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 Wednesday 21st October 2015 11:45

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?

Wednesday 21st October 2015 [morning post]
The difference between the purported potential Lords revolt and the Labour party’s current shambles is the solidarity of historical fact and proof. Many, ever anxious to plunge ahead into future time before it duly arrives, have seen the Lords as an anachronism to be dispensed with. They refuse to look into the depths. As at the moment the mere fact that they have raised the potential of a constitutional issue is sufficient to make a lot of unthinking people stop in their tracks and to think. The Lords are the antique version of the modern Trident. Their presence is the insurance premium: that is their point.

Tory-orientated as I may be regarded by those who think they know me, although effectively a free voter and one who has throughout his entitlement to vote has voted for all three political parties, depending upon the balance of argument at the time and the practical potential consequences, at this time the Tories are generally right and Osborne in particular. The problem is the balance of Osborne’s enthusiasm to make up for time lost by having been held back by the Liberal Democrats in the previous parliament, his desire to be well placed to succeed Cameron by proving his economic values both of which considerations have over-ruled a sensitivity to lesser paid people’s abilities and their own desires. Osborne is trying to move people far too quickly, his personal enthusiasm for his own advancement fowling sound judgment in his responsibilities to the people.  

Tuesday 13th October 2015 [
late morning post]
Labour now admit they are not up to the job of governance. They do not understand finance; at least they are honest and open about it. With this failure to agree to a legal requirement to manage the country effectively and with due regard for the poorer members of society by balancing the books so we can afford deeper and better support, Labour blows wide open any seriousness behind their social philosophy.

Trade union orientated, like the trades unions Labour has never practically cared for the truly work-desiring poor. Trade union interest is only in the daft, the uninterested or incapable of holding down a decently paid interesting job as numbers to thrust their bigotry and bone idleness. I speak from personal, practical, industrial experience: only the second-rate, also-ran type of worker attended trades unions meetings because in those days trades union membership was a legal requirement under the closed shop legislation.  Anyone worth employing was only ever interested in their job and the firm’s customers, so rarely attended union meetings.

This year we have had one of the highest paid union members deliberately causing the poorer and most socially disadvantaged members of society to take taxis, or foot slog, beg lifts, or take convoluted bus journeys, or lose a day’s pay because they did not want to change their method of working to meet new customer requirements. I refer to the incessant tube strikes the sole purpose of which was to cause maximum disruption to those actually trying and needing a day’s work. That is the reality that has always been behind Labour’s philosophy and until now cleverly hidden by the university boys who used the party for their own egos, as they were not good enough for either the Lib/Dems or the Tories. That is Labour’s reality and it is now gradually being re-exposed.

The intervention of some of the Law lords as retired individuals raises serious questions. Like retired members of MI5 or MI6, such people are purportedly always available and therefore their individual opinions are usually proscribed for life. They have to imagine themselves in court, determining the guilty party's balance of lawful requirement versus personal conscience (and too often conscience is merely inflated opinion) and so judge themselves.

In the broader horizons of life, government has to take into account a very wide ocean of influences and potential consequences, which brings us back to personal judgment. We are all involved by the mere fact of our being here. We are all individually accountable for our effect on those criteria, balancing our need/desire/arrogance to thrust in an oar. In this matter the law lords are fundamentally in error. They are abusing their privilege and thrusting personal ego.

Was Barbie created by a woman, or a man? Is she simply another example of male domination, without an ounce of sense? Was she merely an accountant's decision as a marketing tool according to the then perception of the "current" market?

There appears some outrage that a new version of “Barbie” has butch characteristics. Why not? If any outrage is justified it should be that a girly type of girl should be allowed to be butch-like too, that’s real life.

I seem to recall it was always the girls who liked wearing dungarees and could climb trees better than could I who always attracted me. I always let them go first, especially if they were in skirts. Perhaps that’s why I’ve always been a bum rather than a breast man!

It works both ways! Religion is a continual historical cause, deriving from early practical living reality, through which evolution has developed a brain-orientated civilisation where intellect should recognise that brawn now needs to know its place without equivocation.

Women were not prominent, let alone equal, when religion was started, entirely by men through men's eyes for their self-glorification and arrogant control. That man was created in God’s image is a male-interpretation for maintaining male arrogant ascendency, it has nothing to do with objective assessment of how we all came to be here.

For children’s play toys, Barbie concepts should bear in mind Mhairi Black and Bernadette Devlin.

Mhairi Black “OK. But the book deals! I had people wanting me to write an autobiography: I was born. I went to school. I left. I fried a fish. And now I’m an MP. They were offering me a four-book deal!”

