skeletal-debate

“Words can be twisted into any shape. Promises can be made to lull the heart and seduce the soul. In the final analysis, words mean nothing. They are labels we give things in an effort to wrap our puny little brains around their underlying natures, when ninety-nine percent of the time the totality of the reality is an entirely different beast. The wisest man is the silent one. Examine his actions. Judge him by them.” ― Karen Marie Moning

Many promises have been made across the political parties vying for leadership during the build up to the 2015 General Election. And one can only conclude, that the heart and soul of the electorate were sufficiently lulled and seduced to facilitate the Conservative victory. It will be during the next five years that Cameron must be observed, and judged and held to account. The electorate must empower themselves with a dogged determination to ensure that it is they, not Government, who are the master.

Advertisements

In November 2014 an email was sent to Simon Danczuk (MP Labour) and Jake Berry (MP Conservative) regarding my concerns of a failure of Government to continue investigations in to historical child sexual abuse post General Election 2015. Danczuk’s office were quick in response; the Conservatives less so. Whilst I had been hoping for a response from the home secretary, the right honourable Teresa May (MP), the reply came through Lynne Featherstone (MP) Minister for Crime and Prevention
 
csa20001

I find it rather non-committal, which is unfortunately par for the course in British Politics.

Silos444pxThe Labour Party are as guilty as both the Conservative and Libdem parties when it comes the privatisation of healthcare in the UK.

Privatisation of healthcare, without doubt began with Margaret Thatcher’s creation of the “internal market” in the mid 1980’s, using recommendations made by Sir Ernest Griffiths, in his earlier report “NHS Management Enquiry”, 1983. The report implied that healthcare should be run in line with the practices incorporated within supermarkets; Griffiths’ background was director and deputy chairman of Sainsbury.

Within the microcosm of healthcare provision [hospitals], the effect of the internal market was to create silos: separate within the whole. Unfortunately, because systems within the existing NHS ethos were not not geared up to facilitate Thatcher’s ideology; moreover, non-NHS managers could not comprehend why their management systems could not, on the whole, work within healthcare, the NHS continued to flounder like a supertanker embedded on a sandbank.

The silo effect of healthcare provision has continued through successive Governments, Labour and Conservative alike. Therefore it is unreasonable for Labour to continue to argue against the privatisation of healthcare when they themselves have done nothing to prevent progression of the privatisation of health care.

Cameron, Clegg and Milliband, all in it together.

 

DANCZUK, Simon

To

me
Today at 4:22 PM

Dear Sirs

I am deeply concerned that none of the political parties represented in the English parliament have, or attempted to include a manifesto for the 2015 General Election, identifying their intention to see the Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse through to conclusion.  Nor that they commit to ensure the inquiry will be supported in such a manner that transparency will facilitate truth and justice prevailing over the protection of paedophiles within Whitehall and external institutions.

I would therefore ask of you, to raise my concerns and ask that all polical parties agree that they will include a manifesto to the effect that the above will not happen; that all political parties will, with transparency, ensure truth and justice prevailing over the protection of paedophiles within Whitehall and external institutions.

Regards

Richard Ogden

skeletal-debateIt is ironic that despite all the negative press given to the abuse of controlled substances, illegal or not, figures produced by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) suggest drug poisoning involving both illegal and legal drugs is on the increase.

Misuse of illicit drugs is not a new phenomena, we just have to listen to the tales from those who were present at Woodstock and the “Summer of Love”. The question that needs asking in relation to that era is, were the drugs cleaner in those days? How many celebrities from the music world have appeared to defy death through substance abuse. In fact, how many bankers, stockbrokers, and barristers partake in illegal drug use ( as reported in the press) and manage to lead relatively normal lives? Is it always the base drug which kills or the additives used to make it go further, and make the drug dealers richer.

Referencing data from the ONS (acknowledging their disclaimers), whilst drug related deaths in the UK are on rise in both male and female populations, the deaths represent an insignificant percentage on a whole. Though the loss of life is not insignificant.

Unlike the change in law to make not wearing of seat belts illegal, changing the law and misuse of drugs act will not, I believe, save lives.

It is long over due that society must take a step back, draw a deep breath, and ask where the heck are we going?
And for the time being we have to accept that people are not averse to risk taking. Children and adults today have enough information and sources of reference to make informed decisions; we should accept that is life.

skeletal-debateIt would appear that in your article entitled, “Why I call Myself an Atheist Muslim”; Huffington Post, 05/13/2014, you, despite attempting to argue against the point, clearly contradict yourself.

For want of no other reason, than that of a comprehensive article, “Atheism – Wikipedia” clarifies the point that, as an atheist, one would have no belief in a deity. Monotheism — a belief in one God — in which Islam, Judaism and Christianity are the main players; and which are recognised as believing in the same God, evidently precludes the use of atheist in the same title.

It is intrinsic to human nature, across the spectrum of the socio-economic rainbow, that as soon as one compartmentalise’s a subject bigotry develops. Therefore, it is my opinion, the origins of religious bigotry, as it is not just directed at Islam, is borne by the politics within monotheistic religion.

Religion is synonymous with politics. Unfortunately “politics” in my opinion is synonymous to “terrorism”, but that is another story.

Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, meaning “of, for, or relating to citizens”) is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a global, civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a given community (a hierarchically organized population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between communities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

The texts of the Torah, the Bible and the Qur’an can be seen as continuations of the “Old Testament”, and could be viewed as political texts setting out the direction of each party or religion. My point is that in religion, as with politics, there will be individuals with moderate opinion; those with extreme opinion; and those with no real opinion per se, those who have an ethical non-religious outlook on life.

I am an Agnostic. I stopped calling myself a Christian because I believe I do not need to compartmentalise myself to be a better person. Personally, I believe you seek a more believable expression than “atheist Muslim”, if you wish your opinions “on the “Root Causes” of Islamist Jihadism and politics of Islamophobia” to carry more authority.