Badly Drafted Law ...

In recent years we have seen a plethora of laws hit our statute books which, despite the 'assurances' of the Minister responsible and the efforts of all the members of the various committees, working parties and lobby groups, have impacted in 'unintended' ways upon our society. It is refreshing therefore to see that the latest such law has been heavily amended by the Lords. They have struck out the vague and nebulous concept of attempting to legislate against someone 'annoying' another. The vacuous spokesperson from the Home Office, responsible for this latest bit of idiocy, tried to give the 'assurance' that the law would not be used to stifle debate, or to interfere with the right of free speech, religion or 'insulting behaviour'.

Funny, that, because it is the courts which decide what is an is not annoying - not some chinless, faceless and unanswerable wonder from the civil service no doubt up to the elbows in the drafting ink. The Blog Archbishop Cranmer has an excellent article covering the whole mess, entitled "Outlawing 'annoyance' is Cameron's crassest Law". I commend it to readers. He has the details and says it far more eloquently than I can.

As he points out, the way the law was originally drafted had come in for criticism from lawyers and judges from across the political spectrum. It was a licence to anyone and everyone with a stake in political correctness to stifle criticism and debate. When such advice comes from so large a group of legal experts, the government and their civil servants should pay heed - but they didn't. It now remains to be seen whether they accept the Lord's amendment - passed by 306 to 178 with independent Peers, Labour Peers and rebels from the coalition all voting for the change.

Changing Email Accounts ...

One could start by screaming and tearing one's hair out in chunks. It would probably be less painful  and far, far less annoying and frustrating. The reason? BT, with whom I have dealt for longer than I care to remember, despite a range of hassles and problems over the years, has notified me that, unless I pay them to keep my email addresses, these will cease to function next month.

I have, as a result managed to create a new email for myself with Google Mail, which is fine, but which comes with the problem that I cannot now change the email for this Blog to a 'gmail' address! Why? Who knows, getting in touch with anyone at Google or Blogger to find out is like ... well, let's put it this way, I could probably get to Mars with less difficulty. So, now I'm stuck with a Blogger Account that won't let me change my email, and won't allow me to change the primary email account on it to my new 'gmail' address - even though Blogger is a part of the Google empire.

To make life even more entertaining, I have now tried every trick I can think of (and a few suggested by computer gurus) to get my address book from the old BT account, transferred to my 'gmail' account. Don't be silly, it ain't happening. The BT system says I can move it to Yahoo. Tried that, didn't work. It also says I can move it to Microslosh Outlook. Don't want to do that even if I had Outlook, because I use a Mac.

So, it looks like I'm going to have to go back to basics, and find a way to print out the entire BT email address book, then manually re-enter the addresses I want into my new mail account. If anyone can tell me how to resolve all the other issues, like changing my email address with PayPal, various things I subscribe to, Blogger and the hundred and one things I seem to have a "registered email address" for - please let me know in the Comments - email seems to be a problem at present!

How To Irritate and Annoy Your Customers ...

I have been a customer of PayPal for some time now, but recently I have had a couple of problems involving my account with them. Though I live in Germany, my main bank account is with a UK based bank, the same one I have banked with for the last 27 years. They have no problems with my living in Europe, but apparently PayPal does. I can't contact them by telephone, and the only other option is by email - on a prescribed form which does not offer any option on the matters I need to discuss with them.

Why is this a problem? Simply put, my royalties are paid, by my US based publisher, into my PayPal account. Now, should any Nigerian Prince, Mafia money launderer, taxman or anyone else interested in getting their hands on it be reading this, forget it. The amounts aren't worth your efforts. The problem is that my publisher pays the money in, and PayPal sends me an 'advice' by email to say its there. The snag is I have to log in to my account and 'accept' the payments. Should be easy, shouldn't it?

Not the way PayPal does it. They always manage to send me the advice with a broken link. I can't accept the money, because the link PayPal send me is lacking the Transaction Code ... To make matters worse, and to rub salt into it, I can't get a sensible reply out of PayPal either, and as for trying to talk to them, forget it. Do you know how annoying it is to dial their number and get a message "The number you have dialled is not available from this location"?

In fact the last time I did manage to contact them and sort this out, I almost ended up having no PayPal account. They wanted to close my UK account and insist I open one in Germany. The snag with that is that the German PayPal site will not accept my card details - because it is a UK Bank card ...

So, now I have submitted yet another formal complaint to their anonymous complaints system. I have no great hope of a resolution anytime soon. In fact I have no great hope of any resolution. So my guess is this will mean a return to asking my publisher to pay me in US$ cheques, for banking and exchanging which, my Bank charges me £5 per item. Thanks, since most of these cheques are around that amount ...

A Picture Worth a Thousand Words

The picture below I reproduce from The Spectator's blog, it says everything one needs to know about how Blair, Brown and Labour got the British economy into the current mess. It stopped just short of doing what the previous Labour Government, under Callaghan, had done - roll the printing presses and print more and more funny money. Labour is incompetent when it comes to economics. This graph proves it. They fuelled the so-called 'boom' during their time in office by spending like there was no tomorrow - and now the blame the Tories for cutting back.

When Blair took office in 1997, the country was solvent - a legacy of the Tories - it only took him five years to reverse that and the commitments they'd made before being expelled from office are what is still hurting like hell. Worse, these incompetents are still claiming they can 'fix' the economy - only now they want to turn on the printing presses again. Just as in the 1970s, Labour have proved themselves incapable of recognising the difference between the money in their wallets, and the money in everyone else's pocket. The real irony here is that a very large part of the borrowing since 2008 is being made to pay the debts piled up before 2007.

Blair/Brown's legacy is a pretty shoddy one in my view. Ruined economy, rising dependency on benefits, pension funds robbed out and destroyed and every service and industry crippled by politically correct claptrap and vast mountains of bureaucratic 'assessment' of everything to keep from getting sued out of existence.

I commend the Spectator's article.

A Myth of Reason?

Recently I read an article that repeated one of those modern myths that seems to have gained traction in the minds of many. It states simply that all the wars in history have been 'caused' by religion. The author claimed that 'reason' as opposed to 'religious superstition' would have avoided, among others, the two world wars. According to those that push this line, every war is religious in origin. In a recent debate - if that is the right word - with someone from the atheist camp on this subject, I was reminded, yet again, that Hitler was a Roman Catholic, Stalin a failed Russian Orthodox monk and Mao Tse Tung had followed Buddhism. "Proof" according to my interlocutor, that religion motivated them to commit the atrocities and excesses that led to millions of deaths.

