Agent Provocateurs or Violent Lefties?

The protests yesterday were impressive, geek speech apart, and the message should not be lost by the government following the violent end to the protest.

I suspect the violence was well organised, but by whom?

Someone sugested to me, before any violence had begun, that there would be agent provocateurs in the crowd to ensure the protest was discredited. I, on the other hand, thought that any violence would come via the usual extreme left wing groups who thrive on hatred and envy, using gullable youngsters as their tools.

However, it does not really matter who caused the violence, because it is obvious that 99.9% of the protesters were there for genuine, non violent reasons. Cameron and Clegg should thank their luckey stars that the British people have accepted everything thrown at them so far. All the protesters are saying is that the acceptable limit has been breached, and it is not acceptable to carry on with such severe 'austerity' measures when the bankers and their ilk suffer no consequences while the masses bear the brunt.

If Cameron really wants a 'Big Society' then he needs to listen to the Big Issues that the Big Protest brought forth.

That's assuming he wants to remain in power!

Protest in the Park

I agree with many of the reasons for today's protest. As a local government worker, since the bankers took all the taxpayers money, to pay for their reckless and very poor management whilst still being paid a fortune, the media have instead focussed on attacking public sector workers. We have been demonised as the incompetent,non job, overpaid, overpensioned pariahs of a world where everyone in the private sector earns two bob a day working tirelessly to provide for the lazy public sector.

So I can identify with today's protest. In the quarter of a century that I have worked in social housing, I have been spat at, sworn at, threatened, stalked and have had my car windscreen smashed in. Then there's the fleas, filth and turds (only last week - about 200 in someones vacated lounge!). And that's before you get to the routine of the job itself, battling against the competing priorities of legislation, finance and volume.

So I can easily identify with todays protesters. What I cannot fathom though, is why they attended the geeks performance? Ed served in the same government that has caused the problem, shafted Bro by crawling to the unions, and showed no remorse for his part in Britains (and the public sectors) downfall.

Can the protesters really not see his hypocrisy or is the lack of cheering for his geeklike performance a sign of British politeness towards an idiot? I do hope so.

£800,000 of Taxpayers money down the drain

Surely the Taxpayers Alliance should investigate? How do they get away with such criminal waste? All those non-jobs and over paid idiots with gold plated pensions and now they throw £800,000 a unit down the drain!

Yep, every missile fired at Libya costs us, the taxpayer, £800,000 (as reported on the Jeremy Vine show today)and is rubber stamped by the government. Not content with the waste of life and money in Afghanistan and Iraq brought about by Nu Labour, our new government now has money to throw away in Libya. What return will we see for our (taxpayers) money? Well, I'll hazard a guess that within a year the Union Jack will be burned on the streets of Tripoli and that 'rebel' snipers will be taking pot shots at our lads and lassies.

Meanwhile the infrastructure and governance of Britain will be pared down to a bare minimum so we can afford £800,000 per missile rather than fund the NHS et al.

Thank goodness the government has got it priorities right!

A Golden Future

Just what are we trying to acheive in Libya and the middle east?

We've been treated to the usual idiotic posturing by our politicians but, when all the bombing is over and all the oil fields grabbed (and not necessarily by the western powers), what's going to happen? Will these medieval countries suddenly adopt democratic ways, allowing women to throw off their burkas and both sexes will start going for a friendly pint down the pub on a friday night? Or will we see a United States of Al-Qaeda (USAL(L)?

We've already buggered up Iraq and Afghanistan so why on earth are we at it again. I know there's the old oil argument but the very real threat of creating a massive block of anti-western fundamentalist islamic states surely is not worth the risk.

And everyone is keeping stum about the Iranian position in all this. Remember them, nutty government led by Ahmadinejad, with nuclear stuff, oppressed people and plenty of gold.

'Market observers believe Tehran has been one of the biggest buyers of bullion over the past decade after China, Russia and India, and is among the 20 largest holders of gold reserves. They estimate it holds more than 300 tonnes of gold.'

