UK and EU Split


Shock – or not, the UK have officially voted to LEAVE the EU.

Did the country vote LEAVE as a reaction to their emotional distaste? Probably; in some instances certainly yes. Yet, there were always to be benefits and drawbacks to either option; STAY or GO.

The IMPORTANT question is; what will the agenda NOW be? A case of MPs and the media impeding this massive, and important change for the future with fighting, squabbling and trading insults – I hope not.

Whatever anyone wanted the outcome to be I certainly hope everyone in a position of power will pull together to ensure the exit plan agreed, and future progress benefits the entire of the UK.

Make this about THE ENTIRE of the UK, and not merely just the financial world of London.

I just hope (there is that word again), this result is a mandate to deliver democracy, and will help everyone; not merely as a vehicle to push MP’s private agendas, and create waves of further angst and discontentment.

Whatever, it is not a simple matter or resolution, and I doubt it will become so anytime soon.

 

 

Advertisements

Room 101 and Sharia Law


I’m back with another Room 101 post, and I have to thank John Zande of The Superstitious Naked Ape at https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com for providing me with the topic – THANK YOU JOHN!!!!

Room 101 posts; I write about what I hate or dislike about one topic. In my post I have to try to persuade you, the reader, that the points I have raised are valid enough to consign the topic to Room 101. Therefore, you the reader have to get involved, leave me your opinions and decide if this topic is worthy or Room 101. After this, please then leave me your ideas for further Room 101 topics.

What I dislike about Sharia law (people who believe it should exist in Europe or the Western World).

For those of you who don’t know a thing about Sharia law;

It is the body of Islamic law. The term means “way” or “path”; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Islam.

Sharia deals with all aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business, law, contract law, sexuality, and social issues.

There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws that can be called Sharia. It is more like a system of several laws, based on the Qur’an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.

Western law confines itself largely to matters relating to crime, contract, civil relationships and individual rights.

Sharia is however concerned with more;

Sharia rulings have been developed to help Muslims understand how they should lead every aspect of their lives according to God’s wishes.

So, whether democracy and Islam can coexist is a topic of heated debate.

Yet, Sharia has been incorporated into UK political systems in general ways:

British food regulations allow meat to be slaughtered according to Jewish and Islamic practices – a touchstone issue for both communities.

Also in late 2008 the UK officially allowed tribunals governing marriage, divorce, and inheritance to make legally binding decisions if both parties agreed.

Many might argue though that what has been incorporate into law doesn’t go far enough, and that the law should in fact fully adopt Sharia law.

Has any western nation allowed Sharia to be used in full?

In short, no;

Canada is widely reported to have come close – leading to protests in 2005.

In reality the proposals were little different from the existing religious arbitration rules in the UK, and the UK hasn’t protested.

What about Sharia and women?

Some Muslim women in the West are worried about protection of their rights in Sharia courts where there is discrimination against them because of patriarchal and cultural control in their communities.

They have concerns about the fairness of its application, and women are more concerned about how existing British equality measures and human rights laws can be used to improve their position and voice in society.

So, HOW DO I FEEL REGARDING Sharia law in Europe (Western world) and those who advocate it;

This is a tough one. For me I feel everyone should be represented within the country they live and work within. BUT, why can’t we just accept that every country does things differently and for a reason.

There is no system of law or Governance that is perfect, I doubt it ever could be. Also, no system of law of Governance completely reflects the needs, religions, beliefs or rights of every citizen. There are many flaws, pit falls and grey areas already within law and Governance, without even thinking about how Sharia law could be assimilated fully into these. Especially as Sharia law doesn’t have one universal definition that every Muslim can agree upon. 

Also; if Western countries are doing what they can to accept and assimilate other religious beliefs, and incorporating laws required to fulfil these beliefs, why can’t the same be said about Islamic countries and Western beliefs, rights and laws?

It certainty wouldn’t be OK for a Western unmarried couple to kiss publicly in Dubai or for women to wear Western dress in an Islamic country (by revealing too much flesh).

Tolerance for, and the desire for certain codes, laws, ethics, rulings and rights to be established, should I feel swing both ways. It can’t literally be one rule for one in one country and one rule for another in another country.

