The title of this one was inspired by the old saying "The Seven Deadly Sins".
I classify the Two Extinction Sins as sloth and greed.
I was watching an extremely interesting program last night on the channel 'Quest' called 'World's Strangest'. Last night it was 'World's Strangest Inventions' and in fact it rather renewed my faith in the human spirit to try and make this world a better place.
Take for instances the fabric that produces electricity from the heat produced by the human body. As of yet it is still produced in small patches but even that is enough to power an MP3 player when it is stitched to the T-shirt you run in. Think of the potential that has! Clean renewable energy that keeps on coming as long as you are alive and warm. In fact they could even set up power stations combined with gyms and pay people to be healthy and produce power at the same time. A case of you go to work, put on the power fabric T-shirt and start running on the tread mill. While you are running and becoming healthy the national grid is being powered by the heat you are giving off. Sounds crazy but with a little more research it could be done.
However, one thing struck me with all the inventions, they are being made either in America or Japan. Britain, once so proud of our Universities and our inventors is now content to sit on its butt and do sweet nothing to earn it's keep. Oh wait, I forgot, umpteen thousand pounds of tax payers money went into discovering whether or not dog's have recognisable expressions.
One, I can't see how that is going to benefit anybody in the slightest.
Two, you could have asked any dog trainer in the world worth their salt and they would have told you the affirmative. Scientific curiosity satisfied at a fraction of the price.
Britain has become fat, lazy and idol, willing to run the risks associated with fraking for oil because it makes money easily instead of putting our money into decent research such as the crystals, that when sliced nanotechnology thin, produce electricity when flexed. Potential = weave them into cloth and turn them into the propellers for wind farms so even the structure of the wind turbine is producing electricity.
Will we research such alternatives? My cynical side says probably not. The British Empire stagnated and as of yet we haven't recovered from that inertia, allowing ourselves to let those who shout loudest and have the most money to impose their will, wills that seem bent only on gaining more money, regardless of the cost to others. Greed and sloth in one nasty little package.
Thursday, 8 August 2013
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
Bedroom Tax Balls Up
Can this Government actually think it's way through anything thing or is it totally incompetent?
The Freedom of Information Bill has proven it's worth and has revealed that the Bedroom Tax (a tax that the Government is trying to say is not a tax) is merely another way that the Government is trying to sink us up to our necks in debt.
Thirty eight (38) Councils responded fully to the request for information, revealing that in total (for their areas) 99,079 families are being affected by the Bedroom Tax but there are only 3,803 one and two bedroom available for them to downsize into. In Birmingham alone 13,557 households are affected by the Tax but there are only 368 one and two bedroom houses currently unoccupied. I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure that makes a deficit of one and two bedroom houses of 13,199 (you can check my calculation).
Now you cold say that 'we'll just build more one and two bedroom houses'. That is all very well but to do that you will gobble up another huge stripe of our rapidly shrinking Green Belt and once you have finished and all those families have moved into them, who is going to live in the three and four bedroomed properties? What is more, by the time you have finished building them most of the families who need them are going to be sunk up to their neck in rent arrears and Councils won't let you move if you are in arrears.
What is more it is illegal to sub-let a Council Property so it is not like the affected families could even fill up their spare bedrooms that way. Although if you didn't take any money from them, I suppose that wouldn't count as sub-letting so you could fill up the room that way but then you have the problem of making sure that they are a hygienic person who isn't going to rape your daughter when your back is turned.
In defence of this cruel tax a spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions has said (and I quote the Independence on this):
"This ignores the fact that people may move to housing in the private sector and not all tenants will have to downsize because they could make up any shortfall through getting a job or increasing their working hours."
One, housing in the private sector is more expensive than housing in the public sector. The cheapest one bedroomed flat in a ten mile radius of Norwich is £350 a month. How is an already struggling family supposed to find that.
Two, a private landlord is even less likely to take you on as a tenant if you have arrears than a Council.
Three, what jobs are we meant to get? There seems to be a lot out there for Bank Managers and computer technicians but not that many for those of us who are just starting their careers and aren't that skilled yet.
