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, July 9, 2015 10:20

JUNE 2015
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?

Monday 29th June 2015 [after-noon post]

Hello! So, for a few days at least, summer has arrived and this is the first day of Wimbledon, Hurrah! Life is an interesting contrast of experiences on a daily basis.

First off I receive a confirmatory letter from one of my ophthalmologists confirming my eyesight 6/6 and 6/5. Apparently 6/6 is the British equivalent to America’s 20/20 (the Americans measure in English feet (now called an American measurement!) while we British apparently measure in metres, just to be perverse to please the EU!). Apparently, because the way the calculations are worked 6/5 is one up from 6/6.

This is odd since that is the eye that suffered shingles, so it appears the damage done has favourably twisted the lens. Perversely, that consultant offered to take out a couple of eyelashes, which he thought might be about to cause me trouble. As I was sitting in front of him it seemed illogical not to agree but since then I have been having trouble with that eye! He must have inadvertently knocked a growing eyelash skewiff.

Knowing that lashes have to grow to a reasonable length, so they can be more easily hoicked out, I put up with a few days of irritation until this morning when, on calling my local optician, I found he had a slot at lunchtime. That tied in nicely with a bank visit and shopping at Waitrose, where I could park for free.

That appointment led into a general discussion on various health issues which I have previously dealt with on this page and which I shall further develop on my NHS page. We were also prompted that I had not had an eye check for four years and I was wondering that perhaps I needed new frames, so, as they happened to be lightly engaged my eyelash pull out and general chat ran into an over late annual check. Hardly a change in four years was reassuring but I will probably buy a new frame in due course for time was now too short for the bank, as I needed shopping before my time ran out in Waitrose’s car park.

Shopping was not straightforward. I faced a most serious conundrum. Around Christmas time I debated various gins but never got round to buying the required tonics—or at least, I had basic Schweppes but not a selection of some of the diverse tonics currently available: Fever-Tree and Fentiman’s mixers.

I came away with nine varieties of tonic but on arriving home I found life was not going to be quite so simple, so great is the diversity of opportunity. I have two or three specialist gins I want to try out. Then there is vodka. I have never really been interested in vodka but I some how got hooked on trying out two or three specials which I haven’t actually got round to sampling. Tequila is not my style at all and I have more or less settled on my preferred rum and general drinking whisky. Even so, summer is going to be very challenging and its Wimbledon! Strawberries and cream and that means… champagne, well, one bottle left over from Christmas, the others are merely sparkling wine… and there is still all those drink combinations to try out. Being retired can be very burdensome.


Friday 26th June 2015 [early evening post]
At one time, a grasp of English would enable communication almost anywhere in the world, despite which we had attempts at diverse alternative, artificially contrived, ‘universal’ languages that now seem lost with the age of the hippies and free love.

A wrangle in France raises issues on the ‘universality’ of English… or is that on the breadth and depth of French education, where the baccalaureate requires an intermediate level of proficiency in two foreign languages? The wrangle is over the verb “to cope” and its derivatives.

The word arose in a question “The students said they were baffled by a passage from the best-selling novel “Atonement,” by Ian McEwan, in which the word “cope” appeared. Then came two questions about a character named Turner: “What concerns him about the situation?” and “How is Turner coping with the situation?”
Some students were also perplexed by the word “concern”.

I have already raised elsewhere on this web, the problems of linguistic interpretation in a native language over a period of centuries, compared with its modern usage and having to make the same allowances for the dating of subsequent translations. Interpret the translation principle in a specific subject, such as philosophy and one is ‘all over the shop’.

Add in entrenched cultural differences. Add in entrenched differences on subject interpretation, or complete lack of knowledge (as with Islam in a Christian-orientated culture). Add in a refusal to see acquired historical understanding in a ‘voluntarily accepted’ or ‘forcibly accepted’ changed society. This is the ‘proactive’ choice of immigrant parents clinging to their tradition, yet raising children who have to live in two cultures that on many occasions seem in conflict with one another.

