Early death of Davy Jones of the Monkees

I find the relatively early death of Davy Jones very upsetting because the Monkees were my favourite band when I was young and laying in hospital, having had very complicated operations and having had to spend months on end in bed and the Monkees were the highlight of my life at that time and cheered me up tremendously.

I find it just frustrating to see how many of my favourite artists keep on dying off relatively young and I am getting very worried about show business because it must be bad for your health in general. Maybe its the stress of always being in the limelight and the media that worries artists to death, I do not know.

But surely it is not worth the money to live a life in the knowledge that one cannot get old in a profession. It is completely unreasonable that any group of professionals have to accept such risks on civil jobs. Certainly I would not want any of my family to get involved in show-business as it surely must be bad for your health.

Especially Davy Jones was the sweetest singer in the world and brought so much pleasure to all of us even in the early 70s with their televised music series, that was even shown in Germany, when I became a fan when I was only 13 years of age. It always started with the tune “He, he we’re the Monkees”.

The music was super awesome, so light and refreshing and the band always a delight to watch, there never was a dull moment and the Monkees were essential to killing boredom in those days for me.

The age of the new fascism

What I really again wanted to say is how disappointed I am with the news reporting and also with the news reporting on the BBC website in that it is not inventive analytical enough. Politics evolve and repression can take various shapes and forms and what websites like the BBC again and again put into our heads is that repression and fascism has to do with direct annihilation and putting to death of people by governments like during Hitler times or Pol Pot for example.

Yet what we see today is a new type of fascism, a fascism by stealth.

What we see is that the new Conservatives try to get rid of our economy altogether by slowly throttling it. They mask it all up saying they need to clear our debts. But, as I already hinted in my last post, our economy is based on the creation of debt and if enough debt has been created in the form of orders to industry for example, when consumers borrow to order goods, they then need to be made and people get employed to make those goods.

When the Conservatives now say they want to get rid of debt, they simply throttle the whole economy because nothing will move forward. This then leads to a situation whereby the people who are living within a society slowly but surely are starting to turn against each other and one sees an increase in murders and crime. People become more disillusioned and turn onto open revolt, as we have seen it during the riots and as we now see it happening in Syria.

Here in the UK we managed to stop the riots but in Syria they are not so lucky.

But what I find most interesting is that Cameron now seeks to introduce an economic model that seem s to match the one Hans-Martin Schleyer tried to introduce into Germany in the late 70s, just before he gotten himself kidnapped and killed. The Germans then blamed everything on the Baader-Meinhof group and that is also very simplistic of them to do so. Luckily for the local situations, the Muslims here in the UK exercise a lot of restraint and stop themselves from falling into the chief-suspect category for anything that goes wrong.

It had been said that during the beginning of the Hitler era, he staged self-made terror events, to propel himself into power and I think that the whole Baader-Meinhof phenomenon was abused in Germany to drive through changes and to blame all sorts of crime onto this illusive Baader-Meinhof group, who were said to work for the Communists. But that doesn’t make much sense in many respects. Because what Schleyer tried to achieve was in fact a turning away from classic Capitalism into Socialist Cooperative movements, which would have complemented the East German Communist regime beautifully. Now why would a Communist state finance terrorist to kill somebody who wanted to promote Socialism in a Capitalist state?  I belief that the East German files that were “found” where plainly planted to disorienting us. It was so very convenient for the German government that a lot of those Baader-Meinhof terrorists gotten killed or supposedly killed themselves in prison and that no proper witness statements from them came ever into being.

I think in Germany a lot of crime was blatantly blamed onto Baader-Meinhof when in fact it could have been some coup from some other direction. It was more than obvious that the Germans still tried to promote the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon as recently as 5 years ago by entering a film about them to win an Oscar. Der Spiegel offered me thousands to get the copyright on an article, using my name to falsify history and I refused it. It is more than suspicious that a large magazine knowingly wants to print falsities and pay people to put their names to the falsities.

Today the government does have a problem, they have no terrorist movement in the UK to blame crimes on, thanks to the good restraint of our Muslim citizens, there is hardly any terrorist activity going on at the moment, that the government could blame crime on.

This government simply slowly wants to throttle us, they try it with the Greeks and that is the tactic to simply starve people out of live slowly but surely. There is little sense in currently used tactics other than making people’s life a misery, needlessly I need to say. There is no proper purpose in the current government tactics, they do not even want to promote green living and environmental health, they simply just try to starve us out of our existence.

