And could the reason be that those women and ethnic minorities are more prevalent in the Lords than the Commons be because they do not have to run for election and be voted into that red chamber?

The laugh in all this is, those in the right wing flank of the Commons, amongst others in our nations papers, keep trying to tell us that we must leave the European Union because ‘they’ are an ‘unelected’ bunch of downbeats, and as a result, not democratic. Whereas we, the British Parliament, are chosen by you, the people, and therefore must answer to your call. This is the pride of all democracies.

Hypocrisy of the first order. No?

Cost to the tax payer is not something government takes into account when it comes to covering what ‘they’ want it to cover. Just look at the list you supplied. Getting rid of ‘Human Rights’ is top of their list. After selling the line that this court in Europe is the reason we have terrorist walking our streets that we cannot remove. Of course, not one of them wants to dwell on ‘who let them in in the first place and why they went along with such dangerous policies of open door Britain in order to secure slave labour for their ‘business’ pals.’ This was to keep pay levels to British workers down at all costs, regardless of what that would do to the citizens and lifestyle of this country. Whilst allowing the top of the tree earners to cream it off relentlessly.

It only comes into account when they are selling a notion to the public. Example: the cost of the poor, sick and disabled is far to high for us to continue with, as we, the wealthy, are being taxed out of our numerous luxuries. ‘My Island in the Indian Ocean will have to be sold orf if we go on this way. And the poor, sick and disabled are undeserving as they are worthless, whereas I, on the other hand, am a fabulous asset and worth all I can fiddle.

Take this showcase in the ‘Mail’ today citing ‘monopolies with multinationals’ and the financial threat this has become to us all.

They’ll be richer but we will pay the price’ is the headline. And if you feel that Hester and Goodwin, with the rest of them who are way bigger than those two sprats, are bleeding us dry, wait until this little lot get a hold on the commodities we all desperately need to survive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2097996/Glencore-Xstrata-merger-Theyll-richer-pay-price.html

Billions already, but, ‘never too rich or too thin dear,’ is how the mantra goes.

Look forward to global suffering from this pair of South African greed machines.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098036/Glencore-Xstrata-Ivan-Glasenberg-Mick-Davis-56bn-mining-mega-merger-came-being.html

What then?

this is a question of knowing your ‘rights’ to an answer under the FOI regulations. And we all know our parliament has despised the FOI from the start. It mean openness and transparency, something they spout on the hustings but detest in reality. As one day, that same obligation may catch them out in their fiddles.

All you can do is research and persist. As well as expose.

I am not really sure what is is you are addressing here? Are you suggesting I should consider family life in a society that welcomes multiple females with one male, as in polygamy? And then carefully consider if this would be an asset to our western civilization and culture? Perhaps multiple males to one female would be more sensible, as the family would then surely thrive financially, wouldn’t it?

To study that one all that is needed is scrutiny of Lord Bath and all his little wifelets. Now did that damage his children? If not why not? What was it that made his lifestyle acceptable to those around him and those who worked for him or with him? Did his children have a hard time of it emotionally? And how is it society didn’t shun him? Was it his money and position? I don’t think so as other ‘lowly folk’ are just as embraced by their community, or, are they? And that is how to be rid of it, if society wanted to be.

However, any of those answers do not explain why his family would have been better off without him being known as the father, or his partaking in the life of his offspring. Would they have been better off not knowing who he was, or not having him in their life in a practical and physical way?

If women wish to be involved in multiple relationships, then one has to consider what is the reason they feel this would make them happier than without it? Why would they give up what most women view as peace of mind in monogamy for something as elusive and insecure as this?

It always, without fail, goes back to the innate make up of the male/female psyche and what is most fulfilling in that matter and therefore satisfying to both sexes.

And there lies the basis of contentment for us all. The human psyche drives us, and if that part of the self is discontent, then we will be forever searching. And as we have got further and further away from the natural order of family life, the more we become disorientated and confused.

Political experimentation and the idea that human beings are open to all kinds of manipulation, without consequences to society, is only found in the workings of a Frankenstein mindset to be achievable. And on the whole we have been led into a cultural demise by the kind of thinking you have hinted at in your post.

European and Western progress was at its most effective when we collectively followed the pattern of ‘family unit’ father/mother and offspring, along with extended family in that order. And this is because it gives the ultimate source of security to enable offspring to freely explore their potential without constant fear of abandonment.

Yes, I do know it is an ideal. But it is an ideal that has yet to be bettered.

Gareth asks me to give (‘you all’) the (Necessary) UN hyperlinks;

Twm tells ‘me’
(one can only assume he is addressing milesjsd)
that he (Twm) has already provided such a UN hyperlink (to me, JSDM)

so I’ve just hunted through Twm’s above posts and
I see no such UN hyperlink to have been ‘given’ by Twm;

and in any case, it is not milesjsd calling for ‘specific UN hyperlinks’
but Gareth Howell.

So,
without
overloading the already-arguably-deluded psychiatrist, Twm,

what’s up,doc ?
——-
If we are to be true to the three principles of good-communication and honest-argumentation
1. Be Clear
2. Be Charitable
3. Be self-corrigible
we each and all need to include both ‘lateral’ and ‘vertical’ thinking;

for which latter balanced-thinking-foundation I (again) recommend building some competence with
“Edward de Bono’s Thinking Course”
(start with the Summary three pages right at the end to get a good and cogently descriptive insight or overview)
and
“How To Win Every Argument” (Madsen Pirie) is succinst about traditional formal-argumentation and Fallacy issues.

and then that done, I would ask you to remove my 0805PM 040212 submission
(or just the website addresses it gives)
———–
and then re Twm’s unrelated dangle of
“Not again !”
(meaning what ?
that Baroness Deech and/or Hansard has been blocking/delaying/suppressing submissions again ?
that milesjsd has been mis-spelling again ?
or that there are overarching, underlying, and overlapping isuues, topics and factors, that need to be seen and scrutinised, but “what a bore” ?

Or is Twm (not too soon, but rightly) trying to include a reasonably-comprehensive Thinking-Model ?
such as Edward de Bono’s wherein “red-hat non-justifiable emotional-thinking (including ‘senseless’ emotional outbursts, such as “Nutter!”)
is allowed voicing-time (even if it’s unconstructively saying
I Got Plenty Of Nuttin) ?

or is he
(‘Twm’ by the way is ‘male’, the Welsh equivalent of the English ‘Tom’ which I believe is taken from the biblical ‘Thomas’ which appears to be a common (or popular) male-name)
just sinking into milejsdophobia ?

Surely Twm doesn’t believe that all (hidden) overarchers, underliers, and overlappers have already been included, dealt-with, ‘neutralised’, or ‘put-to-bed’ ?

If he does, then a quick read of Blagger’s ouevre unmasking the Houses of Parliament as being complicit in covering-up their members’ malfeasances
or of Maude’s, from “You have to learn to give to get …”
[one overarching fact, underlying-denial, and overlapping-factor that needs to be overtly and publicly discussed being the health-&-ongoing-balancing of the seven innate sacramental and individual-human-developmental energies, within which the fourth, "Bonding, Relationship-making, and Marriage", is a particularly relevant and needy 'candidate' for pre-marital and for both pre- and post- parenthood Education and Regular-Revision proaction and legislation]

and all of that is very relevant to the Needs of the Child, I would submit.

We see the level Maude is at.

I gave you one to start you off. If you do not know how to copy and paste, or know what a hyperlink is, you should talk to Baroness Murphy in more detail, and in real time.