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. U

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: Saturday, January 24, 2015 15:11
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 wit amh 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 Lib
Dems possess the necessary courage—or is that self arrogance, or fear of contratotal ry opinion through their own uncertainties?

FRIDAY 23rd JANUARY 2015 [morning post]
DEMOCRACY... still struggling against the odds of self-interest in the 21st century [morning post]
Naturally one offers condolence and civic dignity to the mourners of King Saud but that does not excuse the reality. This is a family-run kingdom whose sole purpose is self-interest, so what moves there are to "modern civilised conduct" are forced out of long-term self-interest and determination to survive and maintain the status quo. Precisely why the Church of England took so long to agree to women priests and ultimately women bishops. Before England threw off the Roman Catholic choker, the church supported monarchs for only one reason (under the pretence of "God's anointed"), the self-importance of priests.
          So it is with Saudi. The power behind the throne is the self-interest of hidden priests, bolstered by the indoctrinated mass of a population discouraged from objective rational thinking, just as the Roman Catholic church indoctrinates its flock, contrary to true Christianity, to massage its priests' own self-importance.
          Hence the dogmatic demand that the nonCatholic in mixed faith marriages must agree to the children being brought up in the Roman Catholic faith: Roman Catholicism is frightened of objectively thought through contrasts. It is why matters move so slowly, all the while priests are denying the truth in which they claim to believe: a belief in the past and what once was, not the state of continuing change, heading for a new future yet to be understood.
          In the UK, secularity declares that it too is not up to the job either! Basic mismanagement is the professional status of the broadcasters: pig's ear after pig's ear on what is basically very simple: General Election, all those involved across the country as a whole should debate on TV—Conservatives, Greens, Labour, Lib/Dems, UKIP. Where's the problem? No wonder religion is permanently in a mess!
As I have previously written, Saudi is responsible for promoting its version of Islam through the money it gains from secular use of oil, yet chooses to deny the secular reality such demand for oil proclaims. Islam is the real power in Saudi proudly denying, just as the Christian church has done, the reality of its actual beliefs: that Creation is a statement of a continually moving forward pathway. 
          This is to be seen again in the UK brilliantly summed up by Cameron, "... those who think there is a problem are themselves the ones who have the problem". The squarks of protest over Pickles' letter to imams, in the inherent way of most religions, proclaim exactly the opposite of what they appear to proclaim.
          They reveal that there is indeed a large percentage of British Islam holding back modern thinking and seeking a return to archaic concepts. They are an admission that there are elements that seriously denounce the IS grouping of nut cakes (my term since I have not yet come a cross a serious psychiatric definition of these common criminals) yet refrain from speaking out, collectively applauding Cameron as correct. It seems they again deny their own truth!
          Then we have the Pope charging in as crassly as usual. I have already written on this but raise it here simply to show it is not just me with an angst. In The i of 20 January Grace Dent wrote an excellent page whose main gist was "I was left wondering if he was safe left in charge of a microphone."
          How grateful we need to be for our great Church of England and Protestant determination to protest. Oh, all right... to think freely and objectively! "... then he popped to Manila and incited homophobia. How pleasant for the gays and lesbians of Manila to have all the small freedoms they have, diminished, while underlining that it is fine to punch people who upset your faith." [I suspect Grace Dent was privately educated at a girls only public school].
          He goes not against Isis or Boko Haram but all of us [its simpler, presumably and requires less thought]. "The world is under attack from powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God's plan for Creation." Highlighting his confusion, he is actually talking about bumming and not bombing! He considers the former more serious—yet persists in Catholic doctrine to use the missionary position for sex, ignoring that mankind was created as an animal and the missionary position is not the way God created the human body to have sex!
          Aah well! Protestant England stand firm, we think and it is that freedom to think and to so express our thoughts that scares a large part of the world because their only serious response is to kill; to endeavour to eliminate us, they are so frightened of those who will think for themselves and are prepared to stand up and say so. Rule Britannia!

WEDNESDAY 21st JANUARY 2015 [morning post]
DEMOCRACY... what is it and can it work? [morning post]
Still alive and kicking. Some interesting historical notes of which I had been unaware, from the BBC's "Democracy Day".

No! Just being financially astute! World advertising all for free!

SNP, as I previously stated, only for Scottish Interests
but are quite prepared to control England, such is their arrogance or their lady's Machiavellian political manipulation. Clearly, unfit for business in England's Westminster... as also any English party likely to side with them, which of course is why she said what she did!

MONDAY 19th JANUARY 2015 [morning post]
HOW RELEVANT IS RELIGION? Pt 2 [morning post]
Nothing to post yesterday despite an entire hour of BBC's "The Big Question" being spent on religion. Some online people made rational contributions but otherwise the programme was disappointing.
          This morning we learn Islamists are complaining about being chivvied by the government to do something about this extremist twaddle, burbled by nonIslamists, portraying themselves as Islamists when obviously they are not. It seems a matter of common sense that the only qualified people to shout down these misrepresenters are Islamist believers themselves and if they won't do it, then okay, the rest of us (nonMuslim but rational) must do it ourselves! I certainly will and my view can only be based on a general awareness of what seems to me a very muddled religion.
          Saudi Arabia appears to be the main culprit, using its oil money to publish its version of Islam as widely as possible. How true is its translation? Considering it is currently flogging someone to death publicly [currently stopped, either out of international objection or  because the victim is close to death, is yet to be revealed] its interpretation is to be seriously questioned.
          The UK stopped public floggings nearly two hundred years ago, although I am horrified to discover that they were still carried out privately up to 1987. Public hangings in the UK were stopped after 1868. That surprises me. Perhaps I too easily have assumed the mantle of the UK being a seriously rational country.
          On 5th April 2012 The Daily Mail published an article that teachers were unsure of disciplining pupils through lacking the cane as a resort. This astounds me. As a bachelor I am out of touch with these matters but my awareness through married friends with children is that more subtle and more persuasive methods are used, like footballs'  card system for schools and corner or bedroom time, accompanied with reasoned discussion, in the home. This seems to work. I am horrified to find we are so close in time to when this country was still barbaric. It shows how far, as a society, we have moved forward and how archaic is the state of Islamic society generally. Another example of how some religions hold back progress and misrepresent the nature of Creation, ignoring that it is a continual progression forward. 
         I then discover a mother complaining the state is not providing resources for her son and others like him who have come back from Syria mentally damaged through his experiences there, trying to make out he should be treated like a professional soldier suffering Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, in his case apparently indoctrination.
          We have a duty to care for those in need and for those doing national duty but for people who voluntarily cause themselves problems I think is a bit rich. Due to Labour we have excessive debt which must be got down. Wages can only go up if the MARKET can afford, not because a political party wants to look good.
          If we need more money and it seems we do then obviously we tax payers have to provide and we must. Labour doesn't like fat cat bankers, so why borrow money from them and pay them interest instead of us earning our way? Labour are simply not rational and the Tories are being daft in not facing a need to re-define the personal taxation bands. A fifty per cent tax band is ridiculous (Labour) as is Labour's mansion tax, unless it is payable when the property sells. Taxation is for state income, so personal taxation must be likewise charged on personal income. Seems to me very simple: they are all gradually going nuts!

