EVE: THE FIRST TO UNDERSTAND. 

 

We all know the story of Adam and Eve. The fall of Adam was all the fault of Eve - she who was beguiled by Lucifer and partook of the forbidden fruit - or was it? Let’s start at the beginning. According to the Bible dictionary, the fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Some may not be aware that before the Fall, that is before Lucifer gave the forbidden fruit to Eve, Adam and Eve had physical bodies, but they had no blood. This meant that there was no sin, no death, and no children. After eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve became mortal, blood formed in their bodies, and death become a part of life. And we mustn’t forget that they were both thrown out of the Garden of Eden into the reality of a harsh world.

So, what about Eve? Adam called her Eve. Eve in Hebrew is ‘khah-Vah’ or ‘khah-Yah’ which means life or living which is appropriate for the Mother of all living. She and Adam were the first mortal parents on Earth. The question did Adam recognize the importance of eating the fruit is a huge one. He was told not to eat the forbidden fruit so was he simply being obedient to his Father? Did the same rule apply to Eve? It probably did, but why did she disobey? God knew what would happen. It was necessary for man’s progression. Not only that, but it was also foreordained before the Fall that there would be a Saviour to atone for the fall of Adam and also for man’s sins. That couldn’t happen if Adam and Eve didn’t eat of the fruit. So is it possible that God knew that in Eve He had the perfect woman to make sure that they could become mortal. In 2 Nephi 2:25 it reads, “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”

Let’s take a closer look at Eve or at least as much as we know about her. In Doctrine and Covenants 138 which is the vision given to President Joseph F. Smith in 1918, it says that he saw (in verse 39), “…. our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshipped the true and living God.”

Were Adam and Eve being tested in the garden of Eden? Well, Adam was told in no uncertain terms that he could do what he liked except eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Interestingly, Adam was told that in Genesis 2:17 and yet Eve did not appear unto verses 21-23 of the same chapter where it said, “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Might that have something to do with how Eve reacted to Lucifer in whatever disguise that he came to her as? Was she given an idea, a prompting or simply had discernment over him inasmuch that she knew what she had to do? The fact that Lucifer was able to even enter the Garden of Eden was obviously a significant part of the plan. Was she influenced because she received some sort of revelation or a prompting on what needed to be done? Was Eve more in tune with the spirit than Adam who was perhaps looking more at the letter of the law? We are not likely to know the truth in this life, and maybe even Lucifer wasn’t aware that he was helping in implementing Gods plan. We can understand that it was Eve’s discernment and even recognising the spirit of the Lord that made her eat that forbidden fruit and then persuaded Adam do likewise. She knew the plan and had to make it happen if she was to become the Mother of all living. Eve was the first to grasp the idea of progression. She understood the reason why she did what she did. Eve was the first to understand. She spiritually knew that she had to eat the fruit. She understood the reasons because maybe she had spiritual vision.

Brigham Young said in one of his discourses that included referencing the influence of women, “It is true that man is first. First Adam was placed here as king of the earth, to bring it into subjection. But when Mother Eve came she had a splendid influence over him. A great many have thought it was not very good; I think it was excellent.”  I think it was excellent too, but I may be a little biased.

Can we delve even deeper into the life of Eve? She was the co-creator of the human race, a nurturer as well as a daughter of God. I am guessing, but I suspect that our Heavenly Mother is very proud of Eve and the tasks that she took hold of with sensitivity and a great spiritual awareness.

Did Eve sin? Yes she did, but was it meant to be? Absolutely. The Fall was a necessary step in God’s plan. Perhaps it was a leap of faith and spirit led rather than an act of rebellion. And maybe there is also a parallel between Eve and Mary. Eve introduced mortality and Mary birthed the Saviour who overcame it. Two beautiful strong women of faith who trusted they were doing the right thing.

I found some quotes from Prophets and Apostles and one from Sheri Dew about Eve. Spencer W Kimball said this: “Eve, so recently from the eternal throne, seemed to understand the way of life, for she was happy - happy! - that they had eaten the forbidden fruit. … Our beloved mother Eve began the human race with gladness, wanting children, glad for the joy that they would bring to her, willing to assume the problems connected with a family, but also the joys.”  Should we as sisters be more like Eve?

President Henry B. Eyring in a 2014 conference address had this to say: “By revelation, Eve recognized the way home to God. She knew that the Atonement of Jesus Christ made eternal life possible in families. She was sure, as you can be, that as she kept her covenants with her Heavenly Father, the Redeemer and the Holy Ghost would see her and her family through whatever sorrows and disappointments would come. She knew she could trust in Them.” I think this is really beautiful as it shows that Eve had faith and spiritual awareness long before and long after the Fall from the Garden of Eden. She must have been a woman of strong character and spiritual depth; she knew what she must do to get back home to God but also how to help her posterity do the same.

In 1987, then Apostle Russell M Nelson said: “Eve came as a partner, to build and to organize the bodies of mortal men. She was designed by Deity to co-create and nurture life, that the great plan of the Father might achieve fruition.”  Eve was a partner, and that is something that is as true today as it was then. A marriage is a partnership, with differing roles but with the same object in mind.