Four, most businesses are now limiting the time you can work by signing people on with set hours schemes, which means that over time is no longer paid. We can't increase the hours we work because there is no point, we won't be paid for them.
At this rate nobody is going to have any money to bur anything, not even their food and the economy is really going to collapse. Wall Street Crash anybody?
The Freedom of Information Bill has proven it's worth and has revealed that the Bedroom Tax (a tax that the Government is trying to say is not a tax) is merely another way that the Government is trying to sink us up to our necks in debt.
Thirty eight (38) Councils responded fully to the request for information, revealing that in total (for their areas) 99,079 families are being affected by the Bedroom Tax but there are only 3,803 one and two bedroom available for them to downsize into. In Birmingham alone 13,557 households are affected by the Tax but there are only 368 one and two bedroom houses currently unoccupied. I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure that makes a deficit of one and two bedroom houses of 13,199 (you can check my calculation).
Now you cold say that 'we'll just build more one and two bedroom houses'. That is all very well but to do that you will gobble up another huge stripe of our rapidly shrinking Green Belt and once you have finished and all those families have moved into them, who is going to live in the three and four bedroomed properties? What is more, by the time you have finished building them most of the families who need them are going to be sunk up to their neck in rent arrears and Councils won't let you move if you are in arrears.
What is more it is illegal to sub-let a Council Property so it is not like the affected families could even fill up their spare bedrooms that way. Although if you didn't take any money from them, I suppose that wouldn't count as sub-letting so you could fill up the room that way but then you have the problem of making sure that they are a hygienic person who isn't going to rape your daughter when your back is turned.
In defence of this cruel tax a spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions has said (and I quote the Independence on this):
"This ignores the fact that people may move to housing in the private sector and not all tenants will have to downsize because they could make up any shortfall through getting a job or increasing their working hours."
One, housing in the private sector is more expensive than housing in the public sector. The cheapest one bedroomed flat in a ten mile radius of Norwich is £350 a month. How is an already struggling family supposed to find that.
Two, a private landlord is even less likely to take you on as a tenant if you have arrears than a Council.
Three, what jobs are we meant to get? There seems to be a lot out there for Bank Managers and computer technicians but not that many for those of us who are just starting their careers and aren't that skilled yet.
Four, most businesses are now limiting the time you can work by signing people on with set hours schemes, which means that over time is no longer paid. We can't increase the hours we work because there is no point, we won't be paid for them.
At this rate nobody is going to have any money to bur anything, not even their food and the economy is really going to collapse. Wall Street Crash anybody?
Monday, 5 August 2013
Stigmatising Those Who Do It Properly
Once again the MPs have shown that they could not think their way out of a wet paper bag.
George Osborne will have at some point today unveiled his scheme to give up to £1,200 of taxpayers funded child-care per child to families where both parents have a job, apparently to encourage women back into the workplace.
This from the Government who swore, among many other things, to up hold traditional values. Well I'm sorry but one of the most fundamental traditional values is mothers staying at home to look after their children and bring them up in caring, loving homes to be well rounded young people, instead of leaving the hard work to someone else to do.
Having already taken about $2000 a year from families who's bread winner earns over £50,000 a year (which is not a lot when you take into consideration that it amounts to approximately £4,167 a month and rent alone is at least £250 in the public housing sector) he now wants to rub salt into the wound by characterising stay-at-home-mothers as outside of the group who "want to work hard and get on in life."
Well excuse me Mister Osborne but those of us who have had to sacrifice our careers to take care of a family member (be that a parent taking care of a child, or a child taking care of a disabled parent) do work hard. We work damn hard. We work twenty four hours, seven days a week and all for the sum of £750 pounds a month. Is there any nurse in the NHS who would be willing to work those hours for that amount of money? I seriously doubt it.
A stay-at-home-mother who does her job properly is nursemaid, cleaner, laundrette worker, chef, bottle washer, child psychologist, first aid nurse, jury and judge, social service overseer, teacher, logistics coordinator, accountant, bargain hunter, taxi driver, DIY mate, shoulder to cry on and play mate. At that's just for starters.