From a friend's communication today: Think I have now spoken to every person on the end of orange and EE - been dealing with this since the 1/12/2104 and still no bloody phone.. Well Kevin as you keep me on hold as I listen to cold play I hope to god you sort it out!! Had enough...
Ask to speak to a manager, I find unless I demand to speak to a manager nothing gets sorted so now I refuse to speak to anyone unless it's a manager. Their customer service is useless!!
I could not have had a worse time than I did with orange when my phone was hacked. i still have not followed up my complaint with them as I lost the will after so many calls and time on hold - calls back that never came etc. Good luck sorting it !

FRIDAY 15th JANUARY 2015 [after-noon post]
HOW RELEVANT IS RELIGION? [after-noon post]
For what reason does the Pope speak out? Presumably politically, he is concerned for the safety of Christians around the world and wishes to side with Islamic views. He has the grace to acknowledge past failings of his own church but ignores its continued failings. It still will not have women clergy.
          France is secular because it was his church that supported the French king while at the same time it was his church that wilfully opposed the legitimate Queen of England, hence the arrival of the Church of England because Rome was simply not up to the job. Hence a secular France declaring a plague on "all damned religions"!
         Precisely what is the Pope actually saying? As a former mayor of my own town I am  conscious of the need to be aware as to what hat and from what position one is always speaking. As Pope, he is the man himself in his own right, entitled to personal opinions; as Pope he is a churchman and always speaks as a priest; as Pope he rules his particular world above all other opinions within his faith, save that of God (neatly never defined!). His faith believes one should turn the other cheek? Yet he supports "loss of control" by thumping someone who insults you. Presumably he means this as the private man, not even as a priest, let alone as the head priest in his faith? Therefore, of what significance is his remark? It seems like a declaration that Islam should respond as it wishes which means the Pope would appear to be a  provocateur.
          How does this tie-in with his condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo attack? How can he say (as I have independently previously written) that we all carry responsibility for how we behave in the world when his own church has been (and continues to be) wilfully provocative? If none of us should be provocative than neither should religion provoke and various religions provoke wilfully by their mere existence. Need I illustrate how Roman Catholicism has and continues to provoke? Even my own church (CofE) has been wilfully provocative, denying women the priesthood, then finally accepting them and only now, technically, accepting women bishops. Because it is a church people try to gloss over "difficulties" rather than state facts, making things "sweet and smiley". They refrain  from speaking out too strongly.
          Yet the heads of various churches have from time to time spoken out on serious practical issues, sometimes (in my view) correctly and sometimes incorrectly. If religion is to play a serious part in world affairs then it must determine the nature of the world into which it presumes to pontificate. That world, however created, is a state of continual change. Why then will so many religions insist in looking backwards to when civilisation was less aware than it is now and insist that that which was appropriate (possibly) four centuries back is appropriate today? That criticism applies to both Roman Catholicism and Islam. Even today Islam is flogging someone somewhere effectively denying it is a cover for sado-sexual gratification. Otherwise, why the crowd and why is it getting excited? Pope: please speak. Harping back to one of the supporting cartoons following the outrage, Is it not "religion that drew first?" and tried to abolish all opposition to its determined diktat?

FRIDAY 15th JANUARY 2015 [morning post]
A local (UK) CofE priest has chosen to formally Facebook publish and share: “My first reaction to last week's murders was one of anger against Islam and solidarity with Charlie Hebdo. When I looked at some of the past front covers of the magazine, though, my sympathies began to shift. It is hard for us to understand the extent of Muslim offence at the portrayal of their prophet. Yet Christians too have rioted and killed over the very same issue of religious images, first in the 8-9th century iconoclastic crises in the East, and later in the West during the 16th century Protestant Reformations. Yet this pales compared with the horrors of the French Revolution, two centuries later.”
           I had already checked out Charlie Hebdo before originally writing on my web and I am surprised at the implication that a CofE priest would so write without such prior checking. I wrote there: “What is Charlie Hebdo? It is a satirical French magazine whose artists mostly draw in a style that might be seen on lavatory walls. For some reason someone has considered this art to be worth publishing and considers it financially viable for a small-sized paying audience, presumably so they can read the current issue while doing what is necessary…”
           My view in response to the priest’s comment is this. One usually knows the wider ramifications of anything before commenting, so why is the writer looking up his facts later? From a Christian Protestant view (I am an independent but writing under that hat at the moment) my first thought is "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord". Great sympathy for the victims of common mass murder and support for due process of law but the nature of the French nation is that it is unequivocally secular, so it is those Islamists, choosing to live in secular France, who were provocative in not acknowledging the style and tradition of the country in which they have chosen to live. There are perfectly legitimate and socially acceptable ways in which they can indicate their displeasure without the need to defame their faith into the bowels of common criminality.
           It is interesting that my local CofE priest is honest and confesses he felt anger but he is in error directing that anger at Islam. It seems that the people promoting the outrages were manipulated by external forces. This would seem to make them conspirators of anarchy or insurrection (maybe treason) against France and the French people, rather than expressing a “simple” angst against specific persons about a specific view. Further, although there is no cause to blame Islam it would seem to be due to Islamists’ failure to properly understand the country in which they have chosen to live and a failure of the parents of these hoodlums to properly educate their offspring. If it is claimed they were subsequently indoctrinated by external influence beyond their age of maturity then we need an appropriate psychiatrist’s report on the nature of that indoctrination and recommendations on how to counteract and reverse the effects.
           We also have to bear in mind that many people (a vast number I am assuming to be Islamic) are fleeing the countries of Islamic proclivity because Islamic influence on government is not working. Many appear to be fleeing from Islamic law (sharia). That can only be a statement that "the West is best"! So why complain about our culture, or else speak up and condemn these immigrant outrages.
           The argument over representation of concepts of God and the Apostles has followed the same course as Islam, as the priest has rightly stated but historically much earlier and for a much shorter period. It is Islam that is out of step by being further behind the times than even the Roman Catholic church whereas, finally, the Church of England has at last woken up, specifically fifty years too late and arguable nearly four hundred years too late.
           Whatever belief people hold for opinions of “life after death” they cannot deny the faculties with which the human race has been blessed, nor the evidence those faculties enable us to deduce about the present state of Creation: that it is a state of continual change. It is for those who choose (note the bold) to deny the evidence, to adjust, not for the vast majority, who accept the logic presented through the faculties bequeathed, to deny the world as it actually is.  
           It is an indication of the complete empty-headedness and sheer ignorance of the murderers and their supporters that their achievement produces exactly the opposite effect to that which they claimed they intended. A 30,000 circulation magazine achieves a sell out 5million copies. Islamists, who existed seemingly happily in a secular nation, are suddenly seen as being wilfully provocative in the very society they have chosen to live. It is not the case that the reactionaries are provocative but that Islam itself has wilfully provoked.
           In the UK, it is freedom itself which binds, just as a concept of God determined (my words): “… freedom is its own prison, for the greater the freedom the greater the responsibility and accountability for the way it is used, incurring responsibility for the consequences of its use.”
           The question thus raised is “Who is the original perpetrator?”. France is secular, because a previous dominant religion got out of hand and was put in its place as to be no more than a matter of personal conscience, on the same footing as all other religious opinions. Islam is but one of them. Islam appears to try to reverse history by replacing the previous displaced religion, thinking its own views to be more important. That, obviously, is unacceptable. Charlie Hebdo responded in the obvious way a publisher in a secular society would respond. No surprise there. The perpetrators were nothing more than convicted common criminals, misrepresenting themselves as something they were not, not uncommon in criminals.
           What their action did was to highlight the fact that Islam is as archaic and irrelevant as the Church of England had become, until it woke up its ideas and finally not only accepted women priests but also that women could be bishops. An act of theory that was first achieved nearly four and a half centuries ago but which could have become a case of “religion moving ahead of the people” and creating social instability had it moved as fully as it might have done at that time.
           What this fracas seems to have awoken is a new debate on religious values and their relationship with scientific discovery. Creation is a state of continual change and this presents itself to us in three ways: historic religious interpretation, which was based upon ignorance and poorly kept and researched archives, confused by diversities of translations, through languages that have changed in their native use and meaning through time; the development, despite wilfully arrogant religious opposition, of proven scientific knowledge; the sophisticated state of haphazardly developing mature societies, able to appreciate objective rational thought and generally being more advanced in knowledge and self-assurance than the most sophisticated priests and religious prophets centuries back, on which religions originally relied for their arguments.  
           In the UK, Charlie Hebdo bursts upon a state of debate upon the nature of authority. Who is in charge of what? The right of the state to dictate to its citizens what they may do with their lives and the way they should be allowed to exercise control over the way they die. What lawful provision they may make, to guarantee their will is recognized, when they may no longer be capable to exercise such will.
           Hidden behind these aspects is what to me is a simplicity totally ignored: everything is referring to “spirit”. The concept that every one of us is two parts of a whole: body and spirit. Neither “God” nor “spirit” is factually defined. We are in a “never, never land” with maps called “religions”, drawn up by people’s own and third-party recorded knowledge. We are all entitled to draw up our own maps, by selecting one, or our own variant of, these existing maps or add our own, evaluated to our satisfaction. This may well include our own direct experiences that are no different, in principle, but for the certainty of the modern moment reported. Arguably, these are more valid than those already recorded historical, personal references to spirit contact.
           The question we all have to address in our own way is “Where are you going to… my fair maid?”!

THURSDAY 14th JANUARY 2015 [morning post]
Now it gets really silly. Apparently Nick Clegg will not be in one of the debates and now some witless clown has suggested SNP and the Welsh party should also take part. Codswallop. The SNP are unashamedly for Scotland only and "let the rest go hang" is the new girl's attitude and so the same for the Welsh, not quite so bolshy as Nicola Sturgeon. This is a General Election for the UNITED KINGDOM, not different parts of it.

"Lies, damned lies and statistics" is attributed to Disraeli, which illustrates how modern was Disraeli and how old is the catch phrase. The twaddle burbled by the three wise politicians, (so wise they are currently without managerial power) is that they believe in the broadcasters' proclivity for statistics NOT relevance of argument. In this Cameron is quite right. The Green issue is serious, far more serious than the ramblings of upstart UKIP and to exclude the Greens is to nullify validity to the debate. Simple.

TUESDAY 13th JANUARY 2015 [morning post]
WE ARE ALL GUILTY! [morning post]
Management has once more declared its failure to perform. How can farmers not be paid for their milk other than through a management failure to be in control of facts and circumstances, look ahead, envisage and manage properly? First Milk delay payments by a fortnight. Another co-operative working to "special rules" just like the very big co-op we all know with such high-falutin ideals but not an ounce of business nous or managerial competence. The tragedy is that milk is cheaper than water and so many in the world are starving and thirsty.
          I will advise an observation I made some weeks ago when travelling on a London bus. A taxi displayed a sign "NO CREDIT CARDS". My first impression was "what a wally" determinedly staying old-fashioned: then I paused and thought, no, self-interest. This guy fiddles his income tax returns. Why else, there is no electronic record, that is what obviously lies behind it. Forget it buster, I'll take the next cab or use the train/bus. I pay my taxes straight down the line and I am self-employed so I have a choice.

MONDAY 12th JANUARY 2015 [after-noon post]
CLEARING OUR HEADS[after-noon post]
Management is a general term for a diverse set of circumstances and arrangements. One could argue that there is never a need for management, the world is already managed simply by its being, it has been so created. Yet anthropology tells us that through time many creatures argue with established management and determine a new version of their culture. Man currently seems the most successfully developed of all the species but has developed no differently in principle. Why then does he persist in making a right hash of seeming simplicity? Is individual ego the root cause? Yet individual ego needs to be followed if it is not to be swamped. Is it too simplistic to say that the "greatness" of an ego is in the way it rationally accepts another ego's supremacy of argument and so voluntarily lends his own ego to that particular argument? Is the validity of an argument therefore judged by the numbers pledging allegiance... provided they have individually thought through the arguments—but how do we know the degree of thought that has been individually thought through on the basis of numbers?
          This applies to the Conservative proposals to require "presence of mind" to be behind future law on trade union disputes, as opposed to simple numeracy by default of positive action. Managers are a small number compared with the large numbers of employees managed. In a working day all variously express disagreements on the particular modus operandi of the particular moment and operation. All have diversity of opinions expressed and not expressed in which they determine progress, often contrary to other held beliefs but it is 'horses for courses' that determine the relevance of priority in any situation.
          So it is with the debate on UK voting. In my view we have not yet had sufficient experience of a formally organised coalition government to determine its value against a one party majority; or a representational voting pattern which might still not give the voter control of the final government. It would seem the best option is a referendum style on major issues (how determined remains questionable) rather than an EU form of government. This seems too vast and remote to be seriously meaningful and is specifically ill representative of the range of opinions voiced, which may not be meaningful to the whole but can be seriously meaningful to a particular country, especially as between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Flexibility, Adaptability, Malleability.
          One of our main problems this past century has been the failure of the Church of England to lead from the front. Half a century ago it determined women could not be priests, in deliberate contradiction that a woman could be its Supreme Governor, so declared nearly four and half centuries ago, at which point I walked out. We still haven't got the amendment through that there is not (and never was) a problem with women bishops, other than the inadequacy, through arrogance, of men.
          Islam is following the same fault line. It has muddled culture with religious viewpoints and like CofE man, Islam is determined to remain male dominated and not move with God's Creation of a continually changing narrative. Only now does the French Council of the Muslim Faith speak out against attacks (50+ to date) against its members, inflamed by the recent outrages. Where has been its voice since the IS and jihad eccentrics first put in an appearance? Is Islam not creating the problem by refusing the reality of Allah's Creation—a state of continual change through time—and ignoring the reality that it is out of step with its own beliefs, which are themselves as confused as Christianity's, again held back by its own believers' refusal to acknowledge the same changing times? On this, a local CofE priest expresses his personal view.
          This is the beauty of 'retirement' and I won't stop until I am dead—and there is no death, I'm a Christian [and "no" that does not deny that same reality to anyone else!]! The trouble I have is deciding "which brand?". What is without question is that there are aspects of great movements forward in those sectors that might reasonably be described as 'Free Church' but which I am reluctant to embrace, as I am unquestionably an Englishman and England has given the more practical value to our present and historical times than Christ's church. The more one talks with retired priests and the odd bishop privately, it is amazing how open they are when no longer dependent upon their stipends! Hence the present difference of opinion on "Assisted Dying" between the present Archbishop of Canterbury and his predecessor. On this occasion his predecessor is right and the present incumbent wrong: but the present chap has got much right where his predecessor failed completely. Justin Welby has been able to put the right boot with the right force up the right orifice. A classic example where understanding the reality of life as it actually is is ten times better than pure academics totally divorced from everything else but their libraries. Christ never had one at all but that could be counter-argued because it was all in his head or simply part of him.

MONDAY 12th JANUARY 2015 [morning post]
Management is a cool, calm state of being. It envisages, prepares for counter eventualities while keeping a steady hand on the tiller and knowing precisely where the entity is actually going when external factors attempt to force a different course.
          The microcosm is often a good lesson for the macrocosm. On Facebook, I have a friend currently going through turmoil with a host of practical problems, while various governments are reviewing their threat strategies in the light of recent Paris events. To each, their problems are a major preoccupation: no less so to her because she is "only" a manager in a branch office, nor more so to him because he is running a country. He is also leading his political party with an imminent election and trying to be a husband and a father. She is also trying to be a mother to her children, her partner having been found unfit for purpose as well as coping with a serious illness.
          When criticising, we all need to remember that we all suffer in exactly the same way, if not at every possible moment and therefore need to see our criticisms, however seemingly justifiable, in that same light. Legislation rushed through never works properly and apparently it isn't—nothing new there: and it isn't stopping the intent to rush more through in a  panic! Hopefully we learn throughout our individual experiences, however devastating they may seem or actually be and end up stronger and more reliable for the next crisis.
          The disappointment is that we rarely take time out to properly chill. Often, if we are blessed so to receive, it is only in retirement that the peace and solitude to properly reflect envelopes us. Those inclined to religious preoccupations are more accustomed to sabbaticals or retreats. One would have expected those of monastic proclivity not to need them while those in industry to have them as an essential part of life but they happen too rarely. Retired one does not need them, for surely that is what retirement is, a permanent retreat?
          What is the connection, for all circumstances are variable, they certainly have been throughout my life? Flexibility, adaptability and malleability have been my passwords throughout my life, steering my course generally comfortably with a self-confidence in laissez-faire, while trying to be as adaptable a part of everyone else's world where I need to interact. I have been puzzled of late as to why we have no psychiatrist contribution to the IS phenomenon and I suddenly discover such an authoritative opinion on habits which i recommend to you.

