Site hosted by Build your free website today!

UBUNTU I am because of who we all are.
Supporting the 2012 Olympic Legacy—I WILL be positive and endeavour to maintain the Olympians' love of life and its challenges
MALALA—a statement of the failure of religion:
religion that fails to pro-actively promote the absolute equality of male and female is fundamentally immoral and unfit for decent society.
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)
Diversity within unity and change over time is the reality of Creation. Peter Such, poet and writer (1943–)
Neither praise nor shoot the messenger: the message is all.


Peter Such

Peter Such

A view of Great Berkhamsted from Cooper's fields. 

Peter Such lives in Great Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, England
Formerly working in printing and publishing Peter Such is currently an occasional writer on diverse issues, as the mood takes him.
He has regularly put his views to the test of public opinion, which is how he twice ended up as mayor of his home town.
 He also stood for The Referendum Party in the UK General Election of 1997.
Also on Twitter as Peewit2 (he doesn't take it seriously) and on Facebook as himself (Peter.Such.5)

Last published: Thursday, December 4, 2014 17:12
It was Labour and the Lib/Dems that denied us the political vote that turned commercial agreements on trade into political authoritarian diktat. As Churchill said "Trust the British people". Labour refused to do so and with the LibDems Labour STILL refuses to do so, hence our present mess.

We would have had a perfectly harmonious relationship with the EU had they done so, for the British people would have demanded the basic common sense that is our inherent nature before agreeing anything but clearly neither Labour nor the LibDems possess the necessary courage—or is that self arrogance, or fear of contrary opinion?

I recall my father, when I was only a boy, "Assess the situation, know your facts and if no one else is better qualified, then take charge and lead". There was a corollary: "Don't run to an incident; it disturbs the populace. By the time you get there the protagonists may well have all laid one another flat and all you have to do is pick up the pieces, much less effort involved." He retired from the army as a Major, Royal Military Police, before taking a civilian Civil Service job.
          Andrew Mitchell is of that cadre expected to command. Unfortunately, his ego would trip him up on every occasion! If he does not understand the plain simplicity of wheeling a bicycle through a pedestrian gate he is unfit to be in charge of a car, so what on earth is he doing being in government? Another failed Conservative not up to the job.
          Gordon Brown on the ball for once. Time for Scottish political egotists to stop prancing around and do the job they were elected to do and were so keen to be allowed to do: govern Scotland. Much remains undone through preoccupation with irrelevancies.
          At last realising that "honesty and openness" are the only two realistic policies Mellor has now apologised to the taxi driver. The apology was an essential accompaniment to the incident and should have followed immediately. From a person of such elevated status as Mellor perceives himself the incident should never have happened. What all forms of management must always realise is that whether or not they are capable of organising a piss up in a bloody brewery they, as managers, have a duty to always remain sobe and in commandr. That is one of the many prices one pays for the privilege of being management.

As I wrote in the invitation to my father's funeral, "Be not morbid in your attire: it is the celebration of a life." So, greet the world with a smile and you never know how it may smile back at you! Above all, see each individual aspect of life in context with every other.
          So, on death, let me start with life and its fundamentals. The question of a human abortion arises for only one reason: society, as a collective whole, allows men to behave irresponsibly, poncing their pig-headedly, historically acquired arrogance through no other way than brute physical and blackmailing economic force, all specifically prejudiced against the other half of humanity—females. Promoted as a "contribution" to social progress, it was in fact a wilful abasement of authority and an abuse of attributes. Attributes that were purportedly God-given (so proclaimed by men!) to enhance male dominance but then religion decided to ignore the other aspects of "God-given" Creation: that it was a state of continual change! Religion has always been used as the excuse for maleness to dominate femaleness. As rationality (another aspect of claimed God-given Creation) gained ascendance, society began to recognise its collective responsibility and to accept the secular right of equality twixt the sexes. In the western world, Christianity brought in some aspect of "fair play" but more particularly the obligation to render service. Despite exemplified good intentions the arrogance of maleness re-dominated and many later religionists (of other persuasions such as Islam) could not cope with greatness being humiliated and power being expressed by choice through love and giving. The pope of the day determined to set himself in opposition to a woman, legitimately running England and rendering service to her people, as the pope and his cardinals were incapable of rendering such service to their believers.
The result, today, is that we at last have the CofE showing its capacity to think and be relevant to the modern world, somewhat after the secular world has moved on showing its worth and other religionists have formed their own Protestant break-aways. Even the current pope, in all aspects coming across as the master, desiring to serve and render service to his flock, properly and rationally showed up the failings of secularity in the form of the EU, in his recent address to that gathering. So, we have: God; God operating through science; science without God; Humanism, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy "Believing that it is possible to live confidently without metaphysical or religious certainty [I have never yet personally discovered any certainty in religion] and that all opinions are open to revision and correction, (Humanists) see human flourishing as dependent on open communication, discussion, criticism and unenforced consensus."
          So, in the context of the aforegoing, let me address my personal opinion on the shambolic state of affairs hitting the news headlines in London yesterday (Friday). The predominance of today's laws are based upon the arrogance and ignorance of men, none of whom have the remotest idea of what it is like for a woman to bear a child and few of whom would have the guts to actually go through with giving birth. Let me look dispassionately upon the whole process. First, there is the bodily invasion of a man. A woman has to be psyched up, made emotionally, biochemically, neurologically attuned to accepting the invasion into her body in a state of desire, pleasure and joy. It is her parents' responsibilty to ensure that she is mentally attuned in preparation of this physical age of consent, so that she can acquire the facts, in common with her emotional development, to see the detail in the context of her wholeness and her wholeness within society's wholeness. At this stage there is joint responsibility: for the man to know when consent is given and for him to know that absolutely and without equivocation. Like the car driver, he has a duty of care to know the stability of his state of mind and is therefore fit to interpret his state of mind in conjunction with the other traffic he is negotiating: the girl's state of mind, accountability, time, place and location. It is he who is making the invasion and all accountability is his.
          It is the girl's responsibility to match the male driver's "road" experience and to be fully consciously aware of the ultimate possible consequences of her agreement and that she is knowingly in agreement. Thereafter, for a period during which there might be biological consequences, they are jointly responsible. Assuming there are biological consequences, the male acquired only a "tenant's" contract for the moment of "furnished accommodation", not vacant possession: although, in my view the male acquired a leaseholder's accountability but the body and its female owner (including contents) remain the woman's and her sole control. If she chooses to call upon her lien, it is the male's responsibility to see her through her period of need of whatever duration. If she chooses to decline, that is her initiative and right, at which point the matter ends. It simply is not the place for anyone else to have any opinion upon the matter, save in the wider context of social accountability. At that stage we are all involved, because society is involved.
          First, why should society be bothered?  That is the same question that applies to every other decision in which society chooses, or chooses not, to involve itself: the drunk; the wilfully obese; the wilfully careless. Some, we instinctively agree to fund; others we are not so practicably asked to uphold, let alone given a choice; they are decisions made by default assumption rather than individual assessment.
           Behind the demonstrators in London yesterday it is claimed that to restrict them would be to restrict free speech. Codswallop! It is they who are currently abusing free speech by their wilful provocation, involving a desire to countermand choice.

GOING NOWHERE FAST Pt 2 [after-noon post]
Looking purely at the secular world, which the Pope addressed most realistically yesterday, I perceive we are at a stage of major change. Perhaps more realistically, we are at a stage of potential serious change for the better, if we have the courage to recognise it. It requires a lot of letting go of acquired prejudices and their presumptions.
          Since science, in the form of psychological assertions, does not appear to have made any constructive observation on our various states of "insanity" (I use the term in the layman's colloquial mode) let me presume to make some personal conclusions/express some opinions. As implied in the Pope's delivery to the EU, we all have personal accountability. A statement I have often previously made. This likewise means that any community comprised of human beings has a likewise corporate accountability. This applies under the "simple" banner of 'due care in the community'. There is no reason why, in the seemingly more complex world of IT, the same principles should not likewise apply. The complexity of legal position is no excuse, the law has always been a complication over which there is always argument. That there is argument is no excuse for avoiding the issue: the issue requires to be resolved. The issue that got me going was the apparent failure of Facebook (presumed) to ward off, as might have been possible, the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby.
          One can only go on the face values and the recorded antics of his wilful murderers. One can compare their antics with the mass riot in Ferguson; with the claims of IS. One may say in Ferguson that the eruption there was provoked by many years of failure to address essential basics of life: fault, the white majority? One could argue that Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowal, Rigby's wilful murderers were likewise led astray by failure of the "natural" residents to address their grievances. By "natural" I refer to those already living here and being imbued with the understanding of their habitation: a duty of care placed on Michael Adebolajo's and Michael Adebowal's family to see them properly brought up in English culture, either because those parents chose to come here for those same reasons of Englishness or, being here, to pass on what was the gut of their parents to have taught them. It appears Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowal may have attempted to address their grievances themselves by turning to Islam but it appears that those who taught them Islam did not themselves understand Islam. One of the problems with Islam is that there is as diverse a range of interpretations as Christianity contains but in none of the "officially" recognised sects is there an interpretation of Islam as understood (or wilfully abused) as Michael Adebolajo's and Michael Adebowal's interpretation.
           On this basis, therefore, there is absolutely no justification for any IS or ISlike organisation to behave as IS does. Let us look at the word "martyr": A person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs; A person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy; Kill (someone) because of their beliefs; martyred for their faith. [Oxford]. By definition, IS members/believers have never been martyred. It is the people they have wilfully murdered, in direct opposition to their declared Islamic beliefs who have been martyred for THEIR faiths! Where is the rationality in martyring other people to proclaim them heroes by IS's own hands? It is irrational.
          The IS behaviour is to declare those who oppose IS as martyrs for not believing in IS because their IS victims refuse to submit to a religion based entirely upon fear and mayhem. Quite reasonably. Where is the rationality of declaring a murderer a martyr when it is not he who dies but the purported opponent who believes in something completely different?
          I return to the Pope's address to the EU. Personal accountability. Corporate accountability. Society's accountability. We cannot evade the issues what ever our faith: Religiousness, Humanist, Secularist. We are all here and we are all accountable by our individual actions... and that includes, lack of action.
            Therefore, our default option can only be accepting the status quo. That means western society (Europe) is, in the main, ahead (some parts more than others) of the rest of the world and has a duty, by default, to lead. In the main, it has done so without conscious awareness. On that basis, the moral argument that has persevered through diverse conflicts is reasonably claimable as the most superior, especially as that moral value is geared to forward progression, ultimately bringing down geographical boundaries for the longer benefit of the overall good of all. That does not mean to say that barriers are to be smashed down, either physically or by theoretical administrative diktat but by the will of the collective whole when that collective whole has reached such a state of self-awareness. Until then, we have to work with what we have and defend what we have achieved as effectively as possible. It is the IS and similar ramshackle unorthodoxies that must, by their acquiring self-awareness, find the true path with all of us to acquire that knowledge, most particularly that inner knowledge that maketh humankind.

