Novelist. Author of APSARAS and other stories

Total Pageviews

Friday, 24 February 2017

3 men losers; 2 women winners

Yesterday (23rd Feb) was a bad day for three men with collateral damage for those you supported them.
All three losers were at the wrong end of political manoeuvering but only two were Westminster orientated. Claudio Ranieri won huge praise last season for leading 5000-1 outsiders, Leicester City, to the Premier league title but this was not enough to save him from the chop; he was sacked as manager with his side one point above the relegation zone. Football holds no sentment; you are only as good as your last result or in Ranieri's case the season so far. I only hope that the owner of Leicester thought fit, beforehand, to offer his Manager, in the light of his past glory, the opportunity to resign. He was, after all, let down by his players.
The other two losers were political animals, Paul Nuttall of UKIP and the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. I hate to say this because my father was a Liverpool man, but  whatever the merit of his arguments, Nuttall's broad scouse accent is enough to put anyone off. I know it shouldn't be, but the man had a good product to offer the Stoke electorate but lost despite the constituency boasting a huge number of Brexiteers. I can only think it was his accent because the Labour man was eminently pathetic, beatable and grossly unsuitable as a member of parliament. Corbyn's speech, the morning after reminded me of other Socialist speakers with their dream of  a Utopian paradise of equality for all. I was reminded of the old adage, if you take from Peter and give to Paul you are always sure of Paul's support and it was surely to the Pauls that Corbyn addressed his speech; a plea to the faithful not to abandon his Party in the light of the Copeland defeat. He denied the loss was due to his socialist agenda, his predilection for discourse with terrorist organisations but could only offer lame excuses.
Two women, however, triumphed. Trudy Harrison won Copeland for the Tories, a seat they last held in antiquity and Prime Minister, Theresa May, who has impressed the electorate with the assured start to her tenure and the confident manner in which she has addressed difficult problems such as Brexit.
Yesterday was a good day for women.

Monday, 20 February 2017

Merkel & Islam

I don't know which report I find most depressing.

Mrs Merkel, the German Chancellor has told a European Defence Committee that Europe should take in more Syrian and Iraqi immigrants. She added that Islam was not responsible for terrorism. Of course it isn't. This story appears in today's papers (17th feb 2017) alongside a report that a school in Oldham has lost its headmistress to threats of abuse from the mostly Pakistani born parents who disapprove of her 'western' dress. It is feared that this is another 'Trojan Horse' attempt to stop the introduction of western values into a curriculum they, no doubt, wish to be based on Qur'anic studies.

Sunday, 19 February 2017

Open Britain

Following the speech of Tony Blair asking the British people to  force the Government to hold a second referendum and the appearance of Mandelson on the Marr show today, it is difficult not to think that these two are preparing for the introduction of a new centre-left political Party, Open Britain. They are awaiting the outcome of the two by-elections being held this week when Corbyn's Labour Party are expected to do badly, possibly losing one or both seats.
Who the hell do they think they are? Both men, despised by huge swathes of people from both ends of the political spectrum and wider aspects of life, brought, in their way, the whole of Westminster into disrepute. Indeed many think that Blair, in particular, should be languishing in jail for his part in the Iraq War. You'd have thought both men would have learned to keep their mouths well and truly shut.
So, one can't help but imagine that this movement is not being wheeled out for the benefit of the people of the United Kingdom but has more to do with the machinations of two men who only have self interest at heart. But what can it be? As Europe fails over the next few years do these chancers see opportunity in the chaos...

Friday, 17 February 2017

Same sex marriage and the Church

The Anglican Church is in trouble over the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM). A report by the House of Bishops was brought before the General Synod for approval in terms of being 'noted'. The paper, which broadly approved the idea of the Church conducting SSMs was voted on on by the house of Clergy and the house of Laity, requiring approval from all sections to gain approval. It failed, meaning that it could be years before the issue is considered again, leaving all parties in a state of unsatisfactory limbo.
The problem is one of scripture. Although the bible doesn't mention 'marriage' Genesis tells us that God gave Adam a wife so that thereafter a  man would leave his parents and 'become one flesh' with a woman, in his case, Eve. So it is said God ordained the institution of marriage.
On one side of the argument opponents of the move say that scripture, time and again, reviles against same sex relationships whilst others say that the God of love cannot harden his heart against loving couples of any hue. Those against argue that marriage should be for a man and woman who wish to bear children naturally whilst those for the proposition say that same sex couples can adopt. There are also irrelevant issues of 'human rights' abounding.
As I say in the conclusion of my book: 'Spiritual Man: An Introduction to Negative Dimensions', should Churches abandon all notion of a supernatural, creator God and instead embrace the spirituality of man under the banner of: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. With God out of the way the door opens for love, hope, compassion and charity to flood in.

