Site hosted by Build your free website today!

I am because of who we all are.
Supporting the 2012 Olympic Legacy—I WILL be positive and endeavour to maintain the Olympians' love of life and its challenges
MALALA—a statement of the failure of religion:
religion that fails to pro-actively promote the absolute equality of male and female is fundamentally immoral and unfit for decent society


Peter Such

Peter Such

Berkhamsted from Cooper's Fields

A view of Great Berkhamsted from Cooper's fields.   

Peter Such lives in Great Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, England

Formerly working in printing and publishing he is currently an occasional writer on diverse issues, as the mood takes him. He has regularly put his views to the test of public opinion, which is how he twice ended up as mayor of his home town. He also stood for The Referendum Party in the UK General Election of 1997.
Also on Twitter as Peewit2 (he doesn't take it seriously) and on Facebook as himself (Peter.Such5)




Regrettably, post-exertional malaise lasted to midday, which was disappointing, as a bishop was preaching and we had a multi-baptism and confirmation as part of the full choral service. Had I been fit I would have gone to this later service on this occasion but then I would have missed Marr. His and the “Sunday Morning Live” programme following and its seasonal partner (the name I forget) I find enthralling and irritating, depending upon the self-discipline of the speakers or the effectiveness of the chair.

I was delighted to express my pleasure at seeing Andrew Marr back in operation, clearly suffering from the results of his stroke but in so doing, he illustrated how serious his stroke had been and the battle through which he had fought to make it. All applause to him for that and what a fine example he is to other stroke sufferers that he has forced his way back to operational health.

Paul Kenny of the GMB union clarified excellently why Miliband is so right in offloading the bulk union vote. On BBC Breakfast he clearly stated his union’s distaste for individuality and that the whole purpose of trade unions, in his view was the bulk bullying they have so frequently used to wreck this country’s economic stability, although he lacked the honesty to express it in those terms.
          Political voting IS a personal matter and none of any union’s business. Paul Kenny clearly stated that his political authority comes from gerrymandering his position in the union to be over-powerful in political matters. [Much union business relies on presumption, through members’ nonparticipation by default of actual interest]. Paul Kenny illustrates what is believed of all trade union managers, “I am important management because I wield members’ power”. Union bosses are NOT important, they are servants to receive direction from their members in matters commercial, not in managing the country: that is solely an individual matter.
          Regarding political parties generally, their income should come from individual donations drawn by selling themselves through their electoral mandate, which should be maintained and published on a regular basis as circumstances change. It is arguable whether companies should provide political funds. If so, there should be an upper limit in terms of cash and a valuation for donations in kind. These should be subject to board approval and preferably in advance by shareholder meetings, it is after all the shareholders’ money.
          Unions likewise, or other entities, according to the vote of general union funds by the members at annual meetings and any contribution to a political “charge” an individual opt-in decision. So, with the very rich, there needs to be a limit on personal donations, also defined as “value in kind”.
          Controlling the broadcast media needs to be looked at in relation to prospective influence, according to what criteria, regarding new trends and influences? Past records are fine for established parties but how can one fairly deal with evolving trends, showing initially only limited public support due to being in the early stage of their evolution? I suspect the UKIP question is being currently debated but this debate should embrace the principle not the specific.
           The same principle applies to the newspapers. It is proved beyond doubt that some of them can be completely irresponsible, if not downright unlawful in the way they conduct their business. What precisely is the financial capital that controls them and that capital controlled by whom, in what manner?
           Andy Burnham, Shadow Health Secretary, complained about shortage of cash in social welfare but absolutely failed to declare the cause of that cash shortage being due to his party’s previous mismanagement of the country’s finances. He was beautifully countered by, I think, Anna Soubry, who pointed out what Andy Burnham should have been wholly aware of had he properly informed himself, that Health has not seen a reduction in budgeting under this government.

Returning to the papers and their general competence, Scotland Yard’s response to the Prince Andrew incident paints a completely different picture to the one presented by the press. Unfortunately, the police of late seem to be conducting themselves with such incompetence one cannot trust the Scotland Yard statement: it has to be taken with a table spoon of salt. It is of concern if, yet again, a sensationalist newspaper can't present simplicity of facts remotely accurately.
          Come to think of it, what has happened about that allegation that the police fitted up Andrew Mitchell and then failed to tell the police officers involved that it was all a deliberate set up to discredit a minister of the crown, despite the fact the police are servants of the crown and therefore supposedly supporting the minister?

Liverpool Care Pathway was a lie: it was euthanasia in a brutal act of crass incompetence and carelessness. It should be recognised that that aspect of the NHS supported euthanasia but appallingly badly and incompetently, highlighting why euthanasia must be an open debate and discussed with the patient and family. So, lets get on with it and do the job properly and honestly. Keeping people alive when the condition does not determine it proper and they are ready to let go of life, let them go. We would not treat a dog that way so why a human being? It is not rational.

“Sunday Morning Live” wanted to discuss the relevance of God in public life. Failing to define “God” caused many contributors to get tangled up with religion. Religion is a means of defining God and the fact there are so many religions clearly shows no one religion has yet defined “God” satisfactorily that we all know what we are talking about.
            It would have been more meaningful if “God” had been replaced with “spiritual values”, then perhaps we might have got somewhere. What makes religion generally irrelevant to modern society is its proclivity to insist upon a patriarchal arrogance, totally divorced from any real meaning of spiritual value. As the world’s present state of general mayhem declares men’s inadequacy at basic management, where is the rationality in attributing authority to them?
           Taking my own background, we have a CofE that was started four centuries ago by a woman, sorting out her inheritance of Henry VIII’s mess. It is a church currently run by a woman and it won’t have women bishops. That sort of asinine stupidity is why religion has a bad reputation. The Roman Catholic church won’t even have women priests; preaches humility for everyone else except itself; and is ridded with immorality and corruption.
           I will not presume to comment on Islam, other than to include its name in this list, as well as the religions of India. All these have this extraordinary presumption that males alone are in power; are authority and what they want holds sway; yet all the while, in their attitudes, men collectively declare their total unsuitability for such presumptions, through national and local demeaning of women and refusing to accept women’s unquestionable equal authority alongside men.
          Public life is dealing with the practical realities of living. That is ALL of us, male and female and we all have a right to equality of contribution and recipience [Shakespeare made up words and over forty of them are now standard English!].
          Had the question been about “spiritual values” then we would be debating something superior to morality and ethics: talking about something meaningful to the reality of the whole of existence and our part and responsibility in it and for it and especially its future.
 “Sunday Morning Live” then tackled pornography in schools. There is an argument that schools should teach basic biology at the least. Social interaction, leading to the greatest of intimacies, should be taught by parents who best know the age at which it is right to do so and in what way for their child. That many parents can‘t or won’t talk about sexual matters with their children (and mine couldn’t, they left pamphlets for me to find surreptitiously), let alone the very basics of proper social interaction and responsibility, then the schools must do the job. Teaching a responsible attitude towards people leading up to the greatest of intimacies should not need discussion on acceptable or unacceptable pornography.



For some extraordinary reason Putin appears to be feeling insecure. WHy else is he so overawed by this tiny island that built the largest empire civilisation has yet known. Perhaps he was aware of how little his great Russian continent has done in the mean time. Fancy feeling diminished by little us!



It would be nice if the BBC could first master its own technology. Marvellous vanguard reassures me its not my age that holds me back, they haven't got the hang of the tecnology either.
          Nor have they got the hang of managing money. It appears they paid over a million pounds more than required to those made redundant; not including the sums paid to those people when supposedly working, when clearly they weren't needed, for why else were they declared redundant?
          BUT, thanks to "Rough Justice" they got two innocent men out of gaol, proving the death sentence is NOT justifiable! EVER! On that, well done BBC! Except that the BBC appears to have axed an exceedingly good programme. Why? Does the BBC not like success? Perhaps it is embarrassed by finding something at which they are competent: it shows up even more those who quite clearly aren't?
          Ariel Castro in America only committted suicide because he could not face his sentence, proving the value of life sentences.

