The naked prince of Las Vegas

Obviously the person who took those pictures must be familiar to Prince Harry, as I do not suppose that this nakedness happened in a crowded room full of people but it rather looks like an intimate little party to me. The pictures have been carefully selected to cover up the lady but show the prince in a relatively modest pose. I am sure there are much more naughty snaps.

Is public nakedness now in fashion? The judge dealing with the naked rambler doesn’t think so and kept him behind bars, under lock and key pending a psychiatric assessment. Stephen Gough now has an argument in that it has become acceptable to show yourself of naked in public in one form or another whether on the street like he does or in pictorial form like Prince Harry does.

Of course the Sun is desperate to sell papers, in the light of plenty of free reading material laying around like Metro and Evening Standard.

The fight for the reader’s money bring papers to more risk taking and we are confronted with increasing nakedness and private stuff. Thanks for sparing us toilet pictures and the like.

I do not want to compare Prince Harry with Stephen Gough, I want to compare our society with Stephen Gough. We want to see naked bodies, Stephen shows it and we can’t wait to see more.

Of course good old Mary Whitehouse knew that this would happen and she was booed on many occasions for trying to prevent the obvious. Ever since nuns threw away their veils society has become more hungry for the flesh.

The probably ensuing legal case between the Palace and News International might help to define the meaning of privacy or what we really need to see as the public these days. But then the old Greeks had no problem with the naked torso; ;look at the beautiful statues.

The fantasy that ensues the onlookers mind is their problem isn’t it? Obviously not every person gets the same emotional reactions when they look at naked flesh surely it is very much an individual’s thing.

Advertisements

local reverend criticises the bishop

I haven’t blogged much lately; that is due to the fact that currently I have no less than five voluntary jobs and despite not being employed, I am very, very busy. One way for me to take respite from the strains of life and indeed gather strength to do all the good deeds I do, is the weekly prayer service in church on Sundays.

Our local vicar, the Reverend Alan Green previously worked in Liverpool and spoke about an ongoing discussion between church ministers to correctly practise religion and whilst he talked about democracy and Freedom of Speech, he started to attack Archbishop Sentamu for using the Sun newspaper to widen the gospel preachings he does and therefore endorsing the new Sun on Sunday newspaper. The vicar explained that during his time in Liverpool, it was at the time of the Hillsborough disaster, the Sun wrongly blamed Liverpool fans of anti-social behaviour and causing the disaster. I do not have a transcript of today’s sermon but that is what sticks in my mind about it.

The vicar said that this problem has not been completely resolved and though an apology was made, the Sun still has not proven that they do not want to continue their publicity smears of ordinary people.

Of course I have had a long-standing argument with some mainstream publishers and the methods they use to put forward strategies to influence the thinking of readers. It is of course one thing, is writing in a mainstream newspaper and another is endorsing all political tendencies such a newspaper might bring with it.

Yet in the field of gay marriage Bishop Sentamu is outspoken and against it and papers like the Sun are most likely to give him support, if only indirectly because all papers these days are bound by the strict anti-discrimination laws, set out by Europe.

It is refreshing to see that within a church there can be a difference of opinion and if it is so down to earth and brought by someone who at first hand experienced the wrongful publishing smears of a major paper and what this did to large areas of local people then that opinion is very important indeed.

What this also shows is that there are different sides to every coin, because it is quite impossible to get anyone media these days where one can agree to everything a paper does and that there is always some reason to be disgruntled. But when it comes to plainly lying to maintain a strategy that is quite serious indeed and I can completely understand reservations one will have towards that paper. Just looking at my personal experience with Der Spiegel for example, I can understand very well were the good reverend is coming from.

Yet in my case I forced the big publisher Axel Springer to completely change a whole cover and a whole article from 1975 and I just wonder whether the Sun can be forced to re-write an article as well. But at the same time a High Court judge defended them to the hilt.

