‘Til divorce us do part: God & marriage

Originally published February 2008

A few months ago I was watching telly and the results of a psychology experiment were being reported. In the experiment they'd set up a ring-toss game with 3 pegs one behind the other quite a distance apart and allotted different scores for each of the areas, the area around the closest one scoring 10 points and the small area around the one furthest away worth 100. The psychologists discovered that the people who aimed for the furthest ring were largely by profession entrepreneurs. They were the people who were willing to go for a big score despite the bigger risk of missing whilst other people played it safe by aiming for the closer targets.


Helen and I have been married for 71/2 years. We got married at the end of the summer that Helen finished university, which was 8 months after I finished my college course. We lived together for the 3 months between Helen finishing uni in Nottingham and our wedding and also the summer before that; so we didn't really co-habit as such, but we probably would have done if it hadn't been for that pesky university Helen insisted on attending. Planning a wedding is often quoted as being one of the most stressful things you can go through, and there was certainly a lot of different elements to juggle in trying to make the day something you want whilst satisfying various different family groups, trying to make sure you don't offend someone by leaving something or someone out can take major acts of diplomacy. We had our difficulties, but managed to negotiate them successfully enough to still want to get married. And so the day came. I won't bore you with the details of what we did & who came, I'll just say that all the hard work paid off. I won't say that it was the happiest day of my life because that's a horrible cliché, but we both still rank it high in the top 2.

I was thinking things over whilst preparing for writing this blog, and I was thinking, "Why get married? Why not just live together?" and then I remembered the big pile of presents that was waiting for us when we got back from honeymoon! Neither of us was well off when we got married and – as every couple has to – we struggled to afford to set up a home as we wanted it to be. We were renting a cold damp house in a very rough area of Salford as it was all we could afford and gifts we were given went a long way towards kitting us out as we wanted rather than simply with what we could afford. But it was more than that. The gifts we were given were given to us along with people's love and support. On the day itself I was overwhelmed by people's good wishes. At the end of the day my hand and my face were aching with smiling and shaking hands with people wishing us all the best for the future, and here was the material proof that they meant it. Knowing that all these people were looking out for Helen & me and that they care what happens to us was fantastic, worth much more than the value of all that they'd bought us, and something that those people who choose to co-habit surely miss out on.


But that's not enough reason, so why get married? Well why not? If you're in a relationship that you both consider to be permanent rather than just long term, why shouldn't you declare publicly that that's what you intend? If you're going to stick together until one of you dies, why not make it official? It's difficult to think that far ahead – I remember when I was considering marrying Helen and I tried to imagine us in our 80s sitting round the fire in rocking chairs, Helen knitting and me whittling sticks but I couldn't do it. It's too far off in the future. When we made our vows we were saying that this is what we aim for (I still have 45 years to learn to whittle). It's a promise to each other, our families & friends and – if we get married in Church – to God that we will do everything we can to make the relationship work. It is a risky thing to do; things do happen and people do change. Marriages do fail, sometimes for trivial reasons, but very often for very valid and difficult reasons, but if you don't risk you don't win. There is a trend in the world of celebrity to sign pre-nuptial agreements. This can be seen as a sensible arrangement when big money is involved, but I can't help thinking it taints the wedding with the idea that it may not work out. If that get-out clause were removed maybe their marriages would be more successful.

Anyway, back to the ring toss experiment I began with and then abandoned. I was trying to think of a way of illustrating the answer to the question 'why get married?' and I think that experiment does it well. The two ways to play the game are to play it safe by aiming at the closest peg and scoring quite low, or aiming at the furthest ring and trying to score higher: it's a riskier strategy but if it works out it pays a bigger reward. And I think that's marriage. It is a bigger risk and it is hard work but if you succeed you win big time.

And here's the million dollar question: if I had my time again, would I get married?
Answer: Yes absolutely I would, just not to Helen.

