Teresa May, oh dear in the news again

Sometimes it is funny to hear what happens in the very public world of politics. Especially in Britain where we now have yet another woman prime minister but this is one who was not voted in by the people. Not to say being a woman is a bad thing, although being a Tory could probably be considered to be a very bad thing as it engenders all those values of selfishness and arrogance the Tories seem to treasure more than their own bank balance. Good old Teresa May has now put her head up again over the parapet to get it swiped at by the press and the public. What indeed is she has done?

Firstly she has ratted out the civil service, emphasising it is not acceptable for there to be leaks in the government and anyone caught leaking will be sacked. Those poor civil servants I sure hope they get out at lunch time and find somewhere secretive to have a good pee because they clearly are not allowed to do it on the job. You would of thought there was a law against telling staff they can't urinate, but this is what happens to employment rights when the Tories take power. It wasn't long after TM made this announcement at a very private cabinet meeting it was then leaked to the press. So what does it say about the cabinet? It probably says they disagree with her, or someone disagrees with her to the extent they are not worried about losing their job. The someone being one of her own Ministers.  However, we as we all know is unlikely the axe will fall because the press have a good sense to keep their sources protected. Yep, there is always a man from the press with a long trench coat hiding the poor civil servant and minister who needs to take a leak. Thank Beelzebub for the press those nasty little creatures.

The BREXIT will be a topic of news for many years, this is always going to be on the agenda and will likely be in every episode of Question Time for the next few years as well. So my second item is BREXIT. TM like her cabinet colleagues feels the BREXIT should be acted upon, which is fine, the problem is how it is dealt with, and how TM & Co act. At the moment it is as though they have just one thought "out means out" this tells us absolutely nothing. My three year old beautiful princess J can tell me this when I've been naughty. Perhaps my mind has changed a little on the whole BREXIT issue because it is transparent Europe doesn't like Britain and wants to punish Britain for contemplating leaving their gang. TM and Phillip Hammond are showing their incredible ignorance when it comes to BREXIT and this factor is equally transparent to Europe so if Article 50 is engaged next March the Europeans will get their way in punishing us. They so want to torture the UK and put us in a tail spin, they want to see our economy drop and see a broken country. This makes me angry because they are acting like bullies. Yet TM and PH are falling straight into the trap. Europe is a bunch of 28 nations who don't all agree and are actually beginning to show the cracks, Europe is like a pop group which does well in the early days, makes a few hits and before it those big egos get inflated even more so differences of opinion mean friction and break up. It happens all the time and there is no difference with Europe. Although a bureaucratic administration of states it is not a set of states ruled by a megalomaniac Genghis Khan character. Countries which once wanted border-less boundaries are now putting up fences to stop immigration, yet in the same time they disagree the UK can not have access to the single market unless it allows free movement. Yes it sound like another visit to the toilet. Europe is constipated and is taking it out on Britain and May doesn't get it. She needs to shut up and not even speak on the issue of BREXIT for every word she says makes things worse. In my mind we do need to come out, but hell lets make it a slow negotiation process and bring them to their knees.

A third reason why TM is in the news but is not as pronounced as the first two, is for her support for faith schooling. It is an utter shame the Tories go down this route, but the reason is more than likely related not to religion but to costs. Let faith schools look after themselves, let them spout any ideology they wish and let them brainwash their children to be extremists in all faiths. Because then their education and the results of their education can not be down to Tory ineptitude. We all know young minds are susceptible to being moulded and shaped, and from young minds adults arise. In the guise of a Christian like religion TM also captures the future religious vote, she says the Tories respect your religion and therefore we are worthy of your vote more than any other party. It was the founding fathers of America who left out religion in the constitution. They wanted people to be free of prejudices and although a valid and worthy ideal, humans don't work that way. There will always be bias, but it is possible to have informed bias and logical thought. Which is something Socrates did his best to part to the people. Religion is a form of brain washing and the same choice of religion should be the same choice as goods in a supermarket, it should not be imposed on anyone until they are of age to be able to logically think and question the evidence or belief. As Andre Gide said "Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it."

