Disinfectant container found empty, Palace denies Prince washed hands seventy-five times.

My Sovereign Lady Elizabeth 2nd., Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Constitutional Monarch. She has met many, many unsavoury figures in the sixty-odd years in her post, and has welcomed them on behalf of Her Governments. Meeting and greeting these vicious murderous demagogues is part of her job description; and unfortunately for her, she cannot discriminate between a Ceaucescu in 1978, the Bahreini King, fresh from washing all the F1 demonstrators’ blood off his shoes, and a McGuiness in 2012.

However, her son and heir, Charles, does not have the same need to greet, welcome, or indeed shake hands with acknowledged scum as a demonstration of anything, whether it is ‘good-will’, forgiveness, political expediency, or indeed absentminded good manners.

The political bunch who engineered this unsavoury ‘meet-and-greet’ must be congratulating themselves on a job well done. I only wish that Charles had asserted his right to throw his tea over the man who had gloated over the murder of Earl Mountbatten, his godfather; his uncle, a naval hero, Problem is, he is probably too well-mannered to do anything which may have rocked the leaky boat christened the ‘Peace Process’.

Writing as an Englishman, and as one who firmly believes that the only place for murderers and terrorists is being the main component in a pile of cremated ashes, I know what greeting I would make to one who may not have pressed the remote which triggered the explosion, but who certainly knew and approved of that murderous act! I don’t believe in  a watered-down Justice, I believe in retribution, in revenge, and in the decimation of my country’s enemies; wherever they may be found.

Abide with me; and repeat!

2008_0311floor2de0009As I write these words, I have only to glance sideways at the framed photos of my three grandsons which adorn and decorate my sideboard and mantelpiece, and to reflect upon my own, as well as my wife and my sons’, good fortune.

I have often observed that there are no new ‘news’ items, but the same ones repeated many, many, times; withg only the date and the names changing. When my mate David wrote of the incineration of aborted babies in hospital furnaces, I was busy with other ideas, but have found the time to reflect upon this strange and savage disgrace.

Apart from the natural revulsion expressed by many, these ‘burnings’ are of course against any guidance given by, amongst others, the Royal College of Nursing’s Guidance on theSensitive Disposal of all Foetal Remains; especially in view of the quotation which states, “on the potential to develop into a human being; the foetus  is entitled to respect;”, and I was reminded of the post I made here a while back on the saddest space I have ever seen.

A strange yet telling silence from just about all the political punditry is evident on this story, with the sole exception of Labour M.P.  Jim Dobbin, who expressed his disgust when he said:- “This callous disregard for young humans is the fruit of 50 years of legal abortion in the UK”. and “And it is no use pro-choice people wringing their hands about treating unborn babies as clinical waste when it is their relentless dehumanisation of unborn life that has led us to this point.”

As can be seen by the statistics for 2012, some 185,122 abortions were performed in Great Britain, ( but not of course in Northern Ireland, which sends all its butchered babies to the Mainland, as the Province has apparently moral scruples about legal murder in its hospitals, but not elsewhere) in a ghastly clinically-cleansed routine which is mirrored only by the published statistics of establshments with names such as Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz.

Many might state that I should never equate legal abortions with even the shades of the Holocaust, but, I ask sincerely, what else did you expect? When the so-called grounds for abortion are so wide that you could drive a Caterpillar tractor straight through the middle. I have maybe written before of my own view that abortion should be the personal path of the woman involved, but the sheer laxity of the law allows virtual ‘abortion on demand’, and when a muslim Pakistani or Bangladeshi woman demands that her pregnancy be terminated because the child would be a girl, and so much less desirable than a boy within their humourless ‘culture’; the medical people cannot refuse, because if they do, they will be accused of ‘racism’ faster than a scalpel hits the ground. The same applies to the majority seeking abortion, or to use the ‘correct’ terminology, a ‘termination’; those of course being white and British. Whatever the reasons, they are all allowed, I mean; have you ever read of an abortion being refused? That folks is what the Law has become; access to an inconvenience removal service!

And you voted for these people; you knew that this would happen, and yet no-one stood against the flow, and said “Enough”, so you should be content with the resultant increase in hospital central heating fuel usage!