When you look at that list you begin to understand why it used to be said that if a man had to pay his wife for all the work she does then no man would be able to afford a wife.
I fully agree with Mrs Laura Perrins of Mothers at Home Matter when she says:
"Children have a right to be brought up by their parents and this government is doing all they can to separate mothers from their children."
My sister and I endured six years of abuse in school from our classmates, mostly mental and emotional but sometimes physical abuse straying into the edge of sexual. It has taken both of us many years to recover from it, not help by the fact that we could not understand why. Neither of us where popular, sporty, or very beautiful. We were both alright academically and we weren't richer than the rest of them because once we were children of a divorced Mother then we were stuck on benefits. Despite what the newspapers will tell you, you cannot get rich on benefits if you are honest and we were honest. However, time and space has finally given me the eyes to see it.
Out of both our classes we were pretty much the only ones who's mother did not work. Instead of coming home to a house that had been empty all day and needing to fix our own dinners, we came home to a home that had been cleaner, tidied and dinner was waiting for us. My sister and I were bullied mercilessly because we had a Mother who made us her job, who put all her time and effort into us and made us the best home she could with what little we had. In short, we had something they didn't have and they wanted it and when they couldn't have it because mum was coming home from work each day tried out and grouchy, they took their frustration out on my sister and me.
And besides all the children who are going to suffer because they don't have a proper mother, the basic foundation on which the government is justifying this madness is flawed.
Danny Alexander is quoted as saying:
"The Government wants to build a stronger economy and a fairer society and key to that is getting more people into work. We won't let childcare costs stand in the way of parents' ability to work if they want to."
What would make a fairer society is if each family could have at least one parent in work. However, that cannot happen while nearly half of those jobs are being taken up by Mother's who work for money instead of work to raise their children. If the government wants to build a fairer society then they should be encouraging Mother's to stay at home and bring up their children so Mother's will once again be valued for what they do best. That would leave more jobs open for Father's and young people to fill. That way men would once more be valued as the breadwinners of the family and students wouldn't end up in debt.
Of course what would really make a strong economy would be if all those fat cat MPs took a pay cut and used that freed up money to build Britain an industry again by gathering up and recycling that Texas sized island of rubbish floating in the Pacific. What is more, once we had recycled it, we could sell the raw material back to the rest of the world. While the human race continued making rubbish, Britain would never be out of a job but when will MPs ever be decent and take that pay cut needed to start it?
I'm not holding my breath.
George Osborne will have at some point today unveiled his scheme to give up to £1,200 of taxpayers funded child-care per child to families where both parents have a job, apparently to encourage women back into the workplace.
This from the Government who swore, among many other things, to up hold traditional values. Well I'm sorry but one of the most fundamental traditional values is mothers staying at home to look after their children and bring them up in caring, loving homes to be well rounded young people, instead of leaving the hard work to someone else to do.
Having already taken about $2000 a year from families who's bread winner earns over £50,000 a year (which is not a lot when you take into consideration that it amounts to approximately £4,167 a month and rent alone is at least £250 in the public housing sector) he now wants to rub salt into the wound by characterising stay-at-home-mothers as outside of the group who "want to work hard and get on in life."
Well excuse me Mister Osborne but those of us who have had to sacrifice our careers to take care of a family member (be that a parent taking care of a child, or a child taking care of a disabled parent) do work hard. We work damn hard. We work twenty four hours, seven days a week and all for the sum of £750 pounds a month. Is there any nurse in the NHS who would be willing to work those hours for that amount of money? I seriously doubt it.
A stay-at-home-mother who does her job properly is nursemaid, cleaner, laundrette worker, chef, bottle washer, child psychologist, first aid nurse, jury and judge, social service overseer, teacher, logistics coordinator, accountant, bargain hunter, taxi driver, DIY mate, shoulder to cry on and play mate. At that's just for starters.
When you look at that list you begin to understand why it used to be said that if a man had to pay his wife for all the work she does then no man would be able to afford a wife.
I fully agree with Mrs Laura Perrins of Mothers at Home Matter when she says:
"Children have a right to be brought up by their parents and this government is doing all they can to separate mothers from their children."
