The whole debate about taking photographs of and in public places, or even your own children or grand children has arisen once again. The PC Brigade are living in the UK, and are in the best of health, thank you. And the terrorists love them, as they play into their hands!
The police now have the power, under terrorist laws, to detain anyone taking photographs in a public place, and of public buildings, or places of architectural importance. You don't have to be acting suspiciously. So, don't be tempted to take any pictures of old historic places. You could be a terrorist! Don't take photos at the football stadium, or the railway station, or the main street in the town centre, or the statues, or of planes at the airport, or of buses, or of hospitals.... need I go on? Trouble is, that these very structures are the ones which attract the amateur as well as the professional photographer. The police have the powers to stop you, question you at the police station, confiscate your camera, and disturb your life for as long as they want or need. You don't even need to appear furtive.
An extension of this ill thought out law, is the ban on taking photos of children, even your own, in a public place. The trouble is that this ban is not treated the same by all places across the UK. For example, it may be ok to photograph children at the Christmas Nativity at some churches and community centres, but not others. In this case, I have to say there is some reasonable sense behind the law, as long as it is enforced uniformly across the country. When taking a photograph, in the school playground recently, of my granddaughter, and two of her friends (whom I knew well) I was asked by a man standing close by who I was and why was I taking a photo of his girls! No offence was intended, and none taken. Surely this is the common sense approach which the law misses, indeed cannot enforce! This dad, like many other dads, is protective of his daughters, and I wish there were more like him. But a blanket ban, which even covers taking a photo of your own, just in case someone else is in it? I don't think so.
The terrorists are making life difficult for the ordinary citizen, and surely that is what they want? They want to cause disruption at any level, and to all people who they think are opposed to their own way of thinking. They don't mind pleading 'not guilty' (even when caught red-handed) and letting the case drag through the courts, with all the expense and delays involved. I know I am straying off my original theme, but isn't it strange that these terrorists who take their 'religion' so strongly and completely that they will blow up themselves and others along with them, won't even tell the truth when it comes to a court case? They don't have enough of their 'religion' to tell the truth and plead guilty! What does that tell us about their religion of terror? Their commandments are very different from ours!
So, two points. The PC Brigade take things too far, and we should be thinking more carefully about the difference between 'religion' and Faith, and protecting the Faith.
The aim is to provide a stimulating mix of personal opinions (from a mainstream Christian worldview), and associated comments, which will be accepted and published if they comply with the usual courtesy and decency.
Wednesday 31 March 2010
Tuesday 30 March 2010
Masks and their Danger
You think you know someone, and what they stand for, and really, you don't. Sometimes you are caught by surprise, and it shows. If you have read some of my blogging attempts, you will realise that I sometimes use comparison to make a point. The point of this blog is to expose the nature of false faces, their effects, and that this does not only happen with kids at hallowe'en. There are two examples which confronted me recently. They should be taken as hypothetical cases.
The first is a quiet, reserved, almost shy person. Not easy to strike up conversation with, and I had known them for quite a few months, but always found them to be very pleasant. Living alone, I know that this can make you withdraw into yourself, and possibly some of your self confidence can be lost in that process, so I thought I understood them, and in some ways felt sorry. My thinking was shattered when I read in the newspaper that this meek and mild mannered person had threatened a couple in a public place with a weapon, and was so much a risk to safety that the police were called in. Such was the severity of the incident that the police deployed dog handlers, plain clothes personnel, and a tactical team to handle the circumstance which developed. I would say that this was not in the character of the person I knew, but how wrong I was! This was not the person I thought I knew.
The second is a person I have known, along with the family, for a long time. To say they are all very nice people is an understatement. They were brought up in a very stable environment, with a lot of love shown throughout life, not only by parents, but also by those in the wider family circle. This individual is clever, articulate, and a well educated example of the school system where they live. In this case, was always taught to speak kindly and thoughtfully in every situation. Imagine my surprise to learn, first hand, that this fine education has changed them into a brash, arrogant, opinionated, impress at any cost, and a 'hard to like' kind of person. It was a bit like over hearing a conversation which was not meant for you, but which you couldn't help but listen to. Certainly not the language or talk which you had heard in the past, or would have ever expected to hear eloquently praising and extolling the violent and seedy side of life, now. Again, not the person I thought I knew.
The comparison is easy to make on the surface. One wears a mask which hides the easy predisposition to violence. The other wears a mask which hides a desire for unseemly talk and opinions expressed which you would not easily accept in anyone else. So much for simple comparison, but who is easier to understand and 'accept'? For me, it is relatively easy to know where you stand with the 'physical' actions, but the deeper thoughts and ramblings of the emotionally immature person really is difficult, and therefore they can be described as a 'loose canon'. For that reason I find the latter harder to deal with.
It all comes down to this. We all wear masks, and are not always what we seem. Usually it is in a small thing, and easily handled, but sometimes it can become evident in a life changing way, and certainly in an opinion changing way. I cannot now deal with either of these folks in the manner I first had done, but I will be able to manage it better with one, than the other, of these hypothetical people! One of my prayers is that I will be true to my core faith values, which will be readily seen, and people will be able to say about me, 'what you see is what you get'!! Circumstances now make this prayer even more important. Not always an easy, but certainly a worthy goal. After all, who wants to be thought of as two faced?
The first is a quiet, reserved, almost shy person. Not easy to strike up conversation with, and I had known them for quite a few months, but always found them to be very pleasant. Living alone, I know that this can make you withdraw into yourself, and possibly some of your self confidence can be lost in that process, so I thought I understood them, and in some ways felt sorry. My thinking was shattered when I read in the newspaper that this meek and mild mannered person had threatened a couple in a public place with a weapon, and was so much a risk to safety that the police were called in. Such was the severity of the incident that the police deployed dog handlers, plain clothes personnel, and a tactical team to handle the circumstance which developed. I would say that this was not in the character of the person I knew, but how wrong I was! This was not the person I thought I knew.
