Anger On The Streets - and Facebook

I don't get it? maybe I'm wired differently but this bile and aggression surrounding the death of Drummer Lee Rigby worries me.  Yes, I was horrified and disgusted by the wanton murder of a young soldier on his home soil.  Radical Islam is defiantly to blame and specifically the two idiot zealots that carried out the sick attack (and the person or persons that brain-washed them in the first place).   But - and I think it's a big but - I keep reading hostile and sometime vile statements all over Facebook and other social media.

Seemingly normal individuals calling for or agreeing with random acts of violence against Muslim places of worship or people.  As an atheist I don't understand why anyone would wish to gather together to worship an invisible friend let alone kill someone else because they worship the same god in a different manner.

The attack was terrorism pure and simple and the response generated is exactly the what these people want.  We are sinking to their level and that is exactly what they want.  The problem is our feeble laws in this country.

I hear people all the time calling to send them home if they don't like it here.  The problem of course is the people that were born here.  Yes, of course if they are calling for Shariah law in the UK they have the option to leave and live in a country that has that system.  Then of course there are the people who actually take it to the extreme and cause death and destruction through acts of terrorism.  Don't deport them, punish them.  Perhaps the death penalty should be reinstated for these criminals.  The two who murdered Lee Rigby should be executed when they have been found guilty of these acts of terror and murder.

Immigration is not a problem if the proper laws and rules are in place.  This is one world and the colour of your skin, country of birth or mythical belief  should not stand in the way of where you live.  As long as you integrate into that place or country.  You learn the language, you work to earn a living (and pay your taxes), you get no special privileges.  Any religion (including the lack of one) should be tolerated as long as it has no impact on other members of society.  Feel free to worship whatever god you believe in as long as you expect no special laws to aid you over and above people who believe differently.

We all know in our heart of hearts what is right and wrong, these terrorists have been brain-washed by people with some sort of agenda into believing that their invisible friend is better than someone else's.  This terror is caused by men for and against other men, no god is involved and the worship of any god peacefully should not be persecuted.

All that said, and herein lies the rub;  The bile and hatred pouring out of the British people at the moment is not that far removed from what these radicals that cause these atrocities are saying and doing - an eye for an eye etc.  Groups like the EDL and the BNP are jumping on the band-wagon allowing and encouraging this aggressive stance to stir-up emotions and get their own despicable way.  Our fathers and grand-fathers fought two world wars and many other battles to get us the freedom which we are accustomed to.

In the sixties there was much talk of love and peace, one day maybe we will realise that we are all people, all humans and we will learn to live together.  I don't believe that it will happen in my lifetime and that makes me sad.

An eye for an eye is one thing if it's done using the rule of law but for individuals to use it as an excuse for murder is wrong - and this applies to all of us whatever our colour, creed, religion, sexual orientation or place of birth.

As for religious laws there should only be one commandment: Be nice to each other and keep thy religion to thyself.

More about gay marriage...

I don't get the arguments, I can see the problem in the US but in the UK?

Okay it goes like this......

Two people - irrespective of gender - fall in love and wish to live together as a family unit.  They wish to have the world around them acknowledge there love and partnership.  They also wish the government to acknowledge it, so that they can make medical decisions, legal decisions and have legal rights and obligations to each other.

So, the idea of marriage comes up.  A few hundred years ago - maybe less - they would jump the broom stick or use some other local ceremony.  The government would have nothing to do with it.  Only the rich would or could afford to get married in a church.  Then we move forward to today, the government has got involved with rights of married couples and need proof that couples are actually couples - the whole marriage thing is about proof that they are a legal couple as far as the government is concerned.

If I (or you) where a conspiracy theorist I may event think it's another way for big brother  to watch and/or control us.......

In the end marriage is a contract between two people to tell the rest of the world that they are together, it is the governments that have made rules and regulations surrounding it.

The argument in the UK is about religious marriage of same sex couples.  You have three choices as I see it:

1.            Live together and love each other as you do and will with no legal safety net or rights

2.            Get married in a civil ceremony, live together and love each other as you do and will with legal safety net & rights.