Yet the question handled by the Leveson enquiry is where does investigative journalism end and where does sheer malicious lying start and it seems it is a very long-winding enquiry, which keeps us all on full suspense and on the edge of our seats. I have long wondered about the political tint of churching these days and find that the message of the bible is more in support of Christians and active followers of Christ rather than in support of all other religions. How politically correct or even neutral can a church be in a state where religion and state are separate entities compared to some other nations where religious leaders also lead the nation.

The Reverend and Rector Alan Green is a well known figure here in East London and beyond. As I found out from searching the Internet for him, he defends the local Mosque and rights of Muslims and he leads an Interfaith forum. In last week’s scripture readings in our Christian church we read Exodus 20: 1-17. There is says: …for I the LORD your God, am a jealous God…..You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name…..

Later on in the Corinthians 1: 18-25 we hear reference to the Jews and Gentiles as well as the Greeks, denouncing them as secondary believers and telling all that Christ is best. But in those days  there is no reference to the Muslims in the bible and maybe that is the reason why today so many Christian feel attracted to them and feel they cannot denounce modern religions that were founded after the original text of the bible has been written. Islam only started from the 6th Century AD and that makes it clear why it is not mentioned in the bible, but that this does not make it suitable to not treat it the same way as the bible treated the Jews, the Gentiles an the Greeks who were of about the same age or older than Christianity.

I think it is a sheer mockery of God’s word to praise all religions as having he same weight just because they started after today’s text of the bible has been written.

PS: In relation to the Hillsborough disaster it has now been made clear that documents relating to the Hillsborough disaster are getting publicised.  A BBC article is titled

Fans blamed in Hillsborough files

The Sun shines on us

I have followed the Sun’s arguments on many topics over the last weeks but read it only very occasionally. I can’t afford to buy a paper every day. Please don’t all send me those free coupons again.

In yesterday’s Sun was a small, but significant article on page 2 that was titled Slump in City posts and in there it says: “…institutions aren’t taking advantage of the number of ‘high-calibre’ job seekers”.

That was said by a representative of a recruitment firm. Those are the people to ask when we determine how many talented computer programmers do not get jobs but the instances of quality hacking are rising.

Incidentally in the same paper, we hear that David Cameron has finished all his Angry Birds levels. Funny I said that on Facebook the other day, that I finished all mine and now I am bored. Nobody wants to give me a job but Cam has the advantage he has got a job to fill his boredom with.

Maybe we should change the entry levels to some jobs by saying, either contestants can complete certain computer games and if they can’t they have not got a vital ingredient, or should we say that all who can play certain games need employment or positions in society? Some very popular questions for an employment questionnaire could be, what online games do you play, ho well are they maintained or what level Mafia Wars are you or how good does your Farmville look? After all it shows commitment and continuity.

I had that thought already once before when playing Commandos that nobody who cannot go through those levels without cheats should have a leading post in the army.

But the arguments about the value of newspapers and regulating them are another argument that is not so easy to answer because there are now so many laws in place that contradict the hacking initiatives of papers and simply make an argument for regulation or not.

The papers want to take on the role as society’s watchdog but that’s what we gotten the good old-fashioned Neighbourhood Watches for, we do not need the papers hacking our phones.

Jeremy Clarkson’s historic remarks

Just as I am watching the Queen’s birthday celebrations on TV and read in The Sun who has got which awards this year I eventually come across Jeremy Clarkson’s article in The Sun whereby he makes remarks about the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Having read first that many gotten jobs through the Sun’s employment fair, and being slightly disappointed not having gotten one myself, I wonder how anybody in employment can be as stern as Jeremy Clarkson. I think he is the epitome of British Freedom of Speech though it doesn’t surprise me that people tear down the fences around his estate.

I am starting to wonder whether there is some kind of revolution going on in British society because that the Archbishop of Canterbury tears into the government, who then retaliate against him and that a leading show personality then calls him a hypocrite, sinister, a communist, weird beard. I have read remarks like bearded lefte on Facebook yesterday and now assume that relates to Dr Williams. I thought I am wacky and outspoken but that definitely beats any contribution I ever made and I wonder what those lefties who always attack me make of something like Clarkson who drives all the cars the lefties always fancy driving but can’t.