A continuing point of debate will be the UK's deficit.  In an earlier post I showed how each being young and old in the UK had a personal debt of approximately £25,000. TM and PH are not tackling this subject and are using the same arguments which came before. They are not able to move out of this mindset and what the UK needs now is a paradigm shift, one so fundamental we all view a personal responsibility to reduce the deficit, one so fundamental the value of money is secondary to the value of humanity and morality. Unfortunately the only whiff of a shift in view point comes from Jeremy Corbyn unfortunately he is an abysmal opposition leader. The party has not changed and my mind about him has now changed, everyone needs to be on board and he just doesn't get it. The UK is heading to bankruptcy and with every continuing Tory government and Labour government we just keep going down the same old road. There will be inevitable poverty and suffering for all of us as the Tories yet again break the NHS, break the Education system and break the people who have made this country what it is.

The Niqab and the burka, should they be banned from the UK

In 2012 France banned the public wearing of the niqab and the burka.  This is the only European country at this time which has taken this action.  It may be a purely political decision, but there are a lot of other reasons why wearing a niqab and burka is wrong.  For example, Dr Tarj Hargey from the Muslim Education Centre, Oxford states these coverings are a pre Islamic cultural practice, a throw back to the Byzantine and Persian empires. Dr Tarj Hargey is an Iman and has on demonstrated his dislike of these coverings by burning them in public.  Quite clearly, not all Iman's have the same view on the topic.  However, saying this, there is no mention at all in the Quran suggesting female followers of Islam should follow this practice.  Dr Hargey goes on to state this practice was used by the aristocrats of these early empires to show their ownership of women, by not letting other males gaze upon them.  The Quran instructs men and women to dress modestly the words niqab and burka can not even be found in it.  So it comes down to interpretation which  then gives sholastic Iman's the influence and power to preach to their flock, as to what they should wear or how they should react to the rest of the world.  Dr Hargey and many Europeans also agree on one thing, these coverings make women appear as second class citizens who have to follow the words of men.  The directions to cover up are misogynistic and offensive.

The face is an intimate tool of communication. It is said in language the message is 90 per cent non verbal from the actual words spoken.  In verbal communication there is a phenomenon known as the McGirk effect, where viewing the lips of a speaker helps to actually hear what they say. This is because in part we lip read as well as listen to the words spoken.  Covering up the face in any way is the kind of thing racing drivers, motor bike riders and bank robbers do.  It is associated either with anonymity or with safety in the form of a visor.  It is anonymity which comes across in public as being offensive. I've seen young males cover their faces with pull up scarves, the don't want people to see them to recognize them because they may have a nefarious intent. It is to protect themselves, because they may well be in the process of committing a crime. Which then makes me ask are these Islamic following females about to commit a dastardly deed when they cover up?  Of course not.  Yet, do they understand how this may be seen and viewed by others? I doubt it.  There is a liberal freedom in the UK to wear what you want, in most part.  Yet at the same time there is a recognition you would not walk down the street with an offensive or racist slogan written on a t-shirt.  While in another instance hiding a face if not for safety reasons is also an offensive act, in being a factor of male domination and anti-social terms, but yet it is not banned in the UK. It could very well be the UK is too liberalistic.  For, here all types of fundamentalist views are allowed to be held within the law, they coexist at the same time even if they are disliked. While then advocating it is the law of the land and justice which reigns supreme, when in fact we all know it is more of who has enough money to buy the best lawyers and then they are the ones who reign supreme.

For a Muslim woman the wearing of these coverings may be based in additional reasons than just religious.  Men will and do like to oggle women, especially if they are attractive. Or attractive to the man.  Wearing a full body covering and face covering doesn't give a man a chance to see an features of a woman at all. In so doing a woman may feel they are no longer being judged either by men or other women for what they wear or on how attractive they are.  The coverings become a shield, endorsed in the guise of religion or culture. Or indeed it could be a very self enlightened freedom of expression.  It could be said a woman wearing this covering does so through choice and free choice, but it could also be argued in Islamic circles wearing these coverings is not just a choice it is a social norm and there is a degree of social pressure, where women are coerced into this attire. In this instance the full hijab and niqab becomes a standing moving coffin. Others will argue it is not for the state to dictate what an individual wears and all persons should have freedom of choice. Which is ludicrous because if I chose to walk down the street naked it would only be a matter of time before I am arrested for indecent exposure.  People would find it offensive, but in the same instance the acknowledgement of public decency and offensive undress should apply to offensive full dressage.

