ADRIANS BLOG

2026-10-05T06:41:38.668-07:00

Socialism is communism.

Words have power, though some would like to deny that. I get tired of seeing, from across the pond, the likening of socialism to communism. I guess people love seeing things in black and white. If only life were like that.

Of course, it isn’t like that. There are shades of grey, and when you start to see colours, what colour is it? Red, but what kind of red? Blue, but what shade of blue?

My friend Martin Scott remarked that linking socialism to communism is a bit like saying every capitalist is a fascist. It’s that silly.

So, having a health service free at the point of need is communism? Mad. Long may it live.

I have heard many argue that what went on in Eastern Europe wasn't communism, but state-controlled capitalism. I’m inclined to agree.

Do we have to capitalise everything? So, water, light, energy, heat, housing — they all must make a profit. Really, why? Now, don’t tell me you can’t make a profit out of light, can you?

Well, if you go around the UK, you will see a strange thing in many old buildings. You will see windows—well, once windows. Now they are blocked up. Do you know why? Well, they were to save money on tax. Light tax. So, the amount of light coming into your home was taxed based on how many windows let it in. So, to save money, people bricked up windows.

(England introduced the Window Tax in 1696 to raise government revenue without directly taxing personal income, which was viewed at the time as a severe invasion of privacy. The purpose of the tax was to raise emergency funds: King William III needed money to pay for mounting debts and wars.)

So yes, you can capitalise light.

If you try to understand socialism versus capitalism, you are going to have a problem. Many Western countries are what is called a mixed economy. So, it’s a mix of capitalist projects and socially beneficial projects.

What is wrong with having things that benefit the whole community but aren't profit-based, such as health, housing, and water? Why do we think that they should be capitalised? Why do you think only people with money should be healthy?

If you want a bit of socialism history, have a look at my blogs:

https://adrianhawkes.co.uk/socialism-2/ or https://adrianhawkes.co.uk/left-or-right/

My cry is: let us stop using words so puerilely. Let us think and hopefully move to a situation that benefits us all rather than just the few.

W.426
www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.com
01.10.26

2026-08-17T04:03:32.999-07:00

Can You See a Pattern?

Just recently, my TV got stuck. It wouldn’t respond to the remote control and, even when I pressed the button on the TV itself, nothing happened. I switched it on and off, but the same picture stayed frozen on the screen. So, I phoned the company.

After two hours of "try this", "press that", "switch this on", "switch that off", and "try it again", nothing had changed. The picture was still stuck.

As I faithfully followed all these instructions, I kept thinking, I’m sure if we did this one thing it might solve the problem. Eventually I suggested it to the expert on the phone. His reply was, "No, your TV is broken. I’m ordering you a new one. No cost, it’s just a replacement." End of the call.

Now the expert had gone, I thought I’d try my own experiment. After all, it was a new TV, and I didn’t really want the bother of having another one fitted if I could help it.

So, I tried my idea.

Wow! The TV was unstuck. It worked. Everything was back to normal.

I quickly phoned the company to try and cancel the replacement TV, which was apparently already on its way. After being put through to this department, then that department—I think about four or five internal transfers—with the usual questions about my name, password, address, date of birth, shoe size... No, sorry, they didn’t ask for my shoe size; it just felt like they did... I was eventually told, "Sorry, the order can’t be stopped. Just refuse it when it’s delivered."

Then I read about the Baroness Amos investigation. An independent national investigation highlighted widespread problems, including poor hospital culture and a failure to listen to women.

There it is again.

You’re the customer—or, in this case, the woman giving birth—but of course the experts know more about your body, your pregnancy and your birth than you do. So too many things go wrong. You’re not the expert, even though it’s your body and your baby. The trained professionals know best.

I’m involved with foster care, and one thing that really winds me up is seeing foster carers repeatedly excluded from meetings where decisions are made about the children they’ve looked after. Imagine a carer who has looked after three children, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year, for ten years, yet is excluded from the meeting deciding what happens next. Their voice isn’t heard because they’re "just" the foster carer. The experts, of course, know best—even though they haven’t lived with those children day in, day out, for a decade. They’re not the trained experts; the social workers with the degrees are.

I reckon there are almost every area of life where "the experts know better", and the voices of those who are supposedly being helped are simply not listened to.

My wife tells the story of bringing her school report home. Her father wrote a comment for the teacher—the expert—to read. He wrote, "A teacher can only be called a teacher when the student has learnt."

Apparently, my wife's report indicated a lack of learning in certain subjects. She wasn’t at all pleased with her father’s comment because, unsurprisingly, she got into trouble at school for what he had written!

I guess I could go on, but isn’t it time our experts learnt to listen? To be just a little less expert? To admit that perhaps they don’t know everything?

Perhaps what’s needed is a little more humility.

W601

Adrian Hawkes
www.adrianhawkes.co.uk
25th July 2026

2026-07-26T03:43:03.380-07:00

Bad Theology and Misinformed Politics

Not sure when this will go on the blog, but I had to write something—if only to note how oddly predictable this all is.

Once again, those who believe they hold power are up in arms because someone has dared to step into what they see as their territory: politics.

This time, in April 2026, it was Pope Leo XIV drawing fire for criticising “tyrants” who ravage the world and spend billions on war. And right on cue came the familiar chorus: “Stick to religion.”
Stay in your lane. Politics isn’t your job. It’s not your expertise. Keep out.

We’ve heard it before. The same outrage surfaced in the UK when the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke into political matters. The message was clear: stick to the Bible and leave governance to us.

But here’s the problem—that demand is not just bad politics. It’s bad theology.

And bad theology doesn’t stay neatly contained. It spills over. It shapes policy, priorities, and people’s lives. It leads to distorted decisions: wars funded while the poor are neglected; healthcare and education sidelined; strangers treated with suspicion rather than dignity. It asks us to accept a world where compassion is optional and power goes unquestioned.

What this kind of thinking reveals is simple: people are either not reading the Bible—or they’re reading a version that bears little resemblance to the one I recognise.

Look at the prophets of the Old Testament. They are anything but quiet. They confront power head-on. They rage against injustice. They speak for the marginalised, the dispossessed, the hungry. They call out land theft, economic exploitation, and social neglect. And how are they received? With hostility. Silence them. Discredit them. Remove them.

Sound familiar?

Or take Paul in the New Testament. He is imprisoned, beaten, dragged before authorities, and ultimately sent to Rome for trial. Why? Because what he proclaimed was not heard as harmless “religion.” It was heard as something far more dangerous: a challenge to the political order.

That’s the point we often miss. We read the Bible with 2026 eyes and hear it with 2026 ears. We categorise it as “religious.” But in its own time, it didn’t sit in a neat, private box. It collided with power. It disrupted systems.

To say “Jesus is Lord” in the first century was not a devotional whisper—it was a political statement. Caesar claimed lordship. Allegiance was contested.
To speak of the “Kingdom of God” was not abstract theology—it was an alternative vision of society.
To proclaim a “Prince of Peace” stood in direct contrast to an empire built on domination.

None of this was safely “spiritual.” It was deeply, unavoidably political.

So when people today speak about peace, about caring for the environment, about welcoming the stranger, about justice for the poor—and are told to “stay out of politics”—it echoes that same ancient resistance.

When leaders are labelled as divinely chosen while policies harm the vulnerable…
When hostile environments are created for those already suffering…
When the needy are blamed for their need…

And then, when voices grounded in faith challenge these things, they are told to keep quiet—stay in their lane—it reveals something deeper than political disagreement.

It reveals a theological failure.

Because this was never “just politics.”

It has always been theology.

And if the theology is wrong, the politics that flow from it will be too.

Adrian Hawkes

adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

W.578

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

2026-05-21T09:55:00.626-07:00

The Evils of U-Turns

I was happily driving along, faithfully following the instructions given by the lady in the box — my sat nav. Without warning, the rather stern voice announced:

“Make a U-turn as soon as it is safe to do so.”

