Tag Archive: God


I watched some videos online the other day, by a legal expert in the US, saying it would be OK, in law, to lie to Mr Assange to lure him to a place where they could kidnap him.  I understand the feeling of what he is living with, in terms of the threat and uncertainty (even though I do not know that my life is in danger) living with threat from authorities (and non-authorities) in different ways. 

I don’t think there is anything I can do, but I wish it wasn’t happening to him.  I feel like pleading with him, ‘please don’t die’.

It shouldn’t be legally OK to lie to anyone.  Certainly not for government bodies.  But they do it all the time.  For our protection, they say. 

I don’t want a society riddled with and ‘protected’ by lies.  Some Christians quote Rahab who hid the spies and lied about where they had gone, as being an example of when lying is right.  But the Bible says ‘God is not a man, that He should lie’.  It also says ‘Walk before me and be thou perfect’.  In the New Testament it also says ‘put off lying one to another’ and ‘let no corrupt communication come out of your mouth’.

For me these are heart and covenant verses, and the only ones I can remember out of my own head.  But no one has the right to argue, based on what they see from my limited memory, that the whole issue is a covenant thing and that there are some circumstances, therefore, when lying is right to, or about, certain people.

The reason I say this is that the New Testament isn’t big on self-protection, not for Christians.  We are told to honour all men, and to do good to all (even though it does say especially to those wo are of the household of faith, that doesn’t mean it is OK to do evil to someone else, even if the law demands that they be punished for a crime). 

If the law allows lying, the law is a mess.  Why should the only sanctified place of honour be in court, where it becomes illegal to lie?  Think how much time and money and distress would be saved to so many, if only lying itself, in whatever circumstances, was a crime.  Why isn’t lying, such an abusive and dishonorable thing, a crime?  So that lawyers can continue getting fat?

The New Testament isn’t big on self-protection or for terrestrial country being on a par with God.  Christians were encouraged to accept death for refusing to say, ‘Caesar is Lord’.  I think that encouragement was right.  People are not perfect.  Even if the only acceptable point being made here for some people is that the individual’s conscience comes before any allegiance to king and country (or continent, or one world government, since that is obviously what people are trying to practice, it doesn’t have to be treated with sensationalism for it obviously to be true), I believe that is the point that has to win the day, over and above loyalty to earthly government and authorities.

The spies might have been covenant people, but they were also ordinary men. Who wouldn’t be grateful for having their lives saved?  If in rewarding the woman for that they affirmed lying, they were wrong.  The Bible says she was also a harlot, whatever that means, maybe it isn’t it’s modern meaning.  They weren’t, surely, rewarding and affirming that, if it was what is understood by the word today.  They were showing human gratitude and mercy.  Who knows, maybe they should never have involved the name of God in the transaction at all.  It was a normal, human response to someone who has saved your life.

The fact that someone uses an exalted tone doesn’t make them right.  Maybe they didn’t use an exalted tone, maybe it is just the way I have heard it read and carressed in Church.  I think a verbal carress expresses joy and gratitude and strong feeling.  it is not necessarily an indicator of truth, even though you might feel that people capable of expressing such strong and positive feelings can’t possibly be wrong.  People and their feelings should never be idolised.  Feelings rely on information.  Information might be wrong, or wrongly understood.  No one should ever say to another, ‘I am so and so, do as I say’, unless it is in a clear matter of law.  That is why, I believe, we need to be dispassionate and not inflammatory, if a safe world is what we want.

Advertisements

I’m afraid, really afraid, that my neighbours might hurt me.  They are getting as close as they can, hammering on my ceiling like that, so violently, so contemptuously, even when I’m asleep.  And commenting every time I cough or any other sound is heard to escape from my body.  Forgive me being so specific, but I need you to understand how this feels.  I also wish that, instead of just reading, you would act responsibly.  I know people read, it is in my statisitics, including the posts that are read and how many times.  Yet most of the time you don’t coment or do anything, and if you did you might penalise me by going to mental health people instead of dealing with the perpetrators. The churches I have mentioned refer to the material on my blog all the time, and do nothing.  So does everyone else, but the thing is, the church does, and not only does it stand back, it takes part in the stalking.  Someone did it back to Bruce Atkinson two Sunday nights ago.  I think from what I saw they began to get the message.  But no one showed any reaction to the incident that I was aware of, until after I watched my recording a week later, last Sunday afternoon, then in the evening Nottingham Christian Centre was all of a flutter, so I suppose they were hacking my computer to know that I had seen it finally, or they found out from somewhere.  I think I had seen it in time for the 2.30 pm service at Kensington Temple, because that is when I think I saw them react.

I told the estate agents I thought my neighbours were going to the media and taking money instead of going to the police, because of what I’m hearing from BBC World News, specifics about what is happening here and how I react.  I told them what is happening in the media and what has been happening for years, including my time here.  One of the presenters on the BBC World News was speaking really sweetly then escalated to loud and aggressive and driving, and as they did my neighbour from upstairs hammered on my ceiling, and when I shouted back he hammered again, and when I kept going he hammered again, and he won’t go to the police, although I’ve suggested he should, even if angrily, and the man on now, 5.38 pm UK time, is doing all the subtle word substitutions and talking about schitz.  These are evil savages, both those in the studio co-operating, and it is obviously knowingly, and those doing the driving and the cut offs behind them.

I’m afraid my neighbours might try to hurt me.  I’ve made it clear that I believe they are talking to the media and taking money.  I feel stupid, but I also feel afraid to go out.

I can’t contact my landlord, and I know the police and the British Embassy don’t respond.  I’ve done all that as well.  And the media – soft, purring, presumptuous, alternated with violent and aggressive, swine.

BBC World News have been clawing at me all afternoon.  Brainwashing with violence.  There was a programme made up of emails, I think, which did a role call of many significant names in my life, with no exceptions I was aware of, they were all significant, and they ended with my own name.  Weekend World.  I can’t contact my landlord.

BBC World News

It is 11.42 am here, 9.42 am in the UK

I was just watching BBC World News, and they were up to their usual tricks.  Squawking porcelain skinned blonde girl ending up with ‘that is how it is for some people’, and me thinking that’s what I said, but it is true for me and not for her, or at the very least it is true for the people I live among, while she has probably chosen to live among privileged people, if she has had that all her life or not. A very aggressive, angry cat indeed.  Interestingly enough, it was followed up by a very peaceful scene of a mother big cat (lion or something) suckling her cub, and I felt really angry and upset because of what seemed to me deliberate jarring and provocation.

The Indian girl who was doing the main report, just before Hardtalk, ended up with a story and adopted a strict, telling off, disciplinarian tone to say the decision had been taken in order to protect the crew, and she used exactly the same tone with a hard stare to say immediately afterwards, ‘This is BBC World News’.

I’m upset, OK?  Everyone knows that, they know there is good reason, and they carry on regardless, don’t change and do nothing to help.  So me, I change quickly, normally, if I believe I am wrong.  That is how my heart works.  It’s working that way now.  I’m not only afraid of reprisals for what I’m about to say, but I also feel like backing off from it because I believe I might be wrong to say it.

However, in light of the fact that these people don’t change and don’t operate that way, and in light of the fact that they keep patching this incitement and intimidation together, and in light of the fact that they have been using me and my family for years, knowing what is happening to us and the effect it has had on us as individuals and as a family, I am now saying that if they are trying to say that the decision to stalk us was taken to protect themselves (there was obviously some significance in the way she rounded this off), I am now saying, and I call on people to witness this, that I am now asking God to remove their protection. I personally find what they have done and are doing disgusting and disgraceful and very distressing, so does my sister, and my brother was somehow roped into a documentary interview following a murder inquiry in Nottingham and they keep using and abusing him as well (a comedian on one of the cookery programmes last weekend is just one example, either Something for the Weekend or Saturday Kitchen, it started off with sea urchins and ended up with this comedian doing my brother to a tee and going on like a moron, which my brother is not, he is just as traumatised by all this and other things as we all are).  I love my brother.  I just feel tears in my stomach when I think about him.  So personally I find it disgusting and disgraceful, as I have said, as well as still maintaining that it is completely illegal.  And I am praying for the removal of their protection, and believing God for it to happen in the Name of Jesus.

There you are, now they will call me fanatical and dangerous and increase the mental health angle attack.  Just keep watching, and wait and see.

PS I have to stop believing that, because these ladies appear in perfect make up, underneath it all they are lovely, reasonable people who just want to help.  They are not.  If they were they would use the right legal channels, and they don’t.

Dear Clyde Sandry

You can go off people, you know!

I’ve just listened to most of your sermon this Sunday, and you are using words you have somehow got from my recent communications with other people and off the back of them you are shouting at me.  “Dearth”, for instance, is one of those words, which I used in an email to someone whose spirituality would be abhorrent to you.

If I had really understood before what I believe I understand now, I could have resisted you awful, monstrous impressions of Christians years ago.

You are using my love against me, and are trying to force me for some reason to take a path, even though you have used the law against me, that does not resolve my situation through the proper application of the law which has become necessary through your own actions with regard to me.

David Shearman, since my mid teens, has treated me as a thing loathed and despised.  I knew no better than to keep trying to win his love and approval, hoping one day I would be impressive enough for him.  I used to think, at least 90%, that if I came to church driving a nice car and looking in control of my life, I might have a bit of a chance of something.

If these people have somehow been persuaded to pass my emails on to you and to treat me as you have historically treated me yourselves, then all of you, normally having no time for each other’s spirituality, have come together to force/control/exclude/invalidate me, and that, if it is true in any detail, is disgusting of all of you.

You know how much I long for a kind and loving touch.  You must do, you seem to have access to my communications.  I want to tell you, in your 1950’s attire and mimicking what you have heard of me on the phone in years gone by before you even start to speak (William Lee does the same thing), you are monstrous dogs and I hope I somehow manage to recover what is left of my life and to live without you.

You are complete moral cowards.  You throw reminders of my childhood at me that you seem to have gathered from my family somehow (how did you persuade them?), all the time knowing I just want to be contacted and spoken to normally and told what you want, but you either will not or dare not take that route, and keep piling the pressure on me until my health and confidence are breaking down.

Although I feel inclined to beg, given the material you have been using, I wish to completely disassociate myself from all the methods you are using to put pressure on me and force a response.  I can’t see why you need to hide in this way.

My only access to you is through legal means.  Yours is riddled with illegality.

If David Shearman’s sermon last Sunday was preached last Sunday, why does he say in it that he has been speaking to his father, who died two years ago?

I can’t fight you, you are too strong for me, both in number and in your ability to use years of love, hope and pain against me, in your apparent ability to persuade people to help you and believe they are being helped by you in putting me under your illegal authority (unless you are getting everything from hacking my computer), and in your stupid, bullish bullying.  If this is how you treat vulnerable and legally disenfranchised people when you are desperate (and it is, I know from past experience), I don’t want anything to do with you ever again, I want you to take your hands off me and everything to do with me, shut up and tell people what you have been doing to me and the fears you have been playing on.

You are gross and I hate you.  I don’t care who is impressed with you, I have been up close since my teens and I know better.   I want you to leave me alone and I want nothing else to do with you.  You are perverse in your harassment, and dishonest.  If you want me to change my mind on that then you have a bit of repenting and apologising to do, to me, with other people’s knowledge.

Although inwardly I am crying, and afraid to take such a stand towards people who have claimed to represent Jesus to me for so long and have claimed a right to acknowledgment of that fact, I will not change my mind and I will not come to you, crying or otherwise.  You are being deliberately provocative because you are too proud to be honest about your sin to a much younger woman that you have harmed.

All on my own, with my own squeaky little mouse voice, knowing how much you can still hurt and rape and provoke, deliberately, if I continue to listen to you (in the sense of hear your words over the internet), I say something I am not supposed to say and something which is completely against my nature to say to you, and that is, “go to hell, all of you”.  Your words are a complete molestation, posturing as intimate and discrete, there is nothing discrete about them, they are plain, criminal cowardice.  I hate what you are doing, you are making me ill.

If you want my help you can ask for it, otherwise I will never go back on anything I have said here, and if I do, I will be wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353989/WikiLeaks-Police-sex-files-Julian-Assange-leaked-online.html?ITO=1490

I don’t feel able to comment on my feelings about these revelations, if they are true.

However, this is obviously a tit for tat move by whoever it was that made it.  I am supposing that the leaks, authorised or not,  must have come from someone inside the police force.

The obvious problem with this, it seems to me, is that this is an official body leaking details of allegations against an individual, before they have even been proved or the man found guilty.

I watched a video clip on Saturday of Mr Assange speaking via video link to a conference in Australia, and he said that ‘we believe in transparent power, not transparent individuals’.

I don’t like that either/or approach these days.  It’s what is known as a false dichotomy, I think, or is at least along the same lines.  It’s the ‘you have a choice between 2 options’ line, and it is always used to force a decision, I think, and closes down a person’s thinking. A little bit of wry, naughty humour coming in while I am writing, I think the best way to deal with this if you are faced with it might sometimes be to choose the option you know the person presenting the choice doesn’t want you to choose, if they are not open to reason.  Then they have to deal with it, not you.   If they are not open to reason, why would you want to go with them anyway?  It’s manipulative and coercive, although the person presenting the option doesn’t always realise that, they think it is the way to do it, sometimes.  It’s main concern, I think, is the maintenance of a method or way of doing things, or power of some description.

But there are three alleged offenses here, two of them obvious and one of them not.  The two obvious ones are the leaks from both Wikileaks and the police.  the one which isn’t obvious because not provable is the sexual offenses allegations.

Out of these three, if all of them are true, how many of them actually stand as crimes right now without further investigation?

If interception of communications and computer hacking are held to be crimes, Wikileaks has obviously committed a crime right there.  But possibly the government can’t afford to be too strong on that one, because the government has a policy to use that.  I think they have used it with me, a private individual,  without my knowledge.  Because they suspected me of something or thought I might be some sort of a threat?  I don’t know.  They have never told me and have refused to talk about it, referring me to mental health agencies whenever I have asked how I can find out if it is happening (Joan Ruddock’s senior case worker).  I repeat, for saying I thought it might be happening and asking how I could find out, I was referred to mental health agencies and told they did not know how I could find out.  If the government wants to continue to hide this kind of thing, it isn’t going to major on the hacking itself as being a crime.  It will major on the security risks of the actual information leaked (which apparently, according to a news programme I watched yesterday, Mr Assange first presented to the government, who refused to talk to him, before he actually leaked the information.  I suppose they knew he was a computer hacker at that point, and they made no effort to have him arrested for that, so I suppose they do not see that as a crime or, if they do, it is one they are also committing and it would therefore be too embarrassing for them to have him accused of the same thing.  The leaks talk about Hillary Clinton, for example, getting passwords to the accounts of people in the UN).