My sister and I endured six years of abuse in school from our classmates, mostly mental and emotional but sometimes physical abuse straying into the edge of sexual. It has taken both of us many years to recover from it, not help by the fact that we could not understand why. Neither of us where popular, sporty, or very beautiful. We were both alright academically and we weren't richer than the rest of them because once we were children of a divorced Mother then we were stuck on benefits. Despite what the newspapers will tell you, you cannot get rich on benefits if you are honest and we were honest. However, time and space has finally given me the eyes to see it.
Out of both our classes we were pretty much the only ones who's mother did not work. Instead of coming home to a house that had been empty all day and needing to fix our own dinners, we came home to a home that had been cleaner, tidied and dinner was waiting for us. My sister and I were bullied mercilessly because we had a Mother who made us her job, who put all her time and effort into us and made us the best home she could with what little we had. In short, we had something they didn't have and they wanted it and when they couldn't have it because mum was coming home from work each day tried out and grouchy, they took their frustration out on my sister and me.
And besides all the children who are going to suffer because they don't have a proper mother, the basic foundation on which the government is justifying this madness is flawed.
Danny Alexander is quoted as saying:
"The Government wants to build a stronger economy and a fairer society and key to that is getting more people into work. We won't let childcare costs stand in the way of parents' ability to work if they want to."
What would make a fairer society is if each family could have at least one parent in work. However, that cannot happen while nearly half of those jobs are being taken up by Mother's who work for money instead of work to raise their children. If the government wants to build a fairer society then they should be encouraging Mother's to stay at home and bring up their children so Mother's will once again be valued for what they do best. That would leave more jobs open for Father's and young people to fill. That way men would once more be valued as the breadwinners of the family and students wouldn't end up in debt.
Of course what would really make a strong economy would be if all those fat cat MPs took a pay cut and used that freed up money to build Britain an industry again by gathering up and recycling that Texas sized island of rubbish floating in the Pacific. What is more, once we had recycled it, we could sell the raw material back to the rest of the world. While the human race continued making rubbish, Britain would never be out of a job but when will MPs ever be decent and take that pay cut needed to start it?
I'm not holding my breath.
Monday, 29 July 2013
Siyaya
From the native tongue of Zimbabwe, Siyaya means 'on the move' and is the name of a music band from that country. Originally known as NASA (Nostalgic Actors and Singers Alliance), the group was founded in 1989 and renamed themselves Siyaya during their tenth anniversary.
Dedicated to bringing the voices of the people of Africa to the rest of the world, they reinterpret the ancient tales, music and dance of their country so that the rest of the world will be interested in listening to them. They also tackle the social issues of the modern world and therefore start people thinking about them as well.
The track that jumped up and bite me off their Futhi-Njalo album is 'We Want Peace', which starts with these words:
Dedicated to bringing the voices of the people of Africa to the rest of the world, they reinterpret the ancient tales, music and dance of their country so that the rest of the world will be interested in listening to them. They also tackle the social issues of the modern world and therefore start people thinking about them as well.
The track that jumped up and bite me off their Futhi-Njalo album is 'We Want Peace', which starts with these words:
"Nine million people take to the streets,
All against the war,
All for peace.
What do we do?
We go to war.
A war wanted by our leaders
And not needed by our people."
Part of the song then revolves around the names of the countries that have been raked by war, be that international or civil, within our life time and it is frighteningly long - "Indeed an endless list". And for what? What gain has all these wars brought to the people, the common soldiers and their families? What improvement has the mass graves and marble headstones brought to their countries? Has any war benefited the people who actually slogged through the mud and the blood?
It seems to me that whenever the elites order us to fight, it is the common man who goes out to die and the common man's family who follows him into oblivion, not the elites who do the ordering. Why is it that we call barbarians the people who's elites are willing to fight alongside their men? Why are they considered less than civilised when their leaders are willing to take the same risks that they people do?
It has been said that 'vox populi, vox del' (the voice of the people is the voice of God). If that is so then consider this - in 1995, the countries of Southeast Asia spent $435 billion on military expenditure. Not because the people demanded it, you understand; how many peasants do you know who've started a war?