Of course it is easy to whack me because I don’t even have a driving license but something as admirable as Clarkson, I don’t think the left can touch. I wonder whether the Queen has a chuckle when she reads that later on today or even gets told about the article.

I do of course agree to the comments about opening churches at night to give the homeless somewhere to sleep. It makes me think about the concept of charity a lot and whether churches could register as charities if they let the homeless sleep overnight and bolster their coffers with tax payer’s money.

My church has a big sign outside saying “This is not a Social Security Office”, so the concept of alms has gone far away from churches who want alms from the congregation instead of given them out to the needy. Well perhaps they give some parcels at Christmas time but that comes from the congregation as well.

PS: Just as well for Clarkson Eady J ruled that one cannot sue on religious grounds for defamation.

cost-effective policing

I think the latest all-round government initiatives put a clear emphasis on cost-effectiveness. This must also be the case for policing. In today’s The Sun newspaper there is a poll published to show that the majority of readers back

  • use of information obtained through torture (55%),
  • no  human rights for terror suspects (56%)
  • hold terror suspects without charge for 28 days (29%)

In terms of cost effectiveness one has to look at the facts more stringently because how much would it bulk up the policing system if we used all information obtained by torture abroad without certain facts to back up such information? Apart from the fact that torture is deemed unacceptable in human rights terms it is a well known fact that torture victims will admit to all types of things when suffering immense physical pain or other fears. If we believed such information we could spend immense amounts of money following wrong leads and endanger ourselves even more.

If we want to take away human rights from terror suspects or hold terror suspects for 28 days or more without charge, we must look on what grounds they are suspected on. How definite are the suspicions and on what grounds are they suspected.

In Germany in the 70s police could just lock up anybody without any grounds at all. They could literally just fancy locking up anybody. But that turned out to be a very expensive sifting through the hay approach, which injured many innocent people’s lives and led to nothing but a large inflated policing body, with hundreds of thousands of police officers sifting through specs of dust literally.

We should look at all aspects of crime, terror and disorder and what can be done to eliminate it, including better import controls, immigration controls, neighbourhood watch systems, better town hall, housing and benefit administration, just to name a few. One important factor is internet activity. Just yesterday I discussed how people can purchase other persons facebook accounts and take over their identity.

The overall best approach is the know each other system whereby neighbours know each other, police officers and housing officers are stationed on estates or locally and work there to get to personally to know residents again instead of centralising all services when the personal knowledge of people gets lost in the process.

The Sun in football flag controversy

On a lighter note, it is hilariously funny, that the Sun newspaper has supplied in today’s paper to all English reader an English flag to celebrate the football world cup, which we all appreciate. But and now you won’t be able to stop laughing, in Scotland they put in a Scottish flag.

As we all know Scotland doesn’t play in the World cup. I have heard from a very angry Sun reader in Scotland, that they have complained to the paper in the hope that the Sun will be sending them an English flag, so that English fans in Scotland can show that English flag. Dont’ know how popular they are gong to be though, lol.

Another day another lawyer

Just sat in on another case at court 13 today before Mr Justice Eady to see how those proceedings happen. The case was Asha v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd and it was all over in 5 minutes. There was a declaration that both parties agreed on the innocence of Dr Asha and that compensation was agreed to be paid to Dr Asha by the Sun.

What was most interesting was the way the lawyers behaved, in a completely unemotional manner, did their jobs like clockwork.

I think that law is basically a science, a logical science, that is based on what the average citizen perceives as good or bad. Of course that depends on what at the time of applying that law the majority of average citizens think and so the principle of law can never be wrong because it does serve the majority of people within its jurisdiction. It can only be wrong if it fouls on the principles of another jurisdiction that encompasses even more citizens that think differently and/or are more powerful.

Law uses rules to apply the legal process through a court. The most important thing to be most efficient when applying the legal process is professional conduct and that has been proven to me today and also in the hearing against Mr Osler how lawyers simply just do their jobs without getting emotionally involved.