In 1999, President James E Faust had this to say: “We all owe a great debt of gratitude to Eve. In the Garden of Eden, she and Adam were instructed not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, they were also reminded, ‘Thou mayest choose for thyself.’ The choice was really between a continuation of their comfortable existence in Eden, where they would never progress, or a momentous exit into mortality with its opposites: pain, trials, and physical death in contrast to joy, growth, and the potential for eternal life.”  We all have much to be grateful for in Eve and her strong faith. Without it we would not be here. And we mustn’t forget that Eve had many trials with her own  children (think of Cain and Abel) so we should never think that we are hard done by with our families.

In 1993 Elder Dallin H Oaks had this to say: “Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honour her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall.”  We know that Eve did transgress but we also know that it was meant to be. Without her sin, we wouldn’t be here. And the fact that Adam was able to accept that and partake of the forbidden fruit is a testament to him too.

Sheri L Dew said in 2001: “Eve set the pattern. In addition to bearing children, she mothered all of mankind when she made the most courageous decision any woman has ever made and with Adam opened the way for us to progress. She set an example of womanhood for men to respect and women to follow, modelling the characteristics with which we as women have been endowed: heroic faith, a keen sensitivity to the Spirit, an abhorrence of evil, and complete selflessness. Like the Saviour, ‘who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,’ Eve, for the joy of helping initiate the human family, endured the Fall. She loved us enough to help lead us.” Sheri Dew is one of my favourite writers and I love the line, ‘She set an example of womanhood for men to respect and women to follow. Are we still following the example of Eve who set the pattern?

Elder Boyd K Packer said this in 1993: “A choice, it might be said, was imposed upon Eve. She should be praised for her decision.” That decision set in motion our own mortal journeys and Eve was the first to understand how important that would be for all of us.

Jeffrey R Holland said, in a question-and-answer session at Harvard Law School some years ago: “We believe that the creation of a woman was the crowning, and final, and most glorified moment of human creation. That we start with light and dark; and land and sea; and we move through fish and fowl; and beast of the field; and we get to Adam and it’s still not good enough… and only when Eve was created - this is our theology. You say it’s political, but for me it’s theological. That is our theology - that the crowning creation and the glory of the human experience came with the creation of Eve.” We could say that Eve is ‘simply the best’.

As a more modern reflection, what does Eve teach us today? She had agency and she knew that she must use it. She had wisdom because she understood what was being asked of her. And she set the standard for women everywhere. Eve had faith, accountability, spirituality, an understanding of the future of humankind and a love for God. Her story may have been misunderstood by many, but she did what was needed to be done. She stood firm so that we might have joy. Eve empowers women who believe that she was instrumental in making us what we are today.

Eve’s story should resonate with every one of us - and not just women. Heavenly Father knew how important she would be in the plan. In fact, a quote attributed to Matthew Henry a 17^th-century Bible commentator and of which they are several versions, says this: “The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” That for me is what Eve (and Adam) were all about – a partnership and equality. That is what it should still be about. Men and women have very differing roles in terms of marriage and bearing children but there is no difference in our values as children of Heavenly Parents.

I believe God placed a sacred trust in women - not because we are better than men, but because we are different. We are caregivers, nurturers, and often carry a kind of faith that flourishes in the quiet, unseen corners of life. Like Mary, who was called ‘blessed’ because she believed, I think God continues to entrust women with the kind of faith that moves mountains - not loudly, but faithfully.

 

STOP THE WORLD. I STILL WANT TO GET OFF....

I am not sure where I want to start, but perhaps I should simply say 'The world has gone to hell in a handbasket' (apparently the phrase comes from at least the 17th century but doesn't appear to be attributed to anyone) and just make comments on the world as I see it. There will, no doubt, be people who dislike or oppose my views, but these are simply my views, although I do have a sneaky suspicion that with at least some of the remarks I make, others will agree with me.

Most of this pertains exclusively to the UK, but in some instances I have broadened it to include world affairs. I have made a list of the things that I want to address, and they will not be in any order of importance.

Illegal immigrants and homelessness.

Terrorism, antisemitism and protest marches.

Female safety, rights and transgender issues.

Families and teaching children the correct principles. 

Education and the need for change. 

Gangs and knife crime.

The emergency services and the NHS.

Politics, politicians and bureaucratic excesses.

Illegal Immigrants and Homelessness

The growing number of illegal immigrants entering the UK has intensified concerns about resource allocation, especially when many of our own citizens - veterans, the unintentionally homeless, and those struggling with mental illness - are left without adequate support. Governments, past and present, seem to effortlessly find funds to house and feed those who flout immigration laws, yet struggle to provide the same care for those already living on our streets.

To be clear: those seeking asylum legally, and immigrants who arrive through proper channels, are not the issue. The problem lies with unchecked illegal immigration, which raises serious questions about border security and fairness in resource distribution. Every nation must enforce its borders, but it must also ensure that its own citizens are not forgotten in the process. The fact that a large proportion of homeless individuals are veterans - people who have served and sacrificed - speaks to a deeper failure in government priorities.