Make no mistake, there is all to play for in the middle east and the outcome is by no means certain. One things for sure though, there will be no golden future for the middle east

The end of Humanity

No, the end of humanity has nothing to do with nuclear power stations, earthquakes or Tsunamis.

On Radio 2 yesterday, Jeremy Vines show, there was a debate about whether we should send/give aid to Japan. What a strange topic I thought, surely the case was clear cut. An earthquake, followed by a tsunami, thousands dead and injured and the whole country is at risk of a nuclear meltdown.

Yet, there were people arguing that NO aid should be sent to help them. Why? Well the arguments ranged from them being a wealthy country, atrocities in the second world war, having better manufacturing than us and for not building nuclear reactors that could withstand both earthquake and tsunami. Add to, this that the world did not rally to give Britain (well Cumbria) aid when Whitehaven was flooded, rounded off the arguments to leave the Japanese trying to save their damaged country (through no fault of their own) without our aid.

Granted there were people who argued strongly for giving aid to Japan. However, it became increasingly clear that the end of humanity will brought about by the selfish attitudes of those who have no regard for the suffering of their fellow humans, rather than nuclear power.

The new face of Religion?

'The BBC's new face of religion is an atheist who claims that God had a wife and that Eve was 'unfairly maligned' by sexist scholars.
Amazing insights into world creation include Eve being maligned as a troublesome wife, biblical writers were male and women were second class citizens, seen as property - the insights are endless!
I presume now, that the BBC will be hiring a religious presenter to put forward the story of atheism?
Mmmm, I thought not.

If Andrew goes, shouldn't Bill and Hillary?

UK Trade Envoy, Prince Andrew, is under attack for his alleged connection to paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and his cohort, Ghislaine Maxwell . Fair enough.

But it is also alleged that both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been entertained by the same paedophile, and he has the home phone numbers of Peter Mandelson . Indeed, Jeffrey Epstein has even entertained the lovely Naomi Campbell, recently returned from giving evidence against Charles Taylor, a chap who once entertained her and a bloody despot.

Who knows how many more of the rich, amoral elite have been 'entertained' by this man. Whilst Andrew should resign as Trade Envoy, to single him out from Epsteins other rich friends applies double standards. If he goes, so should Bill, Hillary, Naomi and Pete.

Christian, Humanist or Other?

The British Humanist Association has declared war on Christians for the census. Their slogan is
'If you're not religious, for Gods sake, say so' is completely uninspiring but meant to skew the results towards atheism. But it did make me start to think about my own beliefs.

According to the Humanists, it is a joke to declare yourself Christian if you don't go to church. or only do the birth, wedding and funeral rounds, which probably pretty much describes my church going habits (with holiday churches thrown in). So am I a Christian, Humanist or an 'other'?

Well, I think the 10 commandments are a pretty good idea, whether you believe that Jesus was the son of God or not.I also like the idea of treating others kindly, having a love based philosopy and a revulsion for the love of money (bankers to you). So I, loosley, live my life according to these ideas, even if I fail to meet them in entirety.

Am I a Humanist? Well, as part of my philosohy degree, I had to read Richard Dawkins, self professed humanist and God hater. How this man can be taken seriously defies belief. He takes a smidgeon of truth, then conjectures a whole world of atheism through his own beliefs without evidence but with a lot of hate. Maybe there is no God or afterlife but then, even Stephen Hawkins has wobbled on his big bang theory, and I have never met an atheist (humanist) that has ever been able to explain to me either how the big bang came about from nothing (even gases have to be formed somewhere) or indeed, what nothing is. So a Humanist I am not.

That leaves me with 'other'. Well, if I'm not a christian or an atheist, surely 'other' can only refer to other belief systems, which I'm not aware of. So that's not me either.

Therefore, for the census, I shall be, very truthfully, declaring myself Christian. I would however like the option to declare my political affiliations to our current system, in which case, I would again, quite truthfully, answer 'other'.