Not Easy This Time!

Ok so it's done now. The postal vote has been filled in, and is waiting to be put into the postbox. What a decision.....

I have always taken a fair interest in politics, and the shenanigans they get into as they spin their lies, sorry policies, to get the keys to number 10. This time, I have been more interested and engaged than ever before, and have even written to candidates to see where they stand on certain issues. Did this help? Not a whole lot really! At the start of this election fever season, I decided that I would cast my lot with the most moral party. Surely that should be easy to find? Well, no, and that will be apparent if you have read any of the previous blogs. There are immoral policies and people in each one. So what made me decide on which one was for me? 

First, I had to go back to basics. What combination of party and policy did I think would address the challenges of our nations debt, and yes, whose hands would be the safest for our moral, ethical and Christian future? Know what? I may as well have blindfolded myself and put a pin in a piece of paper. One overriding, and driving force to make me pick one of them, is the fact that people in past wars fought and died to keep our freedoms, and we shouldn't take that lightly. Even if the political parties use and abuse this freedom, and continue to use smoke and mirrors, style and make up, to help us decide that theirs is the one.

Eventually, I looked, not at our prospective leaders, but at my local candidates, and that made it easier. After all, I didn't see Cameron, Brown or Clegg (or even Salmond) on my postal voting slip! Then it all got clearer. I decided  to look at my present MP's voting record on those important moral issues (this is easy to find online) and compare this to the other unknowns standing for election.  

So, I voted at last. Six days before the election, but only after the last leaders' debate on TV, and after I had done some personal homework on my own candidates. I don'y know if it will turn out to be the best decision I have ever made, but as a mere voter, I have done what I can with one of the greatest freedoms we are privileged to have in our nation, and that all by itself outweighs any doubt I may have. 

Jilted by a Camera

An attempt by the Scottish National Party to use the courts to ban the broadcast in Scotland of Thursday's BBC TV prime ministerial debate has failed. The party asked the Court of Session in Edinburgh to rule on whether the corporation had breached its rules on impartiality by excluding the SNP. But this was dismissed by the judge, Lady Smith, after a two-day hearing.

Speaking as a 'proud' Scot within the UK, I was not surprised by the outcome of the courts. It made sense, since this is a series of TV debates to see who would occupy Number 10, and there is no way Alex Salmond could have done that, even if everyone in Scotland voted SNP! So we will be able to watch the debate as it should be, with the three main contenders for the position of the UK Prime Minister. And we will be spared the cocky grin of the SNP Leader.

It tells me again that wee Eck is a very vain and conceited person, who will go to any length to get on TV and in front of a camera. If he wanted publicity, he got it, but only after the ordinary SNP supporters had coughed up £50,000 to give his pride a chance of some more camera shots.

"Vanity vanity, all is vanity", now who was it said that? Clue, a very wise man!

For That Reason, I'm Out!

Read the following slowly, thoughtfully, and carefully.....

Liberal Democrat plans to allow 16-year-olds to watch and star in pornographic movies have been condemned by furious mothers. The controversial Lib Dem policy has faced intense criticism from users of the popular parenting website Mumsnet.com. One mother, who identifies herself as crystal123 on the website, warned: “Many young people aged 12 appear 16 or 17 and could easily end up in explicit pornography.” Her concerns were echoed by another Mumsnet user, Clairewilliams1973, who said: “I simply cannot vote for a party that advocates this”. She went on to warn that when her husband had phoned the local Lib Dem office to complain, he was told: “Look I have explained the policy and if you do not like it you do not have to vote for us”. The controversial policy was passed by a large majority at the party’s conference in 2004, and earlier this week the party confirmed that they stood by it.

In the words of Duncan Bannatyne on TVs Dragon's Den, "..and for that reason, I'm OUT". I have now made my mind up on this political party. It didn't take a lot of thought. Now it's over to you to use your vote on May 6th!!   

Bigots and Bigotry

The definition of a bigot is given as follows:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.

