Do We Live In A Christian Country?

Do We Live In A Christian Country?

I have a confession to make: along with a significant number of others, I have for a number of years accepted a premise. That premise is this: that because we have become an increasingly secular society, that because only a minority of our citizens regularly attend a place of Christian worship and that because a significant number of those people who have come to live in this country share non-Christian belief systems, we have become a non-Christian Country.

It is understandable that we have fallen into this premise.

Since the mid-1960s, when there were huge cultural shifts in our nation, and the established church system in the UK began loosing its way, we have become, as a nation, far more secularly orientated.

Also, over the last 50 years, large numbers of people have come to live in the UK who do not have a Christian belief, but have beliefs that are totally non-Christian. These communities have grown not only in number, but in political and social power, to the point where our traditional lifestyle is now lived in the context of the opinions of these other beliefs.

So it is understandable that we have accepted the premise. It is, however, a false premise. It is a false premise because who we are as a country is not based solely on how many people go to church regularly, not on how many citizens have no belief, not on how many people have different beliefs.

Our whole way of life in the UK; our laws, our justice system, our democratic style of Government, our ethical beliefs, are based on traditional Judeo-Christian belief and have been for hundreds of years. This may not be a country where enormous amounts of people still attend church regularly, but we are a Christian based country.

What, therefore, are the implications of this?

In a nutshell, those of us who do share a Christian belief should not, any longer, accept that we now live in a non-Christian country. We should not accept that, increasingly, our society will devolve into a totally secular society, nor that we are going to evolve into a society where Christian belief becomes marginalized beyond other beliefs simply because they shout louder or because they instil fear of opposition into their fellow citizens via threats of orchestrated violence.

Rather, we should remind ourselves what the Christian mission truly is: to go into all the world and make disciples, to live our lives as Christ wants us to live them, and that sometimes that may involve turning over metaphorical tables in metaphorical temples and driving the metaphorical money-changers away.

How those metaphors work out in actuality has yet to be seen, but if we surrender the Christian legacy of this country too easily, we, or our children, or their children, may regret this, deeply.

So What Is Christmas All About?

Here's a clue: Christ-Mass.

Unsurprisingly, in our post-Christian, post-modern world, even that clue may remain unfathomable to some.

In most peoples' minds, December 25th means some or all of these things: Father Christmas (aka Santa Claus, aka St. Nichols aka Chris Tingel), reindeer, cards, holiday, decorations, lights, food, drink, presents, turkey, excess, indigestion, robins, snow and trees. At a push there may be a passing nod to something about a baby in a stable.

Father Christmass

Father Christmas is based on a real person, St. Nicholas, which explains his other name 'Santa Claus' which comes from the Dutch 'Sinterklaas'. Nicholas was a Christian leader from Myra (in modern-day Turkey) in the 4th century AD. He was very shy, and wanted to give money to poor people without them knowing about it. It is said that one day, he climbed the roof of a house and dropped a purse of money down the chimney. It landed in the stocking which a girl had put to dry by the fire! This may explain the belief that Father Christmas comes down the chimney and places gifts in children's stockings. When the Dutch settled what was to become New York, Sinterklaas became Santa Claus.

Christmas Trees

Some authorities consider the Christmas tree to be a survivor of pagan worship and trace it to Egypt and ancient Rome. Others say that the first real Christian Christmas tree dates back to 8th century Germany where it was used as a replacement for pagan worship. However, it was not until the beginning of the 19th century that the Christmas tree as we know it really became part of celebrations in England. Although Christmas trees were not unknown in England in Georgian times, In 1834, it was Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert of Saxony, who set an example and encouraged people to have a decorated tree at Christmas.

In the early 1840s the North American town of Fitzwilliam, N.H., was lining its Unitarian church with evergreen trees at Christmas time. They seem to have been undecorated, and were left up till late spring, when a bonfire celebrated their demise. By 1850, the Christmas tree had become fashionable in the eastern states. Until this time, it had been considered a quaint foreign custom.

But centuries ago in Great Britain, Druid priests used evergreens during mysterious winter solstice rituals. They also used holly and mistletoe as symbols of eternal life, and place evergreen branches over doors to keep away evil spirits.

Legend has it that Martin Luther began the tradition of decorating trees to celebrate Christmas. One Christmas Eve, around the year 1500, while walking through snowy woods, he saw a group of small evergreens with their branches dusted with snow. He was so taken with the sight that he brought a small fir tree indoors so he could share this with his children. He decorated it with candles in honour of Christ's birth.

Christmas Cards

The Christmas card is a Victorian creation, and was started by Sir Henry Cole who worked for the British Postal Service. He hired an artist named John Horsley. Between them they designed the first Christmas card which was a depiction of a Christmas scene framed in three panels. Underneath appeared the now famous phrase "A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to You."

Christmas cards went on to be an essential part of Christmas and are now big business.

Christmas Gifts

On New Years' Day in ancient Rome, people gave each other gifts as a means of saying "Happy New Year". These might be gifts of food, or, depending upon the families wealth, more valuable gifts such as jewellery or pieces of gold and silver. With the coming of Christianity, the giving of gifts was established as being in honour of the gifts brought by the Three(?) Wise Men or Kings. When the Apostles brought the Gospel to Rome, the people learned of the Three Wise Men who came from the Orient to present gifts to the newborn King. From then on, the old custom was only slightly changed. The exchanging of presents remained, but now it was done in imitation of the Three Holy Kings.