I think computer hacking is a crime, whoever does it, and that both of these bodies, Wikileaks and the government, are guilty of the same crime, by their own admission and policy.  But they have ruled that out of the equation.  Instead, one could theorise, the pursuit of Mr Assange has been diverted to a pursuit over sexual allegations, in order to get him for everything else?  If there is a real security breach, why have they not acted sooner on that nderstanding, and if he has committed a crime over that, in any way, why have they not arrested him for that, and not just for the sex allegations?  Is it because English law does not consider he has committed a crime, and that is why extradition to Sweden, for questioning, in spite of his constant (so we are told) co-operation with the police over the sexual allegations, is being considered as a first step in enabling an illegal rendition to the USA where he might find himself either in Guantanamo or condemned to death?  This is what is being presented.  This whole process is being presented as illegal, by his lawyers.  If it is illegal the UK should not be supporting it, because in doing so we become an accessory to a crime.

The sex allegations, even if they are true, are complicated by some factors, and might not be able to be proved as rape.  If the accounts are true, it would appear there was obviously a relationship in the context of which it happened.  I think it is not possible to make an assessment and come to a conclusion about his motivation, if it happened.  It says she normally wanted him to wear a condom, and he didn’t, but when awake she allowed him to continue.  Not knowing myself how long it was after this that the allegation of rape was made, I can’t guess at why she made it.  But she allowed him to continue.  Maybe on hindsight she realised it had been rape and felt differently.  To my mind, if she was asleep when it happened, and it was in a way which she had made clear she didn’t want (unprotected) it seems obvious rape might be a reasonable thing to call it.  But at the moment, according to what I have read, that is under debate as the question of whether what happened while she was asleep counts as rape ‘has not been tested by the justice system’.  If it happened.  If it did I think possibly it should be judged as rape.  Swedish law says that sometimes it would be, but in this case it has been thrown out by judges and I don’t know why.  But personally (not with legal knowledge) I also think his intention and understanding of the relationship at the time should be taken into account.  But (if it happened) he knew she didn’t want unprotected sex (if I have read it right).  So he would have to be judged mentally incapable, it seems to me, if the allegations were upheld and they were not treated as rape.  I keep saying ‘if it happened’.  That is my personal point of ignorance. I don’t know if he has acknowledged anything.  Everything I am writing is based on an assumption that he has not agreed that any of this happened.  That might be where my argument falls completely to pieces, but it might not.

Out of the three things involved, the sexual allegations, the leaks made by Wikileaks and the leaks made by the police, if we dismiss the issue of computer hacking about which there appears to be no legal clarity acknowledged, it seems to me there is only one indisputable crime, the leaks made by the police about the allegations made against Mr Assange.  I find it so enormously monstrous I can hardly address it.  This has to be the dirty tricks department at its worst.

It seems to me it compromises the trial.  It seems to me it is a gross breach of Mr Assange’s human rights (and also those of the women who have brought the allegations), and it is gross professional misconduct.  I don’t have to like any of what I am saying or think that I personally have a right to say it for it to be true.  If it is true, whether or not I have a right to say it doesn’t alter that fact.  It is an attempt to short-circuit the process of law, and probably in this case something even worse.  Perhaps I can’t make a categorical statement because perhaps the law is not this clear.  Not being a lawyer I don’t know.  But I think this is a clear case of perverting the course of justice, from whoever was responsible within the Swedish police force for the decision to release this information.

As a victim of computer hacking, I can’t condone the methods used by Wikileaks.  This may appear simplistic, who decides what the ‘right hands’ are and on what basis, and what can you do when those hands become the wrong hands?  But that does not mean that the course of justice should be perverted in the way the organisation or its founder is dealt with.  People speak against Anarchy.  But this is Anarchy from the top down, against the people they govern.  It is something I have experienced personally for over a decade, to my own knowledge.  I’m a Christian.  We need help.  We are in trouble, and maybe we always have been.  Maybe it only seems so bad to me, now, because this is when I am alive and experiencing it.

In the Book of Ezra, when the people are brought back to God, a call goes out, ‘to the word, and to the testimony’.  I’m not sure – I’ve just become sure.  I think this is applicable here because, however much the law is subject to change, what we do now needs to be based on the law as it is now, not as we would like it to be, and what happened in the past should be judged on the laws that were applicable then, not now, with regards to monitoring people’s communications.  That is the position of the European Court of Human Rights Act.  To me that seems just and the only way to maintain order and accountability in the way things are dealt with.  I love my leaders (at least, they make me feel that way.  They make me feel they love me too).  It is hard for me to say I think they have run riot, but I do.  The recovery we need is not only financial.  I believe that, as a society, we are in serious trouble.

Final note:  I realised while tagging this that I have forgotten to take the Freedom of Information Act into account.  Everyone is emoting over this, including Hillary Clinton (you can be an emotional woman for the war but not against it?), but it seems possible to me, not having kept up with any of this, that the information contained in the leaks should have been available anyway under the Freedom of Information Act introduced by Tony Blair, but it wasn’t.  I’m not sure how the Freedom of Information Act works in relation to the Official Secrets Act and whether some of the ‘spade a spade’ brigade would be right in calling the Freedom of Information Act a Mickey Mouse thing anyway.  But if the information contained in the leaks should have been available and wasn’t, and if the government turned Mr Assange away anyway when he went to them with it, it is dishonest that these people, who definitely would have known he knew this before the leaks were made, should now be presenting theselvesas so much ‘up in arms’ about it.  That is downright hypocrisy (sorry, I’m getting angry).

Tony Blair was quoted as saying he wishes he had never introduced the Freedom of Information Act and that it was one of the worst things he ever did.  He is entitled to feel that and entitled to his opinion.  But his feelings and opinion do not make the Wikileaks revelations wrong if, under that act, the information should have been available. We can’t say, “Tony wishes he had never done it, so we can call the Wikileaks leaks a risk to security and get cross about it”, if the informations should have been available anyway.  Maybe it shouldn’t have been, ma ybe there are exceptions under the Official Secrets Act to the Freedom of Information Act’s applicability to this kind of information, but I don’t know and I haven’t heard it discussed.  But if there is no exception there is no case against Wikileaks or Mr Assange for this unless it is computer hacking and invasion of privacy, and those are much lesser charges.  And to be extradited for questioning, at least in this case of sex allegations, is being presented as illegal, and he is supposed to have co-operated freely all along anyway, so excuse me, can someone please tell me what this is all about????  He’s not Jesus and he might be completely unsavoury in so many ways, but why is this being done to this man???? (I’ll keep my swearing to myself on this occasion).  And who else would they do it to if they got away with doing it to him?  It’s called setting a precedent.  We can’t let it happen.  Wake up, everyone.  Reality calls.  Possibly a man’s life is at stake, illegally.  Does anyone care?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                  

This matters to me so much partly because the last set of leaks from Wikileaks came at a time which felt personally significant for me, and so I feel implicated in whatever happens to Mr Assange.  In his communications he has used some references which are very easy for me to apply personally, including one about saving the whales not being the issue, but the freedom of information involved in making the decision.  For me that is very close to home, because one of Michael Mish’s musicals is called “The Boy Who Talked to Whales”, and for me the whale was, more than anything else, about the freedom of the human spirit.  That was how I understood it.  I am not saying that was Michael Mish’s intention.  Michael is, among other things, an environmentalist.  He could actually be offended (though I don’t think so) that what for him is a serious environmental issue is being reduced (or expanded) in that way, without regard for the issue itself.

There were other touch points in his address to the conference in Australia as well.  So whether or not I have been manipulated into this by a form of stalking, I do feel responsible for what happens to him, because I have believed that, if he released the leaks at the time he did in order to help me, he did so understanding the risks he might be taking.  Believing that to be a possibility I cannot be silent.  I know that someone handling his communication reads my blog and I hope they will contact me.

“Glory to God!”

Colin Dye (for I think it was he) was going on this morning about treasure in earthern vessels and glory going to God and not to us.

Right.  First the way He talked about glory going to God.  It was down – “the glory goes to God and not to us”, and it leaves the hearers feeling awed or maybe even guilty “oh, we are such awful people, we must give more glory to God”.  The Bible says God beautifies and glorifies His church.  It should have been a joyful statement, not a dour one making everyone afraid of taking God’s glory.  God is glorified in our joy.  The Bible says that Jesus was anointed with joy above His fellows, because He loved righteousness and hated wickedness.  How does God get glory if we go around dark and full of foreboding and fear of not getting it right?

Second, I fail to see how God is glorified in the way they harass me anyway.  They follow everything I do on the internet and criticise it.  They criticise my isolation, they criticise me waiting for someone else to make a decisive move.

Stalking is wrong.  Hacking communications is wrong and completely counter freedom.  End of.  They even know the comments I leave on other blogs.  I only have to refer you to their body language and their shifty eyes.  They keep up a torrent of language, to what end and to what purpose, and with what motive?  To make you forget that what you believe is right?  And that what they have done is wrong?  I think so.

They talk about mercy, but they want it for themselves.  I want it for their victims first.  Which are many.

The Children of God, a group considered to be a cult, operated a principle called “heavenly deception”.  At the Christian Centre in my teens (over 30 years ago) I was told this was wrong and that they could be considered a cult partly because of that, let alone the sexual activity.  Yet these churches are now doing the same thing (except it is hardly deception, in a sense, anymore, at least, not to me because I know) and it is supposed to be OK.

Roberts Liardon is on tonight.  Poor man, what an unfortunate name.  Liar-don (some people won’t get it!)

David Wellington said this morning, “can we have the words please?”, which felt like he was asking for an apology to be given in words.  Who was he asking (except he obviously wasn’t, he was talking about the words for the songs)?  It felt as if he was asking me.  I feel as if I should apologise every time I write.  So here we are, in words, “I’m sorry”.  Now what?

“I’m sorry”.  For what?  For being so unkind and rebellious in my response to the beautiful way you portray the fact that you are sorry you have ruined my life and that you want to make amends?  Is that it?

Around the time I went to the police in 2009 David Cameron’s speech at the party conference portrayed my situation perfectly, and the song the conference used was, “Then I Saw Her Face, Now I’m A Believer”.   Ive wondered since then if he . . . this is where traditionally they can say you are deluded and psychotic.  Except I feel really treacherous, because I felt almost as if he saved my life, at that point.  But he didn’t.  It was a nice illusion, maybe for both of us.  They are not saving my life now in maintaining my benefits even though they know I have been out of the country for over a year.  They are just prolonging the agony when they should be dealing with the situation openly and head on.  I’m expected to be grateful, but you shouldn’t be grateful for what is wrong.  The continuance of my benefits while they reflect my own stuff back to me to say quite what, I am not sure, is evasion of something awful, and nothing else.

My writing is awful.  The way people come on at me with a torrent of words, using everything they know about me, almost searching for me as if in a seance, leaves me emotionally raped.  Either something spiritual really is happening in what they are doing, or they are acting it.  Both options are equally evil and cynical and hateful.  I’m not just talking about the church.  Read my other rants and you’ll get an idea of the people and organisations I’m on about.

Maybe all that has happened is my crazy speeding mind has slowed down because I’ve listened to people like Michael Mish, and I now find the torrent that others think is normal crazy and disturbing.  Whether it is or not I’m not sure.

In fact, not only crazy and disturbing, but used like a deliberate hammer or pick axe, to extract whatever ore they can find.  It’s a bit like a tongue loosener.

And the backsnaps (some people will understand).  I read about someone being tortured once by being forced to stand bolt uprught without moving, for hours.  The effect of the onslaught is like that.  Somehow you have to make a conscious effort to disconnect, except when you have screamed out all your hysterical rubbish and they are still going on and progressing it further, it is so hard.  And all the time they are doing it it is as if I’m not even there, even though all their remarks seemed to be aimed at me.

OK, another name call.  That happened to Katie Melua on Saturday Kitchen yesterday.  That’s all I’m saying, that it happened.  I’m not expressing a feeling about it.  I wouldn’t dare.

Yes, we should.  It is the only way to understand each other and live in peace with each other.  David Cameron is right.

But he is wrong about which language it should be.

The language should be mutual respect and respect for human rights, not the spoken language of your adopted country.  The problem arises if we let people in who are against our values in the first place.  What could happen then is that people learn our language (English, in our case) and subvert it to use it against us.  People who don’t speak our language coming in to the country are not our problem, but people who don’t share our values.

What are our values?  I don’t know!  Get any group of White Anglo Saxons together and you can have just as many culture clashes as you can with anyone else, even though we have been here for generations as the dominant group.  The loud mouths.  “It’s all the fault of the immigrants, coming into our country and stealing our jobs”.  If people have to make an enemy out of someone and unite against them, I have been taught that is possibly all they agree about, and some of those do it because they wouldn’t feel safe to disagree.   Correction, some of us, because we all do it sometimes.

But not speaking the language of the country should not be a problem, because there are ways around that.

Respect is the thing.  If we provide translations (or anything) but resent doing so, that communicates and damages relationships.  Or the people working with the translations, the officials and what have you who, for some reason, don’t really value different cultures but are doing a job because if they don’t they are financially penalised, if they can’t stand the people they serve or work with, how is that going to help anyone?  I know the answer is obvious and so does my reader.  “It isn’t”.

Translators are people who love language.  They problably love the culture that goes with it as well, otherwise they might not have got that far (I managed to take French to first year degree level myself, starting at the age of 9 or 10.  My best exam mark for it was an A at ‘O’ level, as it was before GCSEs.  My worst might have been an E at ‘A’ level.  I put it down to the increased literature element and my inconsistent attendance).

What if translators of English into other languages translated our literature for the non-English speaking people that live among us, and we also got their literature in translation?  This must be distress at its worst, because I know I’m talkiing garbage because I know that obviously happens, now I say so.  That’s what snakebite does for you, it has you all over the place!

But . . .  national identity doesn’t depend on us all speaking English, and you can’t blame the foreigners for the fact that there are many clashing value systems in our country, because that is true without them.

If we maintain respect there is no reason why we should push for integration.  People want to maintain their own identities, that is natural, especially in a strange place.  And why should it be seen as unhealthy if some of them never want to do anything else?  Saying that kind of thing about what someone wants makes them angry and miserable and promotes discrimination and prejudice.

We can keep the separate communities.  We can celebrate difference.  We can enable learning about each other within our own communities.  We don’t have to mix it, we can keep it separate, if that is easier, and let different communities be taught what they need to know by their own people and anyone else able to communicate with them that they accept.

Why, these days, should a non-English speaking child be thrust into an English taught school and therefore be at a disadvantage?  We can’t all learn another language, it doesn’t come naturally to some people.  Some people have problems with their own language, let alone someone else’s.  And there was plenty of illiteracy in England before mass immigration, so it isn’t fair to say we are being slowed down.  And why should the focus be language skills anyway?  What about other necessary skills?  There are some jobs you can do quite happily without needing to yap at everyone.  Some jobs might be better done that way.  Artisan type jobs, for example.

Let’s celebrate everything!  Different cultures, different gifts and skills.  It doesn’t have to be onerous and pedestrian, it can be a constant, joyous flux and flow.