What a terrible thing to suggest.

Or is it?

If I am heading in the wrong direction from my desired destination, then surely a U-turn is not evil at all. In fact, it is rather a good thing.

Back in October 1980, Margaret Thatcher famously declared, “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” It was a powerful political statement of resolve. Over time, however, perhaps that sentiment has slipped into our national consciousness. Turning back has somehow become associated with weakness, inconsistency, even failure.

But is refusing to turn really strength? Or is it sometimes simply stubbornness?

If we discover we are going in the wrong direction — morally, practically, relationally — shouldn’t we change course? Isn’t that the wiser choice? A U-turn, when necessary, is not a collapse of conviction; it is an admission that new information has been received and understood.

Turns, after all, indicate listening.

With my sat nav, I could of course switch off the sound and continue driving confidently in the wrong direction. But why would that be a good idea? Ignoring guidance does not make me right — it just ensures I get lost more efficiently.

It is surprising how often we take useful and constructive words and twist them into something negative. Take the word compromise. The dictionary defines it as: “An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.” That sounds like maturity and cooperation. Yet I regularly hear the phrase, “We should never compromise.”

A friend of mine, Martin Scott, once heard someone add to that sentiment, “God doesn’t compromise.” Martin’s gentle reply was, “Of course God compromises — He compromises with me.” There is humility in that thought. Relationship, by its very nature, involves patience, adjustment, and grace.

Perhaps we need a reset in the way we use words. As my daughter Carla once remarked about certain expressions, they can become “just a waste of air.”

Maybe it is time to reclaim some of these ideas. Perhaps we should not be afraid to say, “That was a good compromise,” or “This U-turn was the right decision.” Maybe people have listened. Maybe they have understood that a new direction is needed — perhaps even a better one.

Wisdom is not stubbornly pressing on when every sign says we are wrong. That is not strength — it is pride in motion.

Sometimes the bravest, strongest, and most honest thing we can do is turn around.

So perhaps we should stop mocking U-turns and start asking better questions. Are we listening? Are we learning? Are we willing to change?

Because the real danger is not turning.

It is refusing to.

Before we dismiss U-turns as weakness, perhaps we should pause, think, and stop wasting air.

—
Adrian Hawkes
www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

W.502

2026-03-26T04:11:32.020-07:00

Don’t Rock the Boat.

There's a story in the New Testament part of the Bible about Jesus walking on the water, which is recorded in three different books: Matthew chapter 14, Mark 6, and John 6.

The story relates to the disciples in a boat when a storm comes. Then, they see Jesus walking towards them on top of the water. They, of course, think this must be a ghost and are even more afraid of him than they are of the storm.

The next thing that happens is that Peter, also in the boat, shouts to Jesus and says, “If it really is you, bid me come to you on the Water” Jesus responds with, “Come on, then.” Peter then gets out of the boat and starts to walk towards Jesus – on the water. Somewhat of a miracle, hey? But then the story continues; Peter looks down at his feet and the stormy waves and stares as they seem to sink into them. Jesus puts out his hand and pulls him up, and then they both climb into the boat, and the storm ceases.

Now, I personally, in ‘church time’, have heard many preachers talk about Peter “not keeping his eyes on Jesus” and thus losing faith and therefore sinking into the sea. To me, I have always thought, 'Hang on a minute, at least Peter got to walk on water. Wow!' What about all the other eleven men who just stayed in the boat? I think I would rather have had the experience of walking on water, even with a bit of sinking, than just to be one of the boat watchers.

So, why am I going on about this? Well, because just recently I was told that it is good not to, “rock the boat.” Nothing new; many times, I have been told that you should not, you cannot, this is not wise, keep your nose clean, and don’t rock the boat.

We used to own a double-decker bus; I was told that you need a special driving license to drive it. However, you can't do it. I toddled along to the police and asked if I could, and they said, “Is it a heavy goods vehicle?” My answer was “no.” Is it a public service vehicle where you will be charging fees? Again, my answer was “no.” Then, you can drive it; it’s a grey area. So, I asked, “What would you classify it as?” They answered, “It's a 90-seater car.” I am sure those regulations will have changed, so - check it out if you're buying one.

A friend of mine told me one day that the problem with the UK is the god they want to serve. I asked what that was, and he responded that it’s the god of safety and security.

The difficulty with that one is that there really is no confirmed safety and security. We take a risk every day; it’s a risk crossing the Road, going outside our house, and even being in the house. I am not saying we should be silly and take unnecessary risks or act out of stupidity. However, if you want to move forward, if you want to get somewhere, and if you are not satisfied with just being “a boring do-nothing”, then you will probably have to take a risk and rock the boat if you want to see change where things are wrong. You won't be able to keep your nose clean. The easy answer is probably not the best answer.

I would rather have the experience of walking on the water than just sitting in the boat. I would rather rock the boat than leave things as they are. I have discovered that taking risks brings many benefits. In many areas of the world, we need change, and we will need to be bold and courageous to effect it. Let's rock those boats.

W 658

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

17 July 2025

2026-02-20T03:29:11.547-08:00

Democracy?

I recently read the Hitler playbook on how he took over Germany, all done by so-called democratic means, leaving him in office as a dictator. Watching the end of the US Empire, I do not see any difference in the playbook being used there. When you read it all as a bit of history, it sounds just the same. As Churchill said, “One thing that we learn from History, is that we don’t learn from History.”

What Churchill said in 1948 was, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” It appears that this is what is being done in the USA, and if we let Farage have his say, he will likely follow the same playbook.

Of course, the big cry is, “But these people were voted in.’ It’s interesting to note that Hitler was voted in; he had great support from the “Christian” vote. And is it not true that Putin was elected? And is it not also correct that the Donbas voted to become Russian?

Some people believe that a dictatorship may be preferable to a democracy. Interesting to note C.S. Lewis’s comment on that position, when he said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. We would be wise to be thankful for the praiseworthy aspects of democracy while working to avoid the others.”

Sure, refugees sometimes do bad things, and so do British-born people; but is that a reason to “tar them all with the same brush”?

Right now, in the UK, we are seeing people with Balaclavas over their heads, late at night, climbing ladders, scaling lamp posts, and erecting English flags, claiming that what they are doing is patriotic. Do we really believe that that is what it is all about? Patriotism? I really do not think the British public are that gullible. It is about racism, it’s about protecting “the real English”, whatever that is.

A friend of mine, a ‘real Englishman,’ conducted one of those family history searches. To his great surprise, he discovered that his family line had Albanian ancestry. (Great Britain was the title designated to Britain as opposed to other nearby islands.) Who are the English, Angles, Saxons, Celts, Vikings, and Norman French? We even spoke French for a long time.

I like the comment by Greg Valerio, who looked at a line of the English St George's flags recently put up: “I am enjoying the irony that St George is not English, he never visited England, and in fact was Syrian. I think it's great that England is so multicultural that we have a Syrian as our Patron Saint. May the flag of St George always be a symbol of our multi-cultural and inclusive diversity.”

Saint George originated in the late 3rd century in Cappadocia, an area now in Turkey, as a soldier in the Roman army who refused to recant his Christian faith, leading to his martyrdom around 303 AD. He is a venerated Christian martyr.

I am writing this because, yes, I am very concerned; I do not want to see the UK follow the same path as other places in our world. We need to be watchful. We need to be savvier. We need to not listen to those who shout the loudest. We need to think.

And, no! I am not part of the Z Generation, nor a baby boomer. If you want to check those phrases, I am one of those who they call from “the silent generation”. However, on these dangerous issues, I do not want to stay silent. Please do some research. Don’t listen to one source. Don’t just read the ‘popular press’. Check, and then check again.

Adrian Hawkes

adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

w. 625

2025-12-23T06:07:34.812-08:00

Left or RIGHT!

