Saved Posts From Deleted Premier Blog

I first started blogging with Premier online community.  As I was beginning to develop a correspondence with someone called Peter Cross, which was an interaction that I cherished and felt nourished by, I experienced harassment on the site and my reaction to it led to my account being suspended, though no action was taken against those harassing who made the complaint.

I have decided to post some of my blog posts here, in no particular order.  I kept copies in case my blog should be deleted at any time.

I hope someone good will find them valuable.

This is a one-post blog, there will be no more posts on this.  There are dates, names connections, tightly packed significant coincidences, theorising, rubbish.  Apologies to anyone and everyone I have written about unfairly in this.  In some places I sound plain stupid and probably am.  I have posted most of these without re-reading them and some of them embarrass me.  Of course Premier might have deleted them for everyone’s protection, as they might have seen it.  Maybe they wanted me to follow it up by going to them directly, but I had already decided and made it clear that I didn’t want to do that. 

Most of the significant things for me I realised around the general election when I discovered that my old 6th form college, after I left, had had a principal called Gordon Brown.  OK, maybe my old 6th form college was being generally targetted politically.  One of the tutors who wrote on the source I found it on said that, when he was approached and askedf to recruit for the Conservative Party, he knew it was time to move on.  These old teachers of mine wrote fantastically about this sort of thing, and club code.  So if anyone has an issue with me and what I am saying about code, I am indebted to these teachers  for their writing and the moral support I have felt from it, and am sure no one would want to make a place for ALL of us in a mental hospital . . .

Premier 1st blog post

Thanks to my friend Rick Wall for suggesting I start a blog.

I should be able to like Premier, but I don’t, for all sorts of reasons, not least that I think they are stalking me.

