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.

Gay History?

A recent conversation with a friend had me thinking - some would say dangerous - and then I did a little digging. The subject at hand was the latest law passed in California, a State which some say is bankrupt and struggling to provide proper education among other things. The law requires schools to teach children in their first years a subject called "Gay History" and aims to ensure that children "learn that some folk have different sexual attractions." OK, but this is also a State which has outlawed any religious education, prayers in schools or any form of religious activity and celebration. So now we have an attempt to teach children about a life style at an age they haven't even discovered much more about sex than that boys and girls have different 'rude' bits ...

I find it interesting that the label "Homosexual" is a 20th Century invention, and the highjacking of the word "Gay" to mean someone of a different sexual orientation is less than 40 years old. Prior to these labels being applied, these different sexual preferences existed and there was certainly discrimination (You could get hung in Britain for "Sodomy."). The wheel has now swung, in my humble opinion, to far the other way. Instead of simply promoting acceptance that some folk are simply "other gendered" and allowing them to live quietly in their own way, the legislators have almost made it compulsory for us all to be "Gay." There are plenty of examples in history - the Spartan society partnered boys with men in Gymnasia and did the same with the girls, partnering girls with women in the female version of the 'Gymnasia.'. Contemporary accounts tell of how many young men when "married" at the appropriate age, failed to have any sort of relationship with their "wives" and continued to live in relationships with their "friends."

While they all attack "religion" - shorthand for "Christianity" - as bigoted or restrictive of choice, they fail to recognise that the great atheists, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao etc, were even more intolerant and sent anyone suspected (You didn't have to prove it!) of being "homosexual" to their death camps. All Muslim countries still have death sentences for homosexual behaviour, yet there are as many men and women there of that persuasion as in the west. In fact, most of these societies still practice "mentoring" - a form of pedophilia - where a man may take a younger boy as a "companion" ...

Historically "same sex love" has been with us from the beginning of time. All tribal cultures have it, all the ancient civilisations allowed it and the Biblical injunctions against sexual activity are actually aimed at the "fertility" rites practiced in Pagan Temples. The Ancient Greeks fully accepted the practice of men joining in "union" and even encouraged it. Men often took teenage boys as lovers and it was accepted. Only really since the Reformation has there been this absolute and outright antipathy toward "different" sexual orientation, yet, even in Europe, one finds it being openly accepted right up to the advent of the 19th Century...

I believe that sexual orientation is genetic and probably influenced in the womb. I do not believe it is a "lifestyle" choice by the individual. I also believe that the efforts to legislate against all forms of discrimination are ultimately creating greater problems than the ones they are supposedly solving. Like you I think the dumbing down of education will come back to bite and bite hard in a few more years.

I have lived my life according to the principle of allowing other folk to live and let live. A pity others cannot accept that we could do the same if they just stopped meddling. Considering the concern these same people generally claim for the prevention of child abuse - this sort of law is almost the opposite in that it comes close to inviting the child to seek to be abused. Assuming, of course, that the mere fact that it is blatant indoctination isn't in itself child abuse as is so often claimed about teaching your child about your faith ...

Projects

Current projects include getting my first two Harry Heron books (Their Lordships Request ... and Out of Time) converted to be available as eBooks, one of them needing a new cover for the project. A second project is finally getting the fourth book in that series published. This is happening through Abbot Press - and appropriate publisher I think, given my nom de plume for this blog.

The cover art for On The Run is currently being created by my brother, based in Cape Town. And I don't mind admitting that he is a superb artist, in fact his work is superb. One of these days I'll get his permission to post a few photographs of some of his projects here. They certainly deserve to be more widely known. I wish I could draw or paint the way he does!

Once these three "projects" are completed, I plan to return to my search for a publisher for my book based on St Patrick. Writing that was a labour of love for me and I really felt close to the saint as I wrote it. Researching him, his period and the sort of conditions and life he would have experienced was enriching, sometimes appalling and definitely confirming in faith. My ambition is to see it in print and preferably on the bookshelves of every bookstore I can reach.

