Credit Crunch v. South Sea Bubble

Almost 300 years ago the British people were subjected to an elaborate con. It became known as the South Sea Bubble. As it was the case then, so it is now. In 1720 another dodgy Chancellor of the Exchequer put great stock (literally) into the monopolistic trading company which went by the innoccuous title of The South Sea Company.

The sale of shares to raise cash caused such fevered financial overheating of the company that a great implosion was caused.

Joseph Spence, an author of the time, wrote that Lord Radnor reported to him "When Sir Isaac Newton was asked about the continuance of the rising of South Sea stock, he answered 'that he could not calculate the madness of people'. (Spence, Anecdotes, 1820, p368). Madness of people did he say? Sir Isaac Newton would see very clearly that nothing much has changed in that department 300 years on.

As then, so it is now. The legalised crooks get off. How come it has been right for these sub-prime loans (modern versions of south sea Bubble shares), which have been granted to impecunious people, to be parcelled up and sold on as something worthy of financial purity. It is a monumental scandal.

On top of that the bosses of the banks and loan shark operations, who enjoyed mutual back-scratching sessions, continue to rake in bonuses and bottom-line benefits. The madness of people is still with us. Why have we not demanded that these legalised crooks, who have almost brought our countries (it's vitually global!) to their knees, be arrested for high treason?

If I was sold an old rusty BMW, recently sprayed and cleaned, as a brand new vehicle, I'd complain. If a supermarket sold me a piece of meat that was unfit for human consumption, I'd have something to say. How come the banks and financial institutions are so much different?

Oh, of course, THEY JUST GOT DRUNK!

Birmingham bans unbelieving web browsing!

Birmingham City Council has got itself into a mess over website viewing by its staff. It's OK to view the antics of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the assembled bishops at the Lambeth Conference but not that of a group of druids or a coven of witches. The council has a Bluecoat Software computer system which allows staff to look at websites relating to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religions but blocks sites to do with "witchcraft or Satanism" and "occult practices, atheistic views, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism".

It doesn't mean anything at all. If a heathen is temporarily interested in Catholic doctrines is that any different from a Catholic glancing into a site about the paranormal? Not at all. This is just about a council that's been sold a computer system that sounded good when the rep blurted out the details. Probably no questions were asked, so they got no answers. It's par for the course in modern UK.

A city council statement said the authority had a "long-standing internet usage policy for staff". It added, "We are currently implementing new internet monitoring software to make the control of internet access easier to manage. The aim of this is to provide greater control for individual line managers to monitor internet usage, and for departments, such as trading standards and child protection, to gain access, if needed, to certain sites for business reasons." Does it need such a gobbledegook statement. No, it doesn't. Just a simple policy of no viewing sites which are deemed inappropriate.

Where has the notion of trust and responsibility gone? Surely not into the brains of a corporation-sponsored computer! We've seen what can happen to computers when in the hands of civil servants and local government officers.

If a child protection officer views an inappropriate site, is the software so sophiscated as to think "Umm, he's looking at that for his job and not his kicks"? I don't think so. Birmingham City Council is facing a possible lawsuit from the National Secular Society. I'd like to see them try, not because I support their views generally, but because they have a point here.

Birmingham should think again.

Ron Paul!! You were wronged by the wrong!

I wrote just a couple of posts ago that George Bush got drunk. I'm still figuring out what his intoxication is exactly. As far a counting the pennies he's botched that one up big time. He entered the White House with a budget surplus and is due to pass on to his successor a deficit of $482 billion. Let's round it up to $500 to be on the safe side. This is a staggering amount. It is more than a $1000 for every person that breathes air in the USA! That's the actively employed to the bedridden and the incarcerated. Exclude everyone who isn't working and the message hits home. Every American is working two months out of twelve, not to pay legitimate taxes, but to pay back the spendthrift behaviour of a man who thinks others "got drunk"! Forget the regular taxes, they come on top of this whopping great headache.

If ever this is going to be rectified it will need half the penpushers running government agencies to be put out to grass. In any country it cannot be right for the bulk of the citizenry to be sweating their guts out to pay for the extravagances of politicians who take a cavalier attitude to the problems of government. Ron Paul had a message to cut the stifling bureaucracy that may one day bring the United States to her knees. He was cruelly sidelined by the snout-troughers and brown envelope brigade. Liberty will get down from her plinth and cast them aside I hope. The Ron Paul Revolution is not dead. It is alive and breathing and will grow. Then ordinary people can take back what they thought they were getting in 1776. Representation in order to decide taxation. And it will stop the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves!

Anglican cheekiness!

I read this and thought "That's a bit cheeky" but then Anglicans in high places are prone to a diet of cheekiness and churlishness these days. Some have more of one that the other and vice versa. This is the bit I thought a bit cheeky.

Former Archbishop of the Middle East Clive Handford has said that in the long term some sort of statement of shared beliefs and an agreement to abide by them would be necessary if Anglicans are to stick together. Fair enough. But he went on to say, with regard to traditionalists, "It's a bit like having a member of the family who is not getting on with the family, having an aunt or uncle who can take them under their wing while they work for the restoration of the family." Well, I'm not sure what he means because it's not a matter of "not getting on" as I can get on very well with people who have differing beliefs and I know a lot of others of the same disposition.

