Sunday, January 28, 2018

England Take The Final ODI In Spite of ...

Dropping key catches.
Having a nasty injury to bowler Jake Ball who had to bowl through it.
Another inadequate batting display which set the Aussies a target of 259 which was very achievable.

BUT England's bowlers really did the business. Young Tom Curran took an awesome fivefer. (Is he the youngest
England bowler ever to do that?) His fast medium bowling was intelligent and magnificently executed. (Now if he could just develop that occasional 92mph delivery - his future would be assured.)
What a performance to bring England a narrow 12 run victory.
A BRILLIANT game for the neutral and a fine advert for ODI cricket.
4 - 1. Not really a substitute for losing the Ashes but all the same ...
Two T20 matches now beckon in Australia and the same in New Zealand. Something to look forward to.

Fractured Rape Trials.



The failings which have lead to a nationwide review of all live rape and serious sexual assault cases were caused by police forces and prosecutors not carrying out “basic” procedure, the Attorney General has suggested.
In a stinging criticism of authorities' handling a series of failed rape cases, Jeremy Wright QC has said there was “no excuse” and that there was a “substantial problem” with how disclosure protocol is followed.
He also declined to say whether Alison Saunders, director of public prosecutions, should consider her position, but said that tackling the issue required a “joint effort” from prosecutors and police.
Blogger. One has to say that most rapists should be locked up for very long periods of time BUT a huge portion of the blame for failed court cases must lie with feminists and the politically correct.
Precious little distinction is currently made between a drunken fumble where an ignored and uncertain 'no' is classed as being an equivalent to a predatory rapist who leaps out onto the unsuspecting from behind a tree.
The first requirement is for rape to be classified into three distinct levels of seriousness and NOT to fall prey to so much illogical, feminist insistence that 'all men are rapists'. Moreover, any claim made that a rape has occurred must be accepted as an absolute truth according to the leftists' gospel. Just what percentage of jurors are going to buy into such a loopy philosophy?
One must consider the absurd rape conviction of Mike Tyson. A young woman goes up to his hotel room in the early hours of the morning and later claims that 'she did not expect sex to be on the agenda'. The decision to convict was ridiculous. The conviction of footballer Ched Evans was little better.
Feminists claim that the way a woman: acts, dresses, provokes - and often when drunk or drugged up - must not be seen as relevant factors. Again - absurd.
There is a massive distinction to be made between the victim of Rohypnol or similar and a woman who renders herself exceptionally vulnerable - perhaps by wandering off stupidly at 2am with some random pick up in a night club. Both may well be rape - but they are substantially different in degree.
When such distinctions are not made - expect a number of perverse decisions in jury trials.
The inherent problem is that he said/she said can rarely achieve the necessary burden of proof which is, and must always remain,  'beyond reasonable doubt'. The last time I saw a figure for successful rape prosecutions - it was a woeful 7%. The potential for wrongful convictions is perhaps higher in rape cases than in any other form of offence.
This is not helped by the fact that there are so many malicious accusations of rape which make prosecutions far more difficult in genuine cases. The time is upon us when wrongful accusations must attract mandatory minimum sentences of seven years in jail. These false accusers MUST be halted - and they are hardly uncommon.
I am in no position to make any comment on the failings in 'basic procedures' but if these need to be tightened - then so be it!

Birdie.


Farage Comeback?

Nigel Farage has struck a secret deal with embattled Ukip leader Henry Bolton designed to pave the way for his return to frontline politics, party sources have claimed. Mail.
This is not some returning political messiah but a flawed individual who needs to choose his friends more carefully and learn to understand just how his 'words of wisdom' will be received, interpreted - and oft times, distorted by a hostile media.

God Loves A Cheerful Giver.


Release Int. The Voice Of The Persecuted Church.


Tricky Questions Answered: Miracles.

From one end to the other, the Bible refers to miracles. There’s the story of Moses parting the Red Sea in Exodus. There’s Elijah calling down fire from heaven on Mt. Carmel. There’s Jesus walking on water, healing the sick, and raising the dead. But are these accounts really credible? Can anyone with an intelligent mind accept the reality of the miracles described in Scripture?