Another notable trend is the demographics of illegal arrivals, particularly the high number of young men. Understanding the reasons behind this could shape immigration policies and provide insights into global migration patterns that deserve further scrutiny.

Helping others is a noble and necessary principle, but frustration is growing among hard-working citizens who feel their own needs are being overlooked. Many suspect a correlation between illegal immigration and rising crime in certain areas, while others worry about security risks, including the potential for terrorist activities. Regardless of the debate, one thing is clear: the government must strike a better balance between protecting national interests and providing genuine, sustainable solutions for those already struggling within its borders.

Terrorism, Antisemitism, and Protest Marches

Terrorism - whether homegrown or originating abroad - remains one of the most pressing threats to the UK. Since 1982, at least eleven significant attacks have taken place on British soil, with seven carried out by the IRA, Provisional IRA, or Real IRA. Across the world, we’ve seen a disturbing rise in vehicle-based attacks, where cars and larger vehicles are used as deadly weapons, indiscriminately ploughing into victims. While not all such incidents are linked to Islamic extremism, the alarming trend underscores the evolving nature of modern terrorism.

Equally concerning is the way mass movements form - sometimes with little scrutiny of their deeper implications. The phenomenon of following like sheep has become increasingly evident, as individuals across all demographics rally behind causes that would have been inconceivable fifty years ago. Greta Thunberg, once synonymous with climate activism, now protests in support of Palestinians in Gaza - perhaps, one might argue, to retain relevance now that climate change is temporarily out of the spotlight.

The conflict in Gaza has become a rallying point for many, but among the loudest voices are those calling for intifada - an uprising - accompanied by disturbingly blatant antisemitism. The irony is stark: LGBTQ+ groups advocating for the destruction of Israel fail to acknowledge that many Arab nations they defend would never accept them, given that homosexuality is condemned as a major sin in Islamic teachings. Meanwhile, Israel itself remains one of the few places in the region where people of all ethnicities, religions, and orientations - including Arabs and Druze - coexist with relative freedom.

Since 7th October 2023, Jewish communities worldwide have faced a surge in hatred, despite the innumerable contributions they’ve made to society. Without them, we wouldn’t have lasers, pacemakers, defibrillators, stainless steel, Einstein’s theory of relativity, the polio vaccine, or even Google - all inventions and discoveries shaped by Jewish minds. And yet, they remain marginalised, as both a people and a nation. What fuels this animosity? Their work ethic? Their thirst for knowledge? Their ability to make deserts flourish? Perhaps it is precisely because of their resilience that resentment festers instead of admiration.

Yet antisemitism is not the only form of discrimination running rampant. Another group is increasingly singled out - not for their beliefs, but simply for being female.

Female Safety, Rights, and Transgender Issues

Women have fought long and hard for rights that men have historically taken for granted. Landmark victories include the right to vote for all adult women in 1928 (after a decade of restricted voting for those over 30), the Equal Pay Act (1970), the Sex Discrimination Act (1975), Margaret Thatcher becoming the first female Prime Minister (1979), marital rape being recognised as a crime (1991), and the Domestic Abuse Bill (2015).

While these achievements are significant, coercion and abuse against women remain prevalent. Warning signs of abusive behaviour include jealousy, possessiveness, verbal and emotional manipulation, physical violence, financial control, sexual coercion, blaming others, explosive anger, and minimising abuse. Not every man is an abuser, and not every abuser is a man - but statistics show that the majority of domestic abuse is committed by men against women. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, nearly one in ten sexual assaults occurring in public spaces involve perpetrators with no prior connection to their victims.

This raises an important question: why do some men feel the need to assert dominance over women through abuse? Traditionally seen as providers, some men may struggle with shifting societal dynamics as women gain confidence and financial independence. However, that discomfort does not grant the right to exert control or aggression.

Throughout history, many have accepted the fundamental biological distinctions between men and women, as illustrated by the story of Adam and Eve, where both were created to fulfil the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. However, alongside this traditional understanding of gender, society now includes friends, neighbours, and colleagues who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, including transgender individuals - those whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex at birth.

The conversation around gender identity has intensified in recent years. While the term "transgender" has existed since the 1960s, its prominence surged around 2017. With this rise, concerns have been raised over how women’s rights and spaces are affected, particularly in sports, privacy, and leadership roles in essential services.

A landmark Supreme Court ruling in April 2025 clarified biological sex in relation to the Equality Act of 2010, affirming women’s right to maintain single-sex spaces. The ruling sparked intense debate. A potential path forward could be the recognition of three distinct categories - male, female, and transgender - across various sectors of society. Much like the introduction of baby changing stations to accommodate a need, separate facilities for transgender individuals in toilets and changing rooms could be considered. Similarly, sports competitions could explore separate categories to balance inclusion with fairness.

This remains a sensitive, evolving issue - one that demands a balance of rights, respect, and empathy. Women’s concerns over personal safety and fairness must be heard, while transgender individuals also deserve dignity and inclusion. Finding solutions that promote respect for all is crucial. Progress begins with understanding - and with a genuine commitment to fairness, not division.

