The Party's Over---The Puritans Are Winning

 Hope every one had a good Christmas,especially those who,on reading this blog have returned for more; Sweden,Russia,Brazil e.c.t. thank you.


Attending Midnight Mass on Christmas eve I was reminded of how difficult it is to be a Christian. All that forgiving, hate the sin and not the sinner, turn the other cheek. But we have to try-don't we?

But oh,these puritans who've got the ear of the government really really try my patience. Apparently, they have convinced the government that there ought to be a minimum pricing policy for alcohol. All for our own good of course, to save us from our selves. At the same time supermarkets have to begin stashing cigarettes under the counter-(one time this was where they kept the dirty mags,but now these are every where on show) again, all for our own good.

What I want to know is who will save us from them? Who are these fecking puritanical tyrants disguised as missionaries. I can accept the view that God, who is supposed to have made us,and should know- sees us as vulnerable and in need of guidance .But, when did God die and leave these people in charge. Don't they know God also gave us free will. Being an adult of sane mind ,I am able to understand and accept the consequences of my own actions. Therefore, I can make my own decisions and it's not for any moralising busy body to interfere with my right to autonomy.

So you fecking puritans, wreckers of liberty, free will,large and small pleasures and all things that make live worth living-  Feck Off !

Welcome to 2012 it's going to be great!

Merry English Christmas/Yule Tide to Every One

                                                  
There are increasing complaints about this time of year of officialdom spoilsports and the watering down of Christmas-winter lights instead of Christmas lights-'winterval',campaigns for 'real Christmas' and so on. But we do not need official sponsoring or recognition of what Christmas means in order for it to be real. It's as real and as meaningful as you make it-So- make it for yourself.  Christmas is part of the Christian calendar and is a welcoming of Jesus into the world. However, except for the religious services, it is mainly expressed through our pre-Christian culture and the Winter Solstice rituals which sought to bring light and cheer during the darkest and coldest season.

Yule sees the fight between the Oak King and the Holly King over the right to rule the waxing and waning parts of the year. With Oak King winning the winter and Holly King winning the summer.

                              The birth of Jesus is also a promise of light and hope for the future.

                                    It was a compromise between the new religion and the old ways;
                                                            and long may it continue      

The Green Man;
representing the Holly, Ivy and Mistletoe So, whatever your ken;
Have a Merry Merry Christmas Solstice

Public Sector Worker's Strike 30th November

A million plus public sector workers are expected to take part in tomorrow's strike in protest at the Government's revised  pension plans. Should the expected numbers materialise there could be widespread disruption, closing thousand of schools, non emergency medical services being cancelled etc... I have mixed feelings about this on-going public sector pension battle. It strikes me as yet another example of how we have allowed ourselves to become completely dependent on the government for all our needs. We trust them to make provision for our total well-being  from the 'cradle to the grave'. Why do we keep doing  it.?  If you ask any one what they think of politicians and politics in general there is usually a negative, and sometimes downright aggressive response?.

By asking these politicians  to do so much we are giving them control,and, the more control they have, well-obviously-the more they will use it. The only result will be more disappointment and sense of  being disenfranchised. We need to stop allowing the Government to have so much influence over our lives. We can only do that by insisting on lower taxation, thereby freeing us up to make our own arrangements. And, if we don't like the terms and conditions we can move our hard earned money somewhere else.


However, that being said many of our current public sector workers have for years contributed to their pensions on certain understandings-they had a deal- which the Government is now trying to renege on. I can fully understand their feelings of being used, misled and robbed. It seems to me that the government should, at least for those workers who have put in twenty five years or more, honour its commitment. Everyone else should be given a refund on what they have paid in. In the future the government should stop providing  pensions and start to lower taxation. After all, if we don't allow them  to have so much of our money, they have less to abuse and misuse us with.