GOING NOWHERE FAST Pt 1 [morning post]
Once more socialism's pure class bigotry trumpets Labour on the political platform: "If we can't get them one way we'll get them another!" is their  triumphant declaration for a new Labour government. Let us do what Labour hates: dealing rationally with reality. I have frequently said for a very long time that there is only one way to abolish private educatiomake state education so damned good it is not worth paying for private education! The parents who pay for private education do so because they are professional people, hard headed and practical. They will not pay out money unless there is a sound return. Why else would Labour complain about "rich fat cats" if it were not for their proven record of competence? Yes, there are fools in any sector but the principle is unsullied.
          Exactly the same principle applies to the NHS, see column on the right. We need more tax income but also a rationalisation of the tax bands. Be frank with the British people and tell them openly and honestly. Stop this asinine attitude, "we must show we are lowering taxes" Codswallop!
          Labour has always been dishonest. When last in government they made out all was well and then threw us into debt by paying fat cat bankers interest on exorbitant loans instead of spending money on social need. Spending someone else's money on social need is NOT spending our earned income on social need, it is running the country into debt to fill the pockets of fat cat bankers which Labour despises. Where in heaven's name (and I'll deal with heaven shortly) is the logic? Logic is part of God's Creation (if you want to take the God option), so why are we not using it?
          Now I will turn to God. One of God's purported representatives on earth in this plane and time is the head of the Roman Catholic church, a church I have frequently denigrated having received a year at a early age in its educational system; a few years studying it seriously with the intention to convert at a later age, following argument with the CofE (it refused to embrace women priests), my inherited home and finally ditching most of religion in preference for an "open house" policy on spirituality (as opposed to spiritualism).
          The pope's address to the EU is courtesy of The Catholic Herald. In essence, he says much that I have already written on the failings of the EU and it is reassuring to find a serious religionist spouting sense in a practical world which he believes his concept of God gave us.
Today, the promotion of human rights is central to the commitment of the European Union to advance the dignity of the person, both within the Union and in its relations with other countries. This is an important and praiseworthy commitment, since there are still too many situations in which human beings are treated as objects whose conception, configuration and utility can be programmed, and who can then be discarded when no longer useful, due to weakness, illness or old age..." This coincides with my own thinking over the last few days. More anon.
            Very fulsomely, as I myself have previously written: "...The motto of the European Union is United in Diversity. Unity, however, does not mean uniformity of political, economic and cultural life, or ways of thinking. Indeed, all authentic unity draws from the rich diversities which make it up: in this sense it is like a family, which is all the more united when each of its members is free to be fully himself or herself. I consider Europe as a family of peoples who will sense the closeness of the institutions of the Union when these latter are able wisely to combine the desired ideal of unity with the diversity proper to each people, cherishing particular traditions, acknowledging its past history and its roots, liberated from so many manipulations and phobias. Affirming the centrality of the human person means, above all, allowing all to express freely their individuality and their creativity, both as individuals and as peoples..."
   "...It is no secret that a conception of unity seen as uniformity strikes at the vitality of the democratic system, weakening the rich, fruitful and constructive interplay of organizations and political parties. This leads to the risk of living in a world of ideas, of mere words, of images, of sophistry… and to end up confusing the reality of democracy with a new political nominalism. Keeping democracy alive in Europe requires avoiding the many globalizing tendencies to dilute reality: namely, angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, brands of an historical fundamentalism, ethical systems lacking kindness, and intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom ..."
           "...Mr President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, awareness of one’s own identity is also necessary for entering into a positive dialogue with the States which have asked to become part of the Union in the future. I am thinking especially of those in the Balkans, for which membership in the European Union could be a response to the desire for peace in a region which has suffered greatly from past conflicts. Awareness of one’s own identity is also indispensable for relations with other neighbouring countries, particularly with those bordering the Mediterranean, many of which suffer from internal conflicts, the pressure of religious fundamentalism and the reality of global terrorism..."
          "...An anonymous second-century author wrote that “Christians are to the world what the soul is to the body”.[13] The function of the soul is to support the body, to be its conscience and its historical memory. A two-thousand-year-old history links Europe and Christianity. It is a history not free of conflicts and errors, but one constantly driven by the desire to work for the good of all..." 
          "...Dear Members of the European Parliament, the time has come to work together in building a Europe which revolves not around the economy, but around the sacredness of the human person, around inalienable values. In building a Europe which courageously embraces its past and confidently looks to its future in order fully to experience the hope of its present. The time has come for us to abandon the idea of a Europe which is fearful and self-absorbed, in order to revive and encourage a Europe of leadership, a repository of science, art, music, human values and faith as well. A Europe which contemplates the heavens and pursues lofty ideals. A Europe which cares for, defends and protects man, every man and woman. A Europe which bestrides the earth surely and securely, a precious point of reference for all humanity!
Thank you!
           As a vehement anti-Roman Catholic, through studying with intent to become a convert to Roman Catholicism, I give a standing ovation. Religion has embraced secularism rationally.
           It is a pity that Roman Catholicism usually embraces so much negativity that the Pope's message has not been given the prominence I believe should have been given to him.

ON USURY [late after-noon post]
One of many problems with religions' refusal to accept the reality of Creation as it is factually is the delay it invoked in society's moving forward with the commercial foundations crucial to modern commerce: what was old-fashionably termed "usury". The Encyclopædia Britannica provides: "In law, the crime of charging an unlawfully high rate of interest. In Old English law, the taking of any compensation whatsoever was termed usury. With the expansion of trade in the 13th century, the demand for credit increased, necessitating a modification in the definition of the term. In 1545 England fixed a legal maximum interest, a practice later followed by other Western nations."
          Once again "England leads". It is time it did so again but the EU may be stupid enough to stand in its way. Ebola reminds us of the flimsy nature of organic life. The crisis the Labour party's socialism, in conjunction with bank stupidities and sheer greed wilfully thrust upon us, reminds us of our vulnerability to the human quirks in what should be sound economics and competent management. We have the knowledge, yet too many claiming to possess that knowledge wilfully abuse their expertise. Deriving from a God concept of free will, abuse has been an inherent part of humankind's nature, hence the need for law; deriving from brute force; filtered through philosophical moral values to our present day mishmash of historical precedent, attempting to cope with a faster than ever changing society of ever greater awareness, implying more grounds for conflict than trimmed grass on which to frolic.
          Let's keep history simple. Most religious concepts embrace a wholeness of society while maintaining individual accountability, through the benevolence of a deified concept. Hence male presumptuousness from early times, based on the necessities of force and strength but Greek society has always had a more enlightened approach to women. That is why I turn to Gaia in my thoughts on this age of climactic change. Researching as usual, before simply thrusting my views, I find David Spangler writing very similarly to how I was going to proceed. It substantiates "Ubuntu" at the top of this page.
          The secular EU is determined to thrust cohesiveness by diktat under a pretence of harmonious uniformity, just as various religions' high priests have determined they would control their people. It didn't work. Neither will it work for the flotsam and jetsam of those disenchanted with mainstream religions (once Christianity and now mostly Islamic theology it seems). I have questioned before and concluded these are not psychologically delusionals, although indoctrination and brain washing are perceived as leading to psychotic states. The issue of North Korea has never been rationally "diagnosed", through lack of evidence to my knowledge, although through child psychiatry we may learn something of the way mind can be influenced contrary to the individual's ability to control.
        Control? Here I bring in spirituality. Let us assume the two forces of spirit and the biological body. Regardless of how or precisely when the spirit enters the foetus to be born. At what stage is the spirit aware of the nature of the body it has chosen to enter... assuming it has a choice and is not an arbitrary allocation from where, from whom, in what state of existence before becoming born?
          Is the state of the body an expression of the state of the entering spirit as to where it is on its spiritual path, regarding challenges to be faced through past failures, or challenges to be met head on, through spiritual strength acquired through successful previous progression? The traumas affect many; add to the body politic, having diverse effects across a diverse range of individuals, like the subsiding ripples of a stream's disturbance?
          A mooring point for deeper thought another time. For now, I wish to carry on along my present tributary. That point of leading. "To those to whom much is given, much is expected." Quoted by John F. Kennedy. It is arguably opportunity, to which the western world added its insight and hard graft, that enabled the west to overtake the east's earlier advancement. What made the east stop? The west, having picked up the east's gourds travelled on to today, where the west still requires boundaries but has opened the debate of boundlessness. The scourge is Russia: afraid to let go in Ukraine through Putin's shallowness—he is not the man of worth as he likes to portray himself. The UK, used to leading, being expansive but still not settled in its new position, requiring of necessity boundaries for the practicalities of scale, yet still reaching out to the future that even its own church is beginning to comprehend.
          While happy that my close, for the moment, indicates a better state than that of my grandparents when I was a child, the last thing I want is to "rest in peace"! Give me challenge and argument as the world is encompassing, perhaps approaching a new age.
          The concept of Gaia is boundless, as is the mind and concepts of a spiritual plane. The earth was boundless or so few of humankind made it seem so. Has humankind the intellect to turn desserts into forests, again and some of the seas into drinking water? Will the species overpopulate or by some other means reduce its numbers, such as through Ebola gaining an upper hand or antibiotics failing through indiscriminate over-use? So lack of impetus causes us to recede to Neanderthal man?
           The UK's practicalities on size and in principle further afield in Europe necessitates the western world sizing up to the wider world's problems and solving them in situ. That is where the problems originate and where they must be resolved. Perverse it may seem but in principle it is right: we have NHS members volunteering to go out to Ebola struck areas. We have to extend the principle of that medical initiative to the wider economic and social area. That means treading on religious beliefs, especially those hell-bent in thrusting a divers philosophy simply to add further to the existing state of mayhem. While much of the east has caught us up, much of it remains entrenched in history. It has got to be made to grow up much more quickly and be not allowed to further interrupt our progress and enable those lagging behind to catch up. 

