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.

www.petersuch.org www.petersuch.com
Also on Twitter as Peewit2 (he doesn't take it seriously) and on Facebook as himself (Peter.Such.5)

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS CURRENT BLOG ANNOTATIONS/OTHER REFERENCES
Last published: Sunday 26th April 2015
APRIL 2015
GENERAL AND COMMENTARY INDEX
NEVER FORGET
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. Clearly neither Labour nor the Lib/Dems possess the necessary courage... or is that simply arrogance, or fear of contrary opinion due to their own uncertainties?
 

Sunday 26th April 2015 [Morning post]
THERE IS PURPOSE BEHIND THE FLOUNDERING
First, we have all parties being negative about everyone else, rather than being fulsome about why they are the best, clearly indicating a lack of confidence in their own proclaimed abilities.
            Nicola Sturgeon charges on to the field like Boudicca before the Roman legions, reminding us of history’s many proclamations that women’s abilities in all fields have been at least as good as anything the men have ever put up.
            Today, Andrew Marr on BBC1 was not up to standard; Ed Miliband surpassed himself and looked seriously credible as a potential Prime Minister and that he could indeed “manage that troublesome woman”; Boris was simply Boris, completely all over the place, looking at one point as if he wanted to suck his toe but not too sure as to which toe and seemed thrown as to how to take his shoes off.
            My broadcast news proclivity is BBC, countered with Channel4 and occasional glimpses elsewhere. Newspapers are a serendipity achievement from the broadsheets (whether actually broadsheet or not) with an occasional glance at the tabloids. My conclusions so far?
            This is an occasion when management would not pre-plan any alternative option but simply wait for the final figures and then start thinking. Pre-planning should only consist of the structural arguments.
            Until now, “first past the post” has worked well, provided the Boundaries Commission is kept up to the mark and their recommendations immediately implemented before the next election. This is where the Lib/Dems wilfully abused their position and made certain such updating did not happen, raising potential questions of invalidity [cf. below].
            Those promoting proportional representation have never concluded which of the various options should be promoted, nor given us a clear statement as to the whys and wherefores of each, let alone talked of putting them to a referendum, which in my view would be required. So, on that front, still some way to go.
            However, the fact that the method of proportional representation by which a result may be acquired has not been decided, it would be totally improper to attempt to apply any such method as a basis for resolving supremacy now, remembering that the independent review Board recommended boundary changes to balance population numbers, which the Tories wanted and the Lib/Dems rebuffed. Fortunately, the Lib/Dems are not in the equation for forming a government but the fact that statistics indicate such rationalising of the boundaries would have favoured the Tories then the Tories must be given the benefit of the doubt if the numbers are close.
            This means decisions should be based on the potential voting effect in parliament and arguably that should also take into account the possibilities of disagreement between SNP and Labour and the extent to which either Labour or Tory might experience division within their own ranks, throwing out or in any particular crucial legislation.
            There would appear to me to be two firm lines. Have the Tories been conclusively thrown out? If not, then it is for them to form a government. Only if they fail does Labour have a go.
            There is a third option, dependent upon the actual number of seats and who is sitting in them: A national coalition government of all three main parties: Labour, Lib/Dem and Tory. The presumption would be that not having been concisely thrown out, Cameron is PM, Miliband or Clegg deputy PM, the presumption being Clegg for likewise not being concisely thrown out but for his seat numbers. Arguably they need not apply unless they are larger than in the previous government, in which case his claim should carry more weight.
            Whatever result, the timetable to be set is: boundary changes; one thorough discussion on proportional representation and then a referendum as to which option; open and conclude changes to the EU and relationships with all four kingdoms in the event of an EU rejection. I suspect that will occupy a full five years so there would be no need to provide a provision for a shorter parliament but any idea we should revert to “going when a government likes” would be totally unacceptable.
            The purpose behind the floundering? We really are in a mess and none of them dare tell us! That is why we should be seeking a government of national unity IF we cannot rely upon Churchill's faith "Trust the British people".
            It really is down to us. We need to forget personal egos and vote as last time. Regard ONLY the three main parties as serious government. This is not the election in which we can afford the luxury of individualism. We need conformity of thought across the country for the country of united kingdoms. The Tories are right for the soundness of fiscal management. Labour are right that we need to increase taxes but as the Lib/Dems point out, fairly but we should not be raising revenue taxes on capital assets but on revenue earned, that is where Labour is wrong on their £2m property tax.