Magna Carta Bank Holiday 15 th June 2015

Eleanor Laing, Conservative MP for Epping Forest, has introduced a Private Members Bill (SO No 23 ) in a bid to make 15 June 2015 a bank holiday, to celebrate the 800th anniversary of  Magna Carta.You can read the full statement here . There is also an E petition calling for the same, along with making St George's day and Trafalgar day  public holidays.You can read it and if you wish, sign from here

I fully support this aim and I hope every one gets behind it to make it a success.The campaign might if we are lucky, stimulate a long overdue debate about the meaning of this document and what it means for modern times. Do the principles still guide justice? governance?. How many of us even know what those principles are or,  have even heard of Magna Carta.

It will be interesting to see how many MPs support the campaign to celebrate Magna Carta but who nevertheless, supported the Criminal Justice Act(2003) which came into force 2007. This act, amongst other things destroyed the principle of trial by jury, a major clause of Magna Carta. Trial by jury prevents the group who bring the prosecution i.e the state from deciding the soundness of the case against the defendant. Over in Northern Ireland the principle was eroded in the 1970s when dealing with terrorism. The Diplock Courts as they were known, were finally abolished in 2007.  However, special provisions for the province  were introduced to continue the practice of jury-less trials.

Another  major principle established by Magna Carta is that of the presumption of innocence. It defends against arbitrary power which  puts people in the position of having to prove innocence to annul a penalty rather than the state having to prove you guilty before they impose it. Do we still have this protection? The campaigning and research group Crime and Society Foundation  doesn't seem to think so. In its research on Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) introduced in 2003. . it found that;   "PNDs operate outside the traditional realms of criminal justice, thus bypassing key protections afforded to members of the public accused of an offence. As such,PNDs erode justice in the name of speedier punishment" You can read the report here

We can only hope that interesting times are ahead.

All Quiet In The London Play Pen: this time!

At least ten thousand students converged on London today to demonstrate against any increase in student fees. They followed a strictly imposed route, with twenty or so being quickly evicted from Trafalgar Square where they had tried to set up a camp similar to the one set up outside St Paul's Cathedral  by the Occupy mob. The demonstrators tramped through the streets and let everyone know what they thought of university fees, bank bailouts and anything else that causes them to spit out the dummy. By dusk most had dispersed. Latest reports reckon on twenty arrests. No-one attacked, or had a fire extinguisher thrown at them from a great hight. And, as far as I am aware no windows smashed, no one urinated on a war memorial.Very civilised. What a pity it needed  four thousand police officers to ensure such civility. I'm sure there will be complaints soon about the restrictions imposed on the marchers. But children,listen and learn: if you cannot behave without supervision-

People who believe they have entitlements which others have to provide, instead of first and foremost, having obligations to look after themselves, coupled with a sense of gratitude for anything that is given to them by others, very often turn to violence when they get told no you can't, 'the bank's shut',the pot's empty. We saw it at the last student demonstration, we saw it across England in August. It's not, as many like to claim, caused by deprivation or unemployment.

 The release by the Office of National Statistics of figures on those  rioters show that 35% were reliant on benefits. Something the B.B.C. tried to make a big deal of,  while at the same time not even mentioning that the figures also clearly demonstrate that 65% of the rioters were not reliant on benefits. We also know from some of the individual court cases that many were employed. No, it is a culture of 'my rights' my entitlement' my desires must be satisfied'  which is at the root of many violent outbursts. The sooner we get back to a culture of knowing about, and feeling a sense of obligations the better.

Democracy, Accountability, Responsibility not Welcome Here;is this a Greek Tragedy?