However, if he means accepting a process of gradual (or maybe rapid) acquiescence of new doctrines in order to placate those who have found the new formularies exciting, then I would not find that terribly appealing. It seems that devices are being promoted that keep us together regardless of conscience or integrity.

I do not feel it an abandonment of unity if the Anglican Communion has two or maybe more tiers or structures or whatever. A different form of unity, respecting difference but allowing integrity, would not be a failure. It would be a recognition that a body of Christians, all flawed in some respect, can get on with each other without having to be bound together. In other words, it is accepting that impaired communion is better than no communion at all.

Don't panic! We're Australians!

On the radio and TV this morning, various reporters and commentators did their best to talk up the human tragedy of the Qantas airliner problem. A large hole appeared in the fuselage of a Qantas Airways Boeing 747-400, with 346 passengers and 19 crew on board. The plane was diverted to Manila shortly after leaving Hong Kong and landed safely. Everyone got off and that was that. However, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the media was hoping for something more spectacular to happen.

Suggestions of panic amongst the passengers was quickly dispelled by those passengers interviewed. On BBC News, Simon McCoy just assumed there was panic. No panic, came the reply from an Australian passenger who had been located to give his views.

Phill Restall, from the UK, was woken "with a jolt" by the loud bang before the plane descended rapidly. "No-one panicked, there was no screaming. It wasn't your typical television movie," he told the BBC News website. "Everyone listened to the cabin staff."

So no heroics from a Jean-Claude Van Damme type then. However, the BBC quote Mr.Restall as saying, "Seeing the hole caused a lot of emotion. People were physically shaking". So he had two versions? Or was his first not dramatic enough?

I feel that we are so used to the crises and dramas of life, that an ordinary response is not what is expected. The media should have been around in Biblical times to witness the wailing and gnashing of teeth. What a world!

The passengers were safely landed by a crew who knew what they were doing. I say bravo to that!

George Bush got drunk!

I couldn't believe that George Bush said what he said. Then I thought nearly eight years in the White House hasn't changed him. He's still making schoolboy quips to impress his audience. And his audience in the video that was recorded on a mobile phone seems easily pleased! Disgraceful.

His simplistic answer to the terrible greed that has been inflicted on the US housing market is to say that "Wall Street got drunk". He said, "There's no question about it. Wall Street got drunk. It got drunk and now it's got a hangover. The question is, how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments?"

Fancy financial instruments? Is that what they are? He appears to think it is nothing to do with him. The drunk is in another room sobering up. According to him there's no cure. Nobody is suggesting a version of Chaser® – Freedom from Hangovers® for these errant financiers, fancy or otherwise. Perhaps they should!

I really feel Bush should take this seriously. Why on earth are these crooks not in jail? Surely it is more than "got drunk" that we are talking about? Selling loans to people who haven't got two dimes to rub together, then parceling these crockpot loans up as top-notch financial packages and selling them on to greedy trough-snouters, is not good and proper financial practice. It is just base greed, George!

He should be making room in the jails by releasing the social misfits and petty miscreants and putting these city slickers behind bars where they belong. That will sober them up big time!

School's Out!

I've been off the air for almost two weeks. In my blogging experience that's quite a long time. It seems longer as I've been wrapped up in end of term activities at my son's school. He's leaving (well left now!) his infant school and going round to the primary school next term. For the end of term various activities were put on. I attended, with my wife, the "leavers' assembly". It was a very good show. No fluffed lines from what I could gather. It is a good school with the added advantage that most of the teachers have additional skills. One teacher galvanises the music activity, so the parents get to see a musical assembly. It is all good fun.

At the end of the proceedings, the Head Teacher got up to "say a few words". It was pointed out to the parents that, if a child went to nursery as well, most of the children had spent more that half their lives at the school! There was suddenly a lot of blinking and bewilderment as this piece of learning settled in! But of course she was right. In some ways the school had just become an extension of the high chair routine and the playpen, with subtle changes along the way. I for one have just gone along with the simple progressions, being helpfully cajoled (in the nicest possible way, of course) by the staff.

Next year will be different! I noticed the body language of the Head Teacher of the primary school was somewhat different. The message was that the children were growing up. It goes by quickly, but then we can't mollycoddle children. It will be a new phase of our lives!

Gene Robinson thinks Archbishop's position 'untenable'

The Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, thinks that the Archbishop of Canterbury is in an "almost untenable" position as he tries to retain unity in the Church. He may well be right. I agree with Gene Robinson on this point. That we should all try to stick together rather than divide.

Today at mass, our parish priest said, " Don't get too upset. Just let things develop. The Good lord has brought us this far, let's see where He leads us". I'm not talking of leaving, or going off in high dudgeon. But I would like a bit more give and take.

I told a fellow parishioner that, if dinner invites were being given out, I'd be quite happy to sit alongside Gene rather than a person keen to see my views and belief obliterated. I may disagree with the Bishop of New Hampshire, but I don't doubt his sincerity, charity, and ability to rub along with those who find his position difficult to accept or to believe in.

