Category: Politics

St Petersburg – part two

DSC03095por

Catherine’s Palace at Peterhof (Petergof is the Russian spelling)

It was a warm day and I didn’t envy the staff in their period costumes. The picture shows the north side of the palace, or what was called the carriage courtyard.

The palace originated in 1717 by command of Catherine 1 of Russia. If you like a good tale look her up, because Voltaire  commented that her life was was nearly as extraordinary as that of Peter the Great himself.

DSC03097r

Views before we entered the palace, which was behind me.

DSC03098c

As we entered the building we went were asked to pass through security. I could see two men sitting at a desk watching us, so I climbed the small flight of stairs and entered the building. Only after passing through an archway did I realised that I’d passed through an X-ray machine, and shouldn’t have done so due to my pacemaker . . . .I checked the machine – it wasn’t working and didn’t look like it had been used in months, so I didn’t expect an ill affects. Normally security X-ray machines are very visible, with attentive staff, and I just wait to be patted down.
Before entering the viewing area of the palace we were given paper overshoes to cover our outdoor shoes, so as to protect the flooring.

DSC03101c

Two pictures to try and show how large the palace is – you can just see a small group of tourists. I was standing in the middle, which is the picture above my X-ray comment.

DSC03102c

Now facing the other way.

DSC03105r

DSC03107r

Everywhere I looked I saw gold and more gold. Some real some not, but which is which?

DSC03113r

Afternoon tea?

DSC03114r

A piece of fruit?

DSC03122r

The ballroom or Great Hall – our party was only twelve so not sure how many parties were going around. The room was 800 sq mtrs (8611 sq. feet) and in its day it took 696  candles, framed by mirrors, to light the Great Hall after dark. Note the ceiling  . .

DSC03125r

Tried for a better view of the ceiling, but . . .I didn’t have the flash on . .

DSC03127r

Part of the dance floor. Everywhere was elaborate to show power and wealth.

Now here’s a tale – Catherine 1 (as she became) had been a maid in the household of Peter the Great (he was born 1672 – died 1725) and he reigned as Tsar from 1682 to 1721 and then as Emperor of all Russia from 1721 to his death in 1725.

He took a fancy to Catherine and it is thought that they were married in secret in 1707 – and they had twelve children, but only two daughters survived in to adulthood.

Peter the Great moved the capital to St Petetersburg in 1703, and while he waited for the city to be built he and Catherine lived in a three roomed log cabin, which his soldiers had built in three days.

1280px-Domick_Petra_I

This is the historic site, but the cabin is inside this building, which was built later to protect the original log cabin. They lived as a normal couple, she looking after the children and the cooking and Peter tending the garden.

What Catherine suggested during a battle against the Ottoman Empire in 1711, is the bases of Voltaire’s comment. After the battle Peter the Great was so appreciative of her suggestion that he married Catherine again in 1712, but this time in public, and she became the Tsarina and later Empress.

They had two surviving children Anna 1708 & Elizabeth 1709. Both were illegitimate, but after Peter married Catherine in public, he legitimised the children.

Elizabeth was very like her father and he treated her as his favorite. In 1724 Peter betrothed Elizabeth to her cousin, who was a prince of impeccable background. By 1727, she was seventeen, her fiance had died, her parents had died, and her half nephew was on the throne. In 1730 her sister Anna became Empress on the death of her husband. She reigned until her death in 1740. There followed a year of regency until Elizabeth seized power and became Empress. She died in 1762 on Christmas Day.

DSC03130r

Elizabeth was extravagant with her clothing – she had 15,000 dresses – see a sample of one above. She never wore the same clothes twice.

DSC03136r

We passed in to a more private area of the palace .
Nicholas I – reigned 1825 – 1855.
He created the first Russian secret police.

DSC03141rc

Alexander III of Russia 1881 – 1894

DSC03142c

   Alexandra Feodorovna (6 June 1872 – 17 July 1918) – the Empress of Russia.
She died from a single shot to the head.

DSC03143c

Nicholas II of Russia – reigned November 1894 – March 1917.
Shot five times in the chest, 17th July 1917.

