Sexual Hypocrisy and Religion by Dr Helen Bright

It appears to me that there has not been enough exposure of sexual hypocrisy secondary to religion. Prohibition of sexual activity outside marriage is just too much to cope with for many men and women. Both sexes employ psychological defenses to deal with the wide gap between what they say and what they do.
Only a very small number of women who are also active in politics received recent media exposure of their sexual hypocrisy.
The dysfunctional tendency to avoid conflict has also led to the silence on the subject eg in the case of Mr Julian Assange whose appeal against the international warrant issued by a Swedish court to summon him to answer allegations of sexual coercion has caught my attention.
In his case he appears to have had sex with some female Christian political activists.

Men can also make false allegations of sexual coercion. It happened to me years ago when a man claimed I seduced him against his will. I dumped him after telling him exactly what I thought about it. He cried but preferred to keep his victim status ever so popular in Christianity and in other religions. Taking responsibility for own beliefs is not something religious people rush to do.

Some men run a high risk of all sorts of allegations which are more likely to lead to court proceedings because there is a sexist attitude to men who can be perceived as more aggressive compared to women and therefore more likely to commit crimes. Even greater suicide rate in men is explained by some as being due to men taking violent means to do it with. The higher rate of suicide in men, actually, could be due to the neglect that men suffer. Mental anguish is dismissed as weakness of character and depression is not diagnosed or treated as it should be due to gender bias in diagnosis.

Excessive investments made for the purpose of controlling female sexuality as in many of the dying religions even today is reflected in the institutional bias towards religion (schools, courts, commercial enterprises) which have failed to act in keeping with the new values and laws of equality.

It may be hard to accept it but there is a price for everything. With more women in all professions including law one will now have to be on the look out for sexist attitudes from women. I can foresee that tests would have to be designed to screen out those who have attitudinal problems based on gender and religion before they are given any judicial position.
The obvious question is how many judges would be left in their jobs if they were tested, and found to be deficient?

Sexual hypocrisy is common and not always obvious either. It can appear as cultural values such as excessive tolerance towards the expression of religious values (confusion) no matter how much suffering it causes to the victims. People tend to avoid attacking religious sexual hypocrisy in fear that somehow they will be perceived as intolerant or that the conflict would enlarge beyond the ability to handle it. However, one has to tackle those issues as there is no other option.

CHRISTIAN FEMINISTS by Dr Helen Bright

There are people who call themselves Christian Feminists. It does not require too much knowledge to realize that Feminism and Christianity are not compatible at all.
Feminism as a political force has been hijacked by some political groups which present themselves as on the left but are actually what some would call on the right.
For thousands of years some of the major religions practiced today including Christianity have discriminated against women and this is very easy to see in the Bible, for example, as well as in historical records. Christian Feminists assume that they have special powers to interpret what God really intended for women and men and that in fact, it was some kind of equality. That way they assure themselves that they can keep God as well as some respect for themselves for choosing allegedly non-discriminatory God.
Absurd.
Responsibility and accountability for the beliefs is not required. And neither is responsibility and accountability required for their own actions that follow from the set of those beliefs and values.
Ms Anna Ardin (picture ABOVE) made allegations of sexual assault against Mr Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder. She claims to be a Christian Feminist and belongs to Brotherhood and yes, not Sisterhood, a little point she missed along all other points. Brotherhood is an organization affiliated to Swedish Social Democrats and they engaged anti-Semitic speakers for their conferences.
This is what Ms Ardin thinks of herself:

My feminist reflections and comments on animal rights, Swedish politics and Cuba from a political scientist, Christian left and long distance runner will from now on be published at http://annaardin.wordpress.com“

Fascinating that Ms Ardin thinks of herself as a scientist at all. I would think it is actually Mr Assange who is a scientist (physicist and mathematician).

I wonder if she considers human beings as animals who also have rights not to be harassed by false allegations.

I also wonder how her long distance running will help her when she has to confront real feminists.

Unfortunately, narcissistic people are dangerous particularly when they feel slighted in any way. I still remember some of them from the forensic psychiatric unit where I worked.

Another fascinating aspect of Christianity is its love of victimhood. Well, that is not compatible with feminism either but is both destructive and self-destructive.

Some Internet blogs report that AA has now gone on Christian mission to Palestine to make peace amongst Jews and Arabs. Is the idea that they will be united when they see her in fear of false allegations?