But at the moment I am listening to a recording of James Whale on LBC.
I’m just wondering if anyone else finds media output as foul, offensive, psychologically moulding on a frightening and undesirable personal level as I do. If anyone else finds it as completely unlistenable to. It’s like a marauding, relentless machine which marches into your face, pits itself bodily against you, and leaves you wondering what the hell is going on. That is my experience. Does anyone else share it?
Even Premier, I think they are, and always have been, talking not to ‘the listener’, but to each other at a deeper level, constantly shaping and monitoring each other’s output in transit.
I can’t listen to something like LBC, for instance, given the amount of personal material on me they are using, for one thing, without feeling really violent. Notice all the mouse clicking, for instance. It is always at significant times and poinst in someone else’s attempt to speak. When I was studying English at degree level, I was introduced to the idea of, I can’t remember the exact term at the moment, I think it is linguistic intervention. It can be a device used subliminally to alter a flow, and it can have psychological effects on the listener and the participants.  In the case of a listenr, especially if they are an informed or somehow involved listener, or what is sometimes termed an ‘active’ listener, which is what I am.
All the clicking, from my observation, has a specific function in the reception of someone else’s communication and interfering with people’s awareness. Whether it is a nervous tic or a deliberate strategy to control I don’t know, obviously I am not party to it. And whatever people say, you don’t know if you can believe them anyway. What makes it worse for me is the amount of personal material of mine which is being used, without my permission, like family connections, details they seem to home in on about my daily activities and whereabouts, even here in Bulgaria, where I have come to try and buy a house.
The first part of the recording was of James Max, sitting in for Jeni Barnett *note the name, this happens a lot with other names in my life, and Premier does it as well.  The significance is in the putting together). The sheer shock factor of it all makes me unable to turn it off, and so I listened in shock and horror to the aggressive stream of… whatever, whatever, whatever being pumped out of my laptop speakers. Again, is this the way other people experience it?
Early on in James Max’s show, someone was talking about whatever government we get, we know it isn’t going to be generous, and james immediately contained that observation by offensively, in my opinion, saying what sounded like ‘One piece of’, but was actually ‘one peder’ or to a Christian ear, ‘1 Peter’. He did this. My question is, why? He did this, therefore the conversation in and of itself was not his concern and focus. He is not unique in this. People are speaking at a level at which normal communication is not the intention. Everyone knows, in the broadcasting world, exactly what is happening here, but no one stands up and says so, and Premier as a Christian station has more responsibility than most to do that, instead of all the coded aggression and complaints and sniping they indulge in instead. Broadcasters are using their platforms to carry on a fight with each other, and Premier itself has been doing this as long as I have been listening. When I first heard it, without realising what it was all about, I became a victim of what is cutely termed as ‘getting caught up in crossfire’. Like, sweet, it wasn’t meant for me or to take me out, but my assertion would be, there shouldn’t have been any crossfire to get caught up in.
The thing is, this psychological violence and surreptitiousness at a subliminal level affects those exposed to it. The violence is shunted ‘out there’, and people convert it into violent acts. Demons or psycholgy, it still happens. And Premier, engaging in this, has great cause for shame. It is my observation that so many acts of violence and murder which have happened over the years have involved people, usually as victims, with names which have been significant in my life, or in parallel situations. I could go into far more detail about the personal material being used. Some of you reading this know already, some won’t.
The questions that come up for me is, is it organised crime, possibly consciously occultic, or is it an uncanny stream of unconscious and unconnected manifestations? Tell you what, I am freaked. Numerous times I have tried to talk to the relevant authorities about this, but they won’t listen. The church, in its sweet wisdom, decided I should be left in the hands of the mental health authorities, so now everyone knows they don’t have to take me seriously.
Bulgaria is different from London, though. Here the locals, even though we don’t share the same language, find ways of letting me know something is happening and they are aware of it. Today, at the bus station, a man tried to find out where I came from, and was rivetted to my reaction when he asked if it was Nottingham, which is where I was born. I don’t know much about what else they are hearing, I do know the local police have become aggressive, provocative and taunting towards me. I had to go to hospital yesterday, because I fell down a step immediately behind me with glass in my hands, and got a deep cut in my thumb. When I got there, shocked, hurt and traumatised by all of my experience here since December, I was doing my best to control myself so I could cope with the physicality of having stitches. As soon as I walked through the door, the doctors were laughing and shouting, and I felt sick. None of them spoke English, although their tourist board actively encourages English people and leads us to expect that English is spoken. I was trying to be in control of myself and my situation, and shouting and sneering seemed to be their way of trying to take it off me. I don’t like injections at the best of