Customs and dates for Christmas gift-giving vary from country to country, as do the supposed donors of the gifts. Depending upon the place, the gifts allegedly are delivered by elves, angels, the Christ Child, and even by Jesus' camel. They are provided by the Three Kings or Wise Men, or by Saint Nicholas or his derivative, Santa Claus. When the Dutch settled what was to become New York, they brought with them an annually reappearing Saint Nicholas or, as they called him, Sinterklaas. From there his name was altered to Santa Claus. In Brussels, it is a custom to give living gifts such as birds, pets, flowers. In the West Indies it is the custom to exchange or give hospitality, service or talent. Material gifts are not exchanged.

25th December?

The early Christian Church celebrated Christ's birth on various days; Jan 6th, April 21st, May 1st. In the 4th century Julius (337-352), Bishop of Rome, perhaps encouraged by the Emperor Constantine, declared December 25th to be the time to celebrate the birth of Christ. He probably favoured this date to counteract a very popular pagan holiday celebrating the rebirth of the sun. However, although the actual solstice is on 21st December, the 25th was as near as the crude instruments available to the ancient astronomers were able to place the it.

Will the real Christmas please stand up!

The Christmas season has long since degenerated into commercialism and material excess which has little or nothing to do with the birth of Christ or the celebration of Emmanuel, God with us; of God becoming Man. Indeed, in some parts of the UK, the corporate celebration of Christmas has been officially banned by Local Councils for fear of upsetting other faiths. Interestingly enough, one Local Council encouraged the Hindu celebration of Diwali (festival of Truth and Light) without any care of offending Christians. What hypocrisy!

So why do Christians persist in hanging on to the tattered remnants of this discredited season, this Winter Celebration? Is there a valid argument for saying that Christians should stop celebrating the traditional, atheistic, humanistic, pagan Christmas altogether? But if they do stop, there surely should be a time to remember the real birth of Christ?

Step forward a Campaign for the Real Christmas

In the biblical accounts of the birth of Jesus we read that the Shepherds were out on the hills with their sheep. They would not have been on the hills in December in the middle of Winter. It is also unlikely that the census, for which Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem, would have been called in the middle of Winter. So if not December, when?

But let's paint in the background a little. The Jews celebrated a number of "feasts" during their year. One of these was the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth). Beginning five days after Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement) on the fifteenth of Tishri, Israel's seventh month (Usually around the end of September or beginning of October in the Gregorian Calendar), it is a drastic change from one of the most solemn holidays in the Jewish year to one of the most joyous. The word Sukkoth means "booths", and refers to the temporary dwellings that Jews are commanded to live in during this holiday, just as they did during the wilderness wanderings. The Feast of Tabernacles lasts for seven days and ends on the twenty-first Tishri.

Why is this significant? In John's Gospel the Apostle wrote these words (in English translation), "... and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us". The original meaning of the wording was, "... and the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us". In all likelihood, therefore, it was at the Feast of Tabernacles that Jesus was actually born. It may also explain why Bethlehem was crowded; everyone was there to celebrate the Feast.

We have, therefore a reasonable indication of the true time of Jesus' birth. Not 25th December, but earlier in the year, around Autumn; the end of September or the beginning of October.

Realistically, it is extremely unlikely that the traditional celebration of Christmas on the 25th December is ever going to be "reclaimed". So it might make sense that a new celebration of Jesus' birth be instituted by Christians to coincide with the Feast of the Tabernacles, thus giving the Birth of Jesus the spiritual and Christian, prominence it deserves.

PS - it wasn't a stable either, and the 'Kings' weren't there just after the birth, neither was...... well, never mind for now.

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to You

Fame - I'm Going To Live Forever....

In the 60's, when Andy Warhol made his interesting prediction - that in the future we would all be famous for 15 minutes - we had, as a society, begun throwing off the perceived shackles of the post war culture and belief systems.

It was a time of, "if it feels good - do it" "let it all hang out" and "if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with". Traditional moral and religious restraints were cast to one side in a tidal wave of post-modern thinking about, who we were, what we should be allowed to do, with whom we should be allowed to do it and the very nature of truth and belief.

Paradoxically, the desire for someone or something greater than ourselves remained. With the intelligentsia, and certain sections of the established church, declaring that, 'God is dead', a vacuum formed. As the orthodox Judaeo-Christian religious foundation to our society was dug up and carried away by the barrow load, a rainfall of different beliefs and ideologies soon flooded into the empty diggings; New Age mysticism, rights of the individual, freedom of expression without responsibility, sexual freedom with no thought for tomorrow, feminism, freedom of abortion, consumerism and much more.

However, the need to worship something 'higher' is built into the human spirit, and over the decades following the 60's this need would begin to find its fulfilment in the worship of the 'famous', the 'celebrity'.

Of course, famous people, those who achieved greatness, were born great, or had greatness thrust upon them, have always been among us. National Leaders, Soldiers, Politicians, Royalty, Rogues, Desperados, Adventurers, Villains, Film Stars, Sports Stars, Musicians, Footballers etc., made obvious candidates. Usually these people were high profile, maybe rich and powerful, often able to manipulate the publicity machine, or have it manipulated for them, to reach the dizzy heights of fame.

So we find, just a few years into the 21st Century, a curious situation. In the general clamouring to find objects to satisfy our need to worship, almost anyone will do in this devotion to the cult of celebrity, and the sensation hungry media, especially television has become the new evangelist. G.K. Chesterton observed, 'When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything'.

Fueled by the ever growing pressure of ratings, TV has created its very own Frankenstein's Monster; the TV Celebrity. Now, given a modicum of media coverage, anyone can be 'famous'. Gardeners, airport security officers, topless models, murders, footballers, prostitutes, driving test failures, bus drivers. Most, if not all, quite ordinary people doing whatever they choose to do, who have been sucked into the TV machine and transmitted to millions. What is even more remarkable is that those millions, generally, deem the fact that they have seen these people on TV and enough to bestow on them the accolade of, 'celebrity'.