Working 9 to 5: God & Careers

Originally published in Jan 2008


One of the signs to look out for that you're getting older is that when you go to parties you start having really dull conversations. Many times I've realised too late that I've been having a conversation about car insurance or mortgages ("Fixed rate or tracker…Hmm it's a tricky one…) with total strangers. I kick myself when it happens, and promise myself to try harder to avoid it next time. But I have an ace up my sleeve: when the conversation turns to, "What do you do for a living?" You get the 'I'm in insurance' or 'I'm a teacher' and sometimes 'I'm a doctor,' and these can degenerate into another dull conversation about Government policies or haemorrhoids. But I get to say, "I'm a sound engineer," and that apparently is a very enviable job. I like it because people don't know how to have boring conversations about it, although most people would find 2 sound engineers talking about work as dull as listening to 2 accountants but that's because we get to use a secret language involving decibels, modulation techniques and psychoacoustic principles which most people don't even know exist. I know I was born to be a sound engineer and I thoroughly enjoy my profession, but it was a long time after leaving school that I found my job – indeed it was a long time before I even discovered what I wanted to do.

I've written in previous blogs about how I didn't get on too well at school, so I won't go over that again, but when I left school after A-levels I didn't have a clue what I wanted to do. All I knew was that I didn't want to spend 3 years at university studying something I wasn't interested in and would never use, so I didn't go to university, I got a job and because I hadn't a clue what I wanted to do I took the first job that was offered to me which was in the kitchens of an old folks home. I worked there for 5 years during which time I did my Local Preachers training, played in a few bands, made my first tentative steps in recording friends bands on a 4 track analogue machine and tried to find some direction for my life.

As a Christian, one of the places I looked to try to find direction was my Faith. I believe it's vitally important to find out who God made us and how that fits into the wider world and from there we'll find big clues as to what our career may be. And so I examined my belief and knowledge of God to look for clues.
Now I'm not one of those Christians that looks for flashes and bangs and God revealing himself in supernatural ways, but there are 2 incidents which have lead me to my chosen career that I begrudgingly have to admit are probably too 'co-incidental' to be co-incidences. The first one is the smaller of the 2, but without it the second one couldn't have happened.

It was 1995, I'd been at the nursing home for 5 years and needed to do something else, but didn't know what. I'd figured I could do something full time for the Church and by a process of elimination I had settled on applying to be on one of Rob Frost's seed teams for a year. This would involve being placed in a small team for a year in a Church anywhere in the country and working part time with a local church on a project. I half filled in the application form one night and was going to do the rest when a letter plopped onto my doormat from a friend of mine. He said he was finishing university that June and was looking to set up a band in Leeds as a serious attempt to be professional musicians – pop stars if you will. I didn't really think it was a serious option, but considered it only because I wasn't entirely sold on the seed team. Guess where I ended up moving to. The timing of that letter was very important in my making the decision to try do music for a living, and for the next 3 years I lived in a house with the other band members and we all took bottom rung jobs with no responsibility to maximise the time we could spend on our music.

So to co-incidence number 2. Forward fast to 1998 and the band hadn't been the success we'd hoped for. The band split at Easter and we all had to then find proper jobs. I looked at the possibility of getting into sound engineering, as this had been a growing interest whilst the band had been operational and we'd made friends with a few engineers. I discovered that it's an incredibly difficult profession to get into. There are basically 3 ways into sound engineering; the first is to do lots of volunteering at a local studio when you're a teenager and gradually work up – if you're any good. The second is to do a course and then apply for jobs – a big risk as the best courses are at private colleges and cost thousands of pounds and there are very few jobs around and they rarely get advertised, and the third way is to buy or build your own studio – a massive financial outlay and again a huge risk. The second route was the only one open to me, so when I found a prize draw in a lads mag to win a course at Manchester's school of sound recording I entered it. I didn't win.
A month or 2 later again I'm filling in the application form to attend the college and wondering how I can raise the three and a half thousand pounds that the course cost to do when 'plop,' a letter on the doormat. This one was from the school of sound recording telling me that due to a mix up in the runners up prizes they could offer me a place on the course I was applying for, for a considerably discounted rate. I snapped up the offer and moved to Manchester to study sound engineering. Again the co-incidental timing of the arrival of the letter was a big factor in my doing the course, as I would have struggled to afford the full rate of the course I took. It proves to me that I am where God wants me to be. And without doing that course I wouldn't have got the job I now have.