times, and I was too nervously excited for them to be able to give me the injection, and they demonstratively took their gloves off and walked away from me, leaving me sitting their with my hand needing to be repaired. I must have sat there for at least more than half an hour. When I felt calm enough, I picked up the anaesthetic and took it into the room where the surgeon had the television on loudly, and asked him to do it. He looked at me angrily and refused. And they kept shouting at me in Bulgarian. Anyway, the long and short of it, they called the police, who also didn’t speak English, and although I showed them my hand and insisted they find someone who spoke English … I ended up at the police station, they found an officer who spoke english, who was obviously playing a power game with me, he kept interrupting me and walking strongly towards me. I told them I needed to go to another hospital, and because they had acted so unreasonably I didn’t expect to have to make my own way there or pay the fare for a taxi. They refused to provide transport (it was about 9pm by this time) and they said I would have to find my own interpreter. I was really upset and really angry (still am) and this absolutely contemptuous person said to me, ‘Bulgarians don’t have to speak English. You should speak Bulgarian’. In a less desperate and appalled mode I would have said that at some point I intend to learn, but I was offended and outraged and showed it. If they want English people, then all necessary places like hospitals should have staff who are competent in English. Anyway, they psychologically stripped me, and loved every minute of it. It was animalistic. I’m still worried about my hand, it wasn’t stitched, in the end they used butterfly strips, but you keep bending your thumb, you can’t help it, and it doesn’t feel right, it doesn’t feel adequate, but I can’t see, it is bandaged.
There are men here as well who make a point of putting their best blank faces on at me. It happened today on the bus, and it’s happened before. I recognise it, because once when it happened I got talking to a woman in an internet cafe, and said I needed to speak to a solicitor, and the man behind the desk, who had been doing it, like a blanking opposition, his whole demeanour changed, and he suddenly came out of what he was doing. Is it mafia, is it occult, is it journalists, what is it? I was followed by police on a train from Sofia. They said my name 3 times, but never approached me. I reported it, twice. The first time was just by the way, when I was reporting my lost passport, and the woman told me it wouldn’t have happened and dismissed it. The second time was in a written report 2 and a half weeks ago in connection with my accommodation situation, where every day people were being aggressive outside my house, shouting, throwing things at the windows, etc. I haven’t heard anything yet, I was given no reference number, and since then the attitude of the police has changed towards me as I have described. At the time of the written report the police took my passport details. I suppose they have been in touch with the authorities in England, who have probably told them that I confessed to a serious incident which happened years ago. I actually had to try twice to do that successfully, the second time one of the interviewing officers managed to slip in the word ‘schiz’ as he was talking to me. They told me they would investigate and get in touch with me. That was last year, and they never have, and I don’t know what is going on. I have no closure on this, which I need, one way or another, and in the meantime some people in the media are using it as a stick to beat me with, and if the police here know, they haven’t said anything but are instead treating me as I have said. They are like pack animals with a carcass, tearing and jeering. If I ask them, they will probably get worse and deny all knowledge. THAT’S WHY I FUCKING DON’T, SO PREMIER, *AND THE REST OF YOU) GET THE FUCK OFF ME, YOU ABUSIVE, NASTY BASTARDS. YOU STARTED THIS. IT IS ILLEGAL. I WILL NOT SURRENDER ON YOUR TERMS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH PRESSURE YOU PUT ON ME AND HOW MANY VERBAL NEEDLES YOU STICK IN ME. I AM SCREAMING, I CANNOT TAKE IT. AND I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO. AND HOW DID THE GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED, AND WHY WON’T YOU ACT RESPONSIBLY AND HONOURABLY, ACKNOWLEDGING THE BLAME WHICH BELONGS TO YOU? NO CALL OF GOD NEEDS SUCH COWARDICE TO MAKE SURE IT IS NOT TERMINATED. JESUS KNOWS.
Anyway, back to James Max on LBC 1pm to 4pm yesterday (Tuesday). I swear he tried to make ‘sanitary towel’ sound like ‘salutory tale’ which is what it should have been. They might have tampered with their archived recording, I’ve known that to happen before, but I think it is on mine. And at the end he painted an elaborate and specific word picture of a situation in my life, then lugubriously attached James Whale to it, that master of psychological abuse. My God, it is utter filth, and I am supposed to keep it together? Lord Jesus. I have to listen to it, in an already traumatised state, and if I get too insistent or upset after trying to make people take me seriously, they become obdurate and have me stuck in a mental hospital, but my family is being abused in this way before my eyes and ears every day. And I’m not a public figure, and my family certainly isn’t.
Anyway, enough. If this gets up at all, it probably won’t last long because of the swearing, so I’ll paste a copy of it to email in case I have to adjust it. Even then they might not let it appear. They never answer my emails. I’m not crazy, what they are doing is obvious. We all know it. I want to live my life. i don’t want to go through any more obstructive, cowardly and dishonest official channels. I’m 50 in a few months. I’ve never had tme for such a dark and hateful game, and I have it even less so now. Please, no patronising comments. I want action.
Sat, 1 May 2010 10:36
2nd Premier Blog Post edit