While the debate will undoubtedly continue for years, family support and compassion from all sides remain essential in ensuring that everyone feels valued and safe.

Gangs and Knife Crime

Although gangs are predominantly made up of boys, girls are not immune to gang culture. Some exhibit intimidating or even violent behaviour, while others find themselves on the periphery of male-dominated gangs, gaining a sense of status by association. However, for this discussion, the focus is on boys.

Peer pressure is pervasive, but few environments foster it more aggressively than youth culture itself. Bullying, a challenge that has existed for centuries - as evidenced in Tom Brown’s Schooldays (published in 1857) - is often just the tip of the iceberg in the path toward gang involvement.

Some boys gravitate toward gangs as a means of protection, belonging, or survival, while others are drawn in through loyalty, fear, or the belief that it is their only option. Regardless of the motivation, the stark reality remains: the idea that children feel forced to choose gang life simply to survive is deeply disturbing.

Peer dynamics play a defining role in decision-making, risk-taking, and identity formation—it is precisely this pressure that compels teenagers to carry knives, to believe that gang membership grants them status, and to participate in initiation rituals, all while knowing that taking a life may one day be expected. While gang activity is most prevalent in major towns, cities, and larger housing estates, smaller school-based gangs can be equally effective in intimidation, rivalry, and weapon-carrying, reinforcing the same dangerous patterns.

The long-term consequences of gang involvement are severe. Legal repercussions often lead to young offender institutions or prison sentences, trapping boys in a cycle of crime. Addiction frequently compounds these struggles, making adulthood even more challenging. PTSD does not discriminate by age - gang members, whether perpetrators or victims, may carry trauma for the rest of their lives, impacting their home, family, and work relationships.

The tragic reality is that gang involvement often leads not only to violence but to broken futures. With limited guidance and few alternatives, many boys see no other path forward. But intervention is possible.

Not every teenager is lost to gang culture - with the right opportunities, those drawn into this lifestyle can be shown a different path. The decreasing number of youth clubs has left many teenagers without structured activities or positive role models, but armed forces cadet groups provide a compelling alternative.

Across the country, these organisations offer adventure, discipline, and skill-building, focusing on confidence, teamwork, leadership, and resilience - even providing qualifications such as BTEC Diplomas or Duke of Edinburgh Awards. If initiatives like these were expanded and prioritised within schools and communities, they could offer the structured purpose that gangs falsely promise. Perhaps a greater push is needed to ensure these opportunities reach the young people who need them most.

As gang-related crime and violence surge across many parts of the country, the strain on emergency services and the NHS intensifies - with diminishing resources, growing demand, reduced funding, and declining staff numbers.

The Emergency Services and The NHS

Before addressing funding and political issues, we must first offer a huge THANK YOU to the individuals who keep these services running, often at great personal cost to their own wellbeing. The NHS performed phenomenally during the Covid pandemic and lockdown, while the police, fire, and ambulance services worked tirelessly amid accidents, fires, and medical emergencies - often arriving at the worst moments of people's lives. And, crucially, they still do.

The police force is among the most criticised emergency services - damned if they act, damned if they hold back. Armchair critics, the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct), and even the government frequently condemn their approach: too lenient, too oppressive, too heavy-handed, or simply absent when needed most. What often goes unrecognised is the immense burden placed upon them - not only patrolling streets but drowning in paperwork after every case.

It seems absurd that officers, many retiring at 50 or after thirty years of service, leave with a wealth of experience that could be invaluable. Rather than losing them entirely, why not transition them into back-office roles? Their expertise could ease the administrative load, freeing up active officers to focus on protecting communities and catching criminals. These retired officers could also serve as mentors, offering timeless wisdom, practical solutions, and a compassionate ear to both new and veteran frontline officers.

The ambulance service, too, faces an uphill battle - committed to helping others but continually strangled by funding restraints. Patients endure painfully long waits, as control personnel must make rapid, life-or-death decisions about who is most at risk. With limited resources, ambulances are often diverted from less urgent cases, leaving many in distress for hours before help arrives.

The fire service has faced similar cuts and resource shortages, leading union officials to warn that further reductions could directly impact public safety. With budgets shrinking, firefighters are expected to do more with less, much like their counterparts in the police and ambulance services.

And then, of course, there is the NHS - arguably the best healthcare system in the world yet increasingly pushed to breaking point. Doctors and nurses, overwhelmed by crippling workloads, are fleeing to the private sector, seeking relief from the unrelenting pressures of the system.

Despite these urgent financial strains, funding continues to flow into EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) roles, with salaries exceeding £100,000 per year. While EDI measures serve a purpose, many argue that such high salaries are excessive, especially when essential services are underfunded. This debate often revolves around whether these roles drive meaningful progress or contribute to bureaucratic excess.

There is little doubt that extra funding is needed for the emergency services and the NHS - yet the conversation is continually hindered by political posturing, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and inflated MP salaries.

