In God's name?

As a frequently-reconsolidated and hardened atheist, still I cannot yet believe this to be irrefutable proof of an absence of God. I think that perhaps Stephen Fry, as well as most, elaborated upon the possible existence, or not, of such an omniscient Being. He said "Bone cancer in children, what's that about? Why should I respect such a capricious, mean-minded and stupid God? (He created) a world so full of injustice and pain. (He is) an utter maniac, totally selfish. We have to spend our lives upon our knees, thanking Him? What kind of God would do that?"

A God Who might 'design' with such vindictive 'embellishment' is a God we should all have cause to fear! Far better that He/She is not there at all.



I hope and believe that Stephen was making more the point that 'evidence,' such as it 'exists,' appears to strongly refute- strongly!- the existence of any benign God, rather than that he was sharing his rehearsed statement to a hoped-fictitious and vindictive Deity.

If Stephen's referenced God is an accurate and an actual portrayal, then we are all well and truly damned and for all of eternity! Stephen does not need to elaborate that any such omnipotent Being will be most unlikely to be honouring any sort of pious Earthly 'deal,' those as prescribed by any of the Holy texts.

Let us pretend, for a moment and for the purposes of theological discourse, that any God is viable- religious bods have ever sought to skew the (lack of) evidence to be so- and thus attempt to comprehend His/Her aesthetic.

God, we are encouraged to blindly accept, has created us. Thus, He must also have furnished us with free thought. But He has forbidden us to use this free thought in order to scientifically question the merest concept of 'creation.' So, this Presence has gifted us with a talent that we are effectively barred from employing to its fullest potential? We must accept that He created us to suffer, but we are not to question His arbitrary choices. We must highly praise His gifts, but we are not permitted to even begin to comprehend His more destructive whims. God's disciples may scatter weaponry like seeds across the land, they might mutilate babes-in-arms that they cannot fully experience sexual union, they might embellish their own palaces with yet one more 24 carat skin, whilst the minions- expressly forbidden contraception- must contemplate malnutrition en masse. The religious texts may permit one to scrape up the excrement of one's betters, but not to shake their hands. In gratitude for working one's fingers to the bone one may well be required to stumble, sleep-deprived, to the temple, also late into the night and yet again before dawn, lest one should forget His benevolence. As the call to prayer yet again shatters a peace that God also designed- perhaps entirely that He/She might deny any appreciation of the same- one might be forgiven for assuming oneself to be no more than a minor character in a living diptych by Hieronymus Bosch.



Detonate yourself before a class of infants and God will personally ensure you a minor role as the slightly-less remarkable 24th of 72 virgins, to the sort of man who will 'bravely' burn another human in a steel cage.

Perhaps this may not be irrefutable proof of an absence of God. Certainly it's proof that such a foot-soldier has not signed up to serve any sort of benign God. We should all hope beyond hope that this monster's God is not also to be our's.

In God's name? Please, let it not be so!

Where Next?

Brandon Lewis, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, has recently written to me (letter dated 9th January) regarding the recent Tenancies (Reform) Bill. Well, not actually Brandon himself, more Simon Wright, my (apparent) MP. But Simon was doing what MPs (are supposed to) do, he was 'standing up' and and acting very much 'on behalf' of his constituents. That would, in part, be me!


Magnificent vista?

Acting largely in the go-between role, Simon's attention had been brought to bear upon a recent spate of 'retaliatory evictions' by 'rogue' landlords. Responding to Simon's consequent enquiry, Brandon mused that such practice was "unacceptable," but went on to elaborate upon a few reservations that he has held regarding the aforementioned bill. The bill should not, "adversely affect (on) the overwhelming majority of responsible landlords in the private rented sector," he clarified. Mmmm!

"The overwhelming majority of responsible landlords" (?) Brandon didn't expand upon the basis for this assumption, but he is an 'elected' MP, so should we take it that he's still busily tampering at the peripheries of housing and planning legislation or thereabouts, very much in the better interests of his constituents? Or, maybe just on behalf of the usual selected favourites?


With spacious sweeping entrance.

When I was a student, one of my fellow collegians spent the duration of the post graduate course living in   a converted- I say 'converted'- garage. At the time I never gave it a great deal of thought. It had seemed better- indeed it was- than many of the alternatives. When my daughter moved back to Norwich the kitchen- I say 'kitchen'- of her apartment- I say 'apartment'- was fitted with a cooker hood that simply sucked the cooking smells and steam up towards the high ceiling, to percolate within the same room. There was no further- I say 'further'- means of 'extraction.' When she left the place the damp patches that had bloomed upon the walls cost her half of her deposit. Thanks for that 'Premier Properties.' Such, Brandon, is the unscrupulous power of landlord and his/her Uriah Heepish minions.