3.            Ask your local priest and or church if they will marry or bless your joining - if they say no, leave the church and go to points one or two.

Many people out the will be shocked at the thought of leaving their church but honestly - as a same sex couple, you are breaking their rules already and if they don't like the way you live they don't deserve you as a member anyway.

At the end of the day - the difference between a married couple and a couple is about the legal definition, how you announce your love and commitment to each other is not that relevant, do it anyway you wish to do it - shout it from the roof tops, sing like Maria Von Trap, Parachute from a balloon in tandem it is all personal choice.

Your government needs to record it, acknowledge it, and grant it legal status - all the rest is personal preference.

Of course the irony here is that it's an even bigger problem in the US.  Even though the US is a (supposed)  secular state, it seems the church has the upper hand in this system because most religions seem to think same sex relationships are 'a sin' and this sways the government.

Gay Marriage….

I’m sorry but I feel I have to come at this one from two angles.

First of all, what is the difference between Marriage and civil partnership?  Is this what ‘civilised’ man has come to.  We have been on this planet for thousands of years,  its only been within the last couple of hundred of years that ‘commoners’ have been able to or bothered to get married in some sort of church or state sanctioned way.  What is all the fuss about, apart from the legal side of things (a government problem); find someone you want to be with and be with them!  It’s not difficult.  If you want to ensure that your partner of choice gets your inheritance write a will.

Second, the only real argument against gay marriage is a religion one.  Closed minded religions probably hate the fact that you’re gay in the first place so find a church that will accept you and bless your partnership.

Even the religious argument is flawed, I’m sure most religions have a similar phrase to ‘turn the other cheek’ which is basically – live and let live.

So, the bottom line is; it’s nobody’s business who does what to whom in the privacy of their own homes (as long as it’s legal and with consent) and if people want to get married in some form or other - who are we to say that they cannot.

If you believe your god created this world and all that is in it; then he must have created gay people – how can god be wrong?

Peace, love and freedom

Thom

Why is it so complicated…

Let me first start by saying that I don’t believe in much of what is out there, socialism, conservatism, fascism, communism in fact to quote Ferris Buller  “nothing that ends with an ism’”.

What I believe in is freedom, freedom for all – but with boundaries, not anarchy that would be silly.

In the most part adults should be free to do anything they want to do, as long as they don’t hurt other people and all parties are willing consenting adults themselves.

As children, we look up to our elders and as we grow into young people in some ways long to be 18 and classed as an adult because of the freedoms it will bring.  Wrong!  A child has much more freedom than an adult we just don’t see it when we are young and free of the responsibilities that tie us down and therefore curtail our freedom.

So, on to my main point, all of this freedom has to be paid for.  We all have to agree that we need infrastructure and people to sort out the mundane things in life.

So we pay taxes – and this is where it gets sticky and complicated.

There has been much talk (endless talk) about the 10% tax threshold and the 50% tax for the rich and more and more baloney on this subject.

I can see, for instance; why the rich try to get out of paying tax, some living out of the country for extended periods for this reason.  I’m sure if I had earned lots of money and the government said I had to pay them half I would be moaning and looking for ways around the problem.

I have never understood why the rich should pay (by way of a higher percentage) more anyway; surly that’s the reason for it being a percentage anyway 10% of 1000 is more than 10% of 100.  Well, I think that’s the way it works?  A percentage of your earnings should go to help run the country - it makes perfect sense.  We all want the country to work correctly; we want hospitals and law, education etc.

Anyway under the current system the rich can afford accountants and lawyers to help them avoid paying taxes which they should pay to help support the country.

I can only assume that the system is too complicated.  Why give rebates for over-payment of tax?  Why not just ask for the correct amount in the first place?

Am I being to literal or simple?

Why don’t we just scrap the current system and do it simply.  First, stop national insurance – it just complicates things.  Then find a percentage that will work, for arguments sake lets say 20%.  Set a lower limit, say £10,000.  Then everybody who makes money in this country in excess of that pays 20% tax, no rebates, no exceptions, no loopholes. So, if you earn £20,000 per year you would pay £2,000 tax, if you earn £110,000 per year you would pay £20,000 simple!