And so the wheel begins turning with a horrible momentum. Because they are now personalities, they appear on TV and the other media at even greater regularity. This reinforces their status, and soon their opinions on the state of the world is sought, and they appear on chat shows, the news, and in previously serious debate programmes, thus building their pedestals ever higher. We are invited to share their lives through magazines and the Internet. Vicariously, we go to their weddings, sit in their bedrooms, watch the birth of the babies, know the perfume they use, the toothpaste in their bathrooms and almost every other intimate detail of their lives.

Thus the cult of celebrity bestows on its worshippers the ultimate accolade - intimacy. We 'know' these people, we have become part of their social circle; we are now rubbing shoulders with the famous by association. And there lies the power of the cult of personality. We want to worship, and we want to feel something in return; to feel good, to feel blessed, to feel the hand of some god on our heads, and in feeling that we are satisfied.

As devoted worshippers and disciples of Celebrities, we want not only to know them, but we want to be like them. So the purveyors of fame eagerly sell us the trappings of fame. We buy the products they use, holiday in the countries they holiday in, buy the clothes they wear (or at least expensive, but inferior copies), adopt their hair-styles, believe what they believe. As we do this the circle is complete. Their fame increases and our devotion becomes evermore intense; well for 15 minutes anyway.

Fame, though, is a transient beast. No human can maintain the life required to receive adoring worship for great periods of time. For one thing, we are all mortal and disappear in the fullness of years. After all, there will always be another along in a minute; someone else whose teeth shine brighter, whose hair is glossier, whose breasts are larger, who can kick a ball harder, who can sing more sweetly. Someone who is younger.

So what happens to the post-famous, the now un-famous? Perhaps they may appear on TV shows where they can debase themselves, like sacrifices before the braying crowd, in the hope of rekindling past glories in the hope that somebody out there still loves them. They may retire to a rich and idle empty life in a tax haven abroad, or perhaps they'll become PR Managers and run agencies for the next phenomenon who comes along.

And what of the devotee? What of those who have lain prostrate at the foot of the alter? They'll flit from one personality to another, like moths to flames, ever seeking but never finding a true outlet for their inner selves; their empty inner selves.

....Baby remember my name.......Please!

Victims of Consensus

Question: What is the purpose of national government?
Answer: To know how to best serve the people for whom they are their elected representatives, and to then serve them.

At least that is probably what the answer should be..... if only!

Are you aware that those who govern us are in a continual struggle for our hearts and minds? The answer you would probably give is, 'yes of course I am. Every political statement I hear or read is a mix of truth, lie, misdirection and propaganda', and of course this is true. However, despite the fact that those who govern us, our elected representatives, are supposed to be our 'humble servants', the truth of the matter is that they are engaged in a constant war of attrition which seeks to continually persuade us that everything they do, propose, suggest, think, is right and that we must be persuaded to fall in line with it; whether higher taxes, lower wages, military action, etc. To do this they must ensure that their citizens should not think too deeply about such matters, should not engage too deeply in the debate, should not oppose the leaderships' rationale. In other words, we should not think for ourselves.

But do we want to be concerned with such matters? It is extremely important that we are.

Modern history offers us a prime example of what can happen when a population, apparently unable or unwilling, to think for itself and engage in the political processes of its Government, allows it's Government to carry out atrocities that, many decades later, still fill people with horror.

I am of course talking about the German Nazi party's extermination of millions of Jews, Poles and Gypsies during the course of the Second World War. Although there were many factors involved; severe financial breakdown and national racism being just two, the result was that the German population stood aside while its own citizens were first persecuted, scapegoated, ghettoised and then systematically exterminated. Shamefully, whilst this was going on, even the German Church turned the other cheek; the one body of people whom you would hope would stand against such evil, did not do so.

There were or two exceptions, and history records their bravery, and in some situations, their executions.

How did this happen? It happened because a consensus was reached within the population that what their Government was doing was right and in the best interests of its citizens.

There are a number of varied and complicated psychological and sociological processes involved for this to happen within a population. Malcolm Gladwell, author of, The Tipping Point, has shown that when something new appears on the horizon, be it philosophical, ideological or socialogical, there is a period of time when this new idea germinates. A period of time when, albeit slowly, the new idea gains a foothold, perhaps through active promotion, i.e. media advertising, televised propaganda, TV, Radio, Internet, Film, public promotion, debate, etc. But eventually the 'tipping point' is reached when the acceptance of this new idea cascades into the public consciousness, and almost overnight, or so it seems, a majority of the population find themselves agreeing with the new idea for no other reason than the common belief that, 'everyone believes that....', and thus it becomes, in sort, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once this tipping point is reached, the promoters of the new idea can push ahead because it has reached consensus.

Take, for example, the global warming debate. Despite enormous scientific evidence in opposition to the basic premise, a consensus seems to have been reached that human produced CO2 is the prime cause of global warming.

Once consensus has been reached, it becomes more and more difficult for anyone to stand opposed to that consensus. They will find that their voice is increasingly isolated, their opinion increasingly marginalised, and that the consensus is less and less willing to bear with such opposition.

So how does a Government effectively persuade its citizens towards this tipping point? Of course, different Governments use different methods; terror, oppression, fear, reasoned argument, debate, democratic process, etc. The danger is that, within a democratic process, there is always the possibility that the population might be swayed to an opposing, undesired opinion. One way to deal with this would be to remove the opposition. That raises the question as to whether the democratic process is also removed at the same time. One other way to limit the rise of opposing argument is to reduced the ability of the population to engage in reasoned debate; to remove the populations' ability to reason out the arguments, to reach a decision based on intellectual effort; in other words, to think for itself. But how does a Government thus reduce a population's ability?

