabled people but more importantly in developing countries.  Where sophisticated equipment is needed just to survive never mind participate in sports this will be a long haul.

In theory I could compete in all of the male events at the Olympics.  I know I couldn’t really get down to the weight required in the combat sports but generally anyone can aspire to compete.  I do not qualify for any of the events in the Paralympics*.  With the exception of short-sightedness a world away from recognised visual impairment I was born without disability.  My minor accidents over the years have not meant the loss of limbs, eyesight, brain function or mobility.  Whether you agree with this blog or find it patronising I expect you agree I don’t have an intellectual disability.

(In fact the only Paralympic team I might join would be the Spanish intellectual disability Basketball team!)

The Olympics is now about being the best.  Any pretence about just competing has gone.  You cannot longer see scores of outclassed athletes coming home last in races or being battered in boxing bouts.  There will always be some who compete for “political” reasons such as Niger’s Hamadou Djibo Issaka in the rowing or Saudi Arabia judoka Wojdan Shaherkani. However in the main the Olympics is about the best professional sportsmen on the planet.

The Paralympics is more about where the Olympics started- participation for the good of the human spirit.  The origins of disability sport with Ludwig Guttmann at Stoke Mandeville was about competition as part of therapy.  The opponent to beat in that case was in the first instance your own difficulties.  Most of the Paralympian athletes have already won a personal battle just by being in a position to compete.

The Games however are more than a triumph over adversity for those taking part.  They are an incredible advertisement of the capabilities of disabled people.  While we are by no means perfect in this country we do have a building heritage of recognising abilities rather than disabilities.  Now this four-year event is influencing more and more nations to look at those with disabilities in a different light.

In some ways the Games have gone beyond the point of publicising those with disabilities and towards normalising their status.  I am sure we will have drugs cheats at the Paralympics as well as at the Olympics.  In fact the Games for the disabled bring more opportunities for corruption with the various classifications and practices such as “boosting”.  It is clear that disabled athletes work as hard or harder than their able-bodied counterparts, it is also clear at the elite end a few are just as likely to cheat.

There are usually human interest stories behind many athletes.  With disabled athletes everyone has an account of overcoming adversity.  Whether that is Baroness Grey-Thompson with a condition that meant she wouldn’t have survived infanthood a few years ago now sitting in Parliament or  Martine Wright blown up by terrorists the day after the Games were awarded and now a competitor.

The Olympics is the better sporting competition; the Olympians are the superior athletes.  That doesn’t mean the able-bodied competitors work any harder or make more sacrifices.  Disabled athletes start from a different position and their achievements are far greater on a personal level.

I will watch any sport.  If that sport involves me taking sides then all the better.  If you stick a Union Jack or St George’s Cross  on one side then I am hooked.  For me as a spectator the Paralympic events are like the less well known events at the Olympics.  I only watch Judo, Taekwondo, Volleyball or Swimming and the like if there is a British interest.  I guess it will be the same for these Games.  I put the T45 100m in the same category as the 78kg Olympic Judo- great if there is a Brit in with a chance of winning.

I do recognise that the Paralympics is not like the Olympics.  It is the World’s second greatest multi-sport event but it transcends sport.  It will be patronising for me to highlight that the whole event is a triumph of spirit over adversary but that is how I see it rather than the zenith of sporting excellence.  It has to be more than just a competition, it is about ability over disability.

In reality it is closer to Baron Pierre de Coubertin’s dream than the modern Olympics!  “The most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well”

*I am reminded that the goalkeeper in Blind Football is sighted.  As someone who had a couple of seasons in goal in the Sunday League I have to confess I still don’t qualify!

The Olympics is certainly the primary global celebration of sport.  I will write about my overall views later.  However much has been made of the differences between those competing in this marking of the 30^th Olympiad and other “professional” sport.

Those competing for medals are often professionals.  By professional I am not talking about the football or basketball stars who might be paid millions of pounds just to turn out on the pitch or court but athletes  who get financial support to back their training.

I am involved with English lower league football and know that British Olympic boxers get far less than the average fourth tier footballer for leaving home and being put up in dormitories to train.  I expect for many fringe athletes the same is true.

British Judoka Gemma Gibbons, now a silver medallist, put out a public appeal for help to buy a second-hand car so she could continue to train.  Peter Wilson lost all his funding for a while in the run up to London 2012 before he won the gold in the double-trap shotgun.

Now these are not sports that automatically attract public support but the BBC coverage has shown that all of these sports can be compulsive viewing. There is already a groundswell of interest in the established sports such as Track and Field as well as the less fashionable in the UK like Handball.

‎What has struck me is that there are “ordinary” athletes out there who are battling for the resources to continue competing who do not have the egos associated with some of our well known stars.  I have seldom seen a football star apologise after a poor performance; I have got used to Olympic stars breaking down in tears of regret after super-human efforts.

Defending Olympic champions Zac Purchase and Mark Hunter finished second in the lightweight men’s double sculls.  Hunter had to be helped from his boat by rowing legend Steve Redgrave and his doctor wife; the skuller was so physically drained that he was sick into the water and unable to walk.

In his interview Mark Hunter said: “We gave everything, we tried everything, we wanted to win so badly, sorry to everyone we’ve let down.”

