Archive for March, 2015

Oil companies will decide what happens to the Falklands.

March 30, 2015

Letter (not published ) to Daily Express (29/3/15):

Richard Madeley bemoans the defence cuts and frets that Kirchner may be girding up for an Argentine invasion of The Falklands.
It does not seem likely that Osborne and Cameron have not considered the threat posed by this woman. Either they have the defence of The Falklands well in hand, or they have some political solution in the process of negotiation.
I can’t believe that they will waste money on stationing a bigger armed force on this remote island, than we will have left on our own.
Although we are keeping Trident, it would be infantile to believe that, in the event of an invasion, we would reach for the nuclear button, or that the US would let us.
That leaves the political solution, which must derive from the oil associated with the waters off The Falklands and the dependent region of Antarctica.
The driving ideology of modern politicians suggest that some sort of Trade Treaty is being negotiated, whereby some major consortium will take charge of the whole issue and dispense profits to both Governments, in an agreed manner.
Something of this nature must be in hand, because to believe the possibility, that Osborne and Cameron would just let Kirchner send an unopposed armada to seize the islands, is to believe that they wish to anger The Nation and destroy the Tory party forever.

Live and Let Live.

March 30, 2015

Letter (not published ) to Daily Express (29/3/15):

In issues, such as that of the Gay Marriage cake, the guiding principle must be that of “Live and Let live”.
If two Gays wish to marry, then it harms no-one and should be accepted.
If an individual does not wish to approve that marriage, it hurts no-one and should be accepted as such.
Any claim of some slight, raised by this lack of approval, is an attempt to interfere with their belief’s, contravene’s the principle and should be regarded as such.
If, in the case of the cake-maker, he deliberately delayed his objection until too late to enable alternate resourcing, then that would be a contravention of the principle and merits an appropriate level of Social disapproval

why I won’t be voting @UKLabour / @Ed_Miliband

March 30, 2015

All along Ed Miliband has stated that he will be keeping the UK in the EU.
Even though UKIP has been making inroads on traditional Labour voting.

Instead of listening to Labour supporter’s, he has merely tried to deride this support as racism. Plugging the idea that UKIP only wants out of EU to prevent uncontrolled immigration.
Yet, strangely, it’s the anti-immigration part of UKIP policy that Labour has embraced, even though it conflicts with the EU demand for open borders.

So, why this un-democratic stance of denying us a referendum on whether we want to stay in the EU, or leave it?

Why this demand for unquestioning obedience to The Party and The Party Leader?

Since Labour gained a 4 point lead in the polls, he has re-announced this demand and claimed that it is necessary to support the interests of Business.

Which Business?
The small business’s, who struggle with an ever-increasing burden of red-tape and slow paying Large Business customer’s (particularly Large retailer’s)?    The small businesses and shops, which pay their taxes and provide most of the Employment?
I suspect he actually means the Big Businesses and Multi-nationals.
The Big Businesses, like Amazon, Starbucks, Goldmann-Sachs etc. who don’t pay their proper share of taxes.
The Big Businesses buying up privatised State funded assets, such as the NHS.
The Big Businesses, which will fully exploit TTIP to overturn any “unhelpful” consumer protection legislation, especially those which hurts their profits.
The Big Businesses, which like to own politicians, through party donations.

I can’t vote for “none of the above”. It’s not allowed.
As someone who believes in the NHS and in the principles of Christianity, I can’t vote Tory.
I want to vote UKIP (out of EU) but don’t trust them.
That leaves the NHA Party, The Greens and a few parties campaigning to have the “none of the above” option. Parties, unlikely to get enough publicity to gain a decent share of the vote.
I’ll probably still be undecided on polling day.

Every generation has its own acceptable forms of bigotry and snide.