Did miracles ever actually occur? Perhaps the accounts are myth?

The Bible, with a credibility of its own, is replete with reports of miracles. All four Gospel accounts refer to Jesus as a miracle-worker. Specific details in those accounts (Matthew 11John 11) and the fact that first-century Jewish authorities acknowledged Jesus’ miracles (John 3:2), adds weight to the case. Even so-called antagonistic sources, such as the Talmud and certain Islamic writings, allude to the miracles of Jesus. Then, finally, all attempts to refute the broad-ranging reports of miracles in the Bible have themselves lacked reliable documentation and credibility.

But isn’t it possible that Bible miracles are just the fantasies of ignorant people who don’t even know about the laws of nature?

C.S. Lewis once observed:
If a man had no conception of a regular order in nature, then of course he could not notice departures from that order. When the disciples saw Christ walking on the water, they were frightened: they would not have been frightened unless they had known the laws of nature, and known that this was an exception.

But aren’t miracles actually a violation of the principles of logic? Don’t miracles essentially therefore make Christianity out to be an unreasonable faith?

Not at all. You are confusing the laws of logic with the laws of nature. The laws of logic are prescriptive. They define the basic and inviolable parameters and unavoidable patterns of human thinking. On the other hand, the laws of nature are descriptive. They are a record of how the natural world normally operates. Scientific laws don’t control or explain events. They are only a generalized record of those events. The laws of logic constitute a perfect standard. The laws of nature describe actual reality. God can suspend the laws of nature at will because He designed them. He would not (and actually cannot) violate the laws of logic, because they are a part of His nature.

What do you mean when you say that logic is a part of God’s nature?

Logic is inherent to the character of God, and God cannot ever stop being what He is, or deny His nature (2 Timothy 2:13). God is rational and, because we are created in His image, so are we.

But doesn’t the Bible say that God can do the impossible?

God can do what is humanly impossible (Luke 18:27). He cannot do what is actuallyimpossible, and He does not do what is rationally impossible, e.g., make A = non-A, or cease to be God.

What are antinomies, paradoxes, and mysteries? How do they fit in here?

A paradox is a “seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true.” An antinomy is a contradiction between principles or conclusions that seemequally necessary and reasonable. A mystery (or an enigma) is something that is not fully understood at present. How God performs miracles often baffles the understanding, but does not mean that He can’t perform them.

Doesn’t science rule out miracles in nature?

To prove or disprove any natural phenomenon, science typically depends on verifiable, repeatable experimentation. Miracles are, by nature, unrepeatable—the result of God supernaturally suspending, or transcending, the created order and the laws of nature. Author Ron Rhodes says,
“The scientific method is useful for studying nature, but not super-nature.”
 Are you suggesting that God can violate the very laws of nature that He Himself implemented in the first place?
Yes, although the term “transcend” seems preferable to the term “violate.” “God is outside, over, and above natural law, and is not bound by it,” says Paul Little. Another commentator once observed: “The God of Scripture is an Almighty God. He would have had no problem getting the great fish to swallow Jonah… or Jonah to swallow the great fish.” God can, has, and will transcend the laws of nature to accomplish His purposes in the world.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Faith v Leftist Politics? - Partly True, At Least.

My analysis is that most faith based systems depend upon an absolute moral order. The declaration of things as absolutely evil or absolutely good, as sin or virtue, puts liberalism into a horrible position because it's founded on no judgment on anything. As a result, any faith that is seriously practised or understood is a challenge to the politics that depend on constituencies that would rather not be told that their choices are bad and their lives are not virtuous. - Hugh Hewitt
However, does this cover the left's unerring ability to always select the silly or malicious option? - That is not really what emerges from 'no judgment on anything'. Is the word 'judgment' (sorry spell-checker, that spelling choice is perfectly valid) used to mean the application of common sense, logic and integrity? - If that is the case - then, okay.