Politics, Politicians, and Bureaucratic Excesses

MPs’ expenses and salaries have long been a point of contention, particularly when compared to the funding struggles faced by essential services. For context, as of April 2024, the annual salary of an MP rose by 5.5% to £91,346, with a further 2.8% increase planned for 2025, bringing it to £93,904.

Beyond their salaries, MPs can claim expenses for staffing, travel, accommodation, and office costs—amounting to £127.6 million in 2020. In contrast, frontline workers faced a hard-fought battle for pay increases:

• Police officers and firefighters received a 7% increase in 2023, though firefighters’ raise dropped to 5% in 2024 (no confirmed data for police salaries in 2024).
• NHS and ambulance workers secured a 5.5% pay award in 2024, only after significant pushback from the government’s initial stance of “We can’t afford to give you more” before eventually conceding.

When placed in context, these numbers highlight an uncomfortable disparity: while politicians secure steady pay rises without resistance, those who risk their lives, protect communities, and save lives must fight for every percentage point.

I hope you’ve found my sojourn into these issues insightful—an exploration of the realities we all face, shaped by interactions with friends, neighbours, colleagues, and even strangers. We feel pain, sorrow, and grief at the pointless waste of lives, broken and scarred by forces beyond individual control.

As I close this piece, I realise my stance has not shifted from its original premise:

Stop the world, I still want to get off!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has been several years since I last wrote a blog. A lot (actually not that much, but still) has happened in that time and once I get this one out into the world, I will consider writing and telling you all about it.

 I wrote this medium sized piece on request, and although I profess to know nothing about politics, came up with this (see below for link.)

I expect that it may cause division, derision or 'other', but I thought I would test it on here, just to see if anyone reads it and comments.

It is simply my view and some of it may be contested but I tried my best to get it right.

Hopefully the link will open and I am sure that someone will tell me if it doesn't.

Religious faith in modern society both in culture and politics.odt

Happy Reading.... or not.

Susan 

PUZZLING QUESTIONS AND SIMPLE ANSWERS - OR NOT.....

I haven't written for a while for lots of reasons, but I now feel ready to take myself in hand and write. So, I want to talk about Occam's Razor. Here is a small chunk of the Wikipedia entry about this:

"Occam's razor, Ockham's razor,  also known as the law of parsimony  is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. The idea is frequently attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham." 

For those of us who don't know what parsimony means, here is the dictionary definition: "extreme unwillingness to spend money or use resources". I always think of Scrooge, a classic example of parsimony. 

The theory of Occam's Razor is that the simplest idea is often the best.  And I have to agree. I'm not sure how many of us know the definition of a Quango; it is a British derogatory term for an organisation that the government has devolved power, but it still has its fingers in the pie and it is generally well known that Quangos cost the British tax payer a lot of money. The British Government do seem to spend lots of money on the theory that they must have a committee to decide something which most people would be able to see with their eyes shut. 

Let us consider a few examples of the government paying out lots of money for some things and yet others services get cut. The police, the NHS and the armed forces are prime examples of cuts that seem to have come back and bit them (I'm not going to mention where). 

The police have seen more and more cutbacks and yet all criminality appears to be getting worse. The government expects the police to continue reducing the crime figures without thinking about how they are going to achieve it.  I know that police officers can retire at fifty or after thirty years service and they get a fairly good pension. I understand that one wouldn't really want to be on the front line after thirty years but rather than having them retire (when the rest of us have to wait until 65+), couldn't they help take the load off by taking over some of the paperwork that most officers seem to complain about the most? Doesn't seem too much like rocket science to me, although I concede that I don't know what the paperwork actually is about, so it might not be that simple. However, to quote an example, a police officer retires at fifty, has a couple of weeks off and then returns to became a trainer when they could have stayed on and just gone into the other role. I understand that this example isn't unique to the police, but to me that is just wrong and I guess that certainly some want to stay on (and if I have to work more than thirty years to reach the state pension age, why can't the police?) Please don't misunderstand me here; I support the police but there isn't a lot of reasoning for retiring early). I know that Banks made people redundant and then re-employed them at a later date and it's a win win for the employee but not so good for the employer; I would also say that all workplaces are trying to make savings but, to just throw it out there, is it the consumer or the shareholders/people or the government that they are doing it for?

The NHS has had to make cutback after cutback and then the COVID pandemic hit and the NHS were (to coin a phrase) snookered. There wasn't enough beds, doctors, nurses or equipment to go round. I know what you are going to say - the government can't afford to have enough for a one off emergency situation, but really, they have cut back services so much that there have been long waits for treatment and staff shortages even pre pandemic. 

In my opinion, both the police and the NHS have too may administrators and not enough people on the front lines.

Moving on, the armed forces have been diminished over time so there is very little left in terms of numbers and equipment - and what happens? Along comes the war in Ukraine and we are starting to feel a little jittery. 

We cannot cut services to the police, NHS and the armed forces merely because we are trying to balance the books.  The Government robs Peter to pay Paul and maybe it's time to think about how it can do better. Honestly, if I knew the answer to that I would probably be very rich. But what can be done? 

