Vote on the day

In the news today, among many other items - the Sun reporters walk; the Tories have a 2 point lead; Mili B has published a negative poster showing exrayed broken bones and claiming the NHS is not safe without him and UIP faces the fallout from some questionable activity by one of its own. At least today we had no yellow alternative budget box pictured, gripped in Danny's fist, to sadden the heart. To sadden, not because of the content but because of the pitiful charade. Danny A is in coalition and accordingly Osborne's budget was Danny's budget too. Whatever happened to the doctrine of collective responsibility? Well soon the election will be with us and over. How very interesting will be the outcome. Those who claim to know, say it will be another hung parliament. Maybe it will be but the fact is we cannot know what a day may bring forth. On my doorstep this afternoon stood a Tory canvasser. A very pleasant chap. He remembered my position from last time (or his records were good and he had refreshed his memory before ringing the bell) and his, "I don't suppose you will change your mind," was right. How can I vote for a party whose leader breaks his promises and belittles those who do not hold his views and who has already indicated shifts in his negotiating stance with Brussels on a new deal before the promised referendum. Anyway, enough for now. Do let's exercise our democratic right to vote and pray for good members of parliament who will know what to do and who will vote accordingly, whatever their politics.

Hypocrites?

Alan Bennet says we Brits are hypocrites. He admits to being one as well, so I assume he would consider that disclosure qualifies him to make the allegation. Mr Bennet has taken pen to paper in a brief discussion as to our national weakness and how we are viewed by those from other countries. Apparently, some say we are mean as a nation, some say we are critical and others that we are moaners. For Alan, we are hypocrites. Are we really hypocrites as a people? The meaning of the word hypocrite used to be quite tightly confined to use in the context or those who falsely claimed piety. OED “A person who falsely professes to be virtuously or religiously inclined or to have feelings or beliefs of a higher order than is the case; a person given to hypocrisy” I am not so sure many claim piety these days. There seems to me to be quite a large section of the population glad to admit to self-indulgent and loutish behaviour alongside of which another large section claims no religious inclination or moral code they are following. In New Testament use the word is found in several places e.g. Matthew 23:13-15 13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are." It is used to refer to those who are really putting on a face or playacting. Pretenders. Con-men. Mask wearers. It cannot be enough to just throw out such a broad condemnation concerning us Brits and just leave it to smoulder. By any rules of fair play, the indictment must be narrowed and proved. To pretend to be something we are not is one thing but to fail to exhibit all that you are all of the time, is impossible. If not showing all that we are is hypocrisy, we would all be guilty. However, living a normal life inevitably means limited self-disclosure to others because of lack of in depth relationship or limited time exposure in a relationship. We need to remember hypocrites are those who set out to deceive or lie to others in order to hide their own true nature, motives or intent. I am not at all sure AB has it right. Still, some of his plays are jolly good, assuming of course he meant what he wrote. Take care. I mean it.

Old news

I read some old news today, it went like this:- "If you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still." It's old news that there are levels of authority. We do well to bear it in mind though, that there is One who is supreme and sees all. This helps us have a view that transcends the here and now. It gives us hope too because there is One who is completely even handed, whatever those in authority in the here and now appear to be. The same reporter had earlier written, "Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few." There is One aove all others who is righteous and who will do what is right. We can appeal to Him, first for ourselves and then on behalf of others when we see injustice. This time of year we remember the angels' message as the birth of Jesus Christ was being announced, "Peace on earth and goodwill toward men." So we ask for peace and goodwill for our own lives and for those who suffer injustice. It's not all bad news.

ECHR - no thank you

Strasbourg, the capital of the Alsace region, near the German border in eastern France, is said to be beautiful. It is also the home of that European creation, the European Court of Human Rights. What a remarkable institution the ECHR is. Its judges, I learn, are not all qualified lawyers. That is not too encouraging, is it? Surely courts need to have learned and properly qualified lawyers as judges. It has a massive backlog of cases awaiting trial and I read it continues to make law way beyond its original remit. It has dictated that our Parliament must give the vote to prisoners. Our laws, made by our elected representatives declare prisoners do not have, nor should have, the vote. Leaving aside the pros and cons of convicted criminals curently in prison having the right to vote, the key issue to me revolves around the findings of the ECHR. That court seeks to usurp authority over our Parliament and our Supreme Court. Yesterday, I saw that Lord Judge (great name for a judge, a learned and highly qualified lawyer) our former Lord Chief Justice, had pointed out recently that our Parliament is sovereign and and that our Supreme Court is not inferior to the ECHR in Strasbourg. Great. Today I read that Lady Hale, the deputy president of our Supreme Court, has said that European judges have the right to overrule Parliament on the question of voting rights for prisoners. Extraordinary. We must not lose sight of the real issues. Assuming the report I have seen is accurate, voting rights are not the essence here. If any court has the right to overrule our Sovereign Parliament on any one issue, that court becomes sovereign. When the devil tempted Jesus, the devil offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if only Jesus would bow down and worship the devil. Had the Lord done so, that would have been the end of the matter. To bow down and worship for any one thing is to place oneself in a subordinate position that becomes irredeemable. If we bow down and worship at the European Court of Human Rights, we will become slaves to that court and ultimately lose all right to independence.