Doros Ullah, as a former mayor of his community, should have a wider awareness on what he speaks than he seems to grasp. Despite being born in the British Commonwealth, he seems not to have gathered this is a basically Christian Protestant country, from which historical fact stems its entire cultural background. Education's duty is to inculcate into this country's children their awareness of detail in the context of wider society. That Mr Ullah is a Moslem is not relevant to the argument. As a councillor and former mayor, his duty is to see specific detail in the context of the wider view, which he did not seem to be promoting in the BBC interview I saw.
         I remember, at one of my own mayoral functions, when welcoming a diversity of religious personalities that "Blessed as we are with such a cloak of clergy and doctors of philosophy, it would seem invidious to invite a particular one to say Grace: so I trust you will not think me presumptuous if I say Grace myself." The default etiquette is the town's rector and I am myself CofE but as mayor I am for the whole community and i was always determined that tradition was to be respected in the principle and legal mores but expanded, where appropriate, to recognise the wider diversity of our community. In that, one must not move too fast for the whole but sufficiently forward as to lead by quiet example.
          Regretfully, the CofE has made some disastrous errors of judgment over the last century and it will take it some time to recover. In the mean time, only comparative religion should be taught in schools, never the universality of one and certainly not exchanging Protestant Christianity for any particular alternative that comes from changing balances of community members. Such details are for the homes and churches of the individuals of such communities, not a national curriculum that becomes partisan.

THE NHS [evening post]
It seems the Tory absences today were nothing to do with Rochester but everything to do with the NHS and a formal agreement to revolt, not by being negative or simply abstaining but by simply not being there at all in the first place! Good. They are beginning to listen. It is all a matter of control by sound management. Too often the private sector is concerned about individual egos and not the rendering of service. In government establishments they are too concerned about procedures and managerial etiquette, not that the right managers (the clinicians for critical decision making) are in place, doing the serious managing.
          That some surgeons are concerned about their operation results being advertised is of concern. However, I recall my old gran succumbing to acute appendicitis at 80 and one surgeon refused to operate because he did not want her statistic on his record sheet—he did not expect her to survive. Another surgeon chose to go ahead. She lived on perfectly happily for another five years. We need to be careful we understand both sides of the argument in context!

Mark Reckless has behaved to the standards to which this country was once accustomed as a matter of course: a person, desirous to render service to their country in laying before the public their views at their own risk, for the people to determine the worth of those views.
          To reduce the potential mayhem at the General Election, NOW is the time for the established parties to sort themselves out. Say what they mean and show they do intend to mean what they say, if elected. For far too long this country's politicians have been preoccupied with the EU. That is why we nearly lost Scotland. That is why we are heading for a chaotic state of government in 2015: all because Labour and the LibDems were determined we would not be asked if we wanted politics and the authoritarian arrogance of EU diktat in place of our centuries of established self-rule.
          We, the down-to-earth British people, steeped in eminent common sense would have ensured what Cameron is now inevitably going to fail to achieve—an EU of common sense and rationality. That is what the world is about, the soundness of management, based on common sense, the worth of money and a practical understanding of the real nature of creation, which religion has consistently failed to grasp. Under the EU without us, secularism will make the same mistakes religion has already made, leading us so wilfully astray.
          On to religion. There is a world of difference between family religion and school religion. While the Church of England is now becoming more meaningful (but still hasn't actually got there!) it is a bit late in the day for it to suddenly say "Oh here we are and this is what we do and why...". Comparative religion can only be relevant in schools. Specific religion can only be for the family.
          It is appalling that the education department still has not got the hang of education: that its purpose is to prepare British children to become meaningfully useful adults in a multiculturally diverse world that is continually changing and in which they are going to require the capacity to earn their keep.

I have been appalled at a minor medical failure of inter-communication. Simply, the failure of medical resources to co-ordinate one another's information. I have used their own computer-patient interaction facilities and they still have not co-ordinated the update I have given them.
Now we learn there is a complete breakdown in co-ordination between hospital, social services and the family environment. It may or may not be due to wilful irresponsibility on the part of family relatives or downright bone idleness on the part of the patients but if there is a physical problem in terms of support, surely a hospital should not be bothered? That is a social service problem. I thought we were supposed to be moving to a position where a complete "co-ordinated health support" system which was the purpose behind the Tory health shake-up?
          Probably due to the failure of religion to look forward in a practicable manner, too many of "us" seem to prepare for our expected futures. What exactly will befall us is unknown but what might be reasonably expected can be envisaged and therefore addressed ahead of time. In so far as I can, I believe I have made appropriate provision. In the mean time we all have our lives to live to which we have a duty to live as fully as possible. Reasonably provision is an inherent and essential part of the whole.

As Shadow Attorney-General Emily Thornberry is a barrister. This makes her Tweet even more astoundingly incomprehensible. The fact says everything there is to say about the present state of the Labour party: it simply is not fit... for anything. If a barrister of her seniority can have such little awareness of the law and due accountable procedure then the Labour party simply has NOT moved on from the days when Gordon Brown demonstrated his inability to understand simple entry book-keeping. Had the government used double-entry he might have twigged his financial stupidities.

I have managed to mislay my mobile phone. Responsibly (as it is a P&G that auto credits when its balance drops to a certain low) I mail chatted to stop that. Thirty minute wait and several times only "Thank you for your patience", then  "no one here any more". So tried an email credit card stop. We'll see later on this morning  what happens. Damn!

WEDNESDAY 19th NOVEMBER 2014 [evening post]
Sturgeon is the chameleon she needs to be to be a successful politician and she appears to have what it takes. Today she delivered her acceptance speech to be First Minister for Scotland. Her speech was excellent, her stature relaxed yet assured, confident and happy. She is also a very attractive woman and her poise had the whole Assembly giving her all their attention.
          Her performance the other day was a different matter. That was a dyed-in-the-wool firebrand performance for Guy Fawkes night and it seemed Guy Fawkes was going to have his way if she had anything to do with it. She knows, if the Tories are in power, there will be an "IN/OUT" vote on Europe. If "out", she'll demand another referendum in Scotland. If she has the chance, she will play both ends towards the middle and play havoc with the rest of the UK. Therein lies danger for all of us: she's wilful enough to be totally destructive for her own self-interest: Independent Scotland! She's a woman a man would make a play for: at risk of perpetual mayhem. When she wants, this girl ensures she has. The problem with all political power play is that the play and the end game does not see the broken pieces lining the funeral path