Universal Credit is an elementary common sense proposition. Bureaucracy is the last thing anyone wants. What is appalling is the number of people purporting to understand computing who in fact appear not to actually have a clue
. By now the civil service really should know the wheat from the chaff in IT. As usual, money has nothing to do with it but elementary competence at one's job. Technology is moving magnificently, if understood. At 70 I am somewhat slower on the uptake than I was but at least I see the benefit and am glad to be involved. At the much younger ages at which IT people seem to be involved, is it the lack of life experience that is causing these hiccups, they just do not get the overall purpose of rendering a service and cannot grasp the wider context in which their speciality fits?
         It now appears that those in charge only gave information to the minister according to what he wanted or expected, not according to the actual facts, just like the Iraq situation. How has the British civil service got itself into such a mess that it employs people who do not understand the meaning of information? Its purpose is to inform, which means it conveys knowledge about facts. How can people so incredibly stupid as not to understand this simplicity ever be regarded as employable? It isn't rational. Is the state educational system really that bad or have the public schools now gone head over heels to teach as disastrously as the state?


It is deeply regrettable that a man, so obviously a candidate for suicide, should have been able to commit suicide so early into his sentence. Once more crime pays! However, for those in doubt, what  Ariel Castro's suicide clearly demonstrates is that life sentences work. He can't take his punishment. More over, in the UK we have recently convicted a man, incredibly a father of five, so clearly getting his oats, of murdering a complete stranger [please note those who think murders are by people known to the victim] for which we had already convicted two men completely wrongly. Mercifully the BBC came charging in with a "Rough Justice" programme querying misjustice. Thank God they weren't hanged!
          It now turns out Ariel Castro was visited at half-hourly intervals. How damned stupid, obviously you visit such a man erratically, so he never knows when the next visit is due!

Now we at last know the truth on Labour's relations with the trade unions: at the very least unhealthy! [].



Later to be developed for my NHS page, an extract from this morning's Facebook interaction.
          Delighted you add to the debate, Wren. Steroids to counter cancer is what is causing me a technical weight problem. I say "technical" because I don't consider myself overweight, yet medically apparently I am and waistwise I must confess to expansion, which was of concern before a possible diabetic condition indicated I had to take weight seriously.
          Faced, therefore, with medical evidence of the disaster that is overweight then clearly it is a matter for open debate. I am horrified at the demands I am "indolently" making on the NHS, just to maintain an everyday existence and I am not yet on seriously expensive anti-cancer drugs (although there has been some preliminary chemotherapy). Having cancer in both lungs means (unless blessed with an absolute heart attack) there will come a time when I will be kept alive in a bed with oxygen tanks and incapable of doing anything. Ridiculously costly. Give me the syringe in time and I'll cut the cost immediately.
          If overweight leads to ill health, the rest of us pay, why should we? If overweight is due to a health condition and the patient is doing the best they can, fine but is medicine being too pedantic at what should be a healthy living state, as opposed to just a "simple state of living"? These matters need to be openly observed, debated and discussed.
          We need to address the ridiculous concept that we must keep people alive who would much rather pass on, while denying ill people, whose condition is rationally improvable by hip replacement, say, but are kept pointlessly waiting through lack of money? We have damn fool religionists getting in the way of rational thinking on life and death.
          Religion has been nothing but a disaster for society, based entirely upon a patriarchal hierarchy that has done nothing but show men incapable of organising a simple piss up in a bl***y brewery. The EU insists we maintain common criminals illegally in this country rather than send them back home on the basis of their "human rights", yet denies the entire EU the basic human right of absolute equality between men and women, allowing Islam and the Roman Church to foster unacceptable background inferences of male supremacy, which are the roots, in my view, causing serious social disorder from men refusing to treat women properly. It is irrational and unacceptable.
            That there is spirit behind/absorbed in everyday physical life is without questionable doubt. There is no rationality for life to be lived according to ancient concepts but that requires another page which is being developed (probably in Body and Spirit). For the moment enough said on this particular paragraph of interaction, which I shall now post on my weekly page, to spread the word further. Cheers for now. Love you all.... it is indeed a great life Hang on to it.