Abortion Rights-as long as they're politically correct ones

There's been a lot of hoo ha recently about women being given abortions on the ground of the sex of  the child. Apparently sex selection is illegal in the U.K. as a ground for abortion. The practice was uncovered by the Daily Telegraph which secretly filmed conversations between women and doctors at a private clinic.The patients made it clear during consultation the ground for abortion was the sex of the child. The doctors agreed to carry out the termination and did some 'artistic' paper work to cover up.
Andrew Lansley, Health Secretary, calling the practice not only illegal but morally wrong, has promised an investigation. The Society for The protection of The unborn child (s.p.u.c.)  said it was "the reality of eugenics in modern British medicine"

Now, I don't like abortion, especially since in the U.K. at least, we have had free contraception for decades. However, there's no going back to pre-1967 days;that horse has well and truly bolted. But the response of the establishment reeks of double standards and shows that no matter what they say about freedom of choice they always get very upset when that choice is the wrong one.


If abortion is to be allowed on social grounds i.e. a disabled child that the parents feel they simply cannot cope with, they are not ready to be parents, they have to finish university, they have too many already and society says it is the woman's right to choose we can hardly get upset if some choose sex as a reason. If the prospect of having a child when young is allowed-which could be called a cultural reason, then why not allow for cultural preferences for males over females. We cannot have it both ways. I suspect though, that no matter the law on this issue the establishment must, unless they are dimwits, know that sex selection exists. They just don't admit it and expect every one else to keep quiet about it.

The most common ground for abortion on legal terms is - continuing with the pregnancy poses a greater risk to the woman's life, physical or mental than if she had a termination.Or, continuing with the pregnancy would pose more of a risk to her existing children than if she had a termination. Those two grounds could in my opinion, cover any reason a woman could possibly come up with. So we have abortion on demand, if not in theory then in practice.The woman only has to convince two doctors of how she feels. As far as I can make out nothing has to be proven, no impartial evidence, there isn't time. An abortion has to be carried out within a time limit of 22 weeks. How many have had abortions because of the sex of the child but have played the mental health card about the pregnancy Per Se.

The statement by S.PU.C. was very apt.We do have eugenics. In 2010/11 there were 189,574 terminations in England and Wales, a rise of 8% on the previous year.If the Telegraph had uncovered some Government practice of eugenics which had got rid of the same amount of people on the ground of their supposed uselessness to society, I'm sure we'd all be screaming Nazi scum at them. But what is the difference. We have merely devolved decision making to the individual, who makes the choice on the usefulness or convenience of the potential child, to her own immediate situation.

Those pro-choice supporters who are upset about gender based abortions really cannot have it both ways. If a woman has the right to choose she has to have the right to her own reasons -otherwise she doesn't really have a right to choose.

Campaign for Democratic control

I DEFY ANYONE TO COME UP WITH THREE GOOD REASONS TO VOTE FOR ANY OF THE THREE MAIN PARTIES----I TRIED IT-I FAILED MISERABLY!




I DID THOUGH, FIND LOTS OF REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR THEM. HERE'S JUST A FEW;

1. No Referendum on the E.U.
2. Abolishing Double Jeopardy
3. Giving our money to failed and immoral financial practices.

Can you add to the list?

Strasbourg ruling on Abu Qatada-shelter for criminals?

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the U.K. Government's application to extradite the Islamist Abu Qatada to Jordan. The Jordanian authorities want  him for conspiracy to carry out bombings of the American School and the Jerusalem hotel. He was tried in his absence.

The court ruled that evidence obtained by Jordan which put Qatada  in the frame was obtained through torture and, therefore, to extradite him would be a breach of his human rights.

Evidence obtained through torture is notoriously problematic, not least because it is wrong. It is also unreliable. If someone was pulling out your fingernails with pliers, beating you every day, threatening to rape your female relatives, you may be inclined to say whatever your torturer wants to hear  just to make the pain stop.

However, there are two points here worth considering. Firstly, Qatada himself wasn't tortured and the ruling does not  rule out extradition in the future on the ground that it is- "confident that diplomatic assurances between Britain and Jordan that Abu Qata would not be tortured would be upheld if extradited"


Secondly there is the evidence against Qatada allegedly obtained through torture. If this information was excluded would he still have a case to answer? If so, surely there is scope for us to work with the Jordanian authorities on resolving this issue. Jordan, like the U.K. is attempting to deal with terrorist attacks against its own citizens. The terrorists are trans-national operators and not confined by state boundaries or respect for sovereign rights. It is a global problem and it needs to be tackled at a trans-national level.

A statement issued by the Home Office expressed its disappointment at the ruling but, added that it would continue with its efforts to extradite. I hope it does. We owe it to ourselves and to Jordan to resolve the case in a way which, while upholding our principles to protect the innocent also prevents those same principles from being a hiding place for the guilty.

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.