Don't show your face

Religion is a funny old thing, in which people get pretty upset about if someone comes along and has a pop at it.  Mainly because any pop at religion is taken as an insult to their belief system.  Though I can't help thinking with so many different forms of religion out there some of them must be unfounded.  The Catholic faith has taken quite a hit in the past few years, ever since the Nazi Pope Benedict became it's head.  He is the equivalent of a fundamentalist and evidence of this arises every year. It is fundamentalists which give every religion a pretty bad name.  Not just Catholicism.

Pope Benedict has just stated the inordation of a female bishop was equivalent to paedophilia in the Catholic Church.  This comparison is putrid.  However, if we recal it was this very same pope who co authored the secret Latin document called Crimen sollicitationis.  The document which set out how to deal with pedophile catholic priests.  The one which basically states, nothing.  They are protected by a complete vow of silence, where the victim if they come out and make such allegations is ex communicated.  The Vatican in it's most wisely fashion then recalls the priest to Rome and hides them aways so they are never seen again, in short it protects them.  No earthly punishment is bestowed.  The worse thing is, this is a complete collaboration of protecting the Catholic Church.  The victim is visited, statements are taken, even other evidence if available and then this is shipped to Rome.  The victim is told they are not allowed to talk to anyone for fear of God's punishment.

There can not be any justification in this action.  Any priest who has committed such a crime should be judged in a real court not in the closed chambers of some murky Vatican room.

Similarly the French have just bought out a new law which bans the face from being covered in public places.  Oddly the rest of the world has taken this to specifically mean the banning of the Bhurka, it is then seen as an affront to Islam.  However, the law is for any facial covering, not just Bhurkas.  I listened to some radio programs this morning and there were mixed responses.  I then cast my mind back two or three months ago when I got off the train and walked through the gates with the rush hour crowd only to witness at the gates a half dozen youths wearing either scarfs or bicycle smog masks across their faces.  To me it was intimidating.  The face is a focal point of communication and expression, it is particularly important for children to see faces and acknowledgement of their acceptance in society.  When I see someone with a face covering whether for religious or other reasons in public, I am suspicious.  What is it they are trying to hide you may think?  Then wonder why they insult those other people around them who do not have their face covered.  I do not think this is an issue of tolerance or of intolerance it is an issue of belief.  Yet we are supposed to be living in a secular society.   In the Quaran there is no place which states a woman should cover her face.  It has come about through interpretation of the Quaran, and of course those scholars who do most of the interpretation are Mullahs and are always men.  Hence the argument used against the wearing of a niqab being it is the subjugation of women.

What I am sure about, is there are people we may call goats and people we may call sheep.  Those who are sheep need to follow something, and sometimes with an overly fervent passion. It brings stability and focus in their lives.  Then there are those who get their kicks out of controlling others, by manipulation, by making social conformity so bounding even independent thinking goats are under so much pressure they bend and abide by the rules.  Amongst those included are the fundamentalists, dictators and Fascists.  It is secular rules and laws which the Western world follow, they are what make us equal regardless of what faith or non faith we hold, and so it should always be.  These are an equaliser for all.

However, I'll not mention royalty for they are in a category of their very own.

Boy murdered at Victoria station 25 March 2010

It is incredibly sad to hear a boy of 15 years of age was stabbed and murdered at Victoria Tube station.  His name was Sofyen Belamouadden. The worse part is it was a group murder, in which as many as 20 other school children were also involved.  Those involved wore school uniforms.

This is a typical example of "group think" taking place, or "mob rule."   I'm sure individually none of those persons would have done this deed on their own.  However, with peers present it became easier.  The group mind took over, even the most intelligent gang members would of dropped 20 IQ points.  There is also no doubt, no consideration was taken as to whether they would actually kill the boy even though knives were used.  For if they did understand what the repercussions would be then the surface of their consciousness might be pricked.  The group mind is also cultural to young teenagers.  It is as though many believe they are in some kind of war.  They aspire to be noticed, to show they are big and respectable in their insular circles.  Circles which are based on the school they go to and the area they are bought up in.  Blame is sometimes put on violent musical lyrics, or on the Americanisation of youth culture, however, ultimately the blame is with the individual who carries a knife and then uses it.  If we are to believe these individuals are free from homicidal intent, then the blame may be proportionately put on  politics, schooling, local area, peers, TV and lets not forget poverty.

Responsibility is a matter of knowing what consequences are and accepting them.  It is difficult to ponder what the answer is in the case of homicide by gang culture, especially when thinking of justice.  For if the rest of the world takes the same view this group did at the time they ambushed their victim, they would all be pushing up daisies themselves.  Who truely knows what the answer is, except somewhere there is now a family in mourning at the stupid and sensless loss of a young man's life. 

Blair's secret evidence - shame on you

Tony Blair will shortly be giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry about the Iraq war. Unlike other witnesses his will be behind a closed door. In what is rapidly being confirmed as an illegal and unjust war which only took place because Blair had fallen under the beguiling charms of America's idiot president George Bush. I'm sure the term idiot president will be one American text books will forget to print under his name, although it fits. While Chilcot's inquiry listens to more obdurate self arrogance from Blair a few more British Soldiers will die. I heard it said Blair now has his personal Chrimbo cards printed with the words "ex Prime Minster and hubris decision maker," I say heard because he didn't send me one by the way. For all of Gordon Brown's faults, I wish he had been in power at the time of the Iraqi war because, the one thing I believe he would not of done was to allow this country to slip into a tragedy of such a scale.

For one thing, war costs money and Brown is definitely a man who keeps an eye on finance. Or he used to be, until the recession come out of no where. Well America actually when their sub prime mortgage financial instruments were mostly brought by British bankers. Which has now led this country in to a near trillion pound depression. But I'll not go down this road because for the moment Blair is the subject.

You can not but think the manner and way in which Blair has tried to be self publicising has come back and given him a big bight on the back side. Take for instance his interview on TV with Fern Briton in which he spoke about the Iraqi war. There he took the publicity and the niceness of a cosy sofa sitting TV interview. There he knew Fern was going to be no match in asking the awkward questions, she's would give him an easy time. She did. The publicity bus has also stopped a few times for his missus Mrs Sherie Blair who feels she should be in the lime light by virtue of being the first wife. She is also a barrister in her own right and has been courted by large companies to defend their dodgy practices. Although it does make you wonder what kind of labour politics really mean to the Blair family. The Labour principles which are quite close to socialist principles have pretty much been left with the shopping when these two jumped on the big red publicity bus. Or should we say it was nearer an off red and in certain lighting conditions it looked blue. Another example of Blair's self effacing hubris can be seen in the recent European elections for a European President. He let his name be put forward but for some inescapable reason I'm sure the slip of paper it was written on got blown out of the hat. Oh dear. There goes about three and a half million pounds a year in wages.

Going back to the Chilcot inquiry, I read during the week how a number of witnesses had advised the invasion was both illegal and also how we were not prepared militarily. It is common knowledge now the dossier used to justify war in Iraq was a cut and pasted essay by a PhD student. It was only because of this dossier, words about Weapons of Mass Destruction and a claim of 45 minutes deployment which allowed Blair to get the Commons vote he wanted. He deliberately mislead parliament. Admitting on the Fern show had this not been an option he would of sort some other means to dethrone Saddam. All because the man Bush battered his eyelids and spoke softly in encouraging tones. Mind it must of helped when Blair was invited to Bush's ranch to do a little bit of cowboying. After all, there's a cow boy in all of us waiting to get out and use his six shooter. Except in Blair's case it was to get on his horse and ride hand in hand with his brand new best buddy.

No to bankers bonuses -(RBS)

There is a small dilemma the government is going through. It is to allow RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) to pay it's employees a one billion pound bonus; even though the bank would of by any other means have gone bankrupt had the government not stepped in to save it. Each and every one of those bankers would be on the dole cue. There would also have been complete and utter chaos in the country. With all those pension funds, asset management schemes, mortgages and personal savings suddenly becoming cattle fodder. All because the banks are now too big to fail. The banks therefore have a responsibility to every single person who is their customer, both directly and indirectly to be secure. However, they are private organizations who's goal is to make money and in trying to make money they can become vulnerable. The worse thing any country can have is a vulnerable bank. So now unless the government decisive action and pay the bonus to RBS staff then high fyers will leave the bank. But I can not help ask myself, if they are such high flyers in the first place why is it they had to be bailed by the government? In any other private company the government would of just called in the administrators. Further comes the question of bankers infinite arrogance of their own self worth. A highly inflated self worth, so high it even makes the earlier MPs expenses scandal seem like pocket change in comparison. The fact is there are highly competent people out there in the world doing highly complex jobs, pressurised jobs, skilled jobs and they earn nothing more than the average wage.

Personally I say if the bankers want to leave their jobs then let them. They are not worth it, not worth a penny more than the average wage. And probably worth quite a lot less. In addition banks should be split up again by decree of law. This way if any of them feels the need to be reckless then it will not bring the whole country down. However, to add even more weight to this argument there is no doubt the banking system should come under greater regulation. With the Financial Services Authority (FSA) being given the bark and bite of a rabid rottweiler to keep them all in place. Each and every CEO and executive officers in the banking industry for every bank which has had significant support should be taken to trial. The whole situation with the British economy will now mean for many years now, each and every tax payer will be paying and supporting the bail out of the banks. But it's not just through taxes, it will be the future spending of this country. On the country's National Health Service NHS, education and every other public service in existence. I can not reiterate how each and every single public service will be cut back as a direct result of the Banking institution in this country. How hundreds of thousands if not millions of people will be effected.

If this government allows RBS to give it's staff these bonuses, it will certainly of lost my vote in the next election and I think probably a lot of other people as well. The consequence might even be a kick up the backside for many MPs who have had more than one interest at heart.