Such young people are also being educated in two totally different languages (family and school): Islam is phonetic and English anything but phonetic. Yet, usually, being bilingual is sufficient practicality for everyday living, yet the EU presumably requires a third language? Hence we lead into childhood stress at the same time as we learn of emotional and health destructive anxiety stress in doctors.

There appears to have been a deliberate wilfulness, on the part of many Muslims, in their refusal to accept the changes they had a duty of care to themselves and their families to take on board, when and before deciding to live in Europe. Common sense seems to have deserted them en masse. There seems also to have been a failure of ‘standing up’ for themselves.

First, many Muslims persist in accepting male domination and refuse to learn the language let alone its culture, why then come? Then they refuse to pro-actively condemn those of pure ignorance who seem determined to sully their own culture and religious beliefs by proclaiming blasphemies as being representative of their religion and claiming to be newly inspired pro-active adherents of it.

It simply is not rational, but then, religions generally fail that elementary test. It is only recently that the CofE has woken up to having women bishops and the Church of Rome is still in a teetering fluster because increasingly it has to think about women priests. Such thoughts throw the church’s male clergy into pandemonium.

The EU refuses to help the situation, determining that as it is secular and all are equal, male dominated organisations may over-rule its own specifically created universality! Doubtless it is this logic that gives us a currency which is based on imagination and hope, not economic realities (or church inspired obfuscation); borderless countries incapable of controlling unlawful migration but expected to file population statistics and provide for a population consequently indeterminable. The collective whole is encouraging a financially successful criminal underworld.

The EU can be quite interesting at times!

 Sunday 21st June 2015
Individual freedom can only be achieved in a free society. A free society is the most restrictive form of control: it requires personal responsibility and fully accountable justification in all individual and joint individual actions. To such ends a free society has a duty of care to take responsibility for its collective whole and its members' individual defence.

A clear statement of Dylann Roof’s inadequacy. Is he psychologically disturbed or simply evil? If evil then we have to accept spirituality and that means reassessing the state of religion. Both religionists and nonreligionists have a duty to bring religion to the relevance of today's need in this physical plane, because religion generally is not doing the job.

Few of us can be expected to take a crash course in comparative religion to write authoritatively. Without recognised authorities writing on relevant subjects our only recourse is to our own acquired life experience. Is he simply nuts? To what extent are  all these quasi religionists

Wednesday 24th June 2015 [morning post]
In the light of the deputy mayor of Calais's latest request for British management to run his town for him (he espoused the British had made a political mistake in expecting him to run his own town) we should remember Ambrose Bierce. "Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first. -Ambrose Bierce, writer (24 Jun 1842-1914).

Saturday 21st June 2015 [after-noon post]
We have marches in London and Glasgow but for a multiplicity of purposes, indicating a loss of interest for such events and the only way to gather a crowd? At least they are on a Saturday, rather than interfering with people anxious to do a day’s work but then, why should other families’ rest day be disrupted? Are such marches relevant to the modern day of digital communication, save to walk the dog and gain some exercise? As the sun is shining in London perhaps that’s why so many are there. Yet again, a denial of reality for which the Labour party has made the greatest contribution.

We have an Imam who is medically ill who wants his electronic tag removed because he thinks it is a bomb. If he’s nuts, he’s nuts, it can happen to anyone. There was the CofE priest who turned up for interview as school chaplain despite being explicitly told not to do so by his bishop. He thought the grass quad would be a great place for him to tether his goat!

If he is medically sick, why is this imam simply not incarcerated in an asylum? Historically, too often ridiculed, the sick and the lame are still appallingly mistreated even today and still too little understood but then, we have so many specialists, we cannot all be expected to have a sufficient overall view of the collective whole as to see everything in perspective. Love is to see another through their eyes on the world “O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us/To see oursels as ithers see us!