He appeared on the Andrew Marr show today.

Italian wins gay driving ban case

One of the reasons Hitler wasn't keen on Mussolini being an equal in warmongering was that he wan't to be trusted. The Nazis thought the Italians couldn't be trusted. In fact, it went right through the German thought process. That's why the Italians were given co-belligerent status. A euphemism for being second fiddle. As it turned out, the Allies came to pretty much the same conclusion. Italians are not a people for warfare, being that they are more attuned to internal strife.

However, individual Italians can show panache, bravery, courage, all the things we think of in the battle. They can also show class. In the first Iraq conflict, an Italian officer insisted on taking his antique writing desk with him so that he could be esconced in his tent with a certain amount of comfort about him.

When it comes to being an individual in modern day Italy, it is the convuluting system of brown envelopes, regulation, and general inefficiency that one confronts. Danilo Giuffrida is homosexual. In Italy he has civil rights. However, he has also received a few civil wrongs. Certain people within authority decided they'd make his life difficult. So they put him through the hoop routine. He told doctors he was homosexual during a medical examination for military service. They then decided that he'd have to retake his driving test because of his "sexual identity disturbance".

He took them to court and won. The judge said the actions of the ministries showed "evident sexual discrimination". But that's not necessarily the problem. Of course they were way out of line, but I think it is very sneeky to undermine people in this way. It is the secretive element. It is the premeditated approach. It's almost like a cat playing with a mouse, deciding on what action to take with the hapless creature.

And if they think his "sexual identity disturbance" is reason to question his driving abilities, where does that put a lot of people? Max Mosley will be in trouble if he ever crashes a car!

How American are Americans?

I've met so many different types of Americans. All see themselves as Americans. Well, there's one I met on a boardwalk in Florida who was previously British in that she had assumed citizenship about ten years before I met her. She said "I am now an American, but I still think I'm a bit British. In fact, the local British Consul told me it wouldn't make any difference, because you can't stop being British". Actually, I think you can. You can stop being anything and start being something else. It happens all the time.

In a country that was formed by immigration, there is a grading. Some are more indigenous than others. A grand lady told me she was a Daughter of the Revolution. I was told these were women who could trace ancestry back to the founding fathers. The way she told it, there was a kind of purity about it. Others are only just becoming citizens today.

But not all Americans are as american as the most american Americans. Take Bob Hope. He was born Leslie Townes Hope in Eltham, South London. He went to the USA at the age of four and ended up as a presidential entertainer and nation's favourite. But he wasn't home grown. He became an American. Same with Jerry Springer, Cary Grant, and Ray Milland.

Some become Americans later in life, like Arnold Schwarzenegger. There's a whole variety. But the most american of all Americans are those who are aged 35 or older and are natural born citizens. A sort of Grade A Fancy! Only these can become the President of the United States of America. Maturity and native status combined.

So why all this stuff? Well, some legal eagle has again popped up with the idea that John McCain is not in the Grade A Fancy league. He's in the level just below! This is because his mother gave birth in the Panama Canal Zone. This fact is not enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen” according to an analysis by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona.

McCain is not eligible, so he says. This is even though the law was amended in 1937 to take account of such occurrences. McCain was born in 1936.

It is a load of hokum of course. Not legally, but practically so. “No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.

McCain is safe. Nobody will test the law. But it still means that some Americans are not as american as all Americans should be or think they are. It's a version of primus inter pares, except the primus is far more that one, and on different levels!

Mum's police check for school run

In the "I can't believe they're that bonkers" department comes a letter of the law edict from Merthyr Council in South Wales. It is becoming self-evident that local councils up and down the country are shelving common sense and acting as craven stooges to the whims and fancies of the New Labour regime.

Jayne Jones, of Aberfan near Merthyr Tydfil, used to travel with her son Alex, 14, in the council-provided taxi when she feared he may have a fit. Because it is provided by the council, she is seen as an "adult acting as an escort who could be viewed as acting with the full acquiescence of the council and hence with its implied authority". So they are insisting she must stop going with him until she has undergone a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check. What moronic thinking is this? Of course the official couldn't comment when asked. It is all too absurd even to dream up a reply that would be deemed sane enough. Are we all to be examined in this way if we find ourselves in a similar situation? And what of Alex? Is he now to be left to travel alone, or is some caring soul from the council going to be brought in at great expense to act as a convenient chaperone?

So the foolish council insist on her getting checked in case some person in the street, who thinks suddenly that they have seen a potential molester in a cab (which they may or may not know is contracted out to Merthyr Council) and that alarm bells should be sounded at the first opportunity.

It is outrageous and we need to stop these stasi-like control freaks before they ruin the country.

Jesse Jackson goes nuts about Obama's nuts!

The nutty professor or what? No, just Jesse Jackson sounding off at the mouth. Whatever has Barack Obama done to him, except, of course, look electable? Jackson claimed Obama was "speaking down to black people" by telling them they need to take responsibility for their own lives. I am sure responsibility means being given opportunities to florish and to be successful without seeking handouts on every occasion.