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.

Keep the Royal Mail public

There has been a lot of talk in the News about the Royal Mail, because workers are going off on strike. The Communication Workers Union (CWU) say it's because employers will not sit around a table and discuss the issues at Acas. There is no doubt the old Royal Mail needs to be bought into the present day, but like anything else it is the "how" this is done. The mail is an integral part of the British culture and was the first in the world. So it should be given respect and it should be kept public. However, as politicians are always looking for ways to make money and we are in a recession it makes sense to sell the China, gold bullion and any other asset they can put their fingers on which the Tories didn't manage to do under the rule of a previous government.

Personally I recall leaving school and how one of the boys in the same year as me got a job with the Royal Mail. How he was guaranteed overtime whenever he wanted it and was raking in loadsa money. Particularly because I thought he didn't deserve such a good break. My own upbringing and employment prospects led me to a poor paid job and only just managing to survive. Not to mention being stung by unscrupulous bank charges whenever I went into debit. What a double whammy that was. This kid who got the job with the Mail had managed to get a job for life now. Like getting a job in other public institutions. I was perturbed over it. I couldn't understand how someone like him would get so lucky, but he was. I went on a trip for ex school pupils to Amsterdam, I recall how he was loud, how he boasted about going to see a prostitute while we were there. He certainly must of had money to burn. I could only budget enough for my food while I was on the trip and souvenirs would have to be post cards. So this is the extent of my own bitterness when thinking about the Post Office come Royal Mail. However, regardless of this and the Mail's poor decision making in employee recruitment. I believe the Royal Mail should not be privatised in any form because it is a public service and those far off or hidden homes which are not economically viable to deliver to must be delivered to under the Royal Mail service. Private companies would not bother with them.

Like the incredibly bad decision to privatise the railways, again another wonderful money earner for the few, especially managers who happened to be in the right place at the right time. And again not to mention a conservative government who's members I believe personally may have made some money out of it themselves. The Mail should be saved, and accountable to the public and kept in the public realm. Railways now charge outrageous prices to commuters. They are still being heavily subsidised by the public purse even though they are privatised. So if I get this right, we pay through our own taxes to help aid private businesses which would otherwise fail. Businesses which then cream off any profits they have but don't actually return money back into the companies to improve the infrastructure, because so much massive investment is needed they'd rather keep it to themselves. Then yes, go cap in hand to the government and as for some more porridge. The reality is, they are subsidised private businesses, subsidised to such a high amount they would otherwise go bust in a real working business environment. It probably goes to show, when you have a monopoly even if you are poorly run the government will make sure you don't go under. The prime present day example of this is a banking system. Now from which we hear the bosses are planning to give their employees the biggest bonuses ever. Absolutely wonderful. In the meantime the rest of us keep paying our taxes, then get shafted for the next 30 years with a public debt because the government had not choice but to bail out the banks. All of this has got to suggest there is something very, very wrong.

So no, Royal Mail should stay public. Even though I have no personal nostalgia for it, it should not be given to the cream tasters, who only like what floats on top and don't give a dam about the rest.

Lesbian teacher's abuse of trust

In today's newspaper is the story of a teacher who had a sexual encounter with a pupil. The case was taken to a Crown Court. The teacher is 26 years old, the pupil is 15 years old. The implicit trust in the educational system is teachers and pupils respect each other but never take advantage of it. At court the teacher got a sentence of 15 months half of which had to be served before release. In English law there is no such thing as statutory rape, this is a fact. Yet this was the sentence given. Which seems pretty lenient. The leniency borders on ridiculous. The affair was a lesbian one, the teacher is Helen Goddard. Of course the pupil's identity is secret. They went to Paris, to see a Gay Pride march, the parents of the pupil (child) didn't know their daughter was with this teacher. The judge after sentencing, would not sign an order disallowing the teacher to see the pupil. He thought they had both suffered enough although the judge did put her on the sex offenders register for ten years as well as a few months locked up.

Now lets consider the scenario again. If the teacher was a man and the girl he had an affair with was 15 years old. Consider him also to be 26 years old. The girl seeks his attention because he is a popular teacher and then they go at it like rabbits in a hotel room hidden away from the world. A male mature teacher of 26. He goes on to intimate they have a wonderful thing and their relationship can continue even when she is 16 years old. Exactly what happened with Helen Goddard. Then I ask, how would this situation with a man be viewed in such circumstances? He would be branded loudly as a paedophile, he would be put into the secure block of a prison, he would never work again, an order banning his contact with the pupil would of been signed and the trueness of this situation would of hit with greater weight.

Helen Goddard took advantage of her position and as a lesbian it may seem the judge was more lenient towards sentencing. Of course the papers can not print the entire facts of the case, but it would seem to most readers the judgement is questionable. No doubt in prison, even if it's for only seven and a half months, Helen Goddard will find another lover, one maybe not as young but one certainly of legal age.