Blog

The Bible says that St Peter is at the ‘Gate of Heaven’ and decides who gets into Heaven.

If there are a Billion Christians – and just the one Heaven for all Christians – roughly ten million will die each year. That’s around 30,000 per day. That equates to about 3,000 arrivals per working hour – and with 3,600 seconds per hour, that comes to one per second.

Does St Peter just make a snap decision on each candidate? Or do they need C.V.s, references, testimonials? Clearly St Peter would have to work very fast…. And would there be an Appeals system – for those wrongly rejected (maybe mistaken identity in all the rush) – or for those wrongly admitted, where people recognise somebody who should not have been admitted (paedophiles and so on).

Clearly this does not make sense.

The implication is that the absolute word of God – as in the Bible – needs to be interpreted and updated. So how do you decide whether to take any of it literally, and which parts are ‘valid’. Think about views on Homosexuality, Creation, the ‘Virgin Birth’.

So it would the Bible is something of a ‘pick and mix’ – different views will be selcted, and none are absolute. So why believe what your Pastor tells you – others will say something different, with equal validity……

More needs to be done to help integrate immigrants in the UK – there is a parallel with the Northern European ‘colonials’ in Spain, where I now live.

Some years ago the UK opted for ‘multi-culturalism’ – it was thought to be a good idea to help immigrants retain their ‘culture’. But this was at the cost of reducing the drive to help them integrate. When immigration was in low numbers maybe this was OK, but this is no longer the case.

It now feels that we are in a situation where many immigrants are not ‘integrating’.

As a nation, we need everyone living here to share our values, the commitment to democracy, religious tolerance, equality for women. A unified nation, where all residents would commit to fight to defend the nation.

Those quick off the mark will note that more needs to be done to get our ‘original’ nationals signed up to these values.

However, focussing on immigrants, we need them to learn our language (men and women alike). They need to learn about our culture and history. They need to be informed of our values, and sign up to them. They need to commit to volonteer to fight for our country if need be.

You will be noting there is a paralllel with those choosing to live in Spain, speak the language, be willing to volonteer to fight for Spain. No country needs people who are not aligned to the country’s values.

More negatively, the UK should make it clear what is not acceptable. Treating women as second class (and all religions need to be challenged on this). Forced ‘Arranged marriages’ are not acceptable. Nor are Honour killings. Nor Cousin Marriage. Nor requiring women to dress ‘modestly’ when their men do not (ie ban full face coverings). English law needs to apply, for example to divorce (not Sharia law). Animals need to be humanely killed (not Helal).

Both men and women need to sign up to our values, and likewise commit to volonteering to fight for our nation if need be.

In our past many Commonwealth people, in the second world war, fought with us, when it was not directly their battle. We cannot have people living here who would not do the same.

Standards of living in the UK have been flat for a number of years, and we are falling behind the United States.

You can access money by borrowing, but we have run out of road on that front.

So what we need is the creation of new wealth – the monet with which to do good things.

The ‘Left’ do not seem to be interested in wealth creation. It’s as if being successful in financial terms is not a good thing. They live the politics of envy. Along with dis-interest – they seem to think that all you need to do is to ‘tax the rich’ and thereby fund their ‘tax and spend’ thinking.

The ‘very rich’ may or may not be a legitimate target – but generally they are potentialy quite mobile, If things continue as they are, they will go and live abroad, either permanently or until a better government gets elected here.

The ‘Left’ seem to think that you can just increase taxes on businesses and employers without consequnce. The actual result is lack of growth – who would invest in the UK at present – the business environment is extremely tough and unfriendly.

We ahve had the consequences of Brixit, Covid, increasedfood costs due to the Ukraine war, and now the government assualt on business – national insurance costs, minimum wage costs, and they are complicit in utility cost increases (Mad Ed Millibrand and his ideas on net zero for example).

We need to change the attitude to business – probably the only real answer is a Conservative governmnet if they can sort themselves out.

Each sector needs support. And the creation of an environemnt in which people like the idea of investing in business.

