Novelist. Author of APSARAS and tales from the beautiful Saigh Valley. First person to quantify spiritual values.

Total Pageviews

Thursday 30 June 2016

Cause and effect? Not true.

The idea that cause and effect were the primary motive for everything that ever happens has long been supported, especially among those that claim that the universal creation must have been the responsibility of a Creator. The idea popular with cosmologists, however, is that the spontaneous creation of matter-antimatter particles in a vacuum has fuelled speculation that cause and effect is only a hypothesis. Can The Davies Hypothesis shed any light on the matter?

I believe it can and this is why. the Hypothesis states that perceived time in the universe is three dimensional as defined by the trinitarian equation below:

T = ±√[ (+t)² + (-t)² + (it)²]

Where  '+t',  'real' time, refers to the present time, the here and now:  '-t', 'unreal' time refers to the past: 'it', refers to 'imaginary' time, the future, where i = ±√-1
Solving the equation we have perceived time:  T = ± t
In other words, man can perceive the past and the present but can NEVER know the future, not even a fraction of a second ahead. We can anticipate and predict but, despite being necessary for the present (and therefore the past) to exist, we can never know for a fact what the future holds.
If we can never know what the future holds, then clearly we can NEVER accurately know the causes of that future.

Therefore, although, cause and effect seems to work in the universe, there is no basis in truth for its adoption as a universal reality. This has profound implications for theologians and scientists.

Monday 27 June 2016

Post Brexit

The referendum has been held and the UK has collectively voted for Brexit. Whilst most have accepted the result there are some, most notably the Scottish Nationalist leadership, that wish to ignore the will of the people and continue to have a dalliance with the other 27 Nations. It has been a common refrain from the 'remainers' including the so called 'metropolitan elite' in London and the Home Counties that the result was decided by the 'uneducated' working class of the North of England. I have even heard the same term used here in South East Spain. What arrogance!!
But why do the Scots and this 'elite' still hanker for the lure of the European dream?
Do they want to be aligned with the corruption and economic malfeasance of a EU that hasn't had its accounts signed off for over twenty one years?
Could it be the extraordinary wages, expenses and pensions of EU staff with their noses in the massive trough paid for by the citizens?
Might they reflect on the fact that despite putting into the pot more than any other country except Germany, only 3% of EU staff are British?
Are they attracted by the intransigence to reform or perhaps they are attracted by the promise that with the push for greater political union those Countries outside the Euro, like the UK, will be sidelined.
Perhaps they like the idea of an unelected EU Government riding roughshod over the Democracies of Greece and Italy.

On the other hand they may have absolutely no confidence in the ability of a resourceful, brave British Nation to survive alone.
They may not like the idea of an independant UK having the ability to trade with Commonwealth and other English speaking Countries.
They most certainly will regret that the UK can regain some control over immigration.

And the whingeing 'elite' and Scots think that the hard working people of the British hinterland are 'uneducated'. It beggars belief.
The UK should unite, the people remain proud, and believe in a country that has survived worse crises.

I have heard some hysterical people bemoan the fact that youngsters will lose out. How? Why? They are nearly always people under 50 who can't remember that before the EU, young people went abroad for travel and education as they do now. The only difference was that in those days all the European Countries were independent and different, offering different perspectives on life with not a KFC and McDonalds in sight.

Monday 20 June 2016

'Pooled' sovereignty is NOT Sovereignty

I'm disappointed with Baroness Warsi; I used to admire her-but no longer. She was once a vibrant spokesperson for the Tories, dealing with difficult matters the elite didn't want to face, but she has sadly reverted to type. Despite having nothing to do with the leave campaign for the EU Referendum, she has announced that after publication of UKIP's poster she, a first generation immigrant, has decided to vote 'IN'. She clearly wasn't British enough, like many of her ilk.
What was it in the poster that annoyed her; was it the fact that it displayed a seemingly never-ending queue of what were certainly all Muslims; was it the fact that they were all males or it was perhaps that they were all young, maybe of army age?
A UN report has shown that 63 million persons have been displaced this year, mostly from the three countries, Afghanistan, Somalia and Syria. I don't think it is a coincidence that all these Countries are, like the good Baroness, Muslim. The majority of these young men are probably victims but there is a good chance that some are jihadists waging Holy war against the infidels. Imagine now that these people had come form lands full of the contagion of Ebola, they would be stopped at the border and rigorously tested; so too if they were Nazis. Why is it then that stopping these young men from spreading the contagion of their religion is wrong. Have we become so paralysed by the Human Rights brigade that we are unable to oppose the spread of the vilification of the West and our way of life? Somalia, Syria and Afghanistan are Islamic Countries. These people are fleeing the problems caused by Islam and yet they are carrying their religion with them to infect those lands which welcome them with the same mindset that caused them so much angst. It is this arrant stupidity that defies logic and annoys me most. Surely, unless they are brainwashed, they must hope to escape the problem and the only way to do that is with education! Not hours in a madrasseh studying the Qu'ran but a good all round education that focuses on the sciences and technology.
Ah! But there are good Muslims I hear you say; they settle and want peace. It's true, there are but how many times have we heard the relatives of young English Muslims who go to Syria to fight for ISIS tell us that 'they were such nice boys and girls; we had no idea'. It is in the genes.

Cameron argues that the UK hasn't lost sovereignty, it has 'pooled' it with the other EU states. Bollocks; like pregnancy, Sovereignty cannot be pooled; a Country cannot be partially Sovereign. Either you are sovereign or you are not and quite clearly the UK is not Sovereign. The chance will not come aagin until the EU collapses, as it surely will. I urge everyone to vote OUT and remind Baroness Warsi that the British are a proud, resourceful Country; compassionate but not stupid.

Tuesday 14 June 2016

Accountability in Public service

Ten men are facing jail for turning a travellers' camp built with £3million of taxpayers' cash into a giant hidden cannabis plantation worth up to £340,000 a year.
Half of the 24 caravans at their newly-renovated Glynmill camp in Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales, were used as cover for a sophisticated drug-producing operation.
Their gypsy and traveller site had received a £3million grant of public money for improvements including a community hall, toilet blocks and landscaping from the Labour-run Welsh Government.

Read more:

Somebody somewhere, no doubt over a multiplicity of bureaucratic layers, approved of this scheme and should be shamed for their misuse of public funds. Where is public accountability? Who are the bastards that approve this spending and what is their authority? Let's have their names; everyone who voted for this expenditure. Let's expose them to the public whose money they have so extravagantly abused and let us tell the electorate that in voting for a Socialist government in Wales you are not only letting down a proud Nation but all the people who legally dwell in it.

Thursday 9 June 2016

Corporate pickpocketing

Imagine the scene of a common pickpocketing. Agent A approaches a victim as agent B waits events. Agent A steals the wallet from the victims back pocket, say, and passes it immediately to agent B who has timed his pass perfectly. When apprehended, agent A protests his innocence and a search of his person can find no trace of the missing wallet.

Now picture another scene; this time a businessman buys a Company (the victim). He then strips the assets of the company and immediately transfers them to his wife who hides the proceeds in untraceable, numbered bank accounts in a tax haven. The Company is then sold at a bargain price. When later questioned about the subsequent Company failure, the businessman can claim, quite correctly, that he has no knowledge of the whereabouts of the missing money. Now, what is the difference in these two scenarios; in the first example we have the work of crooks and in the second the trade of businessmen?

Saturday 4 June 2016

Why all the fawning over Ali?

Following his death, am I the only one who wonders why there is so much fawning over Muhammad Ali, formerly known as Cassius Clay, his familial name.
Despite his being a gifted fighter, he won an Olympic gold medal in Rome, let us not forget that the 'Louisville Lip's' biggest asset was his mouth and his ability to irritate his opponents with his pathetic verses. 'I dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee' was dreadful as was all his posturing, and his elevation to some Godlike figure betrays the honesty and skill of all those boxers who were genuinely braver and better. Even President Obama has weighed in with a tribute, praising a man who used his conversion to Islam as an excuse to escape the draft. Talk about brave; whilst other proud US men and women responded to the call to fight he opted out, suffering only the loss of his titles. To some people, he should have been awarded the merit of three white feathers.
That was bad enough but to hear the fawning praises of English commentators like Michael Parkinson and Piers Morgan is sickening when he cheated England's own hero Henry Cooper out of a win. Despite weighing two stone lighter, Cooper's famous left hook dumped Ali on his arse, only to see the american saved by the bell. His corner team then managed to extend the time of the interval to allow Ali to recover. His victory, because of eye damage, a perennial problem with Cooper, was, to my mind, a miscarriage of justice but it didn't stop the Ali bandwagon from promoting the 'story' that was Ali.
There is no doubt that his success in the ring also led to the illness that finally ended his earthly bout. His record of five defeats and the odour of a possible cheat suggests he wasn't the best ever fighter but there was a special 'something' about the man which captivated a boxing audience fed up with a succession of 17 stone plus, lumbering US heavyweight champions. He can be lauded for shaking up the heavyweight scene but please, do not place him in the Pantheon of boxing greats.

Wednesday 1 June 2016

Brexit5. The EU future. Guest Post

No apologies for another post on Brexit because it is the biggest decision to face the UK for a generation. This is a guest post from ALBERT KIRK.

So, remainers, let's get down to brass tacks. You want us in the EU at any cost. It doesn't bother you at all that MEPs have no real power to hold the EU executive to account. It doesn't bother you at all that Britain is virtually defenceless against laws it does not want. It doesn't bother you that we are being gradually erased from all the global top tables and subordinate to the EU.

