The delight certain person who know who they are take in informing suffering souls that "I'm younger than you" delighted me no end I can tell you. Revenge will follow. I am grateful for the more mature who offered sympathy and that brought the cartoon above to mind. I am deeply, deeply indebted to RDG, both for her sympathy and her wisdom! You can see how bright she is!
So now I am in a good mood I will start girning again!
Parliamentarians salary is decided today by some sort of 'independent Commission.' These 'High heid yins' decide what MP's pay should be, and possibly the expenses allowance that goes with this. The House then votes and usually takes the increase complaining it is not enough.
A member of the UK House of Commons receives £66,000 as far as I can tell, plus expenses for secretary and assistant or whatever. The committee has decided a wage increase of £10,000 is in order. Now an awful lot of people are wringing their hands at this, especially those who do not earn £10,000 in a year as it is. While all cabinet ministers usually (not always happily), refuse any increase in their £132,000 or thereabouts, Nick Clegg, who claims to be Deputy Prime Minister has already said he will refuse this increase. He of course can afford this.
My personal opinion is that members of all the parliaments ought to be paid very high salaries indeed, three or four times what they earn now. The more they earn the better the candidate I say, and there are many of this present lot who should never be allowed back into any parliament in my opinion today. Of course many have other deals on the side. Not just as directors or supporters of various very well remunerated 'causes,' but from the job they left to become an MP. Often they still practice this, and very well paid when they do also. Directorship or 'support' may bring in many thousands a year. Very few of these men are suffering I would say and the increase should be curtailed at the very least. To increase substantially an MP's wage when the nation is suffering two and a half million unemployed, jobs being lost daily and many struggle to pay both their mortgage and the energy bills would be a big mistake. There again if a man cannot survive on £66,000 a year should he be an MP?
Channel 4 Have upset folks. They have announced they will deliberately seek controversy by screening the Muslim call to prayer during the coming Ramadan. This has upset many. Not only does it appear unfortunate so soon after the murder of a soldier at Woolwich but it appears they wish to provoke a reaction. It has not been noticed by many that this screening takes place at the first light of dawn, around three in the morning! Few there are who will notice. However the 'Daily Mail' types worldwide have begun a campaign of abuse because of this. Hundreds, let alone the BNP and EDL types, are demanding it be stopped. So C4, a channel few watch, has got itself publicity everywhere for nothing. Who would have thunk it?
Does it matter? Islam is a 'pushy' religion. Most Muslims will settle happily and live their lives, a smaller majority will however make demands for Islam to an extreme and get support from the more outwardly placid type. Around 2000 young men are suspected of being drawn into actual terrorism. Islam must be shown the limits and kept there, otherwise some will indeed make greater and greater demands on this liberal nation. It never fails to surprise me that when such liberals do their best to kill of Christianity they also fail to oppose Islam demands because they are afraid of being 'racist.' Young girls in Rochdale suffered the effects of that nonsense recently.
In itself I see no reason why this call to prayer should not be aired for the couple of million Muslims. Many of whom will indeed be awake to hear this. However will C4 also show a proper Christian service on Sunday mornings also? That is something sadly lacking today. The BBC does its best to hinder real Christian witness, the aged 'Songs of Praise,' being watered down so much these days, and services on Radio 4 more politically correct than genuine. Will Hindus have coverage from Four, will Jews also? Certainly atheists and Gays get plenty of coverage on all media and a proper, objective, thoughtful cover of any religion is hard to find. In amongst the pap offered by C4 there is a market awaiting that they could cover, they are supposed to be aimed at 'minorities are they not?
Right, who do I grumble about next?