Whistleblowing may lead to false allegations of sexual assault

Whistleblowing is a high risk activity which is beneficial to public but can be extremely dangerous for the whistleblower. Mr Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks was issued with a warrant for his arrest because of the allegations of rape made by two women in Sweden. He was giving a public lecture there and was approached by the women. He had sex with them because these women were interested in him which is not surprising. However, it would appear that they felt he did not give them sufficient attention and subsequently the allegations have been made.
WikiLeaks has fought over 100 legal actions against them so far, and won.
WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of classified material such as war logs in Iraq and Afghanistan recently.
There have been attempts to destroy WikiLeaks financially (one example: attempted withdrawal of PayPal facilities for donations to WikiLeak website) and to forbid international travel to Mr Julian Assange.
His lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig appealed to Swedish Court to remove the arrest warrant as Mr Assange efforts to assist investigations have been refused by the Swedish authorities. He won in August.

Interestingly, Mr Assange was seeking residence in Sweden in the belief that laws there would protect him. But there is another sort of politics that has to be considered such as attempts to eliminate sexual bias from court proceedings. It is well known that conviction rate is low for rape and that various governments would be keen to improve the appearances because the overwhelming majority of victims are women who are also the majority of voters. One quick way of improving conviction figures is finding suitable scapegoats. Those who are different e.g. foreign are always more likely to be attacked, generally speaking. Mr Julian Assange is Australian.
Male Whistleblowers, especially are likely to be attacked in this manner.
While the Assange case is happening in a very public way there are other cases I know of where the accused experience a great deal of distress, public humiliations of court case against them, regulatory persecution (for example, by the General Medical Council) as well thrown in when the accused man is a doctor. The psychological torture does not end at the end of the court hearing as it may be repeated as in cases of hung jury. Thus the wrongly accused man has to go through all the stress once more.
British Medical Association has failed to protect many whistleblowers over the years but following the election the new government has decided to introduce policies in keeping with the law.
Women whistleblowers are more likely to be subjected to allegations of mental illness than rape and in addition suffer like men from sham peer review, restrictions on their license to practice which may include restrictions to working abroad.
Perhaps, British lawyers should learn something from Bjorn Hurtig so that all the wrongly accused men still waiting for their trials are spared too.
I wonder for how long will Swedish prosecutor who ordered arrest warrant for Mr Assange keep her job.
Dr Frederic Whitehurst is an FBI whistleblower who saved some men already in jail when he blew the whistle on police presenting false DNA evidence.

More allegations have been made and in the light of so called new evidence a warrant has been issued again. It is as if in Sweden they never heard of teleconferencing. Surely if any of the prosecutors wanted to speak with Mr Assange this could have been arranged without the warrant. This disproportionate measure should have been appealed straight in the European Court.

DR SHEILA MATHEWS TRIBUNAL by Dr Helen Bright, Consultant Psychiatrist

Dr Sheila Mathews' Employment Tribunal hearing against Northamptonshire Council starts today in Leicester. She is a Community Consultant Paediatrician who was employed as a medical adviser to their adoption panel. Dr Mathews objected to adoption of children by same sex parents and abstained from voting when same sex parents were considered by the adoption panel. Initially, Dr Sheila Mathews was replaced by the Northampton Council on the panel and after that she resigned.

Mr Paul Diamond is representing her human rights issues and is paid by Christian Legal Center. Surprise, surprise.

Considering that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that children raised by the same sex parents are any worse off than those raised by heterosexuals, I have great difficulty seeing how one can make a claim that her professional opinion would be enough to help her win her Employment Tribunal claim. After all, we are responsible for our professional opinions and accountable to a number of people. It is against Good Medical Practice to discriminate on the grounds of gender. Is our medical regulator asleep, or just rejoicing at the fact that there are still women doctors around who just do not get the power politics of religion? Most religions are patriarchal and why would any woman support it is well known. Some people just never grow up enough to pick up the sweets on the top shelf and in my opinion, Dr Mathews is one of those. Supporting those already in power (religiously biased establishment) may seem easier in the short term but ultimately one must not betray one's true values (in Dr Mathews case one would reasonably expect those to be the interests of children).

This conflict between religious belief and adoption needs has occurred in a number of countries associated with UK e.g. Australia. In Sydney there were about 120, 000 children waiting for adoption but only about 50,000 children found homes. There too, the same issues arose with Christian right putting themselves first and social welfare of children second. Again this suggest that something is wrong with a system which really should make a firm commitment to secularism.