Or, perhaps the fact that the law is the law in one country should be respected.

I have moved to Spain, but haven’t expected the Spanish way of life, rules and laws to be the same as they would be in the UK. Nor, could I demand that they should change to reflect my needs, and the rest of the British Ex-pats who live here. I choose to live here, therefore I choose to live by the standards of the country. I knew what to expect and knew Spain wasn’t the UK. So, who am I to dictate my needs and demand they be met?

People who want to enforce Sharia laws on all citizens of the West, in Europe or US have to realise that it would never work, mainly because we aren’t all Muslim. Also, if Sharia law is fundamentally about God’s wishes, how can these wishes be incorporated into a universal law or Governance to reflect everyone’s needs? Also, to be Devil’s advocate; how can we be sure those are God’s actual wishes? Or that this God reflects what we believe to be or not to be God? Or could it be that these wishes are more man made – using religion as the excuse to legitimise a set of laws to benefit ‘man’ not really God?

When thinking about how countries could adopt Sharia law, I consider a country like Spain. Sharia law in Spain would be too much of a conflict. Spain has deep seated fears relating to their past; wars with Islamic countries, and consequently being conquered and ruled by Islamic nations. Also the fact that Spain is a Catholic country (follows a different ideal of God), and that not too long ago Spain was ruled under a dictatorship (they therefore aren’t too keen on mass control).

I think people now want more freedoms, not less. They don’t wish to be controlled by any set of Draconian religious rules (Islamic or other). That is why people come to the West, to enjoy freedoms and live a life they might not otherwise of had (free of religious doctrine and controls). By all means reflect the needs of the people, but not at the expense of everyone else’s liberty, rights and freedoms. There has to be a balance, that is what tolerance is.

What do you think??

Should Sharia law be consigned to Room 101??

Also, please let me have your ideas for a next topic.

Are We Born Equal?


Equality – what is it and do we have it?

In my opinion equality is the state of being equal; equal in status, rights, and opportunities.

Therefore I now ask, are we born equal?

My answer is a resounding no, we are not.

Why not, well; what are the significant factors relating to how we view or obtain equality? How do we decide whether there is a lack of equality in life and understand why it is lacking?

Money, background, status and connections are often what matters most and contributes to making you equal or unequal in life. These things, or lack of them, are often why we are treated as we are treated, differently.

This hegemony upon equality begets a dangerous attitude, because it makes any country stagnant. Therefore how can this promote equality?

Equality could after all be freedom. It could change everything.

Yet, in most countries it is almost as though to to be granted the key to equality, you have to suffer from cloned genes syndrome! Let me explain; it is same old type of person, and, actually the same old type of gene pool being rewarded with equality because of who they are, their background and so on (‘the old boys network’).

I therefore ask; how can anything change in the world of equality???

How can equality be granted to all when it is the same type of people who are always gaining power, and are always in charge of the world (and therefore decide who receives equality)?

These gatekeepers of equality have far too much to lose to actually want to change a thing, and make the world more equality driven.

I therefore feel nothing has really changed; it might as well still be like it was centuries ago when only the landed gentry had suffrage, as they are the ones who are really still in charge! They are the ones who can only really achieve equality in their life.

Anyway, I digress!!!

Other points to consider in the born equal argument is the fact that not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in a nurturing environment. Couple that with impoverished living, abusive families, or criminal homes, and the odds for equality diminish against a child born into a nurturing, healthy, high-income, loving family in a nice neighbourhood.

If you travel around the world this is inequality is magnified.

Other countries do not have advantages equal to those we take for granted. Our standard of living does not apply to every child born across the world, therefore, equality means nothing.

Equality is fundamentally flawed. We are not born equal and we do not have equal chances to succeed in life either.

What do ‘equal chances’ have to do with equality or success anyway?

Well, I’m not sure it has anything to do with it! We are not all created equal in our ability to achieve success, and therefore taking advantage of equal chances is not always possible. Every person has a unique set of strengths, which can aid in achieving the success they desire. Conversely, each person also has their own unique set of challenges that inhibit them in achieving such success. Therefore, equality has nothing to do with success or lack of it, and equal chances are random things!