We must repel this new trend to rob us of our livelihoods, to rob us of our right to celebrate God. I think the denial of God and fascism always goes hand in hand no matter what face this fascism shows, whether they openly kill people or slowly throttle them or whether they make them turn onto each other, they always deny God and that is truly the work of the devil. You could ask the question is secularism equal to Satanism and that is an interesting question instead. But the fact is that this government wants to stop families from having children and that is a crime on humanity.

We keep on lamenting how bad things are in China, we complain about the Human Rights abuses, that priest are not allowed to preach, that people are forced to kill babies because of the one child policy, yet we do exactly the same here in the UK, we just don’t see it because it is right in front of our own door.

Buying into our world

Nationalism is dead, long live Capitalism or how Communists buy into our Capitalist world. Other cultural leaders buy into our world and our world is no more. What was once a holy grail of western civilisation is now the playground of the world’s rich.

Who recently asked the question but where are the English when they walked down Oxford Street?

In the past the English were the rich and only they could afford to reside on our shores but now we have spent our monies abroad and the people we spent it with have got it now and they are now buying us out of our land. Edgar Hoover would turn around in his grave if he knew that a Russian has bought a US apartment for $88.000.000.

From Home maker to Home Office

I am having the impression that women’s traditional role as home maker has now been transferred into politics as being in charge of the Home Office. Since the last Labour administration we started the trend of women as Home Office minister when Jackie Smith tried out the post. Now we have Theresa May MP, who at times suffers quite stringed criticism from the Top of the table leader of Justice Mr Clarke.

When our communities can be compared as children of our big home, which is our country, another lady has been put in charge of this with Baroness Newlove, who is the widow of a sadly murdered headmaster. She has been put in charge of active, safer communities. We even had a woman in charge of MI5 for some time.  In 1992, for the first time a lady took charge of MI5 with Dame Stella Rimington.

The dismantling of old-fashioned male dominated governance is in full swing.

Putting matters in the hands of communities has never been the strongest point in British society, which is trying hard to overcome strict class division, which starts at schooling and ends in stately homes and the top jobs, all allocated to the Upper Classes, with very few coming from a Unionist background like Alan Johnson. Apparently though the Right doesn’t like them, the Unions are the only breeding ground for alternative politicians in this country, with the small exception of the Liberals who managed to get the top job from sheer opportunist luck. Ever since the Magna Carta on 15/6/1215, Britain strived to imply equality for all.

From that date the Liberals were the first and the Tories the second political parties in existence whereby the Liberals wanted to free us from the peril of the aristocracy. A sort of love-hate relationship between Conservatives and Liberals has developed ever since. And ironically it is under a descendant of not only Moses but William IV, as David Cameron is rumoured to be, that a marriage of opposing British politics takes place.

Yet in this turmoil of contradictions, its the role of women that take over as being in charge of the house. How traditional is that?

But looking at the fact that Britain increasingly loses international status, even with the Commonwealth countries included, and slips down the economic success ladder, how much can Britain really afford to be romantic with internal affairs and leave it to the ladies to re-structure the house, as if it was up to them alone?

I am not employed by the Home Office and I am only a volunteer, so my ability to spill the beans is quite obvious, when I disclose short-comings in policy. My desire for a good home/county to live in is very strong, since I have got now 7 grandchildren in Britain. For me it is a very personal desire to see this country strong and forward facing rather than dwindle around in unnecessary policies that only hinder and are not very effective.

Behaving as they think they should

It doesn’t make any sense to me that young and old people should cry their hearts out for a leader, who cared little about them. Being under a constant threat of a despot and a huge army, compared to population size, makes genuine grief if the ruler dies even less likely.

Having read that only a couple of decades ago around a million people died in North Korea from starvation, it is hard to belief that people genuinely care about their leader. They most likely care not to be seen laughing and not crying in times like this.

I think many dictators would be really jealous of how the North Koreans managed to train up their people into this type of submission.

Here in the west we see plenty of young people not showing the littlest type of care for their Queen. Many mock “the old bag”. That would be typically young behaviour of youngster who never either met or plan to meet her Majesty.

North Korea provides little comfort for its people and there is total control, so much that the international community should worry and intervene in any possible way.

It is already not normal not to see any type of opposition or uprisings whatsoever in that nation.

Remarks that our leaders never die and that they are embalmed for public view forever shows the totalitarian approach that is worst than under Saddam Hussein.

But it puts people off fancying totalitarian Communism especially as the life expectancy is so low.