TUESDAY 18th NOVEMBER 2014 [morning post]
Now it appears our own police are incapable of keeping proper statistics. They have been missing out some 800,000 "crimes" (determination of incident variable but how do you know a crime has not been reported if it is not in the statistics?), falsifying recently issued crime figures. The one institution, for legal reasons, that has to ensure it is accurate in everything, every minute of every day, can't now be relied upon for everyday documentation. It is despairing.
          We also learn that the Rotherham child abuse case may be a common experience across the country. A century or so since we implemented Doctor Banardos and similar initiatives, it now appears modern Britain no longer understands the basic civilities and responsibilities. One has to ask, is it foreign influences?  Immigrants, do they simply not understand the basics as we understand them, when we bear in mind the diverse and sometimes perverseness of some of their cultural backgrounds?
          We then learn of Palestinians charging into a synagogue in Jerusalem murdering Jews at prayer (Palestine is predominantly Moslem) and it is put about that the main cause of child abuse in Rotherham is due to Pakistani men, who by implication, are also Muslims.
          The facts at the present time are: Judaism is split into various sects; so is Islam; so is Christianity. Is there the slightest point in taking any notice of any religion? In The Observer on 16th November Tracy McVeigh wrote that the problems with young Muslims is that they are let down by by clerics who cannot speak English and by implication therefore have little idea of the culture of the society they and the parents of the children they teach have chosen to enter. How did they arrive not knowing what they were letting themselves in for, it being the choice they specifically made? She quotes Mirza Masroor Ahmad from Morden, Surrey, which is Europe's largest mosque complex.
           It appears he spoke of Islamic anger against extremism and called for wider efforts for peace. He thought the government should be forgiving of returning jihadists. Typical. Even rational Islamists expects us to do their job for them because their own supposed authorities are incapable of speaking English and understanding the culture in which they have chosen to live. This is no way to educate. Further, this "rationality" devolves from a small sect of Islam (Ahmadiyya) which has not, so far, lost any of its young people to Isis.
           What is relevant here is that Ahmadiyya is regarded as heretical (shades of Roman Catholicism's authoritarian arrogance) and is a persecuted minority in Pakistan. Such Pakistani attitudes may have a bearing on the claim that the greater child abuse in Rotherham was committed by Pakistani men. What this should lead us into doing is to separate thoughts about religion from those purportedly practising religion and recognising that it is probably cultural attitudes that are causing the roughshod attitudes seemingly in contradiction to perceived religious values. Or perhaps it could be simply expressed as "damned bad parenting". For authority, I look to UNESCO from whose paper on "Culture and Religion for a Sustainable Future" I quote.
Developing cultural values that support these people-to-people and people-to-nature values has traditionally been the role of religion in most societies.
Religion is a major influence in the world today. It seems that people in all cultures have a set of beliefs that go beyond both the self and the natural world. We use these beliefs to help explain reasons for human existence and to guide personal relationships and behaviour.
Part of the great diversity of humankind is the many different religions and belief systems we have developed – Animism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Taoism, and many more.
Religious beliefs have a strong influence on the culture of a community. Indeed, for many people around the world, religious beliefs are central to their culture and provide the moral codes by which they live. Even where people in the contemporary world believe that the traditional beliefs of their parents and societies are not so relevant to their everyday lives, underlying religious beliefs about human worth and how to relate to other people and the Earth are still important parts of their lives."
          The last paragraph is significant: "Even where people in the contemporary world believe that the traditional beliefs of their parents and societies are not so relevant to their everyday lives, underlying religious beliefs about human worth and how to relate to other people and the Earth are still important parts of their lives." Acknowledgement at the international level that change is an integral part of society but implies that society may move on and religion may remain static. Therein lies the fundamental problem.
          Religion's failure. It believes in a Creation (however defined) but does not believe in that Creation's reality as it is: a state of continual change. Religion refuses to move with Creation's own inherent changes, most notably the advancement of humankind's ever expanding mind and investigative knowledge base. The logical conclusion is to abandon all religious beliefs in preference for the purported rationality of secularism.
         Look at the UK with the EU. Look at Scotland, that chose union, still demands independence within the union yet wants to stay with the EU should the UK break away, under which Scotland will lose more independence than it would with the Union. Clearly, there is little more rationality in secularism than there is in religion but at least secularism recognises the world as it actually is in this time and plane, where religion persists in looking backwards to what once was but now, in practical terms, is largely historical irrelevance. Note, I am writing here of "religion", not "spirituality".
          Where, then, am I in my personal journey into how we respond to such entities as IS. Yvette Cooper is currently speaking on Labour's view on immigration. Sounds like the Tory voice with a softer more "people" orientated interpretation of what essentially is the Tory manifesto. Labour seems to be waking up!
          Simply, I regret to conclude that religion really has had its day, despite the CofE finally preparing to go to parliament for a change in the law so women can at last be bishops. This is a move that was obvious the moment Queen Elizabeth I was made Supreme Governor.
         I have observed, from a distance, the diverse comings and goings of various religious moments over the last fifty years when the CofE last refused women to become priests, at which point I really gave up any thought of religion.
So, let me keep to simple basics. There is a concept amongst the IS lot that they do not believe in geographical boundaries. This is to wilfully ignore the truths of this plane and time. When taken in conjunction with their practical denial of so much to which they claim an allegiance, they cannot be rated in the contexts of the claimed heretics of other religions in history. That concept of nongeographical boundary universality is fine in the spiritual plane but it is not for those entities to enter this plane in that manner, nor for us to enter theirs in this, our present form.
On these grounds I have chosen to view the IS and their ilk's excuses for rowdy, unsociable and murderous behaviour as inexcusable and unjustifiable. There are established routines for seeking "authoritative" interpretations of various religions and while (as with Islam particularly, where purported clerics are imported without them having a clue as to what they are about) there are some eccentric misinterpreters, whose sole role is to trumpet their inflated egos (ignorantly or mischievously), it is fairly easy to ascertain what is an "authoritative version.
My concern is that I am not aware of the extent to which psychiatric advice has been sought in determining: indoctrination, radicalisation, brainwashing by which these otherwise pathetic hoodlums have become released into the midst of our society with their murderous and irrational sets of behaviour. That I have chosen to dismiss religion for its own entrenched irrationalities, there seems no point in pursuing further any potential spiritual aspiration in IS and their ilk.

MONDAY 17th NOVEMBER 2014 [late after-noon post]
JUST CLEARING MY DESK! (It was said of my cleric cousin that his was Teflon coated! Dust does not fall on mine—there is no space for it!) [late after-noon post]
Great Berkhamsted is great in so many ways. Last Saturday The Bridgewater Sinfonia delivered a superb homage to the men and women of the First World War. Two pieces unfamiliar to me were: Ravel's Le tombeau de Couperin and Vaughan Willliams' Dona nobis pacem. Both performances were a superb introduction to the pieces. The concert, as usual, was superb overall but I have to pick out Elgar's Cello Concerto in E minor, Opus 85. I was within twelve feet of the cellist Matthew Sharp and able to watch the detail of his fingering.
          In front of me was a little girl who had probably attended that after-noon's rehearsal, especially open to Young Friends. I am guessing she was not yet 13 but she was as continually attentive and I remembered my first major concert around 13 but that had been in the Albert Hall. We were some way back but that gave us the full perspective of the orchestra and the building. Here, somewhat cramped by the church architecture, we had a sixty piece orchestra and the fifty or sixty member Chiltern Chamber Choir. The church was almost full. In a town such as Great Berkhamsted you do not need London for the quality of entertainment, it is on your doorstep. That is the standard to which we are privileged to be accustomed.

"BLOODY MEN!" [late after-noon post]
It is incredible that having moved so far on from the 1960's revolution, we still have not taken on board the lessons that period forced us to learn. Even amongst the Catholic Irish a 16 years old girl was raped and she is but one of thirty or so others suffering the same indignity and of years of humiliation, in no way supported by her church in her bid for justice, whose own history of abuse and wilful neglect is pushed under the carpet, refusing to confess its sins and beg forgiveness, while itself arrogantly demanding that very action from its own supporters.
          The BBC's Northern Ireland News desk reported on Mairia Cahill's claims and The Guardian likewise highlighted how "modern" Northern Ireland remains as much trapped in the arrogance of inadequate men and is no different from certain sects of Islam. One could even say that some UK males are as abhorrent to our society as the wilder sects of Islam in their determination to thrust their maleness upon all, so great are their emotional inadequacies.
          Even in the field of sport male aggression rears its head, boldly declaring men's inadequacy at every turn. Ched Evans requires no links from me, he is simply too much in the news. I have previously debated his circumstances in generalities but we are coming to the "crunch" period when clarity of position needs to be stated.
          I have mulled openly on this web, deliberately avoiding (I hope) judgementalism. C Michael Patton has published on this and his views will serve here. That is not to say one should fear expressing one's views provided, in my opinion, one makes some attempt to show the "authority" with which one presumes to express those views. "Authority" in this context is to quote from others of similar views with some background as to why I respect their opinion, which may be for no other reason than they have already stated my similar beliefs that may or may not have been published in any authoritative or "peer" grouping. My writing here is not an academic paper. It is no more than casual expression of my reflective mood at the time I key characters to the screen. I take up physical space, consume irreplaceable commodities and therefore have a responsibility to demonstrate some justification for my existence in our collective whole.
          So, in a somewhat roundabout manner, I mull and share my thinking, trying to obtain a collective view of a diverse and divergent (arguably diverging) continually changing whole. Sport seems an odd base for social behaviour but it goes back to the Olympian Games of Greece, as does so much of our culture. It is our style to "play the game" in all aspects of life and living, even where one does  not intend to "play cricket", one still plays by its "rules".
          This is why Sheffield United Football Club's decisions over Ched Evans are so crucial. This is not a matter solely for the club; solely for the FA; solely for FIFA, for FIFA itself seems to have sullied the international standards of sport generally. It is a matter for all of us for all of us are affected by the way we play the game of life and living.
         In this, Jessica Ennis-Hill has magnificently spoken forth, as Sheffield Football Club knew full well she would... had they the most basic understanding of sound management, which does seem to be generally missing in many sectors of international football. Further, a writer of unknown qualification (to me), one Katie Hopkins tweeted: "Jessica Ennis is Supreme judge in the court of public opinion. Being able to run fast & jump high makes you super qualified. Who knew?" Predictably, thank goodness, Hopkins was soon bombarded by people asking her what were her own qualifications entitling her to write in such a manner. Precisely: another witless contributor seemingly deliberately intending to counter anything worthwhile emerging from the public debate.  It also appears that Jessica herself has been bombarded by the dirty unwashed and illiterate members of our lower echelons of society.
          These developments serve only to confirm a general degradation of society runs parallel with our practical involvement with the EU where standards of common sense and ability flee with indecent haste.

MONDAY 17th NOVEMBER 2014 [after-noon post]
EGO AND SELF-INTEREST BEFORE DUTY RAGES RAMPANT  Pt 2 [after-noon post, continuing from Pt 1 in this morning's post]
This is where the whole construct of the EU is undermined. This secularity makes the same mistakes that most religions make. It sets into rigidity a construct for the moment that denies, just as religion does, the reality of that moment: that it is a state of continual change, for which the only rational construct can be FAM (Flexibility, Adaptability and Malleability
          This is why the UK always seems to be the main nation "out of kilter" with everyone else. Historically, it is the most flexible of them all. That is why Labour were so misguided, in their pig-headed superior statement that they would deny the British people the vote on "yes" or "no", as Churchill so rightly advised so many decades back: "Trust the British people".
          Had Labour acted with the magnanimity of sound desire to truly render service to the people, a referendum would have been called and would not have been passed until the EU's irresponsible restrictions had been rendered into basic common sense.
          For nearly five centuries we have been global in our outlook and perceptions in service to the people. The British people would have rejected the twaddle parts of an incompetent mass meeting and would not have agreed to the EU's wishes until the sense and sensibility, now trying to be implemented by the Conservatives, had been agreed.
          Thus, it is Labour that has compounded our present crisis, not only by borrowing money profligately but by failing to employ the inherent common sense of the British electorate. You only have to look at the development of language and the changes of constitutional law to understand the diversity of breadth and depth with which the essence of what is "British" is so clearly understood by the British people. Totally unlike any of the other EU nations our world awareness of the collective whole. We, the tiny island are anything but insular: it is the vast continent along side us that is puerile and small minded in its outlook and attitudes.
          Of just what is that continent composed? Failed empires. Nations that lack what is the nature and spirit of Britain: global orientation, free trade, fulsome interaction. Labour chose to reject these proven historical values in preference for the preoccupation of once great nations' all of whom several times beaten by Britain in past wars, for a preoccupation of their respective tummy buttons, encompassed within an insularity from which position they deride the tiny island just off their beam that presists with the wider view. All of them intent on ensuring no one does anything, by tying everything up with irrelevant red tape. That is why the EU is so fixated on why things should not happen.
          Why is Labour so keen on this? Because it is supported by the trade unions whose sole purpose has always been why something could not happen. They are all frightened by the concept of getting up off over-seated backsides and actually getting on with doing something productive and useful—precisely what the EU is determined to support, the reasons why something cannot happen. Britain's inherent nature is to ensure something does happen. We do not and will not give time to time wasters who waste time over minutiae.