It strikes me that if no war has benefited the common man and no war was started by the common man then surely that means the basic idea of civilisation is flawed. The basic idea of civilisation has been put forward as this - that mankind is a warlike, aggressive creature who requires constant control and domination by a ruling elite for his own good. Take away its leaders and society would degenerate into a chaotic nightmare of bloodshed and destruction. But if no war has benefited the common man and no war has been started by the common man then perhaps that basic idea is only what our leaders want us to believe. After all, if we didn't believe it they wouldn't have a job, would they?
Beneath the Cap
Just seen this publication by Custom Press Publication. 'Beneath the Cap' by Andrew Rae is according to one of the reviewers "the closest any civilian is going to get to putting one that cap with pride, tightening your gun belt, strapping on the bullet proof vest and walking where you fear to tread for the next thirteen hours."
An exploration of the horrors our modern police force are expected to deal with and the black humour that develops to deal with it, 'Beneath the Cap' also explores the public's perception of the emergency and armed forces special brand of humour - 'unfeeling, uncaring and inhuman'. It also tackles the problem of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and the fact that even some in the medical profession are not convinced that it actually exists.
Having come from a service family I fully understand the black humour that abounds among the members of this profession, whether they be armed or emergency. Though I have not served myself (due to my disability I do not react well under pressure and that is not a good thing when someone's life may depend on you) four members of my living family have served and so did two of my known ancestors.
It has been remarked by many that the greater majority of children of service families mature faster than most. Having been a service child I think it is because we absorb, almost by osmosis, the adult issues and coping mechanisms that are been lived out around us. Just as our parents have to copy with the fact that a family member may not return home at the end of the day (last year there were over a hundred attacks on members of the ambulance service alone) so do we. We have to cope with the knowledge of the very real possibility that we may lose a parent or a close relative before we have a chance to say good by.
As such we learn to say sorry a lot quicker than most (we may not have to chance to if we don't) and we also learn that if we laugh at our fears, if we make jokes about them, then we can still function and live, instead of screaming about them, which just results in a trip with the men in white coats.
I have to admit that I was surprised though that even some of the medical profession disbelieve in the existence of PTS Syndrome. Besides the psychological effects of fear (which could be doubted, after all we barely know our own minds how are we to know another's?) there is the physical effect of adrenaline on the human body. I wonder if it has been forgotten in recent times that it has been proven that adrenaline is, to all intents and purposes, a poison. Adrenaline suppresses the appetite, the immunity system and puts a tremendous strain on the cardiovascular system. In a body that is not in ideal surroundings (since when do emergencies take place in ideal surroundings?) it leaves the body open to infection but nobody truly knows what an overdose of adrenaline would do to the human body.
It would be interesting to know what the adrenaline levels of the soldiers who suffered 'shell shock' were during the First World War. Is the 'madness' of shell shock the result of adrenaline poisoning? Now there is a more useful study than some of the modern ones - measuring the correlation between adrenaline level and post traumatic stress syndrome.
The is also the known scientific fact that every time the human body is subjected to the concussion force of an explosion strong enough to shake you, even if it is not strong enough to do any other damage, it rips apart some of the connections within the brain. Discovered in studies of bomb disposal teams, it has been found that over time these cellular tears in the brain add up to the lost of memories. It may be all your memories up unto your fifth birthday, or the memory of the colour of your hair, or maybe the day you asked your wife to marry you or watched your children take their first steps.
What is worse, because you are in an emergency situation when this damage takes place, you have to focus on what is happening and push any personal thoughts out of your head so the first time you notice the loss of memory is when you finally get home. Then you realise that there are gaps in your memory, gaps that you can't refill and that you can't even remember happening. Can any body imagine how scary that must be? To suddenly realise that your memory is falling apart and you can't even work out why. I would be absolutely terrified, suddenly realising that I no longer have full control of my own head.
Is it any wonder that service humour is black? If the enemy doesn't get you, your own brain might fall apart on you and some of the doctors who are meant to be helping you won't even believe that it is happening. Can anybody think of something scarier than that?