Irresponsible reporting

It was at the heart of my own  claim at the high Court for defamation that some publishers made comments with a very radical element that appealed to the terrorist sentiment of readers. Unfortunately at the High Court today there is a culture of insensitivity settling in, that ignores the effect publications have on people’s sentiment.

The effect publications had on the people could be seen in the aftermath of the Mark Duggan shooting that led to a week of rioting across the UK. The Police made a public statement today as to a complaint they made to the Press Complaints Commission that an article about the Mark Duggan incident in that The Guardian reported Duggan did not have a gun. The Police describes the reporting as crossly irresponsible. We could see the very direct effect the situation had on a considerable amount of people.

It is a fact that irresponsible reporting can appeal to people’s sentiment and contribute to violent behaviour or wanting to plan criminal acts. This has been fully acknowledged by the Government White Paper of Louise Casey titled “Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime, which contains a large section on the press reporting being responsible for a distortion of effects on people’s perception of crime. The reporting of crime has become more full of fantasy since the 70s.

Yet the High Court insists on applying Freedom of Expression without properly considering the effect this has on crime, which is wholly irresponsible. The judges, which have claimed influential power in the High Court today, allow almost anything including swearing at the police now. See previous blog.

It is very important to get facts right in crime reporting and not to stipulate on people’s fancy of violence, which can have devastating effects and lead to more crime. That without any doubt sells papers but also reduces our quality of life.

Of course the Guardian then changed their story to say that no forensic evidence was found that Duggan was holding a gun in contrast to previously reporting that he did not hold a gun. It is quite possible that someone can hold a gun without this being traceable forensically.

Unfortunately in my own case the High Court upheld the publishers rights to publish whatever they wanted on receipt of doctored evidence, that was accepted because I was denied a lawyer. But it has become more than clear that the High Court now supports all types of irresponsible reporting; if not presented by highly paid lawyers the complainants do not stand a chance to win there and the court itself does not care.

This culture of ignorance is largely responsible for so many things gone wrong and still going wrong in publishing today.

I must admit, I was taken by that Guardian article as well as others and believed it at the time simply because it came from The Guardian.

More punishment for benefit recipients

You get more fine for your crime if you do not pay up on time. In future, when the new universal benefit comes in, people can be made to pay up to 37% of their present rate of job seeker’s allowance. That of course is a huge chunk of the weekly income and unmanageable for all, I dare say.  Will that send criminals on a never-ending downward spiral?

What I miss on this system of fine punishment for benefit recipients, what I miss is an equivalent measure for wealthier criminals that do not pay fines. The new measures are picking on the poor and aim to discipline them better, which is a good thing but I fail to see the overall approach that also includes richer offenders.

Only 40% of  the participants in the recent riots were benefit recipients and that is not even half. So why are there measures only now to punish the benefit recipients? 100 rioters were in receipt of Disability Living Allowance. If they received the moving about element of care, they should lose that if they went rioting alone.

But I emphasize again, not enough is being done to deter richer people from committing crimes. As we see from the statistics published not even half of the rioters were on benefits. A lot of crimes, and I think drug crime is a relevant example is committed by people not on benefits. Again we see this punishment regime that concentrates on benefit recipients but does not include working people. There is no equal treatment of benefit recipients and non benefit recipients and that is what makes it unfair. There is no equal measure to stop all people from committing crime and punishing those who are on benefits more than those who are not is not going to help at all.

If people lose 1/3 of their weekly income on fines, they will default on other bills like energy, rent, rates. The amount of homeless persons will increase. People who work and fail to pay their fines have no special measures taken up against them that are proportionally equal to the loss of income.

It will become proportionally easier for rich persons to commit crime and that is a substantive alteration to the legal principle that should exist in the UK, which emphasises that we are all the same under the law.

I strongly support and encourage methods that encourage crime reduction but feel it has to be the same difficult for all population groups to commit crimes. It does not hurt a rich person to pay a fine as it does not hurt a rich person to get a deduction in wages or other income. Working people can default on fines and what happens to them? Are their punishments kept low so that they can keep their jobs better so that their mortgage payments do not default?

Fed up with financial slavery

Have you not all experienced it, you take out a ‘loan’ on a credit card because you are a little bit hard up at the moment and you get hit with monthly interest rates between 15 and 19%, if you are lucky; some pay even more. So you are enslaved to the paying back of that some at extraordinary rates. I just wonder why the government does not outlaw this system because it is almost as worst as the loan-shark dilemma.