The thing here is that Jesse Jackson is still in the old school of Democratic politics. He needs black people to see him as a "community leader" whereas Obama is going to be a leader for the WHOLE community. So Jackson gets niggled here and there.

His comments about Obama were intended to be private but were picked up by a Fox News microphone on Sunday. Fox News, eh? They get everywhere. Jesse should have seen that one coming! He believed the microphone was switched off. You don't say!

During his remarks, made in a casual conversation with another guest after finishing an interview, Mr Jackson said that Mr Obama had been talking down to black people, adding, “I want to cut his nuts out.” Not very becoming.

Barack Obama said, in a speech made on Father's Day in Chicago, that too many black men, "have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it." I'd say it was right to make an issue of the obvious, because without tackling the truth head-on, how is anyone going to help anyone? Jesse Jackson needs to get a grip. Good role models do indeed make for good citizens.

Jesse needs to thinks about the nuts he's talking, because he doesn't look like he's got the political balls at the moment!

Compensation or fine? Just business or criminality?

A waitress has been awarded nearly £60,000 in compensation after taking her drunken boss to a employment tribunal for groping her breasts. This story just epitomises why so many women hold men in low esteem. Jane Price did the right thing. She took a disreptuable boss to a tribunal because he sacked her most unjustly.

Former manager Peter Tunney asked to inspect her breasts after she had a surgical enhancement, sexually harassed her and accused her of sleeping with restaurant owner Alex Psaras. Mr Psaras then texted her. The message read, "I think it is best you don't come back to work. I did not like the way you conducted the situation. It left a bad feeling and it won't be long before you do it again."

After the hearing the pathetic Psaras said, "I sent her the most expensive text ever sent. It could ruin my whole business." I hope it does, because his attitude hasn't changed, it seems. No word of sorry.

This is another total shambles. Cases like this shouldn't go to tribunals. They should go before special industrial courts. Mr. Psaras should have been given a conviction for his behaviour. There must be a distinction between criminal activity in the workplace and business incompetence or wrong judgement. It doesn't look good if a person gets "compensation" over and above the value of the work. My guess is that Jane Price got the equivalent of five years pay. It seems a little wrong that she is seen as able to enrich herself by way of compensation (I know she never meant to) whilst Mr.Psaras and Mr. Tunny get away without any punishment.

A fairer system, in these cases, would be to award damages to somebody like Ms Price and to fine &/or imprison the likes of the perpetrators.

Anne Robinson banned from driving

The UK is in a total shambles, as Alan Sugar might say, when it comes to road safety, speed policy and driving habits. Yesterday Anne Robinson, she of the Weakest Link fame, was banned for driving under the totting up procedure. She had another speeding conviction to her name.

Her lawyer, Michael McGoldrick, came up with a pretty weak link! He said she had not seen the camera as she was disorientated by the road system on her first ever visit to Portsmouth. Come on, Mr McGoldrick, everyone knows that it is 30mph within a city centre, unless it is a dual carriageway indicating 40mph or more. And in any case, does the fact that she had not seen a speed camera mean that she can speed?

The whole system is ridiculous. The authorities are out to raise money by catching speeding motorists but make little or no effort to re-inforce good behaviour by placing quality, instructive road signs where they should be.

I think a whole new educational approach is required. We need to get away from the racing around regardless of others approach and behave a bit more decently as citizens. I would trial in certain areas roads with no markings. Let the drivers learn to be cautious, careful and considerate. Think it won't work? Well, its been done in the Netherlands and it does work.

The result will be a less stressful driving experience, but it will have its downside. The authorities will lose out on fines, the accident repair business will be upset, and the road painters will have to look elsewhere.

I'm all in favour of getting our roads back to civilisation and away from the current mayhem. Ms Robinson thought it OK because it was a Sunday morning. I suppose the magistrate listened to this weak explanation because he was going to fine her anyway. All he could say was "I am sorry she won't have a very pleasant memory of her first visit to Portsmouth".

We won't get very far with magistrates and everyone else just playing the same old record!

Methinks the moo-cow makes too much methane!

Whatever next? A cow in Argentina is carrying around a plastic tank strapped to her back to collect her gas so that scientists can study the effects of global warming. She's joined by others in this research programme, just in case they provide alternative results, no doubt. I would have thought the scientists already knew that methane isn't that great when mixed into the atmosphere. How about a load of Argentinian scientists strapping such contraptions to themselves and monitoring what they deliver to the world on an average day?

Apparently (according to the BBC) researchers say the slow digestive system of cows makes them a producer of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that gets far less attention than carbon dioxide as a potential cause of global warming. Is this news? Not to me or anyone else, I think.

My hunch is that its all the wheeze of people who should know better.

See the cow here

Will Walsingham fall foul of the new order?

Following the vote in General Synod, it seems the intention of the liberals in the Church of England is to sweep aside the Act of Synod which gave us Episcopal Oversight and to "force" traditionalists to accept women bishops. There appears little comfort for the views of Archbishop Carey, who signalled that there were two integrities of value. Without a legal framework, the traditionalists could be subject to the courts under the discrimination laws.

