Site hosted by Build your free website today!

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)


Sunday 31st July 2016 [noon]

JULY 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 the Tories took too long to get round to doing so. Neither presented a competent argument.
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, leading them away from proper objectives.

Tuesday 19th July 2016 [morning]

too easily associated with religious concepts, in my view, a mere division of philosophy in

Friday 15th July 2016 [noon]

too easily associated with religious concepts, in my view, a mere division of philosophy in which it should always be regarded. According to Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy there are at least two concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. "Evil in the broad sense may be divided into two categories: natural evil and moral evil...  Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Hurricanes and toothaches are examples of natural evils. By contrast, moral evils do result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Murder and lying are examples of moral evils.
      Evil in the broad sense, which includes all natural and moral evils, tends to be the sort of evil referenced in theological contexts, such as in discussions of the problem of evil. The problem of evil is the problem of accounting for evil in a world created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God. It seems that if the creator has these attributes, there would be no evil in the world. But there is evil in the world. Thus, there is reason to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator does not exist.
      "In contrast to the broad concept of evil, the narrow concept of evil picks out only the most morally despicable sorts of actions, characters, events, etc... Since the narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, it is appropriately ascribed only to moral agents and their actions. For example, if only human beings are moral agents, then only human beings can perform evil actions. Evil in this narrower sense is more often meant when the term ‘evil’ is used in contemporary moral, political, and legal contexts..." but is not the only context in which I view it, as I personally adhere to an acceptance of a spiritual state and belief in such a state motivates many behind such an atrocity as has happened today, in Nice… In which case I am arguably, philosophically, an "evil-revivalist".
     In my view, to dispense with evil requires also dispensation with concepts of "good" and "moral values". Stanford quotes "…there is a secular moral concept of evil which is distinct from fictional or religious conceptions and it is this secular conception of evil that is meant most often when the term ‘evil’ is used in moral and political contexts."
     We have yet to learn confirmation of everyone's presumption that the Nice massacre was a Daes atrocity, "nothing more" than another anguished cry from a spiritually depressed soul, reduced to desperation at his place in society, for which he feels his only course is self-destruction, through destroying as many peoples' lives as possible. He wishes to wreak on others the misery he feels for himself. Where did society, for him, go so wrong?
     It is not just the UK that is handling mass re-examination. The air of change is across the world. We are all taking stock and the correct way to handle this is from the grass roots up not, as the EU did, by having airy fairy idealistic sentiments and pushing them downwards. Governance is to society what the spade is to the gardener, the tool through which society may grow and expand securely and safely.
     The mustard seed grows just as the acorn, according to the soil and how tended. Likewise the microcosm compares to the macrocosm. Brexit is the macrocosm to the UK's microcosms: the Tory leadership debate and the Labour party's leadership squabble. The former, a mechanism through which the desire to render service over-rode individual self-interests. The latter, yet to resolve itself. The former derives from mismanagement of a perfectly straight forward situation, itself determined through management failure. Twenty years ago the Tories knew a referendum was required and took twenty years to get round to that simplicity. Meanwhile, a chap called Blair, who decided to reform the Labour party from the top downwards created the present Labour party chaos. As the EU proved, working downwards instead of upwards, from the grass roots (who provide the money and specify direction) is guaranteed to determine a head on collision. The Labour party has one and is in no fit state to render service to anyone. The Guardian  précis my point with greater authority than I.

Tuesday 12th July 2016 [morning]
as the bus pulls into the garage. All change; all remains the same; the world quietens down. What a relief and oh what joy to be part of an ancient nation that is for ever changing, as life itself. How could religion have denied for so long such obvious reality? I am at that time of life when I contemplate my next phase in the mystery of the great unknown. Erratic health is the state of my age and currently less hassle than many, often much younger than I have to endure, for the moment at least. For many reasons one is never certain why one suffers or does not suffer, is it just a bright sunlit day, or is it a true sense of invigoration because one is actually physically well?
      Today, I wish I had my life ahead of me rather than behind me, for I feel truly rejuvenated. The egoists of different ages squawk their protests at not having their one or two moments of self-declamatory glory, while the polished sections of state re-establish the marquetry layout of sound governance. Flexibility, Adaptability, Malleability; the state of continuing change that is the essence of an established nature of government over an extended period of proven historical diversity. If we have not already done it to someone else, someone else has already done it to us, so we usually  already know what to do and how to handle the situation.
     So, what relates? The new PM inherits the existing manifesto, which included a promise to hold a referendum and to implement the consequences. No change in principle. What should happen about implementing an agreed change is a matter for parliament, two or three years down the line. A referendum or a General Election? Arguably, it is the government's responsibility not to go to the country unless there is an alternative government available, or unless the present government wishes to deviate from the current manifesto to re-launch a new version, considering a manifesto a more meaningful document than a simple "yes/no" question. Unless, perhaps, it is a question on proportional representation, when a multi-answer option is preferable.
     So, where is our alternative government? Shell-shocked, through the same self-centred egoism whose noise would drown out the cool, calm progress of normal government, acquired through centuries of much turmoil and so undeterred from its steadfast course. How very fortunate we are!
     Blair et al manipulated a large section of the present PLP. The PLP had taken exception to the membership, who make the effort to get them elected, determining who they should have representing them. Interesting. A man of the people is called forward by the people and the PLP reject him for no sound reason but their own individual egos. A woman, not interested in rendering service but in spouting her ego, not because she has service to render but because she wants the top job, just because it is there and she is a woman. Some declaration of ability for the role!
     Ego, confused with self-promotion has missed the point. Like past church patriarchs they see themselves as "authority" and have not noticed that time has moved on. We are at a different point in time and space. It is no longer the Socialism of the Blair and Miliband years, the period of toffee-nosed university intellectuals, who studied Socialism in lecture halls and seminars but had no experience of socialism in the street or on the doorstep and work floor. Those are the people today's world needs socialists, as expressed by the people at doorstep level, talking with one another. That is who Corbyn represents and why the intellectuals do not understand him.



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.