Whilst writing this I've remembered another incident. The lowest point in my career was in 1998 just before I started my college course when I'd been working for minimum wage for 8 years, and it was at this point that I ran into a school friend I hadn't seen since sixth form. We talked and discussed jobs. He was working in finance and earning good money while I was struggling to get by on a tiny wage. He was really shocked about how badly I was doing and said to me that he couldn't believe it as I'd always been the most together person out of all of us at school. After I'd got over the shock that I'd been considered with such regard, I thought about what he'd said. He was earning good money, but hated his job. I was earning nothing and hated my job, but was about to go to college to train to do something I loved. He was envious of me for being able to go to college and totally change what I was because if he were to do that he's lose a lot of money. I had no money to lose, so it was easy for me to risk the change. And it was a risk that paid off, if only because it makes parties more interesting.

Flushed away: God and H2O

Originally published in November 2007

OK, pay attention to this one you might need to concentrate cos I'm going to have to explain some science and you need to keep up.

When I was in sixth form I did a Chemistry A level; which wasn't a total waste of time cos I can now read the ingredients list on the back of shampoo bottles.

Teaching my class chemistry must have been like swimming through custard as - apart from 3 oxbridge candidates - no-one was really that interested and only really took the subject to fill gaps in our timetables. Our teacher - Dr Jackson - battled on in the face of adversity and managed to hold it together until the year after we left school when he had a nervous breakdown and retired. There was the incident when one of our class had worn his trainers without socks all summer, then wore them for school. His feet smelt so dreadful that Dr Jackson had an asthma attack and we all tried to get sent out to get away from the stench. When we came to sit our mock exams we all failed (apart from the oxbridge set) and had letters sent home by Dr Jackson saying that unless we passed the re-sit he would kick us off the course. I was the only person who passed the re-sit and no-one got kicked off.

The syllabus was split into 3 sections - organic chemistry, non-organic chemistry and physical chemistry and it's this last section my story is concerned with. Unsurprisingly I can't really remember what physical chemistry is but it's something to do with the structure of molecules.

Ok, this is the sciency bit that you need to listen to. In a physical chemistry lesson and Dr Jackson's explaining the transition of states to us. In other words freezing. When a liquid freezes its molecules lose energy and gradually vibrate less and less. This means that they can sit closer together resulting in the volume of the substance shrinking which in turn means that it's density increases. The colder denser liquid sinks to the bottom of whatever's containing it and the liquid freezes from the bottom up.

Are you still with me? Good that's the simple bit.

There is one liquid, explained Dr Jackson, that doesn't behave like that and it's water. What happens with water is that it behaves perfectly normally as you cool it down to 4°C and then the molecules start to form hydrogen bonds between them. Hydrogen bonds (if my memory serves me correctly) aren't proper chemical bonds, but a loose magnetic attraction that holds molecules together. When water gets to below 4°C the hydrogen bonds start to form and they make a bit more space between the molecules resulting in the volume increasing, the colder liquid rising to the surface and water freezing from the top.

But this quirk in the properties of water is hugely significant, Dr Jackson went on to explain. Imagine if you will a lake in the middle of winter. As the air temperature drops it cools the water until the water starts to freeze. If water behaved like every other liquid the ice would form from the bottom of the lake and the layer would get thicker and thicker until the whole lake was completely frozen. Instead the ice forms at the top of the lake producing an insulating layer which prevents the water below it from freezing. This is vitally important for aquatic life as if water conformed to normal behavior and the entire lake froze everything in it, fish, insects, would freeze to death. Very little (apart from viruses and bacteria) would be able to survive and considering that science tells us that life began in the water if water behaved as every other liquid then the evolutionary chain would have been stopped before it had chance to get going. Life on this planet just wouldn't happen.