Under pressure from all sides, including the German Chancellor Merkel and The French leader Sarkozy, the Greek Prime Minister, who announced a referendum on the new bail-out package for the country's debt is facing an ousting from government. What/who replaces his government has yet to be decided as the crisis is still unfolding.  A commentator on the B.B.C. echoed the sentiments of some political pundits and the financial markets that his going may bring some relief.  Relief from what. Oh nothing much, just a referendum for the Greek people. Well let's not allow anything like democracy stand in the way of a deal to satisfy the banks eh.
However, not having the referendum does not take away people's choice about the bail-out. There is, as they say, more than one way to skin a cat. We have already seen how the bail-out deals have been received so far: riots, petrol bombs, strikes. Will it be any different with this one. I doubt it.  It could even get worse as the measures kick in. The Greeks have also been told to accept the bail-out or get out of the Euro.
What would a referendum have done anyway.? Well, two things as I see it.
1) To be given a choice, to be asked,  people are more likely to take a more mature approach to a situation.  To have accepted the deal they would be accepting responsibility for the measures that they will have to live with. This, which seems to have escaped the notice of the political elite is called democracy; Participation, consultation, accountability for all.
2) To reject the package, especially under the all or nothing stance would have made it clear that Greeks want out of the E.U.  If this is the case it needs to be faced, and now rather than later. Leaving the E.U. would not be, as some fear, a get out of  paying debt card.  This can still be negotiated, but with the Greeks having more of an input than simply following undemocratic diktats from Brussels, and the international, unelected banking system, and last but not least, China, -that bastion of freedom- whose leaders didn't think a referendum would be helpful-well they would say that wouldn't they.

Mrs Gaddafi and the Water Babies;any one care to oblige?

Slightly of topic here but events in Libya have overshadowed all other news at the moment, nothing else is happening apparently. The 'Battle of Dale Farm', which look set to provide a week's worth of news as the police mounted a surprise attack, suddenly disappeared from our screens. As did the events in Athens as thousands of people began a  48 hour strike, workers occupied public buildings and even magistrates went on a go slow. All culminating in the usual stand off with riot police, burning cars, petrol bombs e.t.c.  Neither of these events was considered newsworthy once the town of Sirte was close to defeat. Its liberation and the death of Gaddafi has become the only show in town .Graphic photo's and reports of his death have been flashed around the globe. No one now doubts that he is dead. His death was violent and grizzly. Captured and surrounded by an angry and armed crowd after being dragged out of an underground pipe he is beaten, shot and thrown on to the back of a truck. Was this Murder?, or Justice?
 Mrs Gaddafi  has called for an investigation by the U.N. into the circumstances of her husband's death. The U.N is supporting the claim, reminding the world about the illegality of extra-judicial killings e.t.c. I would support Mrs Gaddafi and the U.N. so long as she reciprocates and accepts a U.N. investigation into extra-judicial killings in Libya which took place under the Gaddafi regime. Not all Gaddafi supporters and loyal drones have been killed. Many of them knew the game was up and  got out. They could provide valuable information, as could Mrs Gaddafi herself. Though I doubt very much that the lady has seen the light and absorbed the principles of justice,which mean, if they mean anything at all, that what you demand of others you must be willing to submit to yourself .
Perhaps someone ought to send her a copy of the classic children's story by Charles Kingsley,The Water Babies. Perhaps It will educate her as to the principles of justice: No need to read long tomes from the U.N. Charter or myriad law books, Just look at who poor Tom is caught between;  MRSDOASYOUWOULDBEDONEBY and MRSDONEBYASYOUDID. To  demand justice for yourself while not being willing to submit to it is sheer hypocrisy. And for the U.N. to even consider putting the new Libya under this kind of  pressure at this time will do nothing to help build bridges with the West which, for forty years dealt with the Gaddafi regime, in full knowledge of the oppression and violence perpetrated against the Libyan people.
No one can know for sure whether or not the new Libya will succeed in realising the aspirations of its founders. We can only hope. If it fails, if the divisions in that society lead to civil war, especially a prolonged one, there could be serious consequences for the rest of us. Both Libya and the West rely on oil. Those that have it make pots of money to sustain their economy, those that buy it use it to sustain modern life. However, the flow and exchange of oil and money depend on stable societies. I hope the Libyan people succeed for all our sakes but, I believe this call for an investigation into Gaddafi's death will hinder rather than help.
Perhaps someone could send a copy Of the Water Babies to the General.Secretary of the U.N. or, perhaps he  could borrow Mrs Gaddafi's copy.