People keep up trade links with their own countries anyway.  Why force people to integrate who can’t or don’t want to?  As long as we can establish and maintain respect between the communities there is nothing wrong with separateness where people want to be separate and coming together where they want that.  I’m thinking that education, at least in the first years, should be within the child’s own ethnic community, because that is where they will be happiest.  And what’s wrong with having further and higher education that way as well, all within our own country?  Why should we invade or insist on dragging out into the open the private place of someone else’s cultural identity?

It’s about choice.  Choice creates industry and jobs.  This is something there is both a need and a demand for.

I say, back to basics.  Back to reality.  Stop blaming people and trying to create jobs selling things people don’t need like food, for instance, with all kinds of subliminal messages attached (why else do you think we are obese and lazy?  But those who sell it and know the methods they use to sell it still turn round and blame us and say we are a burden on the tax payer.  Well, some tax payers are a burden on everyone!).  Start providing instead the things we actually need to make society work – people skills, philosophy, values, the arts, beauty, (shh erm – religion?)

Quack quack, said the silly duck, it’s time for another industrial revolution.

Hey, this is the 21st century! (I never thought I’d say that!)  David, what kind of leader says, “you must learn our language, or you can’t come here”?  Different isn’t bad, it’s different.  It’s an opportunity.

This is so outrageous I can hardly believe you mean it.  I watch the most serious things these days and find myself laughing as if it is a comedy, sometimes.  Does everyone end up saying, as they get older, “the world has gone mad”?  Because I did last night.

If we are going to say to people, “you can’t come here unless you learn our language”, what about the people here who already don’t speak it? Are we going to end up having an ethnic purge?  Shall I being the mental health system into this?  Yes, I think I might, because in many ways it is the same kind of thing.  Ethnic purge.  That is a real danger.  There are elements, including among those in power, who after stopping entry by others who can’t speak the language/don’t share our values, will next turn on those already living among us, and that wouldn’t be pretty at all.  David Cameron, you seriously need to rethink this.  You can’t make people conform at will without damaging relationships. There would also be a backlash from some people already here from countries from which some people were not allowed access.

By the way, when I talked about snakebite earlier – I had just watched the Andrew Marr Show before I wrote this and I first thought of that phrase after hearing William Hague talking.

I think among our human rights should be the right to be inadequate and incapable, if that is what our lives have done to us, without it bearing any kind of stigma at all.  I wonder if that is possible while the great god the tax payer gets invoked against everyone that is or feels that way?

This society stinks, it is so abusive.  But it is probably not that much different from many others.  Jesus said you can’t serve God and mammon.

He also pointed out that the Bible says in one of the Psalms that we are gods, and the scriptures cannot be broken.  I used to think that was sarcasm, but would the Jesus I have been taught about have been sarcastic about scripture?  No, He wouldn’t.  Is the Jesus I have been taught about the real Jesus?  Unquestionably!  Jesus defended the scripture that says we are gods.  He would not have been sarcastic about scripture.  And we can’t serve each other (God/gods) and money as well.

I apologise for my style, but I watch and listen to so much rubbish.  It seems to be all there is available.

I posted something with a similar title a few weeks ago, which I edited and expanded today and published under today’s date, and although it has appeared under some of its original tags it has not appeared under others, some of them major categories, so I’m posting this very changed and updated version for the categories in which it does not appear today, along with some extra ones which have occured to me while checking the others.

It looks as if these categories do not allow repeat posts, even if vastly updated and published on a different date.  I hope if this is the case it will be changed.

The updated post is as follows, and I have updated it in this way because I think rigorous thinking about this is essential.  Some people might not find it rigorous enough or might wish my rigour came down on the side of international security, and I respect that.

The Post

(Mr Assange) and his lawyers fear extradition which may result in him being transferred to the US and possibly subjected to the death penalty or sent to Guantanamo.

I want him to be OK.  I don’t want any harm to come to him.  I don’t want him extradited.  Even if he has done something wrong, in Britain we don’t have the death penalty anymore, and our news agencies have publicly opposed and criticised Guantanamo for ages, though I haven’t taken much notice of the government’s position so I don’t know what it is. 

Maybe I am just a gullible, emotional woman who doesn’t understand what is involved in regaining/maintaining national and international security, but I think a lot of people would agree with me that, even if he has done something wrong, we would prefer for it to be dealt with differently.  I hope no one is thinking that if he is taken out of the picture that Wikileaks will fall apart, because I think that would be lazy and unjust.

If we have been told the truth, it wouldn’t be fair to extradite him on the basis of the charges which have been brought against him.  We have been told that he has co-operated in every way with the authorities over the sex accusations made against him, right from the beginning.  If that is true I can’t see how exradition over those charges could be justfified, and if extradition is a real threat and not just an exaggerated fear, I think the people thinking of resorting to this should stop the pretence that it is because of the sex allegations over which he has co-operated for months, from the beginning, and make their intentions and the reasons for them clear and open.  Then they would be challengeable, by everyone, including public opinion.  If they are not spoken no one can challenge them and that, in the darkest sense of the word, would be ghastly and say something really awful about us, I believe.

So without knowing anything that could justify it and not feeling able or being willing to turn and go with an inkling that I could be wrong at such short notice, I would like to say that if this is happening, it is not in my name.  And for that I feel I might burn in hell.

Final Edit Note:

My comments are open, as I am sure other people’s are as well.  I didn’t address this sooner because I thought I had nothing significant to add to what I had already said, and although I sat down today and discovered in review that that was not true I obviously can’t know if that would have been the case earlier.  This feeling must be a tearing responsibility for any commentator and journalist in such serious issues as this.

I feel almost if this hasn’t already been raised effectively, and (big) if this IS raised effectively in this post, it might be too late to make a difference.

I’m sure that commenting on a blog is fine, to sway public opinion.  But to make change where it needs to be made official approaches and challenges need to be made, and the powers that be, at any time to date, to my awareness, would not recognise a blog and its comments as an official approach and would not accept blame for ignoring it, even if they are aware of it and agree with it personally.  And especially not if they do not agree.

It’s good to talk.  It’s good to blog.  It’s good to read and comment.  But for the content of social media to be officially recognised then proper legally recognised responses need to be made and actions taken.  Otherwise the sad, the very sad, truth is that we might as well not bother. With these kinds of issue you have to make the challenges proper legal ones, or in most cases they stay hidden and unacknowledged.

If you want to, feel free to use this post in any legal challenge you wish to make or question you need to put to lawyers, MPs (maybe especially, for future accountability) and anyone else over this issue.  I hope you do and that it is useful enough.  What am I doing here in Bulgaria? I’m writing myself into wanting to come myself!  I declare availability, if that isn’t being too impressed with myself.  If it is I won’t be taken up on it, and a good job too.

(Editorial Note:  Please read the updated and expanded version of this which is now on my front page.  I think it is more important than this one.  I wrote it because this one was not appearing in all the categories I assigned it to.)

And he and his lawyers fear extradition which may result in him being transferred to the US and possibly subjected to the death penalty or sent to Guantanamo.

I want him to be OK.  I don’t want any harm to come to him.  I don’t want him extradited.  Even if he has done something wrong, in Britain we don’t have the death penalty anymore, and our news agencies have publicly opposed and criticised Guantanamo for ages, though I haven’t taken much notice of the government’s position so I don’t know what it is. 

Maybe I am just a gullible, emotional woman who doesn’t understand what is involved in regaining/maintaining national and international security, but I think a lot of people would agree with me that, even if he has done something wrong, we would prefer for it to be dealt with differently.  I hope no one is thinking that if he is taken out of the picture that Wikileaks will fall apart, because I think that would be lazy and unjust.

If we have been told the truth, it wouldn’t be fair to extradite him on the basis of the charges which have been brought against him.  We have been told that he has co-operated in every way with the authorities over the sex accusations made against him, right from the beginning.  If that is true I can’t see how exradition over those charges could be justfified, and if extradition is a real threat and not just an exaggerated fear, I think the people thinking of resorting to this should stop the pretence that it is because of the sex allegations over which he has co-operated for months, from the beginning, and make their intentions and the reasons for them clear and open.  Then they would be challengeable, by everyone, including public opinion.  If they are not spoken no one can challenge them and that, in the darkest sense of the word, would be ghastly and say something really awful about us, I believe.

So without knowing anything that could justify it and not feeling able or being willing to turn and go with an inkling that I could be wrong at such short notice, I would like to say that if this is happening, it is not in my name.  And for that I feel I might burn in hell.

OK, the thing is, right, I agree wiv Tony Smiff. 

If the workers aren’t going to get a fair cut of the profits reflected in their wages so they can take full responsibility for their needs themselves, then companies should be made to pay by the government.  That is just normal human common sense.  A common sense of what is right.

This is my answer to Jeremy Paxman’s question about how do you determine what is morally right when they are already obeying the law, and Tony kept saying it, that the law needs to be changed.

The law is not written in stone.  It evolves.  It evolves either by force or by common consent.  Common consent is better (we all know what is morally acceptable in this kind of situation), but if interested parties and rulers won’t give easily, pressure has to be put on them to make them give.  That is my understanding of how every change in the law has come about.  When the law is seen as not reflecting a widely accepted sense of morality, and when people suffer as a result, eventually that law must be changed.  Come on, Jerry, me old mate, you know that, what are you trying to do?  I think he was just being mischievously provocative, and great respect to Tony Smith for holding his ground in the terms he was able to do so.

I felt a real sense of exhileration when I saw the protests.  I thought they had good energy and also a very powerful cross section of society represented.  I thought I would love to be there and be involved, then I excused myself on the grounds that it might be used to put me back in hospital, then I thought excusing myself was cowardly and I should be there.  Good for these people, more power to them.  Power to their cause, at the very least.  Hopefully they won’t need to protest in this way for too long before our leaders see sense.  But I thought that what was shown on film was absolutely great.

Hey, what happened to our new freedom to protest peacefully?  That woman they dragged out, the one who said it was disgraceful, did she actually do anything wrong?  I don’t mind our leaders holding on to power, but they need to remember they are exercising that power for us, all of us, not just the people who head up the producing and finance machine.  Bugger this, I’m going to argue like a woman because I am a woman, and you can call it emotional blackmail if you like, but how are things fair when the law allows such inequality that at one end people live the jetset lifestyle from the profits they make out of people who work for them and buy from them, one of whom, a few weeks ago, lost her daughter to swine flu because her age and health category were not catered for by the government to be vaccinated against it?

I fear this Baran guy represents a group which will ignore any conscience it has as long as it is allowed to.

Here is something I didn’t act on at the time, and perhaps that is now to my shame and makes my argument and stance a little less persuasive, but I can still remember how it felt emotionally at the time.

I have never been so well off financially as I have been over the last 14 years, since I started getting Income Support plus an additional allowance built in for severe disability, Disability Living Allowance and Housing Benefit for a flat which cost me about £350 per month, plus a Freedom Pass for travel on London Transport and many local bus networks nationally.  I sat down a few years ago, when I wanted to work out my tithe, when I tithed to the Church, and worked out that the whole package was worth about £13,000.  As I said, I have never been financially so well off.  It is probably worth a little less now as my Freedom Pass has lapsed and I pay for my own travel expenses.  I always felt guilty about having it anyway, as I did about all my benefits.  Funny how they can slap a label on you and refuse to take it off which means you qualify for benefits, then make you feel like a shirker with some fancy footwork.  This label and the power everyone is society can and does wield with it is one of the most distressing things in my life.

But one year early on, on and around budget day when they were talking about the plight of pensioners and insulting increases to their pensions, I wanted to approach the government (to which I remain thankful for this financial provision) and tell them that I didn’t need everything I was getting myself to live on and that, in view of the plight of pensioners at the time, I wanted to be able to give something back to the government for it to be given to the pensioners.  I wanted to find out if there was a mechanism for those kinds of voluntary donations to be used for those not so well-provided for.  I still don’t know if such a mechanism exists, and if it does I missed the opportunity to use it.

But my point is, that was me, on £13,000 a year, believing I was stuck for the rest of my life in rented accommodation in a basement flat that I wanted to make work because I and everyone around me had a right that it whould work, and I looked at someone less well off than me and wanted to give back a portion of my own benefits to help them.  But these people who cream off millions and billions don’t even acknowledge they have that in their hearts and argue for the ‘right’ to maintain the legality of the present financial status quo.

I am sure that people make charitiable donations, but that can’t be the security of the people who need that charity.  It has to be formal and legalised, something they are entitled to, not just something they should be grateful for.  I don’t understand economics or, at least, I have never been taught.  Would doing something like that lead to eventual fiancial ruin and insecurity for everyone? Or just redress the balance in a way which is obviously needed and, to the uninitiated into the mysteries of economics, like myself, looks like such an easy and obvious thing to do?

I Was Thinking, I Was . . .

Colin Dye said in his sermon on Sunday morning that Jesus gives you a satisfied life.  But after a minute or so I thought, ‘No, that’s not true.  Because if, as it says in Revelation, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, which always looks forward to the future, how can His followers be satisfied?’  Jesus said, ‘I have a baptism with which I must be baptised, and how I am constrained until it is accomplished’.  So if even He wasn’t satisfied, how can we be?

It’s only thoughts, though.  I am sure there must be some element of paradox involved which, even in spite of all that, means that a Christian is a satisfied person.  (No, I’m not, actually, unless I am really abnormal). Maybe satisfied in some ways but not in others.  I once knew what it was to be absolutely unafraid and confident about death.

Funnily enough, WordPress is featuring a blog on Freshly Pressed that says the Rolling Stones were right.

At about 6 or 7 pm last night men started shouting over my apartment again.  Uploading and downloading with a well-timed ‘hallelujah’, and I don’t know if they are Christians or people who just know how to use a word that is precious to someone else to get power over them.

They went on until about 1am.  The law here is that between 10pm and 6am you should be quiet.  I believe that law should be respected by all, Christians and non-Christians.

At 1am I phoned reception and said what was happening, and they said there was no one there.  Hmm, that’s interesting.  If there is no one there how can they bang on my ceiling?  As soon as they heard me on the phone they went quiet.  At that point I thought perhaps I should have phoned reception as soon as it started.  I kept trying to deal with it on my own, but there are more of them than me, and they kept breaking out again.

I went to bed with a really bad stomach ache, across my midriff, the same as I did on Saturday night, which resulted on Sunday in me being physically sick for the first time since I took an overdose of paracetamol a few weeks before my confirmation, which was quite a few years ago.  Left to myself, without the harassment, I can sleep it off and not throw up, but the people above me started shouting out at about 5am and kept going until early afternoon, every time . . . never mind.  I thought about it afterwards and wondered if this was an example of the enforced exorcism I saw a programme about on the television a few months ago, with a woman wrapped in a blanket and men shouting into her ears.  Is it OK, that kind of thing, if that is what it was?  I felt as if it was something I should have accepted. Should I have?  The world would call it harassment and abuse.  What would Clyde Sandry or any of the staff at the Christian Centre in Nottingham have called it?  I think they would say it is OK.  That God doesn’t care about harassment at any time, not even our legally designated times of rest, if it means we ‘come into the kingdom’ and ‘get delivered’.  I think it is unhealthy control freakery.