One way would be to, over a period, 'dumb down' the population, reducing the ability of that population to think for themselves; to form opinions based on reasoned argument, philosophical or religious ethical ideology. This could lead to a situation where the Government of a country can more easily persuade a population, or the majority of a population, along a course of its own choosing, to consensus, without the danger of that population raising serious objection.

So, is the British population being dumbed down? It's a question which merits consideration. Universities report that increasingly, entrants display the lack of adequate literacy and numeracy skills. Our school system has been systematically pulled apart since the introduction of the comprehensive education system, and certain governments have all but destroyed Grammar schools. Add to that the apparent goal of our state owned broadcasting system to rot our brains with a diet of 'reality TV' and 'celebrity' led opinion. All of which, despite the apparent increase in 'A' Level results, may be leading to a generation less able to truly think for itself.

It is vital that we retain the ability to think for ourselves. If we do not, we are in danger of becoming victims of consensus, victims of a non-intellectual mob-rule that may see some of us swimming against the stream of majority opinion.

Remember, what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Hands Off My Organ(s)

One of the miracles of modern medicine is the ability of skilled surgeons to replace non-functioning human organs with donated human organs.

This is a wonderful thing; the tragic loss of one person saves the life of another, or in many cases, the lives of more than one person. Those condemned to long term disability, those who are blind, those suffering from terminal illness, etc., can be saved and go on to live fulfilled lives.

The current mode of participation is that a healthy person makes a decision to become an organ donor, so that in the event of their death, others, strangers most likely, will benefit. It is possibly the most personal act of charity one can make. And this is the crux of the matter; that it is indeed a personal decision, that one makes a positive choice at some point in their life to become an organ donor.

However, there is now a shortage of voluntary donated organs, and this has led to a radical proposal; that it should no longer be left to the individual to decide whether to donate their organs, but it shall be asummed that everyone's organs will be available for harvesting unless a person 'opts out'. This sounds very logical, very humanitarian. It would solve, overnight, the shortage of organs. Many more lives would be saved. How can this possibly be a bad thing?

Let me name the ways!

It makes the assumption that a person's body parts are not, in fact, their property, but the property of the state/NHS/medical establishment (i.e. nominated organisation) to do with as they will. That the nominated organisation owns the rights to those organs unless the person whose organs they are specifically states that they do not want their organs harvested after death.

It is worth asking whether the harvesting of human organs, without consent, has happened already in the UK. The appalling answer is, yes it has.

In 1998, the news broke that organs and tissue, from babies who had died in two British hospitals, had been harvested without the permission of the parents, sold to pharmaceutical companies for monetary gain, or used for research within the hospitals. The two hospitals involved were Birmingham's Diana Princess of Wales Children's Hospital and the Alder Hey Children's Hospital, in Liverpool. Indeed, the practise was so established as to have been going on for decades.

Lets pause for a moment to contemplate this: That the medical establishment we trusted to look after us and our children in times of illness were routinely cannibalising dead humans for, in some instances, monetary gain.

You can read the full story here.

The proposal by various branches of the medical establishment, that organ donation should be an 'opt out' scheme, has been around for a number of years, and in 2009 the debate became more official when the NHS Blood and Transplant put on their website, that The British Medical Association (BMA), many transplant surgeons, and some patients' groups and politicians are keen to see Britain adopt a system of "presumed consent", where it is assumed that an individual wishes to be a donor unless he or she has 'opted out' by registering their objection to donation after their death. Full article here

Thus does the NHS make the presumption that a designated organisation should have rights over your bodily organs by default, unless you say no, i.e. unless you 'opt out'.

If anything is a breach of human rights, it is this. Once it is presumed that the state has a right over your bodily parts, how soon before it becomes law that the state owns the rights to your bodily parts, and organ cannibalisation becomes legal?

For those who say that this is not an important issue, that once you are dead it really doesn't matter what happens to your body (and putting aside the centuries of traditional respect for the dead) imagine this scenario. You are lying in hospital, near to death, but not dead yet, and along the corridor in a private room is a millionaire/member of the government/important individual also near to death and requiring an organ donation. By happy chance, you are a perfect match, and for a large donation to the hospital, the hospital administration are sad to announce your death, but that happily the aforementioned individual was able to live thanks to the 'opt out' scheme.

The harvesting of human organs for monetary gain in a hospital? Outrageous and could never happen? Sadly, of course, it already has.

Over 50 Is Not Over The Hill!

Do you fancy some extreme knitting, or a leisurely cruise without any loud music, or fancy being patronised by Valerie Singleton teaching you how to use a computer by speaking v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y so you'll u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d.

No? Well then, why is it that so many organisations, both commercial and non-commercial, treat over 50s as though they are not fit for the 21st century, and need to be patronised by those who are severely misinformed about their target demographic.

So let's put the story straight. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin?

Over 50s do not suddenly turn into BOFs (Boring Old Farts) when they blow out the candles on their 50th cake. If it appears that way, there's every chance that they were BOFs when they blew out 30 candles.

Over 50s enjoy rock music, making it and listening to it and going to concerts.

Over 50s are tuned in to modern technology; they have mobile phones, use SatNav, can text, own computers, can google, can surf the web, own MP3 players, know YouTube isn't toothpaste, socialise on FaceBook and MySpace, use digital cameras.

Over 50s do not want to ramble gentle along leafy lanes hoping for a warm sandwich and weak cup of tea at some point, but own motorbikes and know how to ride them.

