A special status

Our Parliament has been putting  its-self through the wringer, not on things that matter like the economy but on whether Gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry in a church and obtain the same matrimonial rights as straight people.
The Gay & Lesbians have long campaigned for equality, particularly in their rights as a couple to have the same legal rights. The recognition of the cohabiting, same sex, couple to be legally married came about with the creation of the Civil Partnership in which same sex people were recognised as being married. The Civil Partnership did not have the legal baggage of defining the rights of the people being married and was much looser in  defining the legal statute of each person.
In its search for equality, defining its-self as same but different, the powerful lobby representing the Gay and Lesbian community, Stonewall, under its indefatigable leader Peter Tatchel  have insisted that human beings should not be treated differently from anyone else. 
The problem lay in "their" need required other people and other established group's to change !  

Religious biblical texts set the guidelines for what is viewed as deviant behaviour.   Sodomy is clearly defined as being outside the scope of normal human behaviour and was punishable by death but slowly the secular world has changed its stance. In this country, the Wholfenden Report stated that it was not a crime between consenting adults and so we have the time old conflict of Secular opinion versus Religious dogma based on teachings that purport to be from the word of God.  
How do you square the circle ?  Well you can't and yesterday one saw the torment in people who spoke with all the conviction in their very being, opposed on matters of principle, opposed until hell freezeth over.
 
One thing that comes from all this discussion is the number of Gay & Lesbian people there are in certain specific segments of our society. As a proportion they are quite high. The Arts, actors, ballet dancers, artists and writers were where one would find, even expect to find Homosexuality. Was it the mixing of the male testosterone with the defusing sensibility of the female that enhanced their creativity ?
Now we see men and women "coming out" from all walks of life, from Business & Commerce to such a hard province as Rugby.
There were many Parliamentarians who stood to speak who were gay and who rigorously pursue the Gay & Lesbian agenda wherever they can. The lobby is powerful, not in sheer numbers but in the position of the membership. Like other minority causes, they have the fervour of feeling slighted.
 
Of even more interest is why do people feel this attraction for members of their own sex.
We take for granted what we would call the laws of nature, the drive to procreate and keep our species alive through offspring. There must be an evolutionary, biological set of, predetermined, interactional drives that cause the young male to be attracted to the young female, from it flows survival.
The homosexual has none of these biological pre-determinates, other than sex for sexes sake, since there can be no benefit to the species in any act they perform.
So is it the case, as with so much in our life, it is purely self-gratification. If this is the case then the homosexual should not be given any special status.      

Clean or dirty ?

In the UK we have been up in arms about the "multinationals" being a law unto themselves, especially in the way they treat their tax liabilities. 


Taxation should been seen as a social responsibility, used to pay for the many services that we have come to expect from the state, since if we all benefit then we must all contribute, according to our means. 
When the likes of Amazon, whose revenue is about 20 billion pay taxes of only a million or two then we have a right to be highly critical of the financial laws that allow such a scandal to take place. 
The Receiver of Revenue wrings the last cent from small business's and expects each business to set aside time and money to calculate and pay over the taxes of employees, (even occasional labour) becoming an unpaid arm of the Receivers recovery system. 
The untold, unpaid hours of VAT calculation is another chore. 
Somehow the emphasis has become skewed and whist all efforts are directed at the little guy, the big players are allowed to flaunt every single opportunity to avoid tax.  

Anyway this is not the reason for writing.

I ordered, using Amazon a voltage adapter for my laptop - it arrived but the mains cord was the wrong type and so I stated the procedure for returning the goods. 
The company who had used the "conduit" of the Amazon system, to sell me the adapter turned out were using an address in East London, I knew the area so I decided to call on them and swop the mains cord. The address was a private house, and the occupants denied knowing anything about the trade.
I contacted Amazon and received a postal sticker to attach to a parcel containing the adapter and cord. The address on the postal sticker was also in East Ham and so instead of posting I called.  This time it was a shop but again they knew nothing of the trade through Amazon.
I contacted Amazon again.  They were apologetic and offered a refund but I insisted on speaking to someone higher up the chain to ask "what sort of check do Amazon carry out on the companies they act as a conduit for. There seems to be no check and the guy from Amazon seemed surprised that I should think it the business of Amazon to seek one !!  