DSC03150r

I think this is the State Study of Alexander I.

There is so much to see, that a single day might not be enough, and to absorb all of the information is a feat in its self. A ‘bucket list’ destination for anyone thinking of visiting Russia. For me, the visit exceeded my expectation.

Palacio-Catalina-San-Petersburgo-Camara-de-ambar

Finally the Amber Room.

Photographing isn’t allowed so I had to download from the internet.

The original Amber Room was intended for the Charlottenburg Palace in Berlin, but it was installed at the Berlin City Palace. It was designed by a German sculpture and a Danish craftsman. It remained in Berlin until 1716, when Frederick William I, the King of Prussia, gave it to his friend and ally Tsar Peter the Great. Eighteen boxes were shipped and it was installed in the Winter House in St Petersburg.

In 1755 Czarina Elizabeth ordered the room to be moved to the Catherine Palace. The room covered about 17 sq mtrs (180 sq feet) and the Amber walls were studded with semi-precious stones, and backed with gold leaf. The estimated value today would be around USD $142 million.

In June 1941 the room was looted by the German army, and they dismantled the whole room within 36 hours and shipped it to Königsberg, Germany (which is  Kaliningrad today) and the room was installed in the castle. Alfred Rohde, a German art expert, took control of the Amber Room because his specialty was amber.

The room was on display for two years while he studied every aspect of its creation. In 1943, the end of the war was in sight, so he was ordered to repack the room and send it to safety. In August of 1944 the city was bombed by the allies and destroyed and the castle became a ruin.
Alfred Rohde managed to ship out part of the room, but he suffered from Parkinson’s disease, so he and his wife decided to stay in the city, which was now under siege by the Russians, during the battle of Konigsberg. The battle ended on 9th April 1945 with a Russian victory.
Rohde was fifty three, when he died in hospital on the 7th December 1945, and took the information about the Amber Room with him to his grave.

andrey_zeest_-_amber_room_2_autochrome

As usual with famous losses or finds we have the ‘curse’ –

according to the curse Alfred Rohde and his wife died of typhus (he didn’t), while the KGB were investigating the room (I don’t see the connection, but who am I to comment?),

General Gusev died in a car crash after talking to a journalist about the room  . . .another long bow . . and German army solider, Georg Stein, who was an amber room searcher, was murdered in a Bavarian forest in 1987 -connection??

The reconstruction of the room began in 1979 and it took twenty five years.

President Vladimir Putin, and the then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, dedicated the new room to mark the 300th anniversary of St Petersburg.

flag

The flag of St Petersburg.

 

 

 

 

An offence too far!

DSC07354r

There comes a time when all this gender neutral rubbish has to be laughed out of sight.

We now have ‘neutral’ Mother’s Day cards, so that a very small minority are not ‘offended’. How about the rest of who might be offended?

Neutral

What happened to the child celebrating their own mother’s special day? In the UK when I was a child it was called Mothering Sunday, which like many other traditional days, has been ‘changed’ thanks to our trans-Atlantic advertisers.

Halloween used to be Duck Apple night, and we didn’t go from house to house in costumes. Come to think of it, asking for sweets would have been a waste of time because they were still rationed in the late 40’s early 50’s in the UK.

Apparently there is a move to change the name of Mothering Sunday to Guardian’s Day or some other such daft name.

Guardian’s Day sounds like a new Brian Rix, Whitehall farce, no one would believe that the proponent was serious.

Mothering Sunday was good for two bob or even half a crown from Dad so that I could visit the local allotments near our local park, and buy some fresh flowers for Mum. The card was hand made, and the thought of using ‘You’ instead of ‘Mum’ makes me shudder.

Of course there are quite a few other things that will have to change if the offended ones have their own way –

To what do we change man-slaughter?

Or should you move because you are offending someone by living in or near Man-chester.

You will have to make sure you don’t man-oeuvre in to an awkward position, and if you are a politician what are you going to do about you man-ifesto?

But on to a more serious area, I want to know what the Germans are going to do about their national anthem.