I suppose that definition means that at any given time, we can all be bigots. Our country has many serious bigots in areas of colour, religion and politics. It seems that Gordon Brown has dubbed a woman who was stubbornly asking an awkward question, a 'bigoted woman'. Maybe he is right, but then also by definition, so is he! I have no doubt that this exchange will be played and replayed many times over, and even when the election is over.

We have to be careful who we call a bigot, and who we point at. The old description of pointing is true, when we point a finger, there are another three pointing back at ourselves. The fact is, we expect more of our politicians, especially those at the highest level, and it should not matter if their mic is switched on or off. Is it too much to ask that 'what we see is what we get'? Apparently it is, and this proves it. I think Gordon Brown was unfortunate in getting caught, but am I naive enough to think he is the only one who could be caught like this? Definitely not! 

This will turn out to be the gaffe of the election run up, and it may cost Gordon Brown and the Labour Party dear, because this 'mistake' had nothing to do with policy. It did have everything to do with character, honesty and integrity, and this is at the heart of all politics, and the fundamental reason for people to go into politics. When the ordinary people are labelled as bigots, because they ask difficult questions, then that politician has lost the reason he entered politics in the first place.

Isn't it odd that the thing which causes the most stir, isn't the shouting at each other, or who can give the most statistics, or policies, but an 'off mic' comment which shows character?

Free Speech? What Free Speech??

Tory election candidate Philip Lardner has been suspended for describing gay people on his website as "not normal", the party has confirmed. His suspension was provoked by comments in the "What I believe in" section of his website, under the sub-heading: "Homosexuality is not 'normal behaviour'." The former Territorial Army soldier wrote of his support for the controversial "clause 28", which was introduced by the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher and banned public bodies from promoting homosexuality.

Last year, David Cameron apologised for Tory efforts to stop the measure being repealed by Labour and his party have since indicated they would consider allowing same-sex marriages, if elected. But Mr Lardner wrote: "As your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage. "I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it. "Toleration and understanding is one thing, but the state promotion of homosexuality is quite another."

The comments have since been removed.

Labour's Europe minister Chris Bryant, who is gay, said: "These comments are completely unacceptable and betray the nasty, judgmental truth behind the Tory campaign."

Where else can we start but with the dictionary definition of the word 'Normal'

nor·mal (nôr′məl)

adjective

1. conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern; esp., corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, development, etc.; natural; usual; standard; regular.

There is no way that the gay community can be described as normal using this definition. This does not imply that they have no rights, neither does it say that they should be discounted, but they are NOT NORMAL by definition!

What happened to free speech? Does it not apply to prospective MPs? Is the Conservative Party embarrassed by this statement? Maybe they are offended, but the man does have a right to say it. It is not illegal. It seems that the only people who have a right to freedom of expression are the minorities, and they can take the form of gays, and other minority (non Christian) religions especially, as we have seen recently.

There seems to be a contradiction here. The Tory Party will recognise the importance of 'normal' family life by giving married couples a tax break, but in the same breath, they do not allow one of their candidates to say the obvious. Gays do not constitute the majority of our population according to the definition which says.

1. the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, development, etc.; natural; usual; standard; regular.

Ok, get it now? No offence. No confusion. No contradiction. Not normal. Now what? Will we see the minorities change the dictionary, as they have the (obvious and clear) teaching of the Bible? Now that would be unlikely.... but don't rule it out altogether. And on top of that the same party would sanction same sex marriage! Choosing a candidate in this election is giving me a bigger headache than in past years. To borrow and change a phrase coined by another political party, "we are dancing to the minority's jig!" Oh that is scary!

It appears that there will be one less possible MP in parliament who would have a moral compass. If this is how we hire and fire our MPs, we are indeed .." A' DOOMED LADDIE".

1. 
   

Another One Bites The Dust

Labour was today forced to suspend another candidate after it emerged he had posted explicit and offensive messages online. John Cowan, who was fighting for a seat in South East Cambridgeshire, boasted about his seedy life on internet forums. 

A Labour Party spokesman said: 'The allegations that came to light after nominations closed are totally unacceptable and well below what the party expects of our candidates. 'The general secretary of the Labour Party has suspended the candidate from the Labour Party and we are taking action to ensure he is never again a Labour candidate. 'The Labour Party's relevant committees will be asked to consider whether he should be expelled from the Labour Party.'

