13th February 2013
The discussion developed on Channel 4 news on the American gun situation raises questions of authority generally. Effectively, proponents for gun availability maintain the position that citizens have the right to counter any legitimate government which they determine is acting illegally. Such a stance implies they have no confidence in the independence of the due process of law in America. More over it throws into sharp relief any presumption of a church to presume a stand on moral authority.
In response to a BBC "The Big Question" enquiry on whether people should be required to opt out of body donation.
Yes. Society is at the tipping point of recognising a more realistic and pragmatic attitude to death. At one time cancer was never spoken about and people were "spared" knowing they were terminally ill (there were always exceptions of course).
There is also a tipping point over aspects of religion and the exciting acquiring of new scientific knowledge and acceptance of scientific pragmatism. Increasingly, those of religious belief or wider philosophy are being called to account for their views.
Bodies are nothing more than encapsulations of biological activity. On all counts it is utterly immoral for any person to deny another life at all, or simply a better quality of life once it is clear their caldron of biological activity is unable to continue, to anyone else. We have got to accept that if we cannot fund all needed medical help it is immoral to keep someone alive, when they are ready in all aspects to depart and deny an otherwise healthy person in pain a hip replacement when they need it.
One does not apply the laws of physics to the science of biology: why then defame researchers into the world of spirit; the reality of spiritual empathy between all living things; the complexity of deep prayer and contemplation; and those entities no longer in possession of physical bodies who wish and do communicate with those on this plane? There is no conflict between science and concepts of the nature of God: the empiricist knows because they have experienced.
The Indonesian Death Sentence on Lindsay Sandiford prompted starting my "Body and Spirit" page.
BACK TO NORMAL
Basic Courtesies; Promoting Women; Male Arrogancies; EU Nonsense
Friday 28th December 2012
Wary of the admonition “Be not so keen to see the splinter in your friend’s eye that you miss the plank in your own”, I try to think before criticising someone else. It is a shame, so soon after the key date of Christmas, that we are so rapidly brought down to our everyday realities. Yet within a short space of this morning I am suddenly confronted with several moral issues of the ego in both the micro and macro worlds.
Most of us, I presume reckon our home town is great—in so far as we speak about it to others, keeping its known faults for more private conversations. I too am proud of my home town, Great Berkhamsted, although only the parish church and I use its full title. I remember on the hustings stating that if elected (town council) I would push that reality (and did!). One heckler declared “you can’t”. I avoided the trap of a pantomime “Oh yes we can!” by calmly pointing out that it required no change in its position in the gazetteer, merely the addition of a comma and “Gt.”, in the same way that the other Berkhamsted is presented as “, Lt”.
I regard my home town (as do many pollsters and marketing agents) as a reasonable representation of the whole country. To me, it has been noticeable for some time that people shopping at Waitrose, increasingly leave their trolleys where ever they happen to be when loading their car. This action is partly plain bone-idleness and partly “sod you, I’m very important, as well as being very selfish”.
This morning, I was just coming down one of the alleyways to a parking space, when a woman chose to charge in front of me from the opposite direction, in flagrant contradiction of the traffic signs, to try and pinch the space ahead of me. By undoing her seat belt and sitting staring at me she did her best to make it clear she wasn’t moving. How long we would have remained sat there staring at each other, totally expressionless, I have no idea but clearly the cars backing up behind me made it clear I was going the right way and she wasn‘t. She then reversed and swung into the parking space in a singularly cack-handed manner, since the obvious way to approach that particular space was in reverse, or from the direction from which I was arriving.
The questions posited are: was she simply an arrogant woman, bolstered with female blandishments to stick to her guns and not give a damn for anyone else, especially a male; or was she simply blind to the traffic signs, in which case, since a car park (especially on private ground) is a particularly hazardous place, with cars doing unexpected manoeuvres and pedestrians being completely oblivious of anyone but themselves and their chat, she was declaring herself unfit to be licensed to drive. Should I have taken her number and reported the matter to the police? Perhaps excessive but wherein lies my personal accountability?
There is another aspect, its relevance being more clear later, is that I had observed the space as I came into the car park and noted it but followed the traffic signs. The signs took me away from the space, contrary to my self-interest. Having noticed this space I adapted my options through the car park’s official route to short-cut to that space, in an organised and legitimate manner, exemplifying the difference between male logic and female logic. She had driven blindly, thinking of only what was in front of her (and missing the signs directing her!) and a space, not taking in an overall view of the car park, noting what cars were leaving and from where they might have come, thus indicating new spaces. Yet it is the woman, as mother, who is supposed to be able to multi-task better than the male!
On my way round to find another space I encountered a car parked in a lane, not in a space. This often happens when the car park is overfull but instead of parking on the side causing least inconvenience, it had been parked on the side likely to cause most inconvenience.
I had hardly entered Waitrose when I was confronted with a newspaper headline, “We need positive [female] discrimination.” Quite clearly from immediate experience we most certainly do not! Another witless Euro concept that the last reason you should appoint a person to a senior job is because they are the right person for fitness for purpose but instead be the second best candidate, which is in effect what is being stated.
Let me use an analogy to bring this home. It has taken us years to make cars safe on the road, so we then decide that a car that only fails on one aspect should be declared roadworthy. That is the reality demonstrated by this witlessness and the practical reality I had just experienced! It is a matter of elementary commonsense that appointments to jobs are based solely upon the best person able to perform the requirements of the job, not the manner in which they style their hair, which is effectively what Europe is stating
So you may know from where I am coming, I will quote from my Christmas letter to all friends and family, with apologies for it not having been as individually personalised as it usually is.
“…Another occasion, when the unions were arguing over women doing jobs traditionally presumed to be for men only. They refused to unload a lorry driven by a woman. Fortunately, she was of robust build and offloaded the goods herself, with a damned sight more dexterity than any of the men watching would have exercised. However, she was suddenly flummoxed at the realisation she needed someone to sign her chit.
Fortunately, I had been tipped off that a lorry being driven by a woman had just arrived in the yard and I had gone out to observe. “Give it to me,” I told her. Then in a specifically loud voice intended for all ears I said, “I’m sorry our people were unable to help you. They get so embarrassed when someone is able to do their job so much better than they can.” I have never forgotten the smile that girl gave me. I think it is the best smile any girl has ever given me. Her whole face lit up and her eyes sparkled with mischievousness.
As I turned back from having waved her out of the yard, I found the group of men who had been standing, arms folded, watching her had melted away. They weren’t prepared to even look me in the face.
Now, of course, we have the CofE anxious to declare its total pointlessness to the world at large in its refusal to have women bishops. How on earth does one cope with this sort of thing in the spirit world? That’s the one thing that worries me about death. At least in this life you can go walk a dog, or kick at stones but what there? Or perhaps having such people around you is the reality of hell?”
We, the English, capable of running the greatest empire the world has yet known, although by no means anywhere near perfect, do at least know what we are doing from gained experience, when Europe consists of nothing but a gathering of failed empires which we have beaten several times in war. It is high time we put our foot down and brought these fools to their senses, dealing with the world as it is, not as witless morons would like to think it could or ought to be.
Also today we have another incidence of male domination and arrogance unfit for decent society. The tragedy of a man’s arrogance determining his daughter should be kept from her mother for over three years, in defiance of a court order. It is not for me to come crashing in on a family tragedy of broken relationships but to deal with the practicalities involved.
I would have thought it obvious that in the circumstance of a broken home, the court would require any parent having right of access, to have the written agreement of the other parent, or that both must travel together, to take the child out of the country. In fact I am not so sure that that ought not to be the situation anyway, since sometimes abduction can happen before matters are clearly wrong, unless the child is of an age when it can travel alone.
What would appear to have worsened this case is a social background where there is an assumption and presumption that a man is automatically in charge. Codswallop. Such ridiculous ideas must be ended by law. Both Christian and nonChristian religions uphold such twaddle and such nonsense must be ended. That it is not is another example of Europe’s muddled thinking about human rights. Instead, we have the witless idea that the second choice option should always over-ride the requirement of the role, according to the way the hair is styled. The reason the Europeans are giving us these concepts is because they are themselves the second-rate, also-rans of what is available! Point made.
THE MITCHELL AFFAIR
Sunday 23rd December 2012
Today, in The Sunday Times Andrew Mitchell makes the statement he should have made at the outset. That he did not do so at the time may well be the true cause of all else that has subsequently happened, nor perhaps would have happened. It further raises the question that this simply is not a man of sufficient character and organisational skills to be a government minister.
Tuesday 18th December 2012
Channel 4 has just attempted to update its photojournalist report of the first new releases of this incident. Regardless of what may ultimately come out I suspect Mitchell will be re-instated as a minister at an early opportunity. In the mean time he will serve as a reminder to all other ministers that there is a minister in waiting.
Here's a personal conclusion jump. An individual, or several persons in concert, exercised personal/police federation members' angsts to get at the Tories. Yet the incident arises from Mitchell's one, foul-mouthed exchange, an individual who's personal standing, in a position supposed to maintain the dignity of the crown, proved he was inadequate to the trust. Suddenly, on the spur of the moment the matter hitting the headlines, probably only one individual charged in to thrust his all, totally out of his depth in terms of obvious ultimate consequences. An example of where the ego exceeds its rightfulness in society's interests. A time to sit down and shut up!
Friday 24th September
This morning Andrew Mitchell avoided answering the fundamental question. That means he IS lying!
How does The Sun obtain knowledge of the inside of a policeman's notebook? That is confidential information. That now means a policeman has acted improperly. These matters are important because one small matter improperly handled opens the floodgates for following improper conduct. ALL must be nipped in the bud. Corruption is corruption and that is what is going on here. This puts the police in the wrong!
NOBEL AWARD TO EUROPEAN UNION
Monday 10th December 2012
Critics of this include former Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu, saying it is undeserved.
I have already commented on this on Facebook. The EU's attitude to conformity is the very attitude that created two world wars and the authoritarian arrogance of Brussels in no way binds a common purpose but creates the very cause of friction, showing the serious errors that are the EU's commissions.
THE OZ RADIO JOKE UPROAR
Saturday 8th December 2012
The Australian radio faux pas over
the King Edward VII hospital is a classic example of the necessity of Leveson. It is both right that Cameron should be wary but also why it is correct for Parliament to press the matter. These are two people too immature in their characters to have been allowed near a live microphone. This is a clear example (regardless as to why Jacintha Saldanha died) as to the serious nature of publishing in what ever medium. One never knows the potential consequences of one's actions and one needs always to be responsible. It was an extreme view that the BBC's early announcers were expected to wear dinner jackets when speaking because of their 'intrusion' into people's homes but the present day cavalier disregard for responsibility for any potential consequnces is equally unacceptable.
Now it emerges
it was a recording that was broadcast. So supposedly mature senior executives made the decision to broadcast, highlighting the need for some form of licencing to entitle control to broadcast. As an aside it appears the Samaritans have stated that in their experience no one responds so tragically to a one-off incident, so the regrettable death may well be more complex than the inferences being drawn.
More particularly, there seems some mismanagement in that the two presenters have been suspended BUT it appears the actual decision was at a higher level. Therefore their reprimand should be internal and private not the public reprimand actually given. Sounds like Human Resource mismanagement as well.
Monday 8th December
From a News 5 broadcast some interesting points have arisen. A defender dared to say that it was the duty of a reporter
to con people to obtain information for his readers. Totally out of order, so let's start asking these readers if this is the sort of outcome they buy their papers to read! This same reporter raised a valid point, that the Edward VIIth hospital had a responsibility to ensure whoever answered a telephone was trained in correct procedures as to how to handle. In this, Jacintha would appear to be the victim of training failure. Particularly with her background, it is more understandable that she was more naive than might have been expected. More over, this also explains why she may have taken the 'disgrace', as she would have seen her failing so badly, if in fact she did. This raises the issue of presumption as to who might have been at the end of the telephone. An Australian might reasonably have expected an English person and would not have thought of the multicultural aspects of the UK.
What also emerged from this interview
was the reassurance that this would not have happened in the UK because of the broadcast licence conditions and the reporter acknowledged, that even with his attitude, the fact the issue dealt with someone's state of health automatically made it a 'no no' situation.
Monday 15th October 2012
Moral Values are still with us. Lieutenant General Sir John Kiszely’s resignation, as President of the Royal British Legion, for unproven improper conduct over commercial arms deals is the way the British world used to behave.
Probably totally unfairly to himself, he acted solely and entirely for the benefit of the organisation, as is correct and proper. It has an unintended side-effect. It makes a clear statement that the correct and proper conduct of Andrew Mitchell (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andrew-mitchell-chief-whip-pleb-1352133) is to resign NOW and that he should have resigned the moment the incident happened. On the moral principle of leading from the front, just as Sir John Kiszley has done.