A test case could be dynamite for church/state relations. It may be based on a female prelate bringing a lawsuit against an incumbent and his PCC, or it could be a female cleric claiming sexual bias over an application to a parish vacancy. Either one could set a dangerous precedence.

What of Walsingham, that great shrine in Norfolk? The administrators state that -

Membership of the Association is open to all priests who are permitted to minister sacramentally at the Shrine: those of the Anglican Communion who are in good standing with their Bishop and episcopally ordained priests of Churches with whom the Anglican Communion is in full communion. The Guardians maintain the discipline of reserving sacramental ministry in the Shrine to male priests ordained by a male bishop. When necessary the Superior General of the Association (the Priest Administrator of the Shrine) will rule on admission to the Association, and in extreme circumstances may withdraw membership of the Association.

Could the administrators find themselves before the courts on charges of discrimination under the secular law? I think it a real possibility. After all, those who hissed at the Synod would not think twice about setting a lawsuit into motion!

And what of the Roman Catholic Church in England, and the Orthodox? Could they find themselves equally in the dock defending core beliefs against a strident opponent? It is not unlikely, I think, especially if a legal precedence has been set.

The Archbishop of Canterbury should endeavour to find a reasoned, thoughful, but above all godly way out of this tragedy.

There's a bat in my bra!

A young teenager from Norwich had a sensation in her bra for FIVE HOURS! Abbie Hawkins, 19, apparently felt a tingling sensation, but felt obliged to keep her mind on her work. As a hotel receptionist she needed to be poised and purposeful. Any unsightly wriggling would not be correct.

She thought it was caused by her vibrating mobile phone (which was obviously safely tucked away!) but she had second thoughts. It was all getting to her. She plucked up the courage to investigate. Wow! It was a baby bat in there. Snuggling up inside her 34FF bra. She was shocked but felt bad for removing the "cuddly" bat. "It looked cosy and comfortable and I was sorry for disturbing it," she said.

The bat was captured by one of her colleagues and released. And there the story ends. However, I think she missed an opportunity. She could have appeared on Richard & Judy. Richard would be well at home asking all manner of indelicate questions in a very delicate way. Judy would be empathising enthusiastically. The bat, bra and Abbie would be on their way. Big Brother would beckon, Sir Trevor Macdonald would mutter "and finally" and the trio could be a "brand" in no time.

But probably it was best that the bat went back to batting, the bra kept its composure, and Abbie has a tale to tell!

Vatican spells it out to the sacrament busters!

The Vatican has issued a statement following last night's vote in General Synod. It is not surprising. Those in the Church of England who put current social mores before church unity and the Catholic Faith are really acting as independent Christians.

The Vatican says -

We have regretfully learned of the Church of England vote to pave the way for the introduction of legislation which will lead to the ordaining of women to the Episcopacy.

The Catholic position on the issue was clearly expressed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. Such a decision signifies a breaking away from the apostolic tradition maintained by all of the Churches since the first millennium, and therefore is a further obstacle for the reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.

This decision will have consequences on the future of dialogue, which had up until now born fruit, as Cardinal Kasper had clearly explained when he spoke on June 5 2006 to all of the bishops of the Church of England at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Cardinal has been invited once again to express the Catholic position at the next Lambeth Conference at the end of July.

Not only is it the position of the Vatican, but that of the Orthodox, traditional Anglicans within and without the Anglican Communion and many Old Catholics and Lutherans. In the scheme of things, its a minority belief to desire to alter the sacraments in such a manner.

Bush says sorry to Berlusconi

George Bush has had to apologise to the Italian Prime Minister for an "insulting" biography which was included in a press kit distributed to reporters travelling with Mr.Bush to the G8 summit in Tokyo. Bush calls Berlusconi a "good friend". However, I don't doubt that his staff created a reasonably accurate description of the Italian leader.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto issued an apology. "A biography of Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi included in the press package used language that is insulting both to Prime Minister Berlusconi and to the Italian people," he said. Maybe insulting to Berlusconi, but a sizeable portion of the Italian people wouldn't have minded if he had spent time behind bars when he was up on corruption charges.

I'd liken the report to the curate's egg. It was good in parts!

Bushes must stay to hide gay couples

What a world! The UK went to great lengths to accommodate homosexuality. What people do in private is of no concern to others, so long as it is all consensual. However, for some this is not enough. In Bristol there is a rumpus over some bushes and the gay couples who hide amongst them.

Most visitors to a popular beauty spot would welcome overgrown bushes being cut back. But the council has had to tread carefully after being told that to some members of the gay community, the dense undergrowth was something to be protected. Removing it would discriminate against the gay men who use the area for outdoor sex, campaigners claimed.

Today most people are asking why on earth they need to go outside for sex anyway. Surely they have places to go like anyone else? In any event, public displays of sexual activity are illegal in England - for any kind of sexual preference! It's what the police call "lewd activity".

The whole point here, though, is that Bristol City Council is wasting valuable time even discussing the matter. I'd say, bugger the discrimination taunt, just cut the bushes back. Why should people lawfully walking in a beauty spot have to be confronted with such stuff.