Just change the ‘battery pack’

She compared the new techniques to replacing a defective ‘battery pack’ in a cell that would virtually eliminate the chance of a severe disease in the child.

She said: ‘Scientists have developed ground-breaking new procedures which could stop these diseases being passed on, bringing hope to many families seeking to prevent their future children inheriting them.

‘She’ is of course the Government’s Chief Medical Officer ‘Dame’ Sally Davies, and she was talking about the latest ‘gee-whiz’ idea that is destined to remove the ‘tragedy’ of inherited disease from future generations through the Frankenstein process of swapping faulty DNA for normal DNA in the future mother’s egg.  This process would of course result in a child who has three parents’ DNA in their own make-up. A process which could not happen in anything else than a scientist’s laboratory and test-tube. A process which can only be described as unnatural in the extreme!

We see ourselves today as being on the edge of unreality, with the ability to shape a whole generation of children ‘in our own image’, and it is not, in my own humble opinion, a good place to be. It could be, and indeed is being argued, that if we can remove the very chance of certain deformities and life-threatening conditions before the child is born, we should do everything we can to remove any such chance. But we have to accept that we, as members of the ‘human race’, are the product of millions of years of evolution, and those thirty-odd strands of DNA which are the target of this obscene research have evolved over millennia, and they should remain unchanged; because how are we to know the end result of altering DNA strands which have been built over millennia?

We were told when abortion was first discussed in both Westminster and the salons of the ‘chattering classes’ in Islington and Notting Hill that the only reasons for the abortion of babies were to

be  of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family;, or grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or  the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or  the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

I do not believe that those reasons can be tabulated as against today, where we have virtual abortion on demand! It could well be argued that the only person to be considered is that of the future mother, and I for one lean towards that argument in reality, but, and it is a big ‘but’, the safeguards have been virtually diminished as to be non-existent.

We are told that the possibility of the so-called ‘designer baby’ is not possible, with all the checks and balances and assessments to be built in to the system, but we all know whjat happens to the ‘Checks and balances’ when politicians are involved, as well as when ‘Cheques’ are involved as well! The argument for this DNA swap to be undertaken is that the future children of a holder of such DNA will be free of the possibility of the illnesses or diseases or disabilities which may occur if the DNA had not been altered. I would counter with a simple argument of my own, one which is not heard as much as the many arguments opposing it; but which is just as valid: if the mother is found to have these ‘defective genes’, why not go down the route of not procreating children in the first place, and then there would be no further chance of a child with a mitochondrial disorder in the first place?

to form a more perfect Union!

The usual uproar surrounding the very word ‘Abortion’ commenced about five milli-seconds after the announcement that Marie Stopes was opening an abortion clinic in Belfast.

Firstly, I would like to clarify my own position on this extremely touchy subject, which is that whilst I dearly wish the mothers-to-be would not seek to terminate the new life which is inside their bodies, I hold the belief that their bodies are their own to control, and if they wish to terminate that unborn life, so be it! My reasoning has nothing to do with any religion, or indeed a belief stemming from any religion; it is just that if that future child is indeed unwanted by its mother, a life which is begun in hate, rejection and loathing bodes badly for that life.

I listened to the voice of Jim Allister this morning as he placed his views on record that the proposed Clinic has no place in Northern Ireland because of the Province’s culture, and this is maybe where I part company with Mr. Allister, partly because of the many statements by the T.U.V. which encourage ever closer links and ties with the mainland of the British Isles. I would say to Mr. Allister that you cannot pick and choose which parts of the United Kingdom’s Laws should be held to a higher standard in Northern Ireland than on the mainland. Abortion is a fact of life in England, Wales and Scotland, why should there be any difference in the Province of Northern Ireland? The Law is more strictly controlled in Northern Ireland, is much more restrictive, and the question which should be asked is simply ‘Why is Northern Ireland so special?’ Is life, or future life, looked upon as more precious than in, say, London, Bristol or Arbroath? I would also ask Mr. Allister if he likes being of one mind with Sinn Fein on this, or any issue of individual judgement or morality?

I am a great believer in having one set of laws for everyone, with no special dispensation or caveats for ‘certain areas, cultures or creeds’. If we all have to obey the same Law, then the same facilities, legal and lawful, should be available to all the Subjects of the Crown, wherever that Rule pertains!