A day or two back I cited the occasion when a much loved friend Facebook chastised me for speaking openly but… it was on her personal page and she is herself concerned about being over large, as a side effect of medical treatment and was also -thinking of her friends. I too am having to watch my weight for medical reasons, which in my view makes me an active participant in the debate and we are all flooded with the contradictions of: medical concern of a general rise of the obese; our responsibilities for our own bodies but also our drain on the national health service unnecessarily; clothing designers insisting on models only of someone’s ideal proportions; and my own presumption on the woman to whom I had been referring, who may herself have already been overly conscious about battling a problem caused by her own health and beyond her control.

Yet, what is aspiration but to ‘do something with one’s life’, to make an impact? Why? Why simply not ‘be’ and let it all hang out? Is it inadequacy that so many others are identified with things done that one feels a loss of worth for not aping them? Is it that one is aware of those of perceived less worth, or greater fortune and seem not to be doing something to improve their situation but remain seemingly content to be a drain on our contribution through taxes, or frivolously squandering their advantages?

So, I lead to religion, that sector of moral values that dominates philosophy. Surely, only comparative religion can lead to any practical value and through comparing religions does one not finally enter that wider world of pure thought? Why must one grip tight to perceived certainties and be afraid of letting go? It takes only a moment’s pause to realize the enormity of Magellan’s task but it was Drake who really proved the practical value of the physical reality and Shakespeare who opened minds to “…[that] undiscovered country from whose bourn/ no traveller returns—puzzles the will… and does make cowards of us all.” [Hamlet: Act III, scene 1].

I turn first to this youth in Charleston. Love and forgiveness (but only after penitence) can be the only rational response. We do not yet know the full background. The arguments are no different than for the IS lot. Why? Is society wrong? Yes! As Obama has just stated, no other sophisticated society behaves this way… at least not to this numeracy but neither does that imply the rest of the western world is peach perfect. Parental, family, school, community all colour background from which identity forms and becomes self-aware. It is that self-awareness that leads down passages that most do not take, towards doors that most do not open [Eliot, Burnt Norton, Four Quartets], possibly totally unrelated to personal history: the history of the locality and country colours general attitudes. From where comes that determination to enquire, ascertain an individual path and join with fellow travellers? Or were the travellers first met with and jointly chose their roads?

Is this so desperate a world that people are so anxious to leave it? Yet if they are so keen to greet that unknown bourn which they believe is ‘heaven’ why take with them, or despatch ahead of them, those who disagree with them whom, in their eyes, do not deserve to arrive there? For if there is a form of existence after this physical death what is the determinant that classifies wheat and chaff? It appears to be solely opinion. One is back to the Greeks and they had no problem with homosexuality or a diversity of gods.

In our time, we have a diversity of belief systems but unlike the Greeks we are determined to imitate the rapacious hordes of the later ignorant tribes. We have finally got round to accepting what the Greeks accepted two thousand years ago, freedom of sexual proclivity but in some cases we persist with the male authoritarian domination of women, despite Boudicca.

Despite being so wilfully held back and slowed up by religion, objective rationality cannot absolutely deny the philosophical concepts of which religion, in all its various forms, is simply a façade. So, we teeter at the entrance to that bourn from which no traveller returns… but from which we receive as much information, arguably more, than any religion can provide?

Spirit interactions with this modern world are no different in the manner of their telling than religions’ histories down the ages. That numerical consistency over time gives a statistical value requiring very serious consideration.