Over 50s don't look forward to a fortnight at sea on a floating hotel, where the most exciting prospect is dropping your Bingo card, but like to go surfing instead.

Have you got the message?

So stop thinking of over 50s as some semi-decrepit, near senile, cranky, rusty and crusty group who enjoy being patronised by idiots. Stop doing that and you may start getting their attention.

Freedom of Speech R.I.P.?

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Not a quote, as many believe, from Voltaire, but by Beatrice Hall, in her 1907 book, Friends of Voltaire, writing under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. Of course, it matters little who actually said it because those eighteen words, in a very real sense, form the founding principle of freedom of speech as we, in Britain, have understood it. However, over the last few years, the right to express opinion, no matter how controversial, has been severely eroded against a backdrop of intolerance and hate crime and anti-terrorist legislation.

But let's back-track for a moment. Our perception of our freedom of speech derives very much from our 'Britishness', our sense of fair play, our tradition of debate in the hallowed halls of our higher citadels of learning. It is a tradition which goes back many, many years; that we all had the right to express an opinion, but to also allow someone with a contrary opinion to disagree with us. Indeed, our very form of democratic government is based upon this very tradition within the 'Mother of Parliaments' at Westminster, where the democratic machinery demands that our Members of Parliament represent the views of the electorate in, often, heated debate, until a consensus is reached. This tradition has protected us from totalitarianistic government, or outright dictatorship, for centuries.

However, that very British tradition is being seriously undermined by other incoming cultures. It seems that one of the worst things you can do now is to express an opinion which someone else finds offensive. To offend someone who may have a differing opinion to yourself, by voicing that opinion in public, is now virtually forbidden. In particular, voicing something against a perceived ethnic minority, or minority religion, is now likely to result in possible prosecution. So the question is; Where did our freedom of speech go? The answer actually may surprise you. It has not gone anywhere because we never had that right; at least not in any legally accepted form because The United Kingdom, unlike, for instance, the USA, has no written constitution. Nowhere in law is our right to freedom of speech upheld. That is until the EU came along with the much despised and maligned Human Rights Act (HRA).

Ironically, it wasn't until the HRA came along that there was a legal definition of freedom of speech, termed in the HRA as 'Freedom of Expression'.

Human Rights Act: Article 10: Freedom of Expression

(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

That sounds quite good doesn't it. By there is, of course, a caveat:

(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

At the very time when it looks as though, at last, our British tradition of Freedom of Speech had been enshrined in written law, it was actually undermined in that same law which made it subject to a raft of other legislation and interpretation.

For further reading, take a look at Philip Johnston's, whatever happened to free speech?

So we find our much cherish tradition of freedom of speech is not so free after all.

Are we being Chemically Coshed?

Brave New World is a classic book, in every sense of the word. In Huxley's tale of a "negative utopia", society was encouraged towards the mass consumption of a drug called, Soma. The use of this drug kept the majority of the population compliant, happy and generally non-aggressive.

Interestingly, it may have been a visit to the newly opened Brunner and Mond plant, part of Imperial Chemical Industries, or ICI, Billingham, which inspired him to write the classic novel.

Some of what we read about in BNW has come to pass in one form or another, particularly the ability to engineer embryos for artificial insemination or for the specific purposes such as genetically matched organs, reflects Huxley's vision of factory produced children. However, it is the aspect of Soma production and use which is where we will focus.

The World Government of Huxley's novel encouraged the widespread use of Soma, and in the UK today, our Government is increasingly encouraging a state of affairs where the population is being pharmaceuticalised beyond anything that can reasonably be termed, necessary.

For instance. There is currently a debate raging concerning whether all (repeat, all) over 50s should take Statins While the drug is effective at reducing Cholesterol and thus reducing the possibility of heart attack or stroke, it also has severe side-effects in many people. This writer was prescribed the lowest dose of Statins some time ago, and within 4 months was having quite severe muscle pain in one leg which occasionally prevented walking. All the symptoms vanished within 7 days of ceasing the medication.

During the recent near pandemic of Swine 'Flu, the anti-viral drug, Tamiflu, was mass prescribed. Many people thought this was a cure, it was certainly presented implicitly as such in the media, but at best it only reduced the effect of the virus by about 24 hours, by slowing down the rate at which viruses infect cells in the body and, therefore, how fast they spread and make you ill.

Despite this, and despite the acknowledged side-effects (nausea, vomiting, retching and diarrhoea), which often were more severe than the disease they were supposed to be 'curing', the Government went all out to enforce a mass-vaccination programme.

The fact that Swine Flu was not the feared pandemic we were all told it would be, and that the majority of people only suffered mild symptoms, the fear of the disease was greatly exaggerated. Why? Was this to encourage a certain compliancy within the population to allow themselves to be unnecessarily pharmaceuticalised?

You might find this Mail Online article interesting.

and this one!

Of course, for the aged or those with long-term illness, vaccination is nearly always beneficial.

We've looked at Statins and Tamiflu. Let's examine the increased use of Warfarin with the elderly as a routine procedure. Warfarin (known more commonly to most of us as rat poison) acts upon the blood as an anticoagulant thinning it out. Of course, although it is a poison, in lower doses it does not kill. The reason it is used is to prevent heart attacks and especially strokes in the elderly. By elderly we are talking about the over 70s. Such prevention is a good thing only if it is being used as a necessity and not as an age determined generality. For the assumption is that everyone over a certain age will benefit from Warfarin medication, and this is simply not true.