The second is a person I have known, along with the family, for a long time. To say they are all very nice people is an understatement. They were brought up in a very stable environment, with a lot of love shown throughout life, not only by parents, but also by those in the wider family circle. This individual is clever, articulate, and a well educated example of the school system where they live. In this case, was always taught to speak kindly and thoughtfully in every situation. Imagine my surprise to learn, first hand, that this fine education has changed them into a brash, arrogant, opinionated, impress at any cost, and a 'hard to like' kind of person. It was a bit like over hearing a conversation which was not meant for you, but which you couldn't help but listen to. Certainly not the language or talk which you had heard in the past, or would have ever expected to hear eloquently praising and extolling the violent and seedy side of life, now. Again, not the person I thought I knew.
The comparison is easy to make on the surface. One wears a mask which hides the easy predisposition to violence. The other wears a mask which hides a desire for unseemly talk and opinions expressed which you would not easily accept in anyone else. So much for simple comparison, but who is easier to understand and 'accept'? For me, it is relatively easy to know where you stand with the 'physical' actions, but the deeper thoughts and ramblings of the emotionally immature person really is difficult, and therefore they can be described as a 'loose canon'. For that reason I find the latter harder to deal with.
It all comes down to this. We all wear masks, and are not always what we seem. Usually it is in a small thing, and easily handled, but sometimes it can become evident in a life changing way, and certainly in an opinion changing way. I cannot now deal with either of these folks in the manner I first had done, but I will be able to manage it better with one, than the other, of these hypothetical people! One of my prayers is that I will be true to my core faith values, which will be readily seen, and people will be able to say about me, 'what you see is what you get'!! Circumstances now make this prayer even more important. Not always an easy, but certainly a worthy goal. After all, who wants to be thought of as two faced?
Monday 29 March 2010
Taken to Court for Wearing a Cross on a Chain
Last year, long serving nurse Shirley Chaplin was banned from working on hospital wards for wearing a cross around her neck. This week she will take the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust to an employment tribunal after she was told that she must 'hide or remove' a small cross on her necklace if she wanted to continue working on hospital wards.
Why should such a position ever be taken by an NHS authority? You may remember a similar story of an airline employee being told to remove her cross, as it may have been an offence to others. What reasons could force these issues into a court situation? Obviously, Shirley Chapman's case has not been completed, so we don't know how it will turn out, but I am left wondering what pushed the case to this extreme? To me, the possibilities are few, but can be reasonably taken to be one of the following.
1. There may be a safety issue, where a patient could grab the chain, deliberately or by mistake, and injure themselves and the nurse. The trouble is there have been no instances of this happening before, either to this nurse of many years experience, or in the hospital to other nurses. It is therefore doubtful that it could be for safety reasons.
2. It is personal, and the nurse is not liked by her bosses who have forced the issue. I don't think a boss of any sense would pick this to go to court with. Surely, if the nurse wasn't liked, they could have come up with a better, and more credible story? So, I don't think it is this.
3. It is an anti-Christian position. This is particularly likely, as the nurse wasn't asked to stop wearing the chain, just remove the cross from it, or hide it from view. This also takes care of the position of it being a safety issue, as a patient could still grab at the chain. It may also explain that there may be a personal difference with a colleague who has forced the situation through their boss. If this is the case, then some questions need to be answered, like,
a/ is this not a bit extreme? Nurses of other religions are allowed to show their 'symbol of faith' in the same hospital, for example being allowed to wear headscarves.
b/ is Britain still considered a 'Christian' country? Apparently this is in question now, even though Christianity is still the majority religion by far.
c/ is the NHS being too Politically Correct for the Christian employee, but not for the Muslim employee?
d/ is there someone in the NHS chain of command with a grudge against Christianity, and they are trying to push something through the courts to make a precedent? (Think about that one carefully, and don't rule it out of hand too quickly.)
This kind of case worries me on many levels. This nurse is not a 'fanatical Christian'. She just wants to wear a cross to show her faith as she has done for 38 years! Am I to be offended by people of other faiths who show their allegiance by wearing things like, a turban, a veil, a headscarf, a full burka? It would be very interesting to see what would happen if one of these UK 'minority religions' was taken to court in the same way. It is wrong to assume anything, but yes, I think I know the answer to that one, and doesn't that give us all cause for concern?
Why should such a position ever be taken by an NHS authority? You may remember a similar story of an airline employee being told to remove her cross, as it may have been an offence to others. What reasons could force these issues into a court situation? Obviously, Shirley Chapman's case has not been completed, so we don't know how it will turn out, but I am left wondering what pushed the case to this extreme? To me, the possibilities are few, but can be reasonably taken to be one of the following.
1. There may be a safety issue, where a patient could grab the chain, deliberately or by mistake, and injure themselves and the nurse. The trouble is there have been no instances of this happening before, either to this nurse of many years experience, or in the hospital to other nurses. It is therefore doubtful that it could be for safety reasons.
2. It is personal, and the nurse is not liked by her bosses who have forced the issue. I don't think a boss of any sense would pick this to go to court with. Surely, if the nurse wasn't liked, they could have come up with a better, and more credible story? So, I don't think it is this.