ALL FOOLS' DAY, WEDNESDAY 1st APRIL 2015 [after-noon post]
SIMPLY ALL OVER THE PLACE! [after-noon post]
I realise the ease with which straight forward living can be turned totally topsy turvy through the passage of time. It happens at a time of sudden death through accident, unannounced, totally unexpected through "simple" car crash, or just walking accident. More publicly serious, like the families of those young children and their friends aboard the Germanwings flight. Where lies accountability? 
         I am not thinking of this state of being but the relationship between this material plane and the spiritual plane of the German pilot Andreas Lubitzof. To what extent is he accountable for what he did? Where does spirit control the biochemical container of what we perceive is Andreas Lubitzof, or was the spirit of Andreas Lubitzof controlled by the biochemical container he chose (if he had a choice), to accept responsibility for his actions in this life. If it was the biochemical body that controlled Andrea Lubitzof's spirit, then where lies accountability for any of us? Yet I believe we are individually accountable for who and how we are... generally speaking but how do we account for this most recent tragedy? The implications of a BBC report this night implied biochemistry as the cause, one retired pilot saying he had experienced such psychological urges and felt that if he continued flying he would indeed do what Lubitzof did which is why he promptly stopped flying. This brings us into religious prehistory, the belief in evil spirits being a fact. Perhaps religion was not wrong, it just was unable to define more clearly but where lies insanity's accountability? Neuron responses to biochemistry; spiritual influence, the hearing of voices and such similar phenomena?
         On a completely different scale I have been trundling along through life in my own sweet way, generally unaffected by the wider world around me... then my hard drive crashes! Apparently Apple only make spare parts until a machine is five years old, my MacBook Pro is (was) seven years old! Yes, I had been planning ahead and was intending this Spring to make a decision and yes, backups are Time machine automatic on the hour but... Various programs had updated, Apple had gone through several system changes and I was faced with inconsistencies, requiring sorting out on diverse fronts, into which I had not looked for some time.
         The result was not the simplicity of change for which I had envisaged and had prepared myself. In such turmoil I mislaid and thought I had lost my credit and debit cards, various IDs and my wallet. The reassurance of one phone call and everything was stopped. My insurer reminding me I was insured for Identity theft, so advised, I implement that warning and I was immediately relieved.
          Fortunately I was not abroad, although an Apple employee advised me he had once lost his cards while abroad and American Express had replaced their card within 48hrs, despite being abroad. Fortunately, I had cash in the house, which was itself unusual. It was an interesting experience suddenly being effectively in suspended animation. It made me look again at the advantage of digitalisation (if only we could have fingerprints for passwords) but also the vulnerability to which it places us.

Thursday 16th April 2015 [morning post]
TOPSY-TURVY TURNING HEADS UP
Oranised chaos is the state of management in the arts and industry when you have highly skilled specialists intent on an impossible deadline which somehow, they know, they are going to make… and do!
          My topsy-turvy world has been thrust on me by default of circumstance and other people’s strategies and I am not yet anywhere near the edge of the wood. Interestingly, I discover reports of people wondering what has happened to me, which is encouraging. These pages are but a small section of the original web I created years back when involved in a diversity of activity. For now, it really serves no greater purpose than public notes of a private diary as I work through the mayhem of accumulated data requiring sorting, in the course of which I discover disconnected site meters telling me I have more visitors than I thought I had. Thank you, to all of those who do read, if it is only to find out if I am dead or not! Be reassured, I’m still functioning but having to relearn my way, as cited above on “All Fools’ Day”. An appropriate day on which to discover I need to take a serious re-learning course.
      Interestingly DeeTV has just announced its handling of the contestants in the South West Hertfordshire constituency and the BBC has launched a new comparison site.

Friday 17th April 2015 [after-noon post]
THE NET IS DRAWING IN (2)
Why has no one else picked this up as the moment Miliband showed he'd failed?
Proper leadership would have been to take up the challenge, say "yes" to Nicola but warn her he was the man who would be in charge. That would have been leadership: that was when he showed when it came to the crunch, he simply had not got it.
      This was when Nicola challenged him directly last night and he showed he simply hadn't got what it takes.

Friday 17th April 2015 [morning post]
THE NET IS DRAWING IN
Suddenly, major politics descend into sheer childishness, proving Cameron’s point in not attending last night’s BBC debate on the challengers to the coalition government. As expected, Nicola Sturgeon declared her undivided interest in breaking up the UK. She’s for Scotland and sod the rest but for which she’s a better option than Miliband for being PM of the UK.
      There certainly appeared to be a left biased audience but the key for these debates is the UK home telly numbers. Why was Farage objecting to left-wing bias if he is trying to appeal to Labour supporters?
      There is no question that any alternative to the combination of David Cameron and Nick Clegg will be a disaster, these also-rans simply haven’t got what it takes. They are merely a side-show. This is the election when perverse voting is not wanted: stand by the simplicity of precedent and vote main parties only.