I know I am being hard upon equal chance, but by its very definition it is odd.

Chance depends on many factors, which are often out of our hands to control, hence the chance. It is not certain. Therefore equal chances can be partially based upon, or rely upon, the equality of ideals and ideas that people hold about others and about life and so on. This is when equal chance often falls down. Consider the dreaded ethos of ‘not what you know, but who you know in life’ which helps propel you to succeed (I have covered this topic before)!!! Where are the equal chances then??

This ‘who you know vs what you know’ is the inequality of status and of chance. This very notion causes people to become unequal – one person uses their good fortune,equality and chance to help another they can affiliate with (someone who is similar to them in every-way). Therefore, in essence, they are ring-fencing the chance, equality and good fortune of success to the chosen few.

What then can change? Are there any options to make equality apply to everyone?

Perhaps ‘positive discrimination’?

God no! Positive discrimination is akin to ‘pity’ equality. Look at all female quotas (adopted in political elections and so on), which didn’t last and were not sustainable. These were actually a form of discrimination in my view; positive, well for me that is debatable especially as positive discrimination, per se is an oxymoron. If we need such things then obviously discrimination, and the reasons for it have not been addressed or fixed.

I think we need to look far deeper to address the born equal or equality in life, or equal chance myth.

For me we propose and declare equality to try and ease our own disconcerting feelings. Telling people everyone is born equal allows for there to be no need to address inequalities in life. If you deny inequality then you don’t accept people are unequal. Therefore, conveniently it is a persons own fault if they are not equal, and that has nothing to do with the fact they live in a floundering and discriminating society.

 

Individual responsibility – become equal and on your own terms. Yeah, in a society that blatantly makes that an impossible feat, good luck – catch 22 or what!

Equality is a nice theory, but it would be even nicer in practice (when it finally occurs in the world).

Until then, let us not fool ourselves – we are not born equal.

 

Blog Tour


Blog Tour:

A writing friend, Paula Read AKA Champagnewhiskey, tagged me in a blog tour. Paula is a writer and environmentalist, cloud gazer who is located somewhere in France. Her blog is diverse and interesting, of course it is also a great read! Just like Paula, I don’t usually comment on my writing via my blog, although I obviously do write, but lately it hasn’t been as often as is usually normal for me! Anyway, I will endeavour to write about my writing, so thanks for tagging me Paula!

Upon What Are You Working?

I have a habit of skipping from one project to the next. My writing habits match my reading habits actually. Generally I have to be in the mood for whatever it is I read, therefore I often have five or six books I switch between, so to it is the same for my writing!

I have been writing a ‘trilogy’ novel since I was 24, which could be categorised as horroresque, I suppose. I also write short stories, which again have the hint of horror about them, and of course the political press releases and columns I write currently for my work.

How does your work differ from others in the genre?

Well, that I can’t answer! Every writer likes to think they are unique, yet, in reality we are all influenced by what we read and enjoy. I’m not so bold as to claim I’m new and fresh and funky! I haven’t reinvented the wheel here! In my case I know I have a good stock cupboard in my mind, whereby the words and styles of other authors linger as reference points. Authors such as Stephen King, Clive Barker, Ramsey Campbell, M R James, Robert Bloch, James Herbert, Shirley Jackson and so on and so forth, have been part and parcel of my reading and imagination process since I was tiny! I wrote because of these authors, which might seem sacrilegious to you folk out there, but horror was my first love. Horror made me enjoy reading, and writing, well before Charles Dickens or Emily Bronte ever did. Therefore, these horror authors laid the foundations of my writing style.

If I say one thing about my work or style though, I do like to think that I don’t write artificially, I.E, it’s not just regurgitation of other classic horror tales, regardless of the influence they have had upon me! I also like to remember that horror can be horror in any context, it doesn’t have to be some surreal and fantastical plot or circumstance to unnerve. My style/genre is true to me and what I know and feel; it is always my story, told my way.

Why do you write what you write?