Oh, Yes.

The charge is often made against the intelligentsia and other members of the anointed that their theories and the policies based on them lack common sense. But the very commonness of common sense makes it unlikely to have any appeal to the anointed. How can they be wiser and nobler than everyone else while agreeing with everyone else? -- Thomas Sowell

UK Financial Sector Post-Brexit.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/910637/brexit-news-financial-sector-uk-eu-official-Gunter-Verheugen-angela-merkel-bbc-newsnight

Birdie.


People's Hatred Never Condoned But Has To Be Understood.

I publish this piece as I feel that it encapsulates so much of what is wrong with the UK but cannot accept the suggested responses. Blogger.
I’m not a person easily given to hatred but it would be fair to say that as far as the Liberal, Left, traitorous and treasonous criminals that have sold out my country and the people they were elected to represent, I’m talking about the LibLabCon, I do hate them from the top of my head to the tips of my toes.
If the Liberal Lefties call me a racist, I regard it as a compliment, I’m very proud of my race. Our races have evolved over thousands of years and the Leftards would like to do away with this in the space of a lifetime: ‘insanity.’
Now we’re being told that we can’t even acknowledge our own gender, something that is built into our genes and the core of our being. Not only is this insanity but something I believe to be Satanic in its origin. I’m still trying to work out if we are in a war against the white race or a war against Christianity.
For years we’ve been constantly reassured that immigration is good for our country: another lie! Apparently less than fifty percent of the UK population pay income tax (see here) According to National Statistics the number of income taxpayers is dropping by around a hundred thousand a year despite immigration in the many hundreds of thousands a year. It seems that the majority of these migrants are so unskilled and uneducated that they fall below the minimum tax threshold and are presumably claiming benefits.
Is it surprising then that we’re constantly reading of crisis in the National Health Service, the massive cost of the welfare state, the fact that Britain is increasingly in debt: does anybody expect this situation to ever improve under our current Liberal Lefty system?
We import millions of uneducated people from shitholes [Ed: this word has now become acceptable: what is good enough for President Trump is good enough for us!around the world that we have to support, in return they groom our children for sex and brutally rape our women. Our Liberal, Lefty governments of course try to cover this up. My native country is in a very sorry state, all due to the policies of the LibLabCon, these parties have all fallen to the Liberal Left and its Politically Correct, Cultural Marxism: there is no reason we have to accept this.
Like my teachers at school, our politically correct, Marxist, Liberal Lefty governments forbid us to even talk about our plight, let alone defend ourselves. We need to confront these people, we will only win if we hate them from the tops of our heads to the tips of our toes.
Through the policies of successive governments, every indicator, economic, demographic or any other are all pointing in one direction, towards disaster. When the time comes conflict is extremely likely. Ukip Daily article.

Give!

England Conspire To Lose The 4th ODI.

England being defeated by the fairly slender margin of just three wickets does not tell the whole tale of this interesting fixture.
With the series already beyond them, after winning the toss, Aussie captain, Steve Smith, put England in as he recognised that the early conditions would suit his faster bowlers.
England's early batsmen were so shocking that they fell to a total of 8 for FIVE in the early overs with four of the England top order giving away their wickets. Only Alex Hales could not be blamed as he got the ultimate 'jaffa' and was skittled.
England's rebuilding began with skipper Morgan but Chris Woakes proved that he is a genuine all rounder with a magnificent 78. He was well-supported by Tom Curran but when England had set a target of 197 - it was clear that even the most moderate of batting would see the Aussies home.
They wobbled and had genuine problems with Rashid, England's ever improving leg-spin bowler. (Why was he not selected for the Ashes squad?)
Important wickets all tumbled but the Aussie late order saw the home team reach their target with a great many overs to spare - but only three wickets.
The England ODI top order generally bat really well. Yesterday, however, was a disgrace!
With the series now 3 - 1 to England, the final match of the rubber starts tomorrow.

Why Not To Buy The Google Home Speaker.