The would-be MP is the latest Labour candidate to see their dreams of working in Parliament scuppered by controversial comments they have made online. Earlier in the campaign, Stuart MacLennan, 24, was dumped after admitting posting a string of deeply offensive comments on Twitter.

Another one of our prospective MPs has been sacked unceremoniously by the Parliamentary Labour Party, and rightly so. The account shown above is not the full story, and it all begs the question... "What is known about our standing MPs when they are selected"? While some people are trying to figure out who would be best suited to run our country, and yes, who would have the moral and ethical judgement needed, we have someone like this who has somehow slipped under the radar. This man wouldn't know decency or honour if he fell over it!

I, for one, cannot believe that the selectors didn't know the kind of man they were putting forward. That being the case, then the Parliamentary Labour Party have a lot to answer for. Is this the tip of an iceberg? Will the ramblings of the internet's many social networking sites be the undoing of any more, either now, or even after they have been elected? I fear it will happen. I am not concerned that these people are caught and fired, but I am worried that this shows a culture of what is going on, and condoned by the silence of the appropriate parties.

Our country needs honourable men and women to stand up for decency and humanity. This kind of person's lifestyle is at odds with any move towards a better society. All political parties should take note, and take a lot more care in who they endorse. After all, they are all going to make it easier for us, the ordinary voter, to disown them and throw them out. Not before time!  

Religious Mockery

The news media has carried a story over the past few days about a leaked Foreign Office memo, covering a brainstorming session regarding the upcoming Pope's visit to the UK, which mocked him and made him a subject of ridicule. This strikes me as a symptom of the society we have made for ourselves, even at the highest level.


I am all for free speech, and the Christian religion in all its aspects, and all its traditions support this, but it should be noted that not all religions do! Everyone in this country is free to worship in the way they want. We live in a free society... but...
Yes, you knew there was a 'but' coming. There have been cases recently in the UK where a Bible has been scribbled on and defaced, and we were told it was a form of art. There was also the play, claiming to be 'opera' which depicted Christ as a figure of ridicule. In spite of many Christians complaining about both of these instances (and there are many others) nothing was done to change them. After all, we have free speech.
BUT.. there are religions where freedoms are not given, and no movement is allowed on how their leader is portrayed. One of these is of course, Islam. This country allows Islam to be practised as a religion, but do you honestly think that the Muslim community would have allowed their Koran to be defaced, whether as art or not, or for Mohammed to be shown as a figure of ridicule and mockery? I think not. Remember Salman Rushdie? The Danish cartoonist? Islam does not allow freedom, and will defend their religion with lives.... theirs or even someone else's! That's serious and extreme.


Our nation has now lost its Christian title, and we will live to regret it sooner or later. The question is, what will replace it? A form of extremism? Are we prepared for that? Maybe it is time to recognise that, instead of highlighting the small differences between the Christian faiths, we celebrate the things which we do agree on. At the basis of every Christian tradition is Christ. It's in the name, and maybe. just maybe, we will find that we will have to unite in Christian love, to be able to counter the extremism which we seem to tolerate so readily.


So, we should be open to the Pope's visit, and welcome him gladly, and not allow his time in our country to be marred and spoiled by extreme remarks from any section of society, and that includes the Foreign Office. Have you really considered the alternative? Now that is scary!! 
"God is Love" and "Fear the Lord" are good and certainly not contradictory statements! We need to live them and defend them.    

NHS Muslim Medics and MRSA

Muslim doctors and nurses have been allowed to opt-out of NHS hygiene rules in a move that has been blasted by critics as double standards. Critics compared the opt-out given to Muslims to cases of Christians being marginalised by the NHS. NHS guidance to curb the spread of superbugs in hospitals states that staff must be “bare below the elbow”. But Muslim staff have been given an exemption to the rule and will be allowed to wear disposable over sleeves instead.

Sikh doctors and nurses have also been told they can wear a bangle around their arm, as long as they push it up when treating a patient.

