Community

I've been doing some thinking with regard to various things and want to revisit my previous post on the topic of the recent riots. As I mentioned before, I do see them as a symptom of something far larger... an inconvenient truth that is being swept under the carpet because it presents us with something ugly that we ALL need to deal with.

It was very interesting to see the different responses of Tony Blair and David Cameron with regard to their perception of the social problems at the heart of the issue.  Cameron put it like this:

"The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere," he said. "There are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else."

However Blair countered this by stating Britain, as a whole, is not in the grip of some general "moral decline"and that:

"The big cause is the group of young, alienated, disaffected youth who are outside the social mainstream and who live in a culture at odds with any canons of proper behaviour. And here's where I don't agree with much of the commentary. In my experience, they are an absolutely specific problem that requires deeply specific solutions."

In my own view, there is truth in both their perspectives... just not the complete truth. I do believe we have witnessed a moral decline in our society... but I think it is wrong to put this down merely to a blurring of the borders between right and wrong. I believe it is down to a shift in perspective of who matters. Western society has become decadent... and as we are increasingly dazzled by the sights and sounds of this material world, the still small voice of calm that speaks of mutual dependency and connectedness can get drowned out.

It is interesting how materialism actively encourages us to gravitate away from "us" and more towards "me". Just look at the products out there and how they have become named in such a manner as to glorify the self:

iTunes, iPlayer, iPad, iPod, iTeddy, iDog, iPoo (yes... there apparently really IS an app for that... ugh!), i Robot (well.. maybe one day, we can hope), and the Independent's sister newspaper simply called "i".

Everything it seems is i... i... i... or actually... is it really "ME! ME! ME!"?  

It is at this point that I rather sheepishly look at the header of my own blog and ask myself if I am enthusiastically hurling stones whilst standing in a glass house. I don't think, but do call me on it if you disagree.

Community means looking beyond ourselves... together.

Yes, there has been a rise in selfishness... but I believe it is wrong for us to lay the blame solely at the door of disaffected youth. Is it not true that bankers and rogue traders have demonstrated a selfishness unique to them... one that led to the economic crisis we find ourselves in now? Is it not also true that the MPs guilty of misusing expenses for personal gain were also guilty? Or what of the energy firms who continue to push up prices regardless of the damage it causes to people who can scarcely afford to keep themselves warm in the winter months. Or how about greedy property tycoons who allow for house prices to inflate to such a level that only a select few can afford to live in them... and then they wonder why there is a crash because people can't reconcile their finances with the amount the property prices have risen to. The tendrils of self centredness creep in to every part of society and try to choke each one of us into turning away from the importance of community. Some are more affected than others, but make no mistake... it crouches at the door of all of us and we must do what we can to reject it or at least keep it in check.

When treating an illness, a doctor may prescribe more than one medication. One kind will deal with the root cause of the illness... whilst the other will act as symptom relief. It occurs to me then, that we too must do something to treat the wounds of our society. The problem of disaffected youth is a symptom problem and not a root problem. As Blair suggests, it does require a specific solution... but any work done to resolve it will be undone within less than a generation, if we do not at the same time treat the pandemic.

We've seen part of the bigger solution in the way many people have rallied to clean up, repair, restore and help victims in the wake of the riots... but it needs to go beyond this.

Community needs to be more than reactive. Community needs to be proactive.

We need to look beyond our cliquey little cells and our ivory towers and mingle. We talk about disaffected people or uncultured people, or irresponsible people... but how can anyone learn a culture unless someone shares it with them? How can someone belong... if others are not daring enough to go out there and invite... not from afar but shoulder to shoulder?  I know what it is like to stand on the outside looking in... and I'm ashamed to say that I know this from a Christian perspective. If *I* feel that way and am part of the family of Christ, I can only imagine how someone who has no connection to the Church feel when all they see is a closed door.

One of the things I hate about modern politics is how it has become more and more about focus groups - looking at the specific wants and needs of particular groups and currying favour with them in order to gain power. I think this is counter productive; if we value any part of society over another... it breeds isolation and disaffection and groups with very different aims or attitudes begin to come into conflict.

Community must rise above this, it must be so much more than this. We need to draw the threads back together and learn that our actions have consequences for everyone else and not just a select few people who we meet regularly.

Community... it's a big word... isn't it? As it should be. If we truly value it, we must stop thinking in terms of our private universes. It is not enough just to think of yourself and/or your spouse and/or your children. Yes... these things demand time and maintenance but I put it to you that by robbing others of your own input in their lives, you in turn rob yourself of the help that can come from them in return.

Christ summarised the Law in two concepts - loving God above all and loving your neighbour as yourself. The apostle John went on to say that anyone who loves God but mistreats his brother man, is a liar. Now in the Old Testament, God gave his people a hard time through the prophet Malachi. He cautioned them that the difficulties they experienced were because they were not giving him what they owed him... but that if they changed their hearts and fulfilled their obligations, he would pour forth his blessing in amazing ways.

In a way, I want to draw all the points in that last paragraph together. Those of us who call ourselves Christians do our best to try and live in a way that pleases God, we try to give him the worship, the love, the time and resources befitting of a relationship with him. However... if we do that and don't invest time, resources and love in our brother man - our community, isn't that counter-productive? As much as Malachi's people robbed God directly... are we not doing the same indirectly when we neglect to benefit the lives of those around us?

One can be the loneliest number... and yet when we learn to use that number in the right context it is the least loneliest. The spirit of true community means understanding that we are all one... not just in times of crisis, but all the time.

We are one.

A Right Old State!

I thought I'd entered a parallel dimension a few days ago.

The newsreader moved onto a story concerning Lady Thatcher and the fact the Government has rubber stamped the idea of giving her a state funeral when she finally departs this mortal coil.

Then I discovered that... no this was in fact reality.

I can't believe it. Irrespective of what your political leanings are, I don't think Thatcher ticks enough of the right boxes to have this honour afforded to her.

I am strongly of the opinion that state funerals should only be awarded to people whose contribution to the nation's welfare (be it military, social or economic) is so unquestionably recognised from every quarter, that there can be little room for dispute.

Churchill ticked that box, so did Wellington... so did Nelson.

Margaret Thatcher is anything but that.

She has split people right down the middle. If you think you can find a miner or industrial labourer who'd support the notion of a state funeral, I'd be highly surprised.

I actually think it's foolishness to commemorate the life of Lady Thatcher in this manner. I think it will bring out the worst in people. The likelihood is that the many people who would be angered and hurt by this decision... may hold a macabre festival of their own. I can see people celebrating her demise in an inappropriate way in a counter establishment response.

You may be reading this and thinking of doing that very thing - and as much as I disapprove of Thatcher's style of Government, I could never agree to such a thing.

But you see... I think I have this figured. There's one reason why a "Labour" Government would approve this.

It is a reason that I find even more gut churning.

When the rough beast that is Tony Blair ends his days (if that is even possible), they will be clamouring for exactly the same thing... and that would be equally wrong, if not more so.

Coldplay - Viva La Vida

I've pre-ordered the latest Coldplay album on iTunes, this has enabled me to download the title track "Viva la Vida". I'll probably let you have my opinions when the album is out... but cryptic imagery of this song really captured my imagination. I actually think it's a veiled attack on a political figure. I'll say who I think that is and why, after you've had an opportunity to read the lyrics:

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemies' eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:
"Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!"
One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

I hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
Once you know there was never
Never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world

It was a wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn't believe what I'd become
Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh, who would ever wanna be king?

I hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know St. Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

Ohh...Hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know St. Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world
Ooh...

I actually think the song is a veiled attack on Tony Blair. Yes, I know I could easily be attaching my own political bias onto the song... but I'll list my reasons and let you make your own minds up.

The chorus is my strongest reason for feeling the way I do. The character in the song hears Jerusalem bells a ringing... this could easily be a reference to Blair taking up a position as a Middle East peace envoy. Then we have a militaristic/quasi-religious reference connected to Rome and a line in later choruses that reads "for some reason I can't explain, I know St Peter won't call my name". These lines can't help but make you think of a connection to Roman Catholicism... to which Mr Blair is a "recent" convert. The character in the song is clearly struggling with something on his conscience which is why he knows deep down that St. Peter won't call his name... he knows he's done something that he feels he cannot atone for (Roman Catholic theology runs along the lines that you need to confess your sins to a priest to be absolved; also some catholics believe in purgatory, a system whereby you can only get to heaven by paying your sins off in a kind of limbo state - this is entirely without biblical foundation and opposes the teaching that Christ's sacrifice pays for the entire sum of our sins). It could therefore be a reference to the amount of casualties in Iraq (coalition and Iraqi), something that would take a heavy amount of paying if you subscribed to purgatorial theology.

Other elements of the song make reference to memories of an old king dying and a new king being crowned... which mirrors the early days of New Labour when all opposition was effectively neutered. Then we have the mention of betrayal... how everyone who believed the central character represented one set of ideals, actually discover they aren't representing them... and the head on the silver platter could easily be a reference to people wanting Blair out of office. The line following that talks of a lonely puppet on a string... and perhaps this could refer to Blair being a puppet to US foreign policy. There are also constant references to lies and deceit and Tony Blair was noted for his "spin". Funnily enough when he was in office at No.10, if you typed "liar" into Google, the top result was Blair's biography on the No.10 website.

The beginning of the song probably likens the central character to King Canute who according to legend told his people he had power over the sea... it betrays an air of arrogance. Actually to set the record straight, the historical King Canute had a reputation of being very good king. The reason he went out to the sea and tried to hold it back,was not to prove he had mastery over it... it was actually to prove to his people that he couldn't (because the silly idiots had got it into their heads that he was a godlike figure).

Anyway, that's my reasoning behind why I think the song is a veiled attack on Blair's political history.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree/disagree? If so, I'd like to hear your own ideas and alternative theories.

The Blair Legacy:

So we are finally released from the hold of Tony Blair... for now at least.

Looking at the positive changes his administration has brought in, we finally have the hope of lasting peace in Northern Ireland and we also have a minimum wage... on the surface at least, Britain seems to be enjoying a period of economic prosperity. We have even cast off the shadow of World War 2 debt.

Dig below the surface however... and we see all the negative changes. Prisons full to bursting and judges actually releasing convicted criminals early onto the streets, a health service that under a Labour government has found itself floundering and tied up in red tape... genuine people suffering whilst the cheats and benefits fraudsters (people who have the brains to work their way around a form... but who don't put their assets to use in work or the community), prosper more and more. Civil liberties have been attacked and depleted in the name of counter terrorism. We now live in an age of politics where substance bows and gives way to style... the soundbite reigns supreme.

Then of course we have the repercussions of Blair's foreign policies, most notably in Iraq. Britain's reputation for international fair play has been badly bruised and tarnished. Oh yes we knocked off a couple of dictators... but what have we left in their place? A wake of carnage and destruction where the blood of innocent Iraqis and Afghans is spilled and mixed with that of our own troops on a daily basis.

All this... all this and more. I argue that Blair's true legacy is like Ridley Scott's alien. We thought it was bad when he was stuck to us like a limpet... we might be forgiven for thinking we have been released from the effects of his political decisions. However, something dark and deadly gestates within this country now... it may take 20-30 years but there is a dark cloud on the horizon. It may be avoided, but the danger is real.

Blair has exacerbated the natural tribalism in the collective subconscious. His policies have polarised different groups against one another he has helped to fundamentally raise tensions between:

• The old and the young.
• Islam and Christianity.
• Theists and secularists.
• The home nations, especially Scotland and England.
• The indigenous and migrant communities.

You watch, in the first instance it'll start to go wrong when the baby boom generation (who are reaching pensionable age now), become infirm and in need of increased medical care. They are the largest age group... closely followed by the mass of children in the past 10-15 years who have been born in need of benefits (for whatever reasons). In the middle of that is my age group... the smallest age group. We are going to have to pay out on two very large fronts in about 20 years. I don't really need to go into detail between the troubles of radicalized Islam and how Christianity is currently perceived, thanks to US & UK foreign policy and the fact that Blair and Bush wear their own flavour of "Christianity" firmly on their lapels . As a direct consequence of those tensions, secularists are hopping up and down preaching the abolition of public religion, which of course is a moronic and intellectually bankrupt gesture... not to mention extremely hypocritical!

I don't really need to go on with the other issues. I think I've made my point.

We may as well have had Harold Saxon elected as Prime Minister!

Indeed what this country really does need right now IS a Doctor!

In my next blog I'll look at what my thoughts are on the Brown Government as it takes it's first steps out of the crib.

In the meantime (and trying my best to avoid being a fundamentalist Christian), I'll conclude in the words of W.B. Yeats with my concern over Blair's new role as Peace Envoy to the Middle East:

The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Counting the Days

Created by Crazyprofile.com

I'm sure it will come as no shock to you that I am awaiting the end of the Blair regime with a certain degree of pleasure.

He may be a Labour Prime Minister, but his policies are more in line with centre right authoritarianism. Will things be any different - better or worse, under Gordon Brown? It is true of course that Gordon Brown has pledged to continue the Blair reforms... however we can live in hope that perhaps he was just paying lip service to keep the influential Blair allies at bay. If he had openly talked about returning to a socialist agenda... I'm sure his potential accession would be fraught with many more hurdles.

It is certainly an encouragement to me, that members of the Blair cabinet are stepping down from their posts... perhaps they themselves fear and believe that Brown is going to make a sharp turn back to the left and wish to get out of the way to avoid carrying through policies they find distasteful. Of course it is also possible that they just think Brown is going to make a severe mess of things and do not wish to be tarred with the same brush. If they are not part of the cabinet then if/when everything hits the fan, they can wait in the wings like quasi-messianic figures (I certainly believe that is John Reid's game plan).


Sadly, experience and skepticism lead me to suspect that whatever leadership style Gordon Brown utilises... his policies are probably going to be the same. It is quite bleak when you consider that in terms of economics, in Britain we have very little spectrum of choice. All the major parties are now right wing when it comes to financial decisions... it is only their social policies that differ. Now maybe that is just a reflection on the way our society is developing... but that doesn't mean I have to think that it is a good thing, or indeed agree that it is right.

Certainly as a Christian, I find it hard to understand how other believers can easily reconcile the harsher aspects of capitalism with their faith. The early Church was very community minded, both in social and economic policy (if you disagree, take a good look at the book of Acts some day). It worked... so why do we find ourselves running away from that? Pure religion is taking care of widows and orphans... that is what the Good Book says. Is that something to really be uncomfortable about? I would think a society that valued such a principle would be a good one to live in. Don't you?

It's not that I have less respect for Christians who are strong supporters of right wing economic policy... I just want them to think long and hard about whether those policies actually reflect what we are supposed to believe and how we are supposed to act.

I want to conclude by returning to the Blair/Brown handover though. After all is said and done, I suspect (to quote The Who), that it may well be a case of:

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

Time will tell though... time always tells.

Nuclear Pop

Did my eyes deceive me, or are the Sugababes re releasing a track for inclusion in the Eurovision Song Contest?

Of course they aren't (although they are one of the few pop acts I actually respect - Keisha is my favourite). Though there is a song called "Push the Button" being entered into the annual contest (which I religiously avoid due to having an affliction otherwise known as... taste), alas it is not the one sung by the Sugababes.

No, this "Push the Button" is an anti-nuclear anthem (apologies for picture or any other quality you may find distasteful), believed to be written in response to the potential threat posed by everyone's favourite poison dwarf - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It was overwhelmingly chosen by the Israeli public. You can read more about it in this BBC article.

Many would accuse Israel of hypocrisy (they maintain a policy of nuclear ambiguity, but most people don't doubt they have the technology). However, to my knowledge Israel have never once publicly voiced an opinion that implied any desire to entirely obliterate a nation with such technology. The Iranian President, compensating for his insecurities, has made such statements without as yet having that technology. .. and that is the major difference. Iran does have serious energy needs... but you can understand why people are jittery about allowing such a nation to have nuclear power, when their most prominent spokesman has himself propagated the notion that Iran harbours nuclear ambition for an entirely separate agenda.

I call upon the Iranian people to throw down this vile idiot, he puts his own personal insecurities before the security and wellbeing of his nation. I say to you, deal with the monster on your thrown and we will deal with the monsters on ours (Bush and Blair will both be out of office by the end of 2008).

Going back to Eurovision and it will be interesting to find out how well this group performs, because it may well reveal just how strongly Europeans feel about nuclear technology, for or against.... the song isn't just restricted to Israel'[s specific situation.

On a side note, reading the BBC article revealed an interesting fact. It is against Eurovision rules to quote the Bible (and presumably any other religious text) in any song entry. What is with that? We know what happened last time a European nation started getting overly worried about books...

Integrity

What a busy week in politics.

We started off with the news that the BNP (British National Party) are estimated to have an increase in support, somewhere in the region of 25% during the forthcoming County council elections. Although this isn't likely to manifest itself much in the way of seats... the news is till enough to grieve my spirit.

This is how it always starts isn't it?

A country gets claustrophobic due to being heavily populated... and the fingers start pointing at one group or another as being responsible for all the woes of the nation. The mainstream political parties do little to resolve the situation and eventually some group of nut jobs start promoting an agenda of hatred.

Instead of clinging to power and corruption, the mainstream parties need to acknowledge what is going on and come up with some real answers. One thing is certain as far as I am concerned. were the BNP to claim power in my area (unlikely), I would actively oppose them. Were they to ever come to power (heaven forbid), I would with heavy heart consider taking up arms against the nation. Not out of pride, not out of patriotism... but out of integrity.

Also in the news this week, the Home Office freed foreign nationals convicted of murder, rape and extreme violence... and then "lost" some of their whereabouts, instead of deporting them. Unsurprisingly, groups such as the BNP thrive on snippets like this... of course, if they had their way all foreign nationals would either be wearing identification armbands, detained in camps or driven into the sea.

Charles Clarke clings to his position when realistically, it is untenable. Incompetence or negligence have led to the release of criminals (who have been assessed as likely repeat offenders) into the community. He says he wants to stay to clear up the mess. A man of integrity would step down and still help out where he could. Naturally Clarke still (publicly at least) has Tony Blair's "full confidence"... but the last time when there were calls for the resignation of a minister (Ruth Kelly) he said exactly the same. At this rate, the day will come when a Government minister will be found in a room, standing over the bodies of innocents... clutching a knife and covered in blood.... and all the time, while voices cry out for justice... Tony Blair will express his "complete confidence" in his hapless colleague.

Then we had Patricia Hewitt insisting the NHS has had it's best year. Yes... right... and that's why a friend of mine has been messed about for so long while waiting for an essential gall bladder operation (because he could only be seen once a week). Nurses do a great job in this country and they are walked on for doing it. It's the same with all vocational jobs. If you do something that requires a kind heart as a profession... your paymasters will take advantage of you... and that is unfair, especially when you have executives aplenty wrapping hospitals up in more and more red tape.

Finally we have the news that John Prescott has had an affair.

Yes... I thought I'd stepped into an alternate reality myself for a moment too!

Alas, it is true. I honestly can't see why any sane woman (including his poor spouse) would want have union with such a man. he is gross... and he is a bully.

I ain't exactly a work of art... but for pities sake. The idea that Prescott is having more luck with women than me is as ludicrous as Princess Leia choosing Jabba the Hutt over Han Solo. Intolerable. The women who do these things must have precious little integrity. To sleep with a grotesque individual for a wad of money and media exposition, it's pretty low.

Finally we have Blair himself. Elected in 1997 under a promise to clean up politics, to counterpoint the sleaze of the Tories... and here we have him leading a scandal ridden, ragtag band of rogues... as guilty as the Tories ever were... and yet they get away with it because there is no real opposition. The media has taken it upon itself to grease the wheels of change. With no political power strong enough in it's own right, to stand against the Blairite army... the press and other media bodies have taken it upon themselves to do the dirty work. This is showing because they seize upon every little thing - even when a microscopic granule of drugs is found at Doctor John Reid's residence. I'm pretty confident he probably is as innocent as he claims in this case, but it just goes to show how keen the media are to exploit any injury in the Blair camp.

So next week, come election day I will be stuck again. I'm economically left wing and marginally liberal on the authoritarian scale. All the parties still occupy right wing economics so I can't choose, because my own personal integrity won't allow me to. Why should I choose the lesser of two evils? An exaggeration I know, but would you choose between Hitler and Stalin?

High Noon

This morning I heard an interesting sound.

It was the faint jingle of spurs approaching, as peers from the House of Lords, consider the merits of having a showdown - spaghetti western style with El Presidente Blair and his bandits, as reported in the two BBC reports below:

Peers 'may force terror showdown'
Are Lords out of order on terror?

The peers have twice thrown out proposed Government bills this week, and rightly so. There was a time when I would have looked upon the House of Lords as purely an archaic, self serving institution. At the moment however they are the only form of opposition who are capable of slamming on the brakes of Blair's agenda.

Blair is arguing that he has a mandate to bring in his "jack boot" authoritarian laws because he was elected. This is rather a dubious claim because as the Lords have rightly surmised, the increase in voter apathy, together with the depletion of New Labour seats to both the Tories and Liberal Democrats; is a good indicator that the tide of public opinion over recent months does not give Blair any basis for believing himself to have a "firm mandate". Yes he was elected, but it was nothing to crow about... no matter what his army of spin doctor's tell you.

I don't agree with the curbing of free speech as prescribed by the Blair Camp. I don't agree with biometric ID cards. Even if the Government believe had good intentions with these Laws - the very nature of their wording would make it easy to warp them towards favouring certain points of view in a court of Law. This is the danger of poorly thought out Laws - Civil Case Law always translates them into a beast that they were not intended to be. Regardless of this, I do not believe whoever thought these Bills up, had honourable intentions in mind. If they become Acts, this country will take a firm turn for the worse.

I could go on ad infinitum speaking on ground I have already covered. However, if you want to read further on what my views actually are, here are hyperlinks to several of my previous political blogs, which I strongly urge you to read:

A Disgraceful Law
Oh Happy Day
Tony Blair's Speech
London Bombings
There is a Storm Coming...
The Lord's Debate
Blair "Terror Warning"

I hope they prove elightening.

Regards

N

Tony Blair's Speech

As many regular visitors will know, I am strongly biased against the authoritarian right politics of Tony Blair. Something he mentioned in his speech yesterday, caught my ear. Here is the segment to which I refer:

"The whole of our system starts from the proposition that its duty is to protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted.

Don't misunderstand me. That must be the duty of any criminal justice system.

But surely our primary duty should be to allow law-abiding people to live in safety.
It means a complete change of thinking. It doesn't mean abandoning human rights. It means deciding whose come first"

I apologise for quoting him (it's like using the black tongue of Mordor in the Shire). What he said didn't sit right with me. Those of you who read your bible will know that if you read a version with complex words that you don't understand, it is fairly easy to misinterpret what the Bible is saying. I think Blair's speech was written deliberately to have the same effect.

If you broke down this paragraph in to basic English (especially the emboldened words), you could argue that Blair is sanctioning the imprisonment of the innocent, to ensure the safety of the masses. He seems to be saying "if the Government believes somebody is dangerous... regardless of background, we should put them in jail without evidence or proper trial; in the interests of national security". If that were true, it would be authorising political imprisonment, which is abhorrent.

I'd like your thoughts on that particular segment of his speech, please let me know what you think he is saying.

London Bombings

I just want to send out my heartfelt sympathy for those affected by the atrocities that took place in London this morning.

It's awful.

The security in London would have been reduced, because some police were being temporarily drafted up north to help handle the G8 conference. A perfect time to attack, especially as the international eye is on London at the moment due to the G8 and the Olympic news.

Early indications from Arab sources and MI5 are implying an Al Qaeda attack. The BBC news correspondent I was listening to was saying that the suggestion that one of the attacks was perpetrated by a suicide bomber would seem to point to Al Qaeda as well.

The Prime Minister for all his faults, and for as much as I dislike him and his policies - genuinely sounded shocked and broken by what had happened.

This is a good time for the G8 leaders to stand united on the subject. A joint, live statement on TV would be good.

It's also absolutely vital that the issues being discussed at the G8 (especially Africa and climate change) are not dismissed because of this, and it's absolutely right for Tony Blair to return to the capital for at least a short while, to observe firsthand what has happened.

If you have any views on the subject, or even prayer requests for anybody caught up in events, I'd like to hear from you.

I hope that you and yours, are safe and well.

N

Addendum:

I just heard George Bush's words to the media as he emerged from the G8 meeting to issue a statement... "The war on terror goes on..." This is not a time for political posturing, or striking back half-cocked; nor is it a time for sabre rattling. For pities sake, the bodies of the dead have not gone cold and the tears of thise who mourn have not yet dried! It is a time for reflection, taking stock, grieving alongside those who suffer and comforting them. It is a time to help the broken rebuild. Just because his feet are swift to rush into blood, doesn't mean ours have to be.

There is a Storm Coming...

Sometimes, the news can get very depressing... but nonetheless, it's good to keep informed.

Last night was a good example. First there was the news that the ID card bill had passed through the first hurdle on it's way to become law. For those who don't know, this is my position:

As long as it was just a photo ID card with basic essential details on it, I'd be fine. However I resent the whole idea of biometric information being stored. I'm also highly opposed to the presence of a computer chip that can update the Government on your movements, every time you are processed somwhere using your ID. The Government has no God given right to know where on Earth I am, nobody does. As for the biological info. As for the bioligical information, I don't see why any government should be allowed to keep this on file. The Blair regime is corrupt enough as it is, however... can you even imagine what a truly maniacal government could do with access to that much data. In a worst-case scenario, if you became a political "problem" and they had access to your DNA; they could create a personalised toxin that would harm you alone. Imagine what Hitler could have done with access to the information that comprises the human genome, and the resources to develop specialised biological warfare. If you had the knowledge and the technological means, you could theoretically eradicate an entire genetic subgroup in a short space of time. That prospect chills me to the bone. Even if that wasn't the case, our biology is none of the Government's darn business. This isn't just something lawbreakers need to be fearful of, it doesn't matter whether or not you've got something to hide... privacy will begin to become a thing of the past. The current thinking on ID cards is barely a few steps away from skin implant tagging. Trust me, you don't even want to go there. Think about it, it would be the end of political free expression... because if you ever became inconvenient... you wouldn't be able to hide. I don't know any charismatically minded Christian who is actively for such a scheme. As it stands, about 84% of the public are opposed to it... so how the heck can Dr Evil (cough cough) sorry Mr Blair, even have the gall to claim that it's what most of the public wants?

As for making us pay for a compulsory scheme that we don't want, that's just taking the proverbial michael. It is no better than rubbing someones nose in excrement.

As if things weren't enough, the next story covered Zimbabwe. What the heck does my country think it's doing? Our Government is deporting asylum seekers back to a country where it knows they will come to eventual harm... probably death. I know asylum is an issue for many people, but Commonwealth countries should receive our priority in my opinion. If a country within the Commonwealth has become oppressive, I feel the UK is honour bound to take in people who flee from it. As a former colonial power, we must not forget that we share a degree of responsibility for the quality of democracy that has evolved. I'm not saying it's our fault. I'm just saying, if we've historically been in a country and messed about with it's power structure, we should be among the first to offer help when the wheels fall off. Even if we can't take them in ourselves, we should at least have an agreement with the rest of the Commonwealth to share out genuine asylum cases among them. The Government will not reconsider it's position, and the deportations will continue. They have however suspended them according to the Times, merely to keep the heat off Blair. Personally with regard to his career, I say let Mr Blair cook. He was a wolf in sheeps clothing from the start. The Commonwealth and the UK need to come up with a realistic and much stronger approach to dealing with Mugabe. What's the point in economic sanctions... the people who end up suffering are the poor and the common man. Dictators like Mugabe are experts at turning the anger and hatred that come from that into political brownie points. All evil dictators need to turn a people to war and persecution, is a scapegoat. Right now Mugabe is laughing because he's got exactly that, and it's us all the way!

We should never pick our fights on the basis of profitability... but on the worthiness of the cause. This is an issue I raised in an earlier, recent posting as well.

As I switched channels, I noticed the sound of thunder erupting across the dark, shrouded sky. Lightning flashed with intensity, as if God and nature themselves were angered by the politics of Britain at the moment. It seemed fitting to me, that according to the reporter, when the ID card vote was taking place, London was at the eye of a black and terrible storm.

Tony Blair

Again he lies. Should we really be surprised? He keeps shifting the goalposts about when he'll step down. Originally he said two terms was enough. About a month before the election announcement he then said he'd probably step down in September to give his successor a proper run in. Then that changed to mid-term. Now he's gone on the record as saying he'll serve a full third term.