An exploration of the horrors our modern police force are expected to deal with and the black humour that develops to deal with it, 'Beneath the Cap' also explores the public's perception of the emergency and armed forces special brand of humour - 'unfeeling, uncaring and inhuman'. It also tackles the problem of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and the fact that even some in the medical profession are not convinced that it actually exists.
Having come from a service family I fully understand the black humour that abounds among the members of this profession, whether they be armed or emergency. Though I have not served myself (due to my disability I do not react well under pressure and that is not a good thing when someone's life may depend on you) four members of my living family have served and so did two of my known ancestors.
It has been remarked by many that the greater majority of children of service families mature faster than most. Having been a service child I think it is because we absorb, almost by osmosis, the adult issues and coping mechanisms that are been lived out around us. Just as our parents have to copy with the fact that a family member may not return home at the end of the day (last year there were over a hundred attacks on members of the ambulance service alone) so do we. We have to cope with the knowledge of the very real possibility that we may lose a parent or a close relative before we have a chance to say good by.
As such we learn to say sorry a lot quicker than most (we may not have to chance to if we don't) and we also learn that if we laugh at our fears, if we make jokes about them, then we can still function and live, instead of screaming about them, which just results in a trip with the men in white coats.
I have to admit that I was surprised though that even some of the medical profession disbelieve in the existence of PTS Syndrome. Besides the psychological effects of fear (which could be doubted, after all we barely know our own minds how are we to know another's?) there is the physical effect of adrenaline on the human body. I wonder if it has been forgotten in recent times that it has been proven that adrenaline is, to all intents and purposes, a poison. Adrenaline suppresses the appetite, the immunity system and puts a tremendous strain on the cardiovascular system. In a body that is not in ideal surroundings (since when do emergencies take place in ideal surroundings?) it leaves the body open to infection but nobody truly knows what an overdose of adrenaline would do to the human body.
It would be interesting to know what the adrenaline levels of the soldiers who suffered 'shell shock' were during the First World War. Is the 'madness' of shell shock the result of adrenaline poisoning? Now there is a more useful study than some of the modern ones - measuring the correlation between adrenaline level and post traumatic stress syndrome.
The is also the known scientific fact that every time the human body is subjected to the concussion force of an explosion strong enough to shake you, even if it is not strong enough to do any other damage, it rips apart some of the connections within the brain. Discovered in studies of bomb disposal teams, it has been found that over time these cellular tears in the brain add up to the lost of memories. It may be all your memories up unto your fifth birthday, or the memory of the colour of your hair, or maybe the day you asked your wife to marry you or watched your children take their first steps.
What is worse, because you are in an emergency situation when this damage takes place, you have to focus on what is happening and push any personal thoughts out of your head so the first time you notice the loss of memory is when you finally get home. Then you realise that there are gaps in your memory, gaps that you can't refill and that you can't even remember happening. Can any body imagine how scary that must be? To suddenly realise that your memory is falling apart and you can't even work out why. I would be absolutely terrified, suddenly realising that I no longer have full control of my own head.
Is it any wonder that service humour is black? If the enemy doesn't get you, your own brain might fall apart on you and some of the doctors who are meant to be helping you won't even believe that it is happening. Can anybody think of something scarier than that?
Wednesday, 17 July 2013
The Good Samaritan
The tale of the Good Samaritan. It's one that we all know, after all it has rather entered the English language to mean those who stretch out their hands to help those in need. If you are anything like me then several of your teachers in Primary School probably read it to you and told you that it was the ideal of what it meant to be a good person; someone who helps others no matter what the danger. But there is a side to the tale that is often swept uunder a rug.
When Jesus first told that story the relationship between Jews and Samaritans could not have been much more hostile. The Samaritans were seen as the result of what happened when some of the Jews, who were left behind when one of their conqueres had carted off most of their people, intermarried with the people their conquerer had sent to Israel to occupy the land. As such they were seen as half breeds, mongels and any other words that means scum. In short people who are "not like us". So when Jesus told that story he was portraying the Samaritans, the people who are "not like us", to be a compassionate, worthy people. In many ways he was attacking the boundaries that the rulers of the time put up to seperate "us" from "them".