March 16, 2015

My generation is considered by the present generation as homophobic, racist and sexist (the men, at least.).
Considering that we grew up surrounded by a previous generation, who had survived two world wars, where they were killing and being killed by people, who simply lived in another land and who had to wear different uniforms to sort themselves from us, it’s hardly surprising that patriotism and racism were part of our culture.
These were church-going people, who took their religion and the rule of Law seriously.

They were respectful of their “betters” (a lesson well learned through the Workhouse and The Depression)and did not question the doctrine that said you were hanged for murder and imprisoned for male homosexuality.

They knew men, who were “queer”, but so long as they pretended to be straight, or, never got caught, then nothing was said.

Think back on your History and remember that right up until Thatcher’s time, The National Wealth derived from, industries requiring heavy manual Labour. The tail end of the Industrial revolution was about steel, steam, coal etc. Cheap Muscle was needed and that derived from the family unit.

Men were made malleable by their familial responsibilities. Men were the bread winners, working long hours, with little personal reward, except authority in their own home.
Sexist attitude were obligatory for both men and women.

Women were restless after WWII, having seen that they could be the bread-winners in many workplaces but feminism was the province of middle class educated women, until the industrial age gave way to the digital age and it was realised that more malleable women could replace the truculent, unionised and war hardened males, at a much cheaper rate.

So, yes, we were immersed in a sexist, homophobic and racist culture, it’s, therefore, not surprising that the likes of Dave Whelan forget that his comments are unacceptable in Today’s culture.

I caution you to bear in mind that as our parents formed our culture, we formed yours.

You no longer tolerate racism, homophobia, or sexism but it wasn’t your generation, which brought in the legislation to outlaw racism, which legalised male homosexual acts, which legislated equal pay for women and brought in paid maternity leave.

Your generation has a duty to the next generation to guard against creating a Society, which is intolerant of everything. There are already signs of the liberalism turning into tyranny with new “-isms” being created. We have signs of obesity being made a crime (fattism), speechism i.e. the use of phrases like “the n-word” being acceptable alternatives to the actual word.
Old racist, homophobic, or sexist jokes, are being re-cycled by replacing generic terms with the name of an out of favour individual: Need a fat man? I’ve heard Eamon Holmes’ name used. A stupid, odious man? How about Pearse Morgan. A blonde joke? tricky; for a while it was Jade Goody, until she died of cancer, but you get the idea.
There are just as many bigots and snides in every generation, the difference lies in setting boundaries and recognising when they need re-aligning.

Asylum rules need to be re-examined

March 11, 2015
This is an email sent to the Daily express on 10/3/15. the published version is below it
To claim asylum in this country, it seems only necessary to claim that one would be persecuted in one’s own country.
Is this a sufficient qualification?
Would Idi Amin have qualified, when forced to flee Uganda? He had been a sergeant in The British Army, so had cause to make a claim.
Isn’t it about time that we re-examined the bases on which we grant political asylum, in terms of whether, or not, the claimants would be acceptable to the inhabitant’s of this country?
As has been shown a man, who has been evil in another country, is likely to be evil here ( Abu Hamza, maybe?).
If we grant them asylum, or even citizenship, why does that mean unto death?
If you are British born, or earn citizenship through some great deed for the Nation, then that should be lifelong but other relationship’s should be subject to divorce and on similar grounds.
Such people, if unable to return to their native land can always ask for passage to any other country foolish enough to take them in.
Why does it always have to be us?
However, as members of the EU, this may all be academic.
France co
uld give citizenship to those at Sangatte, or Brussels could set up an immigration office in Libya, as threatened.
Printed version
Time for the UK to end its foolish open-doors policy
TO claim asylum in this country it seems only necessary to say that one would be persecuted in one’s own country (“New migrant flood on way”, March 7).
Is this a sufficient qualification? Would the dictator Idi Amin have qualified when forced to flee Uganda?
Isn’t it about time that we re-examined the basis on which we grant political asylum, in terms of whether or not the claimants would be acceptable to the inhabitants of this country?
As has been shown, a man who has been evil in another country is likely to be evil here.
Such people, if unable to return to their native land can always ask for passage to any other country foolish enough to take them in.
Why does it always have to be us though?