Friday 12thJune 2015 [evening post]
I seem to be emerging from one of my ‘switched out’ periods, which this time has lasted for the last seven to ten days. Durations are variable and their arrivals are erratic, without rhyme or reason. The details can be found on my Sjögren’s Syndrome page but I have not had news to add for some time, so a general Google would probably be more apposite. Mercifully, so far, my experiences are peripheral, compared with many other people’s experiences.
           What is common across many illnesses, especially those experiencing cancer treatment, is tiredness and often following links with symptoms is more meaningful than pursuing specialist pages on one’s specific diagnosed problem. When one experiences tiredness on a regular basis that is not due to one’s style of life but the state of one’s general health, one understands the nuances between the different terms used for seemingly the same experience—seemingly so, to anyone not experiencing such things: fatigue, weariness, debilitation, feebleness, lassitude. One also learns that these experiences can be symptoms of something else; can also cause depression and depression can also cause any of these symptoms! Health is in fact a complex world. Even light tiredness, experienced continually over a few days, can dull the mind, making it impossible to think straight and coherently, especially creatively.
            At just such a time, I am suddenly in demand for everyone’s problems! Choosing to get involved positively I gain a considerable amount of corroborating information, throwing different lights on a range of matters. A full report will follow in due course, on my NHS page; but with one relative in the Lords and me being a former town mayor, retaining acquired contact with both local MPs (and` now, it seems, perhaps including the Watford MP), I feel obliged to stick in an oar. Surprisingly, these matters all arise from people choosing to contact me, rather than me charging around with an axe to grind.
            If it is true that the government intends the NHS should operate on the basis of co-ordinated family clinics that are central to the patient and co-ordinating health with social care services, then lets get on with it. At the moment it is all over the place, despite digitisation. Digital communication should enable everyone who needs to know knowing, regardless of their specific core interest, wherever they happen to be and to be able to see their records for whatever speciality, in the context of who else needs to be kept informed. My requirements at the moment, although diverse, are basically very simple, yet even here things are going haywire.
            I will probably paste my letter to my GP surgery and my local pharmacist on my NHS page but for now, a simple summary. I have a consultant prescribing one medicine by its proprietary name instead of the generic name. I thought years ago the NHS had resolved only to use generic names. Proprietary medicine is considerably more expensive while the generic, when available, identically headed, is considerably cheaper. It is the pharmacist who asks me which he should prescribe (technically, in law, he is correct since once the scrip is issued the scrip is legally mine) but rather than telling me that one product is considerably more expensive than the other, what he should be telling me is the price of each, so I know what I’m talking about when I make a decision.
           Having, a month earlier, engaged in an annual review with my GP’s practice nurse, I had emphasised the inappropriateness of presentation of two of my other drugs. She had clearly intended to execute this when the next request for medication came through, yet for some reason unexplained, the pharmacist had received it in the non-applicable format. He twice had to contact the surgery explaining the situation and the surgery on the first two occasions sent down precisely the same prescription.
           It was unusual that all my medicines required renewing at the same time but a third medicine, again affecting price, came down in the more expensive form rather than the economy version.
           Yesterday, I was due for an ophthalmology check at Watford. I had regarded this as being a continuation from an incident several years previously, when St Albans’ hospital had cauterised some eyelash follicles, due to damage from suffering shingles in the left eye, causing damaged eyelashes to grow directly into the eye. Not an entirely effective operation. I end up making periodic calls to my optician, to have him grab hold of a few lashes and physically yank them out! This is Boots’ optician, who is most considerate, accommodating me fairly quickly as I have to judge the amount of irritation I have to put up with before the eyelash is long enough for him to grab hold of. For some reason, follow-on from St Albans hospital has been transferred to Watford.
           I now learn, that while my Watford ophthalmologist does indeed look at my eyelashes what he is more concerned about is the early stages of glaucoma. This I had perceived was the purpose of the other ophthalmologist in St Albans, at a different location to the hospital there (presumed to be a private facility). That had been a referral by my optician, in the light of perceiving cataracts beginning to form during a standard annual eyesight check. Here, retrospectively, one should note rhe centralised co-ordination should have flagged up the historical association.
          “You can’t be seeing two ophthalmologists!” Says my Watford one, who had not raised this issue over the previous two or more years. “Well I didn’t organise it and I thought everything was centralised data and everyone knew everything that was going on involving me. In any case, the St Albans ophthalmologist knows about you but you tell me you know nothing of her, yet my GP surgery is aware of both of you?”