So just as we're sitting there actually listening to Dr Jackson for once and trying to take in what he'd just explained to us he carried on. "I'm an atheist," he told us. "But if any one thing was going to convince me of the existence of God it would be that; that this simple quirk, this inexplicable quirk in the properties of water is absolutely essential for the presence of life on this – or any – planet."

Then someone farted and broke the mood.

Grimly Reaping: God & Mortality

Originally published October 2007

I'm not really into architecture or anything like that, but the structure that has impressed me most is the Glasgow Necropolis. I say structure; in truth it's many structures as the necropolis is a huge Victorian graveyard covering about 37 acres right in the middle of Glasgow. In it there are many mausoleums and monuments denoting the final resting places of Glasgow's dearly departed some designed by leading architects of the day. About 50,000 people are buried there.

The Victorians were fascinated by death. It was the hot topic of the time. It the years between then and now sex & death have swapped places. Death used to be discussed openly and in polite society, whilst sex was a very taboo subject. Whilst we now find it difficult turning on the TV or reading a magazine without encountering sexual content, death has become ignored and anyone who chances to mention it runs the risk of being accused of being morbid or depressing everyone.
But I'm not sure we should refuse so obstinately to talk about death. It is the only thing in life that is definitely going to happen to each and every one of us. Regardless of what we achieve in life, wherever we succeed or fail we will all die. So why do we stick our fingers in our ears and go, "La la la la la." When the subject's raised.

I actually quite like graveyards. I find them very quiet and relaxing. In the summer I sometimes go to a graveyard near where I work during my lunchbreaks to read. But I do sometimes explore old graveyards reading what's written on the gravestones and it makes me wonder about the lives of the people buried there; who were they? What became of the beloved wife they left behind? I try to find the graves of people killed in the world wars and wonder about what that person could have achieved had they not been called to fight, what the daughter left behind by lance-corporal-gunner Smith was told about the father she never met.
Does this speculation make me morbid? No, I don't think it does. In the spring & summer days when the sun is out, the birds are singing and the trees & flowers are in full bloom there is a juxtaposition between the graves and the abundance of life there is to be found in a graveyard which demonstrates the fragility and beauty of life and underlines the fact that I am alive and that I share the earth with those who went before me. "As for Man, his days are like grass, he flourishes like a flower in the field; the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more."

It may seem like a strange thing to say, but I think death can bring out the best in people. To be more precise, losing someone close can. I think that sometimes our grief and loss can strip away any pretensions we may hold about ourselves and in our pain there is reflected our true selves; delicate, maybe somewhat diminished, but an honest image of who we are. Families will often pull together to help each other through a difficult time where maybe they don't often communicate with each other, differences can be put aside as each person reflects and takes stock of their own life, held in relief against the passing of the one they've lost.


I've been to some great funerals. I've been to some awful ones too where peoples grief has erupted been very angry, but I've been party to some real celebrations. Because people are already emotional that emotion can be turned into something approaching a really happy time. People can reminisce and tell anecdotes and laugh and sing at funerals. Sometimes the grief can be forgotten for a few hours. It doesn't necessarily dishonour the memory of the deceased, I think most people would say they want people at their funeral to celebrate their life rather than mourn their death. I'd say that 2 out of the 10 best nights out I've had have been after funerals.