SUNDAY 11th JANUARY 2015 [morning post]
The Big Question has been waffling appallingly on the Paris tragedy. It is very simple: freedom is its own prison, for the greater the freedom the greater the responsibility and accountability for the way it is used and the consequences of its use.
          The same principles apply to "states of consciousness". Drunkenness must be viewed more seriously than it is viewed. It is usually the case that drunkenness is a deliberate conscious effort determined with intent when normal consciousness is evident. It would therefore be proper to attribute full accountability for the consequences of actions committed when drunk and that also means that a state of drunkenness places an equal responsibility on the drunks for commission and acceptance of commission.
         Apparently the teaching of human relationships in UK state schools does not include rational co-education in sexual knowledge. Is America for once getting it right?

SATURDAY 10th JANUARY 2015 [evening post]
Any moment creates its own focus, automatically casting the rest of the stage into a shadow not necessarily of its own deserving.
           Once more the magnificence of our NHS is declared by private enterprise. Circle, a private enterprise company, simply cannot cope. Private enterprise simply hasn't got what it takes. Why were Circle ever in business, for they were clearly never up to the job required? It is an obvious fact that the rendering of service requires concentration upon others' needs and only secondarily on oneself, especially if that entails any sense of personal gain.
          We now learn that the government is at last waking up to some of the realities of democracy, intending to require trade union strike ballots to have a 40% vote. Codswallop 51% if not 60% of total membership, regardless of voting numbers at the ballot and absentees constitute an automatic "no" vote.
          Cost-effective utilisation of resource must always be key and that means for all of us who constitute the state, including those whose work is completely disrupted, causing them actual loss or incurring additional costs to ensure they continue working etc. It is the demand for product at the right price that determines value and sold value determines the wage payable.
The Economist provides some interesting statistics on Islamic populations in Europe which neatly brings me back to the follow (a stage moving spotlight) currently focused on Paris. There seems to be insufficient concentration on the motive and what provoked it. Apparently someone does not like satire. What is satire?
          The Oxford Dictionary states: The use of humourironyexaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Colloquially, one might say, "to bring someone down a peg or two who thinks too much of themselves".
          Religion, traditionally, has always thought too much of itself, as have many of those who subscribe to its doctrines. I write as an English Protestant Christian who curbs his Free Church inclination by using the 'simple' 08:00 service occasionally, in a parish church structured almost as close to Roman Catholicism as one can get in the Church of England. It enjoys visiting Walsingham, a Catholic orientated historical shrine, the home of one of my English heros, Lord Walsingham, regarded by many as the instigator of the British Secret Service and the man principally responsible for seeing Elizabeth I safely through her turbulent reign. This seeming contradiction is for diverse personal and secularly orientated local historical reasons. It is also worth noting there is little new in the world.
          Four and a half centuries or so ago a particular Roman Catholic priest determined to argue with the Queen of England and understandably lost. Popes are only priests burdened with a greater layer of administrative bureaucracy, that is all and many priests, not just those destined to become popes, let their "authority" go to their head. It is a common failing in man. They forget themselves, presume to authoritatively dictate with an inherent arrogance of extreme importance when Christ's message was always to humbly render service.
          For diverse political reasons, not the least of which was personal (in the wider collective sense of self-interest), it is only recently that there has been more vigorous vocal demand for immigrants who desire to live here, to be expected to understand the culture they are joining; to at least speak English with coherence and not to expect the English to accommodate their language, other than at the immigrants' cost in translation, not the taxpayers'. To anyone with the nous to want to live elsewhere than their home, this is plain common sense.
          The Church of England must accept some liability for its appalling failure to accept women priests fifty years ago and women bishops only as recently as now. This is an example of the historical failure of most religions, certainly the Christian and Islamic ones and to some extent the Jewish community. Essentially, religions make two errors of judgement: they confuse cultural/social history with religious belief; historical anthropological necessity with the realities of present day living.
          There is a third failing and that is religions' perverse insistence in looking backwards to what once was and not recognising the objective reality of what they claim to believe: a state of continual change, with a very clear arrow of progressing forwards. Religion progresses forward with deep-seated reluctance, only under the protest of force of circumstance, in a manner that is completely bewildering in its utter irrationality.
          It is from this failure to properly accept its own belief that we have these continual clashes with people living a real life in the practicalities of religions' claimed belief. Islam is essentially still in the dark ages and lacks the exposure to the modern world Christianity has experienced and to which in many ways it has contributed, as Arabia once contributed to that advancing society which suddenly stopped progressing, allowing the western world to overtake it.
          So, with that historical backdrop let me return to the nature and history of satire as found on Wikipedia. It is, from the first, a western concept used as a gauge of public mood and opinion. This is why any government sets out on a dangerous course if it determines a free society should be curbed. It is precisley why, in the Christian tradition, God gave man absolute freedom of choice: because freedom encompasses its own bondage. What may be a free choice to me may be a restriction on someone else and restricting others is not an enactment of free choice. That is what British governments have tended to do, most particularly the last Labour government, with its expensive ideas of demanding ID cards. It chose to respond authoritatively rather than in the manner of rendering a better service in security. It is not the lampoonist who must withhold his lampoon but those who are lampooned not to make themselves the subject of ridicule.
         Satire is strong in the UK because it is society's warning to authority that authority is behaving ridiculously and British authority can behave ridiculously, if only by failing to move with the times, or catch the public mood quickly enough. In other words, it is the duty of those who are lampooned not to conduct themselves in a manner warranting lampooning, not for the lampoonist to blunt his pencil.
          There are interesting comparisons between the three historical main players in European politics: the English, French and German to put them alphabetically. For now, it is the British monarchy that makes Britain the one in three, the crown and Dieu et mon droit which underlines the principles of English culture. Hence the uniqueness of the Church of England, while France is resolutely secular and the predominance of Roman Catholicism a matter of historical fact, purportedly of individual choices. For this reason satire can be more direct in France than in England, despite England's history with Hogarth and others.
          For far too long England held the asinine position of the Lord High Chamberlain, especially appointed without literary qualifications, to oversee dramatic criticism. It was a Thatcher government that determined it should ban a book by a Snowden of the time (although much more gentlemanly) because it exposed an inside of the British Secret Service the government did not want shown, despite the fact it was published in America and Australia. I cannot remember the author's name and have never opened it, except to read my friend's tribute on the fly leaf—he was coming over from America and brought a copy with him. I wanted it for only one reason, Her Britannic Majesty's government determined I should not read it, which is precisely why I ensured I had a copy which, having acquired it, I have never bothered to read.
           It is precisely the same reason why I determined Snowden should be censured and why I previously broadcast on this web links to Charlie Hebdo (and do so again). Governments are servants and require humility to properly exercise their authority (the relevance of this being a Christian country as opposed to being a secular one). At the same time it is necessary for a good servant to know his master sufficiently well as to know when to say to his master "no way". A proper master/servant relationship knows each other very well indeed, hence the service of satire, which is the means of stopping the relationship disintegrating out of either's excessive sense of ego.
           What must come out of all this, as Hollande has specifically stated is that we, the collective whole, totally condemn the particular acts of particular individuals as to who they are as themselves. What they claim to represent is an arrogant presumption of theirs and their ilk and does not impugn those on whose behalf they are falsely presuming to act.
          Having said that, the western concept that God gave man freedom of choice means that those who would take views on alternative understandings must not do so in a manner that is a wilful affront to that established society. It also means that they have accountability to that society not to conduct themselves in a manner likely to provoke a negative reaction.
           In this, the British way may seem to have the upper hand: multiculturalism and the equality of difference. Since Creation is moving ever forwards and is continually advanced by the acquisition of knowledge, the interaction of equals would seem the most practical reality. That means religions all have a part to play in a duty to move forward with secular society and not to statically oppose it. No religion or philosophy should ever express angst at any other belief but equitably accept an agreement to differ. It is beholden on those who "do" not to "do" so as to inspire satire and if inspiring satire to review their opinion from the satirist's stand point. Maybe it is they who are wrong, not the person with the pencil and paper. Satire is only a mirror, recording society at a particular moment, like a camera. Just a basic journalist's tool.