Sunday, 12 February 2017

Labour reinventing themselves?

Did you see on Sunday 12th Feb, the appearance on TV of Tom Watson, labour's deputy leader (on the Marr show) and Chuka Umunna (on the Ridge show)?
Both went out of their way to promote the Labour Party's patriotism, love of Country, family life, defence of the realm, in fact all the sort of things we expect to hear from a Conservative Member of Parliament. Could it be that as their popularity wanes, the traditional working class vote collapses, the Labour Party are having to reinvent themselves, putting Britain first, before the two crucial by-elections later this month.

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

Poisoned dwarf

That fatuous oaf, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Bercow, has told MPs that he is opposed to the idea of the President of the United States speaking to the House. He cites the President's alleged racism, sexism and mysogyny. This is the man who welcomed into the bosom of the House, the leaders of, for example, China and Kuwait, leaders with a reputation of human right abuses. If that wasn't enough, he proposes to alter the dress code of servants of the House despite centuries of history and tradition whilst wasting Public money on feathering his own nest, the grace and favour residence in Central London he enjoys. The man is a disgrace.
It is traditional that the Speaker's seat in parliament is unopposed but why don't his constituents throw him out? Are they not embarrassed by his hypocrisy, his cringeworthy bumptiousness that time and again brings the UK's Parliamentary tradition into disrepute?
Following this sleight on the UK's greatest ally, perhaps the Speaker of the Senate will invite him over for a chat and conveniently lose him. He will not be missed.

However, I'm sure Mr Trump will ignore this insult, choosing to put himself above this and other creatures of the swamp. Talking of the swamp, I can't remember a time when the House of Commons has held such poor quality members. The entire opposition front bench, including the leader, Corbyn, and Abbott, is a disgrace. To listen to the poor quality of the speakers makes one despair for the people they represent.

Friday, 3 February 2017

More Trump thoughts

In my previous article I suggested that because so many on the left had demonstrated their opposition, Trump must be doing something right. The progressive left were at it again last night as violent demonstrators stopped a talk by Conservative, Milo Yiannopoulos on the University of California, Berkeley campus. It seems that the right of the freedom of speech applies only to those on the left, mostly ill informed youngsters who have been nowhere and done nothing in their lives.
Back to Trump. I had rather thought that Trump had started his presidency well; that is until up to yesterday. At a National Prayer Breakfast event he called upon Americans to have hope in God before ending with the time-honoured, 'God Bless America'.
His speech will have disturbed secularists the world over. This claim that somehow God is on the side of America when so many adversaries claim the same is akin to the footballers who perform a little ritual before entering the field of play, seeking, presumably, to ask God to favour them rather than their opponents. Now I know that to do well, politically, in America one has to suck up to the bible bashing communities but does Trump need to be so provocative about it? I mean when he invokes the help of God he might as well be appealing to the same God of Abraham as the Muslim immigrants he wishes to vet more thoroughly. And, in any case, where can he show any evidence that God cares anyway. Can he see God in the Middle East, North Korea, Iran, the favellas of Brazil or the slums of Mexico City?
In his reference to immigration and his tough and controvertial new executive order he alluded to the Pilgrim Fathers, claiming that they too had been immigrants. Well they weren't; they were colonisers, conquerors if you like, who, with their followers, displaced many of the indigenous peoples of North America. Conquerors have different rights to immigrants as  manifest in Roman Britain and after the Norman and Viking conquests. Conquerors impose their will on the defeated whilst immigrants should respect the way of life, culture and beliefs of their hosts.

