England Rugby Union.

The England team return home without distinction; indeed almost shamefully. Not only were they poor on the field, they were poor off it doing the team no credit at all and bringing the whole country into disrepute.
We all know that rugby tours can involve some wild moments but with the world's cameras on them, surely it was negligent to party in public. Was there no management or leadership?
There was, also, little positive management in the field of play. The game is sadly not the same as it was when I played and enjoyed it. There is, for instance, too much kicking and scrummaging takes far too long-up to five minutes a time. In what remains, the running and passing aspects of the game, England were woeful showing little imagination in the design of attack, were too slow to put it into action and had no real power in its execution. Why were Wilkinson and Flood chosen when power and pace are needed? Are there no younger English fly-halves who might have gained experience at this level. The English emphasis was again over-weighted towards the forwards. This will always be the way whilst we have a former forward, Martin Johnson, as chief coach. As I remember the best English sides were those run by a back, Clive Woodward. Is this a coincidence?

Human Rights 3

Theresa May has had enough of the stupidity that arises from the Human Rights Act. She is not alone, Philip Woollas, ex Labour Minister in charge of Immigration also says that it made a mockery of his department's efforts to expel criminals.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046938/Secret-diary-Labour-Immigration-Minister-rails-Human-Rights-Act.html

We should be clear that there is only ONE human right and that is the right to a CHANCE of life after birth. In other words, no one should deprive a human being of the opportunity to have a life. ie kill them.

There is no human right to happiness.
There is no human right to enjoy good health.
There is no human right to have a job.
There is no human right to have a family.
There is no human right to have a family life.
There is absolutely no human right to behave in such a way that it adversely effects others.

Richard Dawkins and Faith Schools

Richard Dawkins has reported that teachings in an Islamic school is failing it's pupils by incorrectly teaching science and allowing the words of the Qur'an to take precedence over scientific wisdom.  In common with the Creationists they believe that the universe was created by Allah/ Yahweh/ God six thousand years ago in direct conflict with scientific observation. That these people should believe the contents of ancient tomes rather than the likes of Einstein seems to me to be the triumph of hope over pragmatism. That the tomes are the distillation of thoughts and ideas passed down over millenia, often according to an oral tradition, give some clue to the origin of the ideas, some of which are common to a wide diversity of faiths. Principal of these is the idea that their is but one governing body that rules the universe. Early people, ignorant of the wider truth, gave this Unity deity or theistic status and it is the founding principle of the monotheistic religions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046715/Richard-Dawkins-attacks-alien-rubbish-taught-Muslim-faith-schools.html

So entrenched is this position it has been difficult, as Mr. Dawkins has found is to move some people away from this philosophy and move towards the scientific view that the 'Unity' is and can only be the laws of nature or physics. You can almost sense his exasperation.
The Government is frightened of upsetting the Muslims because they have 'previous' for exacting revenge for any sleight on their beliefs with indiscriminate bombings and slaughter of innocents. The Government are happy to let the perpetuation of their ill-founded ideas under their human right to practice their religion even if it flies in the face of common sense-even if it means their children grow up ignorant of the latest research in science. That the Government doesn't make a stand now is cowardice. They are putting off the problem in the hope that it will go away as newer generations of Muslims reject the old teachings in the light of newer, irrefutable evidence and revelations. At the moment Muslims are taught that there is only one God, Allah and it is heretical to even contemplate any other possibility. It cannot be challenged.

A recent 'Horizon' programme highlighted that science was struggling to explain new observations, particularly, dark energy and dark flow, the perceived movement of the galaxies at the edge of our universe were difficult to explain using the standard model.
The programme touched on the reality of there being something in 'nothing'; that the emptiness of space is in fact teeming with energy. Readers of my theories will know that this coincides with idea that nature abhors, not only a vacuum, but also zero. Zero is not a normal number; it may not be a number at all. It certainly doesn't behave like a normal number and may just represent a balance between two opposite and equal quantities.
I maintain that there is infinite and eternal nothingness. That this nothingness has the potential to split, according to the laws of physics, into a positive and negative entity we know as a universe. There are an infinite number of these universes and they often coalesce like soap bubbles, creating some of the anomolies being observed today.
The positive part of the universe is the part humans occupy, can see and measure. There is, however, another half; a half we cannot see or otherwise sense. It is all pervading (like God), passing through and around our part of the universe because it is composed of negative energy, described in terms of negative dimensions. I believe this was the truth that was known in prehistory and it is this truth that the ancients wished to pass down. Sadly for them and us, the word was corrupted by the priestly classes for their own ends.

See my website for other ideas:

http://sites.google.com/site/kevilldavies/Home/6-new-cosmology