FRIDAY 9th JANUARY 2015 [late after-noon post]
The first duty is to pay proper respect to the French Muslim policeman who sacrificed his life to do his duty to protect everyday citizens, most of whom are not Moslem. That is honour and true duty. It is also a statement to the whole world that these weird and eccentric Islamic criminals are truly criminals, wholly lacking in any concept of religious belief or understanding and totally lacking of moral values. Cowards who, in reality are totally without the religious values in which they claim to believe; wholly lacking in the courage and conviction to explain their accountability. This is why they commit suicide, despite suicide being a sin in all they claim to uphold. Their deaths are a clear statement of how frightened and inadequate they truly know they are and that in reality their angst is no more than a proclamation of their own warped perspectives, thrust upon them by inadequate men falsely masquerading as priests who are themselves psychologically disturbed.
This is very important to advertise. Muslims are deliberately killing Muslims. That is the root cause of our present problems. Most Moslems do not accept these outrageous views and proclaim clearly they are NOT the views of serious Islamic scholars. Fortunately, we now have David Cameron leading from the front by accepting Hollande's invitation to go to France. This is true leadership from both men.

FRIDAY 9th JANUARY 2015 [early after-noon post]
LOOKING FURTHER AFIELD WITH CARE [early after-noon post]
This article clearly highlights why we need to be careful in classification. Islam, like Christianity, has many failings and there is no problem in voicing criticism where such criticism is rational but antics like the present Paris upset and similar atrocities are the rantings of the socially deluded (even if psychiatrists hold back from describing them as medically ill). We need to make it clear that it is not Islam per se that is at fault but the perpetrators of these antics that are socially deluded.

LOOKING LONG TERM [2nd morning post]
It is crucial that all responses are coolly and calmly thought through for their potential long term effect.

Let's have a break and deal with what really matters in life. This is what human living truly is about. Forget ALL religion: compared with this the reality of religion is spherical objects.

The only valuable response to come out of Politics Today was affirmation of what I stated from the beginning. The Euro is a dead duck currency.
Update at 11:30 while I wait for BBC's Daily Politics. Juan Cole offers a rational explanation of what is really going on in Paris here. Somewhat more questionable is a further view point here. Now it seems the gun men are so defeatist they all want to die, lacking the guts to actually be accounted for their actions. Interesting.
          Apparently there is some confusion in language, although these people are actually French and comfortable with the French language. They seem to think that the martyrdom of Christ and his disciples can be matched by everyday criminal thieves and mass murderers, yet I thought they were supposed to be Islamists. They really have got their knickers in a twist.