When I left school I took the first job that was offered to me, which was catering in a nursing home. I ended up working there for 5 years during which there was a steady turnover of residents as one by one they shuffled off this mortal coil and others moved into the home. In my first year of working there an old couple made a big impression on me. Horace & Esther were probably well into their 80's and were newly weds. They'd met a few years earlier, fallen in love & got married. They lived in the nursing home in the room opposite one of my kitchens in the only room with a double bed rather than a hospital bed as they both had mobility problems and Esther had a bad heart. They were very funny together and a favourite of the nursing staff. One morning when I'd worked there for about 6 months an ambulance had to be called as Horace was in terrible pain. He was taken into hospital where he died the same day. Esther was devastated. Over the week that followed the nursing staff had to spend a lot of time with her consoling her and just keeping her company. On the day of his funeral the home was filled with their families and Esther put on her best suit and was taken to say goodbye to her husband. The next day when the nursing staff went to get her out of bed they discovered that she'd died in her sleep. It was as if she'd just been waiting until she knew he was safely tucked in, then she checked out herself.
A strange notion - for an 18 year old - that you could have some say in when you die, but one I saw a few times whilst I was there.

So how do I feel about my own death? How does my own mortality sit on my shoulders? Well, I'd like to deserve a well-attended funeral and positive obituary. I'm not sure that I'd get them now so would rather not die just yet. I think I'm ok with the fact that I will die, but I'm not really looking forward to the possibility of one of any number of nasty ailments that could finish me off in old age – if I live that long. And after my funeral I want those who attended it to go to the pub and have more than one drink. I want them to raise a toast; not to me – I'll be dead – but to themselves to celebrate the years they've out-lived me by.

Chain Reaction - The Prequel: God & Slavery

Originally published September 2007

On March 10th 1983 MTV premiered Michael Jackson's song 'Billie Jean'. From the perspective of 2007 that may seem only note-worthy because it remains one of Jackson's biggest hits, but it actually is an event of huge cultural significance and another nail in the coffin of the legacy that slavery left behind it. Slavery was abolished in 1833 in the UK and 1865 in the US, so how does Michael Jackson singing about a nutter stalker whilst dancing around like he needs a wee affect anything?

Unsurprisingly the slave trade had a devastating effect on Africa. We can only estimate how many Africans were taken into slavery; the highest estimate I've seen is 20 million people. These people would have been fit & healthy, at the prime of their lives. They should have been working for their own families and communities. Instead of which they were taken to work for the benefit of another country, and all their descendants were lost to Africa also. The removal of such numbers would have meant that agricultural land couldn't be cultivated properly, and this would have affected the basis for economic development that the African countries had. Many slaves were given by the tribe leaders to the traders in exchange for guns. The presence of guns changed and escalated the wars between tribes and lead to further loss of life and further crippled Africa's development and potential trade. At this time when Africa could have formed a basis for trade with Europe and America, its workforce was stolen. Many of the economic problems faced by modern day Africa can be traced back to the slave trade and how we treated African citizens.

The legacy of slavery is also felt in the countries where the slaves were taken. Slavery was abolished around the world over the course of many years. Often very reluctantly slaves were freed and Governments compensated the former owners for their losses. But the slaves themselves were often no better off. They were given nothing. They were free, but in name only. Most had no option but to continue in the employment of their former masters. They were paid for their labour, but often the pay they were given was pitifully small and barely covered the rent on the accommodation their former masters provided them with. The law still treated former slaves as second-class citizens, and with the vast majority of them unable to read and write and no education on offer to them they lacked the basic skills needed to escape from the poverty they faced. The emancipation of the slaves created a massive underclass that was slave in all but name.