MONDAY 17th NOVEMBER 2014 [morning post]
What is our duty? Who is to define and allocate it? History should define it as God but that is to deny the biochemical equation, whether in itself or through Godly intervention. Death clarifies. Biochemical reaction and its results are clear cut. If there was a soul it clearly has departed. Do our five senses tells us the soul never existed? That raises the complexity of all the other senses of which we are varyingly related through the organic biochemistry of our bodies.
          Andrew Brown in The Guardian [Thursday 3 April 2014 10.06 BST] reviews Ian McGilchrist's book The Master and his Emissary with more authority than I can express at the moment. To me, the key at this juncture, of the continuity of spiritual aspects of the individual is more for trying to establish an authority with which to look at the principles of morality in this present period of time. That I accept there is a context of eternity derives from an internal belief I perceive I have always possessed from an early childhood awareness, now amplified by mature, practical experience of interaction. The body of confirmation being the vast numbers of people historically and currently who uphold diverse aspects of such reasoning.
          One may counter-argue that the smaller body of opinion countering aspects of "the eternity of the soul" is due solely to the fact such opinions have only recently been openly debated, contrasted by the thousands of years of civilisation finding its way to this point of knowledge. Yet past knowledge should not be dismissed because it does not meet modern criteria of examination and argument. As with history generally, we need to view such beliefs in the context of their time and not in the context of today's wider certainties.
          As I have stated before, the main failure of almost all religions has been the persistence with which they first deny the reality of what they claim to believe; then they persist in looking backwards to what once was, instead of looking forward and acting as a real and proper guide to the continuing everyday and to where it might be leading, or to where we might be directing ourselves.
          In legal terms "moral certainty" is effectively "beyond reasonable doubt". In Philosophy Now [Sep/Oct 2014] Peter Lloyd savages the “continental” approach to moral philosophy, quoting Oliver Cromwell in 1650: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken”. That is the failure of so many over time: the presumption of a certainty without due process of argument. On the web site of Neil O'Hara published a paper "Defending Basic Moral Certainty" for which reference I will not proceed further other than to ask, have providers of news and debate on the issue of religion in today's society carried out sufficient research as to the weight and value of the argument, the "fundamental" [and currently I hate that expression] moral arguments and authority with which views are expressed. My follow through and presumed opinion in the argument is based on snatches from perceived factual "authorities" interviewed, all too minimally to acquire a seriously "certain" opinion.