Google Home smart speaker DOESN'T know who Jesus is but can identify Muhammad, Buddha and Satan, outraged users claim.

  • When asked who Jesus Christ or God is, the smart speaker says it doesn't know
  • It does talk about Jesus when asked about the Last Supper or Saint Peter
  • Some Reddit users claim it responds to 'Who was Jesus' but not 'Who is Jesus'
  • One user says this is because if you Google 'Who is Jesus' three Christian websites come up before the Wikipedia page
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5315727/Google-Home-speaker-does-not-know-Jesus-Christ-is.html#ixzz55IzKxuRs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Jonathan Arnott Using Role As MEP To Work With Open Doors.

If the murder, enslavement, torture, beating, execution 

and imprisonment of Christians worldwide is ever to stop, 

then a necessary first step is that we must be aware of it.

Last week I had a meeting with Open Doors, a charity which works with 
Christians worldwide who face persecution for their beliefs. It was, to 
say the least, an eye-opener for me. I was aware that Christians in 

various countries around the world are being persecuted for their beliefs.
 Indeed, I’ve tried to raise some of those cases to the best of my ability 
with the (limited) power that a Member of the European Parliament 
actually has (less than you might think, the EU system being designed 
to keep power in the hands of the unelected). When something is 
happening, but not right on your doorstep, it’s easy to miss something 
very serious.
I should point out that Christians are not the only religious group that 
is persecuted: talking about the persecution of Christians does not 
preclude the existence of persecution of other groups (and indeed, I also 
out about those matters) In the 2017 reporting period, around 
1,200 Christians were killed for their faith. By the 2018 reporting period, 
the number had grown to 3,000. These figures do not reflect the true 
situation, because there are many killings that cannot be included. 
If a Christian is killed for their faith in North Korea, how do we find 
out about it? Instances across the world may not be reported, for a 
variety of reasons. The figures I’ve given may just be the tip of the 
iceberg: more than 200 million Christians face ‘high’ levels of persecution 
of their faith.
In North Korea, children are urged to ‘report’ their parents if they suspect 
them of being Christians; those who do are unlikely to ever see their family 
again. Afghanistan, perhaps unsurprisingly after the events of recent 
years, is almost as bad – with anyone converting to Christianity facing 
a death sentence for ‘apostasy’. Open Doors also claims that Hindu 
nationalism in India has “embedded the culture of impunity for those 
who persecute Christians”. With so much hatred in the world, in some 
cases persecution is the result of a consistent blind eye being turned
 by authorities to crimes against those of a faith ‘different’ to the majority.
 It is not organised by a government, but through inaction they permit 
such things to continue.
In that meeting, one of the people delivering a presentation sat for 
most of the meeting with her head in her hands, looking downwards 
and averting her eyes from the rest of the room. She was terrified of 
being photographed, fearing that she would be unable to continue her 
work with Christians overseas if she were recognised. I knew of such things
 in the past, of course: Christians who smuggled Bibles into the old 
Soviet Union, fearing beatings or being sent to a remote gulag in Siberia 
from which they might never return. That the same could be the case 
today, relating to a country I would not have expected (and which I 
won’t name here), says so much. That’s what is most shocking: 
beyond the figures and statistics, beyond the stories of lives 
changed, destroyed or ended by persecution: today – in the 
21st century – persecution of Christians (and possibly other 
religions but I don’t have the figures for this) is increasing 
rather than decreasing. We feel we live in a civilised world, one in 
which basic truths of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actually mean something. 
years ago, North Korea was the only country where ‘extreme’ 
of Christians was commonplace. Today, 11 countries meet that description.
Those 11 countries don’t share much in common: in practice, if not
 constitutionally, they are atheist, Islamic, and Hindu, but they do 
share one thing: a mindset of exclusivity. To me, it’s a poignant 
reminder of what loving your nation, or religious beliefs, should be 
all about. I am a Christian myself, but I don’t hate atheists or Muslims. 
I care about the persecution of Christians, but that doesn’t mean I 
don’t care about persecution of Yazidis or the Rohingya for example. 
I love my country, but I don’t hate anybody else’s. I’m proudly 
pro-Brexit, but if you disagree, we should do so amicably. 
And as a Northerner, I don’t hate Southerners. That kind of yah-boo 
dislike of the ‘other side’ should be confined to the football pitch 
where it belongs, where people can yell at the referee and the 
opposition to their hearts’ content without any actual harm being 
done to anyone.
Murder, enslavement, torture, beating, execution and imprisonment 
of Christians worldwide must stop.