So the tale of the Good Samaritan is not just an illustration of the true ideal of what it means to be a good person, it also an illustration of what needs to be done when ever you mean a boundary that seperates "us" from "them" - find a way to cross it. The easiest way to do this? Help someone in need even if they are of a different colour, creed, religion or sexuality from you.
After all, if Jesus came to start his ministery a new in this era who would he go to? The rich, the healthy, the good looking and the heterosexual? Or would he go to the poor, the disabled, the ugly and the homosexuals? Would he go, in short, to the outcaste of society? Considering it was the outcaste, the "sinners", that he went to last time? You don't have to believe he was the Son of God to consider the standard of behaviour he set to be a good one, if not the easy one.
If you had to stand and justify your life to yourself, which would you prefer to say? "I did what was easy" or "I did what was right"?
When Jesus first told that story the relationship between Jews and Samaritans could not have been much more hostile. The Samaritans were seen as the result of what happened when some of the Jews, who were left behind when one of their conqueres had carted off most of their people, intermarried with the people their conquerer had sent to Israel to occupy the land. As such they were seen as half breeds, mongels and any other words that means scum. In short people who are "not like us". So when Jesus told that story he was portraying the Samaritans, the people who are "not like us", to be a compassionate, worthy people. In many ways he was attacking the boundaries that the rulers of the time put up to seperate "us" from "them".
So the tale of the Good Samaritan is not just an illustration of the true ideal of what it means to be a good person, it also an illustration of what needs to be done when ever you mean a boundary that seperates "us" from "them" - find a way to cross it. The easiest way to do this? Help someone in need even if they are of a different colour, creed, religion or sexuality from you.
After all, if Jesus came to start his ministery a new in this era who would he go to? The rich, the healthy, the good looking and the heterosexual? Or would he go to the poor, the disabled, the ugly and the homosexuals? Would he go, in short, to the outcaste of society? Considering it was the outcaste, the "sinners", that he went to last time? You don't have to believe he was the Son of God to consider the standard of behaviour he set to be a good one, if not the easy one.
If you had to stand and justify your life to yourself, which would you prefer to say? "I did what was easy" or "I did what was right"?
Friday, 12 July 2013
Permissive Walkways
I'm not entirely sure why it has taken me this long to get down to writing this blog. It's possible that I've had a touch of the PTS syndrome and I just haven't realised it.
Some months ago I started walking the family dog, Sheba, down the route known as the Wensum Way. This route had recently been updated with new signs and since part of it runs from the village to the river and Sheba is a lover of water she can jump in, I decided to explore. The first few weeks were great with us being able to go further each time we walked it. Then came the day there were cows in the field by the river.
All the signs along the route merely state 'dogs must be kept on leads where there is live stock' so I assume that it must be a herd of cows that were used to people an their dogs. What I didn't realise until I was crossing the end of the field opposite them is that you can't see the all white horns on an all white cow until you are at the right angle to them. At that point I started being nervous. What made me outright afraid is when I realised that they have calves with them.
For those of you who don't know, one of the best ways to get yourself killed on a farm is to take a dog into a field with a cow and her calf. At that point I started praying really hard. What made my prayers really desperate was when I realised that the cow closed to me wasn't a cow, it was the blasted bull! Most people have said 'you should have gone back' but to do that I would have either had to turn my back on them to turn round (not a good idea) or I would have had to have turn myself and the dog to face them (even worse idea as that is the move of a predator and would have threatened them). So I just kept walking slowly, telling the dog over and over to stay quiet, which thankfully she did.
When we made it up onto the embankment by the river I relaxed a little because I believed that no animal would wanted to come up hill towards a potential predator. I even let the dog go and have a paddle. Taking my eye off the herd seems to have been a bad idea though as I looked back to seem one of the (thankfully) uncalved cows coming up the embankment to towards us.
It is weird what the body decides to do under stress because I snapped at her "No! Go away!" She stopped and had a look at us so I said " Go on! Butt off!" (which could have been a bad thing if she'd taken me literately). She looked at me as if she was thinking 'that's not the normal response I get' and put her head down to sniff at the dog. Thankfully, when I started walking along the embankment she didn't follow.