Take agriculture. we need to facilitate the simple ‘growing of things’. It may be nice to think about conservation – heges, ditches, bird and insects – but we need success in teh middle of each field. So cut the nonsense bureaucracy. Scale back animal welfare (sadly). LIkewise don’t ban effective weedkillers and insecticides. Or do you want to starve when World War 3 happpens.

Take cars. Why kill the petrol car industry in this country? Other countries are slipping the deadlines. And many people don’t want electric cars (for example, you can’t home charge them if you live in a terraced house or flat).

Take hospitality. And the High Streets. Cut business rates. Reduce VAT. Remove city centre car parking fees. Give them a chance to survive and even grow.

Take technology. We need to grow our ‘high tech’ sectors. The link between universities and research is crucial. So why are we allowing so many Chinses students to study here, learn our secrets, and take them back to China?

We need to recover our manufacturing base. We need steel, shipbuilding, marine engineering, tool making. We need to train people. We should have a strategy of identifying a minimum level of home production for strategic, defence linked, purposes.

Globalisation hollowed out our capacity to be independant. Should there be a war we need a degree of self sufficiency. However those new areas of production need highly skilled managers, and both freedom but also, if they are guaranteed work, very close scrutiny of efficieny, productity, profit margins.

Without wealth creation we will never increase our standard of living. Nor can we do good things with some of that new wealth.

It’s time this was recognised, and action taken

Does Trump have an Iran strategy? Probably not, and doubtless he does not care…..

You can remove some of the Iranian leaders, but how will this change things?

The Revolutionary Guards and military have control of Iranian weapons – planes, armoured vehicles, guns. And with their corruption and exploitation of power they will not give up without a fight.

The people might protest, another ‘Arab Spring’, but will they win.

The Guards and military will be fighting not only for their privileged existence.but also to avoid retribution from the people – lynching and what have you.

What is the relevance of Franco? In the Spanish civil war, he had the military and the weapons and slowly ground down the opposition. He could have won in a shorter time frame, but chose to take his time to systematically destroy his opponents. Relatively unarmed civilians had no chance.

What will probably happen in Iran is that the most senior remaining Guard and/or military General will take control. They may install a puppet religious leader. The abuse of the people will continue.

And of course because Trump did not seek out Islamic support, sunni or shia, it looks like a Christian and Jewish assault on their religion. Publically or privately Iran will have sympathisers.

And they will need only one bit of luck to kill Christians and Jews and make this look like a very poor strategy

When the ‘trans’ debate became more common, I honestly thought we were really talking mainly about ‘post op’ people (focussing for the moment on ‘male to female’). I didn’t think that the ‘pre op’ people were being included, and certainly not people with penises with no intent to ‘surgically’ transition.

I think much of the problem with debate is that many people seem to conflate these three categories.

My own view is that the ‘post op’ people warrant the most sympathy and sympathetic treatment. Clearly they have felt that they should not be in a male body. They have shown real commitment to wanting to live ‘like a women’. Clearly they do not actually change sex or gender – they are not the same as people born female. You would not say that a castrated dog is a bitch. But they have been ‘through teh fire’ and warrant some honorary female status. Should they use the ‘ladies’? I think it would probably be acceptable.

‘Pre op’ people need to be defined as those on hormone treatment, living as a ‘women’, and on the waiting list for surgery. Given that they still have male genitalia they have to be treated as still men. They need to show patience while they wait for surgery.

I think the terms ‘post op’ trans and ‘pre op’ trans are good terms for these two categories of people.

The third category I think is more problematic. I honestly had no idea that many so called ‘trans’ people actually have no intention to transition surgically. They want to be treated as women but keep their penis. They may or may not have hormone treatment, and may still live with a female partner, possibly including ‘fathering’ children.

Years ago they would have been called ‘cross dressers’. Blokes in a frock. Some would cheerfully wear lipstick with a beard. Did they really want to be women, or was there a sexual frisson from wearing women’s clothing?

Good luck to them, but they certainly should not be in a women’s toilets or changing rooms, nor in female prisons. With the latter, opting for a woman’s prison would probably end the moment it’s made clear it comes with priority for genital surgery.

Is this categorisation contentious? I guess some of the ‘pro trans’ lobby would try to argue the third category are ‘real women’ and only ‘TERFs’ would disagree. I think they would do better to concentrate on the first group, and try to give them as good a quality of life as possible…….