And I have a question. It’s a popular thing these days to talk about being traumatised, and it is normally taken for granted, on a popular level, at least, that if you are traumatised it is someone else’s fault. But I have serious doubts about this – I am not sure how honest it is. But now suddenly as I am typing I am thinking, ‘hey, what? You crazy?’ and realising just how unreasonable and self-flogging those doubts must be, but anyway, let’s follow it up.
In my church life I have been taught that it is not what happens to you that hurts you, but how you deal with, respond and react to it. Ergo, you can be subject to the greatest abuses and injustices, even at your most vulnerable and broken down, and any trauma you sustain is purely a result of your own sinful input or bad reactions to the situation. This is how I feel about myself, and I believe it is right, as a Christian, that I should have such a standard for myself, and I completely believe that no one who doesn’t hold that standard should be trusted with any power or authority or position requiring the taking of decisions and influence in society, as it is the vulnerable who will go to the wall as a result. This feeling about myself is largely based on hindsight, but hindsight has 20/20 vision, and I have heard Christian leaders say that hindsight is right. But is it always?
I mean, here’s me: abusive family background, father died when I was 11 of an overdose of sleeping tablets, rejected and branded by the church very soon after, at which point I recognised a rule for myself, that love was not something I was allowed, and when I felt it was something I wanted to express or receive, that was not a need I should believe could be satisfied or an impulse which should be seen as something legitimate and to be freely engaged. Allowed by the authorities to stay home depressed and not go to school (I wasn’t causing trouble so I was giving no active cause for concern), sexually touched at age 12 by a church organist. Been treated according to a church leader’s dossier on me since about the age of 15-16, which I was never made aware existed, and because of my own dysfunctional background I didn’t realise such abnormal behaviour towards me was abnormal or was based on any kind of suspicion or accusation, although from age 12/13 I was suspected of having sexually impure motives towards people, including leaders. Blah, blah, etc, etc, culminating in being ostracised and vilified by my church leaders in my 20s/30s, isolated as an act of policy, gossiped about by leaders in my hearing, as if I wasn’t there, and all my conflict was so internalised I couldn’t say anything. For years I wanted to say, take me out of your test tube, but you can’t say that, Christians are supposed to be tested, so I was silenced by that, and by injunctions against gossip, drawing on Moses and Miriam and leprosy, and not exposing your father’s nakedness. (edit 30.04.10: if my heart had been right I would have approached people gently and respectfully to ask what was wrong. If I had had a respect for leadership and for the Bible, I would not have been offended by leaders using the Bible in this way. That would be the leadership argument, and surely it has to stand, because it is right. End of edit) But you know, there is a difference between a child or a woman held to ransom by deliberate policy exposing the spiritual father doing it, and a grown man talking about his father’s nakedness when father was drunk and not actually hurting anyone. To stalking and spiritual abuse and coersion and constant anger and comments from the platform, leading to the kind of emotional desperation which led me to walk into a situation where the police were called (at Premier), I was put into a mental hospital and when I came out leaders didn’t look at me or invite me to talk about it. Sitting in a church service was like sitting in hell. Etc, etc. Falsely accused by a neighbour of chasing him up the street with a knife and treated accordingly by the authorities, though not told about the accusation, I had to work it out. And since working it out and being told it exists, no one has offered to help me deal with it. They just got me out of the hospital as soon as they possibly could without ever trying to talk to me about it or advise me, just swept it under the carpet. But since then they have taken every opportunity to intimidate me and try to manoeuvre me into situations beyond my control. And people in government are also referring to my situation in their code, they use the names of my family, pastors, etc, and look alikes of nursing staff etc. The place is thick with them. Sweet toothy-smiled Nick Clegg quoted in his first speech from a post I had just sent to Tommy Boyd’s blog, which wasn’t posted, and added that the scrutiny would intensify. What was that about??? I heard it out of context, granted, but the reference was obvious and this kind of thing happens all the time. The debate is still available on ITV’s website, and the second one, entitled ‘Prime Ministerial Debates’, is available until tomorrow evening, I think, for download on the BBC iPlayer. If you download it in time, I think you can keep it for a month before the viewing time runs out. I’d like to make reference to that at some point, so if you are interested, please download it while you still can. Suffice to say, there is a lot of stuf communicated to people in the know which isn’t menat for public consumption. One thing I find particularly interesting about it is that, as I fell asleep exhausted, all three of them started to show nervousness and started talking about the need to re-establish the connection (I realised this on watching the recording afterwards). This is according to pattern. The ‘we’ (wee) interventions are significant as well, as are ‘baby’ references, listen out for them, watch how they are used. Watch the other participants’ reactions as they are introduced into the conversation, it has a totally silencing effect.