The Government cannot rely on the goodwill of the employees when time and time again they have been denied a decent pay rise, expected to work under intense conditions and then expected to be okay about it because they are in a job that requires a person who wants to help others.

If Occam's Razor theory exists, then surely we can come up with ways to reduce admin (in terms of staff and the paperwork) in both the police and NHS and thus save money for more useful purposes, and to accept that we do need armed forces that are enough to repel any invaders to these hallowed shores and beyond (maybe they are thinking of resurrecting the Home Guard should that day ever become a reality). Maybe we can think outside the box and think of ways of getting suspected criminals in front of a court sooner and punishing them with something that is appropriate for the alleged offence and hurts (figuratively speaking) the offender.  I read somewhere that if the police caught more criminals, the CPS and courts/gaols wouldn't be able to cope. If that is the case then more realistic proposals need to be forthcoming. 

Sometimes the main reason for things not working to the best of its ability is that good old common sense seems to have disappeared from most people in power. Trying to get Ukrainian refugees into this country is an ordeal for even those who know how to fill out the forms and is a classic example of the idiocy and bureaucracy of this government (not that it would be any different if another party was in power) when a couple of pages of simple questions would get them into the country and allow the goodness of others to help heal broken hearts, minds and bodies.  I think the trouble lies in that most in administration i.e. those that actually make the policies and rules, cannot see outside the box and say things can only be done one way. There is always another way if one is prepared to look for it. And often that way is better, cheaper and performs just as well.

A little disjointed as per the usual with me as I write as I think which is probably not the best way to do it. 

I'm happy for you to comment, but please be kind as my ego is easily shattered by harsh words.  

THE FAIRY TALE THAT TURNED INTO A HORROR STORY.

Once upon a time we lived in a land of peace (apart from the wars and rumours of wars) and plenty (well unless you count the times when harvests were lost and then we would starve). We worked hard on the smallholdings and farms for our livelihoods and bartered for what we needed. Life was good but hard. There came a time when we found better ways to do things and so along came the industries that made labour saving devices which ruined the home industries that had been used for centuries. Some of us thrived and others lost everything, but that is the way with a world that must continue to adapt or die. Life went on but as industry grew, the world decreed that more land was needed for factories and so those of us who lived on the land that belonged to no one, lost everything. 

Fast forward to the 21st Century and we have to decide if anything has changed.  People are still selling off their land (mostly their gardens), technology is replacing industries and infrastructure probably faster than we can keep up with it, and someone is making a great deal of money out of gullible people replacing their iPhone with the latest one simply because it is the latest model (and as much to do with keeping up with the Jones ethos too).

Education wasn't much for the poor even in the 20th century and yet, still, the poorest countries have to choose between education and the need to keep the family fed. Worse, we now have countries turned over to those who believe that women are subservient, of no value except to keep house.

This country has as many challenges as those who are considered third world, but in different ways. We've heard so much in the news about women who have been murdered because they walked alone.  For crying out loud, women shouldn't have to walk in groups, not walk at all or have chaperones to keep them safe. Of course, if I said that women should be protected by men, there would be outrage from both sexes. Men are not all meant to be Tarzan just as much as women are not all meant to be like Jane. There are men who have the gentlest natures, those who are physically not macho material, or those who are scared. And there are women who know how to look after themselves through training or jobs or just have no fear. We cannot tar all men with the same brush, as much as we, as women, might want men to protect us, there is ample evidence to know that some men are not on the same page (and a lot of women too). Chivalry is almost dead, whilst loutish behaviour is considered almost expected.

We have a wonderful police service who do their best to keep us safe from harm and yet there are others who deem it their job to dispute  and try to destroy the image of hardworking men and women. The trouble is that it's not just the media (all aspects of it) but those who should know better.

We have a great National Health Service that has been overwhelmed since Covid 19 and yet is still expected to carry on.

In my opinion, both these workforces deserve a decent pay rise and more staff. One cannot keep cutting back and expecting the same results. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. We need more police officers on the beat and more nurses on the wards. Simple! If only it was though.

If this wasn't enough we are finding that more and more people are committing suicide. The anxieties that some find too much to live with are coming more and more to the fore. Are we not looking out for each other? Are we too busy to see someone falling? Are they too scared to show their emotions and pretend everything is fine? Do men especially, believe that it's not the done thing to show a sign of weakness? And it is us women who perpetuate that myth? 

Our fairy tale start has ended up as the horror story which we know will only get worse. There is a slightly happier ending though, if we are brave enough to take it.

We must, now more than ever, look for the blessings of life rather than dwell on the horrible, negative, derogatory things that we see, hear and read. We must do lots of little things that make the world a better place, and eventually the good will become the news of the day rather than the depressing stories that the media thrives so much on.

Good will prevail. It might take a while. As the saying goes, God can move mountains for you but don't be surprised if he hands you a shovel.

JUST A MISHMASH OF THOUGHTS.