Call to scrap the Human Rights Act

Home Secretary Theresa May, has called for the Human Rights Act to be scrapped. Her interview with the Telegraph newspaper on the Third of  October  is nicely timed to coincide with the start of the Conservative Party Conference  this week and is bound to upset its  Liberal Democrat Coalition partner which, during its recent Party conference announced that the Act was here to stay.  The Human Rights Act though, will not be scrapped even under Conservative government.  It has been with us for so long now it is part of our heritage;and, it is not as though the act was conferring rights of persecution, tyranny, or mayhem. It is meant to provide protection from these things for the most vulnerable. Whether or not it succeeds in this and whether or not it can be improved is open to debate. That it is open to abuse is what seems to be  the driver of calls for it to be scrapped. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. To scrap it and replace it with a specifically British Act will, I suspect still provide loopholes for clever lawyers and immoral claimants. People who do not understand, or lack a sense of the spirit in which something is devised will always use the 'letter of the law' so to speak, to advance their own interests. So, it seems to me that what is needed is a reappraisal of the way the act is understood and why it came into existence.

 Take the Right of Family Life for instance, which seems to be  causing most consternation presently. Like many other Articles of the Act it came about from the experiences of the Second World War and in particular, the war waged against minority civilian groups for no other reason than their race or ethnicity. Bans on marriage between certain groups of people, sterilisation e.t.c. forced population transfers, all combined to destroy families and to make that most personal of decisions, who to marry, how many children, how to raise them, subject to political ideology based on a set of race laws. Who would not want to protect people from this.?

However, interpretation of this Act seems now to be extended with success, to protect the family life of non British Nationals who are, not only not subject to any kind  government tyranny, but are themselves criminals and have wrought a tyranny of a sorts on their victims and their families. Apparently it isn't always possible to deport non- national criminals because it would mean the break-up of his or her family life. This seems  about as far from the intention of the framers of the Act as you could possibly get. The Act does not provide for an absolute right, no rights are absolute, they are always conditional on you not having caused or contributed to your situation. Every day people are separated from their families and  sent to prison. Not because of who or what they are but because of what they have done.We have to be able to discriminate between those who fit the terms of the Act  i.e the innocent, and those who are not. And as long as the break-up of a person's family is a consequence of the person's own illegal actions and the rules on deportation are followed correctly then we have not only a right to deport but also a duty. If we do not, we risk watering down the Act so much that we kill the spirit of it. Once we do that it simply becomes a vehicle for criminals to avoid justice in the pursuit of personal gain. I for one would not want that to be our legacy to all those who suffered for the Act to be needed in the first place. Let us pay them, and the Act a little more respect  

A written Constitution will protect our age old liberties:especially one drawn up by the Government?Really!

The government is allowing us to compile our own wish list of how to make our Country and society a better place. If 100.000 signatures are gained for any issue then it will be debated in Parliament. There are at present, nine petitions with a total of 105 signatories calling for a written constitution in some form or other.
Well it might be a good idea to have one. Looking at what are generally thought to make up our existing constitution i.e. Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, they seem most notable for their distinct lack of influence on our justice system. Trial by Jury, the Right to Silence, non-forfeiture of goods without conviction all seem to have  either been put to death or on the way to it.
What is apparent though in those old pieces of history, is that they were always about challenging the power of  whoever was in charge; Magna Carta limited the power of the monarch against the people, well at least against the Barons anyway. The Bill of Rights also limited the Monarch's power, but this time, in favour of Parliament. This set in motion the transfer of power and state building to Parliament, which now occupies the position once held by the Monarch.
So, let's have a written constitution to reflect our modern society. But given our history of always having to challenge the powers that be in order to secure what we believe to be our freedoms I would think asking that power, to give us a constitution seems rather bizarre.We need a constitution to protect ourselves from those who rule. Therefore, we need to write it for ourselves and impose it on any would be Parliamentarian, along with a Constitutional Court to prevent said Parliamentarians from putting it away in drawer, forgetting about it, re-writing it, adding to it while we're all asleep and generally not giving a stuff about it once they think we're all happy that they condescended to let us have one.

I intend to look more closely at our so-called protections from authoritarian rule via our so-called existing constitutions and ask whether or not it does what it says on the tin.I shall post my conclusions on here for others to dissect and discuss. In the meantime let's have a poll to see just how much support there is for a modern constitution. 

Equality Means?_ page two

A couple more definitions of equality to ponder on. Thanks once again to those taking the trouble to contribute their ideas and thoughts.

•   All people treated without bias or prejudice
•   Positive discrimination to be eliminated by removal of all political correctness
•   Merit to be awarded accordingly

Steve,Civil Servant

The term equality is a transcendental term,much like the term perfection. It is a term which provides a reference point ,the pursuit of an aspiration which can never be realised. Our human goal therefore, is to continue to discuss it, work out how its nuances can be applied to the ways in which we think and live.

It becomes therefore, a dialectical process, wherein its importance is realised in the journey

Michael, Philosopher

Equality of Possession:Redistribution of Property Act?-August 2011

I switched on the T.V. last week-end and couldn't help wondering, if only for a moment, if our wonderful leaders had taken equality concerns to the edge of madness and abolished private property. There in full view of the whole world were representatives from our society; the employed,unemployed, white, black, Asian all helping themselves to whatever they wanted, including t.v.'s, trainers,phones,food, clothes,cigs, and booze. What they didn't want, couldn't carry or was in their way was simply destroyed and discarded. Only hours later when the police seemed a wee bit upset by it all did I realise that what we had was a mass outbreak of criminality. Sigh of relief then,for a moment at least.
However, there are social issues we need to tackle and quickly. We are told by those who should know that many people are poor, cannot read or write properly, cannot find work and therefore cannot pay for anything.  We need to sympathise with them we are told, we need to help them. I agree and, I have a plan. Some may find it controversial and say I'm a leftie with a soft head leading the country to destruction along with all other lefties, who believe the poor are victims of poverty, created by a globalist conspiracy to allow as many people as possible to make money and live comfortable lives. When in fact, we all know, especially lefties, that no-one really wants that kind of life at all. You only have to look at the lifestyles of the leftie class which ran the U.K for the ten years that most of those child criminals were growing up to see that.
I propose that everyone be entitled to free,- yes you read it right- full time education from the age of five to 18. Not only will it be free but, it will also be compulsory-no-one can opt out. In addition, if they are poor they should get a free meal in the middle of the school day.
Controversial-maybe- but it is the only way people can compete in the jobs market and so afford all those things they desire and other people-except for some really leftie types-want them to buy.
.If you agree with this please let your M P know A.S.A.P. IT'S TIME FOR RADICAL ACTION!

Equality Means?

In the search for a definition of equality I decided to shift focus from government and policy makers to my peers.  I have posted some of the responses below.  Thank you to those who were kind enough to participate in my not too scientific piece of  research.

I shall post more as I get them.  In the meantime please feel free to respond to any of the posts or, take the poll, or even both.



  "every one is equal in every way__some hope!"
Peter, retired film editor.


  "every one is the same"
Michelle, Community volunteer.


  "never thought about it that much. But if I said what I thought it probably wouldn't be liked"
Lee,tyre fitter
  " Asking - What the term Equality means to me is one treacherous question its a bottomless pit in discussion, one persons equality is another persons route to oppression.

In my job as a firefighter the term equality has been sidelined and replaced to some extent by the concept of Fairness: Fairness at Work is an attempt to protect the worker against the employer the minorities against the majority. Although progress has been made and tolerance has increased the tendency is to force prejudice underground under the banner, often, of Political correctness gone mad.
Equality may mean treating everyone the same, without favour with justice rather than a set of laws. It is about accommodating difference or tolerating difference with due regard, respect and dignity
.Structurally society is at odds with fairness and equality ours is an unequal world wealth, power and control over ones own life go hand in hand, discrimination exits at all levels the law can only lay down behavioral limits which can be easily pushed aside or circumvented. Some religious groups could never be reconciled to homosexuality, or the role of women. Justice and fairness for all is but a slogan not a reality.
In conclusion, equality has a social and political edge, a secular Trinity always in conflict always being redefined and accommodated by the structure it exits in its strength ebbing and flowing in a constantly warring sea of conflicting needs. Reconciling those needs often requires a fight were there are winners and sore losers."

 John -Fire fighter

  "Never really thought about it, But, if I said what I think it probably wouldn't be liked"

Lee, Tyre fitter.

Are some of us more equal than others?

The recent furore over the alleged phone hacking by News of the World journalists and who at the top knew or didn't know has provided a glimpse into the world of our so called elites, those people who shape and fashion our society. Here we have hundreds of workers at the News of the World losing their jobs at the click of an email, while those who held positions of responsibility during the time of all the alleged dubious practice seem to still have enough clout to participate in the discussions and decision making about how the crisis should be dealt with. They seem to move effortlessly from one little cloud to another. Mr Coulson, when things got heated at the newspaper, simply moved to advising our Prime Minister, Ms Brooks kindly offers her resignation. Mr Murdoch, the big man himself, well he's going to sort it all out. And while he's taken the trouble to come over here he might as well try and boost his bid to get the rest of BSkyB.So, all's well with the world then .I don't know what Coulson and Brooks  will do next to earn a living. But I doubt they'll be spotted down the local Job Centre.
It's a nice thought though to image them completing a modern job application. And anyone trying to find work lately will know what I mean. I wonder how they would answer these typical questions:

 a) How do your skills and experiences meet the job description-please give examples?

 b) What qualities will you bring to our organisation?
.
 c) Have you ever been the subject of disciplinary procedures or investigations at your place of employment?.

And last but not least, the Criminal Records Check! Let's wait and see

In a fair and equal society the handling of this scandal would be very different, and there may not even have been a scandal. Perhaps if those journalists, who hacked into mobile phones had not been allowed to get away with it on the spurious ground that the victims were celebrities, maybe they would never have gone on to hack into the phone of a missing child. It should have been nipped in the bud. And it would have been if it were you or I stealing  and interfering with other people's private correspondence
But we all know in an equal society, some are more equal than others.

Equality ? well, depends how thick the door is

In a confused article by Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission,which appeared in the Telegraph last week we find the limits of state power in its drive to 'equalise'everything and everyone.
There is an admission by Mr Phillips that there is a popular anti-religious sentiment prevalent in society and that some people of faith are feeling under siege. However the E.H.R.C. is not party to it and will defend people of faith providing that they adhere to the law, they cannot be a special case. They should also keep politics behind the church door and not 'politicise' faith,remember they are providing a public service, and just for good measure, remember that their charitable status depends on the government.
All well and good. But then we find that while it is wrong for ordinary employers and service providers to discriminate on the grounds of race , gender, sexuality e.t.c. when it comes to religious institutions it is a different matter. Different rules apply.
 Apparently it is not for the Commission to be telling Churches how they should organise themselves and that a decision has been made not to pursue equality issues beyond the Church door.
In other words, Churches and other faith organisations can continue with practices,-women Bishops,gay Bishops,e.t.c. which, in other contexts would probably land them with a Tribunal or a Court appearance.
I rather suspect that it wasn't so much a decision to stop at the church door as finding that the 'church door,' far from being some charity, providing some kind of public service, is in fact, a very powerful organisation and that the door was too thick for the state to kick open.
So where does this lead the drive for equality, a supposedly universal principle to be universally applied?
If faith groups can opt-out why not others. To take the E.H.R.C policy to its logical conclusion it should be perfectly possible for an employer to discriminate in its recruitment of employees regards race, gender,e.t.c. providing they do not discriminate against customers!
Should having a religious belief exempt people from complying with laws the rest of us have to adhere to. Does it really matter?
Well,I don't know but, I suppose it's one definition of equality-ONLY GO FOR THE WEAK DOORS-

Equality

I was thinking about women's equality and what it means today, what the struggle was for. Do we really have equality? Equality must surely mean equality of responsibility as well as opportunity. Have we taken the same responsibility and, are we even expected to take it whether we want it or not. If equality is simply about choice, then that isn't really equality at all, it's advantage

If we were to become engaged in total war would the call up be imposed on women as well as men and, would women accept it as their duty like so many thousands of men have done in the past.

Just a thought