They mention women and they sing of the German Fatherland – tut tut!

They even mention German women and wine in the same paragraph, that must give someone offence somewhere.

German National anthem

Of course, not to be outdone, we have the Russians, who also sing of the Fatherland, and they glorify God – how very un PC can a communist country get? On the other hand what would you expect of the Russians?

Russian anthem

The Dutch get worse – they sing of Princes, God, Kings and wait for it, Fatherland!
and even ‘honour’ – all this un-neutrality gender, is double Dutch to me.

Dutch National anthem

The Belgium people sing of their fathers – they are very confused because they don’t mention their mothers in some versions, and do so in others . . . I suppose being the HQ of the EEC makes them very confused.

Belgium National anthem

Poland – the latest version speaks of fathers in tears and boys, no mention of the other gender(s). The original version written in 1797 spoke of fathers, fatherland, boys, & would you believe GOD! No wonder they changed things . . .

Polish National anthem

The Americans sing of their land and the people and of course GOD. They did slip up once when they mentioned freemen . . .

American National anthem

The French sing of their sons and the fatherland . . .

French national anthem

Now the British have managed to get it half right – they sing of a queen, which should please many of the those who are alphabetically challenged , but then they sing of GOD . . .
The British National anthem

The Australians have managed a national anthem that doesn’t mention, male, female, fatherland, motherland or God.

We don’t mention God in Australia, because He is no longer welcome. He offends so many that He is no longer allowed in to our schools, parliaments (we have quite a few, hence the ‘s’), acknowledging God has become the 21st century’s Love that dares to speak his name  (a corruption of James Kirkup poem). Try 1 Corinthians, 16: 13. 

Australian National anthem

Finally, considering our species, how will the gender neutralisers fix the word hu-MAN.

This is what I think we should do to all those who wish to be neutralisers

 

 

Port Arthur

DSC09898cr

Port Arthur taken from the ship.

Maureen and I attended a talk about Port Arthur and Hobart. At the end of the Port Arthur talk the speaker stated that we would be anchored off shore, because Port Arthur was not a port that could cope with a vessel of our size. In fact, all they could cope with would be small motor boats.
She also mentioned that it would be a 45-minute boat ride from the ship to the shore. At that distance, which I estimated to be about eight to ten miles off shore, I told Maureen that I didn’t think that we would bother going ashore because it could be quite rough for a tender craft (ship’s lifeboats), and as she hated small boats it would not be a particularly pleasant ride.
That evening in the ship’s newsletter the distance (in time) was confirmed and we made plans to remain on the ship.
I was awake early the following morning and I felt the movement of the ship change and looked out of our window. We’d entered sheltered area. I could see land on both sides of the ship so that we were protected from the ocean. As I looked out I could see Port Arthur.
The distance from the shore was nowhere near a forty five minute boat ride, more like fifteen minutes and in fact I timed it and it was twelve minutes from where the Golden Princess anchored.

DSC09906cr

At once our plans changed, and we dressed for going ashore.
It was a smooth ride in one of the ship’s tenders to the small pier where we stepped ashore.

DSC09910r

Just a short walk to the ruins of Port Arthur.

Port Arthur was a prison that was created in 1830 to supply timber for various government projects using convict labour.
In 1833 it changed to become a repeat offenders prison for criminals from all over Australia. The prison was modelled on the Pentonville prison in the UK, which was described as a ‘machine for grinding rogues in to honest men.’
Some of the prisoners left Port Arthur with the skills of a trade, blacksmith, carpenters and shipbuilders. Unfortunately others became broken men.
Around the prison was a community of military and free men with their families, who lived normal lives of parties, sailing for fun and literary evenings. Gardens were created, and children went to school within the settlement.
Port Arthur grew to be an industrial settlement, and by 1840 more than 2000 people, who were a mix of convicts, soldiers and free men lived, and worked. They produced bricks, furniture, clothing, boats and ships.
Transportation from the UK to Tasmania ceased in 1853 and the prison became an institution for the aged, mentally& physically ill convicts, and finally closed in 1877.
Many of the bricks from various buildings were sold off very cheaply to locals who used them to build or expand their own homes. The name of Port Arthur was changed to Carnarvon to erase the hated convict links.
Over the years convict stories drew tourists to the area, and by the early 1920’s some of the remaining buildings had become museums.