Even interest rates have been set by the  Bank of England as virtually zero, the credit card companies do not pass this on to us, neither do other store cards. He presto we borrow £100 and end up paying £500 on the slow road to financial slavery. But what do the credit card companies do with the extra money. They support football leagues, Boris’ bike scheme etc. But we, do  not want to pay for that. We wanted to borrow money to purchase a washing machine or a holiday or both but not to finance the football league.

Somehow I can agree with Andrew Tyrie who said that some Conservative policies are outright contradicting and especially the local focus, which is outright counter-productive in my view. But Mr Tyrie, who chairs the cross-party treasury group of MP’s, has nothing better to offer than the advice to cut business tax yet again.

The economy has slowed because some companies suck all the capital out of the economy by financial slavery tactics, which means they are promised a substantive chunk of our income by borrowing us a relatively small sum in relation to what we pay back. A huge industry has developed on the back of loan binding agreements. The solutions always are said to lay in giving the industry more power when they already have too mcuh of it, they can virtually stale our ability to spend our money for a very long time. What we pay in return for credit card debts we can’t spend elsewhere.

What a really sensible government approach should be, is the abolishing of practises that allows finance companies to practically lame us financially in return for borrowing us relatively small sums of money and finance all sorts of initiatives with it. It should be up to people themselves to decide what they want to finance and what not instead of concealing that finance with loan arrangements. If people want sports they should pay for them directly or government should pay for it but not the little man who takes out a loan on a credit card.

If business gets even more money and power over us, the consumers, we are practically paralysed in still only having very little to spend every day and entrepreneurs will find it much harder to get their foot off the ground simply because consumers are paralysed by credit agreements. Public initiatives rely on public borrowing. If yo look at it, some of those football leagues support football players that earn thousands per week if not per day. The Barclay’s Bank sponsorship of Boris’s bikes simply refuses other, smaller companies to advertise on those bikes, which would help them to show that they are there effectively. We see the centralisation of business in the hands of a few large corporations and Mr Tyrie’s “ideas” do not make the slightest bit of change.

What we need is more money in the hands of the small consumer who cannot escape poverty because the screws are put on too tight on the finances of the little people. We cannot escape child poverty because mothers do not have enough money to spend, they are forced to have more children just to increase their overall income, but that drives them into even deeper overall poverty. Only now has the government decided to put a ceiling to the amounts of benefits a family can get but otherwise its still the same problem with no real solution.

I think that Mr Tyrie’s ideas are tired and lashed out and do not offer a real alternative to what we already have got.

The fact that poor people tend to loiter has more to do with poverty and the inability to get creative due to no money to play with rather than stupidity. People are systematically driven into stupor by not allowing them any space to develop their own persona any longer. As soon as one has got a few quid someone else wants it and they come up with the most amazing tricks to get it out of you. Worst of all are the big companies that drain a person’s finances by loan agreements that charge exuberant amounts of interest and then are taken to finance some scheme. This should be outlawed, borrowers should only be required to pay what they borrowed and not pay back to finance something else.

turning us into aliens

Humans keep on dreaming about aliens, how they look, where they exist, how they contact us or how we contact them. Many pictures of supposedly aliens beings have been circulated in the world. Some films even imagine that human evolution will reduce our whole physical existence to some flap of fancy tissue that contains a brain and we’ll live in little containers. But who will maintain those brains?

Now I read that a Professor George Church invented DNA mapping. The story goes that with that technology cures and preventative medications can be developed that will allow us all to reach a longer lifespan, something like 150 years. Isn’t that what we read in the bible. Yet in the bible those characters described did not reach that old-age by using DNA technology and fancy medications.

What about healthy living? Reading this article it seems we do not have to care that much about our health any longer but only pop a pill once disaster struck, like an infection or cancer striking in our bodies. That got me interested and I thought, what type of a person would have such an idea? Is it somebody who is too lazy to be fit himself. Looking at Professor Church, with all respect for his scientific genius, it becomes apparent, that he has a bit of a belly and is not exactly lean and fit and extremely healthy himself. So is it possible that a person who doesn’t look after his own health the best way possible tries to invent a way to stay healthy for all others who are not quite capable of living a purely healthy lifestyle.

Does Professor Church want to find a way around nature and tell us all, don’t worry, about eating healthy, stopping smoking, excess drinking, I can find a way to reverse the damage. I can’t really find a relationship to healthy living in this whole article. There is a mention of synthetic biology; we all read about the damage synthetic drugs do to those who take them today, the synthetic drugs are much more evil than the naturally derived ones.