It doesn't bother you that the unresponsive CFP is totally impervious to reform. It doesn't bother you that the Prime minister has lied about his bogus reforms. For you, it's all in the greater good and you will tell any lie in support of that. For you the ends justify the means. Ok then.

It's great for you that the odds are in your favour. You will probably get what you want. And we know what is coming next. We know that the civic administration of Spain and Italy is held together by string and glue and eventually what happened to Greece will happen to one or more Euro states.

The EU will again need to assume administration in order to keep the Euro from folding and it will become apparent that the EU will need to introduce more direct governance measures. In effect we will see the final pieces put into place to make the EU the one true supreme government for Europe.

What we do know is that Britain will not submit under any circumstances to that level of control and will be exempted, thus creating that two speed Europe, if not actually by name then through divergence. From that day forward there will be an inherent internal bias within the EU that eurozone member states come first. That's not unreasonable in their position, not least when EU governance is a such a mess.

In order to shore up those economies, quite obviously the agenda for trade will put their needs first. They will have to. The future of the Euro depends on it. So the questions you really have to answer is how Britain is served by not being able to initiate its own trade agreements with other countries, and why it is good for Britain to have to wait its turn in a queue for EU diplomatic resources when other countries deal direct at the global top tables?

In effect you will have given us the worst of all worlds where we are not "leading in Europe" because we're not in the Euro. We certainly won't be a priority concern, and if the Euro is at any point in immediate peril, we can be sure our objections to new legislation will be ignored. Again, in their position I wouldn't blame them.

Worse still, we will not be able to act independently and will only benefit from future EU trade deals if we share those industrial concerns under negotiation. Britain being a diverse and modern economy means we will have distinctive needs that we cannot address. We get neither the benefits of independence or the benefit of being at "the heart of Europe".

And in this, we still haven't solved any of the fundamental problems of the EU. You say we should stay in so we can reform the EU, but when has that ever happened in any meaningful sense, and when can we expect to see that yawning democratic deficit plugged? Where is your plan for reform? Where is your timetable? How can Britain stay afloat without the ability to take up its concerns at the top tables?

Britain has strong historical and cultural ties with India and we could be gradually dismantling barriers to trade, but the way the EU approaches trade, we will be waiting years for that to happen. Today we note that once again talks have stalled in accomplishing a comprehensive deal. Why should we be locked into this obsolete way of doing things? Why should we have to wait our turn? How long must we wait? Why is it better to be on the fringes of Europe without the same level of global participation and agility as Norway?

Meanwhile, as the EU progresses, there is no way it is going to exempt us from every measure it takes to bring Eurozone stability. We are told we will be left out of ever close union but that's not actually true is it? There next time we adopt a single strand of EU law we are defacto breaking that agreement. We have no veto in the same way Norway does. Why is EU membership better?

Norway has a tangible veto by way of shaping the rules the EU adopts and it has the leverage of joining other ad-hoc alliances against the EU. It has a real emergency brake on immigration. It has the power to initiate trade talks with whomever it so chooses and enjoys more or less full access to the single market on the same terms.

Norway still cooperates fully with Interpol and participate in many of the academic cooperation agreements. They can have their cake and eat it. They can have multilateral cooperation as well as close ties with the EU without being subordinate in every single way.

For sure they still pay into the budget and still accept some of the laws but the have the right to say no. So really my question is why it is better for us to be a fringe concern of the EU, locked into their agenda, when reality already tells us we are going a different way to the rest of the EU? Why should we be on the fringes of the EU with no real say in core EU activities and even less say at the top tables? Why put us between a rock and a hard place?

Brexit does not mean leaving the single market, nor does it mean the end of cooperation with the EU, nor does it mean giving up on any of the rights we enjoy as citizens of the free West. We can be partners with the EU but not subordinate to it. We can be allies and not slaves. We can end a forty year old schism in domestic politics and move on from a dispute that will not go away. We can remove the thorn from the paw without causing major disruption.

In the face of this, when we lose so very little by leaving the EU, why should we maintain this political deadlock? Why should we perpetuate this row that won't go away? This referendum will not settle the issue. When the gains for remaining a member of the EU are so marginal given the direction it will take, we need to know why it is that Remainers think it is worth the sacrifice. For the life of me, I can't see it.

In the end, only about half the population wants to stay in the EU- and many of them only because of the fear you have spread through dishonest means. Does that not suggest to you that we need a different relationship? We need to find another way so we can settle this.

Nothing is settled if we stay in the EU. Chances are domestic politics will become even more fractious and toxic as nobody is happy with the status quo. Those who say we should remain in the EU need to tell us what they think a vote to Remain will actually solve. If you think this puts an end to the EU question you are very, very mistaken.Vote Out.