I got up at about 3am this morning because my stomach still hurt and I could feel it beginning to go the same way as it did on Sunday.  They are telling me there is no one up there.  They must be lying.  That isn’t Christian.

I listened to Sunday’s sermons from the Christian Centre.  It was silent throughout, but as soon as it stopped someone upstairs banged and started to chatter and it sounded as if they were ‘hallelujah’ -ing with each other.  They sound like Pentecostal Christians all of a flutter.  It was just before 5am.

If this is their idea of Christianity I don’t know where they have got it from, though I could guess easily.  The Bible says ‘honour all men’.  I’ve been taught that includes women.  You don’t honour people by going on at them like that at any time you think you will, doing a running commentary on or verbally ejaculating at their every movement.

This seems to me like the stupid wing of Pentecostal type Christianity.  I am personally angry right now because of what they are doing to me, but I disassociate myself from it anyway, and would even if this was not happening to me.  It is ridiculous, unhealthy control freakery.  In God’s name I stand my ground on that.  They are even lying about there being anyone there.  My preferred expression of Christianity is Pentecostal/Charismatic in nature, but that isn’t part of it.  It’s ridiculous, they could approach me to speak but they choose to yell over me instead. 

That is not my kind of Christianity.  I would like these churches to break out of their pressure tactics and code and say quite clearly that it is not theirs either.  If this is how it is going to be everywhere I go, and these people are actually Christians, they are the ones who will kill me, not the atheists.

I’m frightened to go back to bed and sleep, because when I begin to go into the bit that works for me they start shouting again.  They seem to be summoning me and if I don’t think about it I feel as if they have the right, but I don’t want to respond.  I want to sleep.  I don’t want this kind of summoning to be characteristic of my relationships anymore, now, or ever again.

The Thinker

Me.  Sorry about that.  It’s only me, not the famous statue!  More of my boring drivel, I’m afraid.

I think . . . Esther Hyam on Premier (not sure of spelling) is mimicking Christine who held me as I cried when Loxley told me I was no longer welcome at church.

I think . . . Gypsy William Lee at Kensington Temple, dropping his aitches everywhere and saying ‘rejoice in your ‘art’ was giving instructions to Christian artists and media people everywhere, including those leading worship (why don’t they mention William Lee anymore?  At a significant point all their boasting about him going on and on and on every day and the revival going on and on . . . just stopped.  I don’t remember an explanation).

I think . . . When the solicitor Rachel Gawith (who has a criminal conviction in Bulgaria on her own admission on her website and an awful attitude to Bulgarian authorities and the legal system – check out the travel bug and the rental bug websites) and her friends dealt so badly and illegally with me (they didn’t even give me a contract or offer one when I asked) and threatened me with Bulgarian police intimidation saying they were not nice and blackmailed me with the information they had been pushing me for and, in  spite of my explanation of the situation and me telling her that I had already been to the police about it who had done nothing (and still have not after much pursuit through an IPCC complaint from me) she told me she was going to report me to the British police because I was obviously in serious trouble with them – all this went through emails and Skype and I am sure everyone I believe is stalking me knows all about this . . . I think that when, at that time, someone in church or on Premier Radio prayed that God would protect Rachel, they intended that she should be at least one of the people that came to mind for me.

I think . . . that when someone submitted a prayer request to Premier breakfast this morning about someone who needed to make a move in the next day or two, John, from the way he kept coughing and clearing his throat, had me in mind about this situation because I think you have a year to start dealing with something like this before it is too late legally, and they ejected me from the house on 18th/19th Jaunary last year.

I think . . . their stalking has served to deprive me of any feeling that I could cope with trying to seek justice and that they never intended that I should feel able to without them.

When I first heard someone say on Premier this morning that someone was being subjected to a ‘savage spiritual attack’ I felt that was what they have been doing to me.

I think . . . I am now never going to be able to recover from anything that has happened to me this year, and they won’t care.  They wanted to make me dependent on them so aimed at knocking out any feeling that it might be possible to seek legal help successfully. I might be wrong.

I think . . . John Pantry is deliberately using my style when he speaks prayer words for his emailers.

I think . . . people have been deliberately purring at me in my personality then purring things like ‘if you have a roof over your head, be grateful’, making me feel I should be grateful for a place where I am subjected to such serious harassment day after day that I can’t cope with anything.

I think . . . that yesterday Colin Dye in the 11 am service after the 9 am which they chose not to stream yesterday, obviously used his little story about the lonely female amoeba to talk about me.  Check it out at http://www.KT.org/media.  It wil be up there soon if it isn’t now.

I think . . . this kind of communication is not aimed at me to try and win me, but aimed at people he wants to despise me.  I think this kind of thing and the violence they use in their communication, both obvious and not so obvious, are designed to help them keep control and keep the power flowing.  When it is happening, and they are using things about me as access points, I look back and see it was at about that time that I began to feel a need to vent myself.  I think, having experienced this, that this might be exactly the kind of thing that Susan Boyle, a composite personality of me and my next door neighbour, might have been experiencing in all the things I have seen being reported about her meltdowns.  I’ve said this kind of thing before to my mental health team and I can only assume that, if they have any kind of education about anything, the reason they refused to understand what I was saying was because they just didn’t want to know or to acknowledge everything else they have known and understood for years.

I think . . . Premier has abandoned its remit to the church in favour of courting other celebrities and personalities who are not even Christian.  In their dishonesty and criminality and pretence they have lost the plot and are betraying their listeners and also the non-Christian celebrities they promote and pursue.  (Erm . . . is this supposed to be a reflection of me, or what?)

I think . . . they get into their Dagenham style performance character and you are never supposed to see them out of character.  Esther began to slip this morning, and John helped her back into character by addressing her with a character-appropriate name.  He was ostensibly talking to someone else, but the time and the tone and Esther’s immediate recovery of her performance character led me to believe there was more to it than that.  (this is supposed to be ministry, not theatre and performance?  they are presenting as . . . I don’t know what they are presenting as, but I think the uninformed listener, viewer and participant is supposed to believe it is not a performance, and that is a lie).

I wish . . . I had never got involved with any of this.

I hope . . . I still can.

I believe and hope and think that I know . . . that is crazy thinking.  Its about arts and media.  It’s an arts and media coterie fight for them.  Authenticity and truth and personal trustworthiness and true spirituality come after that and might somehow be things they manage to affect and pull off. 

(I think . . . these churches and this radio station stopped being a spiritual ministry ages ago, going instead for theatrical representations and namedropping, as they did this morning.  I heard them agree with each other to do that a few years ago.)  How did this paragraph get here and where did it start off?

I think . . . that will do for now.

My best Dastardly and Mutley impression – “stonking, ranting, shnazzershnacking” “Hee, hee, hee” 😀

The Bible says we are made in the image of God.  God is 3 in 1.  No one has the right to point to you and tell people you are lonely.  Do not let anyone demean you by calling you lonely, neither let those who have no right challenge your right to live and exult in  freedom of movement when you finally find the courage to try to do so apart from their control.

I’ve been taught that, even before God created anything, He existed in community as the 3 in 1.  When God was all there was, He was friends with every part of Himself.  God was His first lover and worshiper.  We are designed to follow that pattern. 

Even if we don’t believe that the story of creation teaches that each human being embodies the male/female principle,  God the 3 in 1, just like we should, had friendship and community before anyone else was around.  That’s what they told me. 

Now then, Colin Dye, you nasty, stalking, baby-snatching dingo, go and make someone else eat your shit and stop stalking/trying to control/sabotaging me and my right to my life apart from your divine majesty (ahem, sorry, little aberration).  Your jurisdiction over me ended (if you ever had a right to it in the first place) when I left your building, on your orders and your staff’s orders.  Your insistence on continued involvement and the way you are achieving it are illegal, and the way you deflect proper accusations of acting in a cultlike manner is fiendish and sinister.  I have never had to face anything so demonic, knowingly, as I am doing with you and your staff and those who support you, ever in my life.

The only way anyone ever becomes lonely is to rely too much on relationships outside of themselves and God or to be forced into feelings of dependency through abuse of power. 

The Bible says Jesus was driven into the wilderness by the Spirit after His baptism and came out full of power.  It says Abraham was told to leave his father’s house and go to a land that God would show him.  He disobeyed.  He took Lot (I’ve been taught that was disobedience).  The book of Hebrews says Christians are a pilgrim people without a home, and that there were those who lived in caves, of whom the world was not worthy.  Perhaps Colin would like to call them amoebae?  Why would he have done that?  Where did he get it from, whatever his intention?

Sometimes God wants people alone or to move out on their own.  I wonder what Colin would have said to or about Abraham, or about Jesus, indeed, if he had at any time been affiliated with them (obviously he never has been, it’s just hypothetical).

Edit note:  Oops, sorry, this was supposed to be a draft.  It is obviously unfinished and in very crude form.  But now it’s out there I had better leave it.  Sorry, it was an accident.  The Lord knows.  Sorry, brother Colin.  May the Lord bless your ministry and all who minister with you.  Amen and amen. I bless you in the name of the Lord. +Sue 🙂

As HP spicy sauce in Bulgarian supermarkets.

I was wrong!!!!!      Yayaah!!!!!  Da-dah!!!!!!

Dumb gone found it today.  Now I have to make the burgers and rashers and sausages to go with it.  I could have it just with beans on toast, or mushrooms on toast.  Not sure what else.  Craving a boiled egg earlier.  Found loads of stuff I never knew existed when I first started by just putting the name of the food in a search engine together with the word ‘vegan’.  My 2 favourite finds vegan blue cheese (sheese) and others in the same range, and vegan honey (agave nectar).

I say that, but some of the burgers you can get are nice as well, but these were my first two serious wants.  Redwoods burgers are really nice.  Just like the old hamburger.  You can get others which are nice in their own right but nothing like a meat eater is used to.  Also wheat slices which are just like cold sliced smoked meat.  Yum yum.  Theres a place near Piccadilly Circus that does a great range.  Whole food market or something like that.  I’ve forgotten, it’s so long since I’ve been there (it WOULD be, I’ve been out of the country for over a year).  They’ve got a nice cafe there as well.  All organic, all diets, from meat and fish to vegetarian and vegan.  Great place to shop, I really love it.  You can make your own muesli or oat cluster type breakfasts if you aren’t as lazy as me, or you can get some nice vegan Belgian Chocolate cereal, and maple syrup and pecan, I think it is.  I can’t remember the name of the manufacturer now.  But it’s really delicious.  It is a good place to shop for something out of the ordinary, really different from the ubiquitous high street supermarket.

Even then, if enough people discover these things and ask for them, the supermarkets, so I am told (oh yeah?) will stock them.  Don’t know how that works.  It might work out more expensive for smaller orders.  When I first heard of agave nectar (agave is a plant and the nectar is just like runny honey and you can get it in a few different varieties, and there’s also something called Sweet Freedom which is plant based, slightly thicker and comes mild or rich) I never expected that I would be able to find it in Sainsbury’s, but they stock it.  The agave nectar, that is.

OK, change the subject, how stupid do I want to be?  I’m 50 years old, for goodness’ sake, but I might be about to sound like a teenager with a crush.  There is a really debonair photograph of Tommy Boyd on his blog, with a piercing stare and a smile, arms folded.  I’ve had a bad day today in many respects.  I’m exhausted.  I’m lying on my sofa, it’s now (this second) 2.25 am.

I just scrolled down and rediscovered it, and looked at his face, and smiled, and the next second I was gone.  Just like that.  Out like a light.  Not asleep, but ‘zapped’, as they would have said at St B’s.  Apart from the fact that it hurts because I don’t know where we are with each other, I feel a lot better already.  Ready for a good sleep.

I have few clear ideas about anything at the moment.  I was going to say ‘anymore’, but decided against it.

I don’t know how I feel about the death penalty on principle.  I know how I have felt about individual cases.  I was so upset about one a few years ago that I kicked in the glass in my kitchen door.  I was upset because the news agencies were there just reporting it and not doing anything they were talking about.  It was a Christian woman in the US.  I can’t remember more than that now.

I just read that Julian Assange could face the death penalty or Guantanamo if extradited to Sweden.  The term that was used was ‘ilegal rendition’.  I assume that is something they can do to a non-US citizen.  One writer said how can this happen if he is not a US citizen.  Can it, I don’t know.  I don’t know what ‘illegal rendition’ means.

At a significant point for me Wikileaks released something which led me to do a search as to who had died in Afghanistan/Iraq, and I discovered many namesakes from my own sphere of awareness.  Some of them I felt to be close namesakes, but now I can’t remember and that might just have been my imagination, living too much in the world of the media.  I don’t think so though.

I absolutely loathed Hillary Clinton at one point. I don’t feel so strongly now, possibly because things might be smoothing out as I never said anything about it.

It seemed obvious to me a while ago that she has had something to do with my old Bible College lecturer and longtime heroine, Jean Darnall, unless there are a lot of American ladies who act like that.  But the likeness came to light for me at what seemed like a really significant point in what I was communicating. 

I feel ludicrous.  I feel as if I am meddling in things which are really way beyond me and none of my business.  I certainly feel that, every time i post something like this, I start to dig myself up all over again when perhaps I should rest and let myself heal.

I heard Hillary Clinton roundly condemn Julian Assange and Wikileaks.  I also believe I know she has been involved and informed about me, from things she has said and at times that she has said them.

As a Christian I have to say, God knows there is something really wrong here.  I’m frightened.

I’ve heard both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama using psychic find and extinguish buzz words on me.  I am absolutely sure I can say that with confidence.  But I’m a nobody.  I don’t know what they are doing or why, I know they are doing it, I want to believe well of them, they are world leaders, after all.  I want to believe they are well-intentioned towards me, but they haven’t made proper contact with me.

What do I sound like, I sound really crazy.  I’m a bit ungrounded at the moment, I’m not getting any TV and my internet connection won’t support video.  I just felt I had to say something, for what it might be worth.  No one seems to think it is worth anything (pity, pity, moan, moan) and I really dread that one day I’m going to write something like this and find myself back in hospital.  I dread it now.  No one is coming forward to stop it, and I feel the wheels are in motion to dispossess me of my home and maybe put me back in hospital.  That is another reason I feel ungrounded.

I can’t see how anything I say can help Julian Assange.  I felt as if I had to say something, but I don’t know why or who I’m doing it for or what I’m trying to achieve.

