Skip to main content

Mother’s Day, from Cradle to Grave.

When William Beverage wrote his report, which created the NHS and other welfare reforms, the definition, ‘From the Cradle to the Grave,’ was defined.  This 1942, document which must surely be defined has the biggest policy revolution of the 20th century, after the disbandment of empire, was defined as a new Jerusalem.  Seventy two years later and the definition from cradle to grave has taken on a new approach of bondage and bugger.  It is used has an avenue for eugenics policy, in an attempt to take the maternal offspring, by maternal consent for matriarchal gratification of an amazing discord.  Can any mother be to blame, after traveling from a country farm of sunny climes of the tropics, to be gently confronted by the minister of conceit?  Mother knows baby, mother knows infant child, mother knows boy, mother knows growth.  During puberty mother knows breakfast cereal and teenage tantrum, but does mother truly know boy? 

After one leaves the nest to grow and experience life, after 24 years can a farm girl mother, truly be confronted by ministers of deceit and rationally declare her knowledge of man or boy.  Ask yourself this reader, if you say, “Yes farm girl mother is to blame!”  then have you, who has milked cow has child or visited supermarket fridge, ever been fooled by minister of deceit about man or boy?  Yes you say, you was, no I say, was fine, it was boy.  So when taking the view that mother knows man and boy, remember that if other ministers of deceit are fooled by boy is it not the easy option to blame man, I am sure of it.  From cradle to the grave, must not be used as an avenue for sordid democratic kicks, but as William Beverage envisioned, the new Jerusalem of utopian enlightenment.  Let not Beverage’s dreams of decent modernity, be plagued by the bohemian bugger of power- mad boy!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

My Electronic Letter to Amnesty International

Dear International Secretariat I am a law abiding upright member of society of the United Kingdom, who have endured eleven years of Human Rights Abuses, because politicians of government and opposition became jealous of my mind.  They have tackled this jealousy by destroying my life and removing the laws necessary for human advancement.  They have also breached libel laws of both defamation and slander, by spreading false malicious rumours that I am homosexual.  They say that if I do not become gay then they will murder me, so I am expecting my death because I will not be sexualised in such an evil way.  They say that the other option would be to be a man of the cloth, which I also refuse.  Though I respect Christian leaders, I have no aspiration of such a career, as it is just not me and under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which governs the world, and the European Convention of Human Rights, which governs our laws in the United Kingdom, I have th...

FOR WANTON MALICE

The powers that be, does not like me to write bloggs, or express myself under the Human Rights Act 1998.  I was once told a saying by a Northampton brethren, which still holds true to me today.  He said, "It is better to be hated for being who you are, that to be loved for being someone you are not."  Such great words, I then thought and it defines to me the virtues of integrity, the virtues of humility and the virtues of uprightness.  One must sometimes be hated by evil men, to be noble and good.  Our radical politicians have caused me much trouble, over the past 12 years, by stealing my wages and implementing terror on my passive personification.  Wanton malice have up warded the dregs of tyranny, from whence carnal plot and mischief have plagued our once democratic periphery.   This link defines the centuries old British government policy of divide and rule .  It was a clever and sometimes woeful strategy, that created an empire, of...

YOU DID! WE KNOW! IT’S UP, WE SAW! YOU’RE IN!

“Justices and judges of courts at all levels continue to find cross examination not only a necessary, but also a sufficient method of confronting a variety of trial evidence and burdens.”  “According to McCormick, as early as 1668 a court rejected an out-of-court statement because “the other party could not cross-examine the party sworn.   “Professor Langbein tracked this as the transition from “[t]he oath based system [that] presupposed the witness’s fear that God would damn a perjurer. . . .”   was quoted by Jules Epstein, Associate Professor of Law at Widener University School of Law. To the average citizen of the Western World in 2013, such a statement is too obvious to even allow the brain cell to process methodically.  Those who are of a reasonable age will remember the echoes of nostalgic crisis and the call for patriotic vigilance in the defence of democratic values, libertarian ethos and lawful decency, during the Cold War.  W...