response from my MP on TTIP, as passed to

March 11, 2015
My only concern is that the EU Commission is merely leaving ISDS until the end of negotiations.
This means they are not in our hands and we will, as subordinate members of the EU, be bound by whatever is fixed up by the likes of Juncker,who has already shown his taste for shady dealings.
email to 38 degrees
I was asked to report back on my MP’s response on TTIP
She is a Labour Whip (Yvonne Fovargue), so I assume this has been crafted on behalf of the shadow cabinet

Dear Mr Shale
Thank you for contacting me recently regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
It is clear from the large number of e-mails and letters I have received that there is considerable concern about the TTIP negotiations. I agree it is important these proposals receive proper scrutiny at both a UK and EU level and that any final deal must have transparency and accountability at its heart. I also believe the Government need to do more to address these concerns and assure they are covered in the negotiating process.
I support the principles behind TTIP and I believe there are ways the agreement could bring significant benefits to Britain, including removing trade barriers between our two most important markets, boosting growth and creating jobs. It is crucial, however, that the benefits of TTIP filter down to employees, small businesses and consumers, that the deal is open and accountable and that it does not water down current labour, consumer, environmental and food safety standards.
I also believe we should only support a deal that fully protects public services — in particular the NHS. Our NHS and public services need to be more, not less, integrated and I am concerned at the worrying fragmentation of health services that is taking place under this Government. That is why I believe the Government should commit, as the Shadow Health Secretary has, to exempt the NHS from any final deal.
I know particular concern has also been expressed about the proposed inclusion of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in TTIP. I am not convinced that the proposed ISDS mechanism is either necessary or desirable in its current form and believe there needs to be greater transparency on this. The European Commission’s public consultation on ISDS was welcome and it is right that the European Commission has decided to temporarily suspend negotiations on ISDS until the final stages of the negotiations. I hope the Government will use this opportunity to call for far greater transparency around an exclusion for legislation in the public interest, like the NHS.
Social and Democratic Group MEPs in the European Parliament are also pressing very hard on the issue of ISDS, as the Government and EU Commission consistently state that it will never be used in a deal with the US. If that is the case, then I believe it need not be included, especially when both legal systems and contract law are similar and well developed to look into any breaches of such contracts.
The debate on TTIP in the House of Commons on 15th January 2015 was a welcome opportunity for Parliament to debate this important issue. I hope the Government now listen and respond to these concerns and ensure that TTIP delivers the jobs. growth and fairer deal for consumers that we all want to see.
Thank you once again for writing to me and sharing your views.

New court charges bring us closer to US style democracy and Justice @UKLabour

March 9, 2015

New court charges are claimed to tax the Rich but will copy US system and deny legal access to plebs.
Consider if you are seriously injured, or your home is wrecked. If you sue for damages of £200,000, then you will need to pay £10,000 (5%) into court, before you even begin to incur legal costs. If you, or a loved one are severely incapacitated, the court charges could be astronomical, by pleb standards.

Ah! but if you, pleb, have insurance, the insurance will pay, if you have an airtight case and you can afford the premiums.
Problem is that this simply means that Insurance companies will gouge you.

This is where I go off into the realms of paranoia, based on the thesis that Wall Street is making our Laws, not us.

Reflect on the legal requirement to have car insurance.
The basic requirement is Third Party only i.e. compensation for personal injury to another. Insurance companies WON’T offer this.
They will offer Third party, Fire and Theft, or fully Comprehensive.
Usually the Comprehensive is cheaper, because there’s no profit in the other two.