Anyway, I’m off topic. Trauma. Is it a legitimate concept? Is it reasonable to say that, if you know what is traumatising you, and you believe it to be your own wrong reactions and you know and own what those wrong reactions are, is it reasonable to say that if you continue to speak of yourself as being traumatised after that, as a rationalisation of being ill-prepared to deal with a situation, that you are being evasive of moral responsibility for the role of your own actions and reactions in how you have experienced things against you, and therefore dishonest? Is it true to say that, after you have understood that had you acted or reacted differently, you might not have got so hurt, that to continue to say you are traumatised is dishonest when what you really mean is that you have not dealt with your own sinful actions/reactions? Even if you were walking in the dark in a totally alien situation with people in every area of authority and power and position of trust covering up and lying? I think it is, you see. I think I am dishonest to still be saying that I am traumatised. And yet every evidence of stalking is a fresh opening of the wound, and the people stalking me have used everything they have got from me both to their own ends and to psychologically blow the fluff away so it looks like I no longer have reason to be alienated, and that if I continue to be, even though what they have got from me and manipulated in order to make it look as if I shouldn’t be, they have largely got through stalking, then I am unreasonable, I am the one in sin, I am ungrateful, I am a criminal, but they won’t give me the privilege or right of a trial, because they would rather have it as a mental health diagnosis, then they don’t have to answer. English fudge! You know, a lot of what these guys are saying, they have got from stuff written on my computer which I haven’t even published. I know that, because the first time my computer went online, in December, months after writing it and I had forgotten its existence, Robb Thompson at Winning in Life was agitatedly saying things like ‘she was holding that one in reserve’. Or was it David Shearman? Can’t remember offhand. The politicians are making good use of it. And I love them and am grateful to them and feel a scumbag (Gordon Brown is so statesmanlike, and his government has generously increased my benefits for my mental illness while they continue to stalk me without telling me, even though I’ve asked, and even though the belief that I am being stalked is taken as evidence of mental illness by the psychiatrists, without question or support! And they all scrub up well in their suits, and they all look a bit hurt and vulnerable, and David Cameron is lovely and so attractive and seems to be trying to get me to engage (or is that just good general working of the medium?) I feel so unforgivably ungrateful. But the thing is, I know what’s happening now, I learned to see it and understand it by listening to Tommy boyd, whether he meant it for me or not. When I didn’t know or understand at least the technicalities of what was happening, I was suicidal. There are other people who are still suicidal, who don’t know, and the only reason I am being unaccountably courted (if that is what they are doing) is that I know and am adamant that the whole thing is wrong. Obviously I am thinking this out, yet again, as I go. I’m probably also putting myself at a disadvantage by providing this account of my thinking, because people can prepare their dismissals if informed. 4.30am here. Way past my bedtime. If you’ve bothered to read, I am so grateful. (this is an edit, when I first wrote it I said ‘fantastic’, not ‘I am so grateful’. By the way, fantastic = Tommy Boyd, excellent = Robb Thompson. Notice how often these are used. I assure you it is deliberate and intentional. When you realise this you might begin to understand things more clearly. It just occurs to me that ‘I am so grateful’ is the kind of thing that Robb Thompson would say, and now I have the horrors as to why I have translated ‘fantastic’ into ‘I am so grateful’. Is there a deepe reason based in fact that Robb Thompson and Tommy Boyd are the same stick here? It was the church that first involved the mainstream media. The message from Premier appears to be ‘we told you we wanted her back’ – John Pantry, my understanding).
I’ll write again (if spared!). Please download the Prime Ministerial Debates from BBC2 on the iPlayer before its expiry tomorrow, when you do you will have it for a month.
Oh yeah, Nick Clegg. Hmm. On a political issue he says he has no THEOLOGICAL reason, he talks about sin as if he is a preacher, when actually he has said he holds no faith. Look at the audience reaction, the confused, embarrassed shuffling uncertainty of what is happening. That’s all I can remember, I am sure there is more. And dear old Gordon, with his ad hominem put downs and control taking, getting people to laugh at the other 2 as his children squabbling at bath time. Of course there is room for a sense of humour, stuff it, what do I know, but surely to engage in stuff like that undermines people who are trying to engage with you in serious debate?
The church and poliiticians are really courting each other, when churches like KT, as one that has stood out to me as particularly having done so, isn’t talking about persecutory laws and saying the church is going to lose its freedoms. What’s that about? It makes it very confusing for me, and embarrassing, because while it is obvious to me that they are both handling the same stuff, I don’t know if they both have the same intentions with it. I’ve seen my position as needing legal and political attention, and any church involved in stalking as not worthy of the name. I’ve been watching and listening, as they know, and they do everything they can to scupper my intellectual grasp, but the material is obvious.
Premier blog 3rd post
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 3:39
I’m wondering about this hung parliament stuff.  God forbid that it should ever be presented as a deliberate move towards co-operational government, but I think it might be, through the back door.  Keep the term ‘hung parliament’ with all its negative baggage and connotations, then after the fact gradually change the way it is referred to and have it recognised as a positive thing, which they may already be deliberately moving towards.  They have taken so much else from my computer, it makes sense they would take that too.  Tommy Boyd used to say it is political theatre, and indeed it is, I can see that so easily now.  The form of communication is mutually agreed and accepted, they might even have gone as far as deliberately playing devil’s advocate against each other while actually working for the same things and the same agenda.  If so, maybe they always have, and i’ve just realised.  This is an uneducated person writing here.  Or, maybe they have been secretly handling the stuff of my life for so long, they are now confused and seem like friends and colleagues, in many ways, in spite of themselves.  I thought it telling that David Cameron, I think it was, said, ‘I never thought I would say this, but I agree with Gordon’.  Or was it the other way round?  But I found the look between them interesting.  What did the comment really mean?  He never thought he would say it because he never thought he would agree, or he never thought he would say it in spite of the fact that he often does agree, because to say it publicly would undermine the adversarial stance and the popular ‘raison d’etre’.  An adversarial stance in debate does not necessarily mean an adversarial stance in reality.  Is it just to give the illusion of choice and difference, when actually, behind the scenes, they are agreed and work together?  If so, why don’t they just tell us so, that there is no real opposition because really they are all working for the same ends?  Barmy stuff this, innit?
Mon, 3 May 2010
Subject: ‘Was Daniel a Vegetarian?’ discussion