Well, either I write short stories or have to live with a running commentary going on in my mind! I write because I hear, visualise and feel my characters. I can be out walking, and will pass someone or someplace, see something, and without warning I’m inspired and a story begins weaving its way into my mind. From this point I think about the characters and I flesh out the plot. In doing this the characters world becomes stuck in my world, so, I have to write it down or face hearing voices! Does that make me crazy?! Probably, but it works to inspire me, and it always makes the story/plot/character more real to me. If I can’t hear my characters speak to me, then I can’t write the story.

How does your writing process work?

Sometimes I finish a writing project straight through to the end, depends on the length of the story really. In the case of my trilogy novel, it has been some years of editing and rewriting, but amazingly, after what could be a year break from writing it, I can pick up the plot and carry on! As I have said, my characters talk to me! They are ghosts intruding in my reality, and they never shut up!

Usually I do a rough draft of a story on my laptop first, which I then edit until I am finally happy with it. I sometimes write in notebooks too. I love the written word, pen to paper, so often I will scribble an idea or even edit something whilst I am taking a flight somewhere (I’m never without one of my precious notebooks and favourite writing pens)!

I write anytime and anyplace, literally. I have woken up at 3 a.m and been struck by an idea, merely from looking out of the window at a car passing by! If an idea buzzes around inside my head, well, I have to write it down regardless of the unGodly hour or how inconvenient it might be. I must confess, I even used to write my stories whilst at work! No one ever knew, and it was a great way to escape the dull working day!

Who am I tagging?

Well, I’m tagging all of you out there. If you feel so inclined to participate in this Blog Tour Q&A’s then just do it! Please let me know though, as I would love to read what you answer! This might be the lazy option, but cut me some slack as I am writing this on my iPad, and you know I think it isn’t the best tech for long winded writing malarkey!

 

Quick Stop


This is going to be a quick post, as I’m using my iPad, and it tends to get a little crazy whenever I need to make edits!

I just wanted to stop by my blog, catch up and let everyone know I’m still here, well, not in Madrid, but in the UK.

Yes, I have returned to the UK so I can  do some volunteer work with a political party!!

This isn’t my first stint with a political party. Many moons ago I did something similar, and being given another opportunity to get involved with this type of work once again has made me happy!

If you didn’t know…………….I LOVE politics.

So, if I am a little quiet and don’t get to peruse WordPress as much I would usually, you’ll understand why.

I hope you lot out there are well and being as productive as always?!

Hasta luego and muchos besos!

 

The UK Turf War


Once again immigration is the topic of conversation for the UK, and as usual it hasn’t taken long for the UK press to revel in the delight of ‘scaremongering’ and ‘scapegoat’ rhetoric.

If the news is to be read literally though, it would be enough to frighten the pants off any level headed individual just going about their business; an influx of foreign workers stealing jobs and benefits, who plan to eventually take over the country for their own ends! Sounds sinister!

All of the talk, press and otherwise, does raise important questions though. Is this truth or merely scare tactics? Also, just how fair, equitable, free and humane does it all sound? It is immigration, but we are talking about people right and not merely cattle?

Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, but now that the UK has had to lift its restrictions to their job market, fears have escalated, by what seems like over-night, to a boiling point.  Should the UK nation be afraid, is there about to be a turf war?

I was nosing around the net, wondering if all the hullabaloo was in fact worth the media frenzy. What I wanted to know was whether the people of the UK really gave a damn about who from the EU might or might not take up UK residency. It didn’t take too long to stumble upon something curious.

The below text has been copied from an actual on-line petition set out on the HM Government website. Its creator, a member of the UK public, along with 153,811 signatories, seemed to obviously feel that there indeed would be a mass of Romanian, and Bulgarian immigrants desperately making their way to the shores of the UK.

“In 2014 EU restrictions are set be removed, allowing nationals of Bulgaria and Romania ‘free movement’ to the UK. The move is similar to the one that granted access to around 600,000 Polish immigrants to enter Britain over recent years.

Despite Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU in 2005 (Savvy Senorita edit – it was 2007), restrictions were put on the number who could move to Britain. However, those restrictions will be abolished in 2014 (Savvy Senorita edit – I.E now).

