Admiration abounds for the writers of the daily press in the depth of their articles across the papers, bearing in mind the spontaneity of response needed for the next day's paper. On the other hand, responses needed to be muted out of respect for those suffering—in their myriad ways, and still suffering in the missing and unidentified dead; or those, most harrowing of all, whose loved ones may not be identifiable, perhaps the only last presence of these loved ones being the matching of family-acquired DNA with miscellaneous tissue scraped from various objects in the vicinity. When taken suddenly, not to be able to look upon your loved one for that final 'good bye', must be the most harrowing of experiences.
     As a mere bystander, recording my thoughts as some contribution to the collective whole, I think the most telling component of these tragedies was  the remark of one physically involved witness. 'I pity them'. A remark whose strangeness caught the interviewer as bizarrely as it had struck me. Surely anger is the immediate response at such a time. The concept of 'pity' being for later consideration.
     But pity is certainly the longer-lasting and most sensible sentiment. What is the 'finite' end of these bombers, suicidal or otherwise? Most certainly not the life of continual fucking of vestal virgins they are reportedly told is their eternal salvation! Has it never occurred to any one of these fall guys as to how, precisely, they will enjoy their orgasm? Has it never occurred to them that a priest who expresses heaven or paradise in terms of earthly values is a priest who has clearly lost it?
     If not eternal life of virgin whores, death will not be theirs either. What is unquestionably for them is the eternity of darkness and discomfort until they come to the realisation of what they have done. Then will their agony begin. It is from awareness of the agony that is assuredly theirs that pity derives. An agony of realisation of the enormity of what they have done. The bringing to account. It is for them not only to experience the agony of every death and mutilation they have caused but also the agony of sorrow and bereavement of all those by whom their victims were loved.
     Then, when they have experienced and understood all that agony, there is the agony of all that might have been. They will see all the love and laughter of the generations that would have derived from those killed or from those, had they been healthy, injured. Then, all that might have been will be wiped out before their eyes, illustrating their deliberate evil actions of destruction, so they may agonise all over again and beg forgiveness, wishing with all their being they could undo what they have done.
     Then may follow pity for them, through which will derive compassion and ultimately they will be fit for  forgiveness which will re-awaken remorse in their gratitude for salvation and the awareness of how undeserving they feel themselves still to be.
     How wicked are these fomenting Imams who will suffer all that is in store for the perpetrators they fool. How stupid are these true lovers of Islam that they do not denounce and defrock these mad priests whose sole goal is their personal glorification at everyone else's cost. These inactive followers who fail to condemn these insane priests will suffer just as assuredly as the perpetrators, for not speaking out. Islam is where the Catholic church was (and in many ways still is) four centuries ago when Rome dared presume to counter England's will and set itself in defiance of Elizabeth the First. We put Rome in its place then and we will do the same with Islam if Islam will not sort itself out.
     Returning to the realities of the world, as I have said previously in these pages, what we need is a world order controlled through the United Nations where fundamental principles of government are enshrined in every country. In any country failing to provide these basic civilities, the United Nations will be at liberty to send in troops to force such freedoms, until a more responsible government is elected.
     We have perhaps too much on our plate at the moment, but Zimbabwe has reached that state when the United Nations should take control under this thesis. In the final analysis, what do these bombers actually mean in their destruction but that they have lost out. In one sense may be we do deserve their criticism. They realise there is no place in our world for their attitudes to life. What are those attitudes? The extraordinary arrogance of men against women! Have we yet discovered a woman terrorist in the Islamic mode?
     Only when you ensure that a woman may become a priest and all congregations are in charge of the priest—the priest being only in charge of the building—will a religion deserve respect and recognition. If, that is, religion has any relevance to the 21st century! This, I frankly doubt. Spirit is one thing and spiritual values but they are not the preserve of religion alone and all too frequently, religion seems not to understand such things. That is the root of so many religious problems.
 

Then Livingstone… will bend credence one step too far so that, rather like Tony Benn, he will end up dismissed entirely. It is fine to be radical when there is sense behind radicalism or it can be framed in the context of the stupidities of mainstream thinking elsewhere, as happened with Labour's refusal to endorse him as Mayor of London in the first place. But Livingstone's determination to receive one of the 'mad mullahs' does raise serious doubts as to his sanity, especially when that cleric, Yusuf Al-Qaradwi has been reported as stating (in relation to Palestinian bombing of Israelis) 'I consider this type of martyrdom operation [sic] is an [sic] evidence of God's justice'.
     This is a man who clearly does not have the first understanding of God. If he truly represents Islam's interpretation of God, then give me the Devil. If Muslims truly believe he is properly educated in the way of Islam then Islam is no longer worth taking seriously.
     We have to see his remarks in the context of the banner wavers in Parliament Square who themselves raise more fundamental questions. Should we continue to allow their presence, so we may laugh at them as we might any other eccentric standing on a soap box or should we, in the light of the London outrages, have them removed as a further deliberate and unacceptable insult to the dead and injured? Or would such action attribute a success to the bombers? What was interesting was that I was unaware of any news reporting of them and everyone seemed to be making a point of being on the opposite pavement, although foreign tourists were taking photographs of them.

Why Are Our Intelligent Services So Singularly Unintelligent? Surely, with all our IRA experience we know it only takes one to cause mayhem! So, why was the report referring to 'no group has the capacity' when only one individual is required to cause the damage? Were we are looking in the wrong places for the wrong things or people?