I would have tolerated "New" Labour getting in if I knew Blair would be gone soon after, and Gordon Brown would be at the helm. But now Mr "I'm Tory Plan B" (yes that is an anagram of PM Tony Blair) has scuppered that.

By the way type the word "liar" into Google and see what comes up as the 1st result!

Enough of my negative rant now!

Update as of 23rd April:

While visiting my sister in hospital today, I found out that Blair had recently visited the Alexandra while campaigning for the election. Now here is something you need to know, because it says a lot about the man... none of the people who he was seen talking to were actual patients. All of the people that were approached in the hospital refused to be even pictured with him, so the Labour PR machine hired ACTORS! So he's not just prepared to mislead the nation over WMD's, but also healthcare.

Truly, you were born to lie Mr Blair.

If it were me, I would have played nice and pretended to be excited, and then when the cameras were rolling... then I'd let fly with what I REALLY thought. That's how you beat slick PR machine's... feed them what you think they want, then with their defences down, fire a salvo across your target's bows.

I suppose I should have added this under 23rd April, but to be honest I don't want to waste any more space on the parasitic little powermonger.

Blair "Terror Warning"

And so we have yet another Terror warning from Uncle Tone. Here's the dictionary definition of the word "terrorise":

v 1: coerce by violence or with threats [syn: terrorize] 2: fill with terror; frighten greatly [syn: terrify, terrorize]

So, yes, we do have hundreds of terrorists within Britain's borders. However, if you look at interpretation 2, it has to be said perhaps one of the biggest and influential terrorists lives behind a black door with No.10 stamped on it? No? I'm sorry, but the politics of fear is just as an effective terror weapon as any c4 explosive package... perhaps more so, because ideas are that powerful.

I do believe there is a real physical terrorist threat, yes of course I do. However, I believe it's being deliberately played up and the politics of fear is being played like a card to bring in REALLY dodgy measures that under normal circumstances, the general public would NEVER accept.

The thing that bothers me, is that I don't see an end to this. I don't trust any of the political parties with our democratic future at the moment. None of them seem worthy of it. I believe if you don't believe in a parties policies heart and soul, you shouldn't vote for them. Why should we have to settle for the least worst party?

I trust Gordon Brown, he seems like a man of integrity to me. However I don't see Blair standing aside until some fancier job comes along... like maybe EU President or err Supreme Potentate (that was said tongue in cheek before any eschatological fiction readers get all excited!).

What hope for this country? It's going to the dogs.

Thoughts anyone?

Church

Well, I decided to take a break from my own church at Great Alne this morning. Simple fact of the matter is, that there wasn't a service there... it was a united benefice service at Coughton, and I didn't feel like going, as I find services there are too liturgically heavy. I also take issue with that church's stance with regard to freemasonry. Having read up on the subject, I do not feel it's appropriate for Christians to associate themselves with masonic organisations... and yet Coughton hosts the annual midlands area service for the Freemasons.
Which brings me to another point. I get very depressed at the notion of secular minded people having authority in the Church. It's no secret that I resent the fact that Tony Blair (or any PM for that matter... but especially Tony Blair), has the final say on the appointment of every Anglican bishop. He claims he is a Christian, and yet he condones taking advice from a new age guru. My opinion is that he actually is a polytheist. He has a very Roman approach to theism. Basically all beliefs are equal and the same. Well, maybe they are in the world's view, but if you try and align them all together, you just get nonsense. If you believe something, you shouldn't have to feel pressurised to put it into a cosmic blender, just so that it agrees with everyone else. Dare to be different.
In the end, I plumbed for going to Astwood Bank church, I have a couple of friends there, and I felt it was important, after last weeks episode, to touch base with them and let them know I was OK. I know at least one of them was concerned for my well being, and had been praying for me. Important note their folks... if you know someone is praying for you, it's good to let them know that it's appreciated... it's encouraging to do so.
I think I may have stumbled across the oldest recorded hymn in Christendom. They were singing something the words of which were written by some bloke called Aurelius... who lived from the mid fourth, to the early fifth century AD. Jinkies!