Over and above this dreadful poverty, the ex-slaves had to contend with people's prejudices. The slave trade had relied on people believing that the Africans were sub-human, not worth the same as them and therefore it was perfectly alright to treat them as badly as they did. Even the British abolitionists weren't immune from this attitude; the black abolitionists were never invited to speak at the meetings of the Society for the Abolition of Slavery. When they were asked to attend functions they were seated apart from the white supporters. While laws across the world changed and made slavery illegal it was much harder to change people's hearts and minds. What had been the problem of slavery fast became the problem of racism, and the economic & social disadvantages that the ex-slaves faced seemed to add weight to the belief that the Africans were less intelligent and less human than the white population. In the Southern states of the US the black population became subject to laws of segregation that lasted until the 1960's. These laws governed all walks of life – job entitlement, eating in restaurants, riding on a bus, mortgage eligibility – an ensured that the ex-slave population was prevented from escaping poverty. It provided institutional support for injustice and against this the Ku-Klux-Klan was able to pursue its course of violence and murder in its struggle to prevent black economic advancement, education and voting rights. Right across the world and right up to the present day ex-slave populations have had to fight for the right to be treated as equal in the countries they live in.

So what of Michael Jackson? How does he fit in? Well, in 1983 Michael Jackson was black. The Jacksons had become international phenomena and were rich beyond their wildest dreams. Their musical prowess had elevated them far above their impoverished origins and their story had become an inspiration to black communities across America struggling against poverty and discrimination. When Michael went solo his music was guaranteed a huge audience.

But it wasn't guaranteed much exposure. Despite Billie Jean being at number one in the singles charts for seven weeks there was one major avenue that remained closed. The spectacle of Jackson trying to ease his bladder problem was kept off what was fast becoming an increasingly influential marketing tool. MTV refused to air, not only Jackson's videos, but all videos by black performers. Jackson was signed to Epic, which is a subsidiary of CBS – a huge record label – and it took CBS president Walter Yetnikoff threatening to refuse MTV permission to play any of it's white artists (which included Ozzy Osbourne & Billy Joel) and denounce the channel as racist to make MTV yield. And so on March 10th 1983 Jackson became the first black artist to be played on MTV. 1983, that's only 24 years ago. I find it hard to believe that the aftermath of slavery could have been demonstrated so blatantly so recently, but the evidence is there. The evidence and the legacy of the slave trade is all around us. As much as we try to ignore it, it remains. There have been many programmes created to make reparations to the African countries and deal with the bad taste in the mouth that slavery's left, but these need to continue and we need to be a part of that process.

Holy Ice Caps: God & the climate.

Originally published in June 2007

Years ago when Helen & I still lived in Harrogate we went to Knaresborough for the evening and we went to feed the ducks. We went to a little viewing platform dug out of the riverbank along the small waterside road and hunted for hungry looking birds to take the bread we'd brought them. Except we were too late, as it was nearing dusk the ducks had gone to roost for the night and the river was bare. So we contented ourselves with sitting on a bench watching the lazy driftwood float past. We'd been sitting there for a short while when we noticed a mouse sticking it's nose out from a little hole in the wall, so we decided that as there were no ducks to feed we'd feed the mouse. We gently tossed a small piece of bread in the direction of the mouse's hole and after a short while it crept out, picked the bread up and carried it back to it's hole. After repeating the process a couple of times we decided to lay a trail of bread between the mousehole and where we were sitting in order to see how close to us the mouse would dare to come. We watched it come and go fetching chunks of bread back to it's hole and gradually coming closer and closer to where Helen & I were sitting when something unexpected happened. 4 people came down the stairs onto the platform. They were 2 men & 2 women, they looked as if they'd been on a business dinner, but maybe they hadn't. They walked to the far end of the platform, stood for a few minutes (possibly looking for ducks) then turned and went. In their curt businesslike manner they barely acknowledged that Helen & I were on the platform let alone noticed our mouse. They didn't even notice the remainders of the trail of bread and trampled it. After they left the mouse didn't emerge, so we too left and probably went to the pub.

I remember being quite cross about those people and their attitude to nature. They wanted to see ducks, and if ducks weren't there then there was nothing to see, but the more I thought about it the more I realised that it wasn't just their problem.