I am amazed that my cousins across the pond seem so ill-informed concerning right and left, particularly in the area of politics. It seems that communism, socialism and the Left is all lumped together as a communist threat. Maybe a little history on the subject would help, and so I refer you to my blog on the subject. https://adrianhawkes.co.uk/socialism-2/

Often, I am referred to as “a lefty” or some other such phrase, often used in a derogatory tone. It made me think that often people use what I call “words without meaning” or as my youngest daughter would say, “They are wasting air.”

So, I thought, let me try and analyse some of the things that I think, and try and guess where that would put me in the terms of these “non-meaning words”. So, I think that traditional values such as family are important, so perhaps that makes me right wing? Then I also think that health service free at the point of use is fantastic and I would certainly want my tax to go toward it even if I am not sick. I guess that makes me a left-wing person.

Then I think that if a person claims asylum in the UK, and that claim is invalid, then perhaps they should not be allowed to stay. I guess that puts me on the Right. I also think that all people coming to a country, no matter how they came, should be treated with the respect that we have for all human beings, and that they should be apportioned due process. I guess that makes me a lefty.

I’m disappointed with the fact that all politicians, of whatever ilk, use the word illegal when talking about people who came to this country in ways not normally prescribed. Since when was it that claiming asylum was illegal? Of course, maybe their asylum claim was not valid and they plan to overstay, but surely our system is supposed to presume we are innocent until proven guilty. Claiming that people are illegal before due process, is not seeing people as innocent before the process has taken place and discovered that they are illegal. Words are very powerful, and when those with power use them wrongly it has a bad effect on all of us. Perhaps that puts me on the left?

The big talking point at the moment in the UK is all about flags and the use of. I think it’s great to wave flags at sporting events, put them on display for visiting dignitaries, wave them like mad at the Proms. So, am I being Right here? Then again, when people slap flags on buildings used by people of a different colour, and claim that they are just emphasising their community, and complain that I am “being anti my country’s flag because of my disgust at the use of the flag as a weapon and a racist statement,” if it wasn’t so disingenuous it would be funny. I suppose my complaint puts me on the left. Then to be told there are more important things than flags, sure there is, there are wars, poverty, racism, famine, and huge people displacement usually the result of power, money and bad politics. But what we forget is that these bad things start as ideas, plans, words, and “Yes!” the wrong use of symbols like flags. Words have power, and when we use them wrongly, we cannot then claim that it does not matter. It does!

Where we are is not accidental. It is the product of our history. Our history is the result of people’s thoughts, or put better by Einstein: "The world, as we have created it, is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking".

We are in danger of “not thinking” or, being persuaded by “non-words “i.e. words without meaning, promises by certain politicians that will lead us towards a wonderful world of dictatorship (that was sarcasm by the way).We need to start thinking better and look at some of the ridiculous promises from politicians that just want power and really do not care about you, or I, or our nations.

These people really want power, and to have it. Remember Hitler as voted in. To quote C. S. Lewis. “A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation.” So, sure democracy might not be the best that there is, but it’s better than all the other ways of government. Just look around and learn to think and stop using words you don’t understand, and putting people into boxes that they don’t fit into. And check those sound bites, they are not sufficient.

w.848

adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

20^th September 2025

2025-08-07T03:24:00.000-07:00

Let’s go back to Babylon.

I notice that some young people refer to certain countries as Babylon. Google comments as follows:

“Modern songs sometimes use the metaphor of Babylon to comment on America. This comparison often critiques aspects of American society, such as how it is perceived in terms of materialism, moral decay, and political power. The lyrics employ symbolism, drawing parallels between contemporary America and the biblical Babylon, a city often associated with excess and corruption. This critique may address social issues and question the current situation. The analysis of this metaphor can be complex, requiring an understanding of both the historical context of Babylon and the specific societal name in view.

The interesting thing about the Biblical Babylon was the King of Babylon, and the fact that the King was a. the Lawgiver and b. the lawgiver was above the law and did not have to obey the law, though everyone else did. What does that remind you of? The following empire, after the fall of Babylon, that of the Medes and Persians, one notes the oft-quoted phrase, “the laws of the Medes and Persians, which don’t change, and the fact that the ruler was also subject to the law.” So, we are not going back there, but one step further back, one where rulers do not have to be subject to the law.

Babylon was rich, at least for some people, but one wonders how much the riches were created by slavery.

Interesting too is that the “Third Reich’s” main economy was a slavery-based economy.

The whole difficulty, for me, is the way in which we can undermine our humanity. So, we start to refer to groups of people in other ways, “blood poisoners”, aliens, or, if you like, humans are non-humans. We see this kind of rhetoric in war, where it’s not “dead people”, it's “collateral damage”. In the Belfast troubles, it always troubled me that people were not killing people. The one side were killing “Prods,” and the other side were killing “Papists”. These are not humanoid words. It makes it possible to see people as “non-humans.” At the very least, less than me, or at the very least, not nice people.

That is why I really object to the new Reform elected person saying, “Let’s put asylum seekers in tents.” It's a slippery slope to put one kind of person into a more deserving position than another. There is always someone at the bottom of the pile who is presented as a sort of “less than a human being.”

I am reminded of that famous quote by German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller:

“Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.”

So, I hope many will speak about Dame Andrea Jenkyns's nasty “tent” quote and let us hope that there are more sensible people around who will not vote to take us back to Babylon.

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

w. 527

07 08 25

2025-05-08T02:16:00.000-07:00

An Exploration of Decision-Making Processes

Power, Exclusion, and Ethics

Recently, the world has witnessed a series of international negotiations and peace talks, such as those involving the United States and Russia. These discussions often exclude the most crucial party: Ukraine. This exclusion raises essential questions about the nature of power dynamics, insecurity, pride, and the ethical implications of such decisions. Is it power at play, the insecurity of the decision-makers, pride, or simply plain wrong?

Historical Exclusions: A Recurring Pattern

This pattern of exclusion is not new. In "The Mystery in Being a Gypsy," Gentylia Lee documents numerous instances where governmental meetings are held to decide the fate of the Gypsy community, often excluding the very people most affected by these decisions. The powerful conduct these meetings behind closed doors, leaving the Gypsies uninformed and without a voice in matters that directly impact their lives. This persistent exclusion prompts us to question whether it is power, pride, insecurity, or merely a grievous error in judgment.

Modern-Day Exclusions

Another contemporary example can be found in the fostering community, where foster carers are responsible for the care of children 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Despite fostering children for ten years, social work professionals often convene meetings to decide the children's futures, excluding both the children and the foster carers from the process. Again, this raises the question: is it pride, insecurity, stupidity, or just plain wrong?

Power Dynamics

One might argue that these exclusions are deeply rooted in power dynamics. Those who hold power may feel the need to assert their dominance by keeping decision-making processes exclusive. This ensures that they maintain control over the outcomes and the narrative. In the case of international negotiations, the powerful nations may exclude smaller or directly affected nations to preserve their strategic interests and geopolitical influence.

Insecurity Among Decision-Makers

Insecurity among decision-makers could also play a significant role. Decision-makers may fear that including the affected parties could challenge their authority, expose their vulnerabilities, or lead to outcomes that are less favourable to their agendas. This fear can drive them to exclude those who are most impacted, believing that their own positions are better protected in a closed setting.

The Role of Pride

Pride can be another contributing factor. Decision-makers may feel a sense of superiority and believe that they are best equipped to make decisions, even without the input of those who are directly affected. This hubris can lead to a dismissive attitude towards the voices that truly matter, resulting in decisions that are disconnected from the realities on the ground.

Ethical Implications

The ethical implications of such exclusions are profound. Excluding the most affected parties from decision-making processes can lead to decisions that are not only unjust but also detrimental to the well-being of those communities. It undermines the principles of democracy, fairness, and transparency, resulting in a loss of trust in the institutions that are supposed to protect and serve the people.

Case Studies in Exclusion

To further understand the impact of exclusion in decision-making, it is essential to examine specific case studies that highlight the consequences of such practices.

