GOD VERSUS MAMON ?

While the Pope, in his Radio 4 talk and again in his Christmas Eve message in Rome, talked of the need to find God and asked people to pray for peace, the Archbishop of Canterbury apparently intends to talk about the rich not bearing their 'fair share' of economic woe.

As an atheist, the words of neither befrocked man carry any weight with me, however, the difference between the two messages is striking. One has given an overtly religious message while the other will give an overtly political one.

This will not be the first time that the bewhiskered man from Canterbury has strayed well beyond his realm. His pronouncements on all things political, and always from a socialist viewpoint, have become commonplace and are unwelcome. It is high time that this cleric was slapped down, and returned to his appointed role as leader of the Church of England, not his self-appointed one as the Nation's left-wing conscience.

If I was a Christian, I'd want to be in a church that talked of religion and not politics. The choice for those many Church of England waverers has become so much clearer this Christmas.

POETIC SOAP.

The post of Poet Laureate used to be one of high honour and not a little solemnity. Today I see that the current incumbent, someone called Carol Ann Duffy of whom few will ever have heard, has written a poem for Coronation Street's 50th anniversary.

What on earth does this say for our modern society ?

'FLU' PANDEMONIUM.

All of a sudden, the news is full of stories about 'flu'. If we are to believe the headlines, people are falling ill in their thousands and many are very sick and even dying.

Reading the details under the headlines gives a different take on the story. Apparently, the number of cases is very much in line with expectations and there is no special 'killer' strain around this year. In other words, there is no need to panic. Every year, many people suffer from 'flu and between 3,000 and 4,000 may die; this is usual and those who suffer worst are mostly people with other underlying conditions that render them more vulnerable.

Of course we should not just accept this, but neither should the media be creating a story that doesn't exist. Perhaps it is no coincidence that there is very little else to report on at the moment.

KILLER DOGS ON THE LOOSE.

A little while ago, I wrote that I believed the keeping of pets was wrong; I also pointed out that some pets, particularly dogs, could be dangerous.

I read in today's news that a woman has died in south London after being attacked by a dog. The dog was later shot by armed police, but will we never learn until it is too late ? All dogs bite, the bigger the dog, generally the harder and more destructive the bite; add to this their claws and you have effective killing machines, which is what they are designed to be.

If the death had been caused by a pet leopard or lion, even a pet snake, there would be uproar, but it was a dog. Darling little thing, it must have been provoked; it was the owner's fault or someone was nasty to it.

Balderdash. It was a dog, and dogs can kill.

WEATHER

The weather we are experiencing currently is unusual by any standards. Snow and cold are not unknown in this country but, in my lifetime, cold of the degree now being visited upon us has not occurred in December, as far as I recall.

That the cold spell has lasted for most of the month, admittedly with a minor respite for a week or so, and is now expected to continue for at least the next week, will quite probably make this one of the coldest Decembers on record. I see that the temperature in Oxford was -17°C at 9:00pm this evening, surely a reading to chill the warmest heart.

Is this simply a meteorological aberration or is it the start of some more long term pattern ? Only time will tell and, in the mean time, we will have to wrap up warm.

CRABBIES

Who's seen the advert for Crabbie's something or other ? Heaven alone knows what the product is but what about the girl ?

She's absolutely gorgeous ! Where's the Fan Club ?

ARE OUR SERVICEMEN REALLY ALL HEROES ?

It seems to be a currently accepted principle that all of our servicemen are heroes; this is rubbish. My dictionary defines a hero as "a man distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility etc." or "a man who is idealized for possessing superior qualities in any field".

Our modern day services are entirely voluntary, no one is conscripted. The young men and women who join the Army, Navy or Air Force do so of their own free will and are paid for doing a job, as are many others. Few, if any, of these people join the forces with the expectation of doing extraordinary things and most are never called on to do so. That some have recently been employed on active duty in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan is irrelevant.

This is not to say that some of those who chose to enlist have not been called upon to serve in a more active capacity than they might have expected. That some of these have performed heroically cannot be denied, but the majority have simply done the job they signed up for. It is not a job that others may be attracted to but they are not heroes and to try to designate them as such is to denigrate true heroes. Simply being injured or, even, killed on active service does not make anyone a hero - these individuals are doing a job, admittedly a potentially dangerous one, under orders, no more, no less.

I do not belittle the efforts of our service personnel and I am a firm supporter of them, however, I am daily annoyed by the rubbish that is spoken. By all means, praise and publicise the brave and heroic acts of those who deserve it, but do not fall into a habit of believing that anyone who dons a service uniform is, automatically, a hero - they are not and the proposition that they are is ridiculous.

KEEPING PETS IS WRONG

People keep pets but no one seems to ask why or if it is in anyones' best interest; by 'anyones'' I include the pets.

Personally, I do not believe that we should keep pets. I think it is an abominable way to treat otherwise wild animals and is akin to child abuse. At the same time, I don't expect many people, most of whom have cats, dogs, mice, canaries, goldfish and so on, to agree with me. These people are devoted to their pets and will do almost anything for them. They are content to spend huge sums of money on these animals, for special food, collars, vets' bills, burials and heaven alone knows what else. While we commit vast resources to pets, we are daily confronted by stories and pictures of children starving in a variety of places around the world; where is our moral compass ?

Many small animals that are kept as pets are so small as to be almost inconsequential; this, in no way, excuses our abuse of these creatures, keeping them in cages of various sorts as we do. One wonders what the average caged hamster thinks of its life.