3. It is an anti-Christian position. This is particularly likely, as the nurse wasn't asked to stop wearing the chain, just remove the cross from it, or hide it from view. This also takes care of the position of it being a safety issue, as a patient could still grab at the chain. It may also explain that there may be a personal difference with a colleague who has forced the situation through their boss. If this is the case, then some questions need to be answered, like,
a/ is this not a bit extreme? Nurses of other religions are allowed to show their 'symbol of faith' in the same hospital, for example being allowed to wear headscarves.
b/ is Britain still considered a 'Christian' country? Apparently this is in question now, even though Christianity is still the majority religion by far.
c/ is the NHS being too Politically Correct for the Christian employee, but not for the Muslim employee?
d/ is there someone in the NHS chain of command with a grudge against Christianity, and they are trying to push something through the courts to make a precedent? (Think about that one carefully, and don't rule it out of hand too quickly.)
This kind of case worries me on many levels. This nurse is not a 'fanatical Christian'. She just wants to wear a cross to show her faith as she has done for 38 years! Am I to be offended by people of other faiths who show their allegiance by wearing things like, a turban, a veil, a headscarf, a full burka? It would be very interesting to see what would happen if one of these UK 'minority religions' was taken to court in the same way. It is wrong to assume anything, but yes, I think I know the answer to that one, and doesn't that give us all cause for concern?
Friday 26 March 2010
Ryan 2007-2010
A solitary and pure flower.
He was only three years old and didn't deserve the sad life he had, much less the tragic death. His name was Ryan, and he was passed on to another couple because his own mother 'couldn't cope'. Another report says she wanted peace to redecorate her house, and gave £20 to the killer couple to look after him for her for a month.
This is tragic on a number of levels. How is it that a mother (not a Mum! A woman can be a mother, but only some make it to be a Mum) can sell her child for a month, to let her do some painting? Having given her child away, how on earth can she NOT know the kind of house and environment she is placing her child in? The people in the dock and charged with murder, are the couple who beat, and starved the child to death, and rightly so. But what about the mother? Does she have no guilt in this transaction?
This is yet another occasion where words defy us to describe the people who made this three year old's life a hell on earth. Maybe there is a clue in that last statement. We have become so sophisticated and modern that we have bought the lie that there is no evil in this world. No devil. No satan. But what pushes anyone to destroy a child's life, by inflicting over 70 wounds and marks on his face and body, locking him in a storage cupboard, and starving him until he died. This did not happen overnight. It took time. Day after day. The child would have been terrified, scared and lonely. Very lonely. Where were the people who should have protected him? The answer to that question is NOT the local authority. We are too quick to blame them for other people's actions. This wee boy was brought into the world by two parents. Where were they? Did they care?
It's time we admitted to ourselves that there is evil in this world, and it is alive and well in the society we have created. We hide from it, and we will find ways to excuse it, saying things like... the mother came from a deprived background. Or maybe, the adults in the boy's life were abused when they were children. We might even hear it said that we just need to educate our young people in how to raise children! Raising a child is not rocket science. Not always easy, but the human race has been raising children for a very long time.
What has changed? What about these thoughts? In the past 20-40 years we have seen a change in society's attitude to morality, and the moral authority of the church. Any church. Children are no longer taken to church by their parents, or indeed even sent to Sunday School. We know better nowadays, don't we? We let the children make their own minds up, and we have abdicated our responsibility as parents and society in teaching them right from wrong. That might be because we don't know ourselves anymore. The family unit of Mum (yes Mum), and Dad (not father) has been devalued. Yes, I do believe that there is only ONE kind of family unit, and it is NOT an Adam and Steve set up, no matter what the PC brigade tell us!
Some crimes are bad. Some are very bad, and some are evil. Why do we have such a problem is seeing evil for what it is? We are creating a nation of children, and young adults, who are living in a moral vacuum. Brought about in part by the older generation accepting the lie that we didn't need to worry about evil and morality. All we had to do was build better houses and make a better environment. That would lift everyone up to a higher place and make us all better people. Did it work? No! The trouble is that there seems to be no appetite to return to teaching morality at home and school, and the ability to see the traditional family unit as a microcosm of society. If the family gets broken, so does our society. And so we reap the rewards of our own making! Have we passed the point of no return? I hope not!
Saturday 20 March 2010
British Airways, Unite and Common Sense
And so it happened. The BA strike by Unite's Cabin Staff was inevitable, even to the casual observer. Where did the common sense go? BA cabin crews are well paid by all other aviation standards. Up to twice the pay of others doing the same job. They get serious perks, like free travel once per year for them, and their family, anywhere in the world that BA has a service. Why would anyone want to jeopardise that? Those Unite cabin crew strikers just forfeited that terrific perk! Why? Are the Unite members just playing follow the leader?
When the talks broke down, just hours before the strike was due to happen, both Tony Woodley of Unite, and Willie Walsh, BA CEO, came out to talk to the media gathered from around the world. They both 'regretted' the strike. They both said they were 'ready to talk at anytime, and any place' but there was no more talking. Someone wasn't telling the whole truth. They both sounded as if they had tried everything to avert the strike, but that can't be true. Both men, and those behind them, have a lot to lose, like reputation. It has become more than a money thing now. It is a stand-off between two men. Two opposing personalities, who sound so much alike, but are poles apart.
Reminds me of the school playground again. Everything (well almost everything) can be reduced to human nature's basic principles. These men are having a playground fight, and they are both at the point of throwing the toys out of the pram, or in this case grounding the airline, possibly resulting in permanent harm to the thing they say they are trying to protect. Again, someone is not telling the whole truth. BA is losing money, and both say theirs is the only way to make it more profitable. One of them is not telling the whole truth.