WEDNESDAY 12th NOVEMBER 2014 [after-noon post]
CONTINUING FROM MONDAY 10th NOVEMBER 2014 [after-noon post]
Would not an objective acceptance, in principle, of spirit and another life beyond this physical aspect of humankind be a more rational basis for resolving conflict? Is that not what Cameron meant when he reaffirmed “This is a Christian country”. Incidentally, I do not recall any meaningful comment from the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time.
Essentially, a solution to the “master”, or overbearing conflict, is perceived as deriving from all participants failing to accept this “state of eternal spiritual existence”. They interpret this “spirit” into their version of interpretation, naming their belief as a “religion”. That, in their view, is the only acceptable interpretation of the whole and they insist it is the only correct version.
Not only must deniers be eternally condemned but must be positively exterminated: despite the fact that in many interpretations their various angsts specifically deny the actions they make in self-proclamation. Suddenly, a serious world crisis hangs around academic and non-academic interpretations of religion and spirituality. It seems philosophy is reduced to a stage set for the Daleks! Ironically, it is the BBC that brings us both the broad entertainment and in-depth news on both events.
In some religions (if one interprets such entities as IS as a religion) they insist their interpretation is accepted by force, or dissenters suffer death, promptly contradicting the very message they purport to proselytise: spirit and its eternity, in which case they are merely pushing the argument into the spirit world—with what logic? What makes them think they can resolve their problems there rather than here?
Since spirit and logic are a part of Creation (regardless of how, for now), they know their conflict is eternal. What value then their “religion”, the state of
spiritual values and their need to resolve this world with the next? How does  despatching the argument into that future existence resolve the issues? Why not themselves commit suicide (contrary to most “recognised” religions) and solve the problem for themselves immediately?
They believe “heaven” is an entity of joy, fulfilled by this existence’s pleasure zones (they believe (though not necessarily IS) in vestal virgins, always available and still virgin, such are the miracles of their heaven) but exclusive to them. Yet, they wish to ruin it by clouding that heaven with the problems of this existence, which they are so keen to show they are incapable of resolving?
Ignoring concepts of “good and evil” and staying with this physical plane, we must turn to psychology, as in the recent case of the child killing a teacher in the UK. Is IS explainable in psychological terms? Writing in layman’s terms, is IS simply a collection of “fruit cakes”? If we, in the UK, are turning to realise the need for more serious and immediate attention to our nation’s mental health, should we not be applying the same logic to international affairs? Is countering IS and related issues a matter of mental health? It will not be the first “religion” that has gathered over-excitedly round an eccentric honey pot who was only offering superb salesmanship of his own ego.
How does one delve into the mind: what is the difference between a Psychiatrist, a Clinical Psychologist and a Psychotherapist?
          Delving into psychiatry serendipitously is too much for now… but interesting. Darian Leader is a British psychoanalyst and author.[1] He is a founding member of the Centre for Freudian Analysis and Research (CFAR), and is known for his mental health activism. In Madness Is The Rule Rather Than The Exception Darian Leader says that "insanity has been given a bad press". His book What Is Madness, is reviewed in The Guardian by Jacqueline Rose.
           Nigeria’s wealthiest preacher David Oyedepo, has an estimated £93 million fortune, a fleet of private jets and a Rolls-Royce Phantom. How much has he offered to counter Ebola? According to the Daily Mail he is part of a worldwide empire of evangelical ministries. Is the Christian world only different from Islam's problems in the "reasonableness" with which they conduct their respective "madnesses"? No different whatever, Islam too can be so very reasonable. From the serious to the laughable, really highlighting the ease with which some can be so misled: the self-promoted egos of Islam.
          Rajneesh is another lover of Rolls-Royces and purportedly a professor of Philosophy, another reference on how well philosophy can pay.
          Then there is Jim Jones. Is IS any different from any of the above? Is IS simply another bunch of fruit cakes? Who is to say authoritatively and why haven’t they been commissioned to say? Do we have to accept that all religion is merely variants of mental derangement?
           Ignore history, which on grounds of numeracy at least can make substantial claims that there is such an entity as "spirit". Rationality exists and is a part of Creation. Why then will not those aspects of religion that claim a God created universe apply the very logic that exists within that Creation? Yet there is much within all religions to which modern society must pay homage, if only in a description of "the common good", or acknowledge as soulless philosophy. I use "soulless" deliberately, rather than "secular".
          From "Guidance on Religious Education in English Schools":" Section 78 (1) of the 2002 Education Act states that all pupils should follow a balanced and broadly based curriculum which ‘promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, social, mental and physical development of pupils and of society, and prepares pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life’. Learning about and from religions and beliefs, through the distinct knowledge, understanding and skills contained in RE within a broad-based curriculum, is essential to achieving these aims. Exploring the concepts of religion and belief and their roles in the spiritual, moral and cultural lives of people in a diverse society helps individuals develop moral awareness and social understanding."
          That at least shows a widening approach but does not pay serious attention to comparative theology and leaves the option/presumption of other indoctrinations, especially in church orientated schools. Take the EU as example of the deep-seated entrenchment of fixed ideologies that exist throughout the western world. The EU has determined religion to be exempt from universal declaration of equality to male and female. Despite the fact that Christianity itself quotes that eternal right: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)"
           When religion wilfully declares its deliberate denial of its own truth in its own teachings (and Islam's Qu'ran is equally contradictory) is it rational in a rational Creation to take any of it seriously? This is why I prefer to discuss religious matters in the context of spiritual aspects of modern life, rather than the historical dogma of a time that is no more, for Creation itself has so declared it. Creation, a state of continual change, has changed!
          It would therefore seem rational and Christian to deal with physical threats in the time and plane of their existence. That still leaves open the question: is this hysteria a mental disorder? If so, what is the delusion and why is it not medically being investigated and surely, it still requires medical authority, not political authority, to determine it is not?
Is it rational to dismiss them simply as requiring medical attention in mental health? The irrationality of the Church of Rome today (despite some sense at last showing through but still being rejected) and the still lagging behind of the Church of England in implementing what it started four centuries ago, holds back rational dialogue between “heaven and earth”. Rome’s “lunacy” today is the same as four hundred years ago, which formed the Church of England. It was always nothing more than the pure egotism of the principal players and their desire to abandon the concept of rendering service, for adopting the ego of personal power, although in Elizabeth’s view and rightly was the protection of her people, while Rome’s preoccupation was for the damnation of its people. No different from Islamic and other eccentrics today but four hundred years too late. This is not the world of their claimed beliefs. The Creation in which they too believe, in much the same way as Christian concepts, has been moving in the very way they both deny their beliefs: continually changing. Religion will not accept that today is not yesterday’s concepts of Creation. It is Creation itself that has moved on: not the concepts of it.
Their power bases reside NOT in education but in deliberately withholding education and replacing it with indoctrination—another aspect of psychology. At last, the UK promotes a wider RE in its secular schools than it has been doing. This alone raises fundamental issues as to how England is adapting and should adapt, formally recognising the change in Creation itself: or is that our advanced awareness of the nature of Creation?
Something I have asked in previous articles. Is physical force on a physical plane (in any situation) the appropriate response, if in fact we are dealing with (as has previously been thought in past circumstances (but also proved wrong)) a state of madness, whose cause has not been understood; or has been too cavalierly dismissed, through lack of evidence or appropriate research? Or is IS simply a form of mass hysteria? Many “established” religions have had their nutters, or people in charge who have simply been bonkers in what they have done. Or is it all “straight forward” brain washing and political authorities are simply getting over-excited?
Why was not the same ardour put behind the Ebola outbreak as is being co-ordinated worldwide over IS and as immediately?  Are we not approaching the point where Ebola has already killed more people than IS, or similarly related fruit cake chefs? Where are the psychiatrists’ and psychologists’ reports on IS mental distractions? Are they being sought? If so, why no news and if not, why not?
Can we lose labels, strip out all concepts of religion and examine the world view as merely a management problem of policing? Maybe there is logic to this IS behaviour, akin to the bizarre behaviour of the Japanese pilots in World War II, called “kamikaze”; or the speed with which so many Japanese fell on their swords when confronted with the certainty of defeat? To them, these acts were entirely logical. They wanted to die from their embarrassment because their egos could not hack reality! Is there anything remotely logical in IS that has somehow entranced their supporters? Or if not in IS itself is IS simply the latest opportunity for the supposedly sane but disillusioned of life? Has anyone with the appropriate professional skills looked into these aspects? Are we making assumptions, bereft of actual knowledge?
 Look at the knee-jerk response over the EU’s demand for nearly two billion more pounds from the UK. Political shouting from different benches for different reasons of the same argument: personal egos. Rationally, what the EU is saying is: look how great the Brits are, they can help save the mess we have got ourselves into through our stupidity in not embracing British common sense. The Brits understand world commerce, where we obviously don’t, as expressed by our damned fool red tape and voluminous regulations. The Brits just get on and do the job. We’d better agree with their way. Is it departments operating in isolation, cavalierly disregard any understanding of the collective whole—a direct parallel to the concept of universal spirituality?
What is this “black economy”? Is it registered for taxation and are we earning what we should from it? Or is this a cack-handed way of saying “DO NOT PAY ANYONE IN CASH!” I recently got into a taxi cab that displayed a notice “No  credit cards”. I felt sympathy for his naïveté at not being up-to-date, or was it an oblique way of saying “I’m successful in dodging paying my taxes”? The EU has got me going, all taxi cabs will in future be asked, “Do you take credit cards?” If not, I’ll not use you because I pay my taxes fully up front.“
Are we questioning are own acceptance of tradition as much as we should? In the UK we could find ourselves living in a “real” Disney land but somehow we manage to strike a balance between what should be unchallenged and what should be replaced?
The IS situation, now compounded by Ebola, forces us all to look at the collective whole in the modern age. The Middle East is a mishmash of the modern day with the Middle Ages, enforcing the archaic concept that males rule society and territory/property is seizable by force majeure, in defiance of any concept of sexual equality in property law, or respect for existing entitlements argued through international courts. Although there are “authoritative” statements that declare respect of male-female equality with women is an Islamic trait, there is far more evidence that social conduct is in direct deliberate defiance of such interpretation, implying that even “main stream” interpretation of Islam is as diverse as is Christianity: it relies upon personal opinion/interpretation.
We even express the asinine stupidity of thinking their archaic tribal rules of law (Sharia) should be acceptable in this far more advanced western society, such is the puerility of politicians seeking numbers of votes rather than rationally “thought through” voting. What is it, half a millennium since we threw out concepts of church law affecting anyone other than the church’s property and ritual historical precedents? Why accept a foreign church’s ecclesiastical law, which presumes the effrontery of commanding lay persons in their lay life? It simply is not rational.
Even international courts are unreliable, as clearly demonstrated over Human Rights arguments. We pander to foreign influence to seem “with it” while throwing out our established and proven systems entrenched in “who we are”. Who we are and how we are is precisely what so many from foreign climes desire—why else the crowds at Calais ? It is not the EU they want by that which is proven, stable, established “Britishness”, as it was before we started pulling it all down—to please the EU!
The Ebola outbreak has raced ahead because of appalling ignorance, archaic practices and crass administrative incompetence from the powerful nations with the money and ability to “do” but seemed at the first to set out not to “do”. Now that “everyday” has become a matter of life and death for all of us, life and death determine a new scale of priorities.
Here we see the practical dangers of the Conservative’s declared policy. What meaning the Human Rights Act they so casually wish to reform? Regarding the LibDems, inadequate though their females presently are, their women’s angst was purportedly aroused by archaic male social mores that had not changed with the times. Their convoluted committee structure countered direct, meaningful human resource management and resolution at an early stage
The Church of England has finally agreed there never was a problem against women being priests, other than its own stupidity, while the Church of Rome persists in denying women the priesthood and generally insisting on continuing to be irrelevant. Is the western world remotely superior to the way the eastern world conducts itself? Largely, “No”, because for the same reasons, the West still needs to bring itself into the reality of knowledge that is the twenty-first century and apply it in the life and death situation in which the twenty-first century finds itself, no less than the East which has much more progress to make.
What then, in this confused world where, even in the practicalities of a major health crisis, we prove ourselves managerially inept worldwide (based on western tutelage), do we have a hope of any resolution?
Let’s start with the microcosm: the UK’s annual political parties’ jamborees. Unquestionably, the LibDems led the way and achieved most, close-run by the Tories. As discussed earlier, they both have their flaws but they proved a working and stable partnership countering one another’s worst traits but also holding us back collectively. We need the same balance for a second term.
          There are three key aspects to the next parliament.
The first is the follow on from Scottish devolution: a review of England’s, Wales’ and Northern Ireland’s relationships with Westminster. This may extend to further devolution of powers to some northern cities on which I am currently not convinced.
          Item two
is to implement the proper constituency boundaries to ensure fair representation, deliberately blocked by the LibDems. They claim to believe in parliamentary democracy but their small time little behinds cannot encompass public service for the benefit of the greater good. As part of that issue we need to examine the argument of proportional representation.
          Item three
of course is resolving the EU question.
There is a fourth, which has a bearing on the previous three but should be starting now: where lies our global, eternal responsibility? What does the world’s present turmoil tell us? I headed this day’s comment (not knowing then which day it would finally be) “World-wide and Eternal
“Religion”, for the small of compass; “spirituality” for those of broader comforts; “creation”, or simply acknowledging the “here and now as collectively perceived”, need to find harmony. Geography cannot be the answer. Whether on this physical plane in this time or the spiritual plane in all time; or on no plane but this in no time but this, there is only one certainty: a state of continual change for which we need to, and must prepare to, adapt.
We cannot continue to exhaust the world’s resources as seems now is an increasing majority opinion and not do something about climate change. This implies reduction of the manufacturing of goods and a change in the nature of commerce: a move to the rationality of basic survival. Recognising the reality of what this planet is and what we humans, with everything else in this world, mean to it and it to us.
We have got to embrace a communality of responsibility for the collective whole. Ebola is a convenient fixation. A failure of the very basics threatens to unhinge the most sophisticated. Ipso facto the basics must be raised universally.
To some extent, this is how the British Commonwealth grew and expanded. As individual countries proved their worth, becoming self-sufficient and mastered their own resources, so they were devolved. The EU is the reverse concept.: “developed” countries chose to amalgamate, increasing the burden of administration and putting up barriers to worldwide trade, adding unproductive costs, causing prices to rise so that the poorer elements of world society were further disfranchised from improving their standard of living.
Now, the developed nations’ folly is brought home to roost. It is the very poor that are likely to bring down the developed nations because of their failure of basic hygiene. Increased costs their economies cannot afford and isolation from global involvement, through trade barriers wilfully created for no purpose but the self-indulgence of the richer nations. It is all caused by both over-regulation and no regulation: over-regulation by such entities as the EU and the non-regulation of “free agents”, such as religions whose domains perceive no physical boundaries and historical (ancient and recent) geographically bordered diktats that tolerate no perception of change. It is these last, dominated by religious concepts that wilfully deny free acceptance of modern understanding of inevitable progression.
Ebola forces us to consider the true issue: survival. It is an item within the collective whole. For the UK, Scottish independence was “but an item”, from which stems the foregoing list of items for now and the next parliament. From which stems the nature of the EU itself, in so far as the UK is concerned. The rest of the EU should be likewise concerned for the same reason.

MONDAY 10th NOVEMBER 2014 [morning post]
The BBC handled the cenotaph ceremony exquisitely, as usual. Before charging on, it is good to take the pause national togetherness offers to quietly contemplate.
          Many countries can claim great artistes in many disciplines but in words and language there is something quintessentially British (biasedly I would say "English") in tha art of communication. It seems, therefore, appropriate to quote Lieutenant Colonel Dr. John McCrae 1915, Ypres, Belgium. Note that mix: a doctor (medical) and a soldier. There is no conflict in such juxtaposition.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

MOVING ON [morning post]
No more a dramatic mood change than the CBI conference, at which the PM has just spoken fluently without notes, simply because he knows what he is about. His energy force reminds me that time moves equally as sturdily as his schedule. His emphasis that learning is not a school stop then work but that education is a continuous process through work (through "life" I would have phrased) until the "end", although my thinking does not accept any "end", at this stage in my knowledge. Time, therefore, for me to reconnect with the extended theme commenced on FRIDAY 3rd OCTOBER 2014 [morning post]: "HONG KONG: THE SILENT, NON VIOLENT, GANDHI STYLE, "CRY FREEDOM!" PROTEST [morning post].