Friday, January 26, 2018

What, On Earth, Did Jesus Know? - A Good Question.

What Jesus Knows (Mark 13:32)

”But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
If Jesus is the incarnate Word, how can there be things he does not know?
The passage can’t be plucked out and interpreted in isolation, but must be understood with other comments in which Jesus discusses the relationship of the Father and the Son. It is similar to Matthew 20:23, “To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” Yet it must be placed alongside Matthew 11:27, “All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him,” John 3:35, “the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand,” and similar passages attesting to the divinity of the Son.
The Church Fathers pondered these passages as well, and St. Augustine developed the “form of the servant” interpretation based upon Philippians 2:6-7: “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.”
In De Trinitate Augustine argues that there is no contradiction in the Son being greater than the Father and the Father being greater than the Son, because Jesus is True God and True man. In his deity he is equal and in his humanity he is not: “The one is to be understood in virtue of the form of God, the other in virtue of the form of a servant, without any confusion.” Scripture passages are thus interpreted by the understanding the “two resonances in them, one tuned to the form of God in which he is, and is equal to the Father, the other tuned to the form of a servant which he took and is less than the Father.” When we start to understand the true meaning of the two natures of Christ, then numerous passages start to slide into place.
Augustine:
“In the form of God, all things were made by him (John 1:3); in the form of a servant, he himself was made of woman, made under the law (Galatians 4:4). In the form of God, he and the Father are one (John 10:30); in the form of a servant, he did not come to do his own will, but the will of him who sent him (John 6:38). In the form of God, as the Father has life in himself, so he gave the Son also to have life in himself (John 5:26); in the form of a servant, his soul is sorrowful to the point of death, and Father, he said, if it can be, let this cup pass by (Mattew 26:38). In the form of God, he is true God and life eternal (1 John 5:20); in the form of a servant he became obedient to the point of death, the death even of the cross (Philippians 2:8). In the form of God, everything that the Father has is his (John 16:15), and all yours is mine, he says, and mine yours (John 17:10); in the form of a servant, his doctrine is not his own, but his who sent him (John 7:16)”

Priming The Pump Is A Dangerous Concept.

FDR embraced the principle of 'priming the pump' which, by investment in government-sponsored, capital programmes, helped end the great recession in the 30s.
I was taught this by a rampant socialist who clearly believed that this was the answer to all economic woes.

The efficacy of this solution rumbled around the world and has been taken on many times by huge numbers of socialist administrations with extremely mixed results.

In the majority of cases where this has been attempted - 'sticking plaster solutions' to complex economic problems have simply led to huge debts for the nations concerned.
Socialist administrations now spend so much foolishly that the debt problems naturally outweigh any good which is done and put pressure on more conservative governments.
A culture of expectancy has been made that forces governments into spending sums that we simply cannot afford. This unnatural pressure is so strong on more conservative governments that they too must spend, spend, spend otherwise they will simply not achieve election to power.

It gets worse. In order to try to manage the spiralling debt problems, the socialists are forced to raise taxes (done with malice aforethought, in any case) which has the effect of putting a damper on the nation's business - and the entrepreneurs start to use lower taxation economies in which to ply their trade.
The costs of this principle on: jobs, prosperity, the costs of servicing debt; exports et al is phenomenal.

The less intelligent members of the electorate, along with the socialists who just do not care, results in a vicious circle has been created by this kindergarten thinking.
Extra money being spent on worthy projects brings praise but how many of the grateful would manage their own finances in such a cavalier fashion?