Once the restrictions are lifted all new comers will entitled to claim benefits, housing, child, job seekers etc. There is currently an estimated 1.5 million people seeking work within the two countries

The impact will also put pressure on housing, infrastructure, schools, and heath care. All at a time the government are cutting pensions, jobs, public services and the armed forces.

I request the government suspends the easing on these restrictions” 

I then took a look at the newspapers. There were ample comments left upon The Daily Mail and Guardian’s websites; replies to the articles telling the world about how our MPs feel or fear about immigration. In one such article, (posted in the Guardian: link below), it was claimed that David Cameron believes that the immigration levels for Romanians and Bulgarians is now reasonable enough; the responses to this article however provided a somewhat different perspective;

“We need mass immigration as a pro business policy Cameron is completely wrong.

Think about the benefits, house prises rise make home owners wealthier and Britain can remain competitive by getting cheaper labour.

We live in an increasing globalised world and we in the EU have China to compete with. He couldn’t be more wrong.

In addition without immigration we would have to spend an exorbitant amount training our own feckless and work-shy, and the price of house keeping would rocket.

The EU must not allow him or his party to get away with such inflammatory comments”.

These quotes demonstrate two very different ideas about immigration, both of which are actual opinions held by people living in the UK.

OK, so I know there maybe those out there who feel that any level of immigration is too high, and others who think that the doors of a country ought be flung wide open (each to their own); but isn’t there a happy medium?

What I mean is, can’t we talk immigration without becoming so emotive? Can’t we leave all the scapegoating, racism and the overly P.C comments behind, and focus on what could be the real issues of immigration for the UK?

I want to ask the powers that be, and the people;

Can any country allow mass immigration? Does any country have the capacity to offer that? Is it economically viable? Could they offer employment, housing, services and support (et al) to everyone that comes to, and resides in the country?

Is immigration a one way street – the people from the poorest nations moving to the richer ones? Is immigration about making money for a country or spending money? Do we all really have freedom of movement? How many people would up-sticks and re-locate to another country? Is that even possible with the economy and the lack of job opportunities? Also, EU countries differ from the UK; different languages, educational requirements, alien benefit and health care systems which not every resident will have access to.

Why is the UK immigration fears/policies subject to mass interjection from other countries? Why has it become such a contentious subject? Every country has its own ideas regarding immigration, yet, I don’t see every country being asked to explain themselves. Is UK immigration a national or international issue? Whose country is it to govern, and make those decisions about immigration? Have the UK Government merely become some middle man in all of this, without the real power to decide what happens in their own country? More importantly, does anyone care what the public think and want?

Is the UK a ‘soft touch’ for the world? Is the UK being racist in its cautious approach to immigration?

Is the UK Government trying to appease everyone, and pleasing no-one at the same time? Is immigration a way of making amends for a shady past history as ‘colonial conquerors’, do they feel guilty?

Has the UK given up on its people – do they invest enough in what resources and talent they already have? Why would the country require an extra work-force from abroad, when the UK already has those who are in need of training/re-training, educating, employment, self-employment, good wages and steady/secure jobs? In fact, can the UK Government deal with the issues/changes and problems the country already has? Are they actually taking on too much responsibility by accepting more people they won’t be able to ‘do right by’?

Will there be a mass exodus from one country to another? Will the Romanians and Bulgarians swamp the UK, and take over the country? Why do people live in fear of immigrants stripping the country bare? Immigration is nothing new for the UK; it has always been multi-cultural and accepted people from far and wide, why then is the country now so angst ridden?

Is immigration a good business and economic policy? Is it investment and profit? Is it more people claiming benefits and abusing the system, sending money back to their families in Romania or Bulgaria? Is it escalation of crime? Is is merely public cynicism and distrust? Is it greed and shady dealings? Is it appeasement or enlightenment?

I personally feel the UK cannot close the doors to immigration, but there are certain discrepancies with how the UK handles the subject. I don’t doubt that UK immigration and policies per se are being vetoed or strangled by the EU. I question though, who benefits from all the upper echelons (in the UK and EU), wrangling amongst themselves because of their own agendas? Well, it isn’t the people they are supposed to represent and that is for certain.

I believe immigration has become a convenient red herring in many ways, an issue placed before the public to distract from the real issues on the table, the real failure of those in charge.