A somewhat Orwellian interpretation of the word, "premier," me thinks.

We could pretend- indeed this is entirely what the media tend to do- that there is a cosy client-provider-relationship operating at the heart of the UK rented sector, but the truth is often somewhat different. I could selectively glean information to support this premise, much as 'our' 'free' press routinely does on behalf of the landlordly classes. But instead, I have spoken with those I know who are renting. Here the landlord-tenant relationship is frequently one of nervous uncertainty! Outstanding issues, such as leaks, heating and faulty washing machines are commonplace. I know of two individuals who have been 'evicted' under the false premise that a property is about to be sold, only to find that new tenants, paying even more outrageous rents, have instantly replaced them. Even, where tenants 'feel' relatively 'secure' the rent is likely to be well in excess of what is reasonable, particularly when current average wages are factored into the equation.

The ruling elite will counter with, "the market rate," but students of the truer economy have long since recognised that the system is now so skewed that property prices, and thus rents, have not been subjected to the simple rules of supply and demand for seemingly-a-lifetime. When an uber-wealthy one percent own as much as half the entire globe (including especially huge swathes of the media) the pseudo-forces of supply and demand are always going to be subject to covert manipulation. Any attempt to analyse the recent slump in oil prices should swiftly reveal that global demand is but a tiny cog within the fuller machinations.


Private parking by arrangement.

The pseudo-recession, as endorsed by the hyper-monetarists, has long-since lifted 'home ownership' well beyond increasing numbers of working families. And whilst we might be aware that thousands of the most desirable apartments are now routinely brought up and left vacant by uber-wealthy 'clients,' the bigger picture is far from clear to we, the minions. That is except to say that the very briefest of perusals of the thrust of government policy, working entirely at the behest of the puppet-masters, is increasingly towards an ever more greatly consolidated oligarchy. As already mentioned, the most affluent 1% now own nearly 50% of everything. And whilst that vague 50% refers to things almost entirely monetarily related, this faceless 1% also own far, far more than 50% of the blackened souls of their puppets in The Commons. That includes you, Mr "Fairness" Clegg!

So, in this context, "How," we might be forgiven for asking, "is the landlord in need of protection?"



Where next?

The answer, of course, is that the landlords are already fairly safe and so do not, otherwise why would there be quite so many individuals snapping up properties as second, third and fourth homes, when others simply cannot afford the one?

As it happened, Brandon's concerns were largely unfounded. The bill never really stood a chance! A couple of similarly concerned playmates managed to talk out the bill. Christopher Chope and Philip Davies were apparently also alarmed at the prospect of landlords not having complete control over their almost-certainly-over-paying tenants. Christopher is far more concerned that food in the Commons Canteens be further subsidised, 'rightly' understanding that inanimate items like his antique Chesterfield sofa (second, third or fourth home?) rank far more highly than either struggling tenants or those lowly "servants" working in the Commons canteens. Gentleman Christopher clearly has both feet firmly grounded in the Victorian ideology.

This chap (YouTube) on the other hand, seems to have identified something of the bigger picture. 'Hats off' to him, I say. I wish I had his energies.


Room for one more on top?

Young Philip, 'champion' of the disabled, is of similar blue-blooded credentials to his playmate, Christopher. Logic might suggest that, in Philip's ideal world, the underpaid-disabled should not be permitted to undermine the finances of 'hard-working' landlords. That is, should the 'need' arise, that landlords should be able to evict them as swiftly as is humanly (or otherwise) possible! Britain has many such reasons to be 'proud' of its 'democratic' credentials, its 'hard-working' and its highly-'representative' MPs. 

Converted chimney. Would suit heavy smoker.

So, the question has to be, 'where next?' 'Where next' will we witness the 'blossoming' of 'free'-market accommodation-for-rent, springing up? In relation to this desperate need to see working families putting in the hours, simply to line the pockets of absentee landlords, 'where next' will be deemed fit for assimilation?

If it's roof-able, then it's do-able! Legislation can no-doubt be swiftly tailored to suit. If you're looking to convert the 'spacious' fireplace and hearth- would suit tenant with a quirky sense of space- or rickety garden shed, of a recently acquired terrace in the golden triangle, then I suggest that you drop a line to Philip Davies or Christopher Chope. But not, of course, during Gentleman Christopher's lunch break.

It seems most unlikely that either of these chaps will soon lose their seats. UK 'democracy' has long-since 'evolved' well beyond such bothersome matters as democratic accountability.