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)



A  complicated picture indeed with so much at stake in so many ways.
Too little information and too soon into the events to presume to make any comment.

While one may commend Tesco’s honesty, in admitting the appalling state of its stock-taking and customer anticipation management programs, causing 30,000 tons of food to be scrapped in the first quarter of this year alone, such a waste of food, due to mismanagement of supply and demand, remains unacceptable.
          I am appalled at the broadcasting commentators who make no attempt to put the information into a meaningful perspective: the number of hungry people overseas whose lives could have been saved or at least extended; or the increasing number of food banks for which we in this country are finding an increasing need and the degree to which this waste could have filled those stores.
           In a world of increasing awareness of the chronic need to behave responsibly and account for resources consumed, such information omission is disgraceful.
Now it seems Channel 4 news is countering so far inadequate reporting.



First, it appears the Ofsted report on the Al-Madinah Muslim free school is not yet published, so are we dealing with facts? It is claimed to be failing. Second, Labour has come screeching in angst at the government, yet it is Labour that has always been forceful in supporting minority interests and this is the first Muslim free school opportunity, so why are they not even-handed if not positively supporting the school and its efforts? To leak a report before publication, is that responsible journalism… and this is the BBC!


From my local Owl watch (police/public local information exchange)
there have been several successful exchanges to extract people's credit cards themselves as well as information and then denfding the owners' accounts. Looking at CCTV pics of the people believed to be responsible, you only have to see those faces to know immeidately you are dealing  with someone who is completely untrustworthy. How can people be so daft? Look for yourself at



Dave Ward, deputy secretary of the Postal Workers union made it quite clear, unintentionally I am sure, that the union has one objective and that is to be totally unrealistic in terms of market value of its members and their jobs. "I am not having private entities making money out of our members." So, he knows the post office is over staffed and needs to be more economical in its methods, because the case presented, isthat the union acknowledges it has deliberately defrauded the British public in its history of refusing to accept modernisation and destaffing levels, as every other business/service entity in this country, private or public has had to do. On behalf of  the public, fed up with failure to modernise, the government has sold, as would any other investor have done as, like any other investor we need the cash, due to previous Labour governments failing to understand the sound management of basic economics: a political party backed by the trade unions. So, why are they complaining about the results?
          As for Labour complaints the post office was undervalued, no one with an ounce of sense would make such comment for at least a few months yet. Setting a starting price is highly
complex. One must ensure success to assure any possible future venture and one is faced with a bunch of workers historically proven to be bloody minded. Very difficult to get the right balance. If Labour complains, they must blame their own supporters for such a bloody-minded workforce.

On this particular matter I have to declare a personal interest. I'm 70, currently able but diagnosed with cancer and various other ailments that could debilitate me sufficiently seriously as to wish to ensure I determine when and how I make my exit. Therefore, I insist we deal with death rationally and objectively. Assisted suicide is essential and I am a Christian-orientated free thinker and psychic researcher, so says my Facebook page.
          Regarding healthcare, I have made reasonable provision to see me through to the end of my days, subject to reasonable competence in my final days. I am a bachelor, therefore if all my "wealth" is consumed in seeing me out, so be it, that is the luck of the draw of life. Anything over will go to family in various ways with some external bequests. Those external bequests being bequests I should have made during life but which I have treated, as I said to the stranger who stopped me in the street the other day asking, "Have you any spare change, mate?". "I haven't finished living my life yet, so I don't yet know!"
          Regardless for the moment, as I will return to this debate, how we should respond to healthcare, what is important is that we know where we are going at the beginning of our lives, so we can plan accordingly. The initial intention of state intervention was to protect the needy but it has developed into a system where people deliberately fail to make proper provision for their own livelihoods and responsibilities through life. We are now waking up to these facts somewhat late in time but in time to learn from the appalling mistakes of a socialist intended state which clearly is not economically realistic.


There is absolutely no problem in having CCTV watching patient care. God sees all. You don't believe in God? Fine. ANY moral code will declare that complete openness is never a problem with those acting morally and with due care and diligence. Now just get  for CCTV.on with it. I am astounded it has not already been in stigated. What stupidity did instigate was privately controlled public telephones when we've all got mobiles! Use those wires for CCTV.



First, the press. The greatest freedom of all is the freedom God gave us upon Creation and with it came the greatest responsibility of all, to use that freedom wisely and to be accountable for the manner in which we exercise that freedom. The press is no different. It has, in the UK, what we the people all have, that freedom which God gave us and the press has consistently, steadfastly and determinedly decided to abuse it and misuse it, without any claim to a moral excuse to abuse when it has pushed the expected limits. The press has forfeited any right to decide for itself. That there are editors who have acted responsibly, or have at least not acted irresponsibly, is unfortunate but perhaps a first "fail" might be accorded to them without a penalty, as recognition of their past responsible conduct. Perhaps that principle could be applied to all publications once the new rules are instigated, before any particular paper falls foul of the new legislation. That way they can all start on a level playing field.

Once more the innocent pay the costs of all those who flout basic decencies of life and those who will not do anything about the situation wilfully caused. Another boat has tipped a host of desperate immigrant families into the sea.
          Looked at simply,
the fault lies: with the desperate families for acting illegally and stupidly; the boat owners who have a duty of competence and care and have clearly failed knowingly. It is claimed Europe must do something, when Europe has not only done nothing to invite them but has specifically stated they are not wanted. Why should we be involved in the costs and provision for other countries' populations?
           Clearly, the root cause lies with those countries that are not being run in a manner in which their populations are happy to co-exist and get on with a meaningful life. The matter then is immediate referral to the United Nations. We need to review the situation in the global context. This brings us back to what defines a civilisation; what defines an acceptable state of living, under what moral code and the extent to which individual freedom must remain uncompromised by majority opinion, under which authority democratic governments function; and the extent to which authoritarian regimes may be permitted to exercise such authority over a willing people?
           In the mean time, those countries acting in a morally responsible manner
are expected to pick up the price of allowing irresponsible authoritarian regimes to escape accountability for their irresponsibility in whose hierarchies certain individuals fill their pockets to no benefit but their own self glory.
          Either through The Hague or the United Nations, we must establish a basis of acceptable living for all, so that no one feels such desperation as to leave their homeland in such dire straits as today's latest Mediterranean victims.



"OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES" BE  ALL PRAISE Matthew 21:16/Psalms 8:2
An Islamic female child, Malala Yousufza, spoke words of wisdom and plain common sense with the maturity of a first degree graduate.
In that simplicity, she reminded us Christians of the simplicity of Christ Himself. She showed up how much the framework of religion has buried Christ the Man, let alone His message. It is apt that the child is female. In that simplicity where is there any argument that gender is remotely relevant to God, let alone the authoritarian arrogance that decrees only men are fit to manage a church and its wider relgion at any level, however senior? In 'just her being', she refutes any and every argument for gender difference in authority in Christianity, Islam and Jewdaism. Message conveyed.




A  quick slot from my Facebook page. Now the truth is out. American republicanism has embraced the mentality of the tea-leaf party, "we can't get things our own way so let's bugger everyone up!" I write "tea-leaf" deliberately as it was a slang term for male gays and I perceive those of republican orientation to be the least accepting of gay orientation.
          The Republican Party is to be congratulated on being up front and honest, unusual in political parties, it is stating clearly and openly it cares not a damn for its responsibility to America and Americans but for those only who have what it takes to grab for themselves and sod everyone else who isn't as well equipped to cope with life's natural misfortunes.
          So much for the belief America is a Christian-orientated society (and I'm aware religion and state are specifically separate entities) in fact these days religion generally seems to have little to do with concepts of God anyway. So, on behalf of world opinion on America and Americans the republicans are stating America is a country and Americans people who don't give a damn for anyone who isn't rich and greedy and utterly irresponsible. The truth is now out!
          Meanwhile in Britain teachers have gone on strike and the postal workers may do so, metaphorically spitting in the faces of the unemployed: "We've got jobs and look how we abuse them! So yahboo to you!" So republicanism and socialism are united in their philosophies, "Let's all bugger everyone and everything up just because we can't have our own way!" What a world. Is America going Communist, while Russia goes authoritarian right-wing?


The sheer witlessness of the Postal Communications Union is beyond belief. No wonder Miliband is trying to offload its baggage from his shoulders but currently looks as if he hasn’t got the guts to actually go through with it. Labour attempted to offload the burden of the postal delivery service and warned the union what is currently proposed would be the result if they didn’t co-operate. The union did not co-operate with Labour’s intentions and so they have the result they knew full well would happen. What are they complaining about? They think they may go on strike, clearly stating their unfitness to modernise, as they have consistently proved over the years.
          Why should we tax payers pay that price? Why do we need the capital influx? Because the trades union-manipulated Labour party ran us into unacceptable debt, promoted by the same unions! It is claimed the majority of the public are against the sell off. Which poll did they organise to find out? I’m not aware there was one, nor what the result was. Why in the TV news reports on it no statistics have been provided? There is no reference to who organised it, the methodology or the size of the poll. Why not? Why only waffle, not facts?

The burkha is not a requirement of religion. This is clearly illustrated in TV reports from Islamic countries, where only some Muslim females choose to wear it and many Muslim females wear Western dress, even on TV.
          The burkha is a cultural choice of dress akin to this country’s highwaymen’s dress of the seventeenth century and that is the point, the covering of the face is specifically to avoid identification in an intended act of criminality. Or, it is an honest admission that Islam specifically demeans women, causing them not to have the confidence to go out into the world as fully-fledged members of society. Their background and education is to teach them to accept only a secondary role? Their need to “hide” is to deny them the self-confidence to stand up and be counted, open to the open community of a very open yet accountable country.

What a farce. A  clear statement from Wales makes it unquestionable there is NO theological argument against women bishops. Leaving the Church of England, that majored in the Reformation; bringing Protestant sense and sensibility to religio; created by a woman; having a woman as its supreme governor then deciding it won't have women as bishops: pure, plain
          It was an Englishman who brought us the knowledge that God's Creation was of an evolutionary nature. It was England, provoked by Germany who brought us Protestant intellect but that intellect fell short of Darwin's evolutionary knowledge (his remit was not sociological development but that follows on automatically) and failed to lead society into the new knowledge and ways of thinking, preparing society for the modern times religion has a duty to do. In that failure it ends up declaring itself irrelevant and ineffective.
           That there is a God is without question. What may be the nature of God is another matter but that spirit is an entity of continuity is a confirmed factor of extensive reportage over the time since Christ. That the church has got hung up accepting change is the fault of all of us, me included. Change is difficult, despite the obviousness of its reality and our responsibility to "get real". That means accepting the male and female of His Creation and that they have absolute equality of being and rights is the only way to understand the reality of His Creation. So, why are we having such difficulty in simply getting on with it? We have taken too long to learn to live with His Creation as He created it. Instead, we have wasted time on old men's recorded perceptions in times of limited knowledge. it was God who gave us that evolutionary development to acquire that knowledge.


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.