Even the rector of Great Berkhamsted is feeling it necessary to counter panic over the present Paris scenario by being overly keen to separate "religion generally" from "a specific religion" (his) in his weekly post. No rational person remotely considers the irrational actions or pronouncements of the socially inadequate to have anything to do with a specific philosophy or religion and certainly not Christianity, despite that religion's own perversities down the ages and the way it too has been wilfully abused through the arrogance of self-important unrepresentative priests.
          He might have commented that Christ was thought of as no more than a common criminal by many in authority of his time, in which case the rector could have highlighted the very distinctive difference between the two events. Christ smiled and quietly and peaceably made his case which is precisely why his enemies could not get at him. They even tried to manipulate him into committing criminal acts or to falsely accuse him. All to no avail.
          What do these current protestors of moral philosophy declare? Precisely that: common criminals is exactly what they are and they seek the world's headlines to so declare themselves! Where is the rationality? it is claimed they have military training by showing their complete lack of military awareness and command—showing proficiency with a gun against unarmed people is not showing military proficiency. Declaring their wish to be "martyrs" shows their complete lack of understanding of any concept of religious knowledge. They are demonstrating simple stupidity and emotional inadequacy: nothing more.

THURSDAY 8th JANUARY 2015 2nd [early evening post]
[2nd early evening post]
We seem to be arguing over numerical statistics rather than the validity of the arguments and clearly the people have proved their concern for some time on green issues. So, Cameron is right about wanting the Green party included in political debates. Labour, as usual is simply floundering.

EXCLAMATIONS ALL ROUND! [1st early evening post]
This morning we learn of another Paris upset but currently we have no knowledge as to whether linked to yesterday's outrage. What is reassuring is that the BBC has been interviewing Islamic shopkeepers and receiving perfectly rational responses. If, and as far as I am aware yesterday's outrage has not yet been associated with claims to support purported Islamic interests, such an outrage is unquestionably against all tenets of Islam. Now we are getting somewhere.
          One of the reasons for my distrust of the EU is their failure to meet UK standards of policing. What is emerging from French interviews is that their system is less orientated to personal independence and as the country of Magna Carta, there is no question the UK leads in the field of personal freedoms, although i personally am less sure of our tolerance over printed and other published media. When one looks at the Lord Chamberlain as a literary critic, not necessarily qualified in the arts, we in the UK have had more than our fair share of asinine stupidities. The perverse antics of Mary Whitehouse and the ludicrousness of the fuss made over Lady Chatterley's Lover makes us highly risible.
          However, in France there seems a perfectly rational debate about multiculturalism, accepting at face values of separate identities versus total absorption in the national rationale. There is however more of a problem with Islam than there is with Roman Catholicism despite the similarity with which they both have an unnatural and unacceptable angst against women: Islam is clearly overly sensitive on criticism. Objective rationality is part of Creation and for any philosophy to object to critical observation is to deny part of their alleged faith in the nature of Creation.

 WEDNESDAY 7th JANUARY 2015 [after-noon post]
What is Charlie Hebdo? It is a satirical magazine in France whose artists mostly draw on lavatory walls. For some reason someone has considered this art to be worth publishing and consider it financially viable for a small-sized paying audience, presumably so they can read the current issue while doing what is necessary and then wiping their bottom's on it. This takes me back to my childhood days when I once visited someone's outside toilet to discover that they tore up their daily newspaper and stuck the torn up sheets on a twisted wire coat hanger as a cheap form of lavatory paper. May be they were the people who invented multi-tasking?
As Monty Python advises us, as their three leads were hanging around on some wooden poles at the close of the picture singing, "let's look on the bright side of life". What certain followers of Islam seem keen to advertise is that they are unsure of their faith so, like Monty Python, they go around encouraging more people to read Charlie Hebdo then currently do—certainly it is the only reason I have just looked up that magazine on the internet, otherwise i would never have known about it. A typically Pythonesque way of showing one's displeasure—advertise what you do not like. Odd.
          Three things are of interest. According to French translated reportage there is serious consideration that this outrage was conducted by mentally warped individuals. An odd conclusion for what seems to be a well organised (read 'intelligent') outrage. Yet the actions of other similar, possibly deranged Islamists in Africa have not been so cited by American psychologists. Very odd, further adding to the general confusion surrounding religion.
          The second aspect is the nature of religion. All religions offer an interpretation of "how and why we are here". In so doing they usually deny the reality we can all see around us but persist with indoctrinating their combatant views rather than sharing and debating the arguments. In this, they fail to accept they are acting as a wilful provocateur to the rationality of the wider general population which accepts them with a general good grace, with some dissenting voices which are usually dismissed as obvious fruit cakes.
         The third point that arises is a perception that there is an intended "Islamisation of the west". The source of this thought I know not. It could be put about by anti-Islamists simply to stir up trouble. If remotely true then it would be stirred by people who clearly have not studied Islam (my understanding of it is merely peripheral) and do not really understand it, or whose sole use of Islam is to promote their own inadequacies through lacking any rational, civilised outlet. This brings me back to what I have previously written: it is for Islam to adapt to the west not for the west in the west to adapt to Islam.
          While much criticism can be made of the west's invasion into Islamic territory, Islam is as muddled over Islam as may be perceived are Christians about Christianity. In general, the west has accepted Islam as it presents itself in eastern territories, remembering that Christianity itself derives from the East. For Muslims to decide to come westwards they know full well what is expected of them. To declare they hate the west is clearly nonsense, for why else arrive here? They knew precisely what they were coming to: it was their duty to prepare accordingly. If they wish to sell Islam to us, then sell it but, as so many religionists refuse to acknowledge, Creation is a state of continual change and religion generally stands in deliberate defiance of the very reality in which it claims to believe.

