May I commend this news report from the London Daily Mail. There seem to be some eight hundred persons who having read the article, didn’t realise that it must be an April Fool’s day spoof.
It appears on the London Daily Mail News Site
Great Grandmother tagged selling goldfish.
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Monday, 22 March 2010
Unchristian Abuse both Catholic and Protestant
IN-CELIBACY WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
One reads that The Pope has issued an apology for ‘Heinous’ Abuse within the Catholic Church, It seems a regrettable omission that the apology was exclusive of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for abuse happened here too. One reads of past financial settlements made, and of cases that when last heard of were still pending. Having myself suffered mild abuse when under the auspices of the Catholic Church near seventy years ago, my inclination is to believe that there may well be substance to complainants’ claims. Others though are doubtful, such persons enquiring why the delay in reportage, and which the motivation for telling of it now? Good points but an equally good point to make, is why if a Pope is prepared to acknowledge the matter now, the Catholic Church had for so long conspired to hush matters up, so failed before now to apologise for its involvement
What though counts as child abuse, and was its occurrence solely within the Catholic Church ? Was not caning the most prevalent form of abuse, especially when gleefully administered. There was a man who was reputed to have cut a swathe through Shrewsbury, Bradfield, Eton and Fettes , with scarcely an eyebrow raised for such was the custom of the time at many another Preparatory or Public School.
In retrospect boys so punished may recognise canings to a bared backside, as but an expression of the perpetrator’s libido, being inclined to inform others
‘Never did me any harm, made me the man I am’
And of course all too frequently it did!
Maybe the abuse taken exception to, relates only to the Institutional violence and oppressive subjection, such was alleged to occur in The Magdalene Laundries, or through the transportation of ‘Orphans’ to the Colonies. Both States and Church were complicit in these matters, and all have recently expressed their regrets.
Maybe the abuse referred to, is some level of sexual concupiscence ? When an adult or older adolescent by preference acts inappropriately with a pre-pubescent child, the offence is termed paedophilia. May one thus deduce that similarly inappropriate behaviour solely between an adult and an older adolescent is not covered by the term paedophilia ? From all the reports one reads , more often than not, it is the young adolescent who is the prey of the predator rather more than any child. Is it to this grouping Catholicism is apologetic?
Gross indecency apart, the physicality of any assault is inconsequential, when contrasted with the psychological harm occasioned to those who suffer such predations, for it oft involves them in deceit, and complicity saddles them with what is known as ‘The Stockholm Syndrome’.
Abuse isn’t restricted to the Catholic Church , for history relates that it has been of equal endemnicity in Anglican Communities, as too in the populous at large. However those Clergy who adopt a holier than thou attitude, lay themselves open to greater condemnation than others. The supposed Celibacy of the Catholic Clergy is a nonsense, and always was so. Surely it is past time to acknowledge the situation by legitimising all quasi marital relationships within its ranks.
One reads that The Pope has issued an apology for ‘Heinous’ Abuse within the Catholic Church, It seems a regrettable omission that the apology was exclusive of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for abuse happened here too. One reads of past financial settlements made, and of cases that when last heard of were still pending. Having myself suffered mild abuse when under the auspices of the Catholic Church near seventy years ago, my inclination is to believe that there may well be substance to complainants’ claims. Others though are doubtful, such persons enquiring why the delay in reportage, and which the motivation for telling of it now? Good points but an equally good point to make, is why if a Pope is prepared to acknowledge the matter now, the Catholic Church had for so long conspired to hush matters up, so failed before now to apologise for its involvement
What though counts as child abuse, and was its occurrence solely within the Catholic Church ? Was not caning the most prevalent form of abuse, especially when gleefully administered. There was a man who was reputed to have cut a swathe through Shrewsbury, Bradfield, Eton and Fettes , with scarcely an eyebrow raised for such was the custom of the time at many another Preparatory or Public School.
In retrospect boys so punished may recognise canings to a bared backside, as but an expression of the perpetrator’s libido, being inclined to inform others
‘Never did me any harm, made me the man I am’
And of course all too frequently it did!
Maybe the abuse taken exception to, relates only to the Institutional violence and oppressive subjection, such was alleged to occur in The Magdalene Laundries, or through the transportation of ‘Orphans’ to the Colonies. Both States and Church were complicit in these matters, and all have recently expressed their regrets.
Maybe the abuse referred to, is some level of sexual concupiscence ? When an adult or older adolescent by preference acts inappropriately with a pre-pubescent child, the offence is termed paedophilia. May one thus deduce that similarly inappropriate behaviour solely between an adult and an older adolescent is not covered by the term paedophilia ? From all the reports one reads , more often than not, it is the young adolescent who is the prey of the predator rather more than any child. Is it to this grouping Catholicism is apologetic?