Case in point: A gentleman I know personally, and have know for over 40 years, was put on Warfarin about 3 years ago. At that time he was a very active 80 year old, used to do lots of outdoor physical activity (gardening especially) never bothered about any chilly weather and had a very good quality of life. Now he wears his outdoor clothing inside because he is always cold; holding his hand is like clutching the palm of a dead man. His quality of life is greatly reduced. Prior to being pharmaceuticalised, he had barely suffered a day's illness, presented no symptoms indicating any potential heart problems, and yet he was still prescribed Warfarin simply because he had reached 'that' age.

In all these instances, we have to ask a question: who is really benefiting from the wide-spread, and possibly completely unnecessary pharmaceuticalisation of the population? One answer may be whichever political party is currently trying to convince the public that it really cares. Another, much more likely answer would be an economic one. Money, industrial fiscal profit, is a huge motivator. The pharmaceutical industry is in business, not as a charity, but to make profit selling product. This product is pharmaceuticals; pills, potions and vaccinations.

Finally, let's mention the Government's current obsession with vaccinating underage girls against cervical cancer with Cervarix. It is not a bad thing that women, or in this case, underage girls, are protected against a serious disease. The anomaly is that while 70% of cervical cancer is caused a sexually transmitted virus, the approach is vaccination rather than the more obvious solution of encouraging sexual abstinence. But then, no Government has dared approach this, or any other sexual problem, for instance, the ever increasing rate of teenage pregnancies, with a moral solution rather then a pharmaceutical one.

And, of course, a moral solution would not produce share-holder profit for Roche (Tamiflu) nor for Bristol-Myers Squibb (Warfarin) nor for GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix) nor the manufacturers of the varied range of Statins.

More general drug info can be found on this excellent medical site

So when a Government is looking for serious solutions for serious problems, who might be whispering in their collective ears, who might have a huge vested interest in persuading that Government that the pharmaceutical route is the one to choose?

Think about it - it's not rocket science!

Is Being a Biker More Than Just Riding a Motorcycle?

Here's something a little more light-hearted than previous posts.

I was watching a regional news TV programme some weeks ago, that featured a reporter who is well known for going after rogue traders (there's a hint!) on the back of a black sports bike. He is a motorcycle rider in his own right, but in the course of the particular report had cause to say the following, 'I ride a bike but am not a Biker'.

I found this remark quite interesting and it caused me to wonder, 'what exactly makes a Biker?

Now, you may think this to be of little import. However, it does raise the issue of how people see motorcyclist in general and 'Bikers' (if there is actually a difference) in particular; and does this affect their attitudes upon the road towards them?

Clearly a Motorcyclist is someone who rides a Motorcycle (Scooters not included - sorry). All Motorcycles are Motorbikes, therefore are all Motorcyclists, motorbikists i.e. Bikers? I think not. In that reporter's mind there is clearly a difference, and I tend to agree. I would suggest that whilst 'Motorcyclist' means one who rides a motorcycle, 'Biker', means someone who embraces a certain ideology, a certain philosophy, a certain, perhaps, Zen? i.e. A person whose relationship with the, 'Bike, goes deeper in some way or another, than merely riding a Motorbike. That involvement might be a fascination with the mechanics, the membership of a local Motorbike club or owners' group, an appreciation for the 'art' of the Motorbike, someone who uses the Bike for 'weekend warrioring', or someone whose lifestyle embraces 'The Bike' whole-heartedly to the exclusion of all else; an obsession maybe.

But is there something more? Is there not in the very term, 'Biker' a sense of rebellion, of one who is outside the boundaries of normal polite society, one who is, whilst astride their 'Bike, making an explicit statement of intent and purpose, of rebellion, of dissatisfaction with the everyday boredom of the grey-suited world, and with sanitised modes of travel?

Biker, Greaser, Outlaw, Hells Angel, are all, in some minds, interchangeable, and I wonder if this misconception, for they are slightly different things, leads to a certain animosity towards Motorcyclists generally, from other road users (i.e. car, van, bus and truck drivers, as well as certain police forces) and members of the general public?

I would call myself a Biker, yet not a Hells Angel, nor a Greaser, but I do feel there is a certain 'Zen' when you are travelling astride a throbbing motor, on two wheels (or perhaps four if you are a, 'Quader') with the wind tearing at you, the elements assailing you, the sense of freedom inspiring you and the open road calling to you. There is also a sense of danger, and this is not imaginary. Whilst Motorcyclists represent 2% of road users, they tally up a score of 20% of the road accidents, yet for some, the bite of danger, the adrenaline rush, the crack, is what they seek and is why they ride.

So, to answer the question, 'Is Being a Biker More Than Just Riding a Motorcycle?', I would say the answer is an unequivocal, 'YES'!

Finally, can I recommend, most highly, the BikeSafe Scheme which has courses running all over the country. Well worth the weekend it will take, and it will make you a safer Biker!

Ride Safe, Home Safe!!

My Life Is Your Responsibility

Let me ask you a simple (possibly hypothetical) question. If you go out drinking one evening, and you drink so much that you have difficulty walking, and in you attempts to stagger home you trip up the roadside kerb, fall over, and injure yourself. Is your first thought to sue the council? If you answer, 'yes', then you are like a significant number of people in today's society who believe that their actions, and the repercussions of those actions, are not their own, but someone else's responsibility.

Another question. You are a 15 year old girl. You go out one evening, drink alcohol, get a bit merry, have casual sex, get pregnant and have a baby. Is your first thought going to be: what council house would I like and, what office do I go to for benefits? If you think this is an acceptable line of thought, then you may well be someone who has difficulty accepting responsibility for your own actions.

Personal responsibility is the acceptance that my actions, and the consequences of my actions, are my responsibility. This simple premise forms the very bedrock of our justice system, and as such is a cornerstone of our society.