Unfortunately for a litigant in person matters are not so easy as with each personal representation the litigant has to overcome that personal involvement and try to put himself over the emotions and act as if they are not personally involved and as if they simply proceed in a procedure as laid out and normally conducted by lawyers. The principle of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act deals with such matters in that it acknowledges that no human being can overcome that personal involvement and cannot start to act as if they are not personally involved and as if they did not have those emotions. This is called prejudice oneself.

Principles of law are based on real human beings, on actions such human beings carried out and those legal principles cannot be separated from those human activities. Yet the dissemination of legal principles has a tendency to forget about that individual human circumstance of the legal principles, which involves all other sciences. We see the caselaw developed in one case transferred to another. Some try to handle law as if it were an exact science, such as Mathematics is, but law can never be an exact science. Mr Justice Eady had said to me he is considering the principles of law but an exact science is any field of science capable of accurate quantitative expression or precise predictions and rigorous methods of testing hypotheses, especially reproducible experiments involving quantifiable predictions and measurements. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, as well as parts of biology, psychology, and the social sciences can be considered as exact sciences in this sense.

Law does strive to develop tests but cannot ever come up with any method that would always apply to any given crime or civil procedure.

Freedom of expression or lies?

A few days ago I read on a Yahoo news report the Tory lead had grown. Today in the Sunday Mirror, unfortunately one member of my family buys that paper each week, I read that “Polls show Tory lead is slipping” whilst in the News of the World I read “Tories lead by 9 points”.

I know which one I prefer and so we all like to read that our party, the party we personally support, would win the next election, such news make the Sunday more enjoyable.

But how much truth is actually in either story? Can we rely on such stories as being true or only as being wishful thinking? What is the role of the press these days? Is it to massage facts to make them seem true to please a particular frame of mind or is it to show us what’s actually going on.

Mind you, we might not need to bother, as long as our electricity comes through our switches, as long as we have gas on the stove and as long as our local supermarket is stocked with food, why should we care?

I care because I like to know what is really going on. So I have to look at various polls and maybe compute an average out of all of them to get the real figure? Not so easy neither. Each poll can be manipulated! Political parties canvass addresses, they know who votes for what and they keep that information on their systems. So nothing is easier but to ask the people they know votes for them and get the result desired.

I always would like to know how the poll has been compiled; Was it in a busy shopping mall on a Saturday, where people come past at random or was by approaching people at their address? Makes a huge difference.

Is there any quality control on how polls are conducted? A YouGov poll might not be the most reliable source because of course the party that governs at the moment is in charge of the poll because as the name says it’s a government poll, at least that is how I understand it. There are various other ones, and who owns those? Do we know?

Are we coming to the point where papers already write what could be true instead of what is true? If it’s the latter scenario then I am really worried that we are all being led up the garden path. I wish I had a garden, well I have, a communal one.

Enough is enough or we are proud to be Christian after all

This BBC report about Lord Carey’s remarks on curbing immigration states the very interesting figure that if current trends continued, the UK population would rise by 10 million to more than 71.6 million by 2033, whilst Lord Carey argues we should not allow our population to rise above 70 million. There is the matter of quality of life to consider and too many people spoil whatever comfort we may have.

Lord Carey quite clearly states that he values people from abroad but he says Immigrants must understand the UK’s culture and democracy. I totally agree with this and would take it further to demand that they positively support the UK’s culture and democracy because in today’s The Sun newspaper we read that Islamist Anjem Choudary, the man who wants to stage the protest march in Wootton Bassett earns 25k per year in benefits and preaches hate against us.

Many may ask, but why do we pay  people like that £25k in benefits, so that they can rally up hate against us?

Immigrants get a fair chance to come and enjoy our country and it is very popular indeed. This enjoyment does not include trying to overthrow us or trying to destroy us. I think our society can only tolerate a certain percentage of immigrants of non-Christian origin because we need to integrate immigrants  into our society and the less those already here wish to integrate, the less room is there for any more that wish to counteract against our Christian heritage and beliefs.