The UK looks as if it is in a ‘1930s’ situation – enemies at the gate – trying to keep the peace. Gutless appeasement – insufficient support for Ukraine – imagine it was London not Kiev, minus 18 centigrade, no heating, next to no electricity and water.

We need to urgently rearm. We need to be able to defend our island state, play our part in European defence, and to some extent look further afield.

I suggest the UK needs to find an additional 5% of GDP, now, to invest in defence. That money needs to be well spent, all projects to have short timescale delivery, standardised equipment from established suppliers.

Finding 5% will be difficult. Most people – the electorate – have seen, at the least, no growth in incomes for a decade. That is why they are disenchanted with the traditional political parties. They are inclined to protest vote, extreme left or right, anybody who offers hope.

So this money cannot come out of peoples pockets, in terms of tax or whatever. Business cannot stand more taxes. Hitting the ultra wealthy generates little net revenue, some avoid it, some slacken off, some leave.

We cannot borrow. We spent too much on Covid, we should have protected the vulnerable rather than borrowing to subsidise people’s pay… you reap as you sow, now there’s no money to fix the roof or anything else.

Over two or three years we can save some money – freeze pensions, freeze all benefits and restrict grounds for claims and renewals (we have been paying universal credit to people in prison hospitals for example). Apparently there are 5,000 people in the Cabinet Office, that could be halved. Reduce the number of senior ranks in the police. Have less managers than beds in the NHS. Have less Admirals than ships in the Royal Navy.

However you need things with immediate impact to save money.

Abandon all ‘net zero’ costs. Pend the green agenda.

We are building offshore windfarms with insufficient grid capacity to receive the electric on windy days. Stop electric car subsidies.

Maximise oil and gas from the north sea and elsewhere – and frack (just do it).

Stop all government spending on capital – HS2 for example.

Stop all ‘diversity’ spend. Stop all government consultancy expenditure. Stop most training costs, and all conference and taxi costs for example.

Probably stop overseas aid for a while. Stop funding research other than in maths and sciences.

Basically all public sector areas need to save around 10% of their spend.

Everyone will say it is too difficult – do we really need to do it now? Pray God it’s not needed, but the price we pay if not prepared is horrific. Probably a million UK dead soldiers somewhere……..

And being equipped to fight is a great deterrent towards bullies……..

The other material question is as to who could lead us? Starmer is a Neville Chamberlain (rabbit in the headlights).

Frightenly Nigel Farrage and ‘Boris’ spring to mind. If we can employ a foreign national team football manager, why not ask Obama for help? The best onshore option would probably be David Cameron?

We need to act, and as they say, act now…..

We have a global crisis. Trump is pouring gasolene on the fire, but we also have Putin, Xi, the fat little man in North Korea, and others.

We know what we need to do: which is to stand up to bullies. Turning the other cheek only encourages them, they push harder, and we either cave or fight.

We’d do better to stand up to them now, call their bluff: hopefully they would back down: but if not they are the kind of psychopaths that we would have to fight sooner or later (assuming we don’t wish just to surrender).

The solution is obvious, but needs a few good people to take the lead, and show some courage. If it would help. I’d volunteer to be in the front line. You should be willing to fight for what you believe in.

I suggest France, Germany, and the United Kingdom call for an immediate meeting of all democratic countries. We can’t be too picky about the definition of ‘democratic’ – if they want to stand with us they should be welcome. Maybe next Saturday.

A possible venue would be NATO headquarters (assuming the U.S. does not have a veto). Or EU headquarters, Or the International Court. Or there is a large serviceable hotel near Schiphol Airport.

We would welcome the national leader for each country, failing that their ambassador, or if necessary a video link. They would be asked to confirm that in principle they support collective action.

The United States would be excluded as a member. Their President or another person could attend, but not be allowed to speak. Assuming it ‘s Trump (unlikely on these terms) a soundproof box would be provided, so he could listen but not be heard.

The agenda would be as follows:

Establishment of this new ‘group’.

Confirmation that all democratic countries wish to follow international law, and respect national boundaries. Any boundary disputes to be refereed by the group.