When the 9/11 bombings took place I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I wasn’t in New York, I was in an internet cafe, gambling on horse races online.  I was so watchful over myself at the time that I didn’t process or respond very well to what was unfolding.  I commented to someone in a chatroom or on a game site that I thought it could be a wake up call to the West and to America over our godlessness and materialism and building temples to mammon.  That was what I felt at the time.  I felt there was something of the fightback of emasculated power in the decision to rebuild the World Trade Center as big as, if not bigger than, before.  I did feel there was a lesson that needed to be learned and accepted by the west about cathedrals to money.  But what do I know, I’m quite ignorant about many things, including Islam’s own temples to money, if they have them.  I assumed the motive behind the attacks was to strike at materialism and, if it was, I thought i could see how, given their philosophy, that kind of attack would be justified in their eyes.  Without justifying the attack, I thought it would be better to learn a lesson from the reason for it than to go in seeking revenge.  Does that make me sick?  I thought relations might improve if the lesson were accepted, but maybe that is crazy thinking, I think now it might have been.  I think now that Islam hates us, regardless of what we do.  I thought it might be open to reason and to resolving international relationships and some sort of coming together.  Maybe I have become as reactionary as the warmongers if I decide I was wrong about that and that they hate us because they want to hate us, full stop.  And that there is no question of something needing to be learned and any ground given in how we live.  Terrorists, after all, are not to be negotiated with or recognised in any way, and certainly not in any changes to our own lifestyles.  That is what we are taught.  My heart says that can’t be right.  People are people and if we respond to a good point in the right way, even if the way it is made is wrong, that should create hope, shouldn’t it?  But I don’t know the Koran.  Kensington Temple presents it one way, liberal Muslim’s present it another, apparently these books are always open to interpretation, they tell us.  Who do we decide we are going to believe and why?  Is true Islam committed to hating us and destroying us?  If so, why don’t the liberal Muslims say so?  Maybe it’s an argument about what is true Islam.  I feel I should know, it must surely be accessible.

My fear is that while we try to go with liberal Islam and give people claiming to be liberal Muslims power in government and in churches, even, as it now is, I fear we might not detect people coming under a cloak of friendship but who might actually be using their positions for subversive and dangerous purposes.  If the worst of Islam is to be safeguarded against, how wise is it to open key positions to possible covert infiltration of extremism where privileged information with regard to the bodies traditionally hated by Islam might be passed to people who can do real harm?  Personally I am absolutely convinced it is a risk we shouldn’t be taking.  I’m sorry.  I know that won’t go down well with some people.  But when I hear that churches are taking Muslims onto their staff, my alarm bells start ringing.  Islam is anti any other God or prophet.  So is Christianity.  By definition, true Islam and true Christianity can’t work together.  And neither of them can honestly work with humanism, as humanism can’t honestly work with religion.  So what are we playing at?  Is anyone actually thinking about it? We claim to be trying to do the impossible.  When it comes right down to the practicalities, will it turn out to be just lip service?  And if it does, then what?  When we all realise that and see it, if we haven’t already, how will our attempts at multiculturalism fare?  I don’t know the answer to that.  I feel I’m wrong even to question it, that I’m just stupid and ignorant and people are basically too good not to make it work, even in the face of disillusionment.  But if things are not only different but also opposing and evangelically militant in opposition . . . Do we have to spend our whole lives living in a dialectic?  Is that really what life is supposed to be about?  I’ve wasted my life, I’m too old for dialectic, but I wish I wasn’t, because I think it sounds exciting.

They work me over so much that I can’t handle the things in my life that I need to handle.  I’m sorry, but they are complete bastards, and that includes Tommy Boyd.

I just listened to Robert Elms on BBC Radio London.  For some reason I got it in my head that I liked him, because I used to read his column in one of the free secretarial handouts on the underground – 9 to 5, or Ms London, or something. He looks nice, doesn’t he?  I really need to learn and become fully convinced, that that is just a selling image, his public image, his persona.

I heard it suggested recently, anout a month or two ago, that John Pantry was giving them training on how to handle things in the studio, psychic/spiritual manifestations, whatever you want to call them, and personal feelings, perhaps.  They are just working a formula and being as personally provocative as they can be.  Seductive lure, provocation, intimidation and monstrous, targeted disrespect combined.

Tommy has a post up on his blog, mrtommyboyd.wordpress.com (link at the bottom of my page), called ‘who killed Jo Yeates?…’ in which he states he has known 3 people who were murdered.  I can’t take it anymore, I’ve got to go public.

I read it, and understood that exactly the same things had happened to him as are now happening to me, except that his were, as I said to him in my reply to his post which I never expected to be used because he never posts my replies, direct hits while mine were only hits by psychological and mental association, albeit a constant stream of them.  He never posts my replies or acknowledges them directly in any way.  He is either afraid or cruel.

Straight after Robert Elms a news reader came on, doing her best ‘I’m not bovvered’, chavvy estuary act.  That is how Tommy’s wife Jayne spoke to me when I went to their house once.  The first time I went they both told me I was very brave, and I sat in one of their cars with Tommy for about half an hour.  Looking back, he seemed fairly desperate for a response, he asked me if the answer was yes or no, and I said no because he touched my knee with his and I thought it was sexual.  I felt comfortable with him on the drive back to the train station, so comfortable I didn’t even need to break the silence except to ask a couple of questions that occured to me.

People will try to make me think, as i do, that this is wrong, but if I generalise they will just ignore it.  They might ignore this as well.  You can safely do that with someone who is labelled as mentally ill.  If in their own outraged state they lose control of their emotions and feelings because of the policy to ignore and refuse to engage with all legally recognised forms of communication, they will get put back in a mental hospital.

As far as Tommy is concerned, I am hurting myself here, and it might be irretrievable. Shortly after the time his wife did her estuary accent on me, telling me I had 15 minutes to leave the property or she would call the police, but when I gave up after 10 minutes because I didn’t want the confrontation the police were already coming to the property as I walked away, so she had probably already called them before she spoke to me (to me that is lying and deeply offensive, especially when you know someone has a mental health diagnosis.  Lying should be illegal, it is a contemptuous act of violence towards vulnerable people), Tommy came on his programme saying that ‘Estuary is the way forward’.  Either people picked it up and ran with it to hurt him or something, or he was deliberately giving instructions as to how to best get under my skin.  The weather forecasts seem to have been shaped in the same way as well, human traits and emotions being attributed to the weather, and it seems to be a way of making the weather the bearer of the speaker’s own feelings.

The last Doctor Who I watched, Doctor Who looked and acted a lot like Tommy and he is, as he used to say, ‘all over the place’, and the girl looked a lot like Allison Ferns, who used to co-host a radio programme with him.  But they were also using me a lot, the massive crack in my bedroom wall in Bulgaria, the layout of my street in London, and other things.

So today, having been totally offended by listening to the way Robert Elms was working things, I then had to have my senses offended by – let’s call her a woman – who came on talking heavy Estuary, as they all do, are they acting or is it the employers’ policy to choose only women who speak that way? – and she read the news, and here I am isolated, on my own, no family or flatmates, people above me tapping every morning so suffering from the psychological violence of that, having this offensive accent coming at me because of all its associations for me that I have written about above, so that in itself is also an act of grossly indecent psychological violence, and I might want to lose it.  I might want to start screaming and shouting in anger and outrage and desperation, at which point they slip in a news article about landlords being given powers to deal with ‘neighbours from hell’.

These people, these broadcasters, they are the people from hell.  They are criminals.  Some of the police are also criminals, before they descend on me.  They don’t care, they are debased and debasing animals. 

I wrote something in one of my posts that, just because I might even make a gesture under extreme provocation and when everything else has been ignored, it doesn’t make me dangerous.  Something was registering on my dashboard yesterday as a search that had brought someone to my blog, the search terms were ‘under extreme provocation, everything is dangerous’.  I was going to write something but decided not to, but instead to do my own search which was ‘Nothing is dangerous under extreme provocation except the person doing the provoking’.  This is particularly true when they are also calling that person crazy or letting the system call them crazy.  A person can only take so much.  They know this and they use it.  That is evil.  That is disgusting and that is evil.  The person can hit back and be legally penalised, or they can be ritually subjected to this harassment and humiliation over and over until they think they need to conform and see sense, or commit suicide.  If they committed suicide, all of these people would be glad about it.  The church would say that’s what happens when people are rebellious and that the suicide itself is the final act of rebellion.  I don’t care what they say in public these days, the fact they are doing what they are doing to me says they really don’t care at all.

At the time that it appeared to me that people in the secular news were getting help (they mentioned something to that effect) Premier themselves, John Pantry or someone on his programme, said John was or had been away because he was training other broadcasters.  This was either true or, in the circumstances, a very sick and vile joke.  I can’t access the words I need because I have swallowed so much false sweetness from these people.

They are arguing with each other using stuff about me.  They are using different language to make observations about me, I think.  Like this morning someone said that the toilet was 3 floors down.  I answered a competition run by Cindy Kent at the beginning of their broadcasting, and the phone box was 3 floors down.  It also didin’t ring when someone called.  So I had to wait and hear the area before I ran down to check the phone, the stairs weren’t lit, the light bulbs had gone, and Cindy said, ‘well, if we have to wait, you can wait’.  I knew she knew who I was.  I knew she had got something from churches I had been involved with.

I am really angry.  I have to listen to this.  This stuff the hospital says doesn’t happen.  I have to listen to them doing stuff on me, covertly, or using language and intonation that makes me hear it that way, and listen to the presenters being under pressure when dealing with some of the things caller say, whether the callers are straight or not.  I think sometimes they are, but it sounds as if sometimes they are not.  I have to listen to the war of words and the war of adverts, all the time feeling as if I am being held hostage by the whole charade.  They shouldn’t be using a media platform like this, any of them.  If a church media platform believes it needs to do something like this and grab at me until I feel hysterical and go out with a verbal gunshot, what is wrong with them that they can’t deal with things in the prescribed, legal way?  They are abusing their platform and abusing their listeners, some of us far more than others, some of us conscious of it and others not.  It’s torture.  It’s illegal.  Every time I switch on I see and hear them using my identity, and have a war theatre constantly thrown in my face.

Everybody knows.  Every one of you scummy fuckers that’s involved, you know!  You pipe and peep and roar and snipe and won’t talk to me directly, and you know why I don’t talk to you, because you would manipulate me into validating what you are doing, and it’s wrong.  Goddamnit, you all damn well know!!!  You know what you are doing and what others are doing.  Why don’t you do something???  Why don’t you commit yourselves legally?  Every politician I’ve ever mentioned, every church leader, every broadcaster, every organisation.  Do you know what?  You stink!  And so do I, but it’s your diarrhoea that’s been thrown at me.  You are horrible, hateful cowards hiding your atrocities behind a call to reason and compromise.  You are hateful.  You couldn’t do any of this otherwise, and you couldn’t let it be done.  Every one of you, you are calling on me to change or respond before you stop your illegalities and blind eye turning.

If there is a God (you would turn my certainty against me), you people need dealing with.  I know what you are doing to me, and on that basis I can safely say that you must have a fair few suicides on your consciences, if conscience is a term you have any time for.  I can’t speak to anyone, you work me over so much.  And you put it into my community so that, wherever I go, people are near rioting outside where I live.  That is without anything from me to provoke it.  David Cameron, stuff your doe eyes at your kids and your head held high walks while you look as if you want to crumble and do a runner. Fuck it, fuck it all.  Fucking do what you’re fucking paid for and fucking help me, you fucking rich, toffeenosed prat!!!  Stop cavorting in chambers with what you get off my fucking blog, either trying to seduce me out of hiding or just get away with what you are doing.  You might think you have better things to do, but I don’t.  You are using my own words to communicate with each other, if not with me.  That, in itself, means you owe me.  Because you know.  Because you are one of the people doing it.  Reference my No, No, No post and your use of it the very next time you were in chambers, as Mr Speaker likes to put it 5 minutes before you come on every Wednesday.  I should not have to appeal to you.  No one should expect me to, even if I myself don’t like the stance that I have taken.  I believe what you are doing to me must be criminal.  While you do nothing except try and look in control, you are at least an accessory to the crime.  Until you make proper contact with me you will continue to be that.  All of you involved in this are colluding to commit a massive, international crime against one person.

The Illuminati also has psychics among its members.  I’ve been thinking that might be responsible for the computer and browser shutdowns every time I strike a clear direction.  Like just now, as well.  But that was more obvious in my writing.  It could be Christians as well though.  Dave Rose commented on the content of an email I was writing to my vicar’s bishop before I had even sent it, and either he or Rick Easter passed judgment on an email I sent to Michael Mish, also before I sent it.  I told him I thought he should set up a community or something like that, and he said he had been thinking of it.  I was listening to a recording of Cindy kent at the time, and she mentioned something about setting up a community.  But I had intended to say that to Michael anyway, at least half an hour before I heard her say it.  I was not sure whether to say it or not after that.  I decided I should, that just because someone else had mentioned what I was thinking of for someone else, it was no reason why iIshould not say it.  Dave Rose or Rick Easter, whichever one of them it was, made an accusing remark about excellence.  To me this is obvious.  It is me it is happening to.  It’s not happening to the mental health people, but they at least pretend they believe they have the right to come in and insist it isn’t happening to me either.  I’ve decided they are dishonest.  No one is as innocent and honestly implacable as they make out to be.  They must think I was born yesterday.  All the silence except for the harassment and the shock and awe broadcasts.  That’s what is doing me in.  I AM ready to crumble and give in and see sense and accept that what they have done is right.  I am absolutely convinced that what I say they are doing, if I’m right, has been absolutely the right thing to do.  I hope that someone else will see that that is the problem (I can’t even say that with conviction) and take them to task.

There is a passage in the Old Testament I have been worried about for some time now, and my unease with it and my gut rejection of it as basic, primitive and misogynistic has grown.

I can’t remember where it is, but I hope church leader readers will know the part I’m talking about.  I think it might be Leviticus or one of the first 5 books.

It says if a woman is attacked or raped and she cries out for help it isn’t her fault, but if she doesn’t cry out for help it is.  Something like that.  I might be remembering it too black and white.  I can’t find it quickly because I can’t remember the wording.

I don’t think there is any provision for if she is being threatened in any other way and is afraid to shout for help.  If she is afraid to shout for help is it still her fault, and does the fact that she might also be afraid for her own life or someone else’s so doesn’t scream mean the man is not to blame for his actions?  If she feels too threatened or confused to scream or register objection outside of the situation, does that mean the man has not committed an offence?

Also, it seems to be allowing a provision that the woman might have ‘brought it on herself’ or that she deserves it in some way.  If there is that provision, people who think that of her or who want an excuse to not get involved would ignore her and judge her even if she did scream.

I might need to look it up to get a better understanding of the passage.  However, when it comes to the way people act and react and judge and reason I’ve got it right.

Edit note: I just found it and read it.  It’s Deuteronomy 22.  If it’s in a field only the man dies because there was no one to hear her scream.  If it’s in the city and she doesn’t scream, they both die because she should have screamed.  That is if she is married or engaged.  So according to the law the man should get it both ways.

Should I assume that rape and violent threat didn’t go together in those days as they do now?  Should I assume that, because of the death penalty, if the woman had screamed the man would have tried to escape?  Should I assume that these good, law-abiding people would always have obeyed the law to intervene and put a man like this to death?  The prophets are always telling them that they tolerate things they shouldn’t.  Would they have turned a blind eye like people do today?  Yes, they would, at least sometimes.  The existence of law has never been a guarantee that people are going to obey it and that wrongdoers will always be punished.  And the Bible recognises that there is lawbreaking among leaders as well, and that they also act corruptly and irresponsibly.

Sometimes Bible teachers teach this kind of passage as if the existence of the laws meant they were always kept without question.  That is bad teaching and poor understanding because it is just not true.

If she isn’t married or engaged, and a similar situation is discovered, the man has to pay the woman’s father for the offence and marry her.  They say in rape a woman’s feelings are mixed. This might seem like a monstrous rationalisation, but I wonder if this is a provision to help her deal with these feelings?  For the man it is a punishment for the offence and maybe an opportunity for expiation.  Hmm.  There is no mention of what should happen if the situation is not discovered.  I suppose it assumes consent from the woman.  At least if it isn’t discovered no one can do anything about it.  So it’s probably just a practical observation.

Joan of Arc

I don’t really know anything about Joan of Arc. except what I read in a George Bernard Shaw play.  She turned up to fight for France or something, and rescued the dauphin (French prince?)  The church condemned her because she heard voices and had her burnt or something, then later decided she was a saint and canonised her.  That’s how the church says sorry and tries to deal with its guilt.  Not much good to Joan, they killed her.  And they haven’t learned from the mistake and her canonisation means nothing, because these days in the same circumstances they put people in a mental hospital.  Grubby people.  Nasty, slimy and creepy.

I was just trying to make sense of why John Pantry this morning started with a reference to Joan of Arc (I think it’s her feast day or something) then followed it up with a subliminal ‘schitz’ reference.  I could tell from his voice he was going somewhere treacherous and that it would be best not to listen to him.  He seems to be trying to act in a woman’s identity.

I feel guilty because how I’ve been taught it is.  I’m writing because of how it actually is.  I think they’ve siezed my books and other personal things that I had in storage in a church.  I feel guilty about saying this because I think I should see it is having taken my things into safekeeping for me.  I was told they had got rid of them though.  No one told me they still had them.  I just thought it became obvious when I heard what they were saying.  I felt ill.  Since then it appears that both Christian and non-Christian media have had acess to my things, because I mentioned a piece of writing I had done that might make people think I was violent, and a day or two later Steve Allen on LBC was saying that it looked more like someone saying ‘every time I say something that is true someone comes at me with a belt’.  If this is true, it isn’t right, is it?  It’s hostage taking and kidnap, even though it feels so much like love I should be grateful for.

I also had a blank book among my things, a big thick one for writing in.  I still have the recording where I think that Anna Raeburn made reference to that.  I’m frightened because I feel as if it’s right and I shouldn’t be opposing it.  I’m very frightened.  If they have worked together on this no one will be for me.  No one that matters to me.  John blips so sweetly he has to be right, doesn’t he?  It makes me feel I’ve wrecked everything myself and I have no right to object, maybe even no right to live.

Is heavy shepherding right?  I’ve used the term.  It might be out of date and out of use now.

I’m listening about 6-8 minutes behind.  John just said quite forcefully that he was going to keep going on.  My stomach hurts, I’m upset and I feel sick.  I feel I am the one that is treacherous.  I really do.  I can’t defend myself against anything, even the face to face stalking I get so openly in Bulgaria.  I’ve never felt such despair and the need to give in to what I have so far maintained is obviously wrong.  I feel I am more wrong than the ‘obvious wrong’ which is actually right, that is being done to me, and I need the ‘wrongdoers’ to help and restore me.  Please someone tell me they are wrong and help me.

My connection to Premier has been terminated, and my post which was showing in the tag search is now no longer showing, even though my Colin Dye (2) post has more tags than this one.  Someone is constantly taking a decision to disempower me.

His name is Esteban.

(Copy with some tags I had to exclude.  First published 11.08 am Bulgarian time.)

I watched the recording last night of last week’s sermon by Kristian Lythe.  I had forgotten his name, I’ve not seen or heard of him for ages.  But Kristian mentioned him in his sermon, he had made a traffic lights illustration.  He was saying something about red lights, among other things.  I don’t know how much of the sermon I would need to talk about to have you understand.  It can be found at http://www.kt.org/media. (note: please don’t be distracted by the shouting and his insistence on having the word of the Lord or anything else you see and hear.  If any of it is true [how much of it can be?] it is still not the point).

I don’t know how they get hold of information like this about people in my life, but it particularly concerns me that they have sufficient information about this man, Dr Gallo, to use a lookalike of him. Maybe my concern and the way I am handling it are stupid, selfish, treacherous and ungrateful.  I was assuming that they had the information through having had direct communication with Dr Gallo, but that might not be true.   But if it is true, although personally and emotionally I would like to come out and patch things up, I really think there is cause for concern here.  They had told me to leave the church.  I haven’t been there for over a decade.

What are they doing with something like this, it is none of their business, and neither Dr Gallo nor anyone else has ever brought this connection up with me. I’ve known for ages they do the same things with close family and past friends and acquaintances.  As I have said before, I do feel love and I do feel loyalty, but this is stalking, in a way the psychiatric team has told me doesn’t happen, or at least, isn’t happening to me, and they have partly based their diagnosis on my insistence that it does and is.

My Christian response is my biggest felt response, but also I need to keep identification with others in the psychiatric patient community (excuse terminology, maybe I should talk more in terms of mathematical sets, for which being a part of one doesn’t necessarily imply relationship)  and recognise that this is stalking, it is a step, or more like several steps, too far in ruling a church and church discipline and discipleship, I need to employ the term ‘heavy shepherding’ because people recognise it, and recognise myself that this is what is happening in this situation.

They and other churches I’ve been involved with have been challenged many, many times by me about this, in emails, through my blog, and emails are not answered and no conversation entered into through my blog.  David Shearman’s church bounces my emails back to me, whether I have mentioned his name or not in the address or body of my email (I no longer send them and have assigned any responses to ones I do send to the spam folder) saying david.shearman@christian-centre.org is not a valid email address.  If this is supposed to be heart talk for please come home, then I am sorry, and it is probably my loss.  That email address used to be valid, I don’t know if it is only me that gets that kind of response, or used to until I stopped emailing.

I’m very, very sorry, but this is awful.  I feel awful for handling it this way.  I’m not even fully convinced that they are wrong to do this anymore, and that is one of the reasons I need feedback and help from people in whom I have expressed trust who might be more convinced than I am.  I am too emotionally caught up to fight, and the way my readers distance me, on the whole, makes that worse. These people know who they are, and some of them know I love them because I believe they are the sort of people who would want to help and not cause injury.

I might be mistaken in my assessment, in fact at the moment I would like to cause injury myself and have obviously felt that way for ages.  I don’t think in a situation like this that makes me nuts or dangerous, even if under extreme provocation and in distress I even employ gestures to demonstrate how I feel when everything else is ignored.  When I was a kid ‘I’ll kill you’ meant ‘you have gone too far’, not ‘you’d better take steps to separate yourself from me and protect yourself’.  It might be crass and it might not be used in the kindest of relationships, but that is still the way it is for plenty of people who are not considered to be in need of incarceration.  I had it said to me plenty of times.  I’ve never thought of considering that anyone who said it should be locked up.  But maybe I should, on hindsight.  It is emotional thuggery if nothing else.

Ps I have heard Christian leaders involved in this say ‘prove it’.  In something like this that is neither honorable nor Christian.  Robb Thompson was one of them.  He might have been talking about something else.

Tommy, I really do believe this is something that needs to be dealt with, not only for my sake, but for that of others as well.  You have taught me well on that and I’m grateful (even if I don’t always feel I like you very much).  It is as close as a church can get to kidnap.  I know even this gesture towards you rather than coming to you directly is enough to break trust.  I feel that and it feels irrevocable. Partly I feel I’m disempowering myself in any way I could relate to you, and I believe you also need me to be empowered in any relationship we might have, as I need it myself.  So maybe this is just useless empty gesture time again.  I am implicating you, but I’m implicating you to try to empower you, if you think that is something I’m capable of.

Here Goes Nothing

Telly Watching.

David Edes is, to me, apart from seeming like a very nice person, a combination of two people.  He looks like, exactly like, a mental health solicitor I had (he actually got my last section rescinded, for which I am obviously grateful) who, when I said I did things on the internet, asked me how I had access to it, and I told him I had a computer at home, and he said either, ‘YOU’VE got a computer?’ or ‘What are YOU doing with a computer?’, but it meant the same thing, and I was so shocked I couldn’t express how angry and appalled I felt.  It appeared that his assumption was that I shouldn’t have one. 

David Edes’ name is, apart from the final ‘s’, the same as a mental health solicitor I approached in Greenwich when I was taken into hospital under a section (it might have been the same one the other solicitor got rescinded).  I phoned him from the hospital ward and, knowing that I had not been satisfied with the way I had been treated by the other company, asked him if we could have an initial conversation, following which I would decide if I wanted him to handle my situation.  He said he wasn’t prepared to approach it that way, that he didn’t have time, or something like that, and I think I said something about didn’t I have a right to an initial conversation based on which I could make my decision, and he said look, I don’t think I want to handle it anyway, and I just thought that was so discriminatory.  While I know that David Edes on BBC World News is neither of these people, because of the resemblance, which in the context of all the other resemblances etc is obviously deliberate, I can’t help reacting to him as if he was.  I’m sorry for David, if he knows nothing about this.  He seems to be genuinely nice.  But so did these people.  maybe they didn’t expect someone on benefits on a section in hospital to have enough about them to at least try to insist on their rights. Maybe they didn’t see me as having those rights, because I was on benefits.  The right I wanted, in the second situation, was the right to see if I had enough confidence in my relationship with a prospective solicitor handling my tribunal, and other associated matters.  But for the associated matters you have to look elsewhere anyway.  The ones I have spoken to have said they can only handle the tribunal, not question the diagnosis itself.  I’ve had so many solicitors refuse to get involved I’ve given up trying.

More later.  I’ll edit this later and add more.  I want to go out though, so I’m going to, and stop desperately and hysterically hanging on to my computer and what I can do with it, which does not reliably feel like much at the moment as it keeps crashing.

Coded Communication

The reason I disagree with this, from people with power and authority towards people who have been through the mental health system, is that my experience of the mental health system is that they insist it doesn’t happen, and if you say it does it is evidence of mental illness.

My experience of the people who use this form of communication is that they do so in order to be able to insist that you respond on their terms and they get involved on their own terms, otherwise they won’t even acknowledge the communication.  They will stand by and look on silently and impassively as they order you to be taken away.

Their assumed right to do this also assumes that they know everything they need to know to make a decision about a person.  Erm . . . that would make them God, then?

I’m in a dilemma over this.  I’m sure that most of them believe that what they are doing is right.  But I would like to e able to say that the reason I feel so strongly against it is that I have fallen prey of evil people who have perverted its use, but those people would not accept that description and assessment of themselves, and neither would most ‘decent, upstanding people’ accept it of them.

I do feel love, I do feel loyalty, I believe very much in obedience to authority.  I think I do, anyway.  So when I don’t respond to this, I believe it says something bad about me, and I think that is how they see it too.

Am I a person being abused, or am I just a rebel who needs to learn to respect those in authority? If I go to the people I rebel against in tears, will they heal me?  I certainly seem to be making life very hard for myself.  That is the position they take.

The problem is, for me and other survivors of the mental health system, the government validates and upholds the system which says believing we are being communicated with in this way is evidence of mental illness.

So what is the definition of mental illness? Is it, for someone like me, that I want to do what I want to do on my own terms, not on the terms of those who use their form of communication to be able to opt out of committment to a response from the person which is other than they want?  To me, it looks that way.

I thought that living in a democracy meant you could do anything you want to, within the law, on your own terms unless, discounting assault, someone with authority stops you with good reason and in an acceptable way, which, to me in a situation like this, would be with the personal commitment of being explicit about what you are saying, about who you are saying it to, and about what you want, so that everyone watching and listening, including the person themselves, knows what you have said and who you have said it to.

I feel I could just go walking up to these people, at the moment, and find myself embraced and accepted.  That makes me feel that I should drop my insistence that people in authority should not communicate with those without power and authority in code, whatever the communication.  I think they would say it is about testing the heart.  When I started writing this I was ready to maintain that it is an attempt to control a person inappropriately rather than to control a situation and recognise the person’s rights to their own terms of action and understanding. I wonder what kind of Britain it is that would be put at risk by recognising these rights and not acting against them.

I believe that no one in authority who upholds the mental health system has a right to use this form of communication with someone who knows that if there response is considered unacceptable they could well end up back in hospital.  I also wish to maintain that they have no right to take an individual out of that group and try and make them feel secure enough to leave the others behind. if they can do it for one, they can do it for all.  I believe the way to do that for this kind of situation is to make it clear that the mental health practitioners are wrong in their assertions and actions towards people who believe they are being communicated with using any kind of code.

Coded communication I am aware of and that I know others are aware of embraces things like parable, metaphor, storytelling, drama – seeds planted that go for the heart and conscience and which bypass the process of logic.  I heard on Premier Radio that it was C S Lewis who said that was the function of his stories, and Premier Radio accepted the validity and desirability of that without question.

My own life experience, and that of many others, I have to assume,  is that that is not something we have been brought up with with any awareness or security or understanding. That being the case, it is wrong to invalidate us and superimpose it on us at will.

I think that, in most situations, employing means to move the will through the heart bypassing the mind is assuming far too much power.  It assumes too much personal purity and knowledge.

I’m Sue Barnett.  I’m trying to survive the mental health system threat, and until people insisted on knowing everything about me, I was a survivor of sexual and other forms of abuse.  I was satisfied that, as a Christian, the new had come and the old had gone, and that there were some things I didn’t need to talk about.   Because other people were not, and were not prepared to say that to me or to tell me what it was they were concerned about, I have been made a victim of the mental health system and of everyone who is happy to have that fear as a form of control over me because it makes their job easier.  I have been made a victim by people in authority who have used this extreme form of force and invalidation to compensate for their own cowardice, anger and unwillingness to be open without taking control.

The truth is, however I feel, the life I could have known will now never exist.  For them, knowing that I have been a victim of sexual abuse makes them believe they need to take another look and try to restore the relationship, maybe try to help me and so expiate their guilty feelings.  Some want to work even harder to cover what they have done, and so present as believing they need to be even more insistent on the form of communication they are using which will not cover the person who responds to it in the eyes of the mental health system, if the communicators don’t find the response acceptable.  They can invest it with whatever tone or expression of love, authority, disapproval, anger, cajoling, humour, twitting, triumph, positive disengagement they want to, the form of communication is still as compromising to its recipient.

If they want me to go home, the right way to communicate that is to tell me so openly and formally, either giving reasons or saying that they can’t, and to tell me what kind of provision will be made for me if I do what they ask me and what else they want to happen and don’t want to happen, in terms of – well, not knowing whether or not they want to arrest me is one of my greatest anxieties.  Will anyone meet me at the airport and, if so, who and for what purpose?  How will I know them, and that they are who they say they are and want what they say they want?