DSC09916rThe prison was a building of four levels – ground floor and first floor for ‘prisoners of bad character’, with individual cells for each prisoner. The top floor accommodated 480 better behaved prisoners and the third floor was used as a dining area, recreational area, and school for the prisoners.
The prisoners were told that if they behaved they would be rewarded, and moved from the bottom single cells (see single cell photos), to the floor above, still single cells, and so on, until they reached the top floor. If they maintained their reputation as ‘good’ prisoners, they would be allowed the use of the recreational floor.
The picture above, and the one below, is of single cells on the ground floor.

DSC09920cA plaque can be seen in the above photograph, which I have reproduced below.

DSC09919cr

DSC09921c

Many Australian consider it a badge of honour to have a transported criminal in their family background. Often people will tell you, with pride, that their forefathers were transported for stealing just a loaf of bread or some other small item, but many where habitual criminals and the stealing of the loaf was the last straw for the magistrate. Many were sentenced to seven years and could have returned to the UK after serving their time, but chose to stay in Australia because they had been given ‘tickets of leave’ for good behaviour during their time as a prisoner, and had created a new life in Australia, and eventually became a free man or woman.
I researched my own family tree and found George Woodland, who was convicted in 1790 at the Old Bailey in London, for stealing a coat. He was sentenced to be transported because he had a string of offences. After spending two years on a prison hulk he sailed from Gravesend (which is on the south bank of the Thames) in 1792 as one of 300 males prisoners in Royal Admiral. The ship finally sailed from Torbay, which is on the southern coast of the England, on the 30th May 1792, and arrived in Sydney on the 02nd October of the same year. I found a picture of the Royal Admiral on the internet.

Royal AdmiralGeorge Woodland is listed on the ship’s manifest as John Woodland, but all other information points to George and John being the same person. (Court records etc).
One of the seamen on the ship was also named Woodland (coincidence?), but his Christian name was James.
Maybe the clerk who made out the manifest wrote ‘John’ instead of ‘George’, perhaps being influenced by his shipmate’s name i.e James.

The Royal Admiral was 914 gt, 120 feet (36 mtrs) in length, by 38 feet (11.5 mtrs) beam and had about 481 people onboard, which included several children, 49 female convicts, 20 soldiers, a number of free people, about 50 crew and 300 male prisoners.

DSC09927rFirst floor of the prison.

DSC09928rSecond floor – the metal supports that can be seen are to help keep the walls from collapsing during earthquakes.

DSC09933rGuard Tower – across the road from the prison.

DSC09935r

Many old buildings are missing, but this shows the view down to the water.
The prison is on the left of the picture and the Guard Tower on the right-side of the picture.

DSC09936rA model of the early ‘town’. If it was real I would be standing at the prison looking inland to the town. The building on the bottom right is the Law Courts, the building on the left with the path is the Commandants House, the area in the middle is the Guard Tower and behind that are the officer’s accommodation.

DSC09943rOutside of the Commandant’s home today.

DSC09945rCommandant’s dining room

DSC09947rcViews of his study

DSC09948r

DSC09954rKitchen

DSC09958rI had to take a picture of the recipe.

On each of the Princess cruises that Maureen & I have sailed, the ship always has bread and butter pudding on the menu, which I have found to be very good. I have my grandmother’s hand written note book in which she wrote details of various recipes, and one is Bread and Butter pudding, so I must compare the two – the one above and my grandmother’s written in 1896.

DSC09959r

A single bedroom in the Commandant’s house.

DSC09960r

 

DSC09962rSitting room

DSC09964r

All of the above is history, but below is the sad fact of today’s world.

On the 28th April in 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists and staff and murdered thirty-five people, wounding a further twenty-three.

DSC09971r

At the Broad Arrow Café in Port Arthur, where the killings took place there is now a pool of remembrance, and a place of peace and reflection. The café is no longer there.

DSC09972rcDeath has taken its toll, some pain knows no release, but the knowledge of brave compassion shines like a pool of peace.

DSC09973rEach leaf (ceramic leaves I think) in the water represents a murdered victim.

There was such an outrage that within three months the Australian Federal Government and all Australian States changed the law as to the type guns allowed to be owned by citizens. The Federal Government bought back 640,000 guns and had them melted down. With the political will, and courage, gun control is possible.

The killer was sentenced to 35 life sentences without the opportunity of parole, plus 25 years for the remaining 36 charges on 5 other offences (20 attempted murders, 3 counts infliction of grievous bodily harm, the infliction of wounds upon a further 8 persons, 4 counts of aggravated assault and 1 count of unlawfully setting fire to property.

memorial

Twenty years after the event, the pool with the floral tributes near what was the Broad Arrow Café. For more information read this link.  

From the memorial we returned to the ship deep in thought. As we left the shore and started the steady chug back across the water I noticed a RAN (Royal Australian Navy) vessel had arrived.

DSC09975rc DSC09987c

The final tender boat arrives as we prepare to sail.

DSC09984rc

The gap in the land through which we will sail to the open sea.

Think before voting

This blog is aimed mainly at Australian readers, so I apologise to my other readers.

I am tired of the multi-coloured banner across the top of my blog, even though I’ve tried to have it removed, and investigated how to remove it myself, but I don’t have the computer knowledge.

It is obviously a banner in support of same sex couples marrying, but as they have had the same legal status since 2008 as de facto heterosexual couples I fail to see the attraction of the word ‘marriage’. But that as may be. Forcing my bog to carry their banner is not going to endear them to me.

According to the last census in Australia 3.6% of the population claim to be homosexual, which as I’ve said before, doesn’t bother me in the least. I do not condemn them, because I am not sinless.

My concern is that 96% of the population will be affected by the proposed changes to the current definition of marriage.

Via a postal vote we will be asked to tick for or against the change to the marriage act, which states that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The question is simple, but the consequences of the changes that could take place will affect all of us for generations to come.

The law was changed to allow homosexuals to marry in the UK, and we in Australia have a tendency to follow certain changes in the UK, NZ & the USA. According to a British report (Feb 2017) 2.5 % of the British population are homosexual, which means 97.5% have had their lives altered because the government have added additional laws to change society over and above the basic law to allow homosexuals to marry.

My concern is that the change in the UK has not just been to allow homosexuals to marry, but also to change the direction of the society as a whole.

Just a few examples of the UK changes that might ‘emigrate’ to Australia.

The UK Government has a new Parliamentary Minister – for Proposals to streamline and de-medicalise the process for changing gender will be part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition, the Gender Recognition Act.
Gender recognition?

To announce this new ministry we had the corruption of the badge of State that dates back to 1603.

LionDieu et mon droit = God and my right, which is the oath of the monarch.

s300_s300_Pridelogo_960x640

Not particularly respectful for the Queen. Her Government issued a news item.

To jump to another change, yet linked to the one above –

London Underground workers have been told to stop greeting people by saying ‘ladies and gentlemen’.
Instead, Transport for London (TfL) workers will use phrases such as ‘good afternoon everyone’ as the city takes steps to become more gender-neutral.

Court

I find this a little odd considering The Gender Recognition Act was announced by the Minister for Women and Equalities, how very un-pc, surely it should be handled by the Minister for Persons and Equalities.

If you attend Hull University as a student, and you do not use ‘gender neutral pronouns’ instead of ‘he’ or ‘she’ then you will lose marks during your examinations. It is a good job that the Minister for Women and Equalities doesn’t attend Hull University as a mature student.

Don’t think that you can move to another university because Sussex University staff have been advised to use gender neutral pronouns . . . several other universities have issued guidelines to their staff – are we looking forward to such advice from our Australian ‘seats of learning?’

If you have a bank account with HSBC you have to make a decision as to how the bank should address you – MX, Ind, Misc, Mre, or Myr – I think I’d pick MYR, because that being the international code for the currency of Malaysia, and perhaps HSBC might make a mistake and send me a few ringgits instead of sending them to Malaysia.
So don’t expect to receive a letter addressed to you if you are a Mr, Mrs, or Miss. I can still remember my first Christmas envelope addressed to Master . . . .  .
Misc doesn’t have the same ring. . . .

There is an organisation in the UK called Stonewall, which is a homosexual organisation to promote radicalism in society, and it seem to be working in many areas – the slogan of this organisation is ‘Acceptance without Exception’, which creates in my mind a strange feeling of deja vu, which is not a pleasant feeling. George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm springs to mind.

To calm people before the vote to legalise homosexual marriage in the UK that nothing will change, the UK Parliament promised to protect the freedom of religion. This was supposed to ensure that people could remain true to their convictions.
Within a very short time the political ‘protectors’ started to devalue ‘their heartfelt promises’. The Minister in charge of Education stated that the Church of England should reflect modern attitudes.

From 2013 homosexuals in the UK have been able to have a civil wedding, but the law will not allow them to be married in an Anglican church.
The Education Secretary suggested it was now time that the Church of England allowed its vicars to bless homosexual unions.

The Education Minister said, ‘I wouldn’t prescribe to them how they should deal with that, but I do think we are living in a country where people broadly recognises that attitudes are in a different place now to where were many , many years ago. We have allowed same sex marriage, that is a massive step forward for the better, and for me, I think people do want to see our major faiths keep with modern attitudes in our country.’

The Speaker in the House of Parliament must be politically impartial. Therefore, on election the new Speaker must resign from their political party and remain separate from political issues, even in retirement.

The Speaker of any House of Parliament, but particularly the British House of Parliament, which dates back to 1258, must remain neutral. He / she isn’t allowed to have a political opinion, not even after he / she retires. Unfortunately the current Speaker of the House, has an opinion on homosexuals marrying – he calls for churches to embrace homosexual marriages, and said not so long ago –
“I still feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so, without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right.” another member of the Government who hasn’t read the Bible.

Would anybody be interested in what this person had to say if he wasn’t the Speaker of the House who should be neutral – or is he neutral when he said – “I’ve always thought proper credit should be given to the Blair government, which was a hugely reforming government, and Tony Blair personally, who was a terrific force for good on these issues. Credit where it is due, the Cameron government did something very remarkable on equal marriage. I’ve always thought same-sex marriage legislation was David Cameron’s greatest achievement in Parliament.”
Not bad for a man who is ‘neutral’.

Moving on as to how the 2.5% have changed British society – the UK High Court has suggested that traditional Christian beliefs on sexuality are not conducive to Christians being appointed to foster children. A couple’s Christian views according to a judge ‘”there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children.” . . . I’ll leave you to read it again. Dr Barnardo’s childrens charity – the oldest and I think the largest in the UK was started by a Christian, with Christian beliefs and is still in business.

I’d like to know how the British Government is going to work out how to make the Church of England vicars officiate at homosexual marriage in a C of E church. The Government will then have to follow up by making the Catholic church comply (does Roman know?) and then the Muslims, the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc.

The other small detail is that Her Majesty the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and all Acts of Parliament to change or compel the C of E will be  enacted in the Queen’s name. Parliament will be asking her to break her coronation oath!

British society is changing beyond recognition, and I fear that Australian society will follow.

Is your job secure ? A housing manager in Manchester UK, Adrian Smith commented, in his own time on his own Facebook page, that allowing homosexuals to marry in church was ‘equality gone too far’ – he was disciplined at work and reduced in position from a £35,000 job to a £21,000 job. He’d worked for the council for eighteen years.
Acceptance without Exception comes to mind. Adrian Smith the manager in question, took his employer to court and won, but he shouldn’t have had to go to court.