With immediate effect the folowing sanctions to be applied against the United States:

All land, sea and air routes to and from the US to be closed.

No goods or services to be supplied to the U.S. No primary products. No tourism.

Likewise no goods or services to be purchased from the U.S. No U.S. citizens welcome in the democratic countries, This includes business people, tourists, musicians and sports people.

The democratic nations would blacklist the big tech companies: Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Tesla.

The democratic nations to boycot the next World Cup.

All other nations to be asked to follow the lead of the democratic nations.

Organisations like NATO, the Nobel organisaton, the International Court and others to be asked to take similar action.

All Ambassadors to be withdrawn from the U.S., and U.S. Ambassadors to be expelled.

Ukraine and Taiwan to be made immediate members of NATO – or, if the U.S. has a veto, a new mirror image organisation. Both to be made imediate full members of the European Union, with their discretion as to the exact details (freedom of travel etc). Give them full security guarantees.

Palestine to be a founder member of this new group. They will need strong support to ideally establsh a democratic state.

Israel to be given full security guarantees, subject however to withdrawing from Gaza and the West Bank. The settlements would have to be removed, or their residents become part ofthe Palestine State.

Special messages would be sent to Putin, Xi, and North Korea that existing national boundaries have to be respected. Any infringement would result in a Declaration of War.

I think the Democratic nations are powerful enough to stand up to the bullies. The only alternative is the ‘death by a thousand cuts’, Ukraine and Taiwan first, then possibly the Baltic States and so on. Yes, it takes guts, but we have to stand by our democratic friends: show courage and integrity.

I now live in Spain: the Spanish will remember their Civil War, when those that fought for democracy were ‘thrown under the bus’ by the Western Nations. The U.K., the U.S., and others stood back. We must not do that again.

Currently Trump is a major threat to world peace, a narcisist, a bully. His talk about ‘taking over’ Venezuela is unacceptable. His talk about Greenland is dispicable, disgusting.

Maybe it is to try to distract from his problems with Epstein, and the U.S. economy.

But he is a threat to world order. He is doing incredible reputational damage to the standing of the United States. His coterie of ‘yes men and women’ is dreadful.

Somebody needs to bring him down. Ideally his wife would talk sense to him!

The alternative is Congress and the Senate, the Supreme Court, if necessary the American military. Arguably he is mentally unwell, if not demented.

But his behaviour is generally bizarre, he appears to be mentally degraded. His language towards female reporters is Un -American. His whole being is shameful. Maybe he thinks he is having a great time and is loving every minute…..

The aim of the democratic group is to stop Trump. Either make him change, or get others to step in.

Once ‘normal service’ resumes the blockade could stop, and America be welcomed to join the group of Democratic states. We just have to trust that the majority of americans are decent people. I believe they are.

My blog is normally posted on this site – haydnblog.com – and on my Facebook and Linked In pages. On this occasion I will post this blog on Instagram, X, TikTok and Trust Social.

These are sad and worrying days…..

We need to support Ukraine. We could be creative about that support.

Peace may involve giving up territory to Russia. It’s wrong, Putin is evil. Trump’s lack of support is appalling. However, the reality may be the ‘possession is nine (or ten) points of the law’.

In an ideal world, long term, Crimea and Donbas would rebel against Russia. But, short term, that land is lost – the lesson is that the West should have made a stand the moment Russia went near Crimea.

However, can we think laterally? Maybe a successful nation does not need to maximise it’s land area. In the modern world, people, capita and technology count for more.

If you think of Singapore, the ‘pre China’ Hong Kong, you can be hugely successful as a small nation.

I think the Ukraine people have been heroic, our support verges on the shameful. We should now give them a fantstic springboard for their future.

A starting point would be to give them all the agricultural support possible. We should help invest in their primary industries – minerals and what have you, and, unlike Trump, let them keep all the surplus, the profit.

We should fund university and college courses and places – free for Ukrainian people – to help them be the best educated in the West, and proficient in modern technologies.

We should offer them access to our technologies and licences free of charge.

Where it is helpful, we could ‘pump prime’ new business activities in Ukraine. We could provide capital to build facilities, and them give them contracts to supply the rest of Europe for example:

Defence equipment, including drones, missiles, armoured vehicles.