Yes, I have several other books I want to write - and all I can say is - watch this space ...

Fire Safety in ... a Massage Parlour???

The Greater Manchester Fire Safety team must have had a lot of research to do for this prosecution...

Massage parlour manager gets community service for fire safety breaches

I confess that I almost spilled my coffee laughing over the report that, alongside the blocking of a fire exit by using it as a "changing area," several of the rooms were considered 'dingy' and one at least was equipped with "restraints, manacles and chains." Well, I suppose that does restrict the options for escape in the event of fire - but how do you 'Risk Assess' these activities ...

OK, OK, I'll get serious for a moment. It can be done, but how you'd discuss it with the 'client' and keep a straight face I'm not at all sure.

Foreign 'Aid'

Is always a touchy subject, never more so than when the economy is in trouble and 'cuts' are being made to budgets at home. An article posted at the Cumberland Lodge blog made me think on this and do a little digging. Certainly the European countries, the UK included, make some quite generous payments to a variety of foreign countries in "Development Aid" and other "packages." At the same time all of them are having to make hefty cuts to their own budgets at home.

It does raise the question - just how much of the "Aid" money actually reaches the "client" and lifts people out of the "poverty" it is supposed to be alleviating. Some of the most cynical commentators say it is Zero, but even the most generous estimate that it is anywhere between 20 and 60% - no more. Where does it go then? In fairness a sizable chunk does go in wages and administration, but from experience I can also state that a big slice goes in five star hotels, top of the range vehicles and first class air travel for the people "on the ground" - the front men and women actually in the country supposedly overseeing the delivery.

Some 'aid' packages though never actually reach the county of origin in cash. These are packages where the money is paid to contractors in the donor country to provide a service or deliver a programme in the receiving land. Personally I don't have a major problem with this - expect in the manner it is usually presented, which is a form of double accounting. "We're 'giving' $XX,XXX,XXX to rebuild the *insert service of choice* in *insert country of choice* makes a great headline - except that the workers, the main contractor and the materials are all sourced in the donor country and shipped to the site, then returned home. The money never actually touches the country supposed to be being helped. So just who is actually being 'aided' here? The recipients don't get anything except the most menial jobs and often a service or infrastructure they can't use or maintain - because it is a mismatch with what they actually need. The 'donor' on the other hand gets to recycle the money in their own economy and created a lot of well paid jobs "at home."

Then there is the other kind of "Aid" where the cash is paid over the the locals to build certain things. Great, except that the contracts are awarded to relatives, job creation is still minimal or very low paid and the contractor creams off a huge profit and provides cheap and shoddy goods. Nor does the money stay in local circulation - nope, it soon hits the banks in Switzerland and then the Big Shops in Paris, London ...

Anything the UN gets money to provide suffers badly from this last example, with anything left after all the UN Administrators have finished flying round the world First Class and camping in Five Star accommodation is pretty minimal anyway.

So what is the right way to go about this. As one person put it, it comes down to following the Christian Principle - or saving the Western Way of Life. You can't actually do both. The Christian Principle says I should share my good fortune and wealth in such a way that I help others to improve their lot. Preserving the Western Way, means making sure that Number One is taken care of.

Government tells me that I need to support the Aid Programmes because if I do not the developing nations will fail, their people will rise up and illegal economic migration will get worse. I am also told that raising the economic profiles of these nations will mean fewer births, less poverty and more democracy. I don't see how, because in order to create jobs, my economics professor used to tell me I have to create a demand, which requires an increase in supply. So far, so good - more wealth in a developing country creates a demand for more goods and that means there needs to be more jobs. Or does it?

