With November well over now and our thoughts are now on Christmas - and the New Year.
I just wanted to recommend the following to you as a sort of Christmas gift. I'm a member and there is so much stuff on this Membership site that I am still ploughing through it and learning lots of new things. If you are interested in making money via the Internet then this is very likely one of the best places to belong to.
So Jeremy Gislason has devised a sizzling, take-it-to-the-bank package, just for you, to make sure 2010 can be your best year yet.
If you're in a hurry, this the fast link to success:
Privileged Memberships
You'll have a ball.
It really is a complete no-brainer, because he's giving you a lifetime's top level access to his top ten, five-start membership sites. What's more...
If you hit this link: Privileged Memberships right away, you'll be able to take a full 30 days to test drive it all. And, here's the advantage it gives you...
Because you're getting a boatload of Master Reseller and other licenses on red hot products, such as books, courses, videos and software (and other items too hot to mention in an open blog), which you can use to pour cash straight into your PayPal account.
That way, when the 30 days trial is up, you'll not only have enough to cover the pitifully tiny payment for all this PLUS enough left over for the best ever New Year's party.
But I must WARN YOU: this is such a lucrative giveaway, he's naturally having to severely limit who gets on board. So, don't waste another minute before you go to:
Privileged Memberships
Regards
Jim
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Is It Really Our Right?
In light of the issues facing the world with Climate Change and the predicted growth of the world’s population to over 20 billion within 100 years, is it not time to start thinking about some possible solutions.
As a consequence of my previous blog 'Is Climate Control Really the Issue?' I received a number of messages from people who thought that perhaps I was suggesting that there should be some controls on who is allowed to have children and who is not. This idea had not actually crossed my mind but now that it has been presented - perhaps it is one way of solving some of the problems.
We automatically assume that it is our right to have children and no one should be able to take that right away from us even if it means that indirectly it might result in the over population of the earth and perhaps the demise of millions of people.
In the same way we tend to believe that we have the right to speak our mind. In practise we don’t! Well we can - but might have to face the consequences of what we say!
Is it a correct belief that we should assume that we have the absolute right to have as many children as we wish or the right to say what we want when we want? Has anyone really challenged these unwritten laws?
When I think about it, I’m not sure that any of us have the right to put the world at risk just because we want to have one or more children. Currently the world average population growth rate is 1.12% per year. That means that in 100 years time the population will have grown to 20.8 billion. That’s quite a lot of people!
If we take this into our own hands and decide it is our right to have as many children as we want – let’s say that the annual population increase doubles to just 2.24%. That would see a world population in 2109 of just over 64 billion people, a three fold increase on what is anticipated and ten times more than reside here at the moment.
But here is the real worry. If that increase doubled again to 4.48% annum, we would have a staggering 584 billion people within 100 years, an 87 times increase over the current levels. I won’t go any further but it does show that even small changes can make a huge difference.
If every person restricted the number of children they produce to just one (two per couple) the growth would be much reduced. We have to remember there are millions of younger people who have yet to add to the population statistics over the next 25 to 30 years. Once that has happened the increase rate would be reduced substantially.
It is very easy for people to say that if they want six children they will have six children – it is their right, but is it?
If we take a look at the animal kingdom, Mother Nature seems to have control. If a lioness produces too many young when food is short, they ultimately go hungry and die. If an area of jungle gets over populated, the animals fight each other until the balance is restored.
We human beings will do everything possible to lengthen our lives. We have successful reduced or eradicated many illnesses and diseases that naturally helped reduce the population. We used to fight each other a lot more, thus losing more people.
Medical advances can keep people alive even when they are very elderly and sick. Ultimately can we expect people to live to be 100 or 120 or even longer? This would definitely exasperate the situation even more.
But are there any other options?
If we look forward to the future, to when the population has grown to say 100 or 200 billion, and the sheer number of people is just more than the earth can sustain.
What then?
Do we send the undesirables to the Moon?
Do we allow the rich to go to Mars?
Well these are a few possibilities we can develop if the necessary technology to get to these places, especially in light of the shrinking fuel reserves, are built. Of course only a few will be able to go leaving the vast majority here on earth starving and dying.
Ah!
Perhaps that is the solution … dying!
..
As a consequence of my previous blog 'Is Climate Control Really the Issue?' I received a number of messages from people who thought that perhaps I was suggesting that there should be some controls on who is allowed to have children and who is not. This idea had not actually crossed my mind but now that it has been presented - perhaps it is one way of solving some of the problems.
We automatically assume that it is our right to have children and no one should be able to take that right away from us even if it means that indirectly it might result in the over population of the earth and perhaps the demise of millions of people.
In the same way we tend to believe that we have the right to speak our mind. In practise we don’t! Well we can - but might have to face the consequences of what we say!
Is it a correct belief that we should assume that we have the absolute right to have as many children as we wish or the right to say what we want when we want? Has anyone really challenged these unwritten laws?
When I think about it, I’m not sure that any of us have the right to put the world at risk just because we want to have one or more children. Currently the world average population growth rate is 1.12% per year. That means that in 100 years time the population will have grown to 20.8 billion. That’s quite a lot of people!
If we take this into our own hands and decide it is our right to have as many children as we want – let’s say that the annual population increase doubles to just 2.24%. That would see a world population in 2109 of just over 64 billion people, a three fold increase on what is anticipated and ten times more than reside here at the moment.
But here is the real worry. If that increase doubled again to 4.48% annum, we would have a staggering 584 billion people within 100 years, an 87 times increase over the current levels. I won’t go any further but it does show that even small changes can make a huge difference.
If every person restricted the number of children they produce to just one (two per couple) the growth would be much reduced. We have to remember there are millions of younger people who have yet to add to the population statistics over the next 25 to 30 years. Once that has happened the increase rate would be reduced substantially.
It is very easy for people to say that if they want six children they will have six children – it is their right, but is it?
If we take a look at the animal kingdom, Mother Nature seems to have control. If a lioness produces too many young when food is short, they ultimately go hungry and die. If an area of jungle gets over populated, the animals fight each other until the balance is restored.
We human beings will do everything possible to lengthen our lives. We have successful reduced or eradicated many illnesses and diseases that naturally helped reduce the population. We used to fight each other a lot more, thus losing more people.
Medical advances can keep people alive even when they are very elderly and sick. Ultimately can we expect people to live to be 100 or 120 or even longer? This would definitely exasperate the situation even more.
But are there any other options?
If we look forward to the future, to when the population has grown to say 100 or 200 billion, and the sheer number of people is just more than the earth can sustain.
What then?
Do we send the undesirables to the Moon?
Do we allow the rich to go to Mars?
Well these are a few possibilities we can develop if the necessary technology to get to these places, especially in light of the shrinking fuel reserves, are built. Of course only a few will be able to go leaving the vast majority here on earth starving and dying.
Ah!
Perhaps that is the solution … dying!
..
Monday, December 07, 2009
Is Climate Control Really the Issue?
Today it is estimated that there will be 6,842,771,203 (6.8 billion) people living on earth by the end of this month, December 2009. This estimate is based upon the latest figures and the lowest suggested growth estimate available - an annual net population increase of just 1.12% across the world year upon year.
If we apply this 1.12% per annum increase to the current population and compound it up, in just 100 years, that is the end of December 2109, the world will be home to 20,841,938,636 (20.8 billion) people, a real increase of just over 211% on today’s estimated figure. That is a massive three times as many people as today, living, breathing, eating and needing to be housed.
If the level of CO2 being produced by the existing 6.8 billion people is already more than the world’s environment can cope with, what real reductions would we have to achieve to ensure that the total emissions in 2109 are less than they are today? Allowing for the tripling of the population, then we will have to reduce our overall production of CO2 gases by over 70% per person. Could you manage using 70% less petrol, or 70% less electricity? That is just the cap of the iceberg!
This is an important question, but perhaps even more important is the question asking just how we will feed and house all these people, let alone doing it and decreasing the total amount of emissions given off as well?
When we consider that the estimated oil and natural gas reserves are likely to have been exhausted well before 2109, and the estimated 150 years supply of coal (at today’s consumption rates) will probably be nearly at its end as demand grows to replace oil and gas, this will make the situation even worse. Even if these figures are wrong, no one is going to deny that this isn’t going to happen at some stage in the future.
Naturally new improved forms of renewable energy, advance nuclear power etc will be discovered and brought into production. A huge proportion of this new power will be in the form of generated electricity and we need to find new ways to use it. We are very reliant on fossil fuels for oil, lubricants, chemicals, medicine, road surfaces and many other items.
There are five main types of renewable energy, namely solar power, wind power, hydropower, biomass energy and geothermal power. All these have their issues and they all result in production of electricity. Biomass involves the burning of bio material to produce heat, steam and electricity and geothermal, the extraction of heat from inner earth.
We also have Bio Fuels, which basically means that oils can be extracted from plants or other organic material such as algae, or fermented to produce alcohol type products. The issue here is that we would need vast tracts of land (or sea) handed over to producing the required crops and with the anticipated huge increase in demand for food production this is likely to result in a massive clash between food and fuel production and demand.
Because of the nature of machinery with its moving parts, there will always be a demand for lubricants to keep them working, and the output of the bio fuel industry is likely to be totally consumed by this market.
As the world population grows, the demands on these declining fuel resources will grow as well, reducing the length of time we can expect to have them available. The use of oil, natural gas and particularly coal contributes in a big way to greenhouse gases and just make the situation even more difficult to control.
The estimated population growth in the UK is around 0.6% per annum, about half of the worldwide average, but this still means that by 2109 the population in the UK will have risen from the current 61,708,895 to 113,590,446 an increase of nearly 85% on today’s figures.
In the UK we already have a problem producing all the food we require, importing large amounts from other countries by sea and air. If we are to reduce pollution then that level of importing will have to be reduced dramatically, and we as a country will have to produce a great deal more.
Allowing that we will always have to import food that can only be grown in other climate areas, perhaps we need to investigate and research ways of producing some these items ourselves. For example, with the increasing temperature over the 100 years, perhaps we could grow our own coffee thus saving the need to import it.
Sadly, our education, political and business environments do not appear to be taking much notice of what is happening and especially what is going to happen over the next 100 years. Are they interested in investing in the production of some of the imported food types, new energy friendly machinery, improved vehicles and generally recognising the need to start taking action now?
And what about us the normal people on the street?
Can you imagine what it would be like if there were twice as many vehicles on the roads. Twice as many trains - requiring more railway lines and stations, stations with car parks twice their current size. What about planes, twice as many planes. More runways, more noise … ah … thankfully no, there will be no fuel for their engines!
Twice as many people in the supermarket on Saturday, twice as many houses, twice as many jobs, twice as many children, twice as many pensioners (perhaps even more as medicine and health levels improve) … the list goes on and on.
Do we as individuals have a responsibly to do something now?
Of course none of us will be around to see the outcome and therefore will not be involved or affected by what is going to happen. Indeed by the time we get to 2109 things might have change dramatically for the better, and the predicted outcome might not be anywhere near as bad … but just maybe it will be even worse – especially as we all love talking about these things and not quite so keen in getting involved and doing something.
If we apply this 1.12% per annum increase to the current population and compound it up, in just 100 years, that is the end of December 2109, the world will be home to 20,841,938,636 (20.8 billion) people, a real increase of just over 211% on today’s estimated figure. That is a massive three times as many people as today, living, breathing, eating and needing to be housed.
If the level of CO2 being produced by the existing 6.8 billion people is already more than the world’s environment can cope with, what real reductions would we have to achieve to ensure that the total emissions in 2109 are less than they are today? Allowing for the tripling of the population, then we will have to reduce our overall production of CO2 gases by over 70% per person. Could you manage using 70% less petrol, or 70% less electricity? That is just the cap of the iceberg!
This is an important question, but perhaps even more important is the question asking just how we will feed and house all these people, let alone doing it and decreasing the total amount of emissions given off as well?
When we consider that the estimated oil and natural gas reserves are likely to have been exhausted well before 2109, and the estimated 150 years supply of coal (at today’s consumption rates) will probably be nearly at its end as demand grows to replace oil and gas, this will make the situation even worse. Even if these figures are wrong, no one is going to deny that this isn’t going to happen at some stage in the future.
Naturally new improved forms of renewable energy, advance nuclear power etc will be discovered and brought into production. A huge proportion of this new power will be in the form of generated electricity and we need to find new ways to use it. We are very reliant on fossil fuels for oil, lubricants, chemicals, medicine, road surfaces and many other items.
There are five main types of renewable energy, namely solar power, wind power, hydropower, biomass energy and geothermal power. All these have their issues and they all result in production of electricity. Biomass involves the burning of bio material to produce heat, steam and electricity and geothermal, the extraction of heat from inner earth.
We also have Bio Fuels, which basically means that oils can be extracted from plants or other organic material such as algae, or fermented to produce alcohol type products. The issue here is that we would need vast tracts of land (or sea) handed over to producing the required crops and with the anticipated huge increase in demand for food production this is likely to result in a massive clash between food and fuel production and demand.
Because of the nature of machinery with its moving parts, there will always be a demand for lubricants to keep them working, and the output of the bio fuel industry is likely to be totally consumed by this market.
As the world population grows, the demands on these declining fuel resources will grow as well, reducing the length of time we can expect to have them available. The use of oil, natural gas and particularly coal contributes in a big way to greenhouse gases and just make the situation even more difficult to control.
The estimated population growth in the UK is around 0.6% per annum, about half of the worldwide average, but this still means that by 2109 the population in the UK will have risen from the current 61,708,895 to 113,590,446 an increase of nearly 85% on today’s figures.
In the UK we already have a problem producing all the food we require, importing large amounts from other countries by sea and air. If we are to reduce pollution then that level of importing will have to be reduced dramatically, and we as a country will have to produce a great deal more.
Allowing that we will always have to import food that can only be grown in other climate areas, perhaps we need to investigate and research ways of producing some these items ourselves. For example, with the increasing temperature over the 100 years, perhaps we could grow our own coffee thus saving the need to import it.
Sadly, our education, political and business environments do not appear to be taking much notice of what is happening and especially what is going to happen over the next 100 years. Are they interested in investing in the production of some of the imported food types, new energy friendly machinery, improved vehicles and generally recognising the need to start taking action now?
And what about us the normal people on the street?
Can you imagine what it would be like if there were twice as many vehicles on the roads. Twice as many trains - requiring more railway lines and stations, stations with car parks twice their current size. What about planes, twice as many planes. More runways, more noise … ah … thankfully no, there will be no fuel for their engines!
Twice as many people in the supermarket on Saturday, twice as many houses, twice as many jobs, twice as many children, twice as many pensioners (perhaps even more as medicine and health levels improve) … the list goes on and on.
Do we as individuals have a responsibly to do something now?
Of course none of us will be around to see the outcome and therefore will not be involved or affected by what is going to happen. Indeed by the time we get to 2109 things might have change dramatically for the better, and the predicted outcome might not be anywhere near as bad … but just maybe it will be even worse – especially as we all love talking about these things and not quite so keen in getting involved and doing something.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Politics : Learn from Mother Nature?
Whose fault is it that the UK is in such a terrible financial and economic mess? Is it the bankers, the politicians, businesses, world affairs or some other force we do not understand?
Who should we blame for this mess? After all unless we can blame someone - we won’t feel any better about it! It can’t be our fault, because we have no say and no control over what happens – can it?
Perhaps we should just ignore what is happening and then it will go away! After all we elect politicians to solve all these sorts of problems.
Sadly today, many of these individuals are professional politicians, i.e. they have been educated to work and live inside politics and have never had any real experience at running a successful business. Indeed, it now appears that many of the top people in business (the bankers come to mind) are also experiencing the same sort of problems having being educated to do the jobs they aspire to but not necessarily any good at doing.
But the truth is that times are always changing, things are not the same as they were in the seventies, eighties or nineties! The country’s (and the world’s) problems have changed; things are different now from back then. Is that not true?
The difference between a country (as a business) and a genuine business is that every business has one or more owners who expect the business to perform against a predetermined set of rules. That may be achieving some financial targets, profits, growth or market share etc. All businesses are run by people who are appointed because they are accessed by qualified people who understand what is required of them and what skills are needed to achieve them. These professionals remain in their positions until such a time as they either leave or fail to achieve the agreed targets.
Government is different. We, the people, who do not own the country (business), elect essentially unknown people to run that business. In most cases we do not understand what qualities are required and if the candidates have any of them. We have little or no influence at all on what the government of the day does. Worse still, are system here in the UK encourages us not to vote for a person, but for a political party. As a result, in most cases, we only ever see our MP or their representative, on the doorstep when they are canvassing for the job. Is this not a recipe for disaster – especially as we can’t even sack them for doing a bad job?
These MP’s are essentially directed by the agenda of the party they belong to. If their leaders tell them to vote yes, they vote yes. Of course MP’s often get to vote freely on the less important matters, making it look as if they do have freedom to vote as they feel, or perhaps even in line with the feelings of their constituents (who elected them) – well perhaps not, as no MP has ever asked me for my opinion! What about you?
Of course, running a country, with its infinite areas of operation, and their complexity is not easy. Indeed it is harder than any other job. The variables are numerous, the outcomes are unpredictable, and the affect of any action can cause a huge re-action in many other areas. To make it even worse, we are subjected by the action of other countries - which we have no control over whatsoever.
So how do we run a country under these conditions?
Well perhaps we should take a lesson from nature. It is made up of billions of independent plants, animals, elements, events, conditions - all affected by time, weather and a host of other variables. Yet nature survives and has done for millions of years. Whatever is thrown at it, it appears to deal with. Yes it might lose a few species, flood some deserts or turn a beauty spot into a wasteland or wilderness – but it deals with it! And it does it slowly and automatically without the rest knowing much about it.
It achieves this by allowing every element to look after itself, to manage their own interests, and if any fail, then they fail, but at just that level. It may influence other elements of nature, it may be disastrous for some, but it may help others to thrive. The point is that Mother Nature allows everything to happen at the smallest or lowest level. She did not interfere when the mighty Elm Tree succumbed to Dutch Elm Tree disease, the weak ones just died and the stronger trees survived – a common outcome in nature.
So perhaps the leaders of the UK should take a lesson from Mother Nature and step back and allow the people to resolve the problems that we face, at the lowest level. Decisions about our futures have been taken out of our hands and passed up to some autocratic body who have little or no understanding of the situation - or worse still, no desire to even understand and do what is best to resolve it.
As a result of us relinquishing our responsibilities we no longer are prepared to take responsibility for anything outside of our own lives.
Who cares about water fluoridisation, as long as it not in our area?
Of course we should have wind farms, but according to the nimby’s, not in my back yard! How quickly would we change our attitude and start taking action if our electricity was turned off for good and we had to come up with a plan to generate it locally?
I don’t think this is because people want to be difficult, I believe it is because they have not been allowed to become really involved with what goes on in their lives. We have become conditioned to having everything done for us, and the record of politicians in recent years seems to back this argument up.
We have local councillors, both at village, town, city, district, county and regional levels, all adding to the tiers of bureaucracy. The problem is the higher you go, the more power they have! What good is a local village councillor if he or she has no power to do anything? The time is coming to strip out all this bureaucracy and change the system so that it puts responsibility for change and the necessary action back into the hands of the people which the current system tries to control.
Power to the People!
Sadly, making a large change of this nature has to come from the top as we are powerless down here at the bottom. After all we are just the tiny elements that make up this once great nation.
How much longer will we focus on just ourselves, ignoring the huge issues that the whole country faces, content to just be a member of the largest political party in the UK, the Nimby’s, but having no power and little say!
Who should we blame for this mess? After all unless we can blame someone - we won’t feel any better about it! It can’t be our fault, because we have no say and no control over what happens – can it?
Perhaps we should just ignore what is happening and then it will go away! After all we elect politicians to solve all these sorts of problems.
Sadly today, many of these individuals are professional politicians, i.e. they have been educated to work and live inside politics and have never had any real experience at running a successful business. Indeed, it now appears that many of the top people in business (the bankers come to mind) are also experiencing the same sort of problems having being educated to do the jobs they aspire to but not necessarily any good at doing.
But the truth is that times are always changing, things are not the same as they were in the seventies, eighties or nineties! The country’s (and the world’s) problems have changed; things are different now from back then. Is that not true?
The difference between a country (as a business) and a genuine business is that every business has one or more owners who expect the business to perform against a predetermined set of rules. That may be achieving some financial targets, profits, growth or market share etc. All businesses are run by people who are appointed because they are accessed by qualified people who understand what is required of them and what skills are needed to achieve them. These professionals remain in their positions until such a time as they either leave or fail to achieve the agreed targets.
Government is different. We, the people, who do not own the country (business), elect essentially unknown people to run that business. In most cases we do not understand what qualities are required and if the candidates have any of them. We have little or no influence at all on what the government of the day does. Worse still, are system here in the UK encourages us not to vote for a person, but for a political party. As a result, in most cases, we only ever see our MP or their representative, on the doorstep when they are canvassing for the job. Is this not a recipe for disaster – especially as we can’t even sack them for doing a bad job?