Former Conservative Minister Ann Widdecombe said: “Minority groups are unquestionably getting more sensitive treatment than Christians and this is yet more proof.” And Dr Andrew Fergusson of the Christian Medical Fellowship, which represents 4,000 doctors, said that “Christians in health care seem to be particularly vulnerable at the moment”. The move was also slammed by an anti-superbug campaign group. MRSA Action UK’s chairman said: “My worry is that allowing some medics to use disposable sleeves you compromise patient safety because unless you change the sleeves between each patient, you spread bacteria. “Scrubbing bare arms is far more effective”, he added. Since 2007 many hospitals have insisted that staff involved in patient care wear short sleeves at all times. The move came in an attempt to combat superbugs, such as MRSA.

The special treatment given to NHS Muslim medics treating patients with the superbug MRSA surprises me. Yes, the Muslims are certainly being treated very differently to their Christian counterparts, but it is more than that. I know these superbugs are smart, but it appears that they can tell the difference between Muslims, and all nurses of other faiths! It's as though the risk must be lessened when you are being treated by a Muslim. After all, it stands to simple logic that our NHS wouldn't put patients at risk, now would they?

Now the serious part. These are deadly superbugs, and not to be treated lightly. The NHS has been trying to improve hospital cleanliness, and insisting on a policy of the staff being bare below the elbows, especially when dealing with superbugs, so that it reduces the risk of transferring infection from sleeves. It also makes the washing of arms and hands easier, and isn't that a key to keeping MRSA under control? That seems reasonable. Why, why, why then it is ok for some nurses to have to adhere to the strict hygiene rules, but not others? The answer is really very obvious.

We don't want to upset our minority groups. It's as simple as that. Patients will live or die with the risk while the NHS bosses play the PC game. Ann Widdicombe got it right when she said above,  “Minority groups are unquestionably getting more sensitive treatment than Christians and this is yet more proof.”  

I suppose the key question is, "will the superbugs give preferrential treatment to the Muslim medical staff?". Answer, absolutely not, so why allow it? Know what? I think the NHS (like lots of government bodies) are 'feart' to tackle the obvious problem! Apparently, equality is not enough!   

Faith Schools and Politics

The Lib Dems want to remove faith schools’ ability to protect their ethos by selecting teachers who share a school’s faith position. The party also says in its manifesto that faith schools should take children from families who may not support a school’s religious ethos.

The Lib Dem manifesto says the party would “ensure that all faith schools develop an inclusive admissions policy and end unfair discrimination on grounds of faith when recruiting staff, except for those principally responsible for optional religious instruction”. Critics fear that the policy would threaten thousands of high-achieving faith schools across the country.

Last month the Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said that faith schools encourage the attributes children need. He said “faith schools tend to have a strong ethos that emphasises respect for authority, the virtues of hard work, discipline and a sense of duty, a commitment to high ideals, a willingness to learn, a sense of social responsibility, a preference for earned self-respect rather than unearned self-esteem, and the idea of an objective moral order that transcends subjective personal preference”. And Lord Sacks concluded in his article for The Times newspaper: “One way or another, the critics should reflect on this simple question. If faith schools are so bad, why do thoughtful, often secular, parents think they are so good?”

Nick Clegg, a self confessed atheist, has claimed that Christian values are “central” to his policies in an article for a leading church newspaper. 

However, a Daily Telegraph report of the article, headlined ‘Atheist Nick Clegg discovers religion in time for polling day’, appears to cast doubt on Mr Clegg’s sincerity.

I don't know about you, but I am confused! The top part of the above press release seems to suggest that the Lib Dems (and therefore the leader, Nick Clegg) want to make changes to Faith Schools, and remove the choice of the schools to employ teachers who believe, and the children of those who also believe in that faith. Then, in the last part, I learn that Nick Clegg does not have a faith, since he is atheist, but claims that 'Christian values are central to his policies'.