However, over the last 30-40 years a serious faultline has opened up under this crucial foundation. This faultline has been created through a number of socially seismic disturbances. The removal of discipline in the raising of children is one. The creation of the monster known as the 'Nanny State' is another.

Let's look at the former for a moment. It is a cliché to say this, but 30 years a go, if a policeman told you off for riding your bike on the pavement, and you took no notice, you may well have got a clip round the ear. If you were rude or disruptive at school, you might get the slipper (this writer got several slipperings during his secondary years).

In other words, there were repercussions for bad behaviour. In our 21st century society, discipline has been removed, and with it the vital learning experience that if I do something wrong, there will be repercussions, and sometimes, unpleasant and possibly painfully so. Please don't think that the threat of exclusion is a punishment. It is not, it is a gift. Neither are ASBOs punishments. They are rather badges of honour among a certain social class.

Let's look at the 'Nanny State' for a moment. The 'Nanny State' really came into being on the 5th July 1948, with the creation of the NHS (National Health System). It is not unreasonable to say it was possibly one of the most momentous social changes for the population of the UK. For the first time UK citizens could look to the State for provision of vital health care regardless of their social or economic standing, and let's not deny that this was a very good thing.

But it fundamentally shifted, within society, the fulcrum of responsibility. No longer was the individual responsible for their health care - if they had the means to pay for it - but now the responsibility fell to the state. Of course, every working adult contributed to the NHS in the form of National Insurance and general taxes, but nonetheless, we now looked to the state to look after us.

Nationalisation (euphemistically referred to as, Public Ownership') of industry was a central policy of the Labour government in 1945 and very quickly became more and more of a creeping menace which saw the nationalisation of the Bank of England, and the coal, aviation, telecommunications, Transport, electricity, gas, iron and steel industries, and has continued through to the part-nationalisation, in 2008, of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the newly merged HBOS-Lloyds TSB.

What this has meant is the de-empowering of the individual in favour of an all encompassing enrolment of the state as protector, benefactor..... Nanny.

Thus has our individuality, as citizens of a democratic country, become eroded, and left behind the overwhelming misconception, in the minds of many people, that it doesn't matter what I do, the state (or someone else) will 'pick up the tab'.

So now, children are growing up in a social climate which tells them either explicitly or implicitly, that it doesn't matter what they do, how they behave, who they hurt, who they disrespect, who they rob (and even, increasingly, who they kill) that it's not their responsibility and there will be little, if any, punishment or repercussions.

That is totally unacceptable and is leading us to complete social breakdown.

ID Cards And The Database State

There is a prevailing thought amongst some people that there is nothing wrong with the idea of ID cards for all, and the inevitable 'database state' that goes with it. The argument usually runs along the lines of, 'if you done nothing wrong there's nothing to worry about.' This does sound seductively logical. After all, that argument can also be used concerning the burgeoning surveillance society, and the Government's plans to monitor all (repeat, all) of our Internet traffic including emails, and snoop on all out web surfing.

Of course, we have every faith in our Government don't we, and know that they have our best interests at heart? We know this because that is what they tell us.

Pause for a moment to think of Germany in the 1930s. No-one imagined then, the horrors that were to be unleashed by the Nazis upon their own population. But horror did descend upon them, and none more horrific than the 'ID' that Jewish people were made to carry; the yellow stars marked, 'Jude', and the highly involved administration of the suppression that went with it. As we know, this led to one of the greatest human tragedies in history.

Now, imagine that in the not to distant future, our own Governmental system were to suffer a similar radical change for reasons, at present, hidden from us.

Suddenly, because we are all compelled to carry ID cards, our movements are severely restricted; where we are allowed to travel is limited, who we associate with is proscribed.

If you think that this is far-fetched, it isn't. There are already sufficient laws on the statute books to usher in such a regime. If you want to know what this might be like, try to get hold of the BBC series, 'The Last Enemy' on DVD, and then remember how the recent G20 demonstration was Policed. We may not be as far from a Police State as we would perhaps like to think we are.

On 21st October 2009, it was reported that an extra £200,000,000, every year, will be used to monitor all internet activity of UK citizens. This is on top of the current annual expenditure of £11,000,000 used to monitor emails and telephone communications.

Of course this is a huge subject, and you could do worse than go to NO2ID's own, stop the database state, website. You can subscribe to their newsletter on the website as well.

Sorry Seems To Be The Easiest Word

You will probably remember the Elton John song, 'Sorry seems to be the hardest word'. I would like to disagree with that, albeit, worthy sentiment.

The act of saying sorry, whilst it can still be a bit galling, and perhaps difficulty to come to the point of actually apologising; think Jacqui Smith, the real meaning of 'sorry' has been lost. It has been lost in the sense of loosing what 'sorry' was really all about originally.

To apologise, to say sorry, had the context of not simply words spoken, but of contrition, of reparation, of making things right again. This principle of reparation, of paying back, is an ancient one, and vital to any social group or society. "Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house." (Holy Bible-Proverbs Chap. 6 verse 30-31). "The concept of reparations-payments made for damages inflicted by one individual upon another have long been regarded as appropriate social policy." (Apologies, Regrets, and Reparations - Stanley L. Engerman - Department of Economics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY)

It wasn't enough to mouth the words, 'sorry', you were expected to do something to make things right again, or at least to attempt to make things right again. In other words, you had to take responsibility for the consequences of your own actions, or indeed, lack of action. Of course, depending upon what you might have done in the first place, making things right might actually be impossible. Then there would be other ways of making reparation; monetary compensation for instance.

But these principles have, to a great extent, been lost to our modern 21st century society.

Nowadays, a lawyer stands before a bouquet of microphones, reading a statement about how their client, '...deeply regrets what he has done' or '... is very remorseful over her actions' .... etc., and this is deemed to be sufficient. Well of course they are going to be remorseful, regretful; they were caught! But where is the reparation, the actions to back up the words, the repentance? And here we have the nub of the issue. Repentance. The meaning of the word is to, 'turn away/around from...'. In other words, a determined action of the will away from what you have done, to a new direction... an about face. And true repentance is always accompanied by action, by reparation.

Years ago, a Government Minister was caught out lying to Parliament concerning a serious breach of ethics and security (see this blog). He resigned and devoted his life to charitable works. Here was repentance and reparation in action; a true apology.

Even if a court determines that compensation is to be paid by the guilty party, there is no guarantee that the compensation will ever be forth-coming. Indeed, thugs and criminal just ignore such things, and often don't even get around to saying sorry either.

If we, as a society, paid more attention within our Criminal Justice System to the act of reparation by the criminal, to the victim, we might find that not only would the criminal learn something of value, but the victim might feel that their hurt/injury/damage/loss, has been better considered as well.

The Death Of Discipline & The Rise Of The Feral Child

On a disturbingly regular basis, newspapers carry horrifying stories of innocent people being attacked, and in some cases killed, by gangs of children roaming the streets without any fear of the forces of law and order disturbing them.

What 'crime' then have their victims committed? Well, they had the effrontery to ask said gangs to; stop vandalising their car, stop kicking their garden fence down, stop throwing bricks at their windows and a miscellaneous catalogue of other anti-social behaviour.

The Police only get really interested if you might, in an endeavour to prevent said anti-social behaviour, touch one of these delicate and fragile youths on the arm or shoulder. Then and only then do the squad cars arrive ready to drag you, the victim, off to the pokey!

How on earth did it come to this? The answer lies in the animal kingdom, which is appropriate in a way, as human beings are constantly being referred to as 'mammal' or 'animal' by various commentators. Ask any naturalist, animal behavioural expert or TV animal pundit how animals deal with the question of disciplining their young and you'll get some very interesting answers. Few, if any of these answers run along the lines of, 'they don't discipline their young, but let them do just what they like'. Ever watch a nature program and seen a mother Lion give an unruly and undisciplined cub a swift clump with a paw? Strange how wild animals instinctively know that discipline, at all levels, is an essential tool for survival, and yet we humans have not only abandoned the disciplining of our young wholesale, but in many cases, made it a criminal offence.

The root of the problem is deeply embedded in the psyche of social engineers, educators and the judiciary, and is both misguided and dangerous. Ask the family of Fiona Pilkington whether lack of discipline is a good thing. Or maybe, if you are still not sure, talk to Helen Newlove, the widow of Garry Newlove, who was kicked to death by a gang of thugs outside his own home.

It is totally unacceptable that the Government and the Judiciary stand back and continue to allow law-abiding members of the community to be terrorised by feral gangs of thugs, whilst they hide behind the familiar mantra of, 'human rights?'.

Our streets are fast becoming virtual no-go zones, ruled by the violent, the feral and the undisciplined.

It is time for the ordinary folk of this country, the tax-payers, the families, the law-abiding, to reclaim our society from the hands of the politically correct and socially delusional 'experts' who, by their misguided and misinformed theories have dragged us to the brink of social decay.

Write to your local Councillor, MP or MEP about what they are personally doing about it.

What Happened To Honour?

If I think far enough back, I can remember the Profumo Affair in 1963.  I was at secondary school, yet the scandal seemed to enthral, shock and appal the majority of people; even 14 year olds.

In a nutshell, John Profumo, the Secretary of State for War, had an illicit relationship with Christine Keeler, the alleged  mistress of a Russian spy.  He  then lied in the House of Commons when he was questioned about it.  However, caught out, he resigned and devoted the remainder of his life to charitable works.  He died in 2006, and it could be argued that with his death, so also died any vestige of honour within Government.

How different then the rich vein of lies, dishonour and deceit currently being mined by many of our Members of Parliament embroiled in the expenses scandle.  None more so than former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith who, via fraudulent second home claims, has robbed the tax-payer, i.e. you and I, of more than £100,000.  Has she resigned from the House?  Nope.  Has she offered to pay the money back?  Nope; at least not at the time of writing.  So what has she done?  She has reluctantly said sorry, but only after having to be forced to do so, and not from any sense of having done wrong, but from having to be ordered to do so.  She, of course, is not alone in this, as every day seems to expose new stones ready to be turned over to reveal the decay of British Politics lurking underneath.

In 1963, John Profumo did something wrong but had the grace and the honour to recognise this and resign from politics for ever.  Many members of the House of Commons would do well to emulate his example.

Does Celebrating The Difference Destroy Equality?

Why do certain groups insist on parading their differences, whilst at the same time purporting to want to be accepted as part of everyday society?
I particularly have in mind group events like Gay (LGBT) Pride, Pride London etc.  While I do appreciate that this can be a strong reinforcement of shared identity (like biker rallies, anti-nuclear marches etc.) and that many LGBT persons experience great hostility and still feel excluded from, and discriminated within, society generally, do not such extravegently ostentatious displays of 'difference' contribute to the alienation rather then strengthening inclusion.

As we strive towards a society which does not discriminate against persons of different race, beliefs, sexual orientation, age, etc., I am baffled by the, as it seems, continual strident voices proclaiming loudly, 'we are different and we want everyone to know it'.

I would like to hear from readers because, although I had a gay Uncle, a lovely man now sadly passed on, and have gay friends, I do not have the perspective in this matter that a gay person will have.