The UK is celebrated as a secular country, and it's current laws are such to allow freedom of expression unless of course the intent of this freedom is abused to cause harm to other persons.  However, this harm is considered primarily when it is a real physical threat.  The law to a lesser degree tackles psychological harassment, but it is a much lesser degree. To the extend if one wishes to be offensive to other people by demeanor then it is fine.  The world is made up of a  mixed bag of people and there will always be those who are idiots, it's a fact, but probably an interpretive fact.  The bottom line is wearing a face covering is an alien aspect to the UK society, historically you will probably only find it when used to protect the face, such as in war.  It is not an every day aspect of life.  Therefore it does appear offensive, because the face is a major communicative tool and facial expressions tell a lot about a person.  So why should one person show their face while another keeps it covered up?  The answer is because the UK has now become a multi cultural society and societies within societies are both allowed to exist and at the same time be contradictory and offensive to those not part of the in group.  Ultimately it is down to the individual what they wear.  However, like the phenomenon termed Stockholm syndrome, where a kidnapped victim begins to identify with their kidnappers, the same mental bending can be interpreted of those adherents of some religions.  Unless of course you happen to be living in France in which case, being covered up in a black clothed coffin is probably known as locked in syndrome. 

Viva La France.

Witchcraft at the supermarket

It was with a little disbelief bordering on horror I heard a conversation taking place in my local supermarket. Two black females with about three children were discussing witchcraft.  One of them had the view as a Christian church goer she was sceptical of it existing.  While it seemed the other was curious and on the verge of accepting she actually believed such a thing did exist.  There was a persistence about this woman, it was as thought this witchcraft thing was something she was going to hang onto with relish because she had found something important or powerful.  It could well have been a belief system one upmanship she was practising while they walked down the aisle with shampoos one one side and headache pills on the other.  This is London I thought, this is a Western society I live in and here on my very doorstep was someone who was taking back the learning of hundreds of years of reason.  Witchcraft does not exist.  It is not real.  It is something used by a few to manipulate others and more so to those who are no educated.  Who don't understand things and hold beliefs which the UK had disbanded to mental illness also hundreds of years ago.  Such belief systems can not be compatible in today's enlightenment.  But they are.

Are such minds weak and feeble I ask myself.  This can not be true.  It could be due to upbringing and cultural beliefs which are completely alien to my own.  What is acceptable in one society and in one country is not always acceptable in another.  In regard to witchcraft there have been too many high profile news items of children being abused by relatives who thought their children were possessed.  There have been murders and torturing as well.  These are gross violations of human being by other mislead ignorant humans.  It is not enough for them to be sent to prison for such things should not be happening in the first place.  I am nearly fifty years old.  In my life I have not seen a single paranormal event, I have not witnessed anything of the nature.  I have gone from believer, to agnostic to atheist.  In a gradual process of understanding and enlightenment.  It begins at an early age, probably with the notion of the nativity, false belief is then rewarded by such things as the tooth fairy.  Cultural and religious ceremonies are used to bring groups of society together for a single purpose, family and friends are then bound as being part of an event no matter how false it is.  The christening of a child for instance.  They are there to ingrain or breed awe in those who attend so they have a deference.  If you don't hold such deference then these things would be the equivalent of anathema.  Personally, I've got to accept other people have their own ideas.   Even when I get to the point I do not want to advise such individuals beliefs are false, but don't because mentally this could damage them.  Maybe this is what the belief in witchcraft would do to those persons as well. 

It is sad we persist to hold onto false belief systems and  even try and make other people believe the same things.  When I walk down the street and am stopped by religious nuts I waste no time with them.  Unless I happen to be in a cantankerous mood.  I don't see atheists standing at tables trying to convert believers, but they have every right to.  I don't see Satanists standing in the high street but they to have every right to propound their beliefs.  If we are a tolerant and acceptant society even these groups should be allowed their say.  Equally I don't see tables where lesbian and gay people stand and discuss gender identity, but they have an equal right as well.  Such public lobbying of belief systems should therefore be banned unless all belief systems are invited to lobby as well.