With good reason I am afraid of force and of violence and of being taken into any kind of detention when no one has told me to expect it.  Making people live with that has to be wrong, in most cases, if not all.  They tell us that if we treat them with respect we will be respected.  Hm. A very easy equation to make, and also one which they don’t impose that often on themselves in any kind of requirement to be the first to show respect in a relationship which has broken down.

Christmas is here.  I feel as if I have deprived myself.  But I believe that other people have been watching my actions with cynicism they have attributed to me.  They seem to think I have done some hard and necessary things just because it is Christmas and I want to have a good one, so they are treating my actions and communications with cynicism and not even acknowledging them.  To me, that makes them the problem, because I don’t work that way.  I would not seek resolution of serious issues involving other people with an eye to having it out of the way by Christmas.  I recently contacted the police complaints department for an update on a complaint they have allowed to lapse for several months without communication.  That was a week ago.  In spite of the seriousness and distressing nature of what is involved, I have still received no reply, and I really believe, given the way they have handled all other communication I have made on this matter, that they have decided I can wait until after Christmas because if I thought I should be able to get it out of the way before then they are going to teach me I can’t do things at my own convenience.  I didn’t even think of Christmas.  I did what I knew I had to do at the time.  If this is the approach they are taking towards me, it is their cynicism, not mine, and is completely contemptuous.  There might be another reason but, if there is, they are not exactly showing any human concern.  I haven’t even had an acknowledgement of the email I sent them, let alone an update.  This must be wrong, especially when I first started trying to deal with it back in March 2009 and they have failed to deliver in terms of the way they said they were going to handle it, even after many attempts to get a clarification.  I’m wondering why I am being held hostage in this way and why I, as the person who made the report and has later complained about the way it has been handled from start to finish in the way they have treated me, am being made to feel as if I don’t matter.  It appears to me that they MUST be trying to hide something.  If they are waiting for me to be prepared to deal with it in the way they think I should be, that is awfully patronising and shows incompetence rather than anything else.  I’ve made the report.  I’ve made the complaint.  I am being ignored on one hand and being put under pressure on the other while they wait for – what?  Perfection in the way I go about things and the way I express my feelings over the situation before they will allow any resolution or progress or closure?  These people, whose officers have been exposed for rape and other misdemeanours?  They think they have a right to hold me, someone who went to them voluntarily, hostage?

You daren’t say too much against these people.  They have ways of making you pay.  Violence, neglect, incarceration under the mental health act, leaving you to deal with abuse and vigilantism in the neighbourhood.  Would they take out a contract on my life?  Would they physically have me killed?  I really don’t know.

Edit note: 11.36 am Bulgarian time:

This post didn’t appear under it’s assigned categories and tags for several minutes.  I thought it wasn’t going to, so I contacted WordPress to ask why.

When I finished (perhaps this is what is commonly called ‘paranoia’, but I don’t think so, though I am in the city centre, more or less), a police car came past with its siren wailing.  It stopped and started and stopped and started, sort, long, it felt deliberately timed and mocking, angry, harassing and threatening.

Now I’m angry.  MY anger is not acceptable, so I am also afraid.  In the light of everything that has happened this year – should I just laugh at myself and stop being so precious and pretentious?  It looks as if I am being targeted for deliberate harassment.  If the action is deliberate, harassment might not be their motivation, it is just the quickest interpretation people arrive at. But whatever the motivation, if it IS deliberate, it is experienced as harassment and contempt and provocation, and knowing that might be what they want, I am angry, and sick with fear because of that possibility.  Because when that happens, it is normal, and right, to want to confront the human beings responsible.  But if I did I would come off worst.  That is how people become mentally ill.  Not being allowed to confront what is wrong with what is right, and having to pretend compliance where it is absolutely wrong, in the face of authorities and powerful organisations and individuals who pretend they are not doing what they most obviously and certainly seem to be doing.  I’m afraid, because they might be using this kind of activity towards me to get me to reveal my identity and whereabouts.  Even though my landlord, I think, has to give them that information anyway.  I’m afraid because, when I think I am wrong, I feel it deeply, and they make me feel that way all the time.  I’m afraid because my normal mode is love and respect, and they seem to enjoy invalidating that, or misappropriating it.  I feel stupid.  I think that is what they want me to feel.  Back off and watch a woman being abused and wait until she cries for help, realising how right they really are and acknowledging how wrong she really is.

Um . . .

OMG!!!

First published 9th December 2010, after a post on veganism.

Edit:  This is a Sticky Post – Stuck to the front page for future reference.  It didn’t appear in any of the tag categories I selected, I assume because it has too many tags, although plenty of others that HAVE appeared have more than the 10 suggested in WordPress Help.

I brainstormed on the tags.  One reason I have stuck this on the front page, so you can search the categories any time, and so can I.  And what I say in this is relevant much of the time.   If you look at my tags in this you get an idea of how I think and feel about what is happening and how I think it should be perceived, understood and treated.

Spread the word, please, if you are with me.  Maybe if I break up the tags into easier to handle chunks I can get the post into all the categories I want, if I reproduce it or something.

Just listen to the sickly sweetness on Premier right now.  You have an hour.  I wouldn’t mind if it wasn’t criminally fuelled sarcasm, teasing and stalking.  They are not sincere people, even if they sound it.

Listen, you will hear them using my blog.  Even this.

They are taunting people, maybe me, with ‘Ah, you think YOU are always right, do you?’ But whether I am or not, I’m not using criminal means to enforce my opinion.  They are.  These Christians.  If you can’t win and you want to cry, mock and laugh, they say.  These carers for souls and God’s vision for humanity as a whole.  Unfit for purpose.

What’s it like, playing God? Esther says.  You’re asking the wrong person, Esther.  I wouldn’t know.  You would though, if you think He authorises the use of criminality and everything else in my tags to destroy a person.  Croaking and squeaking, most of it is deliberate and to hurt and offend FOR NO GOOD REASON EXCEPT TO WIN FOR YOUR ORGANISATION and you have no right to my sympathy.  I am not you, I am weak, you are abusing your position.

And you keep teasing, making out you’re going to comment or pass an opinion on what I say, but talk about something else.  I can hear the mockery in your voices, past experience of you all helps.

I love it when John Pantry gets hsi knickers in a twist about something being blatant.  If he’s talking about me, he’s projecting.  he is seeing things that were not intended at the time of writing, but I am awfully glad they are there.  But they weren’t intentional, so it is all, for him, a product of his mind, guilty and sneaky as it is.

Thank you for seeming sweet, guys, even if you are not.  We all need our illusions, especially at this time in the morning.  Pity mine don’t hold.

Got it – they are taking the message to their own consciences and forcing them outwards. That’s what this kind of Christianity does, all the time.  Look at the blogs, see how often they talk about they rather than I or we.  They think it is a sign of good authority to stand out in the street complaining loudly or pointing the finger, literally, in someone else’s face, a member of their congregation.  I’ve seen and heard it all, and deliberately recoil from and distance myself from it.  Buzz, buzz.

I’m being censored.  This doesn’t appear in any of my tag categories, 50 minutes on, and the Premier news just had something said with firm sternness about needing medical help.  It’s not new.  Maybe that is why Premier felt able to mock so freely and why it was so effective.  They caught me on my blind side.  I assumed it was going out and being shown in the categories.

Rick Easter, I have no responsibility.  I’ve already tried to meet it many times over, and you continue to taunt and terrorise based on the consequences.  You are angry, degrading people.

THAT Was Ages Ago!

I was just thinking about something I read or heard that, after a couple of years being a vegetarian or vegan, your body loses the ability to process non-vegetarian/vegan food sources.  I felt slightly worried, just in case it really should turn out that you need animal nutrition to be healthy, and what would I do if my body couldn’t even cope with it?

Then I thought of the days when I was fascinated by the fact that Pete Murray was a vegetarian, and wondered how he could possibly do it, and thought it couldn’t be possible, and that it was very interesting, but scary territory, and very much ‘out there’.  It wasn’t something I could ever do. People like me can’t.

I went to Happy Grill the other day, for a cup of coffee.  I decided to look at the menu, and decided that, as a vegan, I was in trouble.  I wanted everything I shouldn’t want.  Not just eggs, but meat and fish.  It felt like the most normal, natural and easy thing to do, just tuck into a chicken, meat or fish meal.  I am wishing I was still a fish eater, and am trying to justify a thought that I could keep my own egg producing hen.  With me it would be free and well cared for.

I also keep deciding it can’t be right, as a vegan.  I keep coming back to the belief that, if I do that, I will be validating the system of exploitation that gives me access to the hen in the first place.

But is it different in the countryside, and in Bulgaria?  Is it OK to eat animals and their products if the animal has a free and natural life?  Is being a vegan a bit extreme?

I sometimes feel it is, and that I am being stupid and depriving myself just because I said that I would be a vegan for life, and I don’t want to be teased about giving it up.  Why not, I don’t know, really.  Vegans are no nicer than – I was going to say ‘the rest of us’, this is not a good place for a vegan to be – anyone else, and there are more of us than there are of them, that is more meat eaters than vegans, and this is my thought process which, as a vegan, I’m not entitled to, but it is where I’m at.

OK, muddle.  I have not felt embraced by vegans, any more than by anyone else.  As a human and a vegan, I have felt enraged and deeply wounded and betrayed by this, because part of my vegan expectation is that people will matter to vegans as much as any other living creature does.  As a vegan, especially in Bulgaria, I am really lonely.

I don’t know what is wrong with the vegetarian/vegan people here.  Their prejudice and misogynistic hatred and contempt seem to run just as deep, if not deeper – I mean, if you are a vegetarian or vegan out of conviction, that’s a love stance, isn’t it?  So how can you be cruel/rejecting/controlling towards a human being, especially if they share your convictions and believe in and practise the lifestyle?  And if you claim to embrace a peaceful and loving spirituality to boot?

I wonder if they read this.  I wonder if the people the media continually directs my attention back to are really wanting me to go back to them? Because if they do and if they read this, I’d like to say to them,

‘wake up and smell the coffee, guys.  I am gutted and devastated by the way you have treated me in this, the way you have turned away from me and turned in on yourselves, the way you have accepted a bad report about me from people who have no right even to have access to some of the things they say, let alone be spreading them’.

Maybe I made a mistake.  I believed in the vegan community, the kind, compassionate, caring, Christian, spiritual community.  I saw the sharing of values as a bond and covenant of friendship.  I still do.

I was going to liken it to believing in the disabled community, or a racial or ethnic community, but about those things you have no choice.  But is it still true that, even given who you say you are in the paragraph above, it is no more covenantal than being disabled or of a particular ethnic background?

There is one thing we all are, and that is human.  But even that is not a respected covenant.  So just as I am not going to find a friend in every human being just because I am human (we might be different in every other way), it probably follows that I am not going to find a friend in every vegan or spiritual person and shouldn’t believe in the idea of community anymore than I should believe in a disabled community.  The fact that we share a situation or cause or believe we share a conviction doesn’t mean we have what it takes to be friends and find friends.

This is garbage, isn’t it?  It is also a place of real pain and heartbreak for me.  And parading it on a page on the internet makes me feel less able to deal with it in a way that might heal relationships in real life.  It’s about motive.  Who am I writing for, and why?  They have as much right to feel betrayed as I do, maybe, if not more.

Non-vegans tease you all the time, pushing the boundaries of what you will or won’t embrace as acceptable and your reasons.  A question I keep coming back to is, if some animals are bred only for their usefulness or food value, if we were all vegan would they all become extinct?  These lovely, fluffy lambs we don’t want to kill and eat, the horses and the donkeys we don’t want to exploit.  If they only existed in the wild, would they soon become extinct, and our lives be perceptibly poorer for their absence?

Another question: is using an electronic sound deterrent on household pests and vermin a form of animal cruelty?  I’ve got a rat or 2, they are getting bolder.  They do my bedroom now.  I read they don’t like peppermint, so I put some peppermint teabags out all around the kitchen, and at the hole I know about.  They shifted them out of the way and carried on regardless.  I can’t afford rat catchers all the time, and I think they would be unsympathetic to a vegan approach anyway, the only other option seems to be to let dogs and cats eat them.  Or kill them and leave them for me. Lovely!  And inconsistent, to my mind.  So what do you do?

Paranoid Thoughts

You know they keep telling us we need a voice?  Well, that’s rubbish.  For most of us, that is the last thing we need.  The people who say different groups need a voice want to be the voice themselves. Some of them, if that aren’t granted that, will take it by force.

Most of us just need the protection and integrity of privacy, within our own allotted circle of relationships.

I think electronic communications, in terms of enabling undetected and widespread surveillance and crime, might be one of the worst con tricks we have ever fallen for.

They take your stuff and feed it back to you, sometimes really specifically, targeting communities and individuals within communities, we all end up frightened of each other and of intimacy because a parody of it is being shoved in our faces constantly by the media, so when we all get to sitting indoors they sell us another gadget to further enhance our media experience.

Most of these people are criminals on the make.  They force the TV licence issue while knowingly using their media empire to invade people’s privacy.  I have in mind the person who was on Andrew Marr’s show yesterday, BBC1 9am Sunday 5th December, the present director general of the BBC.  I don’t know, maybe it isn’t him, maybe he doesn’t have that much power over what people using the BBC to broadcast do, and maybe he doesn’t actually know that much.  But I think he does.

Wise observation of the day, if it IS wise, I don’t know:  If we share a truth, why do we need a voice? The philosophical debate that will come out of that is nothing to do with me, so please don’t try to make out that it is.  I might be responsible for what I say and do, but I’m not responsible to everyone who decides I should be responsible to them. That is self-igniting manure that burns with a stench.

Happy Days!

East Midlands Today 24.11.2010

Edit note 26.11.2010

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w5djf/East_Midlands_Today_25_11_2010/

These people are vicious.  Aggressively invasive and sexual gropers and hateful in every way.  Whatever they want, they and those like them, I oppose them as a point of principle.  The woman was wearing dress a bit like a kaftan I bought off ebay.  The one on a child called Chloe in Doctors was more like it, teamed with other personal details, as all these programmes are.  ‘I am you and you are me’, Tommy Boyd said.  That’s how these programmes work.  It’s like a personality mix and match or chop suey (get it?).  I took what Tommy said at a heart level, but perhaps he meant something else.

These human beings are acting like dogs, and that is grotesque.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w5dj5/East_Midlands_Today_24_11_2010/

For some reason my link buttons are inaccessible, so I had to copy the link from the browser rather than use the short form provided by the BBC.

Dominic Heal looks like my grandad.  I pointed this out to an MEP I accidentally left a comment for (I didn’t know she was an MEP), and on the following Monday he was not there.

I decided to be sensible about it a couple of days after he came back.  I decided he is just a man in television doing his job, and it isn’t his fault that he looks like my grandad and has a name reminiscent of a pastor at Kensington Temple, Dominic, part of a church which believes in healing.