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which aimed to establish the terms of peace after World War I, is a historical example of exclusion in decision-making. The conference was dominated by the Allied powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The defeated Central Powers, including Germany, were excluded from the negotiations. This exclusion led to the imposition of harsh terms on Germany, contributing to economic hardship and political instability, which eventually paved the way for World War II.

The Camp David Accords

The Camp David Accords of 1978, which facilitated a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, also illustrate the consequences of exclusion. The negotiations were primarily conducted between the leaders of Egypt, Israel, and the United States, with little input from the Palestinian representatives. This exclusion has been criticized for failing to address the broader issues affecting the Palestinian people, leading to ongoing conflict and unrest in the region.

Exclusion in Environmental Decision-Making

Environmental decision-making processes often exclude indigenous communities and local populations who are directly impacted by environmental policies and projects. For example, the construction of large dams and pipelines frequently moves forward without adequate consultation with the affected communities. This exclusion not only leads to environmental degradation but also displaces communities and disrupts their way of life.

Addressing the Issue of Exclusion

To address the issue of exclusion in decision-making, several measures can be implemented:

Inclusive Dialogue

Creating platforms for inclusive dialogue ensures that all voices, especially those of the affected parties, are heard and considered. This can lead to more equitable and sustainable outcomes.

Transparent Processes

Transparency in decision-making processes is crucial. Decision-makers should provide clear and accessible information about the proceedings and invite participation from diverse stakeholders. This transparency fosters trust and accountability.

Empowering Marginalised Groups

Empowering marginalized groups through education, capacity-building, and representation in decision-making bodies can help address power imbalances. Providing them with the tools and opportunities to participate meaningfully can lead to more just and informed decisions.

Ethical Leadership

Promoting ethical leadership that values inclusivity, empathy, and fairness is essential. Leaders should prioritize the well-being of all stakeholders and make decisions that reflect the principles of justice and equity.

Conclusion

The exploration of decision-making processes reveals the complex interplay of power, insecurity, pride, and ethical considerations. The recurring pattern of exclusion in various contexts highlights the need for a more inclusive and ethical approach to decision-making. By addressing the root causes of exclusion and implementing measures to promote inclusivity, transparency, and empowerment, we can move towards a future where decisions are made with the voices and interests of all stakeholders in mind.

W, 970

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

22.02.2025

2024-12-09T07:23:00.000-08:00

Dangerous Liberals.

I keep hearing comments, primarily from across the pond, but in the UK, too, how dangerous the liberals are. They will ultimately destroy everything.

I also heard a comment by two people in discussion. One answered some question by saying, “But I am a Christian!” The other person answered, “What kind of Christian? A Republican Christian? Or a Jesus Christian?”

That set me thinking. I wonder if Jesus was anti-liberal, or maybe was he a “dangerous liberal.”

So I wondered, wasn't this Jesus the one that turned water into wine? My friend Gerald Coates always said, “The Evangelical Christians had spent the last 2,000 years trying to change it back again.” Such a liberal thing to do, don't you think?

Then I note the story of the stoning of the lady caught in adultery. I have always wondered how she committed adultery by herself. What happened to the man? Jesus said he did not condemn her. Indeed, that is far too liberal. we should be in the condemning business, shouldn't we?

Another time, Jesus says, I must go via Samaria. Did He not know that good religious people never went to Samaria? Yet Jesus said he MUST go there? Such a terrible liberal thing to do.

If you know anything about history, you will know that the Samaritans were the immigrants in the land with a different religion. No wonder anti-liberals would have nothing to do with them. Jesus, it seems was just too liberal.

I just saw a list of things that Jesus never said on the internet. By Jame Martin, SJ. It goes like this: Jesus never said, "Feed the hungry only if they have papers." "Clothe the naked only if they're from your country. "Welcome the stranger only if there's zero risk." "Help the poor only if it's convenient." "Love your neighbour only if they look like you".

So, in the UK, there is a protest in a particular part of the country, as a supermarket has just opened in that area on a Sunday. There are people outside parading with posters on sticks saying, “Keep the Sabbath Holy,” i.e. “Don't work on Sunday”. Jesus was just too liberal and was reprimanded on several occasions for doing just that, working on the Sabbath.

I think I will be a Liberal Jesus follower; it seems a much better way to go.

Jesus was definitely a dangerous liberal; I want to follow that.

W. 411

Adrian Hawkes.

www.blogspot.co.uk

2024-10-04T07:41:00.000-07:00

Far-Right Protests.

Interestingly, there has been quite an explosive news response to both social media and certain parts of the newspaper industry for using inflammatory language.

A long-held contention of mine is that words carry power and create an effect. When people react to our words, claiming that the reaction had nothing to do with us is somewhat disingenuous.

The old adage, 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,' is, to say the least, incorrect. We understand that words spoken to children can inflict lasting damage on their adult lives.

As said, I am pleased to see the new backlash against rabble-rousing presented by social media, and aspects of the press. However, what seems to be missing from recent discussions, and the calling out of such wrong words, is the responsibility of politicians, the nation's leaders, to call out the same wrong expressions being uttered. They have so far failed to do so, and worse, they claim that when things react, such as recent right-wing riots, it has nothing to do with them.

Prime Ministers who announce that they would like to create a hostile social environment for certain people, should not be surprised if some people become hostile to others and act in accordance with politicians' words. Some people find it easy to take encouragement from terrible words and believe that they are pleasing such leaders.

While it is encouraging to see social media and the press being called out for their harmful practices, we must not absolve politicians from their responsibility. They too must be held accountable for their inflammatory speech.

If one looks across the pond, we will have to be blind and unthinking not to notice that the words spoken by so-called leaders have caused death, riots, and almost the overthrow of democracy. Words have power, let us not forget that, and claiming otherwise is just plain dishonest.

As I say to my students, it is always better to engage your brain before putting your mouth into gear. We need to be aware of not only the immediate, but also the long-term consequences of what we say - particularly if we are political leaders. Words spoken cannot be unspoken.

adrianhawkes.co.uk

www.blogspot.co.uk

w. 373

08/08/2024

2024-07-16T04:16:00.000-07:00

Management

I have always thought that Paul's comments in the New Testament of the Bible, when writing to the church at Corinth, are interesting. In 2 Corinthians 11:16-33, he says “I did so and so, I experienced such and such. but boasting is so awful. How else do I get through to you?” My paraphrase, of course.

Let me put my cards on the table. I have difficulty with the idea of management as used in companies and businesses. It seems that the management of people is a bit like herding cats. Have you ever tried to do that? My position is that we manage things, but we lead people. So, we manage schedules, timetables, and work requirements, but we lead people.

Again, leadership is also a misused word. Our Western thinking is, leading by telling people what to do. When I use the word, “leadership”, I have a different thought in mind: The “King-Jesus-Leadership” thinking says, “I am coming to wash your feet.” Or “Do not do it like they do – i.e.: Lord it over people.” Meaning, by God’s own definition, leadership is all about “servanthood”.

Now to the boasting. When I was leading a large church community, I often overheard people ask other people how they got to be part of the leadership in this community. It's funny how people aspire to that. I was always delighted by how the long-standing community members almost always answered that question, which was, “Can you sweep up well?”. That told me that they understood the principle of servant-leadership.

Working in a medium-sized company with several different areas and the need for departmental managers, I observed that some believe it's their job to tell people what to do. Usually, we were met by those being told with “a face”, not in front of the person telling them but usually behind their backs. We need to be observant.

I observe that the “tellers” are not good “sweeper-uppers”, “washer-uppers”, or “cup-clearer-awayers,” instead having “told”, and appointing themselves as “tellers” instead of “leaders”, they enjoy relaxing.

Again, to the silly boasting, I often clear the cups, top up the water cooler, etc., because Leadership is exampling, serving, and going in front.

People who want to lead people need to understand the delight/ reward of seeing others succeed. My wife and I have fostered for many years; I am delighted to hear about the success of those we have fostered. It is rewarding.