Oh, and the PC Thought Police have been at it again, I see. Last year four firefighters were disciplined for allegedly disturbing a group of men at night by shining their torches into the bushes on the Downs. After complaints that their actions were homophobic, the four senior officers from Avon Fire Service were fined and transferred to other stations.

So illegal activity is OK but the Thought Police's brand new world must stand tall? All very sad!

Armed police held down innocent man on train and put a gun to his head!

In another story of the "If you have done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear" department, here comes one describing a disturbing day out for one young man.

As the Daily Mail reports "Guns pointing at his head, a train passenger is forced to lie face-down on the platform in a dramatic police swoop. Officers then dragged him to his feet and frogmarched him away to be searched and interrogated. Minutes later, however, he was released without charge after it became clear that they had seized entirely the wrong man."

Luckily they didn't shoot him. Dorset Police have shrugged off the incident. They don't appear that concerned. Pity. I like the stoical remark "'Inquiries into the circumstances of the arrest are continuing. No shots were fired and no one was injured." So that's OK then.

I still think all this gives us an impression of policing on the cheap, lack of proper intelligence, and a police service driven by crazy results charts. Let's remember its a service, not a bonus-led, profit-making plc!

In the comments from the Mail's report, Andy from Essex helpfully says "It's the way it has to be. Well done to the Police." If you ever find yourself face down on the sweet-smelling floor of Liverpool Street station, Andy, be sure to compliment the officers, won't you?

Toddlers who dislike spicy food branded 'racist'!

Moving on from the illiberal liberals of the Church of England, we get a further dose of those who want a more controlled society. A certain organisation, the National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care. We are here talking of three-year old toddlers. This outfit sounds decidedly creepy.

There's a terrible culture now pervading society which will not tolerate ideas and beliefs that have not been vetted and approved by the PC Thought Police. As I've said countless times, there is a whole heap of difference between calling somebody a nasty name and an innocent remark. Racist and derogatory remarks from anyone of whatever age are to be deplored and to be tackled as such. However, drawing up a Stasi-like reporting mechanism does no good AT ALL!

Here we are talking of children. Children, for heaven's sake. These social manipulators don't see a gentle and reasoned approach to changing a child's behaviour as good enough. No! They want more. They say, "No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist incident, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action." Even babies can not be ignored in the drive to root out prejudice as they can "recognise different people in their lives". Nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents as possible to their local council. The guide from the NCB added - "Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case."

These silly people suggest that a child is "racist" if it turns its nose up at spicy food. Well, my thought police friends, I've got news for you. My children turn their noses up at certain Indonesian dishes my wife cooks up "Too spicy!" my son shrieks. If you want you can come round and sort him out. I'd like to see you in action. My word, what a bunch of creepy characters.

We should all be opposed to racism, but all of us should be on the look-out for such bogus organisations as the National Children's Bureau!

The Church of England is Protestant again

"A couple of hours ago, the Church of England decisively severed itself from its Catholic roots. By voting to ordain women bishops without significant safeguards for traditionalists, it reasserted its identity as a Protestant Church. Whether it will be a liberal or conservative Protestant denomination remains to be seen. But any hope of unity with Rome and the Orthodox has gone forever." So writes Damian Thompson in his Telegraph blog.

It came as no surprise to me. I will see where we stand tomorrow, the we being the traditionalists. But I fear it's as the Rev David Houlding, a leading Anglo-Catholic, said. "It's getting worse – it's going downhill very badly. It's quite clear there is a pincer movement and we are being squeezed out. We are being pushed by a particular liberal agenda and we are going to have women bishops at the exclusion of any other view."

As I felt this morning, precious little discernment. More a view shaped to current fashion.

Alan Sugar's plane crash lands safely!

Sir Alan Sugar has been involved in a minor plane crash. More accurately, his four-seater light aircraft hit the end of the grass strip with its propeller. Sir Alan was unhurt. This is not mega news, I know, but the response by the media seems to be mega by proportion.

The BBC flag this up as - Alan Sugar 'survives plane crash'. You'd think this was some terrible accident with a jetliner going down in the middle of Manchester. Instead, it was a minor incident.

City Airport Manchester has a grass runway. Light planes tend to bounce around a bit when landing on grass. Nothing normally to worry about. The BBC hyped up the headline, but Sir Alan put the reporter right. "As far as 'life-threatening' is concerned, to put things in perspective my friend and I had as much chance of dying from the incident as we did in dying from food poisoning from the tuna sandwich that a very nice lady made us in the clubhouse whilst we waited for a mate to pick us up and take us home." Which is his way of saying there's nothing in the story.

So the headline doesn't fit the narrative. How many times have we seen that? If the media was subject to the same labelling laws as the retail sector, we might get nearer the truth in our everyday lives.

Obama to be beaten below the belt?

Politics is a tough game. It should be just on your policies alone. Possibly on your character or even your demeanour. After all, who wants a grump as President or Prime Minister?

In the USA, politicians have failed abysmally to dent Barack Obama's position. Dodgy pastors, a supposedly racist grandmother, or even his schooldays haven't turned up anything. Hillary Clinton tried. Husband Bill had a go. To no avail. Obama came through.