I sometimes wonder what goes on in my head, it's full of useless information (but rather handy for quizzes) and things read that I have a differing opinion about. I often scribble a note to myself that I ought to write about the latter and then I end up with a cornucopia (depending upon your views) of mis-matched ideas that have no cohesion other than usually ending up in a blog post. So here goes.

I read somewhere that some green activists wants us all to go vegan because cows are producing too much methane. It makes an interesting proposal, but I want to know how they will accomplish this feat. First, are they going to kill them all off? Animal Rights folk would quite rightly be up in arms about this proposal. Animals are sentient beings inasmuch they know pain,  fear and love, so as such, it would be considered by many as being murder on a grand scale. Second, unless the whole world does this culling, the death of the animals would be more meaningless than it already would be. Should I mention that the cow is considered sacred in India, so I'm sure they would not like the proposal. Going off on a tangent...

Let's talk about carbon footprints for a minute (or more; I'm not a fan of any social media saying, "two minute read" and then it takes you twice as long). I am all for reducing my own carbon footprint; indeed, I turn off unnecessary lights, I no longer have a car (nothing to do with my carbon footprint, more to do with my lack of coordination, but hey it sounds good when I say I gave up my car!), I walk to as many places I can when I am fit enough (basically I can't justify the exorbitant bus fares charged to go half a mile along the road and my free bus pass is a way off yet), I recycle as much as I can to reduce my landfill rubbish (although I think most of mine goes to an incinerator), I buy organic when I can to reduce the pollution of both air and ground, I send things to the charity shop or upcycle (not very good at that as creative ability is not one of my strong suits) and try my best to be as economic as possible in whatever I am doing. I'm sure we all do our best which may only be a little bit, but in the big scheme of things, adds up to a lot. 

I'm not a fan of Greta Thunberg. When she gave her speech to the United Nations in 2018 she travelled by sea to reduce her carbon footprint but she could have just as well filmed her talk and stayed at home. She seems to be doing a lot of travelling for one who says that we (the older generations) are ruining the planet. Her "How Dare You"  speech led to a lot of hype, but I'm not convinced. (See her talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMrtLsQbaok) I agree that the planet is being systematically plundered and ravaged. I agree that we should do more. But, and it's a big but, it's not going to happen overnight; there will always be money hungry people who care not for anything other than lining their own pockets, and Greta's generation and generations to come will all be the same. Until we find morality and ethics, love and kindness, we are doomed (so says Private Frazer to those in the know).

I have another soapbox that I would like to share with you. In England, and the big cities in particular although nowhere is exempt, there is a lot of knife and gun crime amongst young people. We need to train the parents so they can teach their children. Children will always rebel against their parents (it's a thing) but to what extent depends entirely on the parents. I concede that parenting is a bit like Goldilocks - too much, not enough and just right, but we have to start somewhere. It's not going to be a quick fix. Education plays it's part too; the children need lessons in humanities and examples to show the repercussions of e.g., knife crime, bullying, peer pressure, which would certainly be a better education than trigonometry.

I would like to see more physical training done in schools - think National Service (peacetime military conscription) without the service (I wouldn't want some of the kids these days in the armed forces!). Not just P.E. but real hard line stuff that makes you wish you were never born (okay, maybe I've just watched too many documentaries). There are e.g., boxing clubs which do a sterling job of keeping children off the streets and they instil the discipline that life requires, but they are not part of the school curriculum and  to my mind, this type of hard work should be included (and run by military or ex military) during school hours. That would certainly give all children a sense of pride in who they are and purpose for life ahead. Of course, for any of this to work, we need to get the children going to school in the first place. Correct discipline never hurt anyone.

Another change of subject. Reaching targets in the workplace. This is one of my pet hates and I've possibly discussed it before although it might not have been on this platform. I understand targets. I do. I just don't understand why they are so important. In the bank where I used to work, we had sales targets. It didn't matter if the cashiers couldn't cash up properly and correctly at the end of the day, all the bosses wanted was to sell people mortgages, insurance and fee paying accounts. They didn't want the sole customers who struggled with budgets or the savers who didn't have much to save. They turned from a people's bank to a business bank without a jot of sympathy for those who didn't have money but needed a bank account. They also didn't care about their staff either. We were told we had to sell or we wouldn't get a bonus. That was hardly a threat but nevertheless that was the carrot and stick philosophy they used - or worse. When I took the offered package of redundancy, I had to work six months notice.  I hated selling and said that I would do my best but I wasn't going to talk to every customer that I knew about flogging them a product that they didn't need. I was told by my area manager that if I didn't sell, she would sack me and I wouldn't get my redundancy package. Talk about bullying at its finest. Funnily enough, I didn't sell and she didn't sack me.  Businesses work best when you have a team that are good all rounders but specialise in just one or two things. I couldn't sell but I did try to spot some opportunities; I could however, count money and get through queues quicker than many, and still be correct to the penny at the end of the day, as well as balancing the branch cash book and money. The lady who was the sales person, couldn't get a till right if she tried. We all had different strengths and if we had all pulled together instead of being forced to do something that we couldn't, we would have reached our targets without the angst and had a much better working environment. I always said that if I wanted to be a seller, I would have gone to work in Woolworths although that really wasn't a good analogy.