I think it boils down to this. Willie Walsh wants cuts to let his company make MORE money. Tony Woodley wants his members to get MORE money, but without the same cutbacks. I think the key is the word MORE. One wants more for his shareholders, the other wants more for his members, and NEITHER wants to meet halfway. That would mean a climbdown for one of them, with the humiliation it would bring. It's basic human nature, and the company can go to the wall, for the sake of a man's reputation.
Another way to look at the word MORE is to think of it as GREED! It used to be said that this was the underlying principal of the success of the 'free enterprise' system. Not any more. Apparently the union Unite have adopted this strategy for their own too. Isn't greed one of the deadly sins? Yes I thought so. In the words of the old Scot in the TV series 'Dad's Army', 'Doomed, we're a' doomed laddie'! How true.
When the talks broke down, just hours before the strike was due to happen, both Tony Woodley of Unite, and Willie Walsh, BA CEO, came out to talk to the media gathered from around the world. They both 'regretted' the strike. They both said they were 'ready to talk at anytime, and any place' but there was no more talking. Someone wasn't telling the whole truth. They both sounded as if they had tried everything to avert the strike, but that can't be true. Both men, and those behind them, have a lot to lose, like reputation. It has become more than a money thing now. It is a stand-off between two men. Two opposing personalities, who sound so much alike, but are poles apart.
Reminds me of the school playground again. Everything (well almost everything) can be reduced to human nature's basic principles. These men are having a playground fight, and they are both at the point of throwing the toys out of the pram, or in this case grounding the airline, possibly resulting in permanent harm to the thing they say they are trying to protect. Again, someone is not telling the whole truth. BA is losing money, and both say theirs is the only way to make it more profitable. One of them is not telling the whole truth.
I think it boils down to this. Willie Walsh wants cuts to let his company make MORE money. Tony Woodley wants his members to get MORE money, but without the same cutbacks. I think the key is the word MORE. One wants more for his shareholders, the other wants more for his members, and NEITHER wants to meet halfway. That would mean a climbdown for one of them, with the humiliation it would bring. It's basic human nature, and the company can go to the wall, for the sake of a man's reputation.
Another way to look at the word MORE is to think of it as GREED! It used to be said that this was the underlying principal of the success of the 'free enterprise' system. Not any more. Apparently the union Unite have adopted this strategy for their own too. Isn't greed one of the deadly sins? Yes I thought so. In the words of the old Scot in the TV series 'Dad's Army', 'Doomed, we're a' doomed laddie'! How true.
Thursday 18 March 2010
Fill Each Square With What Matters Most
A very wise Dutchman by the name of Lewis Smedes wrote this several decades ago....
"I bought a brand new date book yesterday, the kind I use every year, spiral bound, black imitation leather covers wrapped around pages and pages of blank boxes. Each square has a number to tell me which day of the month I am in at the moment. Every square is a frame for one episode of my life. Before I'm through with the book, I will fill the squares with classes I teach, people with whom I have had lunch, meetings I sat through, and these are only the things I cannot afford to forget. I also fill the squares with things I do not write down, thousands of cups of coffee, loving, praying, and hopefully gestures of help to my neighbours. Whatever I do, it has to fit inside one of the squares in my date book. I live one square at a time. The four lines that make up the box are the walls of time that organise my life. Each box has an invisible door that leads to the next square. As if by a silent stroke, the door opens and I am pulled through, as if by a magnet, sucked into the next square in line. There I will again fill the time frame that seals me - fill it with my busy-ness just as I did the square before. As I get older, the squares seem to get smaller. One day I will walk into a square that has no door. There will be no mysterious opening, and no walking into an adjoining square. One of those squares will be terminal. I do not know which square it will be". Smedes continued, "..when we walk into that final square, it isn't a box at all. It turns out to be a door. The four walls that confined us melt away, and time is no more. Then our real life, far from being over, turns out to have just begun".
I think that last square is an opening into a new world where God will set everything right. One day you will enter it, and so will I. In the meantime we must fill our squares wisely!
"I bought a brand new date book yesterday, the kind I use every year, spiral bound, black imitation leather covers wrapped around pages and pages of blank boxes. Each square has a number to tell me which day of the month I am in at the moment. Every square is a frame for one episode of my life. Before I'm through with the book, I will fill the squares with classes I teach, people with whom I have had lunch, meetings I sat through, and these are only the things I cannot afford to forget. I also fill the squares with things I do not write down, thousands of cups of coffee, loving, praying, and hopefully gestures of help to my neighbours. Whatever I do, it has to fit inside one of the squares in my date book. I live one square at a time. The four lines that make up the box are the walls of time that organise my life. Each box has an invisible door that leads to the next square. As if by a silent stroke, the door opens and I am pulled through, as if by a magnet, sucked into the next square in line. There I will again fill the time frame that seals me - fill it with my busy-ness just as I did the square before. As I get older, the squares seem to get smaller. One day I will walk into a square that has no door. There will be no mysterious opening, and no walking into an adjoining square. One of those squares will be terminal. I do not know which square it will be". Smedes continued, "..when we walk into that final square, it isn't a box at all. It turns out to be a door. The four walls that confined us melt away, and time is no more. Then our real life, far from being over, turns out to have just begun".
I think that last square is an opening into a new world where God will set everything right. One day you will enter it, and so will I. In the meantime we must fill our squares wisely!
Wednesday 17 March 2010
Playground Fights
I couldn't believe my eyes. There in the playground were two heads of department, arguing violently about the merits of their own areas of 'expertise'. There they were facing each other in full view, hurling insults at each other, while many of their department members stood behind their leader yelling their approval, and almost baying for blood! This is so humiliating for the others watching. There were people there who had nothing to do with the fight, but previously had been asked to join the parent/student committees by these same leaders! Who can blame them from walking away?
These people should know better. They are 'pillars of our society' and should be looked up to, and not allow themselves to be lowered to a level that the kids are given conduct cards for. I wonder who will reprimand the heads of department? Eventually, the Head Teacher came out and told them to behave, and quieten down. The Head Teacher finished what he was saying, and these same two people immediately started at each other again with their insults, and personal abuse. The trouble is, I couldn't actually understand what it was they were arguing about, so it was all in vain!
Ok, so now replace the playground with the floor of the House of Commons, the arguing teachers with the leaders of the major political parties, and the Head Teacher with the Speaker of the House. See what I mean? They behave like kids in the playground. Actually, kids in the playground don't even behave like that, even with those they don't see eye to eye with! These same leaders expect us, the spectators, to vote for them and their party. Why? Why should anyone vote for someone who behaves like that? Don't they realise there will be a General Election very soon?
I would like to see a rational debate, with real questions and answers. Not 'political replies' which always seem to side step the most basic and sometimes obvious answers. Why can't these very clever (but not very wise) leaders learn to behave responsibly, just like we train and educate our own children to act? Is that really too much to ask? Answers on a postcard, please!!
These people should know better. They are 'pillars of our society' and should be looked up to, and not allow themselves to be lowered to a level that the kids are given conduct cards for. I wonder who will reprimand the heads of department? Eventually, the Head Teacher came out and told them to behave, and quieten down. The Head Teacher finished what he was saying, and these same two people immediately started at each other again with their insults, and personal abuse. The trouble is, I couldn't actually understand what it was they were arguing about, so it was all in vain!
Ok, so now replace the playground with the floor of the House of Commons, the arguing teachers with the leaders of the major political parties, and the Head Teacher with the Speaker of the House. See what I mean? They behave like kids in the playground. Actually, kids in the playground don't even behave like that, even with those they don't see eye to eye with! These same leaders expect us, the spectators, to vote for them and their party. Why? Why should anyone vote for someone who behaves like that? Don't they realise there will be a General Election very soon?
I would like to see a rational debate, with real questions and answers. Not 'political replies' which always seem to side step the most basic and sometimes obvious answers. Why can't these very clever (but not very wise) leaders learn to behave responsibly, just like we train and educate our own children to act? Is that really too much to ask? Answers on a postcard, please!!
Tuesday 16 March 2010
Wealth and Happiness - A Study
A report has been issued which says that the wealthier we get as a nation, the more miserable we become! It took a university research team to come up with this finding, after a lot of study, and money was thrown at the project.
Anyone with some common sense could have seen this outcome. You only have to look at the lives, and in some cases deaths, of the celebrity group. The so called stars of our entertainment industry, sports personalities, TV and movie queens and kings of this age and years past are easily seen and remembered. You, like me, will remember some of those very wealthy people who were very sad, and in some cases, took their own lives as a result of their loneliness! Names do not need to be listed.
Wealth and money is not a crime, or indeed the problem in itself, but when it takes over our lives, and becomes a LOVE, it is a monster. There are many men and women in our nation who struggle to manage their finances to support their growing families through difficult times, but these same people would not normally be described as 'depressed' or suicidal, because the rewards far outweigh any difficulty they face.
The 'ordinary' person can always do with more money to help them, but this study didn't focus on them, but the 'wealthy'. These are the ones who, with increasing money, correspondingly have decreasing happiness. There is more than one kind of wealth, and I know lots of people who have that! Wealth of a loving family, good friends, and people who love them in return. There is no greater wealth in the world, and that kind of wealth does not create sadness. On the contrary, these are the happiest people I know!
Where should we put our treasure? Into the bank, or invested in the lives of others? For me, there is no contest!
Anyone with some common sense could have seen this outcome. You only have to look at the lives, and in some cases deaths, of the celebrity group. The so called stars of our entertainment industry, sports personalities, TV and movie queens and kings of this age and years past are easily seen and remembered. You, like me, will remember some of those very wealthy people who were very sad, and in some cases, took their own lives as a result of their loneliness! Names do not need to be listed.
Wealth and money is not a crime, or indeed the problem in itself, but when it takes over our lives, and becomes a LOVE, it is a monster. There are many men and women in our nation who struggle to manage their finances to support their growing families through difficult times, but these same people would not normally be described as 'depressed' or suicidal, because the rewards far outweigh any difficulty they face.
The 'ordinary' person can always do with more money to help them, but this study didn't focus on them, but the 'wealthy'. These are the ones who, with increasing money, correspondingly have decreasing happiness. There is more than one kind of wealth, and I know lots of people who have that! Wealth of a loving family, good friends, and people who love them in return. There is no greater wealth in the world, and that kind of wealth does not create sadness. On the contrary, these are the happiest people I know!
Where should we put our treasure? Into the bank, or invested in the lives of others? For me, there is no contest!
Sunday 14 March 2010
All Gone!
What do all the following 'British' things have in common?
Car industry, shipbuilding, chocolate manufacture, textiles and suits, computers, locomotives, planes and the airline industry...
We have become a 'service industry' as a nation. Sounds good, but it means we are the 'skivvies' to other wealthier countries where these things are now manufactured. Oh, I can hear you say, 'what about the major car manufacturing in Britain then'? Ok, maybe their names will give you a clue to that answer... Honda, Toyota even the mighty Land Rover brand is not British now! We do have some, but very few, industries here which are in the categories above, but not enough to make a real difference to the economy. By the way, that includes Scotland!
What happened? How did we lose all these massive industries? I am no expert, but I seem to remember most of them being riddled with strikes, sometimes over very small things. Coming from a shipbuilding town, I remember well a two day strike over the price of a bacon roll! The canteen had increased the price without consulting the union! Now, we have a major strike by British Airways which will cripple and possibly paralyse the airline. The strike will last for 7 days over a 14 day period, and is over pay, and the number of cabin crew on long haul flights. It is worth noting that BA staff at all levels, are already paid more than their 'opposite numbers' on other airlines. Once again, we are in the throes of a strike which may well result in the loss of our national airline, British Airways. Most, if not all, of the lost industries were beset with strikes, and as a result the workforce lost their livelihood. Paradoxically, the unions lost the work of the very people they said they were trying to protect. If the Airline Industry finally ends in the UK, will the unions apologise? They never have in the past when other industries were lost. We seem to have bad DNA in the union officials minds which says that 'they' have too much money, and can always well afford more for their workers. That argument was also used for the other lost workforces. It has been well said that, 'the one thing we learn from history, is that we never learn from history'! I hope this strike can be averted, but let's be clear, it's not the unions who currently pay the high salaries of the BA staff.
Now we have become a 'nation of shopkeepers' (Napoleon's quote, not mine). The jobs market needs doctors, nurses, teachers, maids, porters, hotel staff, policemen, bar staff, bankers, and now perhaps airline staff will be looking for employment. What do all these jobs have in common? None of them 'make' money for the economy. They 'take' money for their services. They do not in themselves generate wealth, and isn't that what makes a nation great and proud?
We are just starting to emerge from a major economic recession, caused by one of the service industries, and what a mess was made there. Banking is the UKs biggest industry now. We speculate on other people's money, and we even got that wrong, big time.
If only we had been able to stop the strike over the price of a bacon roll!
Car industry, shipbuilding, chocolate manufacture, textiles and suits, computers, locomotives, planes and the airline industry...
We have become a 'service industry' as a nation. Sounds good, but it means we are the 'skivvies' to other wealthier countries where these things are now manufactured. Oh, I can hear you say, 'what about the major car manufacturing in Britain then'? Ok, maybe their names will give you a clue to that answer... Honda, Toyota even the mighty Land Rover brand is not British now! We do have some, but very few, industries here which are in the categories above, but not enough to make a real difference to the economy. By the way, that includes Scotland!
What happened? How did we lose all these massive industries? I am no expert, but I seem to remember most of them being riddled with strikes, sometimes over very small things. Coming from a shipbuilding town, I remember well a two day strike over the price of a bacon roll! The canteen had increased the price without consulting the union! Now, we have a major strike by British Airways which will cripple and possibly paralyse the airline. The strike will last for 7 days over a 14 day period, and is over pay, and the number of cabin crew on long haul flights. It is worth noting that BA staff at all levels, are already paid more than their 'opposite numbers' on other airlines. Once again, we are in the throes of a strike which may well result in the loss of our national airline, British Airways. Most, if not all, of the lost industries were beset with strikes, and as a result the workforce lost their livelihood. Paradoxically, the unions lost the work of the very people they said they were trying to protect. If the Airline Industry finally ends in the UK, will the unions apologise? They never have in the past when other industries were lost. We seem to have bad DNA in the union officials minds which says that 'they' have too much money, and can always well afford more for their workers. That argument was also used for the other lost workforces. It has been well said that, 'the one thing we learn from history, is that we never learn from history'! I hope this strike can be averted, but let's be clear, it's not the unions who currently pay the high salaries of the BA staff.
Now we have become a 'nation of shopkeepers' (Napoleon's quote, not mine). The jobs market needs doctors, nurses, teachers, maids, porters, hotel staff, policemen, bar staff, bankers, and now perhaps airline staff will be looking for employment. What do all these jobs have in common? None of them 'make' money for the economy. They 'take' money for their services. They do not in themselves generate wealth, and isn't that what makes a nation great and proud?
We are just starting to emerge from a major economic recession, caused by one of the service industries, and what a mess was made there. Banking is the UKs biggest industry now. We speculate on other people's money, and we even got that wrong, big time.
If only we had been able to stop the strike over the price of a bacon roll!
Saturday 13 March 2010
Revenge and Justice
The case in point is the war in Afghanistan, and previously in Iraq, and the part our military played in them. Somehow we have fudged the lines of reason and faith a little in our thinking.
When our soldiers are sent there, they take it as part of the job they signed up to do, to defend our free nations from tyranny, and at whatever cost it takes. Even death, and yes possibly torture. When interviewed before deployment, their bravery already shows through in their words, because they are not driven by feelings or emotion, but by the deep belief in their mission, and the part they will play in the overthrow of terrorism.
We, on the other hand, seem to react differently, and very differently when (not if!) deaths occur in the ranks of these enlisted men and women. Our emotions seem to be taken to yet another level if we think torture has taken place, or it has been reported. There is something terrible about the torture of those who take our freedom and liberty so seriously, that they will endure it bravely, even though they know it is a distinct possibility if they are captured. We already have instances of reported torture on both sides. It seems to be a case of, if you can't beat them, join them! Does that make it right?
In this country, we are supposed to be different, more moral, and with our laws based on Biblical/Christian values, not on extremist Koran/Islamic beliefs. So, that begs the question, 'are we right to behave in the same way when faced with extremism and terrorism'? Why is it that some get very 'involved' and angry, to the point of seeking revenge, when the atrocity is conducted a long way away, and against those who have already dealt with the risk when they signed up? I can't help but think we place ourselves in the gladiator arena and cheer and shout when one of the enemy 'gets it' because they deserve it anyway!
This takes me back to my initial question. What's the difference between justice and revenge? Maybe the answer is that justice is clean, clear and rational, and we have courts and a legal system to deal with it, but revenge is not ours to take. This is one area where the Koran and the Bible are very different. The Koran can be used by terrorists to justify their atrocities, but the Bible teaches that 'we should not return evil for evil', and that we must 'do good to those who persecute us'. Why is turning the other cheek so hard to do? Because it runs counter to the basic human instinct of getting our own back, and that's why it is wrong. To finish with another word from the Bible, 'Vengeance (revenge) is mine says the Lord'. Apparently, God trusts us with justice, but not revenge.... I wonder why?
Bulger, Thompson, Venables and the 'Psycho'-logist
The story is told of a Social Worker (or psychologist) walking home one night, when she sees a poor elderly man slumped against a wall, with severe head and face injuries, blood running down his face, and his clothes all torn. He cannot move, and is asking for help. The Social Worker says, 'The person who did this needs help'! This is not funny, but is is relevant!!
Children's Commissioner Maggie Atkinson, who was appointed to the post last autumn, called for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10 to 12 years old. Dr Atkinson also said 'politicians should put the needs of children first and not allow themselves to be so influenced by the views of victims' relatives'. Did you catch that? Now for the question, 'who is the victim'? Or in our case, who deserves the public sympathy, Bulger, Thompson or Venables? Or maybe even the psychologist?
Today, a leading psychologist, with a really bad hair day, was aired on TV saying that children of 10 don't really know right from wrong, and even though they might know it is wrong to steal, it won't stop them from stealing. Apparently we should better understand these children, and give them the help they need.... after they do the crimes! It's not their fault. Oh diddums dearie... Yes it is! Wake up and see it for what it is. It is a crime, and in this case a hideous, and heinous evil crime against an innocent child who was lured to a place where terrible injuries were inflicted. They KNEW where to take him. They KNEW what they wanted to do to him. They KNEW to do their crime away from prying eyes, where they would be left in peace to humiliate and murder their helpless young victim.
Maybe we do need to help the 'children' who commit such crimes, but only while they are in prison, and not let out early for 'good behaviour' because a psychologist thinks they are no longer a danger to the public. Now one of the pair is back in prison where he should have stayed all along. Lets not listen to the social workers or 'experts' in such cases. Let's listen to the deep voice inside the ordinary man and woman who knows more than any Oxford educated expert, who incidentally only wants their 15 minutes of fame on a TV interview, and is only interested in furthering their own narrow minded agenda.
One of the sad outcomes of all the recent happenings is that another victim, Jamie Bulger's mother, has had to go through it all again, and listen to the educated (not wise) drivel of an eminent psychologist, who has had a bad hair day. Put it another way, she will be recognised again if or when she appears on TV again, and she will love to spout again, as she uses up what remains of her 15 minutes of fame.
In the recent past, Venables has been locked up because of another crime, after having been released from prison early with Thompson, given new identities to avoid them being identified and maybe a crime being perpetrated against them for something evil they did to a small boy years earlier. The law of the land was used extensively to help the killers, and very little was done to help the victim's family. Where is the justice in that?
Children's Commissioner Maggie Atkinson, who was appointed to the post last autumn, called for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10 to 12 years old. Dr Atkinson also said 'politicians should put the needs of children first and not allow themselves to be so influenced by the views of victims' relatives'. Did you catch that? Now for the question, 'who is the victim'? Or in our case, who deserves the public sympathy, Bulger, Thompson or Venables? Or maybe even the psychologist?
Today, a leading psychologist, with a really bad hair day, was aired on TV saying that children of 10 don't really know right from wrong, and even though they might know it is wrong to steal, it won't stop them from stealing. Apparently we should better understand these children, and give them the help they need.... after they do the crimes! It's not their fault. Oh diddums dearie... Yes it is! Wake up and see it for what it is. It is a crime, and in this case a hideous, and heinous evil crime against an innocent child who was lured to a place where terrible injuries were inflicted. They KNEW where to take him. They KNEW what they wanted to do to him. They KNEW to do their crime away from prying eyes, where they would be left in peace to humiliate and murder their helpless young victim.
Maybe we do need to help the 'children' who commit such crimes, but only while they are in prison, and not let out early for 'good behaviour' because a psychologist thinks they are no longer a danger to the public. Now one of the pair is back in prison where he should have stayed all along. Lets not listen to the social workers or 'experts' in such cases. Let's listen to the deep voice inside the ordinary man and woman who knows more than any Oxford educated expert, who incidentally only wants their 15 minutes of fame on a TV interview, and is only interested in furthering their own narrow minded agenda.
One of the sad outcomes of all the recent happenings is that another victim, Jamie Bulger's mother, has had to go through it all again, and listen to the educated (not wise) drivel of an eminent psychologist, who has had a bad hair day. Put it another way, she will be recognised again if or when she appears on TV again, and she will love to spout again, as she uses up what remains of her 15 minutes of fame.
In the recent past, Venables has been locked up because of another crime, after having been released from prison early with Thompson, given new identities to avoid them being identified and maybe a crime being perpetrated against them for something evil they did to a small boy years earlier. The law of the land was used extensively to help the killers, and very little was done to help the victim's family. Where is the justice in that?
We often hear politicians saying about such things, 'we need to ensure this kind of thing never happens again'. Ok, now do something about it!
Friday 5 March 2010
You Think YOU'RE Confused?
Ok, I am a blogger. I put my thoughts down so that others can read them, and agree or disagree. Like most other bloggers, I am not sure why I do this in my spare time, but I would not like to mislead, or give the wrong impression of who I am, or even worse still not know what I stand for myself!
In the process of blogging, you find yourself seeking out others who seem to think like you. Maybe that's to confirm in your own mind that you're not the only nutter out there who actually believes that what you think is important to somebody else! Perish the thought!
So that you know where I am coming from, and to avoid confusion, I follow the 'F' words for my life. Faith, Family, Family tree research, and Photography. Sorry about the last one :-). All in that order. I am not ashamed of my choices. Actually it is usually easier to mention any of them except Faith. That's where others have their own opinions, and a lot of heat gets generated (usually more heat than light!). But having said it, you are in no doubt where I stand, agree or disagree. I will try to understand your opinion, all I ask is that you respect mine.
I say all that because I came across a blog by someone I know. Very clever, and well educated, even articulate, but I had to conclude that I didn't know her at all, and I thought I did! She belongs to that group of people who theor-'ise', and psycholog-'ise', and psychiatr-'ise', and philosoph-'ise', around a subject, and although clever is not very w-'ise'! I used to work with a man who would say from time to time, 'I might be daft, but I'm not stupid'. A good and understandable witticism. Trouble is, some bloggers are 'daft AND stupid' and it comes across. Like politicians, they talk a lot but don't say much. An aide to an old US President used to say about him, 'he don't say much, but when he talks, he don't say much'. Ouch!
I hope I never get to the stage when people wonder what I am saying when I talk, or even worse can't tell what I stand for, and where my priorities in life are. If, or when, that happens, I will expect my family and friends (my real friends) to tell me sincerely, but quietly. That is when I will stop. In the meantime, I will say again that my life revolves around my Faith, Family, and Fotography. (Ok is that better :-)?), and in that order. Clear? Oh, I also have a 'C' word in my life, and this goes with me wherever I go, helps to form the real me, and is non-negotiable! Even clearer?
In the process of blogging, you find yourself seeking out others who seem to think like you. Maybe that's to confirm in your own mind that you're not the only nutter out there who actually believes that what you think is important to somebody else! Perish the thought!
So that you know where I am coming from, and to avoid confusion, I follow the 'F' words for my life. Faith, Family, Family tree research, and Photography. Sorry about the last one :-). All in that order. I am not ashamed of my choices. Actually it is usually easier to mention any of them except Faith. That's where others have their own opinions, and a lot of heat gets generated (usually more heat than light!). But having said it, you are in no doubt where I stand, agree or disagree. I will try to understand your opinion, all I ask is that you respect mine.
I say all that because I came across a blog by someone I know. Very clever, and well educated, even articulate, but I had to conclude that I didn't know her at all, and I thought I did! She belongs to that group of people who theor-'ise', and psycholog-'ise', and psychiatr-'ise', and philosoph-'ise', around a subject, and although clever is not very w-'ise'! I used to work with a man who would say from time to time, 'I might be daft, but I'm not stupid'. A good and understandable witticism. Trouble is, some bloggers are 'daft AND stupid' and it comes across. Like politicians, they talk a lot but don't say much. An aide to an old US President used to say about him, 'he don't say much, but when he talks, he don't say much'. Ouch!
I hope I never get to the stage when people wonder what I am saying when I talk, or even worse can't tell what I stand for, and where my priorities in life are. If, or when, that happens, I will expect my family and friends (my real friends) to tell me sincerely, but quietly. That is when I will stop. In the meantime, I will say again that my life revolves around my Faith, Family, and Fotography. (Ok is that better :-)?), and in that order. Clear? Oh, I also have a 'C' word in my life, and this goes with me wherever I go, helps to form the real me, and is non-negotiable! Even clearer?
Monday 1 March 2010
Pride and Humility
I was intrigued by David Cameron's statement that it was his 'patriotic duty' to oust Gordon Brown from power at number 10 Downing Street. It seemed to me at least, quite a proud, and arrogant statement - even for a power chasing politician. I am not making a political point, but making an observation on a human characteristic.
In contrast to that statement, I received an email this week which said that this person was told off by a boss because they did not 'shout their knowledge of their job from the rooftops', especially when making presentations to prospective clients. This person, perhaps due their upbringing, was not comfortable at pushing their own image, but was just doing their job, as best they could. In other words, the clients would make their minds up based on their ability, not on how loud they shouted about themselves! As I said, what a contrast, and what a lesson for our politicians! Anyone can speak well of themselves, but it means more when it is voiced by others around them.
My dear old Mum gave me a warning about 'me, myself, and I' and she was right. There is something refreshing about humility, and we are able to see it clearly when it is shown. It is not self effacing. It is not 'in your face' as we hear in sporting circles, it is quiet but very, very effective, and a joy to see and hear. I suppose there are times when we have to let others know that we are up to the job, and that is ok, but there is only a short step from pride to arrogance, and I know where my vote lies.
Humility is a grand and noble desire, but if we ever think we have achieved it, we have just lost it. Humility is best seen by others, and not in ourselves.
In contrast to that statement, I received an email this week which said that this person was told off by a boss because they did not 'shout their knowledge of their job from the rooftops', especially when making presentations to prospective clients. This person, perhaps due their upbringing, was not comfortable at pushing their own image, but was just doing their job, as best they could. In other words, the clients would make their minds up based on their ability, not on how loud they shouted about themselves! As I said, what a contrast, and what a lesson for our politicians! Anyone can speak well of themselves, but it means more when it is voiced by others around them.
My dear old Mum gave me a warning about 'me, myself, and I' and she was right. There is something refreshing about humility, and we are able to see it clearly when it is shown. It is not self effacing. It is not 'in your face' as we hear in sporting circles, it is quiet but very, very effective, and a joy to see and hear. I suppose there are times when we have to let others know that we are up to the job, and that is ok, but there is only a short step from pride to arrogance, and I know where my vote lies.
Humility is a grand and noble desire, but if we ever think we have achieved it, we have just lost it. Humility is best seen by others, and not in ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)