Are you confused now like me? Try to read the top part in italics again, and see the obvious contradiction. How can an atheist have the heart of a faith school, especially a Christian faith, with its values, as central to his thinking? If it was indeed central, he would therefore be a believer of some kind, and in one of the faiths. For me, the two don't go together, so I think he has shot himself in the foot. Yes, he had a good first leader's debate, as they traded insults along with their policies, and he had some good one liners, but I expect a deeper character in my leader, and a contradiction in stated values says a lot about Nick Clegg. 

I want a strong leader I can trust, and have some faith in, and it would help if that leader also had a faith of his own. I don't like the smell of deception in the pursuit of power!

Flying and Moaning (again)

We are flying again. Great news, and thousands of people can now see the time when they will get home, when previously all they saw were delays. The watchword all through this ash cloud problem was, safety. We heard it from the top brass of the military, the chiefs of the civilian air industry, but most of all from the travelling public. Especially the travelling public. After all these are the holiday families who would be taking the risk. In spite of the delays and expenses incurred, they all agreed that 'safety must come first'.


So far so good. That was until the flight ban was lifted today. Now, did you hear the shuffling noises as these same 'experts' came out to complain that the UK was being 'too safe'. Too Safe? That's a bit like saying you are too dead! You can't be too safe, and you can't be too dead! You are either safe/dead or not. As the meerkat in the TV ad says, 'simple'. There is no substitute for safety in the air, and again the travelling public are the ones who would agree with that statement fully. Why not listen to them? They have most to lose.


But there is another shuffling sound coming from the insurance companies. Have you listened to their statements recently? They are all scared stiff that they will have to pay out a lot of money to families who needed food, accommodation, and alternate routes home. Oh diddums! The insurance companies might have to pay something out, instead of raking it in! All air passengers take out insurance reluctantly, but deep down they know it might be needed in serious cases like the Iceland Volcano eruption. Why else bother if all the company will do is take your money with a smile, but disappear when you need them?  


The result of this is that we now treat 'experts' in the same trust category as 'insurance companies'. They join other untrustworthy groups like, lawyers, journalists, estate agents, and politicians. A worthy group of celebrities indeed!  

The Church in Trouble

Church of Scotland ministers and elders are holding a special debate tonight about ministers in gay relationships. Those attending the meeting of Greenock and Paisley Presbytery will each complete a questionnaire with their conclusions on the subject. The meeting takes place as a result of the high-profile case which came to the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly last year. The Rev Scott Rennie was living in an openly gay relationship and his call to a church was challenged on the grounds that a homosexual lifestyle was not acceptable in the ministry.
The General Assembly voted to allow his move to that church but set up a Special Commission to consider the issues raised.


"Closing the stable door when the horse has bolted" comes to mind. Let's face it, the precedent has been set, so will the 'Rev' Rennie be removed from his church? Certainly not! The outcome of this debate is neither here nor there, and will not change anything. The action of placing a gay minister into a church cannot be undone. It has been accomplished.


We have used a saying in our family for a number of years now. We use it occasionally when the person who uses it, knows it is for the greater good, and very important to them. The saying is... "This is not up for discussion...". It is not an arrogant statement. In fact it is always accompanied with a caring and loving attitude. For me, the sad part is that the Church of Scotland (which is not the same as saying 'The Church of Christ') has the topic of gay ministers up for discussion. Why?


There are various reasons given for discussion.... The Bible doesn't mean what it says. Or, the Bible is outdated and doesn't relate to today. Or, since God loves everybody, why can't we have a gay minister? Or, this outdated law doesn't apply anymore. Or, we have more information now, so we can interpret scripture better now. Or maybe, we just know better than God!   


The whole church of Christ is going through a seriously bad time now. We have cases of paedophile priests and gay ministers, among other things, rocking the foundations of the established church, but we need to keep something in mind. The same Bible which is being reviewed and reinterpreted by our modern, and progressive top brass, also says, "This is My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it"! I wonder what that part means? Or do we dismiss that bit too?


If what we do in the name of the church, or of God, does not meet with His approval, it will fail, and another church will be raised up in its place. One thing is certain, The true Church will survive, but like other 'churches' in the past which had their own agenda, they will fail. The death of these churches may be slow, with many well meaning(?) and clever people going down with it, but they "will not prevail". In the meantime, no wonder people are not attracted to enter the doors of the church. It is no different in there, than outside, so why go?


The biggest enemy of the church does not come from outside. No, it comes from the ranks of the clergy and people inside. It is the work of the 'fifth column' and very, very effective it is indeed, but Hell bound all the same! (Oh dear, am I allowed to say that, or has the Bible got that wrong too?) 

UK Drink Culture

The effects of Labour’s 24-hour drinking policy have been disastrous, the BBC’s John Humphrys and ex-Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair have said. Sir Ian believes that the policy of all-day drinking was a “serious mistake” while Mr Humphrys has slammed the alcohol-fuelled violence in his home city of Cardiff. Sir Ian, who left the Met Police in 2008, said the hoped for ‘café culture’ was never achievable for Britain and now our cities need to be saved from the chaos left behind.

Isn't it nice when some prominent people see the error of past judgements, and are bold enough to say so? I wish there were more like these two, and on more than this one issue, important enough as it is!

It's not just big cities which have a 'drink problem' (sounds so benign and innocent, doesn't it?) but smaller towns too. Anyone who lives and works in the central belt of Scotland could see the problems a mile off. 'Cafe Culture'? You had to be kidding! I have no doubt that some some well meaning(?) nice but ill informed, progressive thinkers reckoned our people needed more time to drink alcohol, and then succeeded in convincing the government to change the laws to allow it. Little cafes were going to pop up everywhere, with lovely, beautiful people sipping wine and talking about the weather and the price of fish. What a nice picture, but what happened? We have lots more time to drink, get drunk, and spill out into the town or city centres where these newly liberated drinkers (both men and women!) urinate in corners, or openly, or even in taxis, fight, shout and brawl, and cause a disturbance. A lot of our new 'cafe culture' drinkers end up in jail overnight, or spending hours in the local Hospital A&E department having blood flow stopped, and stitches applied. On top of all that, there is the problem encountered when they get home!

It appears that this is the case up and down the country, but will the laws be changed? No, it seems that the 'experiment will continue'. I think our leadership is bankrupt of thinkers with a normal brain. You know the kind of person who sees the obvious... very obvious! Our nation seems to be 'blessed' with lots of very progressive and forward thinking people in places of power, but none who have an ounce of common sense. Perhaps if these people had asked the mere commoners what they thought, they would have come up with a different solution.

Not being educated to Oxford degree level, does not mean you are daft!      

Birth Certificate Changes in UK

Two women have become the UK nation’s first female 'couple' to jointly sign a child’s birth certificate as parents, but critics are concerned that the move has more to do with the rights of adults rather than the best interests of children. Until recently birth certificates have recorded the names of a child’s biological mother and father, but now a new UK law permits two same-sex parents to be named. Natalie Woods and Elizabeth Knowles jointly signed the birth certificate at Brighton Register Office.

There is something fundamentally and basically wrong here. We talk very glibly and in a shallow manner, about 'gay rights' and yes, everybody has rights. Some rights are for the good of the individual, and some rights are reserved for the good of society, or community. Sometimes the good of the community has to supercede the rights of any individuals. There are many examples of this in action. However, we seem to have lost this concept when dealing with the 'gay' question. 

What about the child in this case? What rights does this child have? By all accounts, not the right to know the father. (That may not even be known, but that question is for another time)! Not the right to have a balanced upbringing. Not the right as an individual, because that right has been taken over by two activists (yes they are gay activists, not your 'ordinary' anxious and childless couple) who will use this young precious life to further their own ends, and make their own point. Selfish? You bet they are!! Loving? Never! They don't know the meaning of the word! No really loving person would EVER use a child to make their own selfish point! Under any other situation, they would be jailed, but we will give them headline news coverage, and claim that we are moving on with our society. What kind of backward thinking is that?  

What does that good old book say, "if you sow the wind, then you will reap the whirlwind"! Hey, those are wise words, but our society is fast losing its values, and has already thrown its moral compass away. Annoyed? Angry? You bet I am. What will the lives of our children and grandchildren be like in 20 or 40 years? What kind of country will we have left them? Certainly not a more balanced and moral one! "When you open the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go"!