 The points system must give preference to those who are in support of our democracy, understand that we are a country of Christian heritage and who do not wish to turn us into a Muslim state.  I think we are exceptionally tolerant allowing all those Mosques to be built everywhere, we would find it hard to get such a welcoming attitude in an Islamic nation.  Brits are probably the most tolerant peoples in the world but one can push us only so far and not any more.

I did however state in another blog and can’t emphasize enough that we can learn from Muslims because of their ability to dedicate themselves to their families and keep true of their religious beliefs, that is something we Christians lost somewhere along the line.

Sweet Caroline

magic circle painting by John William, 1886. I chosen this picture as most appropriate because Caroline Flint complains about the inner circle. Unfortunately I have no copyright to show a picture of the Blair babes.

"magic circle" painting by John William, 1886. I chosen this picture as most appropriate because Caroline Flint complains about the inner circle. Unfortunately I have no copyright to show a picture of the Blair babes.

Another New Labour woman that has become victim of the use and abuse regime in New Labour. Caroline Flint has recognised that a lot of Labour’s initial strength in fact came from the loyal women who stood by their men.

Poor old Hazel Blears often was forced to dance on hot coals and as the mumsy face of New Labour often juggled public opinion in their favour by giving policies a common sense flavour, a flavour that only a woman can sincerely project. There was no other logical reason to do something, Labour lets a woman appeal for calm to the nation.

The final straw came for Hazel Blears just before the EU elections and now finally Caroline Flint also has realised that New Labour’s drive for women politicians is not much more than integrating easy pawns for the Labour game on their side of the board.

Here in Bethnal Green Oona King was thrown to the wolves, ideally chosen I must admit by the policy makers because of her half-Jewish heritage, to support the Iraq war in a predominantly pro-Islam area. No wonder then that George Galloway had such an easy task to import his pro-Palestine and anti-Iraq message and got in.

Labour’s strategy wasn’t bad, I must admit that and I am good at strategy, in computer games at least.

Labour just thinks of itself, the political party, but forgets that such a party is always made up of people with ambitions and most of those people have actually good intentions when they join but then fall victim to the Stalinist agenda, but often realise it too late, what is happening there.

So firstly Labour chose the good-looking Tony Blair (he invented the Blair Babe) with public appeal to get into No 10, then simultaneously appealed to the radical element in Tower Hamlets by putting an MP that was bound to upset them but at the same time, working with an even more radical ex Labour member to come and attract their votes to integrate those into the Labour Party in the end because by now almost all former Respect Councillors have changed over to Labour. I am not sure though how much of this was planned or whether it was sheer coincidence.

Matter of fact is that all Respect councillors but one are either still Respect, a new strain of Respect, changed to Labour. Only one of them, Councillor  Ahmed Hussain changed to the Conservatives and I was a Labour member, briefly went to Respect but left quickly and am now in the Conservatives too.

Result the Tower Hamlets Labour leaders are busy to give the newly integrated former Respect members (now Labour Councillors) key posts in the cabinet. Labour does anything to keep the Labour flag flying over the Tower Hamlets town hall.

We however now see a shift in the voting pattern I predict whereby we, the Conservatives can count on more Asian voters because they are now starting to look through Labour’s and the socialist strategy, which is merely a cosmetic way to appeal to voters of all convictions but in the end, these mind-bending policies just run themselves to death.

It’s a win, win situation for the Conservatives and the people can only gain by voting for them.

Of course not all see Blair’s babes in the same favourable light as I do as the Scottish Sun today (Donald MacLeod) ridicules all those good women who allowed themselves to be drawn into the Labour spectacular as Blair’s witches.

Personally I could never get past the post in the Labour Party and I am glad I could not adapt myself enough to rise through the ranks there. I always followed my own initiative knowing that as a woman I always look up to men and that can be abused by some people if I let them. In that context I also see that Mrs Merkel in Germany does a very good job to keep politics on a friendlier level than probably a man could.

England is now almost completely blue according to the latest election results, see the map for yourselfs here.

No wonder Labour’s policies on all counts are bound to fail as their efforts strain nature, Labour tries to make everyone the same.  Not even Labour can go against God’s will.

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits