In the news ...

I heard on the news this morning that those who clean their teeth once a day or less are 70% more likely to develop heart disease.

So, forget the healthy diets! Eat the doughnuts and the fried breakfasts!

AS LONG AS YOU CLEAN YOUR TEETH AFTERWARDS!

A2A - the finale

Ashes to Ashes bowed out on Friday. All would be explained we were told. And it was, or at least I think it was. It turned out that they were all in a kind of purgatory for police officers killed on duty. DCI Gene Hunt was their saviour leading them through to heaven and Keats was the devil trying to entice them down to hell.

In fact Ray, Chris and Shaz were also 'dead' but they didn't realise it until the final episode. After the last triumph of law enforcement, they were ready to enter the 'pub' - which had an ethereal glow coming from within.

There was even a time when Keats had a punch up with Hunt and looked as if he, the devil, had won. Hunt didn't exactly rise from the dead, but recovered enough to have the final triumph.

So Alex Drake had been dead for some time and wasn't going to see her beloved daughter after all. But Hunt said she'd be OK, so I suppose that's alright then.

Who'd have thought that A2A was deeply spiritual? It just goes to show you can't get away from our spirituality!

However, there were a few things that made you think the script writers only thought of this ending about half way through the last series. Why didn't Ray Chris and Shaz realise they were in fact dead, or at least in a different world, as Alex did? Why did DCI Gene Hunt have to stay in that purgatory - he was dead as well, did I mention that?

Maybe it was because Hunt had more people to see through purgatory into 'pub' heaven. In the very last seconds, someone else suddenly appears in the police station, demanding to know who's nicked his Ipod. Oh no, I hope that's not a signal for another series!

Spotted whilst wandering

Well, is this advert meant to be upside down?

And I think someone took the sign a little too seriously.

Tolerance or not?

I was reading the 'aims' of a worship service held in a hospice. It had two aims. The first was to provide a service of worship for Christian believers and the second was to provide a period of reflection for all, regardless of faith (and all the other inclusivities). This second aim is clearly so as to appear inclusive and not offend anyone. However, the two aims are rather mutually exclusive.

If you are holding a service of worship for a particular religion, it is not easy to bring in other faiths without compromising your own beliefs. I would not feel comfortable in worship service of another religion and for most religions, they would not feel comfortable in a Christian service.

And there's nothing wrong with that! It's all about having a faith which we really believe in.

At the Baptist Assembly (held in Plymouth recently), Amy Orr-Ewing spoke powerfully about tolerance of other faiths. She said there was nothing intolerant in saying we believe that only in Jesus can you be saved and go to heaven. We are intolerant only if we do not respect others with differing views.

So the PC lobby have turned 'tolerance' on its head! They suggest it is intolerant to say that your religion is right and others are wrong. What in fact is intolerant is them objecting to you saying it.

A basic Baptist principle is freedom for everyone to practise their own faith, or to have no faith. That is far more tolerant than many PC people would want!

Hung or Balanced

Some journalists and commentators have said that the people of Britain voted for a hung parliament. No they didn't! If they voted for the Tory candidate, they did so because the they wanted a Tory government. Similarly for Labour voters. It may be that Lib Dem voters wanted a hung, or 'balanced' (as Nick Clegg preferred to call it) parliament, but they weren't in the majority.

The general view has been that a balanced parliament is not a good thing. We need a "strong" parliament, so we are told. But do we? A strong parliament means the majority party can push through their nutty right- or left-wing (depending on their colour) policies.

What we have are what I would call 'measured' decisions, to be made by our coalition.

If this coalition works (and that's a big 'if'!), could they change things so I could actually vote for a coalition next time?

Presumably that would be much more likely to happen with a PR system. And that's why, of course, the two main parties don't want it, and the Lib Dems sooooo do!

Money matters - so the markets say

In my blog on 7 May, I mentioned Mariella Frostrup's frustration about why we as a country still seem to be at the mercy of the money markets. I was interested to read yesterday Gary Younge's article in The Guardian entitled, The People have spoken. Don't let the Money Markets shout them down. It included this paragraph:

So the very sector we bailed out with public money, run by incompetent people who are once again paying themselves bonuses, is now threatening to destabilise the next government unless it fires thousands of low-paid workers, cuts their wages and withdraws the services to millions of mostly poor people.

I think that says it all really. Thank you, Gary.

You can read the whole article at

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/10/people-markets-democracy-capitalism

The result of voting?

A lady interviewed by the press was upset. If she voted Lib Dem but didn't get Nick Clegg as Prime Minister she thought it "was a poor sign of our society." She gave an illustration, that if she ordered cheesecake in a restaurant she wouldn't expect to get apple pie !

Presumably she doesn't realise that voting in an election is a little different from ordering a sweet.


On the other hand, say all the customers had a vote on their favourite pudding - the choices were apple pie, cheesecake or ice cream. Then, everybody had to have the sweet that came top!

Unless, of course, there wasn't a clear majority. Then maybe the apple pie could get together with the ice cream. That sounds quite good, actually. Although I'd prefer custard.

Maybe I need to re-write this blog ...

Parliament is Hung Out

So it's a hung parliament. Or a balanced parliament as the minority parties prefer to call it. My view is whichever party runs the country they are going to be in for an extremely rough ride. They are going to have to make cuts, which won't be popular. What is happening on the continent will have its affect here, even though we are not part of the Eurozone.

On the election reporting last night, when it was mentioned that the 'markets' would not respond well to a 'hung parliament', Mariella Frostrup indicated her frustration that even after the banking crisis, we as a country are still at the mercy of the money markets. I'm with her there! Our country seems to sink or swim as a result of the 'markets'. Honestly, what is all that about?

But back to my original point, any party is going to have a rough ride and will soon be pretty unpopular with the voters. So my advice to Gordon Brown is, let David Cameron lead the country. He'll then get all the stick and in a year or so's time when we have another election, you can say your policies would have worked better, and maybe get a swing back to Labour!

Who knows?

Voting or betting?

On one of the BBC Radio News slots this morning, Alan Dedicote reported the high percentage of people who "hadn't yet decided who to back" in the election.

What?? Is tomorrow polling day or a horse race? I thought you voted for the person you thought was best for the country, you didn't back the one you thought would win!

Or have I got it wrong?

Train Journey

As our train was about to pull in to Fenchurch Street Station, the announcement told us we were about to reach our final destination. Isn't that tautologous? The final place the train stops at IS its destination.

I'm hoping my final destination is heaven! And that's got to be better than Fenchurch Street!