Jump to content

Carmina Fothergill

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Carmina Fothergill

  • Rank
  1. She developed the most dangerous idea we've ever seen in our lifetime, that a government doesn't exist to run the country, but can operate as a business making profit for the select few by using the country as a resource. Once that was established, subsequent governments could continue what she'd started. So it's no surprise none of them wanted to change anything, and naturally the Labour government was going to become a Thatcherite government and indeed all parties would converge as Thatcherites. And that's exactly what's happened. That's why this country is in such a dire mess and none of the mainstream parties are interested in doing anything except continuing the damage.
  2. Personally, I'd prefer an independent police force impartially upholding the law. Voting for people representing political parties looks like a very dangerous prescedent to me.
  3. Well, I asked for clarification on what exactly the issues are with the gay marriage thing, because the really relevant questions didn't seme to have been clarified by the people making a noise about it. But with regard to church cries of persecution I was speaking of wider issues. I'm sure you're as aware as I am of the many public statements about Christians being persecuted. It happens a lot. Comments about `militant' atheists who threaten the churches, for instance. Now, obviously there are some very strident atheists who shout a lot - though it could also be pointed out that some Christians shout a lot more - but I must say I have never seen an atheist being `militant.' Sometimes silly, beside the point, showing a distinct lack of understanding and empathy, yes, but militant? No. I'd be interested to see one of these militant atheists, but no-one seems to be able to point one out. The best they can usually do is Richard Dawkins, who is usually behaving like a gentleman and not looking in the least militant. There's a lot of noise about people not being allowed to wear crosses at work, and similar stuff. When these cases come to court they always get thrown out once the full story is heard. But most of the `persecution' cries seem to come from people who can't tolerate anyone thinking and believing something different from themselves. Look beyond the noise and that's usually what you find. The sad thing is, there are Christians (and others) who genuinely are persecuted in different parts of the world and who often show real courage and patience in such situations. In my view people who moan about `persecution' just because they can't have their own way and impose their will on everyone else don't bear comparison with those who show courage and patience in genuine adversity. This is why I asked what the issues really are with the gay marriage question. If the churches are really being forced to marry people they don't approve of, then surely that's wrong. But if they're just being told that gay marriages are going to be recognised in society as a marriage, and churches can choose to do them if they approve, that's a very different issue.
  4. Well, that just the question, isn't it? Probably all of us, at some time or another. But certain groups like to think they're being persecuted when they can't get their own way. There are, of course, some small but very vocal groups who like to assume they can speak for every person who shares some faith similar to their own - for example Christian people of the fundamentalist sects who presume to speak on behalf of all Christians, while they quietly condemn most other Christian groups anyway. They identify with the courageous and genuinely persecuted Christians in their New Testament and think if someone in modern society doesn't do what they think they should do, that's persecution - despite the accepted presence of Christian churches all over Britain, the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords, and a distinct absence of lions, amphitheatres and so on. It shows a definite lack of historical context, common sense, and emotional maturity, but it happens quite a lot. (And of course it has a negative impact on the few genuine cases where Christian people actually are treated as less than equal.)
  5. Do you mean gay people, or the churches? The description would apply to the more vocal element in both camps (pun intended), probably to the embarassment of the more stable people in both camps.
  6. I've Googled Red Routes, and it seems there are at least three different meanings in different parts of the country. In other words people seem to like the term, for some reason, but having decided they like it, they can't decide what it's going to refer to. In one part of the country a Red Route is a clearway (no stopping). Elsewhere it's a route that has somehow (no proper explanation was given) been made faster and less congested because of some kind of integrated traffic scheme. And in yet other areas it's a high risk accident area. From context I'd guess it has the third meaning in Warrington. But what are we supposed to do when people make up these terms and then can't agree on what they're going to mean?
  7. Surpringly, Blake's reference seems to be the `mills' of Newtonian mechanics and the rationalist philosophies of Oxford and Cambridge universities at the time. I've always suspected he used the actual mills of the industrial north as an image of the latter, though. The lesson, really, is that nothing in Blake is straighforward or signifies what you'd expect. That makes him either fascinating or a complete pain in the proverbial, depending on your viewpoint.
  8. Thanks. So it's as I thought, then - a lot of shouting about something that isn't a problem, with the usual church hysteria about being `persecuted.'
  9. For the record, Jerusalem is neither about armed rebellion nor heaven. Nor is is called Jerusalem. It's the preface to a much larger poem by William Blake called Milton. Blake did write a poem called Jerusalem, but that's something else entirely. With Parry's music it became a hymn and was titled Jerusalem, with no input from Blake himself. And as for what it's about, that would involve an in-depth study of Blake's ideas. Suffice to say he was highly critical of established religion and would pretty definitely not be very impressed with his work being an established church hymn. His religion was the Imagination, which needs to be glossed with the meaning of Imagination in the Romantic movement generally, with specific provisos about Blake's own highly individual interpretations. To try to demystify that, imagine if one of the poems spoken by the Sorting Hat in the Harry Potter books was to be taken out of context and regarded as a self-sufficient piece of writing unrelated to the books it occurs in, and was then set to music and sung in churches as a hymn. It's a bit like that. Blake's writing belongs in a specific context, which appears to have been forgotten. Anyway, after that detour, back to the main subject....
  10. There's been a lot of shouting about this in the press, but it still isn't clear to me what the issues really are. Is the legislation going to say churches can marry gay couples, or that the must marry them? From what's been reported of various church people it would seem the latter. But how can legislation make a church marry two people? The church is supposed to interview the couple and decide if they're suitable, on a unique couple by couple basis. At least, that's how it was always done before. Has that ceased to be the case? Do churches now marry anybody who asks, without checking? Or do they have to marry anyone they're told they should marry? And does this apply to all churches or just to the state church, the C of E?
  11. Red Route? Am I allowed to drive down one of these if I didn't vote Labour?
  12. Point taken. But when other companies want to run a car park and make sure people are using the shops, they bother to install a ticket dispenser and give the shops the option of giving free parking when the ticket is presented to them. Other car parks in Warrington do that. But CMS just can't be bothered doing all that. Either that, or their intention is to make money from fines. However you look at it, they're not a reputable and responsible parking company.
  13. This may be of interest. It seems CMS aren't the only people misusing of car parks to extort money from drivers. At least these people are in court. Perhaps we can hope CMS end up there as well: http://www.granthamjournal.co.uk/news/rogue_clampers_made_500_000_1_3541677
  14. And one other thing. He told me he intends to send a cheque by post because there's no way he's going to give his credit card details to a company that has already shown itself to be a bunch of crooks.
  15. My friend intends to take this up with Helen Jones, pointing out how damaging it is to shopping in Warrington, and also saying how it would increase traffic because anyone who wanted to shop in the other parts of town would have to drive off Riverside and park up again elsewhere. I'll suggest he refers her to this discussion. He also intends to write to several of the retailers on Riverside to explain why they're losing customers, and to their head offices to warn them what will happen if they open new outlets on sites where CMS run the car park. He does intend to pay the fine, because he doesn't feel he can avoid it. He feels it's absurd, but he was tricked into it and it isn't worth trying to fight it. Putting his energies into stopping CMS doing this will cost CMS far more than they get from him, and will hopefully save other people from the same fate. I'm sorry to see they've already got more people, but inevitibly they will until they're stopped completely.
  • Create New...