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)


Monday 19th JUNE [early after-noon]

JUNE 2017


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.

Monday 19th JUNE [early after-noon]
I am prompted by a recent Facebook post by Andrew Dickens Newstalk ZB making a case for a House of Cards episode pre-empting the Grenfell disaster. I disagree. The dove-tailing of a rigid Electoral system, with the fluidity of proportional referendum voting, due to the perverseness of the EU and the self-indulgence of second-rate British politicians, causing May to make a rational decision, has given us the opportunity to approach the EU with a case for a rational, "broad church" government.
      May had the misfortune to have advisers who were clearly complete idiots interested solely in fat cheques and flouncing their own egos but not actually understanding the public mood and readiness for social change.
      The General Election should be viewed as God's storm at the time of the Armada. Everything seemed lost and we won. A not unusual circumstance throughout our history. Drop all ego, render service and get on with serving.
     The latest atrocity at Finsbury shows a more interrelated Islamist society than we usually see through the press. It is reminiscent of the following report in the New York Times and I quote the closing paragraph. "In the 17 months since they arrived in Weimar, the sisters have attended language classes and navigated their new city side by side. They and other refugee women spoke about an extra layer of challenges in adapting to German social customs, including how to organize play dates for their children and have platonic friendships with men, something unusual in the conservative Muslim society they came from."
     These are clearly the immigrants we should welcome and is no more than what we have a right to expect of all immigrants from what ever origin or circumstance. Too many, often supposedly literate imams have sought to do exactly the opposite, not just in their own disgraceful conduct but wilfully encouraging others to be equally inflammatory.
     Very well done these women. A world away from the entrenched illiterates with which we are too often lumbered in this country, making no attempt to fit in, whose very presence is almost inflammatory.
    A good point to ask "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Salman Rushdie, writer (born 19 Jun 1947). Interesting, in the light of today's Finsbury incident, which could appear to be a counter-terrorist action to current terrorist actions, we must not lose sight that it is up to Islamists to explain their traditions not for us to seek information, were we so minded.
      Rushdie seems to have stirred Islamists in the same way the Roman Catholic church stirred the Protestants. Likewise there are many "troublesome" priests on the Protestant and Free Church side of the Christian chasm that were no different from Rushdie. We've proven we can cope with diversity. Is it not time for Islam to equally grow up? We are nearly half a millennium on from those times and this is 2017. As I have previously written, most religions' eternal failing has been their inability to properly understand Creation—that it is a state of continual change over time, or that over time it takes time for us humans to understand it.
      Another mess created by those two idiots May foolishly employed as "advisers" was uncovered on Facebook. Mark Barton posted "The Tories have doubled the national debt. They've spent more in 7 years than all past Labour governments had in total. All while creating hardship and extending the recession caused by the global financial crash of 2008, by doing the worst thing possible (according to many, many economists) - instigating an ill-advised and unnecessary ideological austerity regime. Where has all the money they spent gone? 
      Debt was at 65% of GDP when they took over in 2010. It's now at 89% GDP. To compare, debt was at 250% of GDP right after the Second World War, when Clement Atlee's Labour took over and started an unprecedented investment period that laid the foundations of the modern, equitable, prosperous Britain that so many older people enjoyed - including the NHS, social security, education (including free university education), nationalisation of railways and other essential industries, etc etc etc. That prosperity following investment helped the UK bring that enormous debt.
     What they did then is far more extensive than anything Corbyn's Labour are suggesting, which is mostly to fix the damage that the Tories and 30 years of neoliberalism has done."
     I replied. "It is true the Tories failed to trumpet their economic achievements or tackle Corbyn's proposals, two of many errors in an appallingly badly presented election campaign. We seem to be entering a period of not getting anything right and everything else going seriously wrong and I myself seriously considered a Labour vote (in a Tory stronghold, so it would not have made any difference). In each case (I cross several local and national voting areas) there was in fact a Tory uplift, which surprised me.
     For me, the problem is that too many Labour MPs simply do not understand the parliamentary system and have this weird idea of doing their own thing, in direct defiance of the membership that got them where they are at those members' expense. A stupidity encouraged by Blair, supposedly so daft all he knows is his own ego with no idea of how to render service and the parliamentary fools followed him!
      To what past socialism you refer is to the real meaning of parliamentary democracy, the rendering of service. It is where the EU is so fundamentally flawed, it arrogantly presumes it is in charge and runs riot over the people who pay the bills. "Up yours" being the only rational response. By that wonderful diversity of incomprehensibility that is the UK system, we have a chance (in effect) of truly parliamentary democracy with all parties of practical necessity being involved, essentially a true middle way, not engineered but developed through perversity of diversity—unintended we actually do have a national government, run by parliament, if our MPs do have sufficient wit and true desire to render service.