Tuesday 21st April 2015
EXCITING, CHALLENGING, FLOUNDERING
Adjective, adverb or verb, it all comes down to attitudes and attitudes demand flexibility, adaptability and malleability, if one is going to be able to cope with life, which is why religion is so often found floundering like a drunk in the main thoroughfare.
            Perhaps one needs first to define religion and Oxford will give you: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”. This tells us that throughout history concepts of “god” have, at best, been no more than the aggregation of particular opinions at various times, from which a perception of society and its culture has devolved, frequently confusing those two sources.
            The issue is that aggregated opinion has more bearing upon any particular subject than necessarily related facts, whether or not the minority dissension is passive or more than vocal.
            Today could be summer but for the light breeze that carries too cold a chill, reminding me it is still early spring. My schedule has been disrupted, through intermingling my world with other people’s wishes, albeit for my own interest. Would I have been as good a husband and father as I believe I would have been had I married? Certainly better than some of whom I have known but I have also known many who have made such excellent accomplishments of their achievements that I seriously doubt my own potential competence.
            A need to fast for twelve hours overnight is hardly an ordeal but it brings one up short to think of just what other people are suffering and reminds me of school-taught Bible homilies. In fact I went on until lunch today without eating but having eaten well up to nine last night. I was still within my weight requirements, of which I need take only nodding acquaintance, unless blood results indicate I’ve moved nearer to being a diabetic, whereas last time I had managed to further distance myself from such diagnosis. The disruption to my life-style was preparation for my annual medical review.
            Unfortunately, my blood pressure results were alarmingly contradictory to my home results taken earlier in the morning. Was my machine giving false readings? It is three years beyond “due test time” but that costs £30, or did when I last checked; involves packing and posting and I lose it for four to six weeks. Best option, clearly, is to buy another device, use that to six months short of its due testing and then send the first machine away. The issue is that having proved the value of having the machine and its continued use it would seem logical to buy better. I can indeed afford to do that, when I have managed to decide the most appropriate device and my annual medical review is an integral part of the NHS service.
            We have also lost over 1,000 drowned souls in the Mediterranean, so far this year. Where is the cost of the BP device, or the ability to own one let alone two, let alone have tight medical resources take a routine check on my health? However, how much public cost is be being avoided by that simple insurance process, despite it being multiplied by so many thousands of patients?
            In the light of real management need, on an international scale, where are our leaders? Where is the Britain that created the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations? Burdened by Labour’s crippling debt. Where are the resources acquired through profit from prudent management and sound commercial, independent trading, unfettered by pettifogging rules and regulations of no value to anyone but our competitors, trading independently without them, as we should be.
            Were we independent and were we financially solvent, the obvious answer is to give the leaders (if there are any) of these countries, from which so many are anxious to flee at the risk of their lives, an ultimatum. Make your country habitable for your people to enjoy or we will come in and make it right for them, with the agreement and monitoring of the United Nations of course.
            Cameron has the ability but lacks the cavalry and financial resource because Labour squandered it. Miliband hasn’t a clue, were he to have the resource, yet it is the Labour leadership that determined it knew better than the British people. Just like their trade union financial backers before calling a strike, the Labour leaders tried to appear as if they knew what they were doing and declaring the workers to be too ignorant to be trusted to vote on the issue. How the mighty indeed are fallen—not the Labour leadership but the British people!
            Nicola Sturgeon is without doubt the modern Britannia, except for the fact she is Scotland the Brave for ever! As a result of Labour’s arrogance, to deny the British people the democracy was theirs by inherent right, Scotland will demand to have their share of the vote counted separately. That leads us straight back to splitting up the UK but does give us the chance to separate British voters from general EU voters, if we have to accept EU’s insistence, such voters physically in this country, which I would argue we do not need to accept as the point of the vote is whether or not we accept the EU at all in the first place.
            Such is the appalling mess that Labour makes of simple straight forward government. It is a party that simply is not fit, nor able to govern.

Wednesday 22nd April 2015
STILL ALL OVER THE PLACE
Nigel Farage willing to admit some irresponsible floating refugees provided they are Christian. Wrong response. However, his belief that the rest should be placed upon a seaworthy vessel and sent back ignores the very principle of whether or not they should be admitted in Europe in the first place: appropriate papers and the reliability of the country from which they came to accept its responsibilities, which clearly they are not!
           That they have come here at all brings us back to where I was yesterday, saying we should be going in to those countries and running them in the manner acceptable to their people’s. We have a flood of refugees, so why are we not responding to the flood? We do not mop up where the flood should not have spilt, we turn off the main stop cock, ceasing the flood at source. Why are we not behaving rationally, or is it the Italians behaving as that nation usually responds, leaving the passengers in charge of the ship now their captain has caused it to sink?
           What is emerging is what I stated two weeks ago: “steady as she goes”. We want a repeat of what we have experienced for the last five years, or, the rationality of a national government of all three main parties. All parties have a serious contribution to make to the collective whole. All parties are biased by their inbuilt prejudices, either inherent or the reason why they got going in the first place. The country would seem to be saying it wants a bit of of each. So, why not?

 

 

INDEX

The general conclusion appears to be that we need to increase taxes on those who can afford to pay and NOT reduce the cost of aiding those in need.

That would seem to include a proper provision for our military needs and ensuring extra taxation to meet revenue costs derived from taxpayers' REVENUE income.