Of course, he was right. Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic, Stalin was a novice in an Orthodox seminary, Mao was a follower of Confucionism rather than Buddhism and there are many more examples of truly horrendous psychopaths who followed a religious path. My challenge to my friend was to show me what part of the teachings of the religions of confessions concerned, taught these men (and there are one or two women as well) to do what they did. They may have been raised in these religions, but they did not practice what they were taught, nor did they live the life these religions encourage. Hitler famously told a questioner that, because he had been raised a Roman Catholic, he knew exactly how to twist them round his fingers, and Stalin certainly followed the same pattern. Having first closed churches all over Russia and the Soviet Union, he re-opened them when he needed to convince the populace that the war - which he'd helped Hitler precipitate - was a'righteous' one. Yes, these men certainly knew how to play the religious card, but not one of them actually practiced what the religions teach. Can Hitler or Stalin be called a "Christian"? I would argue that the answer to that is an emphatic no.

As the Bible says, "By their fruits you will know them."

That, of course led to an exposition of the Crusades as an example of how Christianity has "always" used war to spread its message. Yes, the Crusades were a "religious war", and they were a response to the invasions from the Arabian peninsula of the Islamic armies. The Middle East and North Africa were largely Christian when Mohammad's followers began their invasions against the Byzantine rulers of these areas. From roughly 700 AD to 1000 AD they overthrew and subjugated one province of the Byzantine Empire after another. Their renowned 'tolerance' is a chimera used today to 'prove' that the Christians were 'barbarous' and the Arabs 'enlightened.' The 'tolerance' was a token. You could hold to your Christian faith, but paid a premium tax, your land could be seized, your servants could be removed if they converted to Islam, since no 'Unbeliever' may hold a position over 'Believers' and even the recitation of the Christian Creed could lead to a charge of blasphemy. Belatedly Western Christians decided to act - but, because the East didn't acknowledge the claims of the Pope to sole headship of the Church, Catholic and Apostolic, tried to act alone. Yes, this was a war of 'spreading the word' and like most such ungodly acts, it failed disasterously.

So what of the rest of the wars since the Crusades? Was the American War of Independence religiously inspired? Was the French Revolution? The Napoleonic Wars? The Franco-Prussian war? The Anglo-Boer Wars? What about Queen Victoria's 'Little Wars' to suppress the slave trade, promote the sale of heroine to China or the Boxer Rebellion? What, indeed, of the American Civil War? I was somewhat astonished by the assertion that 'religion played a key part in all of them.' Really? Naturally I asked for an explanation, since my understanding of the history of all these conflicts is obviously in some way flawed.

I understood that the American colonists rebelled over the stupidity of the British administration's insistence on the shipping back to Britain of all raw materials and the purchase of the finished goods by the colonists from British manufacturies. Few know that there were laws forbidding the colonists from making their own tools, or processing the cotton and tobacco they produced. There was no 'religious' motivation on the British side, it was all about vested interests and profit. Likewise the French Revolution, the motivation was not religious - unless one can count the atheist leaders of it as 'religious' - but about the abuses of the ruling class and the desire for more freedom and a fairer society. Ironically the roots of the Revolutionary ideals lay in the American War of Independence and the ideas brought back by French troops sent to aid the Americans against the British. The French involvement there was certainly not 'religious' - it was pure commercial advantage they were after.

The Revolution (like the Russian one a century or so later) quickly descended into a bloodbath. Napoleon rose to power as a result of it, and famously snatched the crown from the Pope's hands placing it on his own head. Was he 'religious' or motivated by 'religion'? I suspect Napoleon would regard you with astonishment of you suggested it. Like most wars, it was about trade and wealth from there on. Control access to markets and you control trade, control trade and, as they say, the world is your oyster.

The Crimean War was fought to prevent the Russian expansion - which threatened British and French trade interests in the Middle and Far East, so no 'religious' overtones there. The Franco-Prussian War was about who dominated Europe, France or Prussia. Even the British Civil War, though there was a 'religious' cloak to it, was really about who wielded power over the land, the King or Parliament, the political class or the nobility. Yes, the religion certainly provided the protaganists with plenty of "justification" for their un-Christian activities, but to claim that the war was 'caused' by religion is ridiculous.

I will concede that religion often plays a part in any conflict, but to make a sweeping statement that it 'causes' wars is silly. Most wars are about power, wealth, territory or political ideology. The two Anglo-Boer Wars were about territory and access to the wealth of the Gold Reef, nothing more. The 'little' wars in Africa and one or two other places, were also about access to raw materials, markets for finished goods or power. What part did religion play in the First or Second World War I asked. "Ah! Declared my friend, both sides told everyone 'God was on their side.'" He went on to remind me that the German Wehrmacht troops had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. So they did, but what did he expect? This was a hangover from the days of the Kaisers.

The churches in any nation are there to provide comfort and support to those in need, the poor, the downtrodden and the bereaved. As the Stalinist period showed, if they fall foul of the regime and are closed - they cannot do what the Gospel tells us is their function. What, I asked him, did he think of the fact that many priests, ministers and ordinary people defied the regime - some, like Bonhoeffer - paying the ultimate price for their efforts.

Digging deeper into the history of Europe, one could point to the Thirty Years War or even the Hundred Years War. What was the 'religious' motivation for these? In short, once again, when examined closely both were about who held what territory and wielded what power - religion was, once again, a cloak for a deeper political agenda.

I find, having looked closely at the facts, religion is often invoked as a cloak for some ideological ambition on the part of some ruler or another. Almost all of the wars of the Twentieth Century have no religious aspect to them (the exception is the Islam versus everybody campaign against Israel and the Christian West). The two world wars, the cold war and all the little 'hot' wars within that, were straight up ideology. So, unless political ideology has now been elevated to a formal 'religion' the statement that religion alone 'causes' wars is patently and manifestly a falsehood.

A National Shame?

I recently had to ask a friend why I was seeing so many notices for dogs being stolen and for people out walking their dogs being approached by men posing as 'dog wardens' and trying to 'confiscate' pets. Josephus' wife informed me that it is because there is a rising sub-culture in the UK which engages in dog fighting and they need 'gun dogs' in particular to be sold on to 'sportsmen' as it takes a long time to train a gun-dog properly. Large breeds are stolen to be trained to kill in fights. Other dogs are used to 'bait' the fighting dog and, of course, wind up as its 'prey' victim. Sadly, this is not an isolated problem either. A little digging around on the web shows that there are a lot of dogs 'vanishing' in Britain, but the police don't seem to be interested and the RSPCA, which should be, is too busy chasing Fox Hunts they suspect of killing foxes, or pensioners who can't bring themselves to have beloved pets 'put down.'

One report I found told of a man in a blue overall type 'uniform' approaching an older man walking his two dogs. Identifying himself as a 'Dog Warden' the man first of all alleged that the dogs were fouling the area and had been reported as 'not under control.' He refused to produce any identity or authority - which English Law requires of any person exercising a legal power - and declared he was 'confiscating' the dogs. The owner resisted, and one of the dogs became agitated enough for the man to retreat. The owner was unable to get the registration of the van, but noted it was unmarked. He complained to his Council who promised to 'get back to him' but assured him that none of their employees were involved.

So who was? This report was echoed by others, sometimes with one man sometimes two, the target was usually a youth or a pensioner walking a dog and sometimes the person(s) used threats of prosecution. Now I may be wrong, recent governments have fouled up the legal system so badly its possible I'm no longer correct, but 'impersonating an officer of the law' is a criminal offence.

Some interesting links give an idea of the scale of the problem, starting with this article in the Daily Telegraph. Or Dog Theft Actions website and Dog Watch. And these are just three out of a host from a simple search.

To me the interesting aspect of this is that it is happening in broad daylight and it is certainly not isolated incidents. Some dogs are stolen 'to order' for resale to people looking for a pet as an accessory, Cocker Spaniels are currently favourite. Others are not so lucky, they are stolen for a sport banned in every civilised society. Dog fighting is illegal in the UK, yet it is happening on a scale that suggests it is not just well established, but backed by some serious criminals - yet the police don't want to know and the RSPCA doesn't even show any interest in following up the disappearances. Setting two dogs on one another to fight to the death is obscene in any society, that it is happening in the UK with the tacit conivance of the police and the organisation which receives millions annually in donations to stamp out such cruelty is a national disgrace.

The scum that engage in this cruelty are seldom caught, and even if they are, since their crime is 'merely' animal cruelty, the courts tend to hand out a fine or a slap on the wrist - not a jail sentence intended to punish. To those who argue that jail is not about 'punishment' but 'reform' I should like to compel them to watch some of the sick video footage now available on the internet, or to compell them to deal with the corpses of small dogs torn to pieces as 'bait,' or the maimed larger dogs pitted against others driven mad by cruelty and savage goading.

No, I have no sympathy for those who indulge in this 'sport.' Frankly throwing them into a pit with a hungry and angry bear, tiger or lion would be about right. But I feel that would be inhumane - for the animal concerned.

As long as this activity is tolerated we must consider our society as sick. It cannot continue.

Pope's Number 3 Lays Down the Law...

Priests looking for reforms in the Roman Catholic Church have just been told in no uncertain terms that there will be no relaxation of any of the Church's rules regarding divorce, remarriage or woman's roles. Particularly in Germany, where the Roman Church is hemorrhaging members, this has gone down like the proverbial lead balloon. In some areas other churches are gaining from this, but for many Roman Catholics there is little alternative but to walk away from faith altogether.

It seems that Rome has decided to once again retreat into the Medieval period, refuse to acknowledge anything but their own vision and, if you don't like it, well, you can lump it. In part this does reflect the fact that the Vatican has taken a battering in recent years. Unfortunately, instead of responding to the criticisms with open debate, presentation of the positives in their history (and there are many) or even attempting to address some of the things people are asking for - like married priests - they've put up the shutters and refused to speak to anyone. There was huge anger in Germany at the Pope's declaration that the Evangelical Lutheran's weren't a 'church' and therefore could not expect any concessions in Rome's stance on shared communion. Essentially he was simply reiterating Rome's long held position that the Lutheran branch of Christianity is simply a collection of rebel Roman Catholics who must first surrender to his authority before he'll talk to them.

This is apparent in his dealings with the Church of England and every other branch of Christianity. It is a blinkered and very stupid approach - especially for a man who claims that his 'Office' is to be Christ's sole representative here on Earth. I have no doubt whatsoever, that Christ Himself would reject Rome's stance out of hand where He to make His long awaited return now.

I find the current state of affairs with Rome, on the one hand, a little amusing, for, had Martin of Tours not expelled the Arianists from the Bishopric of Rome in 314 AD, Roman Catholicism, and quite possible most of Western Christianity would be far closer to Shia Islam. On the other hand I find myself constantly annoyed by Rome's presumption and dogmatic exclusion of everyone else from their communion. I think we can be very sure that Christ will have a lot to say on that score when we all face our final Judge.

BT Helpline. The most useless helpline in the world?

I am having what may only be called a really bad day. I was signed in to my BT Yahoo email account this morning and in the process of reading and replying to my emails, when, without warning, I found myself signed out and a pop-up demanded I "verify my password." Guess what, the re-entered password got the Red Flag response and the message that either the User ID or Password were incorrect.

An attempt to retrieve the password or to reset it, met with a refusal to accept my CORRECT security information. So, next step, contact BT Yahoo. Oh, I don't have a UK Post Code any longer. Oh, I don't have a BT Telephone line either. Now there's a surprise! I live in Germany, BT claims to be Europe wide and "International." Are they? B*llsh*t.

OK, so I can still go online. Do an internet search, find the BT "Helpline" numbers. Talk to a computer. The computer wants my telephone number. I give it. "Sorry, that is not a recognised BT Number, our Technical support will be unable to assist you." CLICK. THis is the number given for contacting them when you have a problem with your email. Funny, my other email addresses on the same BT Account still work - only the main one has been killed off. OK, attempt number 2. Find the online contact and report a fault. Oh, must have a UK Post Code. Must have a BT Telephone number ...

Do another web search, try to find a number for BT which allows me to talk to a human being. I don't care where! Apparently BT is now run entirely by computers, presumably programmed to prevent anyone actually accessing anything useful. I am now running out of options. I am unable to access my BTYahoo email account and so, therefore, I am unable to read or respond to any email sent to that account. As it is also the email account on which all my other online activities are set up - I'm not at all sure what to do next.

Any suggestions will be most welcome. But please, send them to the email for this blog - it still works, probably no thanks at all to BT!

UPDATE:


Having finally discovered a means to gain access to the BT "Problem Solving Forum" I finally managed the get a real person to answer my complaint and he provided a new telephone number. A call to that number got me a real live person instead of a computer, and this young man listened to my problem, investigated it, and advised me that my email had been automatically shut down as it had been "compromised."

Great, I said, how about letting me know what has happened. Ah, its automatic you see, we don't know it's happened... OK, so how do we get it back? Ah, now you need to talk to Yahoo ...

Cutting to the chase, I have my email back. It has a new password and other security features have also been changed, but it is back. In fairness, I must say, that the young men and one lady who finally dealt with the problem, did so professionally and helpfully. It's just a pity it required such an effort and a lot of totally unnecessary stress to finally reach them. Their employer lets them down badly with this really poorly thought through and designed system which simply winds the already stressed out customer up as they attempt to reach someone, anyone, capable of assisting them.

A Fair Wage?

The release of the names and salaries earned by the top Civil Servants is timely. This bunch cost the nation almost £30 million a year and there are only 172 of them. The Guardian has all the details in an article. What is shocking is that several of them earn more than the Prime Minister or the Ministers they supposedly work for.

NO! I'm not about to suggest the 650-odd MPs get a pay rise, but it does support my long held view that the major thing wrong with the UK economy is the fact that the Public Services in the UK now employ over one fifth of the total workforce. That those who supposedly 'lead' Whitehall are paid these huge salaries (and get a knighthood for their services when they retire to pick up a nice directorship somewhere) is nothing short of insulting to the taxpayers. These are the men and women who consistently block all efforts to reform the civil service.

Why?

Put simply; because their pay reflects the size of the department they 'manage,' not its actual delivery or its efficiency. It's all about how many minions you have, not what they actually do, or even if you have any idea of what they do. This is the reason there are endless duplications of activities, conflicts in legislation - yes, one department may well require a business to do something it is forbidden to do by another - and absolute stonewalling when anyone suggest a rationalisation.

They should be cut down to size and their departments with them.

Thriving on Angst?

I have observed before this, that our current society seems to thrive on feeding the angst of individuals. Those individuals form groups and those groups share their angst, some going so far as to adopt an almost religious fervour about it. Yesterday the news was that "food anxiety" is making some people over eat. OK, so someone obviously did some research to arrive at that conclusion. Today's news in our local newspapers is that "a majority of children in Germany fear falling into poverty." This, of course, has been seized upon by political opponents of the reforms currently being implemented on "child welfare" payments. The more I look about me, the more hysterical responses I see to just about everything. What on earth has gone wrong with us?

I do believe that a lot of this has its roots in the slaughter of the trench war in 1914 - 18. The survivors emerged from that to breed a generation who would have preferred to let Hitler, Stalin and others run rampant across the world. "Peace in our time!" and "never again" were the watchwords that let Hitler gain the control he did, small step by small step. It was this thinking - coupled with the very influential writing of "thinkers" like Russell and Huxley, that produced a tongue clucking, do nothing approach as Stalin clamped down on "dissidents" and "enemies of the Revolution" and murdered millions. Finally, when a war against the evil of Nazi-ism became unavoidable, the Left was quite happy to get into bed with Uncle Joe when Hitler made the mistake of opening a war on the Russian Front. Churchill had his reservations, but was prepared to get into bed with Satan himself, to defeat Hitler.

Once the A-Bomb was dropped and the "World" conflict ended, we began a series of "Little Wars" starting with the Communist invasions of Korea. As the Cold War developed, so more and more of these "little" wars opened up with each side arming, training and supporting rival groups - so now we have the Taliban, once the allies of the US, in Afghanistan. We have Mugabe in Zimbabwe, we have Marxist Regimes in Mozambique and Angola, and various "terror" groups, including Al Qaeda all active around the world and all supported now by the proceeds of organised crime, drug trafficking or by various "secret services" still engaged ion what the British used to call "The Great Game." While Europe didn't have any more "major" conflicts, many of us in the former "colonial territories" fought and died in these "Little Wars" on behalf of the great powers.

It is in the legacy of the Second World War that we find the origins of today's angst ridden society. Drug trafficking really took off in the 1955 - 75 period as a means of undermining "the other sides" youth and for funding these "enterprises." So did the psychological campaigns. The KGB funded and supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) feeding the pacifist leaders with all manor of information and disinformation as well as funding. Creating the idea in everyone's mind that a nuclear strike was the first option in any future conflict fostered the belief in many minds that humanity was doomed. This has been transferred into the anti-nuclear power generation movement, where, frankly, when one actually listens to what they have been taught to believe about nuclear reactors and the waste, you do wonder why these otherwise intelligent people don't check their facts. Look at the literature of the period 1950 - 1980, it is full of "doomsday" visions - and some persist even now. The Hollywood movie "The Road" being a good example.

Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund and other "Green" Groups thrive on creating fear in our society. Look at their constant bombardment of "information" in the media, it is full of "doomsday" scenarios, many of them unsubstantiated, unsubstantiatable and for the most part, unchallenged and unchecked by the mass media and the readers of it. By creating angst about the changes in our climate, the fate of polar bears or whales, they generate revenue for their campaigns and recruit hordes of young people to take part in their mass demonstrations or to man the ships they send out to disrupt operations they disapprove of.

All of us have some "angst" in our psyche, what I don't believe is healthy is the current rampant exploitation of it for political ends. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, CND and all the rest are not "impartial" purveyors of information. They have a vested interest in making people believe we should throw money at their causes, join their campaigns and change our society to their vision of Utopia. Greenpeace alone receives a very large handout from the US government and from the UK, so do others. Keeping us "afraid" protects that income. The same applies to many UN "Agencies" and to the "Climate Change/The Sky is Falling" Industry.

What they don't acknowledge is that they loathe our current society and are actually about returning to some Utopian vision of the past, rather on the lines of Wordsworth and Shelley who loathed the industrialisation of Britain. From their privileged and wealthy background, they wanted a world that continued in what they perceived to be ideal. A world of Cottage industries, agricultural labourers living in poverty on the generosity of the landowner and the "huddled masses" knowing their place. Read their manifestos and you see words and phrases straight out of Marx and Lenin - "redistribution of wealth," "egalitarian society" and "communal resources."

The angst is not just confined to the "Green" and "Anti-Nuclear" lobbies either, it spills across religion, politics and into areas such as child care, health care, safety and much, much more. Reading the leaflets put out by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and others, one could be excused for thinking that every father is a potential rapist of his sons and daughters, every mother a potential child killer and heaven forbid we should let the grandparents childmind! That is not to say there isn't child abuse, just that it is neither as widespread nor as prevalent as the propagandists make out. When one sees them resort, on television, to such tactics as saying "Ah, yes, the statistics show only 2% of children in the UK are abused," then quickly adding, "but our 'evidence' suggests that the figure is far higher, and every child ..." without producing any 'evidence', you should immediately have alarm bells ringing. This is how so called "experts" are able to stand up in courts and make outrageous charges and statements without anyone daring to challenge them.

Our society seems to thrive on this bombardment of anti-social propaganda. The trouble is, even if it is, as I believe, only a fraction of the population who do suffer from this, they are the ones who get into the news. They are often the ones the news media are playing to, so it becomes a self perpetuating cycle.

What we do need to recognise is that it is, ultimately, self destructive. All the "Green" campaigns cost jobs and drive up taxes. The "jobs" "Green" initiatives create tend to be non-productive and paid for out of tax or subsidies paid by tax ... All the "anti" campaigns also cost jobs and cost lost production, so the taxes go up, but the steady erosion of the tax base also means less to collect. Fear of child abuse has produced a generation who believe the world is to be treated with suspicion, that all adults are only after one thing and we wonder why our kids carry knives to school or to the Mall. We've raised a generation of kids afraid of going without the latest "trainers," toys, iPhone or Playstation. They're afraid of strangers, afraid of being poor, afraid of living and afraid of dying. How do we expect them to cope?

Frankly, if we are to survive as a society and as a civilisation we need to rid ourselves of quite a bit of this "angst" and put things back into proper perspective. But my "angst" is that we probably won't ...

Champagne Socialism ...

A little item I spotted in the news feed yesterday had me almost speechless with fury. The news item concerned the revelation that a certain well known ex-Prime Minister and his good lady, a certain well known Human Rights campaigner and Barrister had paid their tax for 2010. A mere £315,000.

Now you may wonder why I saw red on this. Simples. The man earned a princely £12 million in the year ... Considering that he and his friends in Labour are constantly banging on about the Queen's income, or the Prince of Wales income and their voluntary tax arrangements (Either one pay considerably more voluntarily than he does on similar incomes!) his own tax evasion is a disgrace. How does he do it? Like most people who say one thing about the tax the rest of us must pay and do another - he uses "corporate" status to get away with a much lower tax rate and claim a plethora of "expenses" and "overheads" to wriggle out from under.

It must be said, so does that great organ of socialist propaganda, the Guardian. It's "Holding Company" is based offshore and pays token taxes in the UK. So next time the Guardian accuses one of the banks, or a wealthy individual of "tax evasion" let's just remember that the pot calling the saucepan black is only to distract us. One is as guilty as the other in this.

To add insult to injury, I have a small pension and a State Pension. Last year I earned an additional few hundred pounds - and got a tax bill from HMRC for a third of the extra money I'd earned. No allowance for the cost of the travel I had to do to get there to do the work, and no overnight expenses allowed either. I suppose someone has to pay off the national debt and for Mr Blair's handouts to the benefit dependents.

Obviously I have to earn in the same league as Mr Blair to qualify for a bit of tax relief ...

Aaaaaaargh!

I hate bureaucracy and I particularly hate bureaucrats.

I have just wasted an entire morning trying to get someone in South Africa to see sense. They want documents from me that I cannot provide. Why do I need to beat these morons? Well, I suppose I could just throw in the towel and let the Old Mega Insurance keep the money, but the stubborn streak in me says I won't. I had a small pension plan there many years ago. I made it paid up when I left there 25 years ago. Now I want my money.

It's not as if I'm trying to take millions out. I'll leave that to the Zumas, Mugabes and Malemas of this world. What I have translates into about €2,000 - not a fortune by any manner of means. But I'd prefer it in my bank and not theirs!

The problem is they now have no record of my leaving SA or of my tax clearance. I provided an affidavit as instructed. Ah! Not good enough, the Commissioner of Oaths has only stamped the German side. You must have the English side stamped as well! Useless to point out that the said official is not likely to affix his stamp to the English version if he can't read it and be sure it says the same as the German version. Oh no! Ah, and you must provide proof you are not resident in SA! OK, so I provided, as instructed, proof of my tax status in the UK. No, not good enough, you must give us a letter from the HMRC to say you are registered there! What the blazes is a Tax Return and Statement of Tax then? Ah, but you could be secretly living in SA and just paying tax there. You must also provide us with a certificate from Germany that says you are permanently resident there.

No problem, here it is - in German. No! It must be in English! Go and get an English one ...

I struggle on. It's only taken 9 months to get this far ...

Life Choice?

There are definitely times when I despair for Christianity and the debate surrounding some of the candidacy for the US Presidential race is raising that specter again. Once again it is idiots whipping up a storm about "Gays" and "gay Rights," and once again they are reaching for their Bibles and their narrow interpretations of it to support their crusades. Fundamentalists of all religions tend to do untold harm to both the message of a faith and to those who try to follow it honestly and prayerfully. The extremists, though, always manage to steal the limelight and cloak themselves in the fable - at least in many media reports - as "the one true interpreter" of that Faith.

I was reminded of this when I read this report in the Guardian (NOT my usual paper!) I find myself, once again, wishing I could take the book they so abuse and bash it into their heads until they get to understand it. It seems that once again, the focus of the "conservatives" (I've always considered myself to be one, but now I'm not so sure!) is on lifestyles, specifically, those now labelled "Gay." Yes, there are three clear references to this in the Old Testament and a possible one or two (If you really stretch the imagination!) in the New. Once more all the Fundamentalists - those who want to "interpret" everything literally in the Bible are up in arms and claiming, yet again, that the choice of lifestyle is - choice! They refuse to accept the plethora of medical evidence to the contrary and continue to shout and scream about people in this category being "evil." It makes me want to foam at the mouth and bite someone in the hope I'll give them rabies!

First of all, the Bible is NOT one book, it is a library all on its own. All of the books in it were written at different times and in many different languages. Not all of it is "history" and will someone please, please, please, tell the American Fundamentalist sects that it was not written in English! Nor was most of it written in Hebrew! The original books were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and possible even in Persian in places. The modern Bible as we have it is a translation of, for the Old Testament, the Hebrew canon known as the Talmud for the King James Version (Which came from Babylon/Persia) and the Hellenic Greek version known as the Septuagint for the Vulgate version used by the Early Church and by the Roman Catholics and Lutherans. Until the invention of the printing press and movable type, it had to be copied by hand and, inevitably, mistakes were made by copyists. Eventually, in around 1500, it was agreed that there should be one "Authorised" text and hundreds of copies were examined to find the most reliable - and those became the text we have now.

The KJV (Published in 1611) drew on a completely new set of sources. The Talmud for the Old and the most reliable copies they could find of the originals for the New. This is why the KJV has fewer books in it than the Vulgate.

Right, that's the history out of the way, now to "interpretation."

You cannot interpret or understand the text of this collection without knowing what you are looking at and what it represents. Nor can you understand it outside of the setting of the book you are reading. In other words, the background is important. Why? Put simply, because the writers of the Biblical Books didn't write down all the background details, just the important bits - so they left out everything the reader was expected to "know." Why? Remember, paper wasn't easily come by, they wrote on papyrus which came from Egypt, or on hides, which had to be prepared and cost an arm and a leg. So you didn't waste space with details your reader should know. Except that they didn't consider the idiots who would read it 2,500 years later, insist that it should be read literally, in a different language and with a totally different understanding of the culture and events it is describing.

Modern readers also fail to understand that Genesis is an "Epic" rather like a Norse Saga, it has elements of fact in it but it is presented as a collection of folk memories and poetic explanations for an agrarian society. It is not a scientific treatise! Nor is it a "factual" "history." Daniel, Job, Ruth and Esther are "stories," and written to render theological argument and discussion accessible to the writers audience - again, probably never expecting it to be read and interpreted in a different culture 2,000 years on! The Psalms are poems and prayers, again, written at different times and in different places and circumstances - and certainly NOT all written by King David. Please people - learn the background history!

The Bible certainly does, in Leviticus, condemn same sex acts. But elsewhere there are suggestions that several of the characters in it were, if not actively engaging in those acts, at least in 'partnerships' with others of their sex. You cannot read these things literally. Christianity as a whole condemns the act, not the person, though, at the moment, with all the scandal of abuse in the Roman Church, there is a tendency toward both. This flags up another of the problems with the interpretation many fundamentalists place on certain texts from the Bible.

In the Middle Ages a tendency developed to seek texts which supported certain policies, doctrines and actions. In part the Reformation tried to sweep that away - but the allure for the newly free and self proclaimed "prophets" of various Protestant Factions soon brought it back, with a vengeance. In the process the whole Gospel message of love and redemption in and through Christ got buried beneath an avalanche of Old Testament fire and brimstone. And the Fundamentalists love that!

The Guardian article is concerned with homophobia, a dreadful word in my view, introduced amid a plethora of new "phobias" which we are now told are "institutionalized" in just about everyone and everything. I reject that, but I do accept that a very small minority of extreme fundamentalists in all religions are "institutionally" afraid of homosexuality. The associate it with a disease, and are afraid their children may be "corrupted" by catching it. Frankly that is best described by a word I can't use here.

In the 1960s a certain Dr Kinsey claimed 10% of the US male population was homosexual. That has since been debunked (And Kinsey and his wife exposed as sexual predators and voyeurs), though the number remains a significant portion of the population. It is also extremely likely to be the same proportion in every population. It is not a "disease" transmitted by contact or association, someone not inclined that way is most unlikely to even consider trying it. Why, therefore, can we not get past this and recognise that just as people are different colours, have different beliefs and cultures and lifestyles - they are still among God's children? They don't "choose" to be that way - I remember being asked by a Gay man once, "would you choose to be a member of a hated minority if it was up to you?"

So please, don't fall into the trap of seeking texts in the Bible to support your fear. Please, will somebody call a halt to the proliferation of Fundamentalist sects and interpretations of this really good and useful book? Please stop making ALL Christians look ridiculous! I don't mind your worshipping in your own way and even pondering on the meaning of scripture - I do, a lot - but I do mind very much being made to look like some hatefilled bigot by idiots who can't accept that, if they actually looked at what the stories say and what science tells us - there is no conflict and certainly nothing to fear!

Please will somebody stop the abuse of the message of the Gospel by the selection of out of context texts to fight their political battles and express their very unChristian ideas?

The Book of Jonah (Another of the allegorical "story" books) tells the story that Jonah, having gone to Nineveh after trying to evade the call to do so, is angry that, when the city repents and turns back to God, the Lord does not destroy it. He takes umbrage and goes into a monumental sulk. God challenges him with the words; "Have you any right to be angry?" Perhaps that is something those who parade their "faith" and throw about texts to "prove" their points should take time to consider. The Gospel challenges us to embrace those who are different and to show compassion - not to stand in the market place and shout condemnation!

I guess you can tell I am cross  ...

Whatchamucallit season ...

The last few years I've been finding myself more and more annoyed by the attempts to banalise everything in Britain, but particularly to secularise anything that might suggest Christianity. Christmas has been an early casualty, the banal "Winterval" title being imposed by at least one City Council alongside bans on Nativity Plays in schools, Christmas decorations in offices, because they might offend people of "other faiths" and even attempts to remove any religious significance from Christmas Cards. I'm afraid cards that read "Happy Holidays" arriving in my mail don't get acknowledged or displayed.

Ironically, my many Muslim and Jewish friends have expressed real distress and horror at this assault on Christianity, perhaps aware that their faiths will be next if this succeeds.

When members of these faiths actually stood up and declared that they found nothing whatever offensive in the celebration of Christmas, the usual 'elf an' Safe'y reasons were trotted out - they're a fire hazard it was declared in one Civil Service office. The truth is somewhat less altruistic. This is really about trying to impose official atheism on everyone. In recent years there have been numerous attempts to re-pagainse Christmas. I have read tracts by supposedly educated people declaring that the "Christians merely took over the Saturnalia" or "imposed their fairy stories on the Druid's winter solstice" and the usual run of blather about how these festivals were 'celebrated' by this or that non-Christian group in the past.

In fact, Christianity did "Christianise" a number of festivals. After all, if people were used to celebrating something at a particular time in the calendar, why not continue it? I was reminded of this by an article by Neil Gaiman in The Independent. Growing up in South Africa (Somehow Christmas associated with snow still hasn't quite sunk into my psyche!) we had friends of different faiths as well, and some of them Jewish and at least one Hindu, all celebrated Christmas enthusiastically. In fact it was usual for Jewish organisations and at least one Muslim one, to arrange for their members to undertake essential services in hospitals, fire and rescue services and so on so that their "Christian" employees could take time off to celebrate with their families. All of that seems to have been submerged now in the UK at least by the tide of anti-religious garbage spewed out in the name of "equality and fairness."

The odd thing is that when you start to investigate the origins of the claims that these festivals - mainly Christmas and Easter - are "Pagan" in their origins you soon discover that the authority for this lies in the inventiveness of some of the more strange "secret societies" that grew up in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Like a lot of other things, these sources are deeply suspect, rely on pure invention and a lot of forgery and really don't stand a lot of scrutiny. Sadly though, like most propaganda, once it has entered the ears of those to idle to look at things for themselves, it becomes the accepted truth - especially when it is woven into the fantasies of Dan Brown's work and others.

Christmas is Christmas, even in Muslim countries. The problem in the West is that we've taken the reason for marking it out of the equation and turned it into a purely commercial event designed only to relieve as many as possible from their savings and to make everyone who can't afford to do so feel guilty about it. But it's not the con-artists in marketing and advertising who are to blame according to our secularisers - its the Churches who want to keep God in it who are responsible for the "guilt."

We won't have a Christmas tree this year, we haven't a place for it, but we will celebrate the feast with church, a great meal with family and possibly a glass or two with our neighbours. There is a star displayed in our window and there will be other decorations once Advent draws to a close.

I live in hope that one day Britain will wake up and realise that those who wish to denigrate everything on the grounds that it "may" be offensive to someone need to be treated with the contempt they deserve and ejected from office and from any public forum. They are nothing but parasites who debilitate our society and will, if allowed to, destroy everything of any value in our culture. It is time to call a halt to their activities.

It is the season of Christmas, and the joy is in the sharing of that celebration, with or without the assault on a credit card.

Bureaucratic Garbage? Or Diplomatic Games?

Yesterday was frustrating in the extreme. Filled in all the forms, obtained all the photographs, certificate of insurance, proof of residence, etc., etc., etc... Then got told I have to produce a certified set of finger and palm prints before the visa will be processed.

Incandescent describes my mood, but it doesn't do to let that show, it only gives the little oiks satisfaction. After all, what this is really all about is putting "foreign devils" in their place and making sure they know they are absolutely powerless to resist. I suspect that this is a nice new way to annoy citizens of countries you are trying to irritate into starting a war - or to show them just how powerless they are to force anyone to change their politics or their stance on anything.

I'm not going to risk jeopardising my chances today by revealing which country I'm dealing with - some know anyway. I've been there numerous times and the people are great - the government sucks, big time, but that is not my problem. Of course, it isn't helped by well-meaning airheads constantly sounding off about how bad they are or by politicians making "gestures." All it breeds is a 'tat for tat' attitude and provides the 'bad hats' with more propaganda to play to the folks at home. "Look how easily we defy the British! We make them crawl to our demands and they can do nothing about it."

So, I look forward to another wasted day tomorrow, pursuing a visa for which I have already been "pre-approved" but for which I must now kowtow to the petty rules and stupid bureaucrats at the local consulate. It promises to be a frustrating waste of another day ...

Hidden Agendas ...

I have been watching, with some interest, the stream of anti-Christian innuendo and briefing in the media for some time. One of the more irritating is the description of the Oslo murderer as a "Christian Extremist" merely on the grounds that he apparently visited some 'extreme' Christian websites. The fact that he was never a member of any church or congregation, held views that were extremely critical of Christian precepts and then went on to carry out a mass murder attack in complete contravention of everything the Gospels teach, is apparently irrelevant to a good anti-Christian headline.

Recent conversations with my children and comments I have seen posted to blogs that are Christian in character, made me do a bit more digging. What emerges is that many of the Atheist and Humanist 'information' leaflets and 'teaching information packs' actually contain material which ignorant teachers are taking as fact, when it is not.

The object of the exercise is to undermine the single book which underpins our faith. The Bible is described in many of the tracts I have seen as "composed by different authors and much amended by the church, to reflect a questionable 'history' for which there is little archeological evidence." The early books, namely the Pentateuch, the "Five Books" of Moses, are dismissed as "fantasy," a collection of fairy-tales and fantasies. The material I have seen cites Egyptologists as saying "there is no reference to Moses or the Israelites on any Ancient Egyptian monument. Given that the Egyptians had a habit of defacing any monument to any ruler who fell out of favour, or was overthrown, and you have to question that. They also had a good 'spin' going on other things.

Ramses II is generally depicted as always 'triumphant' yet other records from other kingdoms of the time show that he and his armies regularly got beaten and chased out of territories they invaded. The fact is that there may even be a mismatch between the currently accepted "dating" used by Egyptologists where they have the dates of the Pharaohs arranged consecutively, when in fact quite a number of them may have reigned simultaneously. Then there is the city excavated in the delta which actually fits a number of the Biblical description, and contains a deliberately destroyed important tomb and many defaced monuments. The official line is that it is the "wrong period" to be the city mentioned in the Bible, but you also have to recognise that the Muslim World does not want anything which would 'prove' any aspect of the Bible as it would legitimise the Jewish claims to Israel.

Turning to the next set of 'books' in the Bible we have Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. These are fragments of the originals, probably the work of many scholars piecing together remembered fragments of destroyed earlier 'Court' records. The current form of these books dates from the return from exile of the leading families after the nation was overrun and suppressed by the Babylonian invasions. How accurate are they? Probably pretty close to the original, though very incomplete. Ironically records from the southern Arabian peninsula, Oman and even Babylon (Modern Iraq) suggest that there is far more truth in these books than any archeologist is prepared to admit for fear, possibly, of upsetting their Muslim friends who control access to the sites they want to examine. Politics there fore dictate that anything which supports anything in the Old Testament must be suppressed. That, of course, plays directly into the hands of the Atheist and Humanist Secularisers who wish to destroy Christianity.

Destroy the Book which provides the foundations of Faith - and you destroy faith.

The remaining books of the Old Testament fall into a category which may be more readily labelled as "philosophy." The Prophets of old certainly wrote with passion and fire in their hearts and pens and one of the things any open minded reader soon spots is that many of the things they raged against in their society are observable in our own. Human nature certainly doesn't change a great deal and hasn't in the 3,000 odd years since those ancient writers began compiling these books. The books contain poetry, allegorical stories and political commentary, some of that last, again, is very close to the bone for some of our present political ideas.

Does their being "philosophical" make them any less valid than, say, the writings of Bertrand Russell? I would say no, but I can hear the screams of rage from the Atheist community even as I write. Certainly much of the historical reference they make is slowly being verified, though not without huge amounts of opposition, obfuscation and resistance from those for whom the Bible is an "enemy" artifact to be destroyed at all costs.

Our children are also painstakingly taught that the entire Gospel story is a fantasy, invented by the Roman Catholic Church in some of the more pointed papers, to "enslave" the hearts and minds of the gullible. According to what at least two of my children were taught, the crucifixion and the resurrection are pure fantasy, the invention of people trying to overthrow the religious leaders of the time. They draw heavily for this on later Gnostic Heresy documents and, when these are exposed as false, fall back on the arguments that "there is no mention of Jesus in any historical record of the period." This is not, in fact, true, but it depends on what you refer to as a "record" and how you read it. There is a brief reference in the "Histories" of Josephus, but more tellingly, there is a record of the fact that Pontius Pilate seriously botched something which led to his being replaced and sent to a lesser post as far as possible from Rome. That, plus the fact that he eventually committed suicide.

It is also not surprising that no records survive of these events in Jerusalem, the Romans made sure of that when they raised the Temple and Jerusalem in 70AD. The Sanhedrin records and all the Temple records were thoroughly and systematically destroyed. All the noble Jewish families were imprisoned, sold off as slaves and sent into exile all over the Roman Empire. Where the Babylonians probably left at least some in situ, the Romans made very sure that only peasants and workers remained. And they then went on the rampage against the Christians as well.

For me, perhaps the most conclusive proof that Christianity is founded on truth, is the fact that there was such a determined effort to erase all evidence of the events described in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The story, the evidence and the faith survived that and I'm pretty sure it will survive this latest assault. It was said by a far greater author than I, that the absence of faith does not mean an absence of belief. Now those who are faithless will believe in everything ...

As a Christian I am tired of being told by the terminally ignorant, that "there is no historical proof of anything in the Bible" or that "The Church" teaches that the earth is flat, that we are the centre of the universe or any of the other zany "evidence" they can and do dredge up from the extremities of faith. It is time for those of mainstream belief to stand up and refuse to accept these canards any longer. Does this make me an "extreme" Christian?

No it does not, but it does mean that, from now on, I intend to demand the same respect for my beliefs from public organisations and commentators that they show for atheists, humanists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Gays, Lesbians and everyone else that my Faith apparently offends. The laws that 'protect' the rights of all these others also 'protect' me and those who share my beliefs - it's time to start demanding their even handed application. It is time to expose the "hidden" agenda behind these assaults.

I'm angry enough to write a Blog Post

I have scolded the BBC via Twitter for giving Red Ken airtime - they won't listen, but it made me feel better. He and his cronies have taught a generation that they are entitled to everything without any effort, hamstrung the police to the point that they are powerless and all he cares about is trying to be elected as mayor again. He also has the "entitlement" disease.

In fairness to Red Ken (but very begrudgingly), all politicians of all parties are to blame - between them they have:

- removed vocational training
- devalued degrees and tried to shoehorn non-academic children into an overloaded higher education system
- introduced mountains of debt for graduates, making it seem impossible to earn enough to pay it off
- kept wages low to please big industry (who political parties rely on for funds)
- restricted housing to keep house prices beyond the reach of the average young worker - another blow to anyone paying off student loans
- removed the tools that enable the police to control rioters and put them in fear of being sued or suspended for doing their jobs
- reduced police numbers to levels that make it impossible for the police to deal with normal levels of crime, let alone riots
- adopted a soft touch approach to punishing crime, so no one's scared of being caught

The rioters are not poor misunderstood little children - they are cynical exploiters of a society where it is easier to make money by stealing, either from the government (benefits) or by looting. They have been brought up to worship celebrities and covet expensive flashy items. No teenager is prepared to postpone their dreams for 10, 15 or 20 years, so when they look at their options, they choose benefits and/or crime, because that looks like the best way to get what they want out of life. Benefits aren't generous at all, but if you have a choice between hard work for minumum wage vs sitting at home on benefits, if you have been trained to expect good things for no effort, which seems better? Those who choose to work have as many obstacles put in their way as possible, so the lazy ones think they're mugs for trying.

...and since the politicians all took part in protests in their youth and they wear rose-tinted specs when they look back at those days, they had no idea about what they could unleash. Politicians think that protest is a middle class hobby and all terribly well-behaved. They should have taken note of how the make up of the mob has changed in the 90's, when the poll tax and Reclaim the Streets riots started.

I can't find a link to the story, but I heard on the radio this morning that an immigrant community in West London banded together to defend their local businesses, so there is some hope. There are also clean up crews being organised all across London in defiance of the rioters - Londoners are angry and are determined to show that these people are not the majority and are not going to be tolerated. I just hope it doesn't turn into vigilanteism.

And then all the BBC can say is this ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14459127

…while the media wring their hands over how mean it would be for the police to use crowd control methods that actually work, blame the Tories (rather than all politicians, which I think is more accurate) and blame social deprivation, my friend in Bromley tells me that police are gathering in preparation for more unrest – in the middle of the day in Bromley, of all places!

The Postulant

Pro-Life, or Pro-Death?

The current 'scandal' in the Guardian, that rag of monumental misinformation subsidised by the UK taxpayers and the BBC Licence Fee, is the supposed "expose'" by a "charity" called "Education for Choice" which - presumably with completely innocent and open minded intentions - sent a "mystery shopper" to the offices of another charity which opposes abortion. Surprise, surprise, in a series of very loaded questions, the "mystery shopper" managed to "expose" the charity's part-time counselor as "failing to offer advice which was pro-abortion." The Blog Archbishop Cranmer has a great deal more detail on the issue, including the blatant bias and anti-ethics and immorality of the complainants.

According to "Education for Choice" an unborn child has no life and no right to life. Their counselors never mention any alternative - such as adoption - to any woman seeking advice. According to them, there is only one option and it isn't life for the unborn child.

I have a very simple solution to this "scandal" as the Guardian and the editor of The Humanist portray it - I would like the government to make it compulsory for all pro-abortion counselors to attend and watch abortions on the ultra-sound scans while they are performed BEFORE they are allowed to be licenced to counsel for it. The second change I want to see is one which switches the funding away from abortion. At present these "clinics" are paid per abortion and receive nothing if there isn't one. I suggest that only abortions which are necessary to save the life of the mother, or the child is likely to be still-born or seriously 'non-viable' should be paid for. All others should be counselled for adoption or pay their own way.

In Britain's current climate of Atheist/Humanist prejudice replacing religious morality, immoral action is now accepted as "moral" and those who dare to say otherwise find themselves pilloried and lampooned - or, as in the case of the charity LIFE - with the likes of The Humanist and the Guardian demanding their charitable status and licence to offer counselling withdrawn.

Perhaps it is time for someof us on the other side of the fence to pay them in their own coin - by running similar entrapment visits, collecting evidence of their malpractice - and then demanding their being struck off.

It really is time to stand up to these immoral, prejudiced and frankly poisonous individuals.

Justice/Injustice

A report on the Yahoo News Feed caught my eye. It tells of a policeman attempting to stop a stolen car being hit when the 29 year old banned driver hit his police car and then attempted to run away. The injured policeman got up, chased the thief and Tasered him before collapsing from his own injuries. Follow the link to see this on the Police cameras.

The disgraceful thing is that when this worthless piece of filth appeared in court, the Prosecution had obviously 'plea bargained' to reduce the charge from attempted murder to a lesser charge of "driving dangerously." The Judge handed down a sentence of 23 months ... Is it any wonder crime is paying so well in the UK?

As the comments on the original post showed, many feel as I do about the manner in which criminals are now routinely treated as "victims" and let off lightly. I fully expect to read, at some point, that the Policeman has been disciplined for daring to use his Taser gun.

Tax Raid ...

I wondered why the last two months, my pension payments have been seriously reduced. I've finally managed to dig out the paperwork, find the contact numbers and ring the Pension provider.

Guess what? It turns out that HMRC have "reviewed" my tax for the last couple of years and decided, unilaterally and based on ONE good year while I was a sole trader, that they would collect tax on the highest potential earnings ... This despite having been advised in writing by my accountant, by me and by my accountant again, that I had ceased trading as of 1 April 2010. Apparently HMG are now so desperate for cash that they will even take tax against what you MIGHT earn.

It has taken the better part of two days to get this sorted out, and with not a little inconvenience and expense on my part. Will I get back the extra money they have already taken? Probably not without a protracted legal battle - although they can damned well charge me enormous penalties for not paying them immediately.

Do I love Civil Servants and Tax Collectors? Let's just say I hope there is a Hell - and it's reserved for them.