Gross indecency apart, the physicality of any assault is inconsequential, when contrasted with the psychological harm occasioned to those who suffer such predations, for it oft involves them in deceit, and complicity saddles them with what is known as ‘The Stockholm Syndrome’.
Abuse isn’t restricted to the Catholic Church , for history relates that it has been of equal endemnicity in Anglican Communities, as too in the populous at large. However those Clergy who adopt a holier than thou attitude, lay themselves open to greater condemnation than others. The supposed Celibacy of the Catholic Clergy is a nonsense, and always was so. Surely it is past time to acknowledge the situation by legitimising all quasi marital relationships within its ranks.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Maundy Money for the Wholly Weak
MAUNDY MONEY FOR THE WHOLLY WEAK.
Those of us out of the loop may wonder how it is that one non-dom gets to be a legislator in the House of Lords; whilst another ex. Reading area Business man, R. Gaines Cooper, is adjudged differently, and is required to pay the back taxes he thought to have avoid by moving to the Seychelles thirty years ago. How is it that the recent Court ruling applies to the Commoner but seemingly not to the Noble Lord ? One reads that the matter of Lord Ashcroft’s ennoblement is to be considered by a relevant Committee, one awaits its deliberations with interest.
An ex. Impresario Maundy Gregory, was alleged to have master minded the SALE of Knighthoods Baronetcies and Peerages between the years 1916 and 1922. Doing so to raise funding for Lloyd George’s Liberal Party. There is no telling how many of the 1500 Knighthoods, and the 91 Peerages bestowed were actually traded, however the allegation was that the Tariff involved was £10,000 for a Knighthood, £30,000 for a Baronetcy, and £50,000 for a Peerage. The Most Excellent Order Of The British Empire being allegedly created in 1917 especially for those with shallower pockets. It was at that time Peerages were given en masse, rather than sold to, all four Proprietors of ‘The Fourth Estate’. But their honours too were tarnished by the Maundy Gregory scandal, to such an extent that my Father didn’t approve of his elder son keeping company with the daughter of one of them. He might have approved when his elder daughter became the second wife of the son of one of those original 1917 OBE.s, for he earned his award.
Whichever the truth of all this if mud is thrown, there is the tendency for it to stick. Lloyd George made tacit acknowledgement of the scandal by setting up the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee ( without powers of retrospection). Following which Government brought in The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. Thus it was no longer possible for such nepotistic advancement, so clearly there must be some sort of a misunderstanding concerning the Lords Ashcroft and Paul. That being so one wonders why Leaders of her Majesty’s Opposition have hitherto been so cagey concerning the Ashcroft incident.
WHEN SCEPTICISM HAS BEEN RIFE, SILENCE UNDERMINES CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THOSE WHO WOULD GOVERN US.
One reads that the Leader of her Majesty’s Opposition heard detail of the matter only last month. Did Mr. Hague know of the situation earlier, if so was the information kept from Mr. Cameron?
One is minded of that remark quoted on Radio 4 this morning, on the Death of Michael Foot, which was on the lines of
‘The Boy David has risen from promising….to elder Statesman, with nothing in between.’
ELECTORAL AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
One Political Party has promised to reduce the number of seats in Parliament. Good , there are far too many members of Parliament, for its functions have been handed over not merely to the Euro-M.P.s, but too to unelected European Commissioners.
Do we who live in the United Kingdom approve of the Mess that Parliament has got us into, should one encourage them by voting?
It is past time to further reform both the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament, and too the electoral process. Government’s recent reforms of the ‘Lords’ did not go far enough. All the Hereditary Peers should have been put out to grass, and a new start made. Many sat in acknowledgement of the fact that their Ancestor provided ‘personal services’ to Royalty, whilst others sat not so much in the cause of good Governance, but in acknowledgement of the afore mentioned financial contributions they or an Ancestor made to some Political Party . Heredity is no longer ‘Just Cause’ to give any man or woman , short or long term ‘Tenure’ in our Legislature.
DISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM
Neither is there justification for those twenty five sitting Lords Spiritual, be they Bishop or Arch Bishop. Prior to the 16th.Century Reform Act. Monastic Abbots sat in the Lords as well . Hence the term ‘My Lord Abbot’ . Thus it was that prior to the dissolution of the Monasteries, the majority of the House was of such Lords Spiritual. I do not doubt that the latter, along with others Lords representative of Judaism or Islam are a good influence on Governance, however the numbers involved are disproportionate to the following each is representative of.
PRECEDENT
Thousands and thousands of us can justifiably lay claim to Royal Descent (on the right side of the blanket too), and to degrees of kinship to the Nobility and to the Great and the Good, but the sharing of such Genes doesn’t necessarily endow one with ones forebear’s intellect or ability, or money. If such is so amidst Commoners it is no less so, amidst the hereditary Peerage. One read recently that the New Duke of Devonshire was quite willing to forego his perceived privileges .