These MP’s are essentially directed by the agenda of the party they belong to. If their leaders tell them to vote yes, they vote yes. Of course MP’s often get to vote freely on the less important matters, making it look as if they do have freedom to vote as they feel, or perhaps even in line with the feelings of their constituents (who elected them) – well perhaps not, as no MP has ever asked me for my opinion! What about you?
Of course, running a country, with its infinite areas of operation, and their complexity is not easy. Indeed it is harder than any other job. The variables are numerous, the outcomes are unpredictable, and the affect of any action can cause a huge re-action in many other areas. To make it even worse, we are subjected by the action of other countries - which we have no control over whatsoever.
So how do we run a country under these conditions?
Well perhaps we should take a lesson from nature. It is made up of billions of independent plants, animals, elements, events, conditions - all affected by time, weather and a host of other variables. Yet nature survives and has done for millions of years. Whatever is thrown at it, it appears to deal with. Yes it might lose a few species, flood some deserts or turn a beauty spot into a wasteland or wilderness – but it deals with it! And it does it slowly and automatically without the rest knowing much about it.
It achieves this by allowing every element to look after itself, to manage their own interests, and if any fail, then they fail, but at just that level. It may influence other elements of nature, it may be disastrous for some, but it may help others to thrive. The point is that Mother Nature allows everything to happen at the smallest or lowest level. She did not interfere when the mighty Elm Tree succumbed to Dutch Elm Tree disease, the weak ones just died and the stronger trees survived – a common outcome in nature.
So perhaps the leaders of the UK should take a lesson from Mother Nature and step back and allow the people to resolve the problems that we face, at the lowest level. Decisions about our futures have been taken out of our hands and passed up to some autocratic body who have little or no understanding of the situation - or worse still, no desire to even understand and do what is best to resolve it.
As a result of us relinquishing our responsibilities we no longer are prepared to take responsibility for anything outside of our own lives.
Who cares about water fluoridisation, as long as it not in our area?
Of course we should have wind farms, but according to the nimby’s, not in my back yard! How quickly would we change our attitude and start taking action if our electricity was turned off for good and we had to come up with a plan to generate it locally?
I don’t think this is because people want to be difficult, I believe it is because they have not been allowed to become really involved with what goes on in their lives. We have become conditioned to having everything done for us, and the record of politicians in recent years seems to back this argument up.
We have local councillors, both at village, town, city, district, county and regional levels, all adding to the tiers of bureaucracy. The problem is the higher you go, the more power they have! What good is a local village councillor if he or she has no power to do anything? The time is coming to strip out all this bureaucracy and change the system so that it puts responsibility for change and the necessary action back into the hands of the people which the current system tries to control.
Power to the People!
Sadly, making a large change of this nature has to come from the top as we are powerless down here at the bottom. After all we are just the tiny elements that make up this once great nation.
How much longer will we focus on just ourselves, ignoring the huge issues that the whole country faces, content to just be a member of the largest political party in the UK, the Nimby’s, but having no power and little say!
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Are the UK politicians mad or something?
I just can't believe that the politicians in the UK can be so stupid in some of the things that they do or say. Without being specific, which would need a huge volume of books, it seems to me that they do and say things without realising that most of us 'ordinary' people can see right through what they are saying. Do they really believe we are so naive about life that we will just accept what they say as being right or even sensible?
Alan Duncan, a senior conservative recently made comments about MP's having to 'live on rations' and being 'treated like shit' whilst being filmed secretly. He later apologies and said he was only joking. I watched the secret film and believe me, he was not joking, whatever he might have said later. OK so he has apologised and we have all moved on, but I'd like to wager that those words he spoke, and actually exactly what he felt and meant! I was horrified when David Cameron rushed to his support.
I was beginning to believe that the conservatives might be about ready to govern this country, but it now appears that they are little better than the current labour party. I for one do not believe anything I hear any more.
What about you?
Alan Duncan, a senior conservative recently made comments about MP's having to 'live on rations' and being 'treated like shit' whilst being filmed secretly. He later apologies and said he was only joking. I watched the secret film and believe me, he was not joking, whatever he might have said later. OK so he has apologised and we have all moved on, but I'd like to wager that those words he spoke, and actually exactly what he felt and meant! I was horrified when David Cameron rushed to his support.
I was beginning to believe that the conservatives might be about ready to govern this country, but it now appears that they are little better than the current labour party. I for one do not believe anything I hear any more.
What about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)