          Prior to this I had just received a letter from High Wycombe hospital re-assigning my appointment with a clinical haematologist. They kindly attributed the change to being of my request, which I suspect was a gentle forgiveness of me missing the appointment. This arose through losing data on my hard disk earlier in the year and I had anticipated a reminder around now: or it could be due to an extraordinary mess up at their end.
High Wycombe hospital I have always found most satisfactory, as had a friend from her days of massive problems many years previously. We were both surprised to learn it had been placed in special administration. However, as I knew my consultant visited both hospitals I was happy to transfer to Aylesbury. That was six months ago. I arrived to find that was not the day my consultant was expected and there was a possibility he would not be visiting there again. May be no more than a simple administration mistake over a period of change. Hence, the problem was probably caused by a combination of me losing data on my hard disk and/or administration changes in hand at High Wycombe, during a state of flux.
          I end up with a long discussion with the receptionist at Watford, during which I learn more about the interaction between private and NHS consultants and their arrangement of times and locations.
           I emerge from Watford General hospital and walk towards Watford market. On the way, opposite the cemetery, I find three police vans parked outside what I thought was a café. I decided not to bother with coffee and thought I would cross the road and walk in the cemetery. I had remembered doing this many years back, when I had my first alarm call on my prostate to find, mercifully, that it was all in order. I just needed a routine operation. I had remembered walking there, morbidly looking at the tomb stones and wondering how soon I would be joining them all! Such are the understandable thoughts of many, when waiting the results of tests that could imply something serious.
           Walking into the cemetery I was immediately stopped by a policeman. ”Oh Hello”, I said “Are you stopping me from walking in the cemetery?” “’Fraid so”, he said. “But we will be clear in about half an hour.” “Ah,” I said. “I thought so many vans parked outside a café indicated you were all enjoying a coffee break!” I decided to plough my way on and in so doing met someone else who approached me asking if I could give him directions.           
           As a consequence we engaged in conversation as we were walking the same way. We fell into talking about cars and car parking and hospital services.
           He was a volunteer hospital patient driver. Consequently, he was able to park easily at Watford Hospital, where I had chosen not to park, as it is often difficult and I needed the exercise caused by parking in the central car park in Watford and walking.
           Today had turned out to be the day a drain cover had collapsed, causing them to close one of the two car parks. This obviously explained why I got caught going up the extended twist way, to the very top floor, behind a solid jam of other cars, because of the reduced car park space.
           It was obviously going to be one of those days. I had previously dropped in on Costco, having picked up some petrol and for some reason I had sensed a prompt that I should not stay and do my usual walk about but to get parked and get to the hospital. As it happened I was only just-in-time for my appointment.
           This caused me to think about Pendley Manor. My association goes back many years, when it was still a family home, branching out into a more business orientation. I will not go into details here (save to mention the shortly due annual Open Air Shakespeare Festival, in which I took part for many years) as details of my past association will turn up elsewhere on this web site, or in one of the books on which I am currently working, but I recall this property being upgraded for the new town sewer. The owners chose to place the modern pump alongside the Victorian pumping machinery, rather than dismantle what was there.
           Ten years or so later, the modern pump failed and they were forced to switch to the nearly one-and-a-half centuries old Victorian pump, which was still working. In the light of such experiences, how can a modern, multi-storey car park be built over a presumed strengthened drain cover that cannot withstand thirty or so years of use?
           However, that was a passing thought. I should have learned more of my acquaintance. He was aware of the major controversy over Hemel Hempstead hospital when the decision was made to downgrade Hemel Hampstead hospital and refer all emergencies to Watford General, about which there is a general feeling this has not worked, as many had predicted it would not work. According to the grapevine there were three newly installed operating theatres mothballed at Hemel without ever having been used and Watford’s reputation for frequency of deaths is seemingly over-high. However, a major “cottage hospital” could be developed at Hemel, supporting two or three local, more major hospitals, such as Watford and St Albans.
Such a concept might tie in with recent news in the local paper, the Berkhamsted Gazette, where a few weeks ago a report was published that all four local GP practices had got together and were campaigning to have a major centre for all of them in the town.
           Somewhat late in the day to raise such issues but possibly conveniently, the police station has been closed down and the few remaining officers have been transferred to the offices of the Dacorum Borough and Town Councils. On the surface, therefore, there appears to be a golden opportunity to use the police station site for such a purpose, re-developing the library to the modern age. Since the Civic Centre in which these re-located officers are located, connects at the back with their former station and the library, there is potential for quite a considerable building investment, including a multi-storey car park.