Dr Mathews will claim that her career has been damaged beyond repair. I doubt it.
The religious bias is present in so many medical institutions in this world today that she would have no problems finding work. There are Christian medical foundations why would they reject Dr Mathews?

With respect to her hair style, I am not in position to say if Dr Mathews has a hairdresser. However, if there is one, I would like to add that hairdressers too, have the right to reject being forced to cut the hair in the way which the client demands and which would misrepresent their true artistic ability.

One way or another it is another bad hair day for Dr Mathews.

I, guess pink oboe chamber music is not to Dr Mathews liking either. Here is Mozart's Oboe Quartet.

Walk the Talk on Suicide Prevention by Dee Spears

In 2008, Andrew Lansley said in a speech to The Mental Health Network Conference……

“Mental illness is one of the greatest causes of misery in our society. It is possible to be physically ill, but still be generally happy. It is very hard to be happy and to be mentally ill. So there can be no fundamental wellbeing without good mental health. Perhaps the ultimate "no fault" illness - it can affect any one of us at any time, however talented, fortunate or careful. Just as the recession we are now facing is no respecter of social groups, mental health also touches individuals and families across Britain indiscriminately.

Matters relating to Stigma can be found on:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/MHP%20lo-res%20Press%20Release%20version%2015_07_08.pdf

There are a multitude of reports and speeches I could refer to and meanwhile people are dying and families are left bereft and unsupported by a system which puts undue pressure on them at a time when restorative care is needed.

There are many concerns being expressed regarding the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman process. CBT is running late and DH state it cannot be fully accessed. LINks provision is sporadic and the Health Select Committee has launched an inquiry into the sharp rise in complaints against the NHS and the reasons behind the inflation of litigation costs in recent years.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4854%3Amps-launch-inquiry-into-nhs-complaints-and-litigation&catid=174%3Ahealthcare&q=&Itemid=99

Its Walk the Talk time…… can we now fully address this please!

Image: Japanese calligraphy Determination

Common Mistakes in Understanding Human Rights Law in UK by Alexander D. Winterton LLB(Hons) LLM

There is much confusion about the impact of the European Convention of Human Rights in the UK. Yes we did pass the Human Rights Act 1998 but that was not first time human rights has been recognized as law. In actual fact we can trace back human rights for centuries, Lord Ellenborough CJ commented in R v Inhabitants of Eastbourne that “ the law of humanity, which is anterior to all positive laws, obliges us to afford them relief….”

The European Convention, before the Human Rights Act , is a treaty which binds the UK as a matter of international law. Treaty obligations binding on the UK under international law can only be directly enforced as law in the UK if they are given legislative effect - The Parliament Belge (1879) 4 PD 129 at 154, and it is true to say that prior to the Human Rights Act there was no such measure. But that is not the end of the matter. Domestic courts are increasingly having regard to the norms of international law.

Lord Hoffmann noted in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex, p Simms [2000] AC 115 at 131G-132B;-

“much of the Convention reflects the common law… That is why the UK government felt able in 1950 to accede to the Convention without domestic legislative change.”

Between 1964 & 1999 the Convention although unincorporated was referred to in over 650 English cases - M Hunt - Using Human Rights Law in English Courts, Oxford, Hart Publishing 1997.

There are a number of omitted Articles but they have been omitted as a result of not being necessary. For Example Article 1 has been omitted. If for example another Contracting State believed that the UK was in breach of its obligations it would make a referral of that matter to the European Court of Human Rights and not to UK domestic Courts.

Also a noticeable omission is Article 13 which provides “Right to an effective remedy - Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity”.

Looking at the Human Rights Act itself, both section 6 and 8 set out in detail remedies available although attempts were made during the passage of the Bill to include Article 13. The Government argued (Hansard HC Vol 312 Col 979 20 May 1998) that it was unnecessary as section 8 gave the courts the widest scope to provide effective remedies and that the addition of Article 13 might simply confuse the courts into developing remedies which they were unable to grant, although interestingly no examples could be given!

Lord Bingham notes in Al-Skeini and others (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant) Al-Skeini and others (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent) (Consolidated Appeals) [2007] UKHL 26 “The Convention provides in article 1 that "The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of this Convention". The Secretary of State points out that article 1 is not one of the articles to which domestic effect is given by section 1 of and Schedule 1 to the HRA. Therefore, he argues, the scope of the Act is to be found in construction of the Act and not construction of article 1 of the Convention. The claimants reject this argument, pointing out that article 1 confers and defines no right, like the other articles specified in section 1 of the Act and the Schedule. Article 1 of the Convention is omitted because, like article 13 (also omitted), it is provided for in the Act…. Thus there was no need to include article 1 in section 1 of the Act and the Schedule, nor article 13 since the Act contains its own provisions as to remedies in sections 4 and 8.”

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry concludes

56. “ By this somewhat circuitous route, I arrive at what is surely the crucial argument in favour of the wider interpretation of section 6. The Secretary of State accepts that "the central purpose" of Parliament in enacting sections 6 and 7 was "to provide a remedial structure in domestic law for the rights guaranteed by the Convention": Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2004] 1 AC 546, 564, para 44, per Lord Hope of Craighead. In other words, claimants were to be able to obtain remedies in United Kingdom courts, rather than having to go to Strasbourg. The Secretary of State also accepts that, while the jurisdiction of states for the purposes of article 1 of the Convention is essentially territorial, in exceptional cases, "acts of the contracting states performed, or producing effects, outside their territories can constitute an exercise of jurisdiction by them within the meaning of article 1 of the convention": Bankovic v Belgium (2001) 11 BHRC 435, 450, para 67. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State says that sections 6 and 7 are to be interpreted in such a way that, in these exceptional cases, a victim is left remediless in the British courts. Contrary to the central policy of the Act, the victim must resort to Strasbourg.

57. My Lords, I am unable to accept that submission. It involves reading into sections 6 and 7 a qualification which the words do not contain and which runs counter to the central purpose of the Act. That would be to offend against the most elementary canons of statutory construction which indicate that, in case of doubt, the Act should be read so as to promote, not so as to defeat or impair, its central purpose. If anything, this approach is even more desirable in interpreting human rights legislation. As Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood points out, this interpretation also ensures that, in these exceptional cases, the United Kingdom is not in breach of its article 13 obligation to afford an effective remedy before its courts to anyone whose human rights have been violated within its jurisdiction”.

The House of Lords has therefore communicated the clearest message to the lower courts that they can and must have regard to Article 13 rights even though it is not expressly set out in the Act itself.

A New Legal Ombudsman by Alexander Winterton and Dr Helen Bright

From 6th of October 2010 UK has a new Legal Ombudsman. Alan Sampson is Chief Ombudsman who will on 24th November 2010 answer online your questions as how this new body will function. Their telephone number is 03005550333. The Office of Legal Services Ombudsman (tel: 0161 839 7262) is closing down. They used to take up complaints against Solicitors Regulation Authority, for example, when a complaint against a solicitor was rejected. Contrary, to some peoples expectations (and confirmed to D4J by the Ombudsman Office) the advice provided by The Office of Legal Service Ombudsman were not legally binding on Solicitors Regulation Authority, and it is of interest, when SRA did take up the complaints that went to The Office of Legal Services Ombudsman. We know of at least one malicious complaint made to SRA and The Office of Legal Service Ombudsman. A complaint against a solicitor was initially rejected by SRA and following the decision by The Office of Legal Service Ombudsman and a change in leadership of SRA, the malicious complaint was accepted only to be rejected again by Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. D4J have researched this point and it is interesting to note that the Ombudsman doesn’t appear to know the extent of its own powers - a worrying issue for any consumer using them as a body of last resort to deal with complaints. Section 49(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 specifically provided powers for the Ombudsman to make Orders by inserting a section 2A into the Courts & Legal Services Act 1990 as follows: “(2A) If after completing any investigation under this Act the Ombudsman considers that, rather than recommending the taking of any action by any person or professional body under paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2), he should make an order requiring the taking of that action by the person or body— (a) he shall afford the person or body, and the person who made the allegation, a reasonable opportunity of appearing before him to make representations; and (b) having considered any representations from them, he may, in reporting his conclusions, make the order.” Malicious complaints were made by a doctor who was expert witness for a solicitor but changed his tune when asked to act as a joint witness. She complained about him to The General Medical Council and he took successful revenge against her at SRA. Even though she was found innocent the pain of professional investigation by regulatory body should never be underestimated. SRA remains free from obligations under Freedom of Information Act (due to the fact that it operates as a sub-committee and does not [unlike for example the GMC] have its own separate legal status) and hangs onto any evidence that shows weakness in the thinking of the prosecuting lawyers working at SRA. One would expect regulatory bodies to co-operate in extinguishing professional misconduct, but what gets in the way is the personal pride and conflict of interests. Police have also colluded in cover ups of perjury (stating in writing that the SRA could not commit a criminal offence!) and can be easily influenced by the solicitors working for SRA, no doubt as a result of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by it & the Law Society and that the Metropolitan Police's Director of Legal Services, Edward Solomons, is also on the SRA's board. That's a serious conflict of interest. As a simple matter of law one must question how such appointments sits with the Police Conduct Regulations requiring them to avoid being beholden to any institution - “1. It is of paramount importance that the public has faith in the honesty and integrity of police officers. Officers should therefore be open and truthful in their dealings; avoid being improperly beholden to any person or institution; and discharge their duties with integrity.” Schedule 1 - The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 Statutory Instrument 2004 No 645. At present members of one tribunal also sit at another regulatory body and the fixing of panels has become legendary. The Courts have dodged this issue of independence and fair trial by concluding if you could appeal to the High Court then your rights under Article 6 to a fair trial have not been breached. However this misses the point. In the 21st Century we have a right and expectation to believe that tribunals should be fair and independent especially when they publish their findings to the public at large, in one single blow ruining the excellent reputation of those honest doctors in their patient community. So where to go? The Independent Police Complaints Commission is effective and free. Where allegations are not properly or consistently investigated, the law-enforcement authorities run the risk of sowing the seeds for a cycle of impunity for perpetrators of inhuman treatment. Where such impunity exists, an administrative practice or policy of toleration of violations of Article 3 could be said to exist. In the first in a series of cases from Northern Ireland in the 1970s, individuals had claimed that they were not only victims of individual acts of torture, but that they were victims of a practice in violation of the Convention. Donnelly and others v. the United Kingdom, 4 DR 4.The elements that constitute a practice are repetition of acts and official tolerance. Repetition of acts means a substantial number of acts which are the expression of a general situation. Official tolerance means that, though acts are clearly illegal, they are tolerated in the sense that the superiors of those immediately responsible, though cognisant of such acts, take no action to punish them or to prevent their repetition; or that a higher authority, in the face of numerous allegations, manifests indifference by refusing any adequate investigation of their truth or falsity; or that in judicial Proceedings a fair hearing of such complaints is denied. - Greek case, Report, pp. 195- 196. Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention place a number of positive obligations on states designed to prevent, and provide redress for, torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria the Court held that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the police or other agents of the state unlawfully and in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the state’s general duty under Article 1of the Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in…[the] Convention”, requires that there should be an effective official investigation. The investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. So we conclude that the Police are the only real independent organ of state to investigate. Next stop ECHR ….

Effects of Pulsed Microwave Radiation by Velma Lyrae

The research on microwaves for use in cooking was initially done by German scientists in order to feed the army faster than would be possible using the conventional methods. The research was picked by both American and Russian scientists after the war. The latter did research which alarmed them and they prohibited the use of microwaves because of its harmful effects. The controversy continue to present day.

Here is an article by Velma Lyrae on the Effects on Pulsed Microwave Radiation.

Lately I have become an avid listener to LBC Radio. If anyone is not familiar to the programme, the Host gives out the latest discussion topic and people of all walks of life offer differing opinions by telephoning in to bring real conversations to the table.

The latest topic on offer was ADHD - a scientific breakthrough had revealed it was caused by a genetic breakage. Very quickly the phone lines jammed, people ringing in to disagree with the findings, but because I was used to the challenging opinions, I wasn't particularly startled by the response.

I don't have ADHD, so why is this of any interest to me? Well, I'm electrosensitive and because my condition isn't recognized in the UK (much like the position ADHD held), I have spent the past five years trying to find the research for the possible mechanism/link to my symptoms and how it could be damaging my health. Thus because Authorities will not decide on the link, the mechanism, the condition is immediately thrown back, like a fish back to the sea, without even examining it. There's no proof how the fish got onto the line, therefore we don't see the fish, throw it back. So I have been trying for the past 5 years to show them the rod, the bite, to pass on the Anglers' expertise, bringing fishermen to them, but to no avail.