I think that now I've written all this down, I feel better. Not only that but it quite late in the evening and I should really be thinking about getting to bed. 

Maybe my next blog with be full of uplifting stories and anecdotes, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Thank you for reading this; I will never be a blogger sensation, but I'm happy if just a few people read my blog posts. 

Please be kind; I'd rather you do not comment at all if you are going to say something horrible.

Until the next time. Take good care of yourself and have a fantastic day - and the next one, ad infinitum, until I finally get round to writing another post.

What We Can All Learn From A Murder

I wasn't sure if I was going to write about this, but the more I thought about it, the more I felt the need to put my feelings into words. It may not be easy reading for some, and there will be dissenters as well as those that agree. I'm not writing from any particular angle, and it is only my opinion.

Let me set the scene for friends and others who are in not living this side of the pond or haven't seen the news.

Sarah Everard was walking home from Clapham (in London) to Brixton  (not very far as the crow flies) on Wednesday 3rd March. She had been talking on her phone, the conversation finishing just before 9.30 pm. After that she vanished. A serving police officer was arrested the following Tuesday on suspicion of kidnap and further arrested on suspicion of murder. Sarah's body was found in a woodland in Kent.

That news alone is tragic, and the idea that someone who is meant to protect and serve the public could be capable of murder (we must remember that he is innocent until proven guilty or pleads guilty in a Court of Law), has sent shock waves through not only the Metropolitan Police but what looks like the entire country.  Unfortunately, many have joined a bandwagon that is spiralling out of control.

Politicians are demanding all sorts of things. Members of the public are demanding changes.  People out for trouble are doing their best to stir things up. Much of all this is demanding that the streets are made safer for women so they are not afraid to go out alone in the dark. 

A vigil was held which was hijacked by people with their own agenda.  Some people brought spray paint to the vigil and used it to scrawl graffiti. Who would do that? Some people wore balaclavas to the vigil. Who would do that? Some chanted at the vigil to the police (who were in attendance because we are still following the laws of lockdown and gatherings etc.) that "All coppers are b******* (also seen as ACAB or 1312). Who would do that? Words fail me at the animosity that some have for the police. Damned if they do and damned if they don't. On the back of this confrontation, one of the other emergency services union called out the police on social media saying they utterly condemned the violence meted out by the police.  Jumping on the band wagon and stabbing your fellow emergency responders in the back all in one social media post takes some gumption.  Fortunately someone deleted it but not before it had been seen and as everyone knows, mud sticks.

I am in no way denigrating the horror, sadness and fear that Sarah's murder has caused, but we have to stand back and not make knee jerk reactions.  Having a curfew for men was one. The latest is having undercover police officers in pubs and clubs to help protect women. What is either of these going to prove? As we have seen during the lockdowns over the last year, domestic abuse has risen alarmingly; if we force men into hiding (so to speak) are we simply allowing other women be at risk of harm or worse? Others closer to home - literally? 

Two things come to mind and I may well be vilified for at least one, but as we all know, there are two sides to every coin.  Whilst I agree that we do need to make the streets safer, we need to make them safer for all, not just women. Women don't have the monopoly over fear. If you ask me what can we do, I have no idea other than to give more money to the police in order for us to feel safer outside. Having said that, there has always been violence (let's start with Cain and Abel) and there probably always will be, but we also have the responsibility to take care of ourselves as well.  It never ceases to amaze me that people go out with a phone attached to their ear or their eyes glued to the screen. They are certainly not aware of their surroundings and the same principle applies when they have headphones on. (This is not a reflection on Sarah who was on her phone shortly before her abduction.) The question as to whether females should dress modestly has always been a contentious issue. It could be said that they are encouraging males by being provocative. Of course this then begs the question, if women rarely have the desire to  want to assault, sexually or otherwise, a person of the opposite sex simply because he is drunk or bare chested, then why can't males be the same? Is men's genetic makeup different from women's in the way their minds work? Females of any age can say they "really fancy him" without doing anything about it, whereas men feel that they have to be macho or assume that females "want it". No matter what my personal views are, the way females dress should bear no relation to being an easy target for males. Alcohol has often played a part in the behaviour of both young and old, male or female.  I know lots of people who are non drinkers and who can have fantastic times out with friends without waking up to vomit stained clothing, scraped knees and a massive hangover.

The question we must ask is do we need to start with the parents to ensure that all are safe on the street - whatever time of day or night, or should we be leaving it to teachers to make sure that all children know about respect and values? Or do we simply stand back and do nothing?

The choices that are made now need to be realistic and not outlandish. Those in positions of power need to ask the right questions and offer support and not demand answers. Those jumping on the bandwagon need to stand down unless they can positively help and those wanting their five minutes of fame should keep quiet and go home.

One last thing on the subject of murder. There has been a huge outpouring of grief for Sarah but in doing so it is doing a huge disservice and dishonour to all those who have died at the hands of another, and the families that are left behind to pick up the pieces.