When I posed the idea that Amazon were acting without any sense of responsibility and that they could be a conduit for all kinds of illicit / stolen goods, he acknowledged the that this could be the case but didn't feel it Amazons responsibility to vet who used their name, although he had to accept that people buying through Amazon felt they were dealing with a reputable company, meanwhile they could be trawling the depths of all kinds of dodgy organisations, including organised crime to purchase goods which could be clean, or dirty!!            

What is a bigot ?

What is a bigot ?  A person with prejudice. A person who treats others with contempt. Strongly partial to ones own group, religion, race, politics.

Quite often the person who throws out the description Bigot, is a person who holds very strong views which make them equally bigoted.   Society is fed a media driven, platform developed view, which people, herd like, follow.
Its a  "politically correct stand point" which if challenging, the people doing so are deemed to be a bigots

The power of the platform speaker (remember Hitler) is very evident, if you tune into one of those new age religious programs from America. The man (its usually a man striding the stage) nearly hysterical, boiling over with his message.   
The man in the street has little elbow room when confronted by these Goliath's.  Over here we have the radio jocks who do a pretty good job of demeaning people who differ, not only from them but also the London centric chattering class.
People have a right to hold views on any subject under the sun but only a few of these viewpoints are allowed to filter through the controls.
Control is what it is all about the need to homogenise (to make the mixture the same throughout) and harmonise the public for its own good, at least its own good in so far as the minority view is concerned. Irrespective of which minority view we are talking about, the view of the masses has always been treated with disdain.
How could the unwashed majority have something worthwhile to say. Keep them working and we will do the thinking !!
   

I plead ignorance

Having listened to a program denounsing the ever descending quality of grammar and  spelling, used in the world of the email and I have to throw my hands up and come out of the bunker.
My formal education has been minimal. Anyone acquainted with the schooling system of the 40s and 50s will remember the two tier system of Secondary Modern Schools and the parallel, Grammar School education. Parallel rather I should say divergent.
At 11 all children were tested in what was called the Eleven Plus Exam and flowing from the results of that exam ones very future was cast.
If you passed the exam you went to Grammar School where you were educated with a view to University and a role in society. If you failed, then the Secondary Modern beckoned and you were destined to become flotsam and jetsam, an also ran, in the work environment and therefore, in the wider avenues of life.
All tests are as much subjective as objective and rely on a substrata of knowledge.  Without that foundation one is like the mariner without a compass since the exam questions have a narrow base to draw their conclusions on. Is it right or is it wrong !!

The Junior School was critical in providing the child with the comprehension and the skill to express themselves, on paper over a limited time scale. General knowledge was not what was needed, specific knowledge - with a date, was the order of the day. My village school, a tiny Church School was not geared for the task and only one pupil, a girl (fore telling a trend) managed to pass. 

Without the rote learning of spelling and grammar, the introduction into the structure of our language through Latin, the route to the root of logic and comprehension, through Greek philosophy, we were poorly equipped to find our way outside the factory wall.
So when you pick me up on a miss spelt word or the incorrect use of the past participle
 

  
I can truly plead ignorance !!!          

Polling and democracy

Today the polls open for certain County Council elections, this time it was Bishop's Stortfords turn.
Voting in my youth was almost a religious occasion in the way most people held very firm views about politics and the party they supported. Politics was tribal in that it was, in large part, class based. Labour (socialism), versus the Tory Party(capitalism). We were often heavily influenced by our parents, usually Dad and the background he had grown up in. The wide difference between a factory worker/manual/semi skilled,skilled person and the traditional white collar, clerical, managerial worker was reflected by the party. Parties had an ideological base with clear differentiation between each manifesto and the people they intended to serve.
Today we have a much more complex situation with the ideology being virtually excluded in place of self interest.
The Polling Station, held in the local school classroom was a short walk down the road. I was the only one there and as I entered, I was greeted by eight hopeful faces, (there were more clerks than voters) and was ushered to the table dealing with the Ws  !!!   Four candidates, four different parties and only one cross, no sweat !!!

It was all a far cry from the 1994 SA election with its long queues both in SA and locally in Trafalgar Square as South Africans, with so much optimism voted, (many for the first time in their lives), for the New South Africa.   Remember the long list of candidates running into more than one page and the  languages to be accommodated.

Democracy was meant to be a system, of the people, for the people, an antidote to the aristocratic "noblesse oblige". The parties manifesto, the aims, the promises which often turn into lies and disappointment and are taken on face value by the majority. We now have the added dimension of Presidential style TV debates, where the photogenic dimension is valued as much as the debate.    I suppose, in an age of celebrity the image wins hands down on content and credibility.               

Women in religion

The discussion today centred around the historic place of women in the religious ferment. The contestants were from the feminist movement including, the strong opinions held by, not only female office holders in the church of England who wish to see equality, but also the usual atheist based incomprehension. Set against them the more established church functionary's from a range of religions, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish.
There was a lot of heat generated as the Establishment tried to explain why women are cast as subordinate to men in so much of religious writing. It was an example of the times and of the culture that formed the opinions. This was naturally rubbished by the feminists since, surely this was the word of God, no opinion seeker,  but a fundamental set of truisms.
The poor old Rabbi thought a lifetimes intellectual study of the interpretation of the Torah would be self explanatory.  He was mugged at the start by the presenter of the program, shaking his hand and then asking why he, the Rabbi, had refused to shake hands with the presenters, "female" colleague.   From the Jewish viewpoint women have an equal but separate role in life and the faith has a whole set of complicated do's and don'ts, one of which is the isolation that man has to observe in so far as his physical contact, even that of hand shaking is deemed to be an unhealthy temptation ? They have a whole list of definitions encompassing a women's menstrual period, even a strange relationship of isolating a women, in child birth, 4 weeks if the women has a boy but 8 weeks if she has a girl.  Weird !!!  The Rabbi was thoroughly castigated and really out of his depth as people, not accepting his lengthy, learned interrogation of his faith, could only repeat what his faith taught him. To ask questions about fundamentals was not something he cared to do. 
The Hindu faith was represented by a women who portrayed Hinduism as being full of female deity. She  held the position that women were well represented at all levels.
The Muslims argument relied on the fact that Muhammed had 9 wives, his first being to a very wealthy women who set him up financially for his future ministry. Muslims have interesting views on the role of women with regard to the male, an extreme example would be female circumcision, but in so far as their scripture goes they suggest that their is no impediment. The male domination has its foundation in "protecting" and valuing (sic) the female. For instance, the reason that women are not invited to pray in the Mosque is that the male subjects himself to praying in a posture that is deemed unhealthy for a women to see. Remarkable !!
A women who had become a Muslim was really enthusiastic about the sisterhood and her life as a Muslim having drawn her into a tight, rewarding collaboration with other women of the faith.
The Catholic viewpoint was led from scripture with the story of Adam and Eve. Eve's temptation, Christ's strong support of women and the influence of Mary which was high-jacked by Peter in his team building effort to create a Church strong enough to take on the society of the day. 

Of course much of this had many of the feminists, on the other side of the argument nearly hysterical with disbelief at what they were hearing but again, their frustration and vehement argument does not make for an attractive spectacle, be it from a male or a female !!                   

A clamor for straight answers

The noise, indignation and the hubris from the three major parties directed at UKIP after their remarkable win at the recent local elections has been a marvel to watch. This country has many problems, not least the attitude of the population towards people in power and influence. There is little confidence not only in the politicians who are supposed to give leadership but also in the statistics and the misrepresentation of the facts that we feel or know to be otherwise.

One of the skills of a politician is to avoid answering difficult questions, they are amazing as they weave their way around the hurdles thrust in their way and we become more and more dis-heartened by the sight !!  It has been said that there isn't the thickness of cigarette paper between the three main parties as they have, over the last ten to fifteen years directed their efforts to woo middle England a much smaller target than that represented by the population as a whole.  It is this amorphous mass that feels its-self out in the cold and not at all represented by the political class.

There is nothing worse than feeling undervalued and ignored and the rise of UKIP  is a "backlash" for years of taking huge sections of society for granted because they were not part of the "swing vote" phenomena.
"First past the post" means that the strategic vote wins the day and you get nothing by coming second.
 
The mind set of the current political class seems to indicate that, apart from minor alterations we have to continue as before since the real power now lies with the markets because of our indebtedness. 
Week in week out we hear the same old platitudes in the colossal talking shop of Parliament and the media interview.

One benefit to UKIPs arrival has been the the introduction of "simplicity" to the answers that the spokes persons for UKIP  bring to the debate when they now join the established politicians questioned by the media.
An example which indicates the point. "Why tax people on the minimum wage and then offer a benefit to top up what has been taken in tax"?  A simple proposition but it stopped the usual participants by its simplicity and common sense.

One has the feeling that the politicians who have been in a rut, trotting out the usual prescribed answers which the party uses to control opinion, are in for a surprise as the society clamor for straight answers.