That tells you this is one hell of a girl and good for her. I find her an interesting contrast with Bernadette Devin with whom I have been deeply disappointed that she proved not to be the firm, authoritative ‘kick up the bum’ the Catholics in Northern Ireland needed. In my view, she blew a golden opportunity that could have brought the present state of political affairs sooner than actually happened and we could be so much further forward. Let’ see how Mhairi handles her chances.

Tuesday 13th October 2015 [early morning post]
SOME NOTES IN PASSING IKWRO was founded (as the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation) in 2002 by our Executive Director, Diana Nammi. Since our foundation, as testament to the success of our work and in response to the need for culturally specific support, advocacy and counselling for women from the Middle East and Afghanistan, our services have been extended to several vulnerable communities in the United Kingdom. Highly applaudable.

It is yet another damnation of Islam’s failure to understand the modern day reality into which its adherents presume to thrust themselves and perversely fail to understand the necessity and expectation of accepting sexual equality. The Christian Roman church does not help, with its own wilful denial of most other branches of Christianity’s acceptance of Creation’s reality.

In the IKRO’s context this is arguably more culturally orientated but religion once more thrusts its arrogance across the natural common sense of evolution: a direct defiance of all truth behind the imagery of a  “God inspired” Creation.

A 74-year old British pensioner is due to receive 350 lashes after completing his one-year jail term in Saudi Arabia for illegally carrying alcohol in the ultraconservative Islamic kingdom. Karl Andree's family members claim that he could not survive the harsh punishment.

First of all it is as incumbent to obey another country’s laws as one’s own, however seemingly archaic or irrational. If you can’t do without alcohol, don’t go there. There are, however, two seeming failures in such legal systems. First, if physical or chemical punishment is part of the system there should be qualified medical checks upon the fitness of the criminal and if not fit alternative punishment made available.

Second, one might objectively question the precocity for any form of physical punishment. Flagellation is too wrapped up in sadomasochism and related sexual proclivities, as clearly witnessed through the Opus Dei sect of Roman Catholicism, another example of the perversity of many religious proclivities.

The key issue is simple. Ensure you know what the country expects of you if you intend visiting or living there and if you can’t or won’t comply, don’t go there.


Tuesday 6th October 2015 [late morning post]
Only now, at the close of the "Conference Season" can one pause and reflect. We have the Greens and UKIP bewailing their one MP each, for which they have valid argument for a change in the system but which other system? The Lib/Dems justifiably bemoan being a hostage to fortune, having properly put service to country before party, for which they will not be forgotten when it matters. Right now, service to country is in the hands of the Conservative battalions and they must not renege on the Scottish promise—nor must the SNP embellish what was promised but needs to be more conscious of what they have already achieved and appear not to be using. A "side" issue being a re-arrangement of the UK government out of fear of the SNP working with Labour, creating an electoral coalition unintended and unwanted by the electorate, leading to the sort of irresolute government the previous government deliberately avoided.

The Labour Party grabs the immediate moment to start on the long haul of sorting itself out, quite rightly looking to a root and branch scything of the whole in the context of modern times. Now is the time to build follies, test them against the uncertainties of a fluctuating public mood, adjusting to the ebbs and flows of a climatically changing globe, where all parameters are open to test and challenge. Established certainties are no longer so certain and are they too rigid to meet the new unquantifiable diversities now being visited upon them? Is their potential for fluidity too fluid, failing to provide the robust challenge and sturdy reassurance with which historical provenance should embellish them?

The Conservatives quietly get on with governance, implying all is well with the world. For them, this conference season is simply untying the mooring ropes and steering the ship towards the open sea. Still in the lee of an unexpected election they have a clearly defined job to do: put out to sea and set sail for a long voyage of diverse lands and uncertain seas. They are fully crewed, know their ship and are laying out their maps, preparing to plot a course to a land where there may be dragons, so undefined is much of the farther territory.

This is the time to watch for hidden details. Why is the course plotted as it is? Is it the course we actually are following? Is that intended course the course most of us believe we want but which so far has not been defined to us: to challenge new ways of sailing through not round established seas and defining our own ports of call, not necessarily previously outlined? That is what this voyage is really about. Will the British run the United Kingdom within the EU or only in Common Market terms? Will Scotland, having determined it wants independence within the UK want to express independence under the dominion of a political EU? Where lies such rationale? The ship of state is leaving port and setting sail to what destiny beyond challenging seas and changing weather patterns?


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.