The company I work with looks after Unaccompanied Asylum Seekers. Do you know what? I am thrilled to hear of one of these young people, who I reckon will become the new Mo Farrar. Another one will shortly become a trained Paramedic, and others who have started businesses are doing exceedingly well. That, in my book, is rewarding.

If we aspire to leadership (not management in the way that word is thought of, i.e. managing people -a thing which we shouldn't), we should look for the developement of others. We should aspire for their best good. If we are the teachers, we should plan for those we teach, to become better teachers than we are. If we lead, we should prepare for those we lead to become better leaders than we are. That truly is a success.

More silly boasting. I have been in situations where I have told the leader, “What you have produced is fantastic. How did you do it?” Their answer was the reward. “Indeed,” they said, “We only did what you taught us to do.” Reward indeed.

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

w. 592

11/07/24

2024-06-07T04:13:00.000-07:00

Equality is Not Easy to Come By.

Did you know that there are politicians in the USA who would like to remove the vote from women? I guess the argument goes that “they are such busy people looking after homes that they should not be bothered by voting and politics.”

A certain African parliament tried to pass a law making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives. The law did not make it onto the statute book. It was opposed by women MPs who explained that being beaten was a sign of love. Seems strange to me.

There are all sorts of ways of not acting equally. It could be the colour of a person's skin, accent, or known economic position. Then there is language, whether it is their second or third language or their perceived education.

I feel as though I am on a mission to bring about greater equality for foster carers. For those who are not involved in the sector, let me tell you about some of the reasons for the lack of equality.

There are foster carers who have fostered children for eight or more years, with the same child or children. I heard of one foster care being told that there was to be a meeting to decide what would happen next to the children they were fostering. On responding with, “Oh, I don’t have that in my diary when is it?” The response was “Oh! It's not for you. This is a professional meeting.” Is that sensible to exclude someone who has been looking after those children for eight or more years 24/7? Maybe the put down of, “You are not a professional,” is a good way of avoiding equality.

What is professionalism anyway?

What Is Professionalism? One clever and, I think, correct description says, “Professionalism is not the job you do; it's how you do the job."

Professionalism involves consistently achieving exacting standards, both visibly and "behind the scenes," whatever one's role or profession.

8 Characteristics of Professionalism:

1. Competence

2. Knowledge

3. Conscientiousness

4. Integrity

5. Respect

6. Emotional Intelligence

7. Appropriateness

8. Confidence

Fortunately, this foster carer was quick to respond with the right answer: “I needed that date, and I will be there as I am a professional foster carer.”

When I worked as a foster carer for a Local Authority, I chaired their Foster Care Association. It seemed to me that to increase that level of equality it would be good to have training along with the social workers. I spoke with management, who agreed that this is good. We managed to get one training session together, but then the social workers announced they would come to no more. “We are social workers, and we should not be expected to do training alongside foster carers.” I wonder if those foster carers were somehow lesser individuals, certainly not equal.

Now I am trying again, but guess what I am hearing? “You do not understand. Foster carers are too busy.” Sure, they are busy, but they are required to attend all sorts of training.

Or another one: “Maybe they are not academic like the social workers.” Really?

Or how about the old chestnut, “It's about language, and with some of them, English is their second language.” In my book, this makes them clever and maybe academic.

We need to remember that when women were trying to get the vote in the UK, all sorts of reasons were put forward to deny and denigrate the idea.

Here are some of the five most bizarre and ridiculous ones:

1. The mental exertion of voting would cause infertility in women.
2. Women’s brains were inferior to men’s, and so women were incapable of participating in politics.
3. Many women did not want to vote.
4. Women would neglect their homes and families, causing society to unravel.
5. Women were too good for the dirty nature of politics.

Perhaps it is the same slant: they are too busy, do not want to, or are not academic enough.

Nothing changes much, does it?

I guess it's my age, but it seems that people think that Europe has had universal suffrage for ages. Here are some surprising dates for when some European states introduced equal female suffrage:

Switzerland (1971).

Portugal (1976).

Liechtenstein (1984).

We need to keep pushing.

Adrian Hawkes

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

W. 727

2024-04-08T07:11:00.000-07:00

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! WHICH GROUP ARE THEY? WHERE ARE THEY?

So, the biggest group of immigrants to the UK turns out to be students. They could be paying up to £48000 per annum to be here. Are these the “illegals” the government is talking about.

The Second Largest group

I have noticed that whenever the government minister for immigration is doing an interview on ,whatever channel, the title comes up as “Illegal immigration minister”. I hear the PM is considering two ministers, one of whom is the above, and the other as the, “legal immigration minister”. Certainly, now, one can easily get the impression that all immigration is illegal. As I have said, the biggest group of immigrants are Students paying lots of money to be in the UK. Statistics show that the second largest group of immigrants are workers in the NHS, presumably all paying taxes. I wonder if they are illegal immigrants.

The third largest group of immigrants to the UK are those working in the Care Sector. Again I guess that they must be paying tax. Even though they now are not allowed to bring their family to the UK. Recently I have seen this kind of operation in other countries where the lucky immigrant gets to see his or her partner every two years for about two weeks. Great. Again I have to ask : Is this, the third largest group of immigrants to the UK, illegal?

The final group of immigrants to the UK, in fact the smallest group, are those arriving in small boats. That group represents less than 3% of the total immigration numbers. Yet one would have to wonder why it is that this seems to be the most talked about group. Of course they don’t all come in small boats. I have personally been present and watched police stop a lorry which when opened revealed mothers and babies, young children, and lots of other desperate despondent people, unloaded, and sitting on garden walls alongside the pavement.

It has been mentioned on FB that I use the exceptional person as a demonstration. Of course, what the writer of that comment does not know is that I have met hundreds of such people. And, been to the hotels where the state dumps them.

Why is it that we hear so much about such people? Maybe because it covers other bad news that the government does not want us to talk about. The ‘Friday news dumb. Or as the advisor to the transport minster put it :

“The now infamous phrase stems from a memo from an adviser to the then-UK transport secretary Stephen Byers, who coined the term in an internal memo, written on 9/11/ 2001, saying it was, “a good day to bury bad news”.) Maybe government highlights this small minority of people that deflects from us discussing all the wasted money on PPE. Billions given to their friends, that then did not work. Better talk about this, “less than 3%:” problem than talk about those friend’s and billions of wasted taxpayers’ money.

But back to this less than 3%. What happens is that that when they arrive, boat, lorry, or plane they then apply for asylum. They are then given ‘legal’ papers to stay, until their case is assessed, to see if they genuinely are an “asylum seeker”. Yes, I know that that is where the problem lies, as I have friends that have waited 14 years for their claim for asylum to be properly listened to. Fortunately, now they are British Passport holders. So my question again, as they have now applied for asylum, even if they did not have any papers, arriving here in a strange way, but now they have legal papers to stay, while they await a hearing – are they now illegal immigrants. Of course, you know my answer. But if they are now legal, whilst they await a hearing, where are these illegal immigrants?

Adrian Hawkes

17^th March 2024

W. 665

Blog

2023-12-19T05:49:00.000-08:00

.Let us Have Another View on this Immigration Problem!

I listen to the news on immigration and “how terrible” it is for the UK. I cannot help thinking that the government uses sound bites as a divide-and-rule strategy. I have often heard that governments need an enemy to blame for everything, pointing out that their party is the only one able to protect us from such terrible things.

I also note that, like others in the past, there is the use of untruths like 'Illegal immigrants', as Lord Dubs said recently. Since when has it become illegal to claim asylum? The conservative member he was in discussion with kept repeating the mantra, “But they are illegal,” and repeating the lie makes me accurate. Maybe, as George Orwell said, that is how it works. It makes the lie truth and the truth a lie. I work in the sector, and constantly, in terms of housing, I have had trouble with insurance brokers and housing authorities. “We cannot insure you”, they say, “because you are housing illegal people”. “No, I am not. I am accommodating people with government papers, ID cards and the like to be here”. That doesn't work as they “know -whatever” they are illegal. The Prime minister keeps saying so. So, that must make it true?