Sunday, 29 January 2017

A new referendum

Seeing those leftist luvvies protesting all over the world tells me that the US people got it right in electing Trump as President but what about his attitude to Muslims? He has signed an executive order banning for four months refugees from principally Syria being admitted to the country. As President, his first duty (as is that of the UK's prime Minister) is to protect his people especially after the 2001 attack on the twin towers and he, like May, will be aware that Muslims pose the biggest threat to world peace, being the principal protagonists in the majority of conflicts around the world today.
However, with all this outrage at his plans to make his country safer in mind, I wonder what would be the outcome of a referendum in the UK asking the single question, 'Should Islam be proscribed?'
I can see the majority of people saying 'yes'. The generous, sympathetic and broadly welcoming people of the UK have been sorely tested by an influx of people who clearly do not want to integrate and associate themselves with UK life, let alone values. They do not like the idea of gender separation such as is routinely seen in mosques; they do not like the wearing of the burka etc, seen as a provocation, a visual reminder that they have arrived and will do as they (or their menfolk) want. Nor can they understand why these immigrants would come from a hell hole, seeking a better life, but bring with them the culture (including their religion) of the very hell hole they are fleeing from. This would be understandable if they came as conquerors; but they didn't, they have arrived accepting the hospitality of the citizens of the UK.
The referendum, which will probably only be advisory, not binding on the Government, will lead Council leaders in some towns or districts in West Yorkshire, Lancashire and London seeking advice from Nicola Sturgeon about quitting the UK.
Of course, this will never happen because politicians need to harvest votes and the Muslim vote is critical in some constituents and the Imams are very aware of this. As are the quisling British politicians who have been queuing up to denounce Trump. Why is it that the leftie luvvies don't come out and march against the excesses of Muslims who are torturing and slaughtering people, destroying ancient monuments, enslaving and abusing women etc etc? Why is it that so called moderate Muslims are not doing more to stop their violent co-religionists?

Monday, 16 January 2017

The Oak Tree

Imagine, if you will, an oak tree. See it, its trunk, its broad lower branches becoming smaller as your eyes rise towards the crown. See the thousands of acorns and the tens of thousands of leaves on the branches and imagine the hundreds of different species of animals to be found, living and surviving amongst the foliage. Get up close and touch the trunk, feel it, put your arms around it, smell it; use your senses to perceive this micro world in all its glory.
But wait; is all you perceive the full picture? Is there anything else; something that your senses haven't identified? Of course there is but we cannot sense it because it is out of sight, underground. Nor is this hidden part insignificant. It is a fundamental part of the tree; its very existence depends on the system of roots and other aspects that play a part in the health, growth and wellbeing of our oak tree. Indeed there is as much below ground as there is above and yet when we first perceived the tree it didn't register.
I believe that the same situation obtains with our universe; we are all aware of what we can witness with our senses but do we need to dig into the unseen, use our imagination, to find the full picture of our existence.
In my book, 'Spiritual Man: An Introduction to Negative Dimensions', I propose an alternative ideology, digging into the unknown in search of our sister universe, challenging the orthodox views of science and religion.

Thursday, 12 January 2017

Drone swarms

It had to happen; the US army have developed a mode of warfare using drones to swamp the battlefield with overwhelming firepower. Relatively cheap to produce and operate, technicians, behind front lines can deploy thousands of armed drones in a swarm, killing everything in their path and destroying soft buildings. And why not?
These drones would do the same job, only better, as cluster bombs, designed to inflict maximum casualties on people, combatants and non-combatants alike, on the ground. Many countries including the UK signed a protocol prohibiting the use of these weapons on humanitarian grounds, arguing that their deployment was in some way a war crime. The US sensibly did not sign this protocol, recognising the simple truth that when you are engaged in warfare, nothing should frustrate your aim of winning.
I have said it before and repeat it here; warfare is the crime, all that happens on the battlefield is a consequence of this simple rule. When war is waged it should be as General Sherman recognised fought to win at ALL costs. Losing is not an option. This said, the responsibility for war must be on the leaders who declare (formally or not) a state of war. In effect, this means that the witch hunt against UK soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is perverse, when the leader, Blair, is free to earn millions despite widespread condemnation of his role.
War is the worst human condition. Fear of annihilation is a major factor in maintaining peace and drone swarms sound ominous. If they therefore prevent the outbreak of war, stop aggressors attempting a land grab, they could yet prove to be a force for good.