WORLDWIDE AND ETERNAL [Monday's after-noon post]
Since religion has thrust itself upon us all, let us get straight down to the basics: “a belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods” [Oxford]. Of late, spirituality has usually been separated from religion and perceived as a subjective rather than objective experience, only secondarily relating to a religious belief. The Oxford definition of religion distracts from the supposed simplicity of “spirit”, which term is not as simple as it seems; so it is best to keep things more broadly to the Greek generality of 
           Proclivity to a religion is usually implanted from an early age by the parents. Usually, comparative religion comes too late in a child’s education to enable a conscious, objective choice from an even playing field of diversity. Islam is currently the focus of attention and that religion, as is the case with many others, including my own CofE (Church of England) Protestantism, has a diversity of interpretations. It is better to try and embrace the common principle behind most of the world’s religions, from which “common ground” they all seem to have departed in pursuit of their historic, cultural specificities.
           That “common ground” is the acceptance of a nonphysical presence, elevated above the rationality of society’s everyday monotonous necessities and held as the essence of, and existing as, an integral part of, all Creation. Even this “spirit” is individually interpreted.
           On the basis, purely of numbers of believers, especially if one contrasts with the numbers of those positively declaring atheism, it is well held that there is a spiritual aspect to humankind (or the whole of Creation) and that all living creatures are two separate but related entities: spirit and flesh. The spirit was before we chose to be born and will continue to exist long after the animated flesh we perceive as “us” is capable of existing, whether or not there is a belief in multiple lives. The argument of “weight of numbers” should not be dismissed as “sheep or goats” but as laying out the ballpark in which to “play the game”.
           Whether one accepts biochemistry is the only state of existence, or that there is a spiritual aspect only to be properly revealed later (on experiencing death), it is simply rational that we make the most of what we know we have and can define, as best we may. In my view, it is the role of parents to educate their child to be self-sufficient, within the expectations of the society in which they have chosen to live. Desire to leave that society for another way of living is an individual decision. To determine a responsibility to change the society in which one is born, rather than leaving it, requires establishing the “authority” from which such perceptions derive and exercising the established procedures within society to so promote those ideas.
           Let us take the IS factor at its simplest. IS perceives it has better knowledge of Islam than those already established figures of authority within the religion. By what right and by what value of argument do they establish this? It appears that they have not established credibility for their view amongst those with knowledge.
           Compare IS with Christian history. The early divisions of Christianity were over interpretation of known facts. Thereafter, subsequent divisions arose over new interpretations of the established interpretation, as humankind’s intellect developed. In the western world, this essentially meant deviation from Roman Catholic doctrine. Such doctrine stood steadfast on what had been “established” and “the church is constant”. A statement in direct defiance of “the Church’s” fundamental belief, that the world is God created. What God created is a state of continual change. That is Creation. Instead of looking ahead to this live and continually changing universe, the Church chose to look backwards at what once was and therefore must not be changed.
           The Roman church did exactly what IS is doing: burned dissidents at the stake. No different from IS cutting people’s heads off today. The Roman church simply does not like congregants to think for themselves and that, basically, is what Protestantism is about, Christians who insist on thinking it through. Even the Protestant branch of Christianity has occasionally got itself caught up in time warps, trying to stay steadfast in a Creation of continual change, instead of trying to understand the nature of the flow of life on this plane.
           The key issue for the present is what is the correct way to proceed, bearing in mind Cameron’s reminder that this is a Christian country? What is a Protestant Christian’s response to the IS factor?
           This is where I deviated into psychology. We may be dealing with a religious “outbreak” but the facts at their most elementary are the physical reality of this time and plane. Arguably confused by considerations of philosophy, of which religion is merely a department, safety of the realm and its people come first.
           Therefore, a force of arms, or related measures, is not unreasonable, particularly since government must take into account the diversity of potential opinion, resulting from this country’s inherent propensity to absorb and meld new and changing ideas into its national psyche. Unlike the Church of England, England itself has always been fluid in the way it absorbs diverse opinion on new ideas and challenges to established ways, except for “modern” socialism, as represented by the trades unions, which have always been hell bent on no change whatever and not necessarily through Catholic influence.
           The ending of World War II and the creation of the EU are two distinct memorials to that transition to peaceful co-existence in the history of humankind.
           The “Islamic State” is simply the latest distraction, highlighting the historically embedded discordance of the Kurds with Turkey; the tensions of the Turkey/Syria border; the Kurds with IS and “down the road”, the Israel/Arab conflict, diversifying to involve Palestine, Hamas, Gaza, Egypt, West Bank, Jordan. Then there is the historical physical reality of the situation over Ukraine.
           The problem there is that we are dealing with western educated nations, still struggling with the devastation of a non-God political philosophy that has failed to annihilate an embedded God-orientated philosophy. Consequently, they themselves are floundering in trying to cope with people who insist on thinking individually. Because they are inexperienced in the basics of “freedom of expression”, they cannot cope with alternative options that haven’t been “authorised”, much like the Roman church’s and Islam’s inability to tolerate original thought.
           Russia is as lost as the Middle Eastern communities, who are trying to adapt to a growing realisation that the world is leaving them behind: but is not the West just as assuredly out of touch? These are either geographical demarcations, or cultural ones. That it is IS that cack-handedly tries to argue a spiritual demarcation does not dismiss the validity for a potential spiritual argument of universality.  
           This is a list of only a few key political distractions of the moment. I return to biochemistry: Ebola. That leads us from biochemistry to sociology, economics, ethnicity and culture. Before we realise it, we have a haven of excuses as to why things cannot be more simple and straight forward, let alone rational. The cause is “ego”. The entrenchment of individualism, pre-formed by parents never specifically trained to be parents, let alone in a society of which they themselves do not yet know, even understand, but in which their children will mature and manage, for which society those same parents have responsibility to prepare their children.
           The significant majority of relevant parents are those in the middle of three generations: their own parents’ generation, whose advice may not have been adequate for their own upbringing in their life-span, let alone providing adequate training for how to handle the generation ahead, in which they have to learn, barely sooner than that generation’s children, how to raise them to the state of qualified adults able to cope and manage in the future time frame that will be their mature years.
           How does one go about it? The old Irish joke comes to mind: “Well, if that’s where you want to go, I wouldn’t start from here!” The problem is, we are “here” and none of us knows where is that “here”: nor by what measure do we define and assess it? All we can do is use the assets with which we have been born, understand the inadequacy with which we have been prepared for our role and rationally take stock of our situation as if it were a new project.
           Since Islam seems to dominate the news let’s look for an Islamic comment: “And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge, for ears, eyes, and heart all are accountable.” [Surah Bani Israel, 17:36]. Arguably this matches the oft misquoted Pope couplet from "An Essay on Criticism" (1709): "A little learning is a dang'rous thing;/Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring." Islam does not provide that “authoritative statement” of what Islam is actually about, other than to imply it started as a mix of interpretations from which it has steadfastly refused to budge. It seems specifically to flout, just as does the Christian church, any concept that religion should be forward thinking, anticipating the changes that are the inevitability of the Creation (without necessarily accepting any definition of it) that we have all known intuitively, if not formally acknowledging it: Creation is a state of continual change. Without pursuing, one cannot gain knowledge and without adapting to newly acquired knowledge one can only stagnate and decline.  
           Following on, who am I to presume to comment? One of the many millions who equally would like to express their views and arguably I am nowhere as near qualified as many who presume to thrust their views. The more I endeavour to formulate my thoughts before presuming to express an opinion, the more and various other views I uncover, so why should I add to the pile? Because it is precisely that uncovering that incites me! I have uncovered because someone chose to publish. I have been affected by that fact, just as we are all, in some way or another, affected by IS and the Ottawa outrage, committed by a recent Islamist convert, keen to demonstrate he does not understand to what he has just converted. We are all part of this collective whole and silence is not an option.
           However, before one can publish one must gather one’s thoughts, confirm authority for them as best one may and then, in the right way and at the right time, make them known. The parable of the sower comes to mind. If the seed is good, it will grow, regardless: if it is bad seed, it will deservedly die, regardless of the value of the soil on which it falls. In the digital age, it is diversity that is all, upon an even platform of chance. So, let it be. [to be continued].

SATURDAY 8th NOVEMBER 2014 [evening post]
The EU proclaims its inadequacy time and time again: like little school children it blames anyone else rather than face up to the realities AS THEY ARE, not as their diverse persons choose to interpret them.
            First, the EU has always been determined to deny the nation state and from the first has always acknowledged this can only be done by stealth, because no one with an ounce of sense would ever agree to such a proposal if it were put to them plainly and succinctly.
If we are concerned about the cavalier ineptitude with which the EU misconducts its administration, it is due to the British Labour party when in government, whose sole purpose was to cover its own inadequacies by giving the EU the greater power to ineptly control so that, by contrast, the Labour party did not appear as daft as British socialism has always presented itself. Just look at the even recent performances of some of their trades unions in industry. In politics, it is purportedly the trades unions' efforts that gave the Labour party the wrong brother in charge.
Ex pats' individual decisions are not relevant to the collective whole of the country, which is those who chose to stay living here. We cannot have the whole Commonwealth here, which is why we started restricting immigration. By precisely the same numerical logic, we cannot accommodate a potential 400 million Europeans. So, why are we including those Europeans and rejecting our own Commonwealth people? It is not logical, the numeracy fact remains identical, as does both the Labour party, the LibDems and the EU in their collective inability to manage anything at all.