Siting down with a glass of Elder flower and Pear Cordial, I can really appreciate the good things humans can make out of natural ingredients. Even in baking recipes, I am always told use the natural vanilla extract instead of the synthetic one, its better.

Of course the discussion in the article then centres around human body parts wearing out and one could get hit by a truck. That says that we are made from natural parts, grown out of body part material that can wear out and that artificially created objects can kill us easier than natural objects. It used to be the other way around, it used to be natural objects that killed us easier in the times when we still had many more wild animals living around us.

I think it is a good thing to extend a healthy life and someone’s body to the maximum effect because if we do not idealise healthy and long living then what do we want from life, then we do not want to live in the first place successfully and only look for excuses to work out way out of life.

The many pictures we saw of alien-like creatures, we do not know whether they were man-made in the literal sense of the word; they could have been subject of covert experiments with human genes or they could have been made from plasticine in the first place.

Having heard about this story that a boy wandered into the city of Berlin after saying he lived for 5 years without being detected I wonder what else our forests contain because if that is possible than anything is possible.

I think trying to meddle with human DNA and trying to synthetically change the way of nature is a truly evil concept. It is the way to avoid stopping to sell junk-food and it is the way to stop having to tell people how to live healthy lifestyles. What we really need is a new set of standards and values instead of putting up with slack minds that want to keep on being lazy.  There is really nothing new in the concept, the concept that is being formed around being unfit, eating unhealthy and getting ill.

A bad attitude towards single parents

the latest research from Gingerbread shows that this government is simply totally incoherent and discriminative in its approach to single parents. I  already stated that in my view the government abuses the benefit and working system to punish single parents. The conservatives want to rid the world of single parents by sending mothers to work. But they already have had the children. That is what the conservatives forget that those children need to be looked after. Yet the reduction in the Child-care element of working tax credit makes the child-care system unaffordable for single parents.

this means in practical terms a generation of latch-key kids, the new under-class is created, which then is more likely to become a problem to the law and order desire that many of us wish to achieve.

Not only do the new rules deprive single parents of child care it also increases the unemployment register beyond repair. This government thinks that sending single parents to school will improve their morals or repair the fact that they had a child out of wedlock or stop them from having any more children out of wedlock. But this logic simply doesn’t add up. People who are prepared to have children out of wedlock are not likely to stop having sex because they are now unemployed or need to look for work or even have got a job.

The age-old dilemma of single parenthood has been around since earth began and the problem just keeps on getting worst. But it is a moral dilemma and not one of employment or the type of benefits a person gets. It is a matter of how people perceive their lifestyles and how they want to live or often being forced to live to escape over-crowded living conditions and then of course the fathers who happily go around bonking women without concern for the consequences.

Men can say no, they can have a conscience and do not have to do whatever they do to get a woman pregnant, but obviously they are not concerned and think that society these days will cope or they simply do not care whether those children, they create live or die. And so the government doesn’t care whether they live and how badly they live when they are only just being kept alive by very low maintenance payments whilst the single mother is send to work.

Gingerbread and Barnardos have a campaign page, which I support and if anything turns me away from the Tories, its their repeated bullying of the single mothers in Britain today.  The campaign is titled ‘stop the CSA charges, don’t make children pay the price’.

But in my view its always the upper class philosophy to keep the poor children down, regardless how clever they are, the dumber the better, at least they are not a threat to the kids of the upper classes. The only system that abandoned fair chances in education was the Grammar school system that purely judged on educational achievement and not on the ability to pay for education. In Grammar schools poor and rich kids have equal chances to gain fair test results, being tested on the same subjects with the same questions. Cameron even admitted it that he is concerned that 2 inner city London schools did better than 5 schools in his constituency and that is enough reason for him to withdraw funding from state schools and to put it into Free schools, which of course are built mainly by the affluent middle classes.

Why deepen the class-system? It would be better to level things out. I speak as somebody who grew up on a country that didn’t know the difference between private and state eduction but all children from all incomes levels were educated in the same schools; one cannot get fairer than that.

But here in the UK Osborne and Cameron not only make sure that poor kids from single parents households get deprived of vital funds, they also withdraw funds from the regular schooling budged with some excuse.

Why create problems that will then only have to be dealt with by law-enforcement agencies and that is more than predictable. Osborne must think we are all as stupid as he thinks we are.

PS: I want to add that the relatively good inner London school result by poor children was achieved within the Comprehensive school system but that the overall results of English pupils is far behind other nations, even Albania does better in Maths than we do.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,121 hits
%d bloggers like this: