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