Leftist governments then fall into the foolish trap of reducing monies spent on defence. As this Blog has repeatedly proved - there ain't no such thing as 'a peace dividend'.
The negatives of these fiscal tactics create a line which 'stretches out to the crack of doom'.



The UK Government Debt Total Is Now...A Millstone For Your Children & Grandchildren.


Public sector net debt:
£1,794,962,230,097

Birdie.


BBC Brexit Bias.

BBC Brexit bias EXPOSED: Flagship programmes under-representing anti-EU views for DECADES.

BBC flagship news programmes have under-represented anti-Brussels views for decades, a report published by a leading social policy think tank claimed last night.

bbc1GETTY
A report has found that the BBC has under-represented anti-EU views
In-depth analysis of broadcasting output since 1999 based on monitoring by the watchdog News-Watch found Euro-sceptic voices were "marginalised" by the corporation.
And the alleged bias has continued following the national referendum vote to quit the EU in 2016, the report said.
ADVERTISING"The clear preference of a large section of the population for withdrawal, and the reasons for so many people taking this stance, have been continually under-represented in the news coverage of the BBC," the report said.The findings were set out in "Brussels Broadcasting Corporation?" published by the think tank Civitas.
A shocking indictment of the BBC’s failure to achieve impartiality
David Keighley and Andrew JubbSince the European Parliament elections in 1999, News-watch has compiled 38 mainly half-yearly reports, based on 8,000 programme transcripts covering almost 300 hundred hours of EU content.
Analysis of the News-Watch research for the Civitas report found that out of 4,275 guests talking about the EU on BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme between 2005 and 2015, only 132, equivalent to 3.2%, were supporters of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
In 274 hours of monitored BBC EU coverage between 2002 and 2017, only 14 speakers were left-wing advocates.
Their contribution accounted for just 12 minutes of total broadcasting output, the report said.

‘You’re a star’ Farage hails caller's 'passionate' Brexit stance

 
GETTY
Kenneth Clarke was a BBC regular
Yet during the same period, the two ardently Europhile Tories Kenneth Clarke and Lord Heseltine made 28 appearances between them.
The report also found "a determined reluctance" to address the questions of whether Britain should quit the EU.
Between 2005 and 2011, only 20 questions about leaving the EU were posed in 1,073 surveyed editions of Today.
The News-Watch researchers calculated that there was an average of one question for every 153 programme hours.
The report said the alleged bias continued after the vote for Brexit.
A month of the Today Programme in October and November 2017 carried 97 interviews on EU topics, but only nine were with long-term supporters of Brexit.
GETTY
The BBC has denied the claims
David Keighley and Andrew Jubb, the authors of the report, said: “When opinion in favour of leaving the EU has featured, the editorial approach has – at the expense of exploring withdrawal itself – tended heavily towards discrediting and denigrating opposition to the EU as xenophobic, and to cast those who supported it as incompetent and venal.
“The overview provided here is a shocking indictment of the BBC’s failure to achieve impartiality, and in particular to incorporate the views of those who desired to leave the EU into its news output. Despite frequent requests to the Chairman and Director General of the BBC from a cross-party group of MPs concerned about BBC bias, the Corporation has been unable to provide a single programme that has examined the opportunities of Brexit. And we cannot find one either.
“The corporation is impervious to all complaints in this domain. It may well be that in the face of this lofty intransigence, something more radical – such as a Judicial Review of the complaints process – might be the only way forward.”
Responding to the report, a BBC spokesman said: “There have been a number of flawed ‘analyses’ trying to depict the BBC as favouring one side or other.
"The reality is we’re no longer covering the binary choice of a referendum held 18 months ago, we’re covering the process towards Brexit in a responsible and impartial way independent of political pressure.
“The job of impartial journalism is to scrutinise the issues and interrogate the relevant voices, not advocate for a position.
"It's precisely for this reason that the public trusts the BBC.” Express.

Ten Days Ago, The Red Arrows Flew Over My Wife.