But I watched this today (it’s supposed to be available until about 7pm tonight and isn’t downloadable unless you can record it yourself), and it seems obvious to me that he knows and is fully aware of the role he is playing.

The programme features a woman, a senior citizen (must be politically correct) who was knocked down by a hit and run driver who had stolen a yellow dumper truck.  A lot like the one the people I stayed with in Wales have.

This kind of coincidental crime happens all the time, I remember another one which was also hit and run.  It was a car which had the number of my address on the back.  I’m not sure how that happened, the woman was run over by her own car, I think it was hit and run.

Anyone would think that, if I am a decent person, I will stop there.

But I started writing this post to complain.

I told Nick Ferrari on LBC that I hated cigarettes.  Since then programmes have constantly linked cigarettes with things that I enjoy, the mention of which will open me up, and then they come on with the cigarette reference, either in word or gesture.

On the show in this post, the hit and run was described as callous.  Possibly I was not intended to link this word with anything to do with me, but because what followed next came so hard after, in my mind I have linked it all together.

So in my mind, this man who looks like the grandad I never got on with while he was alive because he shouted and hit me is associated with calling me callous if I don’t respond to this on his terms.  They then went on to talk about honing your craft, and straight after he followed it up with a hand gesture as if he was holding a cigarette.

This kind of thing always knocks me for six.  But for the rest of the programme they were wheeling it round and at the end seemed to be asking for a confirmation of the incident (is that so, or something like that), a young black guy came on with the weather forecast in the way Tommy Boyd said he thought it should be done.  In my post yesterday I wrote about hospital.  Lewisham is a mixed race area with a lot of black people.  This was reflected on the ward, and the guy was close to tears.

Can you imagine how I feel challenging this?

They already know about the yellow truck.  I don’t know how.  I want to run to co-operate, but it is still stalking.  Why won’t they make normal contact?  Why do they need to take charge in this way, assuming an identity which isn’t their own to do it?

I was often in hospital because I insisted all this was happening.  Now they want me to validate it.

I keep hearing, ‘you’ve brought it on yourself’.  That isn’t true, and should never be said to any victim of any kind of abuse.

These things are happening because someone has made their own evil decision that they should.  I did not make them make that decision.  Nothing I have said or done could ever justify a decision like that from someone else.

It might be convenient for them to think I’ve brought it on myself, though.  That way they can be my rescuers to whom I should be grateful, and I can be their pawn as long as I’m not prepared to meet them on those terms.

Premeir talked this morning about be thankful to God for saving their life.  It sounded like a directive to me that I should be grateful because they have saved my life.  But it was them that put me in such dire straits in the first place.

I don’t know how long they have seen themselves as saving my life.  I think if they had given me the security I asked for in asking them to make proper contact with me it might not have needed to be saved.

Check out the strange body language, the theatrical flourishes etc, at the end of this news report.  Or is it just me?  It leaves me wanting to respond but forgetting what I am going to have to go through, 2000 miles away, in order to do so.

But he’s saying, ‘we’re here’.  Isn’t he?  But stalking and all that stuff for years isn’t just a technicality.  It can’t be.  He looks like my grandad.  I know it and he knows it.  That’s why it carries weight.  And I was 50 on the 24th.  Wow, that’s magic.  But enjoying it is just out of reach, and my birthday was the pits.

No more for now.  I’m too confused.

Big Daddy Weave – David Shearman or his dad.

Trust and Obey – My baptismal hymn

Doreen – me old mam

Stuttering – my uncle Frank

Celebrate Your Beautiful News – Happy 50th birthday?

How was I supposed to realise that?  It feels like my failure, but they already know I see what they are doing as stalking and psychological pressure when a proper, direct approach would be more appropriate in every way.

He’s playing immovable tank, just like Fred/George Stubbs, the man who bullied his way into a pastorate over a divided diaconate, taking presidence before he was even chosen by the congregation.

They went by do as you’re told without thinking about the technicalities.  Cliff and Rachel got everyone except 4 of us who attended the meeting (a lot had already left the church) on their side.

I started recording Premier Radio at about 8.50 am UK time, and I just started to listen. I had started in the middle of a song, and at the end John Pantry played a testimony by a woman about Premier helping her to calm down, then he said Esther was joining him on the line, and said something about someone waving a piece of paper at him all smiles.

He does this kind of obvious intervention all the time.

Apart from the fact that it is criminal, what do I have against him? Several things, but the last time I saw him at Premier (I was acting a bit like the building’s ghost at the time) I met him in the lift going out, and apologised for lying about a small incident, I can’t remember what, something to do with the lift, and explained that I had been embarrassed.  I think I had met him in the lift on a previous occasion.   When we got outside he turned away sucking his teeth.

If he hasn’t changed, it still matters.  As it should.  It doesn’t really matter emotionally, but it does in other ways.  All his approaches feel like an assault.  I have a right to know what is going on on the radio without having him or others interfering with me like that.  It’s like a confrontational ‘hello’, which I used to get from people on the door at St Barnabas.  Confrontational hellos are not friendly.

They come at you like a tidal wave, and make you feel wrong and powerless.  But they shouldn’t be doing it.  I’m not going into the studio.  I am recording the radio at home.

They are obviously hiding something, or they wouldn’t need to be so confrontational and interceptive.   They want to take charge of me for some reason, in a way that an open and direct approach wouldn’t allow them to.  Common sense says it must be some sort of damage limitation exercise.  Blow the damage their harshness and undisclosed false accusations have done to me and mine, specifically, for decades.

Damn them.

In Jesus’ Name

Amen.

John is a naughty, sniggering boy caught out in the act.  He comes on with the gravitas, but he’s a naughty, sniggering boy.  I don’t want to love him.  I want to hate him for what he has done to me and what he has taken.

Sorry, John.

49 Or 50?

49 or 50?

(Or, as I heard a politician say today, neither fish nor foul!)

50 IS a special age.  If they say it isn’t, they’re lying.

I just thought I’d get this in now to be awkward – here in Bulgaria I am 50 years and 1 and a 1/2 hours old.  In the UK I am still 49.  Which counts and why?

When I realised I was 50, I smiled.  It was automatic.

Then I looked at where I am and felt suicidal (I’m not exaggerating).

I don’t know why or if I’m right (I’m probably not), but I believe 50 is God’s age.  That is, a special age to God.  It’s God’s reaching of majority.  5 is, my tradition tells me, the number of grace.

Whatever anyone might pray for me or try to bless me with in the future, no one can ever give me back the attaining of my 50th birthday.  That has gone.  Reconcile that for me someone, please.

I feel embarrassed making a big thing of this, because now I’m actually writing it doesn’t seem that important.  I also feel as if it is an insult to God to be so faithless for the future.

But I still felt that way, and it still is a big thing.

Check out WordPress’s Freshly Pressed.  Awesome.

PS Premier likes playing a song which I believe they are at least in part directing at me, and it’s a big part.  I can’t remember all the words I want, but it goes something like:

“I have come . . . down the road of my own mistakes . . . wasted years” etc.

For balance, I have to recognise that I am not their only intended audience, or at least I shouldn’t be.  They also play songs rejoicing and triumphing over enemies.

They say it is always your choice, and the bottom line is, that is true.  Sometimes the choice can cost you your life, and the church won’t be on your side.

It seems to me though to be a rather polarised approach to the human condition, including our spiritual condition. Blaming yourself for everything is no less the blame game than blaming other people.

I don’t know any more of this girl’s songs, but I hope that isn’t her settled position towards herself.  The Bible doesn’t mind saying that sometimes other people are to blame.

And the ‘blame game’ (I got that from Anne Coles).  Is it REALLY a game?  Isn’t it a necessary part of owning responsibility.

Blame isn’t a game, it really exists and needs to be dealt with in all healthy and growing relationships.  It is, or at least can be, a heartbreaking experience.  But surely nothing is more deadening to the soul and spirit than to live in a fuzzy, wooey, vibrating mulch where no one is allowed to recognise that blame exists, and also that it might not belong to them?

You can’t just say, ‘let’s not talk about it, let’s not play that game, let’s go and watch a film/go to a restaurant/go out witnessing.

Fuck me, you bloody can’t! (trans. I feel strongly about this and want to cry).

Big Or Small?

John Wimber used to say, ‘be as small as you can, so God can be as big as He can’.  Then I saw a poster with something by Nelson Mandela which said we should always be as big as we can, and shine, or something.

Maybe there is no real conflict here, but it seemed like it at first.  Maybe be as big as you can just means be your best.  But be small means don’t be conceited or proud, because God knows the proud from a distance, the Bible says.

For years that has been presented to me as a deliberate positioning thing on God’s part.  Yes, I have also been told that there are some things we are not morally capable of knowing, but the knowing from a distance, I have been left with the impression that God is watching and saying, ‘if that’s the way you want it, you can stay out there until you come into line’.  But writing this, I don’t think it’s like that.  I think it is more a case of, if we are ‘wise in our own eyes’, as Proverbs 3 puts it, we are not capable of receiving God.  We are only aware of Him in relation to our felt and accepted need.  I think He knows us from a distance, primarily, because WE are the ones who won’t let Him any closer.  He’s not saying, ‘stuff you, then’.

The Moon

So, what is the moon to me? 

When I went to school we had a song about the moon, or a man who lived there.  His name was (not sure how to spell this) Achin’ Drum.  And he played upon a ladle.  And something to do with cream cheese.

It has always been an object of beauty to me, and valuable for that alone.  I am assured that it is probably going to be around for at least as long as I am.  So I can look up, and there it is, awesome, beautiful, especially in the mountains on a cloudless night.

Why can’t we just look at it from a distance and love it, and love its maker?  Why can’t we let it be separate and appreciate it for its light and beauty?  Why do we have to get close up and analyse it?  To find that it has enough water per tonne for a shallow bath, but it isn’t drinkable, as said in Fiona Bruce’s News at Ten last night, ‘there are problems’.

Someone said, ‘a thing of beauty is a joy for ever’.  Someone else said, ‘familiarity breeds contempt’.  Since we can analyse anything we want to, why should we be grateful for or awed by anything?

My first intellectual reaction to the report was, in this era of austerity, isn’t it a waste of money to be ‘conquering’ space in this way?  Isn’t it only scientific man’s way of flexing his muscles, and isn’t it an intellectual luxury we can’t afford?  I think so.  I don’t think anyone is ever going to live on the moon.  I might be wrong, but we don’t need that space, it will only be novelty and ‘because we can’ if we do.  But it’s showing off and we can’t afford it.  In all kinds of ways we can’t afford it.  I believe the fabric of who we are can’t afford it, and I think it is immoral.  Just because we CAN do something, it doesn’t mean we SHOULD.

I went to a political talk in Deptford on climate change last year, hosted by Joan Ruddock, my MP.  I didn’t feel informed enough to contribute, so I sat and listened and thought, and eventually she waved a hand in my direction saying, ‘some people, of course, don’t even care’.  I defended myself, saying it wasn’t that I didn’t care, just that I didn’t feel qualified to have an opinion, and that the experts were divided, at which point someone suggested quite forcefully that I could leave if I wanted to, but I held my ground and stayed.  Later I asked about the impact of space exploration on the climate and the environment, but she said it was minimal, and all the lights left on and CFCs etc were more harmful and these little changes made all the difference.  I’m not convinced of that, and I thought her answer was very defensive and evasive.  Having watched parliament for a while as well, it appears to me the issue of climate change is often used strategically and metaphorically anyway.  It’s a handy issue to have going.  I was invited to the talk at a very strategic point in my own life last year, having never been invited to anything before or since.  I think I had emailed her or we had had a brief correspondence or something.  But I had had contact with her ages before that as well.

I think space programmes are an intellectual luxury we can’t afford, which adds only to our material knowledge and satisfies some of our curiosity but does nothing really for the quality of our lives, unlike other areas of science, and unlike the arts, and religion.  I suppose a few drugs might have their origin on the moon, but at this point I don’t know.

In this age of climate consciousness I wonder if people still find it so ridiculous to say, ‘if God had intended us to fly, he would have given us wings’.  Hasn’t the number and intensity and geographical reach of wars increased with our mobility?  Could we have had world wars without aircraft?  Most of us can’t afford the ‘benefits’ of air travel (going on holiday is up there in the list of the most stressful things to do as well – we need a holiday.  We need the stress of going on holiday to get away from the stress of everyday life and recharge our batteries, they tell us.  Maybe that is why many of us don’t bother with our neighbours ‘too much’, we can walk away, put space between us if it becomes too intense, and come back and maintain the comfortable distance), but apparently we can’t afford it environmentally either.

We look out there for everything, if we can’t easily find the solution nearby, everything comes at us from out there, and we end up out there ourselves.  There is no centring anymore, no respect for the individuality and separateness of another, whether it be person, family, community or country.  We cross the boundaries whenever we think we will.  Modern day mass media gives us the impression of immediacy and responsibility, but the reality is, we do not have it in us to take on that kind and amount of responsibility (or to be busybodies), and we are suffering for it.  We need more independence.  Our economies need more independence.  There should be no such thing as a global economic crisis, and no possibility of there being.  That’s what I think, but I might be wrong, I’m not that educated or well informed.

But back to science and stuff.  I’m not sure if we have the moral and ethical compass to keep pushing the boundaries.  Every new discovery seems to add more reasons to our lives to be afraid than it does benefits, and we always seem to be being told that we can’t afford the benefits anyway, as in drug treatments.  Please sir, why can’t we afford the benefits if we can afford to keep funding the war and fear machines?  Please sir, why not?

Who are all these despots that keep terrorising their people, who have been put in place by the western world leaders?  Is the selection process itself responsible for the havoc they can create and maintain?  All these famines and things where we can’t or won’t deliver because of the countries’ leaders.  I don’t want to just bandy words about that I don’t understand, but this really IS still colonial Britain, isn’t it?  Imposing our ways and values on every people we get involved with.

IF multiculturalism doesn’t work, why don’t we adopt the same ‘no pain, no gain’ policy towards dealing with that in the face of all the PC protests and accusations of racism, the same as we do with economic issues, where the accusation is that of classism?  Or on that is everyone saying, ‘you turn if you want to, the lady’s not for turning’?  Why is it taboo in England even to consider that?  Protests don’t stop our politicians in any other area of national and public life.  I’m not saying we should, I’m just asking why we can’t even give respect to the people who think we need to regain the separateness of our national identity.

Here endeth this little foray.

WAGblog: Dum Spiro Spero

"While I breathe, I hope"

Emerging From The Dark Night

Working through the Dark Night of the Soul to emerge as me.

The Elephant in the Room

Writing about my experiences with: depression, anxiety, OCD and Aspergers

The Sir Letters

A Tale of Love

The Seeker's Dungeon

Troubling the Surf with the Ocean

Seroquel Nation

Onward and upward...

We are all in this together

it's gonna be okay.

my last nerve

psychology | psychiatry | neuroscience | n stuff

A Philosopher's Blog

A Philosopher's View of the World...assuming it exists.