Yes some of the stars of the Olympics make silly money from the advertising and sponsorship but in the main they deserve it.  Others pick up the minor gong from the Queen and go back to battling for the money and recognition for their sports.  Many are just an indication of all the unsung heroes in British sport nurturing talent and going out of their way to make a difference to people.

Back to Mark Hunter and his, “sorry to have let everyone down!”  That is a double medal winning Olympian apologising not only to his coaches, colleagues and family but to the general public for disappointing them.  By the general public I mean those of us watching the Games from the comfort of the sofa.  Those of us who pay twenty-plus pounds a time to watch footballers who are not fit to oil Hunter’s rowlocks!

One of the first sceptics I followed on YouTube was Thunderf00t.  His work introduced me to many other free-thinkers, atheists and questioners.  Of course the friendly references to each other’s works and the personal testimonials suggested a clique of atheist/sceptics meeting and debating somewhere in the otherwise fundamental US of A.

That clique didn’t indicate any sort of exclusivity as we are the rational people and it is the reasoning not the reasoner that matters.  Our remit is the exploration of knowledge, facts and beliefs.  If not one happy family, we are fair and inclusive.  As most prejudices are irrational we also tend to be more “liberal”  and less bigoted.

For that reason it is odd to see our “close family” beset by discord.  Thunderf00t has been invited to enter the inner sanctum of sceptical thinking and contribute to Freethought Blogs only to be shown the door and cast out among the lesser sceptics as a result of his first post.

As a long-time reader of the blogs this left me with three questions:

1)      What the hell was Thunderf00t playing at opening his portfolio on this subject and why is he still obsessed with it?

2)      What is the point of FtB if it doesn’t allow the reasoned argument of issues around the sceptic community?

3)      Is there any weight to the views Thunderf00t is espousing?

On the first point, I don’t know whether Thunderf00t as a long time blogger and video blogger felt he needed to make a statement on his debut to FtB but it was unnecessary.  His work is multi-dimensional with the span of fighting religion, pseudo-science and then highlighting his own  projects.  He doesn’t need to prove himself.  Start with a great idea rather than a difficult argument.  That is not to say that difficult arguments don’t need exploring but find the place to do this.  If called out do you call a truce or start a battle of the type that is the norm with the fundies and scientific illiterates?  It is a place to push arguments but not always to air the dirty laundry.

There seemed to be some that saw Thunderf00t’s invitation to FtBs as a little odd.  He is an abrasive video-blogger who has made this sceptical name highlighting creationist nonsense.  However there is a range of bloggers within that collective not all of them dull and worthy.

Having started on a difficult argument did Thunderf00t deserve the response whether he was right or wrong? I am not sure he did- actually I am certain he didn’t.  His arguments were not accompanied by abuse or personal insults.  Yes he was forthright and did cite others arguments but this is what thesis and antithesis is about.  I expected argument and possibly a very strong negative response to Thunderf00t’s view.  In terms of Freethought, doesn’t it do what it says on the tin?  Yes you can censor bigotry and abuse but if there is a case to be made then it needs addressing.  However did either side advance the argument in a constructive way?  It is sad, that with the decision to exclude Thunderf00t having been made, no one is moving on.  PZ Myers against Thunderf00t feels like squabbling schoolchildren- “He said this!” “No I didn’t!” “it’s not fair…”  Even if Myers portrays the head prefect to Thunderf00t’s excitable first former.

Beyond the tiff is there a case in what Thunderf00t said?  If I understand him the argument is that the continued highlighting of sexism in the sceptic community and at the various conferences undermines the message.  If the issue isn’t a major problem at the events and within “our community” and if we cannot address it in practical terms then why make it central to our message?

Years ago I went to various conferences and usually saw them as a means to “cop off”.  Because I made this my aim the chance of actually finding any action was negligible.  If I went to gain from the event and have a good time then the chances of enjoying myself, in all ways, was increased.   Like I was in my youth, there will always be low-life losers at any event.  It is right that any event addresses the issues make those attending uncomfortable but is highlighting policies to deal with this potential for friction counter-productive?

As a white, middle-class, male I cannot claim to have been the subject of major discrimination.  As I live in the UK, even as an atheist I have no sense of discrimination.  I cannot particularly empathise with Rebecca Watson and the Elevatorgate incident that seemed to have started the whole misogyny debate.  I have to confess I am closer to the Dawkin’s view that there was an over-reaction to the initial event.  That doesn’t mean I agree with any sort of discrimination, harassment or anti-social behaviour.

We sceptics are the reasonable ones, the good guys (and gals).  We don’t discriminate based on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation or race because there is no evidence to support it.  It is possible that “free thought” gives social freedoms that question accepted norms.  However I am not certain that any atheist or sceptical conference of event will pose more issues for women than an equivalent student, political or business gathering.

That the starting point for any sceptic event or the message coming out of those events is sexism is wrong.  There might be issues at these events and it is correct to have an understanding of what is to be expected.  To make the supposed sexist nature of scepticism the message does a disservice to any free thinker.

If we are a community, which is very doubtful, and we have faults then address them.  Address them proportionally and at a reasonable level.  There are fundamentalist Christians wanting to deny basic reproductive rights to women.  There are Catholic officials abusing children and covering up the crimes. There are Muslims denying girls a basic education and forcing them to marry in childhood.  Can we pick our fights better?

There are plenty of better targets out there before we decide it time for a civil war!