No go areas

No go areas are usually pretty unpleasant. It is reported that Tower Hamlets has seen hate crimes and some say there is a real danger that parts of the borough are becoming no go areas. Paris too has evidence of no go areas springing up. If this is so, it's not a new phenomenon. History shows restricted and prohibited areas crop up from time to time, somtimes on massive scale. Maybe there will always be no go areas in this broken world. We would not always be aware of them. Some such areas carry the banner, "You cannot enter here," or "you cannot do that here." There will be some threat behind the banner such as, "We will not allow that here," or "enter at your peril," etc. It is reasonable that our private dwelling place is a no go area in general terms. I don't just want anybody and everybody to enter, neither do you. My thought life too is something I want to manage and control. I reject many things that want to enter my mind including the dictats of the pc brigade. We face a problem. Open borders can make way for those who want no go areas. If I let their thoughts in, my own views and beliefs could soon be attacked and infiltrated. I will have counter concepts that want to direct my own mind thrown at me or imposed upon me, "You cannot think like that," or "you cannot believe that any more." Previously pleasant imaginings I relished, along with liberating concepts and beliefs I cherish, could soon become prohibited. Years ago, a bunch of folk called Jebusites told King David he wouldn't be able to enter Jerusalem. "The Jebusites said to David, "You will not get in here; even the blind and the lame can ward you off." They thought, "David cannot get in here." They declared it a no go area. David enterd and won a victory. No go became go. I have to admire those who take the city against the odds. We need to be vigilant and willing to keep things open as usual and rejct the imposition of no go areas, unless of course they are imposed under statute by those democratically elected to make laws for us.

Education, education, education

"Tests" on selected pupils worldwide show that British teenagers have been relegated from the top 20 rankings in the core subjects of maths, science and reading. Disclosed too, is the fact that students from Vietnam, Shanghai and Poland, among others, have a better grasp of these subjects. Well, well. Should we blame anyone for this? If so, who is to blame? Should we give credit to those who have done better? It's not necessarily that our students have not done as well as previously. Maybe others have improved greatly thus pushing UK students down the tables even though UK students have done as well as before in real terms? Ah that could be it. After all, general levels of IQ are not likely to have altered over the years. Presumably, teachers are as good as ever and presumably, teachers still know what bascis to pass on. There is a possible further view that appeals to me. For those of us who can read and have access to the news, it will hardly have escaped our notice that standards of behaviour have slipped in the UK education system. For example, it is reported that 25% of UK school children in the age group in question played truant in the two weeks before the OECD tests were held, whereas other countries recorded scores as low as 4% truancy for a similar period. Is it a surprise that those countires rank higher? Teachers have often been reported complaining quite loudly that a major part of their time is occupied with managing bad behaviour by students in the class room, to the clear detriment of other able and willing pupils. Ho hum. Without some serious reforms, we can look forward to further slippage in years to come. Let's hope there will be some folk around in the UK sufficiently well taught to read the results of future surveys.

Open all courts to public scrutiny at once

Today it is reported that Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division  of the High Court, has ordered that he will personally hear the next court proceedings relating to the adoption of a baby taken from its mother at birth.

The facts of the case are disturbing to say the least. A baby taken from its mother who had undergone a ceasarian section by order of the court. The court had sat in camera it seems. She had then seen her baby taken immediately by social services. Her pleas were, it appears, not heeded.

Of course we do not have all the facts. There will be more than meets the eye. However, Sir James is right to demand there be transparancy in court proceedings. Any court that is acting openly and fairly has nothing to fear from independent scrutiny. It cannot be in the greater interest for any proceedings to be hidden away except very rarely and then only on the tested grounds of national security of the highest order.

Do you see any emerging trend here?