Bankers, Volcanic Ash, and Promises!

We are just starting to emerge from the biggest banking problem ever encountered, and are now suffering the effects of a volcanic eruption in Iceland which has grounded more planes, and cost more money than the devastation of 9/11 in New York.


Doesn't it make you think of the impact of these two very different disasters, and how they have affected us. We all probably know someone presently stuck somewhere, away from home, but desperate to get back, and just can't get a flight. Meantime, all taxpayers will be paying off the banker's debt for some years to come!


A General Election is coming up on the 6 May, less than three weeks away. Have you listened to all their promises? Have you watched them as they make pledge after pledge, blaming all other candidates for not telling the truth, as if they alone hold the keys of honesty? 


There is a link to the two disasters mentioned. No one saw them coming. Not the wise and clever, and not the great and good. No one! These earth shattering problems came upon us right out of the blue, and without warning. They were high speed disasters. One man made, and one natural, but both show clearly the inability of our wise men (and women) to foresee them, and therefore stop them. The biblical term, "like a thief in the night" is very apt, and cannot be ignored, even if we don't like the thought of being out of control.


Maybe we should be looking behind the words and policies of our politicians as they all jockey for our vote. Maybe we should be looking at their core beliefs. You know, the way they would react to the moral and ethical, and dare I say religious issues, instead of the pounds and pence of their balance sheets and manifestos. I for one, am more interested in what kind of person will end up in number 10, rather than the one who makes most promises, or seems to be the toughest on those things we can all see. That part is easy. What about when the unseen and unexpected happens? Now that takes a strong person with moral backbone and conviction. We need someone with good character and integrity, but the big question is, "do any of them stack up to that challenge"?


I am still watching and waiting........

Christian Faith and a Prayer Chain

Another case of a Christian being harassed over her faith had to go to court, and her case upheld. My simple question is, why did it have to get that far? We are talking about schools and teachers who are not silly or uneducated people, by definition. I think you will find the following press release interesting and enlightening. 

School Receptionist Prayer Case

The dispute began in January last year when Mrs Cain’s daughter Jasmine, then aged five, was reprimanded by her class teacher for talking about her Christian faith to another child. On hearing that her daughter had been reprimanded for expressing her faith, Mrs Cain sent a private email to church friends and family asking them to pray about the incident. The email was sent from Mrs Cain’s home computer, outside work time, using her personal email account.

Investigation

But the email ended up in the hands of head teacher Gary Read who launched an investigation against Mrs Cain for professional misconduct. She was told to stay away from her job for nearly four months before receiving a written warning over the affair. In August it was reported that Mrs Cain was launching an Employment Tribunal claim for religious discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

Claim

The claim was brought against the governing body of Landscore Primary School and the school’s head teacher, Gary Read. A claim was also brought against Devon County Council for aiding the discrimination. Speaking in August, Sean Kehoe, senior partner of the law firm Advance Legal who represented Mrs Cain, said: “No one ever seemed able to answer the simple question of what exactly Jennie had done wrong. We say there is an undercurrent of anti-Christian sentiment which she has come up against. If she had been from another religious background, nothing would have happened.”

For my part, the last statement by a senior partner in a law firm says it all. Why is there this undercurrent against Christianity in this country? I have my own thoughts, and you will have yours. We are in the middle of a very contentious UK General Election campaign, and the politicians are talking about almost anything and everything, but guess what subject is missing so far? Morals, or morality, or faith of any kind. The plain fact is that there are votes to be lost very easily by making the wrong statement. It comes down to weak politicians who will not 'do religion'. Remember Tony Blair's words while in office? It was "I don't do religion" but we found out later, after he had left Downing Street, that his faith was important to him, and then he was free to pursue it, and talk about it. There is a big hole in our country, and our government (of any and all political persuasions) and it is Faith. It is the elephant in the room which no one wants to talk about, but everyone knows is there. The reason? "..we don't want to offend anyone...". I think the Bible says something about the gospel being an offence to the unbeliever, and it is getting more and more obvious in our nation. 