Pharmaceutical and other bio-medical supplies.

Green sector – maybe heat pumps – factories with robots to compete with China.

Maybe electric vehicles manufacturing and battery manufacturing.

Artificial Intelligence and Quantum research contracts. AI Warehouses.

Cuttig edge other IT facilities, software contracts

The aim with each of these ‘clusters’ of activity is also to create Ukraine based supply chains to support them

We would hope that the new Ukraine would be prosperous, with well paid jobs. And of course Russia cannot compete with such success or stop it.

We should make Zelensky President of this transition, fostering democracy, free elections for the Prime Minister role, but with a President and constitution that makes Ukraine part of the West and guaranteed freedom from Russia.

We should offer all residents of Donbas and Crimea the right to move to European countries, with immediate full citizenship

I ‘stand with Ukraine’ – what about you?

The world has changed a lot in the last 2000 years. Science has developed, astronomy, knowledge of DNA, medicine, and so on.

Views on race and racism have changed. I write this from a Western, white, perspective. We have moved from accepting slavery, black people being owned by white people, to segregation, where black people were supposed to ‘know their place’ and not mix with white people. Eventually ‘civil rights’ came to bear, and black people got the vote. However, there is still talk that the UK police, for example, are ‘institutionally racist’.

I hope our failure to treat black people properly appals and shames you. Discrimination has no place in a civilised culture.

Why is this relevant?

Well, 2000 years ago women were regarded as the ‘second sex’. Not equal to men. And the bible enshrined this attitude (see 1 Timothy 2 12 etc).

Women have been regarded as ‘one of man’s possessions’. Wives subservient to men. Marital rape did not exist as an offence, wives had no right to say no. Women had no independance, didn’t work, didn’t have their own bank accounts.

Divorce was not an option, regardless of how they were treated.

They could not vote.

Gradually things have changed. My mother was expected to leave work upon marriage, that has changed.

The second world war led to much change: not only were women needed in the military, but also to ‘back fill’ manufacturing and other work. Women could weld! It opened the doors to women doing many different jobs. They had income, independence.

Contraception meant they had control over their fertility.

Socially, slowly, the perspective changed. Having the vote meant they had an equal say in terms of policy.. It took time for example to accept that women could be good athletes, in terms of distance running.

There is still a distance to go, but women are much closer to achieving equal status.

However, in terms of religion, much has not changed over these 2000 years. This includes many religions, Judaism, Islam, as well as Christianity.

The men are still living 2000 years in the past, when the world was a different place. They have failed to move with the times. It doesn’t help if you choose to take the bible literally. Not only does it give an unscientific view of the world, but it fails to recognise the rightful changes between men and women, in terms of women’s equality. You can understand why men might like like the status quo, of male dominance. But such selfishness, grasping the power, excluding women, is so wrong. It is in my opinion a sin.

Logically society will leave these men, and their attitudes, frozen in the past. Typically ‘white, male, pale and stale’. Their churches willl slowly become less and less relevant.

I recently attended a Cathedral service. The 15 priests were all male. The women were allowed to hand out the programmes and allocate seats. I was horrified. In years to come this will probably be seen as abuse by the Church. They are like dinosaurs and will become extinct. If churches have any ambition to survive there needs to be rapid change. Young people will not stand for it.

Younger preachers seem to accept the status quo, despite the fact they must know it is out of date and wrong. Some men say ‘but our ladies are happy with the situation’, and of course we treat them as very special…. Patronising rubbish.

Interestingly the Church of England and the Church of Wales have recently appointed female Archbishops. Clearly contradicting the ‘word of God’ as relayed ,immutably, in their Bible.

I would say that the various religions, active in the UK, need immediately to accept the equality of women.

In church this means the full participation of women in services. This needs to apply to all faiths – no more should women have to sit separately for example.

Failure to comply would mean the religion losing charitable status and tax breaks. Male only preachers should be taxed an additional 30% on income this year, likewise with an equal employer contribution – rising next year to 50% and so on.

Church schools should be required to teach boys and girls together, and include statements about equallity. Teachers should be both male and female.

If this is not acceptable to the religion the schools should be closed.