Saturday 16th JUNE [afternoon]
Turbulence or turbulent flow is a flow regime in fluid dynamics characterized by chaotic changes in pressure and flow velocity. It is in contrast to a laminar flow regime, which occurs when a fluid flows in parallel layers, with no disruption between those layers."
     Expressed in a social context that would seem to be where society world-wide is today. In the microcosm, the Grenfell near riot outside and inside Kensington town hall; in Europe, the French political/social "revolution", the election of a non party (he created his own) president; and world-wide, the global effect of Trump and Brexit. It is no more than one of society's irregular spring cleans. As time has moved on and society matured, so the method becomes more sophisticated. The brush and pail, yard broom and carpet sweeper are replaced with the mobile steamer, leaf blower and cordless Dyson. The result is the same, an overall review and general adjustment. No more than the eddies and flows of a rivers' tidal change or the complexities of the Atlantic ocean as the sun marches seasonally (TAV—Tropic Atlantic Variability.) All par for the course.
     Three disasters, two created wilfully, one of currently unknown source, each incident inspiring an absolutely magnificent community response across a diversity of ethnic backgrounds and many languages. An alive, diverse society continually changing over time. How did so many religions get it so wrong in their inability to adapt over time and accept continual change as an integral part of life, as the society they chose to enable faced the obvious necessity to develop, as knowledge widened and deepened?
      On Facebook BBC Sunday Morning Live asked "We'd like to hear from you on whether you think the country is more divided - or united - than ever." Always keep things simple. Regarding Grenfell it is understandable that tempers would be volatile with people in shocked and dazed states. Therein the immediate authority responsible is the borough council. The question, therefore is how many councils have procedures in place to cope with such a crisis? That Kensington didn't is understandable. The question then arises as to authority and sequence by which information is conveyed upwards to the most equipped to handle and immediately manage. Both these questions need being asked by all councils throughout the country immediately, in the event of anything similar happening.
     In the Grenfell incident it may appear that short-term reactions were subject to concern at cost rather than an immediacy of probable realistic need. Emergency living should have been provided in hotels for a week while things sorted, beyond that comment one simply does not know what the council was facing but it does appear that there was not a standby procedure for such an emergency. Clearly there should have been.
     Frustration at not being seen personally implies failure of an emergency procedure. That is the Borough's fault and I suspect a failure of all councils across the country, a failure that clearly needs to be addressed in due course. Possibly due to Islamic and Jewish customs requiring immediacy of attention to a death, there is distress at the inability to identify those lost and delay in recovery of them but there is an extraordinary crowd-wide naïveté as to what is involved in such a tragedy and the likely state of indescernability of bodies that is inevitable in such a tragedy. This lack of general knowledge is of serious concern for the common good.
     Such a matter clearly needs being drawn to the PM for which I am sure procedures will have followed through and appropriate procedures enacted. We will doubtless learn historically how she personally responded but the key will have been in relation to other affairs of state: government authority, pending upon the authority of parliament, her own establishment pending the opinion of DUPS that appears to have been dithering. Delegating personal touches downwards is where they should have originated. Where were the borough councillors who know the people involved and what they are talking about? The Queen cuts through everything, she has her own establishment and no direct management role. She just drives in. There is no cause for reflecting May didn't. Its the advantage of our beautifully mature system that we have such diverse ways in which to handle extreme circumstances but there does appear to have been a lack of communication, probably due to the unique national happenings of the moment.

FRIDAY 8th JUNE 2017 [morning]
"Personal observation, I do not make predictions but through the press and collective whole of media over the last six weeks I judge the country's mood is no overall majority but how that transfers into votes is anyone's guess. Who will actually turn out, especially those intending to transfer allegiance from their regular key position. Will it, overall, be a larger than usual turn out, such as for the Referendum; average; or lower than average, the collective whole being a serious decision on which some people will not trust themselves to make a decision?"
     So, the question is why, which no one seems to be asking. I suggest the head is out of touch with the body politic. The masters have forgotten they are lent authority only for a period during which they are expected to serve, not dictate! All are human (hence their egos in office) and consequently have their failings. One of our system's greatest failings is that it lacks proportional representation but proportional representation has its failings too, when there are no natural leaders to map out a clear route and no collective sense of the country through which they are travelling.
     The same question is posed by Corbyn. Much ego has been hidden by his policies but he has vulnerability to the trades unions and other militant groupings intent on using him and the political antagonists in his own party. Collectively we have a superb melding of the modern, flexibility for change, sturdiness of reflection on proposed action and the uniqueness of the Lords which is why I have always objected to that being an elected chamber, while supporting rational restructuring.

Facebook may be overloaded (seriously possible) or BT has broken down again so I have resorted to a special mail, here.
     In reply to a Corbyn orientated statement that a school, through financial cuts had been forced to knock half-an-hour off each day, I replied "Twaddle, someone is irresponsibly playing politics and that throws concern on Corbyn's electability that this has not been properly researched."
     There really is an awful lot of twaddle burbled over immigration. Coolly and calmly it is simply a matter of management and politicians are generally incapable of basic management which is precisely why they have taken twenty years not to ask if we want a politicised EU or not, during which time the EU, run by appointed bureaucrats at our expense, totally careless of anything but their own self-interest, has wilfully and deliberately encouraged our angst by pretending we said "yes" before even being asked!
      LibDems have been dead since the Referendum. All they can manage is a country town, that's why they want the EU to run us, they know they are not up to it. Who wants the EU? They've done nothing but get in our way even BEFORE we were asked if we wanted them!
     It turns out to be Facebook that is overloading.

Andrew Neil. Of his three interviewees to date Nicola Sturgeon proved the best so far. Surprisingly he allowed her to skate over the hard reality of the setback caused by current pricing on oil and the fact that relying on that for surety of income was a fallacy but she did brilliantly, he had her on edge several times but the best interviewee so far.


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.