In my attempts at bringing research into the light, I have just finished dissecting the ICNIRP Report - a collection of Scientific tests of effects from mobile signals which revealed amongst other things, DNA breaks and effects on gene expression. So when the subject of gene breakage came up both in the mobile tests and with ADHD, my antennae went up. I followed this up by an online search for ADHD and mobiles......and there is was...sitting there, like a shiny sparkly jewel “ADHD connected to mobile phones”. The Author? Sanjay Gupta, Neurosurgeon, Chief Medical Officer. In fact held in such high esteem, Barrack Obama offered him the position of Surgeon General. What higher credentials can you reach?

So later that day when I struck up a conversation with a lady in Sainsbury's, and the talk turned to the latest headline of ADHD, I couldn't wait to share my newly found jewel with her. Mr Gupta's opinion, a Neurosurgeon no less “oh no” she said “I just think they're lazy”. I had to check myself, I thought she had misheard, so I proffered again, a Chief Medical Officer, he's a Brain Surgeon I said earnestly “oh no” she insisted “I don't believe that, they're just lazy”. I was floored. So what just happened there? I mean what can you say to a person who clings so doggedly to an opinion that clearly has no substance. I pictured a juror who has the evidence before them, they could choose to hear the Chief Medical Officer's opinion, Neurological experience, qualifications, intelligence, or their own “Mary Fairy” opinion, with no experience of brain surgery, no qualifications of the sort. So what is her opinion based on? A stubbornness to cling to a once held belief? Is it a need to dump our infallibilities somewhere else, with someone else. Someone else is lazy, someone else is flawed, not us, not I.

You might ask, why it matters anyway, what Mary Fairy thinks? We've heard the facts you say, we know what's right. Well this is the kind of opposition I encounter everyday as an Electrosensitive. That we Electrosensitives encounter every day, all 1.6 million of us, trying to justify our condition to people and to Government &Health Authorities - to people who should know better, who will not even consider the Scientific evidence, and I struggle like most Electrosensitives to present ever more evidence and after years & years, I am left wondering like my conversation with Mary, what is going on, why we are not being listened to. It seems no amount of Scientific evidence presented to the Government or the Health Authorities is enough. I wonder if it is because like Mary, we cannot get through the first film, the first layer of belief, and so no amount of scientific evidence will ever be enough. The fish that came from the sea cannot be a fish because we cannot see the rod, and no matter how many fish we throw up on shore and how many times we point to the thin translucent strand of the rod, the belief like the sun shining too brightly will block the viewer from seeing what is there before them. Or perhaps it is to inconvenient to see the thread.

What of the point I was making to Mary about ADHD and mobiles, somehow this had become lost. Was it too destructive to the world she had built around her, so that her mind pushed it out? She might have to consider “lazy” might not be located with teenagers. Where will the notion reside now? Who would take the “lazy” crown? If it couldn't be found in the world around her, would it have to be located within, within her, within i. Until this barrier, the film of belief is broken, stripped away, she will not be able to hear the next stage of the argument - the possibility that mobile phones are causing ADHD.

What would it mean if she began to consider this? That the Government are lying, covering up, conspiring with Corporations, to either harm us, kill us, destroy communities or could it be a clever plan to cover up their incompetency or perhaps they are just plain stupid, neglectful and have no regard for our health. Perhaps an experiment gone wrong, now it's out of hand. Her world would come crumbling down.

For Mary's own conscience, I would suspect she would have to confront feelings of guilt, that she had misjudged the children & teenagers with ADHD, it wasn't their fault. She would have to retract her venom, she would have to take the blame, the guilt for wrongly accusing them.

This feeds very nicely into early mobile phone neurolinguistic programming, subliminal messaging, which Mark Thomas revealed Coca Cola used to sell their product. I remember in particular a mobile ad where young man was caught supposedly in the middle of an act, on the bed, box of tissues by his side, you get the picture. In walks the maid and he throws a cover on.....his old outdated mobile phone. By clever association, they had managed to reprogram the psyche, shifting the psyche's Guilt and Shame onto not having the latest mobile phone, all guilt, shame can be lifted if you buy the new model. Who doesn't want to rid themselves of existential shame and guilt? Add to this the concept of 'i' Who doesn't feel the supremacy of I, it is a survival trait, inbuilt. Next in the mix, the concept of “connection” and the bond is cemented. The newly created psyche is further developed with the new generations of technology - Wii - WE, allows for that connection. SMART - who doesn't want to be clever? It's no mistake these names and associations have been picked. Even new Kindle book reminds us of kinder (German for children) and kind, kind children - how can the pulsating microwave radiation from Kind Children be harmful to us? What if we had a new gadget, the same gadget and called it “RADPULSE” would it hold the same appeal?