Now the Republican Party think they’ve found a weapon that could wound Obama. It is his own voice as recorded for the Grammy Award-winning audio version of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father.”

“I think the audio version makes a much more immediate impact” than the print version of his memoir, said conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who has played audio excerpts from the book on his syndicated radio show. “It turns out to be very jarring to many ears to hear Obama talking about his youthful adventures, his attitudes on race.” Hewitt seems pleased by all this. I think it just shows how devoid of Christian charity these so-called "conservative" talk show guys really are.

Boris Johnson was quite right. We don't want antisceptic politicians. But we don't want liars, cheats, and miscreants either. After all, who has not done something, or said something crass or cazy in past times. It's not as if Obama's committed a heinous crime.

I'd suggest the Republican Party treads carefully, otherwise they may get the odd floozy popping up to say she had a night of passion with McCain. On second thoughts, that might not stop him in his tracks. But you get the drift.

Let's have a nice clean fight, boys. If it gets nasty - well, who knows what can come out of the various closets with unlocked doors?

Episcopal mayhem?

Tomorrow the synod of the Church of England votes on whether to press ahead with legislation that would allow women bishops. The proponents of this innovation are all for having no system in place for allowing traditionalists the right to opt out from having to serve under a woman bishop. This morning, Christina Rees, probably the most vocal proponent of the measure, sounded all sweetness and light when she answered questions put to her by Robert Piggott, the BBC's Religious Affairs Correspondent. I say answered, but she spun her way neatly out of answering the question as to why those born into a church that had a male-only clergy should change their beliefs. Instead she suggested that life would all be cosy and comfortable without any need for safeguards.

In her world of prelatial power, all that a traditionalist priest would be required to do would be to let a female Diocesan into the parish once a year to "preach, or to teach, or to open a fete. So long as she can come in". This sounds like it has not be thought at AT ALL. It is, to my mind, typical woolly nonsense. What is this notional bishop to do? Is she to robe as a bishop during the service, or attend in a simple dress? Will she address the congregation from the pulpit with warm words of delight? Or will she feel she's in need of "explaining"? What teaching role is to be assumed? And as for opening a fete, well I would think that a bit condescending!

Now, just to put my views on the line. I am a traditionalist. I am an Anglican Catholic who cannot reconcile the Sacrament of Holy Orders with anything other than a male integrity. However, at the same time, I cannot understand how the C of E could seek to ordain women as priests but not to consecrate them as bishops. In that, I agree with Ms Rees. Where I beg to differ is that forcing a woman onto a parish where there is little or no belief that she is what she says she is is farcical.

Christina Rees had Robert Piggott believe that the option would be "for services where a male bishop would not be needed". In other words, the Mass or Confirmation would not be services where this notional Diocesan would attend. This all sounds like sweet reasonableness indeed, but, as I say, it is not thought out.

Having recently been liked to "withering on the vine" I don't see the situation as Christina Rees does. She likens it to the USA, where "it worked well". Piggott either knows little of the Episcopal Church or he chose to let her paint an unrealistic picture. When Jane Dixon was in charge in Washington, she determined to preside at a eucharistic service. When priest and vestry declined, she bussed in her own suporters to make a stand. Whatever Ms Rees says, there will be these stand-offs here unless we get safegurds built into the legislation. I can't see the Archbishop of Canterbury being too comfortable with a female prelate trying to conduct a similar pantomime here.

Why we cannot agree to live and let live, with the two "sides" living within the same tent I do not know. But Ms Rees and her friends want a "winner takes all" approach, with the likes of me kow-towing or leaving for pastures new. Sounds a bit like Shaun the Sheep's in charge of the fold!

Precious little discernment there!

Sharia law in England?

Once again the debate over whether Sharia law could, or should, be introduced into the UK is ignited. Previously the Archbishop of Canterbury put his head above the parapet. He got slings and arrows for his pains! Now the Lord Chief Justice has fared slightly better. He has at least been listened to.

Basically all Sharia law is is a set of principles which govern the way many Muslims believe they should live their life. Not all Muslims by any stretch, but a goodly number. My view is that it is perfectly OK for this if it is wanted. After all, the Church of England has its own set of laws encoded into synodical law or canon. I can't see that a Muslim counterpart would be any different.

Now, before the Sun hacks start debasing the noble and learned gentleman, we should understand what exactly Lord Phillips is saying. He says there is no reason Sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation. However, he emphasises this would still be subject to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts". So no supremacy in any way.

Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said. He added, "There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here. So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts." Very clear indeed, I'd say.

If we did allow Muslims this legal nicety, I for one think it would offer Muslims a way of feeling part of the legal process without their beliefs being compromised. But more importantly, it would deny the likes of Abu Hamsa, that strange version of Captain Hook, any reason to attack this country for its view of Islam. We should be happy to embrace our Islamic citizens and be able to denounce the virulent ramblings of such manic street preachers.

Ben Bradshaw claims doctor has only two patients!