We have a country being encouraged to be 'tolerant' and 'understanding of other's views' but only as far as non Christian values are concerned. The result is that Christianity is being slowly but surely sidelined in favour of our tolerance and understanding. The elephant is certainly in the room. Now, do we ignore it, or talk about it??

MPs and Legal Aid

It was revealed yesterday that David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine would receive public money in the form of Legal Aid to defend their court cases for defrauding the public purse in the MP's Expenses Scandal.


You're probably thinking, hold on, that can't be right? These MPs are accused of defrauding the taxpayer, not just 'fiddling' their expenses 'within the rules' as many others had done. No, they stand accused of criminal fraud. It will not have escaped your attention that as MPs, they are not exactly on the breadline. And wasn't Legal Aid introduced to help ordinary people on low incomes to get the proper defence, and therefore a fair trial? 


There was much hand wringing by MPs and others during the expenses scandal, but what is it about these three Labour MPs who will not even stand in the dock, or recognise the authority of the court, but still want the taxpayer to fund their court proceedings? Have they learned nothing? Do they still take us all for mugs? What part of "We don't trust you" do they not get? 


The expenses scandal caused many to lose a lot of faith in our politicians, but these three have pushed our lack of faith into another dimension. They are ensuring the death of trust in politics. Having served their constituents in the past, and now not having a job because of their own doing, they have turned out to be bitter and twisted wee men. These men are daft, but not stupid, so yes, I think they know full well, what they are doing! Trust and faith in our politicians will take a long time to recover, if they ever do. In the meantime the ordinary man in the street has to work out who is the 'least misleading'! It's not a matter now of figuring out who is telling the truth. Those days may be gone forever!!

A Soldier and Child Care

A tribunal is considering how much the MoD must pay a female soldier after she won her case against the Army for sexual and racial discrimination.

Tilern DeBique, 28, was disciplined after not appearing on parade because she had to look after her daughter.

The corporal could be paid up to £100,000 for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and aggravated damages.

The MoD said personnel with children "are responsible for ensuring they have childcare arrangements in place".

Cpl DeBique was told the Army was "unsuitable for a single mother who couldn't sort out her childcare arrangements".

The judge who ruled on the MoD's appeal called it an unusual case, because Cpl DeBique was a Foreign and Commonwealth soldier serving in the British Army, as well as being a single mother.

When I read this article, I felt an initial surge of sympathy for the soldier in question, but very quickly had second thoughts. The Judge's final analysis will have far reaching effects on our armed services. You will see from the text of the press release, that the soldier was warned that the army was unsuitable in her circumstance, and that the MoD are figuring out how much to pay out! She has won her case.

There is an old saying, "When you open the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go", and this is very true and applies in this case. Where will it end now? Will we have soldiers serving in war torn areas who get flown home because their child care gets messed up? Will it apply to men as well as women? What if a soldier on the front line gets word that her/his child is ill, and the child carer can't manage? This all worries me on a number of levels.

Surely, in the interest of national security, any serving soldier takes the responsibility of nation over all else? I don't think the Taliban or Al Qaeda have a similar policy. I think they take their cause seriously. Are they really laughing at us now? They have every right to!

This has all been raised under the banner of our 'discrimination laws'. I wonder if the architects of this law ever saw this one coming? I don't think so. There are some laws in the UK which can be used in strange ways, like this one and that old chestnut, the 'Health and Safety' law.

Now that the floodgates are open, will we see a raft of service men and women claiming compensation for child care in the Army, Navy and Air Force? It would seem so.

Are our armed services now seen as 'employers', or is it too much to ask that they behave and operate as our National Defenders? What has happened to that old fashioned word, 'duty'?

This soldier, and the judge, obviously agree that the child care responsibility lies with the Ministry of Defence, and not the parent. I would agree on most counts for most employers, but shouldn't our armed forces be a special case, and exempt from this crazy law? It's too late now. The precedent has been set, and the MoD is wide open for the abuse of unhappy and unsettled soldiers! What have we done?????