What really happens is that as demand rises, so do wages. At a certain point it becomes uneconomic to continue manufacturing in the original country, so the factory moves. Country A - a nett Aid provider - loses the 1000 Plus jobs - and Country B - a nett Aid receiver - gets them. Costs in Country A go up, because now there is additional cost to importing what was once made there, so wages rise again. So do taxes, and so does social security costs because more and more jobs move "offshore." Now Country A has a large unemployed group drawing 'benefit' from the tax payer, who is also paying the Aid bill - and Country B has the jobs (at minimal wages still) and the "Development Aid."

To be honest, I'm not at all sure what the answer is to this conundrum. I do know that Christian Principles state that "Charity begins at home." Once I have taken care of the needs of those in my own family, parish, diocese, nation - then I can start giving help to those beyond its shores. What is worrying though, is that we have now developed a society in which Aid is something we feel compelled to give and upon which far to many despot ridden lands depend, and in which a large part of our own society at home lives entirely off the 'benefits' they receive from the State.

At some point, if my understanding of economics is correct, the demand for Aid and Benefit must exceed the ability of the taxpayer to supply it. And I think we may have almost reached that point.

Rising or Falling?

Remember the hysterical Greenpeace predictions of a little over 10 years ago? The ones that predicted sea level rises that would flood most of Britain and Ireland and submerge all the small island nations? Well, there seems to be something else happening.

The blog Climate etc... examines the latest reports and includes some interesting archeological evidence which suggests that the sea levels may actually be lower now than they were in Roman times and could even be falling. There is certainly something cyclic about the sea level - and I don't just mean the tide!

Dr Judith Curry is a Climate Scientist, one who fits neatly into neither the 'for' or the 'skeptic' camps. She is, however, someone who insists on a 'cut the hype' and let's see the science approach. I find her insights very refreshing. The post is a little long, but it is very interesting and worth the read.

Selling out the Jews ...

Western society has a very chequered relationship with the Jewish people, going all the way back to the Romans and possibly beyond that. Certainly ever since the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem and the renaming of their land and the city in 70 AD, the Jewish Diaspora has faced hostility, persecution, ethnic cleansing and an barrage of what is best termed propaganda and racial prejudice. Individually and collectively they are usually hardworking, inventive and decent folk - so why does the West in particular hate them so? One reason, given me by a Jew, is that we find we can't patronise them. Another is that no matter what we have done to them - from burning them in Clifford's Tower in York, to expelling them and passing laws barring them from living in "Christian" lands, to rounding them up and placing them in Extermination Camps where the most horrendous and barbaric "medical" experiments were conducted on selected victims, we have still not eradicated their faith, their race or their spirit of independence.

It is popular in today's western culture to take a stance on the existence of Israel as either "an unfortunate fact, one causing all the tension in the Middle East" or, as in the case of the latest bunch of terrorist loving morons from the UK, "it's an illegal state with no right of existence and must be brought down." That, of course, suits the attitude of the Islamic Arab nations, who have historically persecuted, and still persecute both Christians and Jews, despite their own religious Book calling for them to recognise both as 'true' Believers.

The British have long disliked the Jewish people. When we acquired control of the Ottoman Province of "Palestine" or more correctly, Jordan, in 1917, the pompous British Administrators found to their chagrin that the Jews, despite the obstacles the Ottomans and the Arab populace had placed in their way, were very much still a large presence and what was worse, actually thriving pretty nicely. The Jewish collective farms, Kibbutz, were the only parts that actually produced large enough volumes of produce to sell profitably. What was worse, the Jewish people, some of them admittedly 'settlers' following the Russian Pogroms and ethnic cleansing of the 19th Century, were pretty close to a majority.