Apart from all the unemployed tax avoidance accountants and lawyers what is the problem with a system like this.  I know that I don’t have all the answers but why is it so damn complicated?

Please feel free to debate the issue; I would be most interested to see if someone can justify the current system…….

Peace, love and freedom.

Thom

The Future of British Politics

It has become abundantly clear that the British public have a sever apathy toward the political system, the main political party’s bickering and blaming each other and to government in general.  None of what these ‘main’ political party’s talk about seem relevant to ‘the man on the street’ any more.

Our antiquated political system need to be changed, there is consent talk about the reformation of the House of Lords but MPs never seem to want to change there patch.  It is laden with ‘jobs for the boys’ and as such the proposed changes (if proposed is a accurate word) are merely window dressing to most people.  They look on this as tinkering around the edges at best.  The average man needs to see something worthwhile just not token gestures.  Maybe it’s about time to abandon the ‘soft shoe shuffle’ and create a whole new method of government for the UK.

First of all let me state without question that I am a royalist and in no way see the ending of the monarchy as helpful towards the future of politics in the UK.  At the end of the day the monarch has but a ‘rubber stamp’ control on what happens within this country.

The current system of party politics is a ridiculous way to operate.  When a person votes for his (or her) MP are they selecting someone who will represent them in central government or are they mindlessly voting for the party that they agree with the most.  Very few people can honestly say that they agree with every policy of the party they support or are a member of.  More worryingly are they voting for the smiling happy character that is the leader of ‘x’ party to get ‘that nice Mr Smith’ into number 10?

Your local MP should be the person you think would represent you the best in parliament – that reason, and only that reason only should affect the way you vote!  I am however a realist and know that a candidates charisma will also influence your vote – we are after all only human.  

With that in mind, for a completely fair and just system to work political parties should be set aside.  Because, if you wish any vote in parliament to be ‘yes’ and your MP agrees with this he will vote ‘yes’ in an ideal system.  However, if he is a member of a political party and the party says he should vote ‘no’ that is probably the way he will (be forced to) vote.  If anybody thinks that this is a fair and just system of government I’d like them to explain how it is to me.

The chance of being able to curtail a party system in the House of Commons is unlikely.  So, how abut this; many people want to change how the House of Lords works, some have talked about abolishing it.  At the end of the day there needs to be checks and balances.  Lets change the House of Lords to a ‘House of the People’, elected representatives in the same manner as the current MP system, with just one difference.  No member of the ‘House of the People’ can be, or ever have been a member of a political party.  All members therefore would (should) be independent and would vote on each issue in a way that they and the people they represent want and believe.

Some people use their vote to get a specific person into number 10, using a general election as some sort of prime ministerial vote of confidence.  The media talk of ‘the Thatcher years’ or ‘the Blair years’ as if it was some sort of benign dictatorship not a democratic country.  It is like people voted for the leader of that party and not for their local representative.  The position of Prime Minister should be a separately elected post in the manner of, but defiantly not a president.  This would give us three levels of checks and balances.  The Prime Minister could then appropriately qualified people to run the various departments, rather than the current system of an MP appointed as a minister because; either they have some knowledge of the subject, they are friends or worse still they are owed a favour.

Probably the biggest ‘gripe’ I hear regularly about MPs is that they have no knowledge of what it’s like in ‘the real world’.  Many (if not most) MPs have never done an honest days work in their life.  They are career politicians who have studied the political system at university and as a result think they can run a country.

An old military adage springs to mind at this point; “they are like lighthouses in the dessert, very bright but no use at all”.  Education is a wonderful thing but some common sense and a real world view would help more.

These are only my thoughts, my dreams if you will.  I would love to stand for election as an MP, ‘put the cat among the pigeons’ so to speak.  Of course there are many barriers to this, not least of which is I live in an area where the majority are dedicated to one party.  It would take a lot of finance to even get close to being noticed, let alone winning.  Some may say; go somewhere else, to another constituency which is more liable to swing toward any party.  I am a firm believer in what I said earlier about your local MP being your representative in parliament; therefore they should be from the area they represent!

Enough for now, comments and discussions are welcome….