‘Good on you mate’
as that ‘Aussie’ Mr. Hastings might have said when told that ‘rightfully’ he should be the ‘King of England, but then he was reported to be a Catholic so couldn’t be. 4th.March 2010
A Plague on both your houses
* William Shakespeare.
Those of us out of the loop may wonder how it is that one non-dom gets to be a legislator in the House of Lords; whilst another ex. Reading area Business man, R. Gaines Cooper, is adjudged differently, and is required to pay the back taxes he thought to have avoid by moving to the Seychelles thirty years ago. How is it that the recent Court ruling applies to the Commoner but seemingly not to the Noble Lord ? One reads that the matter of Lord Ashcroft’s ennoblement is to be considered by a relevant Committee, one awaits its deliberations with interest.
An ex. Impresario Maundy Gregory, was alleged to have master minded the SALE of Knighthoods Baronetcies and Peerages between the years 1916 and 1922. Doing so to raise funding for Lloyd George’s Liberal Party. There is no telling how many of the 1500 Knighthoods, and the 91 Peerages bestowed were actually traded, however the allegation was that the Tariff involved was £10,000 for a Knighthood, £30,000 for a Baronetcy, and £50,000 for a Peerage. The Most Excellent Order Of The British Empire being allegedly created in 1917 especially for those with shallower pockets. It was at that time Peerages were given en masse, rather than sold to, all four Proprietors of ‘The Fourth Estate’. But their honours too were tarnished by the Maundy Gregory scandal, to such an extent that my Father didn’t approve of his elder son keeping company with the daughter of one of them. He might have approved when his elder daughter became the second wife of the son of one of those original 1917 OBE.s, for he earned his award.
Whichever the truth of all this if mud is thrown, there is the tendency for it to stick. Lloyd George made tacit acknowledgement of the scandal by setting up the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee ( without powers of retrospection). Following which Government brought in The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. Thus it was no longer possible for such nepotistic advancement, so clearly there must be some sort of a misunderstanding concerning the Lords Ashcroft and Paul. That being so one wonders why Leaders of her Majesty’s Opposition have hitherto been so cagey concerning the Ashcroft incident.
WHEN SCEPTICISM HAS BEEN RIFE, SILENCE UNDERMINES CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THOSE WHO WOULD GOVERN US.
One reads that the Leader of her Majesty’s Opposition heard detail of the matter only last month. Did Mr. Hague know of the situation earlier, if so was the information kept from Mr. Cameron?
One is minded of that remark quoted on Radio 4 this morning, on the Death of Michael Foot, which was on the lines of
‘The Boy David has risen from promising….to elder Statesman, with nothing in between.’
ELECTORAL AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
One Political Party has promised to reduce the number of seats in Parliament. Good , there are far too many members of Parliament, for its functions have been handed over not merely to the Euro-M.P.s, but too to unelected European Commissioners.
Do we who live in the United Kingdom approve of the Mess that Parliament has got us into, should one encourage them by voting?
It is past time to further reform both the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament, and too the electoral process. Government’s recent reforms of the ‘Lords’ did not go far enough. All the Hereditary Peers should have been put out to grass, and a new start made. Many sat in acknowledgement of the fact that their Ancestor provided ‘personal services’ to Royalty, whilst others sat not so much in the cause of good Governance, but in acknowledgement of the afore mentioned financial contributions they or an Ancestor made to some Political Party . Heredity is no longer ‘Just Cause’ to give any man or woman , short or long term ‘Tenure’ in our Legislature.
DISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM
Neither is there justification for those twenty five sitting Lords Spiritual, be they Bishop or Arch Bishop. Prior to the 16th.Century Reform Act. Monastic Abbots sat in the Lords as well . Hence the term ‘My Lord Abbot’ . Thus it was that prior to the dissolution of the Monasteries, the majority of the House was of such Lords Spiritual. I do not doubt that the latter, along with others Lords representative of Judaism or Islam are a good influence on Governance, however the numbers involved are disproportionate to the following each is representative of.
PRECEDENT
Thousands and thousands of us can justifiably lay claim to Royal Descent (on the right side of the blanket too), and to degrees of kinship to the Nobility and to the Great and the Good, but the sharing of such Genes doesn’t necessarily endow one with ones forebear’s intellect or ability, or money. If such is so amidst Commoners it is no less so, amidst the hereditary Peerage. One read recently that the New Duke of Devonshire was quite willing to forego his perceived privileges .
‘Good on you mate’
as that ‘Aussie’ Mr. Hastings might have said when told that ‘rightfully’ he should be the ‘King of England, but then he was reported to be a Catholic so couldn’t be. 4th.March 2010
A Plague on both your houses
* William Shakespeare.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)