Various politicians began by promising, in 1919 under the League of Nations Protectorate charter, by promising to create a "Jewish Homeland State." That was, of course, compromised by the need to keep their Arab client "Kings" on board and the struggle in Iraq for independence. As is always the case, the politicians, by not understanding any of the history, made a mess of it and the result was the Jewish rebellion in which we labelled the Jewish "Freedom Fighters" as "gangsters and subversives." The fact is the Stern Gang were probably much more gentlemanly than Hammas or the PLO! At least the Stern organisation targeted military and British Administrators (I guess I agree with them on that last one!) and not general civilians. The Stern Gang was, in fact a response to the patent British duplicity whereby they, having promised a Jewish Home State, handed control to their pal and ally against the Ottomans - and made the Hashemite leader, Sherif Abdullah of Mecca, King.

To make matters worse, if they could be, the British establishment maintained a stance throughout the 1930's that Hitler, despite his utterances and seizure of Jewish owned property, presented no real threat to European Jews. In fact the civil service placed innumerable obstacles in the way of any Jew applying for a visa to escape the Nazi persecutions. Even after Crystal Nacht, senior civil servants were briefing Ministers and in turn Parliament, that such events were a "natural expression of frustration" at the wealth the Jews controlled and that there was no need to relax the immigration controls for this people.

Of course, once they could no longer deny what was happening, it became a great way to whip up public antipathy toward the "brutal Germans" - and now we had some victims to patronise as well. But, once the reality of the Death Camps really became public, the British showed their true colours again - making the "Rehabilitation Centres" virtual prisons in their efforts to prevent the natural desire of the survivors from seeking new lives away from the possibility of future purges. Those from the Eastern Bloc countries cannot be blamed for not wishing to be repatriated to homelands now firmly under the thumb of one of histories least acknowledged but most murderous dictators - 'Uncle' Joe Stalin. Even now, there is little acknowledgement among western historians of the 30 million or so Russian peasants - many of them Jews - who died under Stalin's orders.

Certainly, in 1945, the question of a Jewish Homeland became a real issue, and not unnaturally, the Jews wanted their traditional home, Israel and their traditional capital, Jerusalem. The British had, by this time, given promises to the Arabs that Jerusalem would be an Arab city and Israel would remain under Arab control. The attempt by Attlee and his cabinet of closet communists, to hand over full control to Jordan resulted in the 1947 war. The British government cannot say it had not been warned. They had - and how did they expect the Jews to respond to the public declarations by various Arabs in Israel at that time, that as soon as the British were out of there, they intended to erase the Jews from history?

So, we now have the mess that is the Middle East, brought about by the prejudice of the British Administrators and the tribal rivalries of the Middle East. Interestingly I note that the official history of the Kingdom of Jordan makes no mention whatever of the Jewish states that occupied that land. Reading the 'official' history one is left with the impression that there never was a Jewish nation.

What has sparked my writing this? Very simply this. There is now a proposal before the Security Council of the UN, apparently supported by the US and the EU, to unilaterally "recognise" a country called "Palestine" and its "capital" as Jerusalem. Such a move will automatically legitimise a new Middle Eastern war against Israel by her neighbours - and patently the Obama Administration intends to cut off support for Israel in any such conflict.

I am frankly appalled by this - but not at all surprised. Anti-Jewish sentiment is rife in Britain, as a simple scan of any news report of the Israel/Palestinian conflict will show. British policy is equally biased. The law against the "spreading of racial or religious hatred" is very swiftly applied if any Muslim (Or more usually someone acting as a self appointed 'guardian' of someone else's sensitivities) is "offended" by anything said or done by a Christian or a Jew - but Synagogues, Jewish graves and Jews are routinely insulted, spat upon, defaced or desecrated - and the Establishment and Police do nothing. Again, take a look at the puerile anti-Jew utterances that clutter any News Forum covering the Middle East. Even the 'Blood Libels' - the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (A 19th Century concoction dreamed up by the Russian Secret Police to justify the murder of Jews and the seizure of their land and property) is freely available for sale in London.

If this UN-sponsored folly is allowed to pass, I predict that the resulting conflict will bring about something far worse than mere "climate change" - it will bring about an Armageddon - and the sponsors of this moronic motion will be entirely responsible.