Incredibly Stupid Clerics. I missed who he was but ITV at 10:40pm this evening had a radical cleric spouting his justification for suicide bombing. The man was quite clearly raving nuts and an utter fool. Does he not understand that in abusing all the advantages of his God-given intelligence and education by spouting justification, if not deliberate encouragement of suicide bombers, he is paving his own path to hell?
     The fool even stated that the West had been warned by Usama Bin Laden but had not paid heed. Since Usama Bin laden is a common criminal the idea that this man, holding him up as some person of authority should clearly have been arrested for incitement. With clerics like this one simply cannot take Islam seriously and we will not until he true believers of Islam get off their butts denouncing such asinine fools as unrepresentative and ignorant.

They All Came Trouping In but did it matter? Blair's contingent representing some 400 Muslim groupings were in reality representing whom? If their own youth do not believe they represent them, then where is the future of Islam in western society going? This, surely, is the problem that there is a wider generation gap within Islam in the West than there is within western society which has largely overcome the problem, whereas Islamic youth want to go further backwards in time, beyond the experience of their parents who have happily adapted to western society.
     The real problem is twofold: those of Islamic disposition refuse to acknowledge the reality of the twenty-first century and the lack of need for formal religion. First, there is resistance from the less scrupulous imams whose objection to the modern world is the loss of their self-centred egos. The second cause is that Islamic youth likewise finds an ego-boost in setting themselves apart through their religion.
     The reason is once more the failure of successive Blair governments to maintain, let alone uplift, standards in education and therefore in employment—the key platforms of public leadership.  This determined 'dumbing down' has been paralleled with Labour's obsession to throw out English core values of Christian Protestantism to please the European community by being essentially nonEnglish in England.
     Consequently, there has been an extraordinary attitude by default if not specific encouragement, that migrant families should be encouraged to maintain their 'left behind' cultural values rather than embrace English ones, especially the English language. After all, if their left-behind culture meant that much to them, was it worth their while coming here? If their coming here was worthwhile we must have something in our culture worth grasping. This raises the argument that if we then change that culture we abuse their act of faith in jumping onto our bandwagon, do we not?
     To illustrate my point, Sky News reported the comment of Anjem Choudary. He had founded a now disbanded radical group and was reported as stating Tuesday's meeting at Downing Street was an irrelevance. "The type of so-called Muslims at this meeting are those who toe the government line," he said. "They are the lackeys of the British government. They're the ones who have been appointed by Tony Blair to be the official voice of the Muslims."
     This says everything about his belligerent attitude but nothing about fact. He raises the point I made above that these people are not properly selected within the Islamic community. He also said the country would inevitably be attacked again by Islamist militants if it refused to change its foreign policy in Iraq, the Middle East and Kashmir.
     He has a point. Bloody George Bush and poodle Blair have not gone about things in the right way and I have said enough on the way international law under the United Nations must proceed for the future and urgently.
   However, he was also quoted as saying. "For us, the main objectives are to work to implement the sharia wherever we are and obviously to support the jihad wherever it is taking place." Such concepts of course are complete nonsense, returning to the point I made above that these people simply have not properly assimilated into this Christian Protestant country as they should have done. More over, such archaic concepts are simply not appropriate in the twenty-first century and we need to look at a centralised world government that stands up for fundamental issues which clerics of many religions are simply unable to grasp—or deliberately will not grasp for fear of losing their own self-importance.
     One final point. in criticising those attending Blair's meeting as not being representative, he himself never stated by what authority and whom, he represented!
     Despite the archaic ideas these more 'out of touch with reality' Muslims are, they have a point in the disastrous state of our society under 'modern' social concepts. We are bringing laws to cover the failure of social mores.
     It is interesting to discover in The Sun (Wednesday) that the one Moslem MP we have (Mr Sadiq Kham, Tooting, South-West London) says exactly what I have just stated, that 'the old guard are not the best people'. So why don't they get the best people? When they insist in making do with second-best we get Sheik Omar Makri Mohammed who informs The Sun that the London bombings are everyone else's fault but his and fellow clerics who incited such action! What abandonment of responsibility. Then there was the cleric I caught momentarily on ITV last night attempting to thump a reporter. Violence, especially from a priest, is as contrary  to Islam as it is contrary in Christianity. Here was a cleric deliberately using his wife and young children as a shield and assaulting the press. A man of honour as he is supposed to be as a cleric would have sent his wife homeward with the children and stood separately from them to deal with the press. There is nothing in his conduct to admire or respect. Why then do they take note of him? His is not an argument or conduct that is worthy of serious consideration. Until the Moslems themselves sort out such people and demote them out of the way Moslems cannot expect to be taken seriously.

Bloody Fool Blair… Again. Faced with outrage from the Islamic community about the state of our society, Blair insists in making the situation worse by going ahead with twenty-our hour binge drinking. Blair and Labour simply cannot be regarded seriously as a responsible government especially when it requires only a fifteen year-old to point out the obvious flaw in his own laws. He is simply inflaming all decent opinion Islamic or not.
     It then takes a fifteen year-old boy to point out that Blair's intention of prohibiting decent law-abiding young people from going about their private affairs except at specific times isn't unlawful. Frankly, I had thought that a matter of common sense in the first place—and he's a lawyer!