This page gives me the chance to give vent to my erroneous opinions

I heard on the news a 12 year old was shot by police in America. The police are being criticised.
But supposing the child had shot several of his playmates (as has recently been often reported in the states) and the police had done nothing; they would have been criticised even more.

Black man killed in St Louis some months ago. Grand jury decides the policeman who killed him should not be charged.
Makes me weep.

Parliament Square.
Surrounded by steel barriers because members of parliament are too cocooned in there safe benches.
It is not the fault of the police (though tactics such as kettling are an abomination) but the parliamentary law makers who are protecting their cosy world.
I am not against democracy [(though what we have would not be recognised by the ancient Greeks as democracy); and most MPs are honourable - though something deleterious seems to seep into them after time; and I have nothing better to suggest (our system is better than any in the world)] but I do wonder what can be done to make it better.
I went to the public gallery a while ago (last time was to the lords years ago) and it was like looking into a fish bowl: the fish just doing their thing oblivious of the people looking in.

4. Security
People are making a fuss about MI5 etc looking into our online and phone conversations. What's wrong in that? Unless you have something to hide. I would rather they did that than get us blown up, or shot.
Of course it must be limited to terrorism so that, for example, if they discovered by those surreptitious means, a plot to burgle a bank by people just wanting the money for themselves (not for terrorism purposes) then that information must not be used to foil the burglars. Nor should their information be used to threaten, even terrorist, people to help the security people to infiltrate the terrorist organisations - ask "yes", but threaten "no". How to stop corrupt security people from using such information to their own evil ends I do not know.

And "evil ends" reminds me of yesterday's news of reports of MPs, in days gone by, stepping in to stop police investigating them for not only the sexual abuse of children, but their murder too. Even given, as I have mentioned, the "I can do anything" views of parliamentarians, this was a step beyond the pale. Not only sickening but devastating.

I woke up to hear that Phil Hughes had died. I stopped breathing to listen to the radio.
Not that I know much about cricket, and I had not heard of him before. But to see someone, after the blow, standing with his hands on his knees and then falling forward unconscious; and then die two days later was a shock to me.
Cricket seems different. In other sports such as rugby or football one expects an occasional tragedy. But in cricket where the people stand around dressed fairly normally, running about from time to time, it seems so astonishing.
I hope the bowler is OK.

A few days ago I saw the preview sequence of "The World's Most Expensive Christmas". (I did not see the program though.) It made me feel sick to look at. The people could spend so much on something for themselves. And what sort of "friends" would want to join in anyway!
Quite sickening.
But then what can one do? Differences must exist. Always there must be something to strive for. (Not for that of course but in some more moderate enhancement.) Apart from being Cromwellian in our desire for righteousness (one of our greatest leaders that there has been notwithstanding) we cannot go down the route of prescribing what can and what cannot be done. We are left with hoping that these people can learn to be modest in their lives, and see their grossness.

Lots of times people say they are searching for their identity (or even trying to create one). I've never understood why. One is what one is. I just bumble along (or occasionally thrust intentionally forward). But that's that. Why should I have an identity? What would it do for me? Maybe it would provide a kind of rule-of-life which I could refer to when deciding what to do. Maybe it is some kind of (the thought of this horrifies me) "persona".

Another thing people go on about is the meaning of life. Religious people especially seem to find a need to have a meaning for life. Why should thee be any meaning to it? One is alive and does what one does. I'm sure God (if such exists) does not want us to spend time searching for such a thing. There does not seem any point to having a meaning. (Since I thought this to myself I am rather embarrassed to state it because I have heard others say the same and it seems trite: but what does "mean" mean?)

I heard on the news that some British soldiers were being investigated for criminal offences during their time of duty in some foreign field. I am quite shocked. Soldiers are instructed to quell some violent incident. They should not have to look over their shoulder and consider questions such as "should I attack this person who is about to blow me up or should I wait until afterwards?" People who question what goes on in a war situation in terms of peaceful societal rules are being simple minded - politicians should ensure this does not happen otherwise they are the guilty parties.
One might say that if soldiers are looking after prisoners they could be so prosecuted, but being a prison officer is not a soldier's job unless they have been trained as prison officers. The blame for any errors (however horrible they may be) is the fault of the person who put them in such a role for which they are not qualified -- it is they who should be the subject of the prosecution.