Ever since Humankind have walked on 2 legs we have invented and developed and improved life for ourselves, over the last 100 years the rate of change has grown exponentially. As time has rolled on we have congregated more and more into towns and cities and distanced ourselves from Nature developing more 'sophisticated' ways of earning a living. Only a minority of people in this country now engage with nature to earn a living, and the majority of those are working in the tourist industry. We have sought to separate ourselves from our planet. We have built concrete cities and industrial sprawl and pushed the natural world so far out of view that the most some of us engage with it is when we reach for the can of flyspray because a wasp's come in through an open window. As we have developed Nature has been something we've needed to conquer. We've needed to work against it to reach our goals and as much as possible we have dominated and altered the environment to suit our ends. We have seen the natural resources that the planet has to offer and we've taken what we need. And now we don't need to give the world we live in a second thought because we live in cities with running water, supermarkets, electric lights and pest control firms. If we want nature we want it on our terms. We can go to the zoo, play golf, go fishing, watch a David Attenborough program or find some ducks to feed.

But this is where we've gone so badly wrong; we've come to believe that we don't need Nature. We live on a planet that we ignore. We've always done as we please with our planet and we will continue to do so, but due to a fast expanding world population & Western consumerism we're beginning to realise that we can't. Our disregard for the planet we depend on for our lives is beginning to bear its bitter fruit. Climate Change is the big problem we now face, but there are many examples of our mis-management of our world that have ended in problems for us; for example at some point in the last 50 years it was decided that instead of feeding cows on grass money could be saved by feeding them the crushed up and processed carcasses of other cows and farm animals. About 15 years ago it was noticed that cows seemed to be suffering from a disease very similar to kuru, which is a disease that was observed in the early 1900's in cannibalistic tribes in New Guinea and in turn is very similar to CJD, which humans can contract by eating meat from cows infected with BSE.

What would happen if you and your family decided that you were no longer going to use the bins in your house? Instead of throwing your rubbish away sensibly you were just going to drop it on the floor, and instead of washing up after a meal you'd just scrape your pots and pans onto a table. What if you decided that instead of using a toilet you'd just do your dirty business in whatever room you happened to be in? How long would it be until your house began to smell? How long until it became uninhabitable? And yet we continue to pollute and deplete natural resources on a global scale. Conservationists have often been seen as wacky sentimentalist hippy tree-huggers, but in the light of the devastation that Climate Change could wreak on the planet there is a quote by Gerald Durrell (who was a famous conservationist even if you've never heard of him) that has new poignancy. He said, "Many people think that conservation is just about saving fluffy animals – what they don't realise is that we're trying to prevent the Human Race from committing suicide."

We need to be very careful about the solutions we pick as we look to tackling Climate Change. Everything we do affects the environment. One solution currently being touted is using Bio-diesel to fuel our cars. On the scale it is currently being used it is making a positive contribution to halting Climate Change, but if we all converted to bio-diesel there wouldn't be enough arable farmland to meet the needs for maize to convert and run our cars. Huge amounts of land currently used for food production would be converted to bio-diesel production and still more land would be needed. Rainforests and ancient woodlands would feel the axe in our quest to keep our cars on the road, releasing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere totally negating the benefits of using bio-fuels.

Unless we change our perspective on Nature we'll continue to lurch from environmental precipice to environmental precipice. We desperately need to re-engage with our planet and view it as a whole – if I stamp on your toe it's your mouth that says, "Ouch!" We need to learn just how much destruction of rainforests on the other side of the planet affects us. We need to learn how to live sustainably, working with Nature so that we can guarantee the health of the planet down subsequent generations. We need to learn to treat the planets riches in a less utilitarian manner – Nature isn't here for our convenience and we aren't separate from it; if the ducks have all gone to bed chances are there'll be something else to enjoy.

Strident Trident.