Does it mean we have been conned? Sold down the river? Frederick Jameson noted that when we buy a product we don't buy it for it's physical qualities, we buy an idea, a concept. We don't buy Coca cola - a brown fizzy phosphorus liquid sold in a bottle, we buy Unity - I want to teach the world to sing, multiculturalism, a free world, happiness, nature.....freedom, spontaneity, Life. We buy a bottle of Life. Kruger explores this notion with her Art. Effectively, with a mobile phone, we have been sold a bomb, slow releasing, wrapped up in novelty, sugary shiny wrapping paper, add on a name we intrinsically know as us, “i” and what's to argue with? What's not to like? Have we been sold down the river? I'm afraid so. But at what point do we hand back the bomb? About turn, about face? Or do we like Mary stick to our guns, our outmoded beliefs that “i” radiation phone must be safe because it's called “I” and “Wii” radiation must be alright because its you and me, us and we need each other, we all need to connect. Of course we do, that's why they sold it to us. You don't need pulsed radiation to connect, Speaking on even just a technological need to connect, there are wires, underground that will do the job perfectly well. Yes, we have been sold down the river, but there's still time to jump out of the boat and swim to shore.

But can we jump ship, cash in the chips? What do we lose when we do this? We will have to retract, take back, renew our beliefs. Well if you believe in Science and have a scientific mind, you do this all the time, you refresh the Truth page with the latest evidence, you accept there is no resting ground for Truth, it is always developing, changing, moving forward to reveal a greater clarity - that is the nature of science. If you don't do this, it becomes fixed - like a Religion, a dogma, never changing, and yet this is what appears to be happening now to our Scientific evidence of electromagnetic frequencies. No sooner does a report come out showing Emfs effect on the human body, mind, the Government brings in an “Expert” to refute it, to say “no, this isn't so, I don't believe that”, throw in a few Newtonian scientific facts of protons and atoms, and bob's your uncle, no layperson has an idea of what is being said. The experts have moved on from Newton to Quantum Physics, so the discussion ends. Our Experts in the field, Andrew Goldsworthy retired lecturer at Imperial College London has not been called in to give his opinion. We have not called in the Experts in other countries, Specialists who have devoted their careers to this area, Olle Johanssen of Karolinska Institute, Magda Havas of Trent University.

As a species, how is our knowledge of Science to develop if we block these discoveries? What if we considered them? If we considered them, would our consciousness shift so that suddenly we would be able to see the thread? The invisible thread. Our Government, our Health Authorities are blocking off the possibility of mankind learning about frequencies, about resonance and what this could mean to us as a human race. Sound (frequencies) often heralded as the key to the entire universe. How many people know about Cymatics Are they really rejecting the model builder's approach upon which many of our Scientific Discoveries have been built upon? Are they blocking any research in this area because it wouldn't benefit them financially, not only that but in the fear this could see the collapse of our financial world built on Mobile Phone revenue? Perhaps resonance could replace the pharmaceutical industry. If we had no mobile revenue it could destroy our financial institutions, media sponsorship and of course there is the infrastructure to pay for. Where would the tax money come from, oh the horror, the horror - first the cigarette tax, now the mobile phone tax. It's no wonder they are fighting so hard not to acknowledge people like us who are affected by these microwave frequencies. But at what price? For me there is no question, Our Human Rights not be experimented upon with these aggressive frequency signals should be the prime concern. For an intelligent society we should make the development of our Scientific understanding, our spiritual evolution, philosophy & wisdom major concerns. For the Government - there is only one concern - money. Oh sorry, two....Power.

For us as individuals, consumers, mobile phone users, do we refuse to budge, convincing ourselves we are “safe” within our “i” radiation phones? Do we stop listening, considering the evidence, like on a desert island, I see no ships, I do not believe in ships. The ship sails away. Do we stop moving forward, refreshing the page, in the midst of our evolution, Do we stop still?

Velma Lyrae