I have rarely been as relieved as I was when I shut that second gate between us and the cows, only to then realise that they were between us and our way home. I was not going to tempt fate a second time so I had a very long way to walk home.
Once I was home safe I started doing some research because there had been no warning signs about the calves or the bull. Apparently if it is a permissive walkway then the farmer has no obligation to put up warning signs about his live stock or to put out any notices. If I had been a city person who had no idea of what to do I could have wound up dead because of one assumption based on the signs saying 'dogs must be kept on a lead around livestock'. That sign gives the impression that the livestock are fine as long as the dog is on a lead.
I was also told that the farmer is only obliged to put up warns if it is a public footpath but if it is a public footpath then it's not allowed to be a working farm. However, I know this to be wrong because there are many pubic footpaths in Wales that go along the edge of crop baring fields. A crop baring field only happens on a working farm.
I have also discovered a detour around the river portion of the Wensum way through the village and I have used it to check on the field by the river. The cows are still there and I'm beginning to get the distinct impression that they will remain there while the permissive walkway continues to be routed over that land. So much for paddling in the river during summer.
Some months ago I started walking the family dog, Sheba, down the route known as the Wensum Way. This route had recently been updated with new signs and since part of it runs from the village to the river and Sheba is a lover of water she can jump in, I decided to explore. The first few weeks were great with us being able to go further each time we walked it. Then came the day there were cows in the field by the river.
All the signs along the route merely state 'dogs must be kept on leads where there is live stock' so I assume that it must be a herd of cows that were used to people an their dogs. What I didn't realise until I was crossing the end of the field opposite them is that you can't see the all white horns on an all white cow until you are at the right angle to them. At that point I started being nervous. What made me outright afraid is when I realised that they have calves with them.
For those of you who don't know, one of the best ways to get yourself killed on a farm is to take a dog into a field with a cow and her calf. At that point I started praying really hard. What made my prayers really desperate was when I realised that the cow closed to me wasn't a cow, it was the blasted bull! Most people have said 'you should have gone back' but to do that I would have either had to turn my back on them to turn round (not a good idea) or I would have had to have turn myself and the dog to face them (even worse idea as that is the move of a predator and would have threatened them). So I just kept walking slowly, telling the dog over and over to stay quiet, which thankfully she did.
When we made it up onto the embankment by the river I relaxed a little because I believed that no animal would wanted to come up hill towards a potential predator. I even let the dog go and have a paddle. Taking my eye off the herd seems to have been a bad idea though as I looked back to seem one of the (thankfully) uncalved cows coming up the embankment to towards us.
It is weird what the body decides to do under stress because I snapped at her "No! Go away!" She stopped and had a look at us so I said " Go on! Butt off!" (which could have been a bad thing if she'd taken me literately). She looked at me as if she was thinking 'that's not the normal response I get' and put her head down to sniff at the dog. Thankfully, when I started walking along the embankment she didn't follow.
I have rarely been as relieved as I was when I shut that second gate between us and the cows, only to then realise that they were between us and our way home. I was not going to tempt fate a second time so I had a very long way to walk home.
Once I was home safe I started doing some research because there had been no warning signs about the calves or the bull. Apparently if it is a permissive walkway then the farmer has no obligation to put up warning signs about his live stock or to put out any notices. If I had been a city person who had no idea of what to do I could have wound up dead because of one assumption based on the signs saying 'dogs must be kept on a lead around livestock'. That sign gives the impression that the livestock are fine as long as the dog is on a lead.
I was also told that the farmer is only obliged to put up warns if it is a public footpath but if it is a public footpath then it's not allowed to be a working farm. However, I know this to be wrong because there are many pubic footpaths in Wales that go along the edge of crop baring fields. A crop baring field only happens on a working farm.
I have also discovered a detour around the river portion of the Wensum way through the village and I have used it to check on the field by the river. The cows are still there and I'm beginning to get the distinct impression that they will remain there while the permissive walkway continues to be routed over that land. So much for paddling in the river during summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)