TUESDAY 6th JANUARY 2015 [morning and late evening post]
Same old failings: gutless, gumptionless and totally inadequate—it's all self-interest, regaining power, looking bright and being egotistical. We are in General Election year and we are arguing as to whether it should be fixed term, or variable to a PM's chance of re-election; or fixed and independent of personal manipulation and then whether for four years or five. We are experimenting, so too soon to judge and in any case we are in a coalition government which may or may not become a norm: so again, too soon to judge.
          For now, leave well alone. Let's just get on with it and that means dealing with facts in the light of realities. The reason I made myself available and was elected to a town council of independents was to apply business principles in local government. The system did not like such attitudes, which is why all government is generally a mess and is why it is government collectively that needs the kick up its bum.
          Make each year's turnover bear its fair share of costs. Basic double entry book-keeping achieves this: staring us in the face from day-to-day, the reality of life's cost and those costs are preparation for costs inevitably to come, as well as provision for the unexpected, including the wear and tear of the present and potential future demand which is perfectly predictable provided we have proper management control—and that means controlling our borders relating to in and out of population movement.
          A cost balanced society can rationally decide its priorities in a healthily balanced manner. The objectives of good government is the rendering of service: a basic Christian concept, as the PM has been keen to remind us, thus giving secular management a moral code, which opens government up to wider religious interpretations to make an inclusive society. Where is the problem?
          Health is obviously an essential component. Health is a broad church: define the many chapels in its cathedral and how they inter-relate. Secular government is just the same as running a cathedral. Diverse divisions require specific specialities but each is part of the whole, while dealing separately with the outside world.
          Whether privately funded; dependent upon volunteers; needing special funds. Health is no different but in size and the principles remain the same: sound management—that means appropriate management NOT management numbers.
          To be cost-effective management must be Flexible, Adaptable and Malleable to a state of continual change, just as cathedrals must, while the religion for which purpose they exist remained obdurate in staying the same and continually looking backwards.
          Government, likewise, refuses to note the reality of the need for being ready for change; looking to how the world might, should, or must change to be as meaningful tomorrow as it should be today. Instead, party political ego and self-interest fill the space that should be there for the rationality essential to sound management.

Smashing down to the Lowest Common Multiple, instead of reaching up for the Highest Common Factor has always been socialism's aim, borne of despair of achievement and fired by resentment and greed. As Cameron recently reminded us, "this is a Christian country". Christian ethos is to render service. What is the base toast for any occasion? Health. Without good health to render service, there is no hope of raising wealth. Happiness is within but requires not only good health but good health for all, for happiness cannot be indulged if there is awareness of unhappiness in one's fellows.
          Who then is one's fellow?  Any one in need despite first meeting their own responsibilities to themselves (so as not to be  a burden to anyone else) and to the "expected" obligations their understandable life circumstance places upon them—the core value of the NHS: free at the point of use for anyone who is resident in the UK. Just like a cathedral: a vast edifice with many specialities, co-ordinated by clarifying its external parameters and ensuring the various sections are properly co-ordinated and financed.
          Finances may derive from visitor contributions; special service provisions; capital investment to reduce future running costs, including provision for wear, tear and general depreciation. All of these are in a state of flux over time but individually and collectively manageable. If one aspect is in danger of imminent collapse then there is a range of measures that can be taken, all within the compass of the collective whole. The answer is but one word—management.

Two examples come to mind: Ched Evans and Virginia Andrews. There may be an answer in that legal procedures are inept and/or that practitioners have likewise failed in their professional competencies. Evans has spent two and a half years in prison during which time legal proceedings could have been moving forward were it not the case his lawyers simply fouled up from the beginning? It is standard practice in certain professions, the law being one of them and accountancy arguably another, where certain criminal acts automatically bar a person from further employment once convicted of certain criminal activity.
          New evidence can some times come to light too late for a trial's proceedings but there are established procedures to cover such events. In the mean time a conviction is a conviction: fact! We had a witless fool on BBC Morning politics determined to support Evans' claim to being the subject of a miscarriage of justice and therefore employable, without providing any proof of this claim, other than the fact that an intention to appeal is to be made but as yet there is no evidence of such an appeal.
         The question then applies: is a convicted rapist an appropriate mainstream footballer? There are two youth questions. Is it right he should be applauded (albeit for his performance on the field) or is it more important that in the crowd will be criminally proven youngsters who can see their lives are not so sullied there is not a chance of redemption?
          Arguably that is an opinion for the public to voice and so far it seems the majority is against his re-employment. The decision remains the clubs'.
          Regardless, Evans knew all this or should have been so advised by his lawyers. His response has been to ignore the facts and wilfully mismanage his private affairs. He has only himself to blame. Proper management of his position would have been to get his lawyers moving faster; get his result (and he has already had one appeal attempt fail) and then face what there is to face. For now, he has to make clear his abhorrence of the act and his part in it while endeavouring jury's opinion; or the incompetence of his lawyers.
           In Virginia Evans case well, that's America. This is quite clearly an emotionally inadequate girl who wants to name high profile people in order to gain press attention as a form of blackmail against those for whom she feels she has an angst, justifiable or not.
          While some Americans seem over keen to bathe in the British Monarchy's glory, there are many Americans who simply do not understand the nature of monarchy: it is a complex entity of status; of people in public and private life; of people with statutory authority and responsibility; of people who have a right to be respected as private persons but who have difficulty in acquiring true privacy and simply "being themselves as normal people" etc.
          This girl's father is so witless as to have suggested his daughter may have met the Queen while working for Epstein. A clear matter of promotional publicity solely designed to attract attention as it is completely irrelevant were the claimed incident ever likely to have happened.
           Her father's statement confirms the only reason the Duke of York was ever mentioned was because we Brits are so damned good and so highly regarded in achieving what we have and do and all publicity is good. Today's Daily Mail is my source.

MONDAY 5th JANUARY 2015 [after-noon post]
Miliband was speaking and all he said I have expressed in one line! Subsequently, "we need to be involved in the world". We always have been, for the last four centuries particularly, while the EU is preoccupied solely with self.
          Labour interested in reducing state income by countering Tory reductions in social expenditure: but no replacement income without tax increase nor increasing debt. How?
          "Once in a generation" supposed to rejuvenate the electorate, yet so far, very old-fashioned "tit for tat" politics. Not encouraging, Miliband.