ON CHILD ABUSE [evening post]
The case of the child suffering from FAS (foetal alcohol syndrome) raises many issues. The specifics of a current court case are of course off limits but writing in general terms I return to what I have previously written about personal accountability. Women have been and are persistently vociferous on their rights over their own bodies across a range of various social situations.
          Coincidentally, the following appeared on one of the sites I follow:
"so bored of sexual harassment
my body is not here for you"
In answer, I wrote:
"It is the private carriage 
of your soul
for this time and plane"
           The author is Sarah Perry (@sarahperrypoet). It is profoundly succinct. The issue is that we are accountable and responsible for ourselves and the effect our presence has in society: whether active or inactive—for failure to make a decision is still to be responsible for the effect of our not having taken part. That means we recognise our existence as being in a form over which we have ownership, control and responsibility.
         What we all must start with is that it is a woman's decision whether or not to have intercourse. The intrusion of any soul into another's realm, uninvited and especially in the absence of any invitation (presumption in any context is NOT an excuse) is to defile. Thus, having freely consented to intercourse, it is the woman's responsibility to determine whether there is sufficient trust in her man to take meaningful precautions, or whether she should anyway. Having made a rational decision under the circumstances and she becomes with child it is she who has made the decision to be in that state of health. From that point on, until the child is born, she has consciously determined her responsibilities and accountability.
            The situation is identical to the personal accountability for which we are all answerable: if we smoke excessively; drink excessively; partake in extreme sports to an excess or, insensibly beyond our abilities or professional training, etc.: we are accountable for the consequences. The UK's NHS is geared, not to the reckless few but the responsible majority, who encounter disasters not of their own wilful making. I go further: we, as a nation, have accountability for the use of the world resources that we commandeer—a point to be developed later.
           Being composed of diverse, responsible individuals, society has a collective duty to formulate mechanisms by which it may, through agreed due process, regulate those members of society who, for what ever reason cannot, or will not, conduct themselves in equal manner of accountability.
           The principle applies to such matters as alcoholism, obesity and natural disasters but this meander was provoked by the specifics of irresponsible parenthood during pregnancy. In such cases it is society's duty to inautomatically tervene: on behalf of the mother; the child and the collective whole of society. It is no different from insisting on ensuring appropriate precautions against Ebola, for example, or the misbranding of meat. These factors fall across the divide of criminal or civil matters and in affecting the whole of society, society's mechanisms are automatically drawn into proactive involvement.

TUESDAY 4th NOVEMBER 2014 [after-noon post]
BLAZE AWAY! [after-noon post]
or to
The Daily Express gave her funeral a whole page but my preferred online reference was ITV's. The last line is "Bellingham's husband Mr Pattemore was overheard telling a group outside the chapel: "Everyone laughed as she came out, that is exactly what I wanted. It was exactly what I wanted." That funeral was one hell of a bloody great raspberry to death. That is the true reality of what it is all about. The trouble is one does have to bear in mind one's many associates. In Lynda's case they would have been of the same mind.
          Having a jazz band within my extended family I have borne in mind that my coffin would be played out of the church to the sort of Jazz jollification displayed in the New Orleans scene in Live and Let Die. There is only one realistic answer to biochemistry's deterioration and that is "Spherical Objects!" [Not my actual intended word but the polite version for the public web!].
          That is why Faulkener's bill, on the process of dying and the nature of death, must be processed WITHOUT religious sensitivities getting in the way. We have been smothered in such cloaks for far too long. Claiming a woman could be Supreme Governor four centuries ago meant that a woman could hold any position of authority, declaring the Church of England was the TRUE meaning of the Christian faith. Three centuries later the church failed to support the suffragettes and only fifty years ago denied women could be priests. They have now had women priests for ten years and until recently were still arguing whether they could be bishops. They celebrated ten years as if this was some sort of achievement instead of hanging their heads in humble shame for centuries of damned fool stupidity. Then the church wonders why it is losing congregants.

DOES STUDY AND RESEARCH HELP? [late after-noon post]
All papers seem to run with it but only the Daily Express was prominent with Lynda's funeral, so I bought that. The main incident of my interest hones in to my past month's preoccupation with the IS and Islam situation, which spills out across a diverse range of subjects.
          That is the problem with Ken Clarke's statement (BBC Daily Politics) that "nothing is resolved by referendums." Spherical objects. General elections are a confused babble of contrasting issues, hence a confused conclusion. Referenda concentrate on SPECIFIC issues requiring ALL arguments to be marshalled, debated over time to one conclusion, even if that conclusion confirms an evenly split opinion. Government can then work with FACTS not political party bullshit.
          Looking at facts I find my immediate reaction to Will Cornick's face is "he's clearly raving nuts", why couldn't his parents see that? I refer to previously writing that parenthood is one of the most important roles for which there is never any training. Purportedly, parents train their children as an inherent part of child education but as I wrote earlier, time and social mores, with increasing technology, it is beyond most parents' ability to train their children for a world in which the parents mostly do not understand.
          When medical specialists themselves cannot agree on definitions of psychotic behaviour, where can the rest of us possibly be, in making sense of the clearly insensible? This tragic little boy (yes, 'tragic'), his parents and the family of his victim, already riven with the tragedy of a too early cancer death are faced, in the singular, with the plurality of IS from which we are all suffering? Are these people not 'simply' psychopaths? Have past extremes of religiosity likewise been the commission of similar fruit cakes in an age before we started understanding the true nature of Creation; that there were two aspects of humanity: biochemistry and spirituality?
         The judge described the boy as "evil". That is a spiritual term, not a biochemical one and it seems that biochemistry is the cause, not introspective thinking from the "individual" contained within the boy's biochemical form. Does the same apply to IS, or is IS a spiritual over control of biochemistry? Thinking purely in terms of the physical world, researchers at Birmingham City University have identified six types of killer who use Facebook to commit crimes, in the first-ever study on how the the social networking site can affect criminal behaviour.
          Where are the religious specialists' opinions on this duality of Creation? If we are dealing with the inadequacies of biochemistry, it is surely wrong to hold the spiritual aspect, captured within a human form, as morally accountable. This one incident (as with any similar others) is applicable to much of IS and its parallel nutters. Regardless, practicalities defined by the physical aspects of creation mean we need to respond, as we would respond to a family's pet dog that has been discovered inflicted with rabies. There is no rational response: what spirituality exists is mired in a form that must be caged. Was the judge wrong to describe this event and its perpetrator as "evil"? Is the modern world over keen to ditch religious concepts, basically because religious concepts generally have betrayed their purpose. Is IS any different from the paranoia of the Catholic Church in its sheer ego-centric desire to take on this, our English realm, burning those with contrary thoughts to its own authoritarian arrogance?

SUNDAY 2nd NOVEMBER 2014 [after-noon post]
I cannot recall the name of a "modern" (fifty years or so ago) philosopher who bought or rented a house for a year, so that he could sit and think: or was that to contemplate, or meditate? I believe it may have been Bertrand Russell who had a particular subject on which he wished to concentrate. As is so often thought, only the rich can sit and think, unless academe pays better than originally perceived.
           Even so simple a statement is riddled with potential confusion! Contemplation—adding content through observation; meditation—the process or mechanism of thinking; thinking—indisciplined juggling of ideas?
           Historically associated with religion, meditation is associated with quiet pastures "away from the world's everyday" where time is not measured in any units. That is why my mobile is always off when I wander Ashridge. I carry it only to ring out for help should I trip over and break a leg. The last thing I want is the physical world disturbing my inner world of contemplation, or meditation... or just thinking!
          On October 15th, following my review of the annual political conferences during the preceding weeks, I started looking peripherally at the potential impact of IS and found my excursion took me wider and deeper than I had intended or envisaged. Hence my "silence" for nearly a month. My side track, due to personal thoughts on the late Lynda Bellingham, but still referring to proposed legislation on death and dying, has meant time has passed with horrifying speed. That is, I have not been personally conscious of the hours or days since I started, only that I am still working and a new month has dawned!
           I divert again, for I recall an article on the speeding of time as one gets older by Dr. Steven Taylor, a senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Metropolitan University and the author of several best-selling books on psychology and spirituality. I had discovered him as a result of the aforementioned researches in which I have been recently engaged. His article The Speed of Life: Why Time seems to speed up When We Get Older I found illuminating, as I have found much of his work. In my excursions into the background of IS, Taliban etc and more established understandings of Islam, I have courted wider theological opinion, as well as exploring historical, political, social and atheist views; including the problem of Ebola, trying to see a collective "world view" that acknowledges physicality and spirituality. I am gaining an opinion that we are at a point in this present circle of life when the circle moves laterally forward and we commence a new cycle of experience. A cycle that is a retrace of history but with the opportunity to change the outcome.
           This thinking derives from a lunch time meeting with friends over from the States. He being the psychic who led me into past lives and practical investigation into the nature of death and dying, on which I had been intending to write but brought the subject forward, through Lynda Bellingham's death and her published views on the process of death and dying [October 15 2014].
           He had previously said that in tracing back memories it was possible to change the past. Personally, I think it is better to express this as meaning "one can change one's perception of the past and therefore arrive at different conclusions resulting from the fact, or at a 'different place' than one was at", when relying solely upon the remembrance of the fact. However, there may be more in his statement than might immediately be perceived. This concept also came up in my wanderings over the last near month. For now, I will simply refer you to an article in The New Scientist.
           If I can manage it, this would be a good week to report how far my excursions have taken me, as we approach not just the annual remembrance period but during the centenary of the First World War: "The war to end wars"!
           Sunday morning Live had an extraordinary debate about white poppies supposedly indicating a dislike for war, protesting against any concept that war was glorious. That "to lay down one's life for one's friend" could be remotely described as inglorious is wilful incitement or damned fool stupidity. They need reminding that white feathers were distributed to those nonuniformed males perceived as dodging the front line, when call up relied on volunteers not formal calling.
          The poppy derives from the fields of Flanders where the fighting was so fierce as to make the midwinter fields look as if the poppies had bloomed out of season. Look to the moat at the Tower of London to see the effect. It is a potent reminder of the tragedy of war, of sacrifice made by the people killed and the sacrifice of the families left behind. "He was just another man in the world: to us, he was our world". That is why death and injury is always to be avoided but why, if it must come to pass, it is the greatest sacrifice of all, honourable and glorious; as was the death of Christ whose spilt blood we remember in the communion wine as we remember their blood in our buttonhole.

 It is Labour's socialism that brought the financial crisis from which we are still trying to escape, possibly necessitating an income tax rise in 2015. Why pay fat cat bankerin Fergusons interest as Labour wants, rather than pay our way and earn our living?