Insurance companies then insist that damage to your car costing less than £200-£300 comes out of your own pocket (“excesses”).
You would still have to file a claim, so they can put your premium up.
It means that if your car is more than 10 years old, then you’re car will probably be written off with minimum compensation of about 2 year’s premiums, which you’ll pay back in loss of “no claims bonus”.
This is a ridiculously unfair scheme, only possible because of The Road Traffic Act
This is a legal requirement to protect people you could injure, despite MOT requirements, modern safety features, speed restrictions and drink-drive laws that have come in since The Road Traffic Act was created.
Worst is, if you’re a cyclist, crippled by a motorist, under these new court charges, you’ll need to have a similarly ridiculous level of insurance.

Look at America and see our future.

blame police if your children go bad.

March 8, 2015
Sent to Express (7/3/15 not published), response to complaint that police should have told parents that their daughters would use their passports.:
Does anyone else feel disturbed that the families of these three Isis girls are blaming the police and school, for not warning them that their daughter’s were intending to flee the country, to join this murder cult?
The families had been sent letters, via the girls, asking for permission to interview them.
This implies that the police and school believed the girls were trustworthy, else they would have posted the requests directly to the parents.
The fact that the letter’s have emerged so long after their flight seems strange.
Why hadn’t the girls simply binned them, if they had decided not to pass them to their parents?
Presumably household comments would have caused the girls to be aware of their parents disgust with Isis.
Parents would normally have longer and more intimate conversations with their daughter’s than any teacher, so why would teacher’s have picked up on their intentions, when their parents hadn’t.
Were these girl’s so isolated in their own homes?
Finally and more puzzlingly, why have the parent’s thought fit to bring this complaint to the Media?

Membership of EU makes splitting of UK irrelevant

March 8, 2015
Sent to Express (7/3/15 not published) respponse to Stephen Pollard warning against a coalition of the Left.:
If, as John Major and Stephen Pollard fear, Labour and SNP form a coalition Government, leading to a break-up of the Union, does it matter?
David Cameron will have missed his chance to lead us out of the EU and We will remain in bondage inside The European Union, because both members of that coalition are committed to rule from Brussels.
In that event we won’t be separate nations but simply neighbouring states of the E.U. and both those political parties will cease to be of relevance.

@bbcbigquestions Is God what the priests preach or what the prophets believed in?

March 8, 2015

BBC’s big question posed the question should we as Christian’s “Do good, or do God?”
One audience member said “You could believe that theft was doing good”.

My impression was that the man was a Muslim and that his words gave an insight into a fundamental difference between Islam and Modern Christianity.

Just as in Medieval Britain, or some of the Churches of the US South, people accept religious doctrine as being superior to their own idea’s of good and bad, I believe that Islam is still in thrall to its churches.
Modern Christianity eschews old testament doctrine and theological interpretation, in favour of what we believe Christ was teaching.

We no longer believe that  homosexuals should die. we no longer believe that contraception is against God’s will etc.
We no longer listen to religious leader’s and adhere to whatever crap they spout.

Islam does.

The difference between Shia, Sunni etc.lies not in what their prophet tried to teach them but in what various religious leaders tell them was meant.

They kill each other and us, not because they believe that murder is good, or that their prophet said it was good, but because their religious leaders lead them around by the nose.
What Islam needs is for the people of that faith to sit down and read the words of their prophet and gain their own sense of what HE preached.
Yes! he destroyed the idols, which the various tribes had worshipped but did he destroy them because they were images of people and animals, or because they were being worshipped?
If a Danish cartoonist depicts their prophet in a cartoon, is that something, He would have condemned? If He saw them turning to Mecca to pray, or queueing to touch the  Kaaba Stone, would he be concerned?
Is the Crucifix an idol? Are the crucifix and the Kaaba stone merely points of focus like a Buddhist’s navel?
Bearing in mind what Moses, Jesus and Mohammed were trying to achieve should anyone do God, instead of doing good?
For me, the central theme of the prophets was to live in peace and enable others to do so. It’s also what, I believe, most people desire.

If you do good, you do God. If you do God, you could be doing evil, as happened with The Inquisition and as is happening with Isis.