That illustrious minister Ben Bradshaw, a man with a penchant for rubbing people up the wrong way, has decided to take on the general practitioners with a combination of innuendo and bribery. He has attacked them for operating "gentlemen's agreements" whereby they promise not to accept other doctors' patients. Where these are he cannot say. He insinuates that there is a doctor with only two patients in his/her practice, "surviving" on the existing arrangements. He said government research had found this one practice in Southern England, but he has refused to say exactly where that is. Neither will he say how widespread the issues are.

So he smears the doctors by saying they are being deliberately obstructive and working against "real patient choice". Personally, I swapped doctors within Solihull due to location reasons (a new practice was set-up nearer to me) and I had no trouble. It's not the doctors who are the problem, it's Mr.Bradshaw and his inability to stop meddling. In that, he is very New Labour!

I am very interested in a group called Doctors for Reform. The way the likes of Bradshaw will have it is that no criticism of the NHS can possibly be heard. Everything is saintly sound and he is one of the guardian angels. Tory types like me can go hang. Doctors for Reform want proper reform. They say "We all work in the NHS. We are committed to its values. But we believe the time has come to consider a new way to deliver healthcare in Britain." I echo that, and I hope many more will do the same.

The time has come where it is not possible to keep this slush fund of Nye Bevan's going. Currently 8% of our nation's wealth is spent on the NHS. In 2020 it will have to be 20% if we are to keep up with the high cost of procedures, the increasing number of elderly, and so on. Whatever Bradshaw and his ilk in this New Labour outfit think, 20% is unrealistic. Instead of antagonising the medical profession, he had better think again. Reform his brain before he tries any more reforms on the NHS.

NHS Dentistry back to teeth pulling and pain!

What can be said of the state of NHS Dentistry. Not a lot. Well, to be fair, it's probably better to respond as the proverbial curate did. "It's good in parts!"

I've not met a dentist yet who actually likes the way government handles dentistry within the NHS. Of course, coming up to the 60th birthday bash for the NHS, it is a brave person who will actually criticise full on. Complaining about the way the NHS is run is rather like being accused of denigrating Nelson Mandela. Heaven forfend that there is anything wrong with this behemoth created by that wily Welsh wonder, Aneurin Bevan.

It was, of course, Bevan that perpetrated the biggest con on British society. He introduced National Insurance to pay for the NHS. INSURANCE? Humpty Dumpty could not have dreamt of such a misuse of a word. Even today, people come on the television saying "I've paid my contributions!" as if they were in some sort of policy for health care. Nothing of the sort. It was a slush fund from the start.

Now if it had been properly run, with those "contributions" being properly invested, then we would be seeing some sense today. But even Margaret Thatcher recoiled at Sir Keith Joseph's desire to see the National Insurance scandal reformed.

In his Commons report, Kevin Barron said, "It is disappointing that so far the new contract has failed to improve the patient's experience of dental services." He sounds like a man who's just discovered something new! I prefer the comments of Susie Sanderson, from the British Dental Association, who described it as a "damning report". She said, "It highlights the failure of a farcical contract that has alienated the profession and caused uncertainty to patients." Damning indeed.

A Department of Health spokesman said it would "carefully consider" the recommendations of the Commons report but said that the benefits of the reforms were already emerging. "We have invested over £200m in NHS dentistry this year, over and above increases in the last three years. This takes our total investment to over £2bn." TWO BILLION! I ask myself, are these people fit and proper persons to be handling such large sums of money? There must be a better way. Divide the population of the country (say 60 million) into this sum and you get enough for free check-ups all round. I think some people are lining their pockets on the way. We must be fools indeed!

So dentists are pulling teeth rather than expending time on expensive treatment for which they will not be paid. No wonder Candid Camera was dropped from our TV screens. "Smile, please! You're on Candid Camera. Well, actually, on second thoughts, don't!"

Madeleine mishaps and muddles!

It is now well over a year since Madeleine McCann disappeared from the sight of her parents whilst on holiday in southern Portugal. Today there were rumours that the Portuguese police had "filed the case" and that was that. Since these have been reported, the Portuguese attorney-general has come out to deny the claims of a local newspaper.

This whole case has had a cheesy whiff about it from day one. Incompetent police, hiding behind arcane secrecy laws, have allowed a drip drip approach to fester. Information is handed over to the press. Given that this is a mega story, can we be certain that the hacks have not passed over wads of euros to these Clouseau types?

The Correio da Manha newspaper, which got hold of this part of the story, said today that sources within Portugal's judicial police had said they "do not have sufficient evidence to allow formal charges to be brought against the McCanns in the disappearance of their daughter". It beggars belief that the McCanns were fingered, and Robert Murat for that matter, in the first place, whilst evidence appeared to go AWOL and information has not been taken seriously or followed up. Not one single British policeman has suggested that this case has been handled well. So it can be assumed then that Portuguese people in Britain could expect a fair investigation, whilst British people in Portugal better watch watch their backs!

What I'd like to know is why there is such a deafening silence from those great democrats in Brussels. Is it OK for law enforcement agencies to smear people like this within the European Union? The McCanns' have put up with a lot but this outrage leaves them in a horrendous land of limbo.