Murderers Cherelle McKenzie-Jackson and Marc Tulloch

I have just read an article about the teenage murderers: Cherelle McKenzie-Jackson, 14 and Marc Tulloch, 17. In yet an another incidence of moronic behaviour they killed a boy who was playing football. The victim was Junior Nkwelle, 15.  Cherelle apparently did not like the way Junior had spoken to her, she felt aggrieved, so aggrieved in fact she decided Junior had to pay for his behaviour. For some reason Cherelle believed she was special and if insulted by another teenager they should pay for it. Junior paid for it when Marc Tulloch stabbed him in the chest to appease his girl friend Cherelle. It is another act of mindless violence and mindless disregard for life.  No doubt both Cherelle and Marc had no consideration for consequences. This seems to be a common thing with teenagers. Junior was not considered as a human being, he was not considered to be the son, nephew or brother of another person. He was not thought of for the good deeds he had done during his life which Cherelle and Marc were not aware of.  He was evaluated by a judge and jury of only two people, two teenage kids full of ignorance and self worth.  Remarkably these two murderers were not sentenced to murder but rather man slaughter, when this vengeful act was actually premeditated. Cherelle set the whole thing up. In view of this their sentences would seem pretty light Cherelle got 8 years and Marc 10 years. However, they will only serve half this time.

There may have been a degree of verbal provocation, but verbal provocation is something every person must live with during their entire life. It happens every day. Normal people learn if they are provoked to use many different strategies. Walking away, verbal argument, physical violence which is non fatal, verbal reasoning, humour and laughter. The list of coping strategies is endless, it is as imaginative as a human being can be. Whilst the solution from Cherelle and Marc was probably the least imaginative of all.

I am always saddened whenever I read the news about teenagers who are murdered or who are killers and take no responsibility or thought about what they have done. I am saddened to yet again read of this happening in London. On a housing estate (Loughborough Estate) in Lambeth South London. It is an area which suffers from poverty, it has both gangs and drugs issues. It is in fact a common factor of many housing estates in London.  With poverty there is ignorance as well.  It is poor kids killing poor kids, because I never hear of rich kids killing rich kids in the same way. 

Poor late Junior had his life ahead of him, he could of expected to live another 60 or 70 years, had a girlfriend and got married and had a family. Junior and his parents will never see what his sons or daughters would of been like. How he could of enriched this planet. In the meantime Cherelle and Marc will likely serve a total of 9 years and then be let free.  It seems in such instances life is cheap. Both sentences should of been double. Maybe they will come out of prison having learnt something, but at that time they will still both be pretty young, well at least they have time to think about consequences. If that is they do.

Pope Benedict aka Cardinal Ratzinger cover up of Pedophillia

The Catholic Church has been under microscope for some time. Particularly the role the last  Pope  in his slow investigation and purposeful blocking of paedophilia which has happened in the church. He authored a document which the Vatican kept used as a guide to covering up this heinous crime, the document is called the Crimen Sollicitationis. It was written in Latin by himself in 1962 and describes how the Catholic Church hides and protects it's own clergy who have committed paedophilia.  Cardinal Ratzinger who was then re-named after election as pope to pope Benedict. Might I add elected by mortal men in a conclave at the Vatican. Much like the present pope Jorge Bergoglio renamed pope Francis.

Children and the old are the vulnerable in society. As such they should be fully protected with the conscience and morality of every single person. When the law breaks down, or when organizations like the Catholic Church have protected the abusers then something is very, very wrong. Proof of this can be seen in a BBC program called Panorama in which it details how Father Fortune was able to evade detection from the police with the help of the Vatican. Who moved him around from one dioceses to another. The Catholic church instigated a wall of silence failed to turn over evidence which may have convicted father Fortune. The purposefully interfered with a criminal investigation and then stated Fortune would be judged under church law rather than the normal laws which judge the rest of us.

The pressure of this instance and many other ignorant acts by the Prada wearing Pope Benedict no doubt also added to his choice to retire and remarkable how it is the conclave in electing a new Pope chose someone who was characteristically the opposite of Ratzinger.  It is still however a sad state of affairs the catholic church have failed to atone for the wrongs it has done in allowing criminal priests to get away.

I do not see how in reality  a head of a Church can be allowed to dictate in this way. Whether it be through the evil of ignorance and to the power of an alleged holly organization.  Ratzinger in his participation of policy making has contributed to increased incidents of paedophilia in the Catholic church.  Simply priests were protected in a similar way the Mafia close ranks and put up a wall of silence.  The washing has been done in public and the reality was Ratzinger's damage to the Catholic church has been more invasive than a group of atheist whores, doing business at the conclave.  Which being a secretive event may actually happen each time a new Pope is voted in. One thing is for sure there will be a whole many more cardinals not voicing their happiness Ratzinger has gone.

Toxic parents and parenting

It seems when I look around me there are a large proportion of people had dysfunctional childhoods in one form or another. Their upbringing has come from parents who do not  have the emotional intelligence or adultness about them to actually act as adults. At times it is like children raising children. The values of motherly or fatherly love are entwined in their own self esteem, and rather than being unconditional they are fully and completely conditional. Where a child seems no more than a necessary object in their lives, one which defines them amongst their peers. A child is something which tags along, holding a hand, it is an explicit show of who they are, of their place in society.  It says "I am a mother/father and am responsible and caring." Which in reality can be quite the opposite.  A child brings other advantages as well, financial assistance, emotional , social (against fear of loneliness) and a scape goat for everything.  Financial assistance which comes from the welfare state in the form of benefits, emotional because the child can be hugged and social as it gives them a chance to meet other like minded families. Unfortunately those other families can both have good parents or toxic parents. Generally toxic parents can gravitate towards each other, but sometimes this is not the case and they will attach themselves as a friend to a normal parent. Hoping to get some acknowledgement they are the same when in fact they are not.

I can only speak for the working classes and the unemployable classes in this context. As I have no experience of the middle or upper classes but I'm sure toxic parenting has no discrimination. Having money doesn't inoculate against emotional dysfunction which can be transferred to children. Toxic parenting is does not effect all working class people or unemployables. The unemployables are particularly chastised by society and governments, because of their parasitic appearance. However, they probably return back into the government economy every single penny they get out of it in trying to make ends meet from day to day.  The same can be said of the working classes, by virtue of low wages nearly all they earn goes on being able to survive. Yet some are happy and very good parents who aspire to love and encourage their children, something toxic parents think they do but in reality don't.

Children begin life as a blank slate. They do not have any maladaptive behaviours but in Freudian terms their early years are all self-centred. Toxic parents are like this, they carry on their self-centred attitude throughout their life. Always seeking to blame other people for their plight, always thinking of what they could of been but never were and then projecting their own ambitions and inadequacies on their children. They are of low self esteem, depressed, suffer from anxiety and are mentally insular. Their imagination to get out of their own rut does not exist. They sap and sap away looking for attention at every turn because of their plight. Then the worst thing of all they take this out on their children. Who they allege to love. Children who grow up confused, who do not understand why their adult care giver says one thing but then acts in a completely different way. A toxic parent's ultimate achievement is to make their own child like themselves. This consequently perpetuates a cycle of toxicity to yet another generation. Children however are not stupid and they grow up knowing this and learning this, some will counter it in their own ways. Unfortunately their lives, emotional, physical and psychological are owned by the parent, worse still legally owned.

There comes a point in their life when they will either allow themselves to be carried along in this behaviour or fight against it. Whether as a teenager or even many years later as an adult. They recall events and know their parents was wrong. They feel aggrieved and then are put in an emotional and psychological turmoil, trying break out. Or are pulled down into the depression of their childhood upbringing. If they think about these things too much they can result in mental illness. It is all to do with their own mental resilience and capability. Coming to this point in their life they are now at a cross road.  Either they understand the toxic nature of their parent and accept it, but in doing so they will understand there are certain protective behaviours which have to put in place, they have to guard themselves and be on constant alert. As their parent gets older and more frail, they are seen pitifully but beware they will still have a vicious and spiteful tongue in their head. They further can not be trusted with grandchildren, these grand parents are seen as "nutty."  Showing love in one instance and then twisting it in another, their actions are always invidious.

The worse part about toxic parenting is that no law exists against it. When considering the acts of dictators the world may act after time.  With toxic parenting the cycle persists until it is broken. Until the child of a toxic parent knows certain behaviours are unacceptable and can not be carried forward. If they are lucky they can then escape to something which approaches normality. The experience and lessons of such childhoods however, are never forgotten.

Jeremy Hunt the Psycho

Without fail, every time I see Jeremy Hunt I think he is insane. There is a far off look in his eyes, a madness about him, he should be in a white coat and a soft padded room, alone. In this solitary place it would probably be too crowded as well. I don't know if he is a man with an ego like Cameron or whether it's because he has an arrogant hubris like Osborne, or perhaps it is both of these. This is the man who thought even though it was best for all if News Corp won their bid for Sky, even as Culture Secretary for the government. When I see Hunt, Cameron or Osborne something nasty turns in my stomach. They want not to just rule the country but to own it and to hoodwink every single person. But they take us for fools, which part of the electorate probably is, the part which voted for them in the first place and thought they would be the best option.

Jeremy Hunt it is rumoured wear women's panties. I'm sure this rumour is true, it would account for his odd stare. Now he is the Health Secretary, he will no doubt fix up an appointment with a shrink to investigate his preference for women's knickers above boxers. It will be free of course because he is an important person. Well, I'm sure he is in someone's eye's, his mum's?  Then again maybe not. Mind he must see a doc every few days, on account of the horns which grow on the top of his head. They need to be ground down every once in a while. He now presides over what will happen with the death camp called Mid Staffordshire Hospital, where it is has been said over a 1,000 people prematurely died. Hunt agrees nobody has been held to account, but he doesn't speak the language of retribution. He defers responsibility to the culture of the hospital but doesn't take it on himself. He says the NHS is to bureaucratic and his solution is another level of form filling. One thing I can say for sure, Mr Hunt will not enter an NHS hospital if there is anything wrong with him, he'll go private, and probably from the profit he makes as a share holder in News Corp, if not shares likely employment opportunity when he leaves.