I have been trying to work out the figures that the government keeps throwing at us in order to consider the actual situation. This is hard to work out, even from the government departments, because they often don't know the true picture.

But here is another way to look. Away from the noise of them being illegal. “They are illegal!” “They are illegal!” 25% of these “illegal” people are students studying in the UK, and probably paying into UKPLC around 1400 pounds a month, i.e. £16,000 per year. Then there is the NHS, which we are constantly being told has a shortage of workers. However, 25% of the workers they have are also part of the big “illegal” problem!

On top of the problems of the NHS, there is the Care Sector. Oh dear! The government has recruited more “illegals” for that sector, and apparently, according to the latest figures, that represents 58% of this “terrible” immigration problem we need protection from.

And that leaves those small boats. So; what percentage of the big “illegal” problem does that represent? According to the best figures I can find, that amounts to slightly less than 3%. So, let's try some additions:

· Students bringing in £16,800 a year = 25%

· NHS workers, I guess working and paying tax = 12%

· Coming to work in Care Sector, again paying tax = 58%

· Small Boats (not illegal to claim asylum no matter how you get here. Let's be generous = 3%,

That gives us a grand total of 98%

Then I know that others come other ways. I have met them. Maybe that is the additional 2% giving us the total 100%.

To tackle those other problems, the housing numbers of “long-term empty homes” rose again in 2023 by 12,556 (or 5%) to 261,189. The number of asylum seekers waiting longer than six months for a decision now stands at 128,812. That means there must be around 132,377 spare ones if we accommodate all those asylum seekers. And wouldn't that money spent on hotels be better spent on bringing those empty homes back into good use?

“What a lot these people are costing us!” cry government ministers. However, if we allowed them to work and pay tax at the basic rate, it would earn the UK coffers at least half a billion pounds annually. It would not prevent or hinder processing their asylum application. It would undoubtedly help the system.

Of course, if you solve these problems, what will you use as sound bites? 'Stop the Boats!' What else could be used to persuade you to think “We, the government are protecting you. This means you really need to keep us in government.”

Does anyone leave the UK with, maybe, a bit of balance? In the year ending December 2022, approximately 557,000 people emigrated from the United Kingdom, 92,000 of whom were British citizens, 202,000 were EU citizens, and 263,000 were non-EU citizens. So, doing those sums again:

· Out = 557,000

· In = 128,812

· Net loss = 428,188

W. 723

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

2023-10-23T09:30:00.001-07:00

Just

You will find all positive alternatives, if you check a thesaurus for the word, “JUST”. Why is it, then, that I see it used as a negative putdown? Maybe it's the tone of voice, a look, or a context.

I often hear people use the word, “Just”, in terms of 'Oh, they are JUST a student. JUST a cleaner.” JUST … fill in the blanks. In that sense. The word is not used positively but rather as, in my view, an insult, a negative and a putdown.

Why do people put others down, I muse? Is it because they feel inferior? Are they insecure? Or do they think they can climb higher if they push someone else down?

If it's the, “climb-higher-syndrome”, they must understand that that action means both fall down. It is interesting to note that Jesus, the King of all Kings, in his discussion with his disciples when they were pushing for status and hierarchy, said to them, “Whoever wanted to be the top, leader, needed to be the servant of all.” Strange, hey? Perhaps not, as it came from the “Servant King”.

I'm not too fond of putdowns. I'm not particularly eager to watch it. It makes me sad to see it. I am sad because I feel I am looking at insecurity attempting to push others into insecurity, which is unpleasant.

I remember one day at a large conference, a person approached me and said he had read one of my books. I gave him a genuine, “Thank you”. However, he continued in a relatively insulting tone and said, “You have done for literature what “so and so” has done for music.” To which I replied, “Thank you!”(I liked the person's music). Exceedingly irritated, the speaker responded, " I knew you would take that as a compliment,” which I indeed had. What he had said was clearly intended as an insult. LOL. With that, he walked off. It's great being so highly complimented.

Another story: When I was just a small boy, the deputy head teacher of my junior school called me forward in front of the class. I must have been about 10 or 11 years old. He said. “Hawkes, you are the most stupid boy that I have ever met. You will never be able to do anything, not even sweep up.” Not being given to insecurity, I did not reply but thought to myself that, “What you believe, “sir”, is a clear demonstration that you obviously don't know me at all.” I am not recommending my actions, but on leaving school and driving a new, rather swish company car, I drove past the school of my youth at the very time I knew the deputy head teacher would be leaving. On seeing him, I swished down my window as he came down the school path and said, “ Oh! Hello sir! Are you still riding that rusty old bike? He looked at me in astonishment, mouth open, no words coming, and I drove off.

Neel Burton MD, author of “Heaven and Hell: The Psychology of the Emotions,” in one of his online articles, says “one of the ways of dealing with putdowns is humour.” I am unsure if my window-down car driving was humorous, but it felt fun. But Neel Burton quotes two anti put-down stories that I think are worth repeating:

George Bernard Shaw, it is said, once invited Winston Churchill to his new play. The invitation read: "I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend—if you have one." Churchill replied: "Cannot possibly attend first night; will attend second—if there is one."

An example, just for the fun: The American actress Ilka Chase wrote several novels. One day, an anonymous actress told her: "I enjoyed reading your book. Who wrote it for you?" Chase replied: "Darling, I'm so glad you liked it. Who read it to you?"

So, think before using that, “JUST” putdown: Why am I doing this? Is it because I am insecure?

Lift people up, and you will find that that deals more effectively with your insecurity.

Adrian Hawkes.Blogspot.co.uk

W. 694

2023-09-07T08:00:00.003-07:00

The Destructive Use of Percentages

I remarked that there are almost 100,000 children in foster care in the UK. On top of that, there are 125,000 children being looked after not by their birth parents but by other family members or friends.

That means there are two hundred thousand children who are, in one way or another, in the UK care system. I am told that if there are one hundred thousand in foster care, there is probably another one hundred thousand on the “At Risk Register.” In other words, children are in danger of going into foster care. So, conservatively, three hundred thousand children in the UK are at serious risk.

My listener responded, "But ah! that is quite a small percentage of the UK total population."

The current population of the UK is 67,756,193. So, I guess that all those children represented by my figures above are a small percentage of the total UK population. Another note is that the number seems to go up yearly.

Now I am not sure what you think about this.

First, I want to say that I find percentages interesting. However, on this occasion, the reply that it is “a small percentage” offends me.

I am sure that if you are one of those young people who have been traumatized, now being looked after by a locum “parent”, who at first will be a total stranger to you, you would not be interested in the fact that you are currently being regarded as a percentage, a number – and a small number at that.

I am old enough to remember “The Prisoner”, a 1967 UK science fiction-allegorical television series about a man (Patrick McGoohan) kidnapped from his London home and awakens in a secret location known to its inhabitants as “The Village”, where he is known only as Number Six. The Prisoner constantly complains that he is “not a number.”

The problem with the destructive use of percentages is that it dehumanizes people. “You are not a percentage. You are a person.” I know the names and stories of many of such young people - and turning them into a number is frankly destructive and disturbing.

I guess we people do not like to face specific awful situations, so we dehumanize people. In war, it is not dead people. It's “collateral damage”. For the surgeon, you are often not a person but, “My appendix patient.”

Politicians love it. Those people dying on the boats seeking safety are not people. They are “illegals” (which they are not). The 6 million people on the planet currently displaced from stable homes because of war, famine, and bad politics are not, after all, “people”. They are “refugees” or “aliens” or merely “undocumented immigrants”, or other worse descriptions.

Maybe, we should think again about our word usage, and casual dismissal of, “well, it’s only a small percentage.” We should perhaps think again about what Martin Niemöller often said and often called “The Bystander's Credo”:

“First, they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out.