           There seems little discussion, despite the fact we are increasingly being advised to be pro-actively involved in our own he   alth. Increasingly, critical eyes are raised towards those who wilfully put their own health at risk, incurring all of us in additional costs through taxation, or a reduced style of health service because of increasing demands. The main subjects seem to be: weight; smoking and alcohol consumption.
        On weight, I was recently ticked off, by a much loved friend, for what seemed to me to be an innocuous comment about someone this friend had not seen. My friend is concerned about her own weight, due to side-effects of cancer treatment, so she feels particularly sensitive about the subject. She was particularly sensitive about the fact I had made the comment about someone else she did not know being overweight, on her facebook page, in response to a comment by me on an unrelated subject of hers.
           Here, I am looking at the context of communication. To what extent should we be involved in other people’s lives? Obviously, to the extent to which they invite us, which derives from accumulated established interaction for reasons of friendship; family relatedness; business and social interaction. Within each group there is a range of familiarities.
           I had incurred her angst because I had so written on her facebook page. She was in a personally sensitive situation regarding the subject of “oversize” and understandably took umbrage. Her perception was her private world, to which I was privileged through friendship, but I had forgotten her page should be treated as having entered her home. How often do many of us forget that decency when communicating digitally? Being in someone’s home one instinctively moderates one’s views and methods of expression, taking into account where one is.
           Digitally, especially if one is used to expressing one’s views on a public platform, such courtesies are not so obvious—or am I being particularly inconsiderate? In the same way, was not my comment in the first instance, totally lacking consideration for the potential mood in which the person on whom I was commenting happened to be at the time the picture was taken? She too could have been subject to the side effect of medical treatment.
           To what extent do we; should we; is it possible to, take into account our own mood, when we choose to comment upon our momentary perception, or the person’s mood to who we are commenting; or about whom we are commenting? What mood preoccupied them when the picture was taken? Has speed, diversity and physical distance of interaction, particularly in a written context, distanced rather than brought us closer? Has intercommunication become more impersonal, or have I become more so, that only in this moment of “pause/meditation” do I question, as my friend’s complaint has brought to my attention, a question on the acceptability of my interactive digital approach? I am myself (mildly) having to cope with a weight problem, doubtless making the subject one of more open acceptance.
            There is a common flocking of openness in society generally through “sharing” but so also is there a defensiveness about concepts of private exclusivity. “IS and their ilk” is an extreme expression of ego. Look at that large Middle East geographical area and it is all to do with the inability to take on board change and diversity of opinion.
           By Is wider, modern society too inconsiderate of crumbling traditions and different cultures’ sense of self? Do they lack confidence in themselves, in the face of ever rapidly changing circumstances where their archaic traditions have held them welded to inflexible rigidities?
           That is the underlying failing of Abrahamic religion, on which I am better able to presume to comment. Its refusal to accept the truth of its own misbelief, that Creation is a state of continual change through time when it will persist in fighting that inevitable change, over time?
           Do those of religious insistence feel more than we realise (do we realise at all) the extent to which they are losing a sense of mastery over their own destiny? Does the rest of the world seem to be gaining advantage at their cost? Do they perceive they are being left behind in our dust?
           On the other hand, regardless of fault, we are in an increasingly costly society in which refusal to change leaves us out of the mill, or fighting to retain, at a greater cost than going with the social flow. At what point does arguing the toss change from an egotistical obduracy to a beacon of light  “Aah! At Last, someone spouting sense, hurrah!”
Suddenly, as I close, I am able to digest this spouting flux into an extraordinary simplicity of contradictions. I learn, probably aided by a common sense humility by the transgressors, that the Malaysian court has dealt rationally with simple student stupidity. These foreign students upset local people by their lewd acts on a mountain that contains their ancestors’ spirits. As a consequence, an earthquake expressed their spirits’ annoyance, so the students are blamed for the earthquake!
           Is such a belief any different from the argument between Israel and Palestine? Is that fight less rational than the IS belief that God is appeased the more ‘Islamic’ people cut other peoples’ heads off? Are these beliefs greatly different from the Christian Old Testament belief (Genesis 2:17) “… thou shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…”, which is not the same thing as “eating of the tree of knowledge” as that passage is often misquoted by simple omission.