Originally published May 2007

I remember the day when I got my first electric guitar. I think I was about 14 or 15 and my Mum had got me a second hand strat copy from a local music shop. Except that being my Mum she had no intention of getting me an amp as well, but the guy in the music shop told her that I could plug into the mic input of my Dad's hi-fi as long as I kept the volume on the guitar very low. I only ever got to play music on my Dad's hi-fi when he was out, so I was really amazed when he said I could plug my guitar into it. I spent the evening trying to strum the few chords I knew and play 'smoke on the water' & 'House of the rising sun' but there was a problem. My guitar was picking up radio signals. I ignored it best I could but I felt really torn. The radio broadcast was of the US and USSR signing an agreement to scrap long-range nuclear missiles. I knew it was a historic day and I should take note of what was going on, but I wanted to play with my new toy.

The generations that grew up between the Second World War and the collapse of communism grew up with a constant threat of nuclear war. Incidents like the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis heightened tensions between the Eastern Bloc and NATO and seemed to prove the need for countries to arm themselves with nuclear weapons to deter the possibility of a nuclear strike.It was against this climate that the original trident program was conceived to much controversy in the early 1980's. Now in 2007 the British Government has renewed the Trident missile system. More than 90 Labour MP's voted against this and the bill was only passed with support from Conservative MP's. There were also many campaigns against the renewing of Trident from various organisations and members of the public.

One of the reasons for opposing the renewal of Trident is that it seems to go against the nuclear non-proliferation treaties that were signed beginning with the one that was signed the day I got my first electric guitar. The powers that held nuclear weapons agreed to end the arms race and moderate the ownership of these weapons of mass destruction, now Britain has committed itself to buying more missiles.
But who now is the enemy? The Soviet Union no longer exists, the Russian Confederation is an ally and some of the former Soviet states are now members of the EU. Who are we considering might be such a threat that we feel we may still need to use a nuclear weapon? Such weapons are useless in the war against terror. The network of terrorists isn't based in one country or region. During the 2002 war in Afghanistan pictures were broadcast on the news of allied bomb strikes on al-Qaeda training camps. All they showed was multi-million pound bombs and missiles blowing up empty acres of sand. To use a nuclear missile against a target that has no territory necessitates blowing up a huge area of a third party's land. Holding such weapons gives us no advantage at all against enemies such as these.

Argument was also made that there would be economic hardship caused by not renewing Trident. Barrow in Cumbria – where the Trident submarines are made – is an area of economic hardship, and not to renew Trident would cause more unemployment and further poverty in a town already much in need of regeneration and investment. This has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I heard for the renewal of trident as if it weren't renewed there would be a huge pot of money available to spend: more than enough to invest in Barrow and prevent the predicted social deprivation.

But is there an alternative to renewing Trident? I don't mean an alternative weapons system that would afford us the same level of 'protection'. I mean is there an alternative to spending such huge sums of money to prevent terrorism and other acts of aggression towards us? Is there a way that reflects Christian Love and Compassion, a way in which we can see God's reflection? I believe there is.

I think the West has to make big apologies to many other states and cultures and seek forgiveness for past aggression. We have a history of bludgeoning our way around the world and dominating and subjugating foreign places and this is what is now coming back to bite us. Our political leaders and Captains of Industry have invaded, oppressed and exploited all corners of the world and forced Western values as completely as we can. Our biggest success in this is the US. European 'settlers' took such control of a 'new' country at the expense of the Native American population to the extent that it is the settlers' descendants that are now running the US and the Native American population is almost off the radar.If we want to really protect ourselves and make the world a safer place then we need to listen to what other cultures are telling us and address their grievances. We need to actually make peace with nations rather than just make sure that we're stronger than them. We need to take real steps to end poverty and stop the exploitation that's carried out in our name. We need to judge ourselves, judge our history, then do what is right and do justice by all those we have previously aggrieved.

Politicians will never do this though. It is a long-term strategy and political parties only think as far as the next general election. They tell us that it would be too expensive. True it would cost a lot of money, but in the long term it would save billions of dollars currently being spent on weaponry and it would save countless lives in this country and across the world. Politicians will never do this because it is a much more difficult route than simply spending billions of pounds on a weapons system which a massive proportion of the electorate don't want.