Then they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out.

And then they came for me, and no one was left to speak out for me.”

Adrians Blog

www.blogspot.com

W. 575

2023-07-07T04:30:00.002-07:00

And So…

I arrive on a small boat to the UK. Oh, dear, I have no documentation, so I must be illegal. But I worked for the British in Afghanistan.

Well, did you not know there is a form for people like you who are from Afghanistan that you can fill in and therefore come to the UK legally?

How many people have used that route In the last year? Non. Now I wonder why that is.

Well, people fill in the form, send it in, and oh dear, it takes forever for the UK to reply, and often they say you have filled in the wrong form, and you need to start again with the right one, so I guess lots more months of waiting for a reply.

So why do you need to come to the Uk? Well, because I worked for the UK government when you were in Afghanistan, I was in hiding because the Taliban wanted to kill me for working for the UK. So, apply properly to come to the UK.

Another problem is that; the UK government wanted their form completed and a passport, birth certificate, and children's passports (The Taliban will not issue children's passports). The UK wanted an adoption certificate for some children, but no such document exists in Afghanistan.

To make matters worse, the UK insisted that each document is endorsed by the country's government, the Taliban. The problem with that is they are the people trying to kill me. If I apply to them, they will know where I am hiding, so I will be killed. I think I will run away and get there by small boat. Oh, but then you will be illegal. Yes, but alive!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/afghans-arap-taliban-documents-mod-b2288164.html

2023-06-05T07:55:00.002-07:00

Language and the Liniker small boats debate

The great pity of this debate is that it has concentrated on Linakers tweets rather than the home secretaries words in Parliament. Words have power. Never forget that. Words can inspire action and deeds. Do you think that the riots in Merseyside? Do you believe that it has no connection with terms used by parliamentarians? If you feel that you are nieve in the extreme.

Words affect people and cause them to act accordingly. That is why the Home secretaries' words are so dangerous. Much like the former president of the USA claims that riots in the US have nothing to do with him.

So what was that dangerous rhetoric? Well, illegal to start with; It is only illegal if you are undocumented and don't claim asylum when you enter! We won't talk about those other unproven words implying that all fleeing are rapists and criminals; what terrible language to use without proof.

Think about those documents too. Kossovans had their paperwork, passports, marriage certificates, and birth certificates burnt in front of them in the Kosovo conflict. They even took the number plates from their cars. The whole idea is to make them a non-person, is that what the home secretary wants to do?

Then think about the constant inflammatory use of the cost to the poor UK taxpayers—millions in hotel charges. However, if you allowed the people here claiming asylum to work and pay tax, just the ones here now would generate half a billion pounds for the government tax take. You could continue to process their asylum claim, which is probably easier. Then you could make such people responsible for their accommodation, as they are earning saving the exchequer a further half a billion pounds while filling those one million plus work vacancies in the meantime. One billion pounds In sounds like a good idea.

In the meantime, word inspires attacks on residential places where refugees are housed. Why wouldn't you attach them? After all, they are illegal rapists and criminals; top politicians told us so.

And don't you know there are one billion displaced persons in the world, all trying to come to the UK? A bit like the whole of Turkey was about to move here if we didn't Brexit!

Refugees fit the bill so well. The big issue is that that would take away falsely created enemies, i.e. those who can least defend themselves. And then how could the government keep us in fear which might mean we might not vote for them to protect us from these terrible catastrophes?

Adrian Hawkes

Adrianhawkes.blogspost.com

W. 438

2023-04-18T04:09:00.000-07:00

Compasionate Conservatism

I must confess that I had not heard this phrase for a long time. I thought it had been given up. I was under the misapprehension that they had returned to that other phase used by conservatives, the nasty party. Apparently not.

I like words, but for words to have meaning, they must clearly define what they mean. So compassionate, I need to know what is being done to demonstrate compassion practically.

So, conservatives of recent date have awarded their friends with million-pound contracts for PPE that did not work and had to be destroyed. Is that compassion conservatism?

Then again, they have recently told us how to eat right, go and eat cake! Oh, sorry, it wasn't cake; it was turnips. Is that what is meant by compassionate conservatism?

However, they have recently tried to compassionately help us British in attempting to deport vulnerable refugees fleeing from war to Rwanda; perhaps that is what they mean by compassion.

In the U.K., at the moment, we have more people using food banks than ever before, but thankfully the conservatives, In the shape of Conservative MP Lee Anderson, has come with some compassionate help. Lee Anderson, Conservative MP, was very compassionate to himself; he claimed £219,703.44 as business costs - higher than the average M.P. He said that people using food banks do not know how to budget or cook. I also wonder if they have enough money to put the cooker on?

· N.B. The Independent Food Aid Network (IFAN) represents more than 500 independent food banks operating across the U.K. IFAN has identified at least 1,172 independent food banks across the U.K. in addition to food banks in the Trussell Trust network, Salvation Army, and school-based food banks.

· In its mid-year statistics, the Trussell Trust reported a 23% rise in the number of food parcels they distributed from April to September 2019, compared with April to September 2018. The figure rose from 658,048 to 823,145 parcels. This is the steepest increase it has recorded in five years. Around a third of these were requested for children.

By the way, the government is very compassionate to M.P.s, especially regarding food. A three-course cordon-bluer meal In the Palace of Westminster will cost an M.P. about £10.00. A braised pork belly with black pudding bonbon and apple salad starter was £2.70, while a rib-eye steak with béarnaise and hand-cut chips (I trust these are now being stacked in "the tower arrangement") was generously priced at £7.80. Who subsidises this? Well, the taxpayer, of course.

OK, now you tell me I have got it all wrong, so I look forward to hearing how this compassionate conservatism works.

w.452

Adrian Hawkes

4^th March 2023

2023-01-26T04:29:00.002-08:00

BLACK OR WHITE

It is nice when people know what is right and wrong, black, or white, to do or not to do! Unfortunately, there are lots of shades of grey. It's a great pity that the real world we live in is not, yes or no, up or down, right or left like that. It would be so much easier if it was, black or white right or wrong, without any intermediate spaces or opinions – wouldn't it?

Of course, the thing is, even God compromises and accommodates that which He does not want to happen. I'm so glad He does, aren't you?

So, “what brought this on?” you ask. Well, I have seen many things on Facebook about electric cars. Mostly, it’s all about how they don't work, are too expensive, and they exploit children and therefore we shouldn't buy them, and on top of all that, they won't get you where you need to go.

Of course, I am missing out that most of the writers have never driven one, never been in one, and, if we are honest, know nothing about them - but hey! that never stopped our prejudices did it.

But for me, it does throw up the problem of child exploitation, and yes, I have thought about it, and yes, I have driven Electric cars for almost ten years if you include the original hybrid cars. I believe doing so is better for the environment. For me, I think the last ten years has saved me around £11,000 in running costs from running my previous petrol car. That does not include the free parking, the (sometimes) free electricity, the low cost of tax and the government perks as well as the free driving in Central London, (i.e., not paying the congestion tax.)

However, we cannot ignore the child exploitation that is utilised to get the material for the battery. However, if we are going to think about exploitation for the construction of car batteries, shouldn't we also think about the exploitation in other areas of both children and working adults too? The exploitation of workers in clothing factories, exploitation of children making footballs, exploitation of the environment and local people via oil pipelines and the pollution of food sources in coastal areas. Wasn't there a whole load of innocent working people killed in the Rana Plaza building collapse?

I do listen to the people trying to represent such situations. However, the grey area is that the people who are being exploited tell us to not stop buying the goods, because if we do, they do not have any work at all. So, the result of or black and white moralistic cry is starvation. Sometimes in some countries, the only working person in the family is a child. Is that right? Of course not! However, the grey area is that there are choices. Either, we stop buying such things, creating even worse social and financial situations for those families, or we buy making loads of noise to those in power to change the working conditions in the relevant countries, stop children from working and employ adults. The end-product of that change will mean that our clothes, batteries, food, and the oil will become more expensive, maybe it should be.