With or without immigration, the UK still has serious issues; how is the Government going to convince the UK public that they can do what they say they will? When all the scapegoating and smoke screens have gone, what is left? A Government who doesn’t really know what they really stand for, and which way to turn in any crisis without squabbling like children.

I wonder, when there is nothing to fight over, what remains to fight for?

I will leave you with a quote (another reply) to that article in The Guardian (I mentioned earlier in this post: link below);            

“The UK is not concentrating on “job building” it is penny wise and pound foolish, driving wages down to a minimum base and sitting complacently on a million unemployed and millions under-employed. We have so many things that need replacing and repairing, upgrading and restoring here, but the governments we have seem happy to suck up to businesses who cream profits off-shore and let the citizens scrabble around in the mire for part-time low paid work.

We have work that needs doing, but lack the courage to invest in our people to improve the quality of life for everyone”.

Check out the article at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/27/cameron-romania-bulgaria-immigration-reasonable

Freedom Of Speech?


Everyone has got something to say about how free their speech should be.

However, peoples beliefs, ideas and notions about freedom of speech seem to be in conflict with what it actually is.

Well, what exactly is freedom of speech?

To clarify the mystery let us look at the Wikipedia definition, just so we know we are all on the same page, so to speak:

“Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas using one’s body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others” or “[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”.

Interesting. Interesting also to note I have emboldened certain parts of this text, to comment on obviously, as on the this humble piece of the blog-stratosphere, I have the freedom to speak my own opinions.

The first point to consider states that we have the right to; “Communicate one’s opinions and ideas….to anyone who is willing to receive them”. To me, this statement does not mean forcing your opinions or ideas upon those people, who frankly couldn’t care a less. As we all know, we all have our own ideas and opinions, and of course as is human nature, and the difference of being different, they all differ from time to time. What a shock!

Why then do some people think they have a right, or a duty, above and beyond us mere mortals, to shout their ideas and opinions loudest of all? Why do some people wish to drown everyone else out, and force others to shut up and concede to them? Where is the freedom of speech in that ethos? What makes one person, or people, think their ideas and opinions are superior, and are worth listening to more than anyone else’s? “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference”, that is what the definition states loud and clear. Perhaps then these people who wish to subdue everyone else, really ought to educate themselves on the premise of freedom of speech, before they speak!

In other words; if you have something to say then make it worthwhile, otherwise, please just shut up and leave other people alone! We’re not listening if we don’t want to, as per our right, according to freedom of speech!

“The right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations”. People often disagree with this, but then of course these people also don’t wish to hear or be informed about other people’s ideas and opinions either. Some people only really want to hear what they want to, and would indeed censor anyone who conflicted with their own ideas and opinions. So, once again, where is the freedom in that??

I would like to know, what is absolute freedom anyway?? Also, why do some people think that their freedom is more important than anyone else’s? Could it be that people claim there ought to absolute freedom when they themselves are censored, because they have something horrible, threatening, bullying and insidious to shout about? Maybe.

This leads me directly to what is censored, and why of course; “the exercise of these rights carries….. special duties and responsibilities………and may…..therefore be subject to certain restrictions……. when necessary……[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others….or…..[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”. Does this clause, that can limit the freedom of anyone’s speech seem reasonable??? For me, no.

Before people accuse me of having petty despot fantasies, hear me out; this is my freedom of speech after all!!

Consider what damage words can do to a person, their life, their reputation, their happiness and security. Many of us may indeed recall a school-yard bully, who didn’t resort to violence to inflict pain and rule with terror, but only words. The sort of words that are better off never being spoken. The type which are threatening, nasty, damaging and damn right insidious.

Extrapolate this example then into the wider-world, and imagine what damage words, uncontrolled and misdirected can do. The answer is, plenty of damage.

Shouldn’t we all then have a responsibility to edit our words? Consider the content, quality, quantity and intent before we fire the loaded weapon, and expect everyone to just sit back and be OK with it all? If we aren’t willing to allow other people’s words to just fly past our ears without response, then why should other people afford us such courtesy?

I think the moral of this tale is; choose your words carefully, and always, always, expect a response!