The Tories will  not be in power another term as for the Liberals it will take another 70 years before they can even conceive influence like this again. They will not be in power if my vote counts for something, and I may even help canvas as well. Hunt is one psycho heading to a hotter place, I bet he's even got his own trident.

Asad is at it again

President Asad has today been airing his views on the rebels fighting in his country. It is as though he thinks he actually owns his country and every life in it. Listening to part of his speech I found it quite laughable as everything he said could of been spoken by a rebel commander who had been given the publicity to air their thoughts. Asad should not be given the oxygen of speech he is now without doubt becoming a tyrant. Much in the same way as Gaddaffi and Saddam have been. These tyrants look after their own and then put the rest of the country into termoil, like parasites they suck the blood out of them.

The freedom of speech is not given to other political parties, to the rebels, to anyone who opposes the views of Asad. His words come across as those of a mad man, again similar to the mad men rulers of yesterday who are of course dead. Asad, you will tear your country apart, Syria needs to be free, you will be guilty of murder and so will your followers. Many will die and it will take a long time, but your days are certainly numbered.

America and guns, God Bless the right to murder

The American constitution (second amendment) gives citizens of this great country to right to bare arms. On examining this constitution I can see it has a moral and social equality and how it unifies the people. It is something American's consider with pride and is like apple pie, a very important part of their identity. Beyond words. But the constitution is old, it is out of date. It reflects a time and place when having a fire arm was necessary to survival. So today, it is quiet obviously a redundant feature. You don't need a gun to protect yourself, but you do need a gun to kill. So in this notion of freedom Americans now have a right to not just possess a weapon but for any American to possess a weapon and for them in turn to take the life of another.

Connecticut, Newtown, Sandy Hook Elementary School. A twenty year old young man (Adam Lanza).,disaffected with life, possibly having a mental illness and most certainly emotional instability kills 20 children and 6 teachers. After which he sets the gun on  himself and kills himself. He had the right to bare arms, he had the right to protect himself, he did not have the right to kill innocent young children. Children whose parents had probably already bought them Christmas presents. Presents which will now lay unopened for eternity. Children who no longer have the right to life because it has been taken away from them. They will in turn not have their own children, not know what it is like to have their first boyfriend or girlfriend. Now their mothers and fathers will mourn them and wonder if America is such a great country after all. However, if by some chance their parents don't the rest of the world certainly do. It doesn't take much reason to understand, the unavailability of firearms therefore makes it more difficult to quickly kill another individual. If someone is intent on murder there is nothing to stop them. Yet, if they are murderous emotionally unable to control their own feelings or understand them then a firearm gives them the ability to quickly kill and not to consider the consequences of their actions while they are happening.

God bless America, the right to bare arms and the right to kill indiscriminately when an unhinged mind is behind the firearm. The world looks on you and knows, something is wrong, very wrong. The world can see this time and time again. Columbine High School in Littleton America also comes to mind.  In the UK such a right does not exist. The number of firearms used in killings is far less per capita. We do have firearms but they simply are not readily available. There are not gun shops scattered all over the place and there is very strict licensing. We don't have it right, but it is better. To this extent we value life. Whereas the right to bare arms removes the right of life.

America get it right, do something. The gun lobby isn't the only lobby, a school in Newtown Connecticut has a viewpoint worthy to challenge any. Sadly though, it will all happen again, because nothing will change.

Shame on University Hospital Wales

The care which nurses now provide in NHS hospitals is coming under scrutiny.  Time and time again stories arise how nurses fail to care for patients. This does not apply to all nurses it applies to some, the some who have no compassion for the people they actually look after. Caring for another individual when they're sick is a huge responsibility. To do it correctly includes having all those human attributes which historically have been associated with good nursing.  But now it seems these nurses are failing the patients, not giving them water when they are thirsty, cleaning them when they are soiled or making the last moments of life dignified and comfortable. The fact is, these nurses should not be doing the job. They should be sacked. It's simple.  Unfortunately the only conclusion I can come to is they are protected by the Hospitals they work in and by their colleagues who believe it is loyal to support one of your own staff.

An example of disgraceful nursing care has just come from MP Ann Clywd.  Her husband was terminally ill at University Hospital in Wales. She has spoken about her experience and her husband's death on national radio. If there are any rational spokespersons on behalf of this hospital they should be seeking out who those nurses were on the ward when her husband died. The nurses who put inadequate bed covering on Mr Clywd which would not keep him warm, an oxygen mask which did not fit and did not give him the curtisy of a dignified death.  The nurses, the administrator and the chief executive should all be made to account for their roles.  There are plenty of unemployed people who want jobs and training, and if these nurses are not up to common basic standards of compassion they should not only be sacked but considered to have broken health and safety legislation.  Then called to account and bought to trial. Negligence in the care of sick people is a criminal offence and negligence by common compassion and common sense should be on the statute book.

Shame on you University Hospital Wales