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)


Tuesday 12th April 2016 [after-noon]

APRIL 2016


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 remains frightened of such a debate.
We would have had a perfectly harmonious relationship with the EU had France not panicked over the greater empire and commonwealth that we created, for which reason they denied us earlier entry and ensured the rationality and logic we would have brought was excluded from the EU's basic structure.

Tuesday 12th April 2016 [morning]
Not since school boy and student holiday jobs have I had to account for my time, other than as a gentle prompt to myself for my own self-discipline. Now, it is primarily a health issue, tablet time taking, nurse, doctor, consultant time tables and hospitals' varying appointments according to their internal administrative problems. In those days the working docket required accountability for every quarter hour.
       Now I am horrified that we are a quarter into the year, the best time is upon us and stretches excitingly ahead but little of what was intended to be done has in fact been achieved and time to achieve is reducing rapidly! So, what has the last few days seen for me?

On the children in the Calais camp. Why only 3,000? There are probably 300,000 in need of help around the world, what is proposed to be done about them? That is the problem. Define the problem; define the reason you intend to respond in this particular way, despite the intense efforts being carried out elsewhere. There is still the problem. Address the cause and that way you will benefit the 300,000 plus.

There was some private discussion on Facebook on Abuse. Abuse takes many forms and I have several experiences through friends and allied family connections. One was 'Control freakery', which is a form of abuse not so easily recognised by even the sufferer, let alone outsiders. In her case it took her three children into their teens to not only realise what was going on but also the need to give them a chance to be old enough to cope with the change and the knowledge.
      Another case is of a 'surrogate' godchild of mine ('surrogate' because her mother's divorce brought out the fact the child's names, all pushed by the father, were the names of his mistresses) and the mother wanted a "clean break" and 'decency' around her when she married a friend of mine; that daughter experienced both physical and psychological abuse. This is not the forum to discuss personal details, simply to say that in both cases and that one in particular, a great wealth and depth of love and positive life experiences eventually unfolded. These are some of the contributory reasons why I sometimes 'go ballistic' when confronted with unacceptable attitudes to women.
     "It is my life experience, some of which was unfortunate and regrettable, which has long advised me. I believe in positives because if all that exists are the negatives I've known then there is no hope for humanity nor our species. Always best to avoid that jaded tendency and find the courage to hope on."
      What is life but growth? There are no negatives, unless one allows such experiences to be negative, they are simply harder experiences from which to gain knowledge. Knowledge derives from insight and insight is the light for ever lighting the way we choose to turn and that turning should always be the best way, if insight is what drives our motivation.

On President Obama's visit. A little naive. Business economics do much damage and are merely part of the whole. What is certain is the fluidity of change through time, in which context rigidity is confrontational.
     He wants a bulwark for America but has a point. The problem is to collaborate individuality, not really difficult, whereas the EU wishes to inflict rigid uniformity—quite wrong. What is most cost-effective in time and effort, fight within or be involved by standing a side? That is the question and the EU has already determined it has no intention of being fluid to meet the changing time.
      Most prejudice derives from ignorance and ignorance is a two-way vehicle: failure to be comfortable and open and a desire not to embarrass or hurt through not knowing how to behave. This is to misunderstand the collective whole. View the whole picture at a distance before concentrating on the brush strokes but in the final judgement, it is the brush strokes that make or mar the acceptance of the picture. It is the referendum that is the point of sale.
     It is all such arrant twaddle. The Labour party is at last being the Labour party and representing what it has always stood for. Corbyn is seemingly sacrificing his personal principles for his party but is that serving the party and will the party serve the country? That is the referendum test. Cameron's 'lining up' the trades unions highlights the disaster Cameron knows is the EU. The trades unions support the EU's abandonment of management; just as they supported the miner's strike (irrelevant and refusing to recognise necessary change); refused to acknowledge the changing requirements of the printing industry; closed down Fleet Street; turned their backs on the poor and less well off, the sick in need of family support by closing down the tube network for their own self-centred ways. I said to the local Lib/Dem leader, "You support the EU because they can more effectively walk over the people than can your party".
      What is going on is a political stitch up. Our politicians are more at home getting EU to walk all over us than they can themselves, because the EU can call the mass vote, twenty-seven against the one British vote: to we British our politicians have to sell the sense and they cannot.
     States are states in one country: the EU is NOT a collection of states but of separate countries. If states in Obama's own country cannot be compatible on human basics, what is the American president doing stating the UK should be formally committed to the EU, when he knows there are even more serious fundamental differences?
     He is quite right to raise the blood shed by both countries in too many wars (ignoring the fact the States were late arriving in two of them) but wars arose despite treaties and arguably as a result of them.
     Agreeing to talk and "get along" does not require a treaty. Even in domestic matters we know the law is slow and the EU is already too slow and making the same mistake religion made, demanding rigid conformity across the world of diversity and continual change that is the variability of life. It is this reality that demands a flexibility with which rules and regulations cannot cope. The EU has never faced the real world as it is, just as religion made the same mistake. The EU is still in the kindergarten sand pit of dreams and fancies out of which we have to pull it. The question is, how best so to do? That is what the referendum is all about. It made it plain to Cameron it has no intention of reforming. Cameron is lying when he says it is reformed. It won't, it's still dreaming.

On the NHS and the Doctors' acceptance. Hunt is talking balderdash out of panic that he has mismanaged the situation. Manifestos are sales gimmicks and SHOULD have been costed in all aspects so what is happening now should have been envisaged. The issue now is management and management has nothing to do with the sales promotions. Hunt is failing to manage: that is HIS accountability NOT the doctors'. By default, they are managing in his absence by standing up for what he should be standing up for and isn't. He is more concerned with politics than management. Very rarely do politicians understand management.