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 [early after-noon post]
We have: the General Election according to the ‘first past the post’ tradition. We have debated and rejected alternative options, although we have not fairly and evenly debated the various alternatives and seen the results compared with the results actually achieved over a considerable length of time, or at least where historically particular elections could be perceived as instrumental.
            We have the fuss and palaver over FIFA, where the voting is according to blocked but natural and expected self-interests and where a majority vote on individual numbers would have squashed out the minority interests completely.
            We have the Lords able to counter-vote the Commons’ elected majority—I wonder what views minority interests now have regarding the House of Lords where objective expertise is now a serious and meaningful counterbalance?
            We have wilful misinterpretation of the Scotland vote. The vote for independence was a specific intervention in a particular scenario. Voting in the General Election was specifically for holding the three other countries to their ‘kingdom wide’ parties to their promises—a completely different scenario.
            Assumptions only, so far, have been made as to whether or not the Scots wish to be in or out of the EU. The only stated certainty is that a Scottish government with an SNP majority wants to be in the EU, despite determining it wants to be independent!
           Dependent upon the circumstances, in the EU it can be outvoted by a majority of other countries. How is this different from the UK, where the SNP are opposed to exactly the same situation applying in principle, that the majority of the three other kingdoms might vote to leave when Scotland wishes to stay?
           There has not been a vote by the Scottish people for Scotland to be part of the EU or not. Were the UK to vote to leave, asking the Scots to re-vote for independence is not a relevant vote, on its own. It has to be a vote that they wish to break with the UK and re-join the EU and the Scottish people need to be advised of the terms on which they will be allowed by the EU to join with it separately. Almost certainly that will entail taking the Euro, have the Scottish people taken that on board?
           At the moment “everyone is being ‘nice’”. Why? Does the EU really want the UK… or are they  all thinking about the cost to it of losing the UK’s payments in?




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.

Boundary clarification. How many seats and what preferred size of constituency population?

Proportional representation. Which system?

House of Lords? Should it be elected or appointed and upon what classification? Originally based on the realities of the day: Spiritual; Legal; Defence; land ownership; hereditary entitlement.

Today? Spiritual but across the faiths (define), including pure secularism/humanitarianism (all appointed/elected by their respective churches); Legal, as is; Political (variable by proven worth, such as past ministers or retired professional senior civil servants and limited party nominations); representatives of Capital, Financial Services, Labour (all either retired or active, appointed or elected by their respective accredited bodies); Education (ditto precedents stated); Health (ditto); Other?

The whole reviewable by a statutory committee reporting with recommendations to parliament on a ten yearly basis to cover relevance of classifications in the then current world. Modus operandi as at present.