As a follower of Jesus, I am sure that we have an international responsibility to prophesy to power. To call out the misuse and injustice towards children and working people We need to seek and pull down the Kingdom to our time-space world, handfuls of Kingdom justice, righteousness, equality, and wholeness. Let us make a noise. We can do something - doing nothing is not an answer, but neither is not buying. Sadly, there is no black or white - just lots of different greys.

Adrian Hawkes

7^th August 2021

W. 572

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

2022-10-28T06:15:00.000-07:00

TERRIBLE EVIL LEFT-WING SOCIALISTS.

I am tired of hearing, seeing reading about how awful these left-wing socialists are. I guess I should acknowledge that a lot of it comes from the Right Wing Press.

I began to think about some of these terrible people. Particularly those who have been leaders of parties in the UK and now no longer are. It would be better to assess people's actions rather than just what they say.

So thinking about those people, I wondered what they did after their leadership stint. Well, now Margaret Thatcher, reportedly after her stint, went off to do public speaking, and it was reported that she was earning £1,000 per minute. What about those who followed her? How are they doing? I heard that Gorden Brown had to spend his Christmas day assembling bunk beds for refugees as no one else was around to do it that day. I hear that the terrible left-winger Jeremy Corban was as often down at the food bank helping out as often as possible. Not sure about many of the others, but don't you think it is worth asking the question?

Then I began to think about where I stand. What do I feel about Equality? I would like to see more of it. I must be a left winger.

I respect all nationalities and do not think I am better than everyone else because I was born in the UK. Oh dear, I must be a socialist.

Giving a significant tax break to the rich and making sure that the poor pay an outstanding share by reducing their income is terrible; I must be a socialist.

Trickel down is not something I believe in so bad; I must be left-wing. I did hear someone say that he knew it worked; he was sure. Being so upset when seeing a homeless person driving straight to the nearest expensive estate, finding the best house on the Road and putting £10.00 through the letterbox, he was sure that it would soon trickle down to that poor homeless person.

I guess the story told by Jesus of the Rich man and the poor man (Luke 16: 19 to 26) must undoubtedly be a story of trickle-down economics. Then there is that other story about the man who had a visitor. Rather than taking a sheep from his large flock, he went around and took a sheep from the man who only had one so that he could entertain his visitor. Was he a good example of a rich person's tax system? (Second Samual 12: 1 to 5) At this point, I should quote Jim Wallis in his book Gods Politics; he said governments should remember that a budget is a moral document.

Nationalisation is a big one, but why should we create a competitive market in water, energy and the like? Is that cost-effective, and does it benefit the user, i.e.that, is all of us?

By the way, does this opinion of evil left-wing socialists have anything to do with the media? How much of that media is owned by right-wing people? How much are they persuading us that my opinions are so evil?

So what else makes for a terrible socialist? I want Equality of pay, whatever gender, definitely Equality for women. Such things must undoubtedly come from those terrible evil left-wing socialists.

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot

w. 564

Adrian Hawkes.

2022-08-05T06:03:00.002-07:00

PRIVATE LIVES ARE SEPARATE FROM PUBLIC LIVES?

For many years I have been puzzled as to why people think high profile public personalities will be different at home than in the workplace. So, I hear things like, “Oh yes, he lies to his family, but that is different. They will be an excellent public officer, MP, Prime ministers, Director etc..”

I have had people say to me, “We need so and so to come and clean for us.” My answer has been, “But their house is so dirty!” “Ah yes”, comes the reply, “but they will do an excellent job for us.” Why do people think like that?

So, a particular person is unfaithful and lies to his wife and family … but that is their private life? Now we are referring to their public workaday life, and this, and they are different. Really? Why do we think any human being can compartmentalise life that way? They are a single human being, not two characters. It happens to me in the current workaday world. People say “so and so has had a difficult time at home, but that is their private life now they are at work.”

Do you not think that home will not affect your performance at the workplace? Of course, It does. I can usually tell with my fellow workers when things are challenging outside of the office. Why? because it impinges on their work performance and attitude.

A particular PM was unfaithful to his erstwhile wives. I am sure he had to tell lies to cover his activities before the infidelities were made public. However, never mind, we are only interested in his public life. Of course, in time, it seems he has been telling lies to his work partners also, as well as the country at large. What a surprise?

Oh, and I wonder whether he and/or others told us lies about Brexit.

W. 324

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

8^th July 2022

2022-07-07T07:09:00.001-07:00

Back to Babylon

It is interesting to look at history and track our political developments. If you look back to the old-world empires, Assyria, and Babylon, it is evident from a law point of view that the ruler, King (or whatever) had absolute power. Not only did he make the law, but they were also the law, and if you like, above the law.

When you move to the next world empire, the Medo Persians, you note that the rulers say things like, “We make the law, but we must also obey the law, and when the law is created, we cannot change it.”

However, now, in the UK, we are in that strange position where those who make the law feel that it is not for “special” people like them but only for the proletariat. So, if you want to do something and the law says you cannot, then, of course, change the law. Or better still, say that the high court's ruling must be wrong because it is not what you want to do, so we will organise things so that the courts - the judiciary no longer have any power over our decisions.

Then again, if we are in that privileged position of making law, and the enforcers of the Law come and advise us to stop what we are doing because we are breaking the Law, we can laugh at them. “Don't you know who we are? Go away. We are the lawmakers.”

And when our judiciary system is an adversarial one (i.e., there is a prosecutor and a defender), either a barrister and or solicitor is used by the people, because that is our system, and they find a defender for themselves, we dismiss that defender as “just too left-wing.” It seems now in modern political parlance that anything of the “left” must be wrong, communist, or even worse. Strange, eh? I wonder if birds could manage with just one right-wing.

Another thing! it seems now that in the UK, we must only have left-wing lawyers. Or is it that same syndrome whereby if you disagree with what I (the lawmaker) want to do, you must be wrong (by default), and we need to find a way of cutting you out of the equation so we can do what we want to do, right, or wrong, legal, or illegal?

Let's be honest. If we want to party, prorogue parliament, put people on planes to Rwanda, push boats out to sea, promise stuff to another government while I am on holiday, plan to change an international agreement that I have signed and break international law -if I want to do these things and make these laws, anyone who opposes me must be wrong - or at least they must be left-wing.

Again, let us be honest; we want to go back to Babylon, where 'I' am the law and can do just what I want when I want, and leave the law I make for the simple prols.

And if you disagree with me that would be Scandalous!

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

W.516

17/06/22

2022-06-17T08:14:00.000-07:00

PCC EVENT July 2021 – Almost out of Lockdown.

Phoenix Community Care has for many years sponsored and created social events. These events have been for its staff, Foster Carers, those cared for, our Unaccompanied Minors, and the team supporting them.

During 2020, because of CV19, almost all that we have done has had to be online, although we have continued to have face-to-face meetings with our UAMs (Unaccompanied minors) as language is often an issue, and if one has a government form to complete, extremely hard to help with that online. On top of that, if the boiler breaks down, one cannot fix it remotely. We have tried to protect our staff as well as we could with protective equipment, and we have only recorded one mild case amongst our young people during the whole period.

We have all missed that personal interaction with every one of our placed people. Staff and friends of PCC organised this “Almost Out of Lockdown” event in July. Hiring school grounds in London, with football facilities, bouncy castles, boxed food etc. A big thanks to Sunny and Talitha (one of our Foster Carers), who put in all the nuts and bolts to make this a successful day.

The Weather was kind. The food was great. The music was loud. The conversations and catchups were too numerous to count. The younger children bounced. The older children had catchups and made new friends. The UAM’s soccer team took great delight in beating the PCC staff team at football, for which they received actual medals.

All in all, some eighty-plus people came for the day. Thank you for all the positive comments about our time together. We are looking forward to the next year-end event.

Adrian

13.07.21

W.292