Hijab comment at airport

The creator of Fireman Sam, David Jones was stopped at a Heathrow airport after making a silly little quip which was not aggressive, discriminatory or racist.  As a woman wearing a hijab walked through Jones said "If I was wearing my scarf over my face I wonder what would happen?"  He was then detained for a hour by cretinous airport officials and questioned by Police.  This was the comment of a man who is frustrated with how crazy political correctness has become.  He got penalised and he was not wearing any suspicious clothing.  He was white, a male and a pensioner.  This man was penalised more because he spoke his mind, in a country with alleged free speech he suffered.  The individual who needs re educating is the one who took the decision Jones should be detained.  This was an innocent comment.  If we are to take political correctness further every individual who wears an item which obscures their face should be stopped and asked to remove it.  As human beings we read faces, eyes are the windows to the soul.  Facial expression tells a lot, if people are happy, sad, tense or shifty these expressions are universal.  The incredibility of this story was such that as the news papers were reviewed on the Andrew Marr Show this Sunday morning, Andrew Marr himself verbally skited over the subject and directed his fellow paper reviewers away from it.  This is supposed to be a serious political correspondent and he can not make up his mind whether he should speak for reason or not.  Again no doubt there was some apprehension, after all he had a show to run and didn't want to be stopped for an hour.  Sad, because this is a serious political question and brief discussion was most certainly warranted.

In security terms this is probably more important than moronic airport staff.  If someone is acting in a suspicious clues to their actions will be more apparent from the expression on their face.  It should therefore go, ever airport in the country should have a rule of no head wear except in the case of medical necessity, and a doctor's note.  Religion should not be allowed to become a justification for terrorism.  If a fanatic is going to do something to endanger the lives of others they will do it in a way to shroud their intentions.  Jones, should be given a medal for saying what the rest of us think.  Indeed.  There is nothing to stop Jones from going out and creating his own religious group, one where males cover their faces and walk in public areas.  I wonder then what everyone would be saying. 

Lastly the actions of these official trumped up self important persons has now made the notion of a free society, and freedom of speech questionable.  We all have opinions in this world and we are allowed to state them.  If the woman in the hijab didn't moan about Jones comments why should it matter to someone else.  She had the equal right to complain, she didn't.   For the sake of security let us now argue for the removal off head and facial coverings at our airports and certainly in all european countries.

Those who believe in Child Witches are in ignorance

I have just watched the most appalling documentary on how children in the Delta region of Nigeria were branded as child witches. How fundamental so called Christian pentecostal churches set themselves up to accuse children of being possessed with the devil. Then they would offer their parents to do an exorcism for a charge. An extortionate charge. Many children were being branded by adults, many became outcasts of entire communities and there were those who died from the torture put upon them. Somehow in a misguided way, ordinary Christians had mingled their underlying belief in the supernatural together and were being conned by bogus priests to pay up and then starve, burn and kill their own children. It is staggering to consider in today's age there are country's and places who still believe in witchcraft. How their poverty is scapegoated by blaming children. Rationality has no say in such matters.

Within two minutes of watching the Dispatches documentary on Channel 4 on demand I was in tears. I could not help myself and had to make a donate to the charity (Stepping Stones) trying to combat these beliefs. As the program went on, I got to learn it was a follow up episode from an earlier one perhaps a year or more ago. The strength of the program was such it had helped a new law be passed in Nigeria against cruelty to children. It had also had a follow up from with the help of a Nigerian football player who visited the charity's orphanage set up to help these outcast children. Together things are moving in the right direction. However there was a part of the program which highlighted this abuse was far from over.

A woman called Helen Ukpabio had encouraged the stigmatization of children as witches by creating various films. In one the film portrayed possessed children eating human flesh, being possessd of evil and causing a man's eyes to pop out. They looked like two ping pong balls suspended by string from his face. This woman Ukpabio presides over 150 churches the program stated. She even instigated a raid on the orphanage by the police and her lawyer. They were looking for the director so as to deal out their own form of justice. This was obvious when a gun was openly pulled out and some children who tried to stop the four plane clothes police men were assaulted, two were knocked unconscious. Being the head of so many churches it is in Helen Ukpabio's interest to continue to propagate the interest in supernatural and evil events attributable to children. The bottom line is financial. It is a wealthy business Dispatches stated. When interviewed and asked reasonable questions about the abuse of children Helen Ukpabio became defensive, even racist against the white female interviewer who asked these questions of a black woman in Nigeria. One question she asked was simple "where does it say in the bible about children being evil or possessed?" Ukpabio could not answer, although she said there were 100s of places.

If evil does exist in this world, it is in people who pick on the vulnerable, the poor, the ill educated, the weak, the old and the young. If evil does exist and the devil does exist, then one of his servants would be such a woman, without prejudice of course.