Interesting. Preoccupation with self blinds the eyes and closes the mind.

Understand. Wish you well in your contemplation of the decisions that have to be faced but many people will not even face them. It sounds as though you are and that is itself a great step forward. A pause is not an evasion, just a steadying along the way and (whether relevant or not I have no idea and nor am I prying) there is more than one life affected and that makes the task more burdensome.

Christ gave us simplicity: men complicated it with religion. Britain led the way with the basics: the EU complicated the moveable feast in context with rigidity across diversity out of context. That is the problem  Deal with arguments coolly, calmly and rationally. See what may lay behind the argument in the context of the collective whole but don't worry about the individual spouting. Boris has suddenly gone bananas, no help to anyone nor the argument. Hopefully he's not our version of Trump.

Tuesday 12th April 2016 [morning]
The Sunday Times last Sunday published an article on Muslim views of Britain and tomorrow C4 will be broadcasting that documentary. First, life is in a state of continual flux. From the first (and I write in general terms with a bias towards western Christian tradition) personality-led religions have shown themselves lost amongst the trees, unable to see the wood at all let alone in its landscape context, which involves not only the state and nature of society but its time.
      For what ever reason, Muslims have emigrated to Britain. Writing in my own experience of travelling, having considered emigration, one accepts the country to which one is considering emigrating for the country that it actually is and determines the extent to which one can adapt to it. One does not attempt to change that country! This is the mistake that has been made over relationships with the EU. Too late in the day, the people are being asked if they want to accept the changes the EU has been determined to thrust upon the country, instead of the EU having the humility to recognise the differences the UK has culturally assimilated over time and to what extent its people are ready and wish to exchange their life-style for an altered modus operandi.
      So, what has happened as a result of natural social development over time? Recognition of scientific fact over archaic religious constructs: the biochemical nature of the human body has precedence and concepts of spiritual determination of what is acceptable have been displaced to a secondary importance. The word "obey" is an option not a requirement according to modern trends and only 39% of Muslims accept wives should always obey their husbands [The Sunday Times provides no split between male and female on this question. Fortunately only 5% sympathise with stoning, leaving 16% unstated. Nearly one third agree with polygamy and 52% believe homosexuality should be outlawed.
      It will be interesting to see the fuller picture but other than the general confirmation of how religious opinion lags behind society instead of leading it is there anything of  note?

Friday 8th April 2016 [morning]
Over excitement all round! Politicians' role in or out of government is management. Few of them are so trained even in politics! Simply, Cameron mismanaged the situation due to a conflict of perceived needs of the moment. Involved in several matters at the same time it was a clash of perceptions of importance, therefore the detail of what, how much and when was misjudged in the light of the mood of the audience at that particular time.
      What was that audience? His intended audience was promoting the EU IN vote. His "grabbing the moment" audience was the pure self-interest of Me, Me, Me, reporters anxious to grab a headline for their own egos, nothing more. The issue is complex and not suited to momentary one-liner grabs.
      Where lies the moral argument? Ironically, in religion! One cannot deceive God, He knows all: since we are a part of God and He in all of us we should have a right and a responsible interest in all, where then lies the problem in total openness world-wide? We are part of the collective whole of humanity, an argument valid in both religious and secular concepts of society.
      Therein lies the nub of our present times. Whether looked at religiously or secularly we are all part of the whole and therefore have a responsibility for and are inevitably involved in that collectivity. This returns to what I have written upon previously: to what extent, at whose invitation and with what authority do we intervene in those countries from which the present mass migration arrives on the shores of Europe? Humanity would argue we should respond as Merkel did, fling open our doors. Is that responsible management? Cameron, in his personal affairs, didn't, he was preoccupied with the seriousness of his EU moment and abstractly dismissed the secondary irritation. It is the contrast of the macrocosm with the microcosm. Both situations mismanaged. Both political circumstances involving politicians requiring a sound discipline in management and neither being trained managers, they fumbled the moment.
      Religion has fumbled much but has not necessarily blown the fundamental guide lines. Science increasingly leads back to basic religious understandings. As we learn more about the biochemical intricacies of life and examine the way individuals respond to complex multiple influences, whether we do or do not believe there is a soul and a body, what is common is that the natural desire is for a 'good' life while it exists and a 'good and safe' life for the generation that follows, whether or whether not we ourselves have our own children.
      That is the inevitable desire of those believing there is a soul and that we are moving back from whence we came to the separate entities we currently understand, or the amalgam of self with the collective whole from which we broke away. Whether that collectivity is of individual entities or a merging into one whole in which individuality is given up in service to something greater is not relevant here.
      The issue, for the moment, is the Referendum question. I have not been convinced that at 16 a child is sufficiently mature as to drive a car or join the armed forces. Do these things have bearing upon mental acuity to determine how their lives should be governed?
      For those believing in a soul and therefore a continuation of individual identity, at least initially, is the earthly concept of race or religious belief remotely relevant? Arguably, why should we allow these questions to be relevant on earth? Therefore, the great IN or OUT debate? It is the argument of the collective whole and the balance between the detail of sound management or the emotion of "needs must", which might lead to the collapse of the collective whole?

It was Labour's socialism that determined acceptance of the EU's diktats without argument because it took away their accountability for what they knew the country would not accept. All that is happening now is the rational debate Labour were not capable of holding.

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 re-viewable 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.