How about a magistrate being dismissed, by the Lord Chief Justice, from his position because he opposed an application by a same sex couple to adopt a child. As a magistrate he said that he thought the child should be raised by a mother and father. The court clerk and two other magistrates in the court complained. The Lord Chief Justice said that he was influenced by his Christian beliefs against the same sex couple, rather than the evidence.
The magistrate was also Finance Director of the NHS Trust Development Authority (National Health Service), and after after being interviewed on TV about his dismissal,  and because his views were out of step with the Trust, he was removed from his Directorship.

The real ENEMIES OF THE STATE had to be put away safely; the asocial and the professional criminals who could not be locked up under the prevailing laws had to lose their freedom in order to protect the people from their destructive behaviour.
A quote from the autobiography of Rudolf Hoss – look him up.

How about the National Trust with 4.2 million members, of which 62,000 were volunteers to help run the various sites. An instruction went out that all volunteers would wear a same-sex rainbow badge while on duty, and those who refused had to be ‘moved out of sight’ until they were ready to prove their inclusive tolerance.

Once again George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ comes to mind – some volunteers are more equal than others.

This link makes interesting reading about the National Trust and how they handled a couple who didn’t wish to wear the rainbow badge and lanyard.

Forty years a member and Max Hasting resigns from the National Trust – read that Dame Helen Ghosh, who was the head of the Trust, changed the name of the Easter Egg Hunt to Cadbury Egg Hunt across all Trust properties. She wanted to appease those who didn’t like Easter because it was a Christian festival, which might upset other religions. It obviously didn’t click with her that Easter is a Christian festival and that it is part of the British culture.

As for child education we already have gender fluidity in Australia.

Vishnitz Jewish Girls School, which is a London based private school, has been praised for achieving high marks from school inspectors for the standards reached by the pupils and the way the staff teach.
Four years later, although the school still ranked highly in the ‘pure’ educational departments, it failed the educators test because it didn’t teach the girls about homosexuality and sexual orientation.
According to the inspector this failure ‘restricted the pupils spiritual, moral, social, and cultural development and does not promote equality of opportunity in ways that take account of ways of differing lifestyles.’ It appears that the inspector couldn’t fault the girls academic ability, which I am sure pleased the girl’s parents.

Read the news item linked to the girls school name, and you will see that Stonewall have links to the Educational Minister. Read about seven year olds being encouraged not to use the words ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ because this might offend transgender children.
I can remember when I was seven, and I knew the difference between a boy & girl, because boys wore shorts and girls wore dresses – it was quite simple really, but that was when we went to scholl to learn to reed, rite & do sums. Sex in any form never entered our heads.

Consider what happend in the UK before the vote to allow homosexuals to marry each other – protection for all, unless you wish to use gender defined pronouns, or wish ladies and gentleman a safe train ride, or allow seven year olds to use boy & girl when describing the sex of someone.

All effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”

Consider the above quote in the context of what we are hearing in Australia before we vote. Ask a Pom if the same thing happened in the UK before their vote went through the Parliament.

We all want equality, whether it is equal pay for woman doing the same job as a man, night clubs not refusing entry due to skin colour, homosexuals having the same legal rights as de facto couples, but some changes can change society so much that it will cause us all huge problems that could take generations to fix – are we leaving a can of worms for our grandchildren and great grandchildren?

 

BTW the above quote in red is from Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’, chapter six, makes you think doesn’t it?

 

 

 

Colour blind

Yesterday I noticed the above coloured banner across the top of the main page of my blog. I didn’t order it to be placed there, nor did I have anything to do with its appearance and have written to WordPress requesting its removal.

I am colour blind as far as race, sexual orientation, religion and politics, and I am not in favour of any symbols being shown on my blog, for or against anything, unless I make the post.

I pay WordPress for the blog, so being the ultimate customer I consider that I have the right to post / remove what ever I want.

The various WordPress blogs that I follow also have the same coloured banner included on their main page, and I wonder how many have agreed to such an intrusive inclusion.

My original idea was to post a blog about 11.00 am on Sunday the 3rd of September seventy eight years ago, because today is also Sunday the 3rd of September, but in 2017.

0111709WW2TimelineI spoke to a lady this morning in church and asked her if she knew what was special about today. She thought for a minute and looked at me and said ‘I was eleven when Mr Chamberlain  spoke, and we were all gathered around the wireless.’ My friend was ninety earlier this year.

NevilleNeville Chamberlain.
I believe it is peace in our time.

king_george_viKing George VI during the speech he made on the 3rd September 1939.
The highest of distinction is service to others.

Australia declared war on the 3rd of September 1939.
Robert Menzies was Prime Minister

Canada declared war on the 10th September 1939.
William Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister.

New Zealand declared war on the 3rd September 1939
Michael Joseph Savage was Prime Minister

South Africa declared war on the 4th September 1939.
The day Jan Smuts became Prime Minister.

 

 

 

 

 

Un PC thoughts . . .

Perhaps we should send # 4 & # 6 to the current PM of Australia!

To be PC – No politician was hurt in the production of this message . . .

1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. — John Adams

2. If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed. — Mark Twain

3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself. — Mark Twain

4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. –Winston Churchill

5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. — George Bernard Shaw

6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. — G. Gordon Liddy

7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. –James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)

8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. — Douglas Case, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University .

9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. — P.J. O’Rourke, Civil Libertarian

10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. — Frederic Bastiat , French economist(1801-1850)

11. Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. –Ronald Reagan (1986)

12. I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. — Will Rogers

13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free! — P. J. O’Rourke

14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. –Voltaire (1764)

15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you! — Pericles (430 B.C.)

16. No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. — Mark Twain (1866)

17. Talk is cheap, except when Congress does it. — Anonymous

18. The government is like a baby’s alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. — Ronald Reagan

19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. — Winston Churchill

20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. — Mark Twain

21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. — Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

22. There is no distinctly Native American criminal class, save Congress. — Mark Twain

23. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians –Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)

24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. — Thomas Jefferson

25. We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. — Aesop

FIVE BEST SENTENCES

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation!

Fear of a major loss – free speech

Under Australian law same sex relationships have the same rights as heterosexual de facto relationships and married couples with regard to
Taxation
Superannuation
Health Insurance
Social Security
Aged care and child support
Immigration
Citizenship
Veterans’ Affairs
so what would be gained by calling a same sex de facto relationship marriage? Marriage according to the current law is between a man and a woman, and has been for quite a long time, well before
the definition of marriage was written down in the law books. .

Currently, in Tasmania, the Catholic church has been reported to the anti discrimination commission because of certain wordings in their booklet ‘Don’t mess with marriage’.

The person who lodged the complaint is in a same sex relationship.

If the anti-discrimination commission rules in favour of the complainant and condemns the Catholic church how far will the ramifications of disagreeing with someone go, with regard to free speech in Australia?

At the next general election (in 2016) will one political party be able to complain to the ant- discrimination commission about comments made about them, by their political opponents, if they disagree with the comments?

Is the next complaint to be made against an Australian religious organisation because the priest, vicar, rabbi, Imam or Hindu Pundit refuses to ‘marry’ same sex couples, in or out of a religious building?

I wonder what would happen if a heterosexual male wished to join a lesbian club – would he be allowed to join? Could he claim discrimination if he was refused membership?

How far are we willing to see our freedom of expression and values be devalued?

We have read of Christian bakers refusing to bake cakes to celebrate a homosexual ‘marriage’ and being fined many thousands of dollars.

What would happen if a Muslim worker at a newspaper was required to publish cartoons mocking Allah? Would he be fired for failing to do his job?

Have we forgotten that Nazi brown shirts would stand at the door of Jewish establishments to make sure ‘decent’ Germans did not do business with the Jews.
It wasn’t long before the brown shirts were no longer required, because the law was changed and the Jews were out of business – The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, was passed in 1933.
People didn’t speak out against what was happening then and before long they were too frightened to speak out against anything..

Is the anti-discrimination commission the latest way of stopping people speaking their mind when they feel that something is not right?

Remember the frog in the cold water who didn’t realise that he had a problem until the water boiled – is Australia (Tasmania) that frog?