Larger animals, principally cats and dogs, are a much more significant problem. These animals are now such an insidious part of our society that we never give any thought to them; they are simply 'there' and something for the children to play with. The reality is that these animals are the conveyors of an assortment of diseases and their general habits are, by human standards, disgusting. If I tried sniffing the bottom of someone I'd bumped into in a pub, I'd most likely be beaten up and, quite possibly, arrested; a dog is, however, not only allowed to do such a thing but is then encouraged to lick the face of its owner thereafter.

Dogs and cats mess everywhere; they are potentially vicious and dangerous. As animals, their place is outdoors, fending for themselves, not indoors being provided with all the comforts of  human existence. Animals should be seen in their natural environments, not treated as some sort of human adjunct or fashion accessory. Keeping Pets Is Wrong.

WITHER TELEVISION ?

Once upon a time, in a far distant age a man with a rather unusual name invented something which we call television. He was, of course, John Logie Baird and, although his original system is not what we now use, it is his name that has become associated with the invention.

Television used to be a source of genuine entertainment and education. It was restricted in its hours of output and radio continued to have a large audience, attracted by the magic of imagination. Over the years, we have seen a proliferation of television channels, mostly funded by advertising, and an enormous decline in the quality of its output. The adverts are now far more important than the programmes which they support.

It used to be that the output from the BBC could be relied upon to be of a better standard than that of the commercial channels, but no more. Taking a look at the schedules for any week is a depressing activity; programmes begin at 6:00am and continue until the early hours of the following morning and yet most of them are repeats of old children's programmes, shows about antiques or doing up houses, etc etc. This diet of stale drivel is punctuated by news broadcasts that are generally the same at 10:00pm as they were at 9:00am, and the horror of the ubiquitous 'soaps', not to mention the plethora of 'reality shows' the true gruesomeness of which defies description. There is also, of course, the occasional sporting event that often causes the broadcaster to devote disproportionate coverage to what can only be called 'minority sports', while also devoting ludicrous amounts of time to the national sport of 'talking up' our inadequate football teams.

An entire week's programming may, if we are lucky, contain a few bright spots - The Daily Politics, This Week and Question Time; Have I got News for You ?; once or twice a year, there may even be a new drama (perhaps, even, a series) that's worth watching and there may be an occasional historical or political programme of note,  but, these small islands of interest aside, what does the BBC really produce for the billions it is given ? On an average day, I doubt that the BBC shows more than 2 or 3 hours of television that has any real merit.

While the BBC of today is pretty dire, the commercial broadcasters are substantially worse. With the advent of 'sponsors messages' we now have our programmes interrupted at every opportunity by some ridiculous jingle or piece of film that usually precedes the other adverts and is then repeated before we return to the programme. Worse still is the way in which some broadcasters now cut into programmes when adverts are due; no longer a 'fade out' but a sudden break, so sudden in some cases that not just scenes, but words and sentences are curtailed prematurely. No longer is there any pretence of a 'natural break'. Commercial channels have no real interest in the programmes which are simply a vehicle to attract an audience to the adverts which have now taken centre stage and yet, perversely, are of a generally far lower standard than those of years ago. Everything is geared to striking a chord with a receptive, poorly educated and gullible audience which, sadly, seems only to willing to play along. As with the BBC, there are occasional, though even less frequent, lights that shine through the gloom, 'Downton Abbey' being the most brilliant recent example, but there are also abject and appalling examples of pure drivel, as witness the egregious 'Pillars of the Earth'.

The way in which television has changed over the years is a perfect example of the adage 'more is less'. The more channels that have been created, the worse the content has become. Repetitive soaps and formulaic US dramas and, so-called, comedy shows; reality shows and endless programmes about cooking, antiques, poor little baby aminals (sic) etc., etc. Endless repeats of fine programmes from 20, 30 and 40 years ago that, at first repeat are welcome but by the 4th or 5th repeat begin to pall and by the 10th have become truly annoying.

Television has withered. What was once a medium for entertainment is now a medium for advertising, even the BBC finds ways to include what are effectively adverts in its output, both on television and radio. Television panders to the ill-educated masses and no longer makes any real effort to educate or improve them. It glamorises the worst aspects of human behaviour and makes them seem normal. It perverts everything it touches, and destroys the morality of our children. What began as one man's great vision for the future, has become an all-consuming beast, a modern God that will ultimately destroy itself but may well destroy its followers first.

REAL SCIENCE

Watching and listening to Professor Brian Cox delivering the Huw Wheldon lecture last night was an uplifting experience.

Cox is an engaging speaker, enthusiastic and interesting. His views on the way in which science should be taught and discoveries disseminated are right and should be heeded. We have an ever-decreasing number of students taking the 'hard' subjects - physics, mathematics and chemistry - in favour of the much easier options of sociology, economics, and media studies. We need to reverse this trend and Professor Cox has taken a leading role, through his televisual appearances, in trying to bring this about. He is also unafraid of being forthright, as his comments regarding the 'rubbish' of astrology demonstrate. That the BBC and other broadcasters have drifted into a frame of mind in which every crackpot idea is given equal weighting is, as Cox says, ridiclous and, even, dangerous.

When I was at school, science subjects were serious stuff, sometimes hard to understand but always interesting. We actually did experiments without wearing all sorts of silly paraphernalia and no one got hurt. In those days, we produced multitudes of scientists; whatever happened ?