Religions should have high moral standards. You would think that treating people equally, in a modern fashion, would not be difficult. The time has come…….

The UK needs to re-think and clarify it’s defence strategy.

The UK thinking about defence seems as muddled as it’s thinking about other things: For example the HS2 railway plan – the benefits if it only goes to Birmingham are minimal. Another example is wind generated electricity, with no storage plan, so we have to pay the generators to turn off their electricty if it is windy at the wrong time!

So, with defence polcy, we seem to lack any clear thinking.

Defence expenditure could be for any of the following:

Preparation to invade other countries (unlikely)

Preparation to resist invasion (again unlikely, other countries would probably be invaded first).

Preparation to resist attack (a ‘bad actor’ makingt trouble, such as attacking underwater pipelines and cables) (likely, possibly coinciding with invasion of other friendly countries)

War in Europe – military support of allies

Global conflict, for example in Far East (invasion of Taiwan for example)

Our nation is somewhat distinct in military terms, given its island status.

In order to resist attack, it would seem obvious we need air cover. Maybe an ‘iron dome’ defence against missiles. Probably planes to fight off attacks from other nation’s planes.

Certainly sufficient naval resources to police and defend our coastal and offshore waters. This would include capacity against submarines as well as ships.

In terms of modern warfare, we need to be able to resist drone attacks. Imagine a ‘bad actor’ with a container ship just off our coast, maybe with a thousand drones on board. Those drones could drop poison in our reservoirs, drop grenades on public events (football stadia etc), or drop small incendiary devices in residential areas. What defence do we currently have against such a threat?

We need ‘defence drones’, maybe programmed by AI, to swarm and attack any such enemy action.

In Europe we need to talk to our allies about sufficient capacity to resist an attack (from the East) or, even better, sufficient capacity to deter such an invasion.

We need to talk to our Eastern European friends about what is needed, not the complacent French and Germans. They probably regard Eastern Europe as some sort of ‘tripwire’ to give them time to get armed if necessary.

Eastern Europe needs Tanks – lots of them – mobile guns and so on. They need aircover – maybe basic planes – ideally unmanned. Again, lots of them. Missiles, and missile defences. Likewise Drones. Personally I’d supply A10 Warhog type planes, ideally unmanned, and ‘pilotted’ from behind the front lines. Potentraiily lethal against any kind of enemy moving vehicles.

You could possibly install tactical nuclear land mines, but the ‘maginot line’ proves they can often be skirted…..

Realistically it is unlikely we can contribute much to any significant global event. My proposals above, the priorities, would stretch any likely defence expenditure. There is no money for global conflict, unless we put the economy on a war footing.

So it brings me to our two aircraft carriers. I suppose we could sail them off to the global event, presumably in American fleets. We don’t have good naval support for them, anti-submarine frigates etc., not much by way of aircraft, and poor fleet support (oil re-supply and so on). We’d denude our island defences to support them.

And what would they do when they got there? They alone would not bomb another country into submission, and they cannot invade. They would be sitting targets in the meantime. Missiles, torpedos, high altitude bombers, could destroy them.

They might have been good for ship building employment in Scotland, but at sea they are about as much use as lipstick on a pig.

They obvioulsy retain some interest and grandeur. Frankly we’d do better to keep a couple of planes on them for displays, and then use them as trade exhibition centres (including displaying and selling our defence weaponry abroad).

If we wanted to contribute globally some intercontinental missiles would have as much impact. And we could use them against Putin by threatening to destroy his Palace…..

I imagine countries like Israel have a real focus on their military priorities. And timescales.

I have written about the Ajax armed vehicle debacle. What is partly distresing is the timescale involved.

The government and the military here need to change their ways. there needs to be a real focus on costs, but even more so on timescale. We may be in a situation similar to the mid 1930s versus the start of World War 2. We should think in terms of three or four years to overhaul our military. Weapons need to come ‘off the shelf’ not custom designed in committee. Assuming we need more military personnel, the military need to recruit and train them in house (not using contractors and consultants). This puts the results under direct control so no excuses.

So, clear thinking is required, and urgent action. Is anyone up to, and up for, the challenge? Or shall we leave it until it is too late?