I popped down to Wimbledon Magistrates court. The last case in one court was of a man who had been called back for his sentence to be increased. For a start this seems very unfair. Once you have had a sentence pronounced on you that should be that. He had been to this court before and given some fines for a driving offence, but today he was told he was to be banned for 12 months. Apparently some recent change in the law had at the earlier hearing been overlooked -- apparently under certain circumstances a 12 month ban was now mandatory. It transpired that he had been having pain killers for his back and that made him have an illegal substance in his blood. Though regardless of that he was not driving dangerously. And my overhearing of the clerk's reasoning seemed to indicate a rather iffy set of wordings - I was rather sickened. Concluding- (1) First of all, as a matter of justice, if he was not dangerous then he should not have been prosecuted in the first place. (2) Second, how on earth is the public to keep up with side effects of the drugs they are prescribed as well as keeping up with what the latest illegal substances are. (3) Third, it must be the justices who are best able to weigh up the issues in a case. Having "mandatory" sentences does no lead to true justice. (4) Fourth, once a sentence has been given it should not be able to be changed "because we made a mistake". Peoples' lives demand more respect. Courts should not come back later sticking spokes into the wheels.

And to do with that is the insidious way laws are intruding and effecting people (only slightly as yet but it is the thin end of the wedge). In the above case, someone was unaware that he was breaking the law. Now I know "ignorance is no excuse" and perhaps in that case he should have been told by his doctor, or perhaps should have researched the drug he was given in order to find out all possible things he may experience (!), but I think leeway must be given. For example suppose someone was walking along the street to his car and breathed in fumes from a factory extractor fan which had just had a minor accident of spilling a chemical (the accident being minor and not, in itself, poisonous, but that person also breathed in some fumes from a very unclean diesel engine, and that those were absorbed slightly into his body and reacted internally to produce methylprotobomphodu (or some other fancy chemical) which had lately been legislated the if one sixteenth part of a nanogram in the blood was illegal to drive with. It would be absurd that he was to blame - he felt no effects of this unknown inhalation and reaction. But things are getting this way. Where will it end? It is insidious.


A wonderful day for Britain. We voted to leave the EU. It's not that we should leave Europe, but merely the overbearing and undemocratic EU which is just taking everything too far.
For me it is not the immigration that worries me (though the new influx of Romanians are making the streets of London rather untidy and unhygienic since they arrived, not that I am against them all by any means for they have been stalwart seasonal agricultural workers for a long time). The Poles have helped our economy enormously. They work hard -- which is more than the British workers did before that with their 'back tomorrow' attitude! I want to keep the Poles here and show them they matter to us. Nor is it the economy which is bound to dip in the short term. It is just that we do not want to have decisions thrust on us: from how to grow cucumbers to (more importantly) the decisions our courts make.
It gives Mr Cameron a great opportunity to tell the EU "see what giving me nothing in my negotiations with you has done"; and it gives him the upper hand in arranging our exit. He can say "although you snubbed us when we I negotiated with you last time, we are magnanimous and wish to help you in the way we leave". I am a great supporter of a European ethos. After the second world war it was wonderful that we got together to form an alliance. (Though I think had it gone Churchill's way we would all be in a better condition now.) I do not want to have right wing racists thinking this is their chance!
OK. Scotland wants to leave, so let it. Let the EU support them rather than us. If Northern Ireland wants to leave, then let that happen too. It could lead to a unified Ireland again and simplify everything. But were those things to occur I would feel very sorry for our Queen who is so strong in working for unity. To have the United Kingdom fall apart during her reign would be a sad note for her.
(Just heard that Cameron has resigned - rather selfish and done in a fit of pique, I feel.)

I have just listened to the news and, at the suggestion that the people from the EU currently residing in Britain from the EU should be given NOW a guarantee that they may stay, it was said that we are not doing this as a negotiating stance in order to ensure that British citizens abroad are given certain rights.
I am simply appalled!
That we should use people as a negotiating tool is horrible. Of course we must NOW give a guarantee of residence to those people already here. They have helped us a great deal and it is nice to have people from different backgrounds here. As for the Brits abroad let them find what they will. Let them take the consequences of their foolishness. We should not consider them at all.

Another item of news was to introduce a law defining antisemitism. I don't mind that but why not a law about antimuslimism too? The trouble with such a law is that it might confuse the disgraceful behaviour of people sneering or being aggressive to Jewish people with the freedom to criticise the government of the state of Israel. (Personally, while I support the state of Israel I think it has gone too far in occupying bits of land that are not its to use, and have used underhand means to remove people from parts of Jerusalem. But I have great admiration for the Jews in this country -- they do so much for our us.)