Look at Daniel 1:8  “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank.  Therefore he requested of the prince of the eunachs that he might not defile himself”.
Was this a partial fast or a Nazarite vow?  I think the Nazarite vow’s point of abstinence is wine, not meat, but I would have to check that out.  If you are bothered about this discussion you might want to do the same.  I don’t see why I should have to do all the work! 🙂
We know from what follows that he (and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, I think) were allowed to follow a vegetarian diet, on an experimental basis, as far as the people in charge were concerned, but we don’t know, I think, if it was normal for them anyway, and that, at the end of the experimental period, it was observed that they looked better than the people who had been eating meat.
For me this raises the question: did they look better because they believed they were acting in obedience to God and were therefore especially blessed, even without a ‘normal’ diet, or was it the diet and abstinence from meat and wine which made them look better, in and of itself?  Or was it a combination of the two?  Does a vegetarian lifestyle carry its own blessing and particularly and especially meet with God’s approval?
Or maybe it was the abstinence from wine which made them look better!
But if meat is a necessary thing in a diet, and they didn’t have it, why didn’t they look worse?
The Bible says, “do not kill”.  Some people say it is better translated, “do not murder”, and that murder is only something you can do to another human being, and that killing in war is not murder.  I would like to see specific, irrefutable chapter and verse references to support these positions, not just things which have to be interpreted to make a principle.  Bearing in mind that a text out of context is a pretext, but then you have to make a decision as to if and where the context begins and ends, and that also varies from person to person.  But that is what western thinking requires.
OK, here comes a long paragraph.  I am sorry, please persevere.
It is true that, after the flood story in Genesis, the Bible says that God gave animals, non-vegetation, volitional beings, for food (I think it says, for ‘meat’, actually.  If I am right, I don’t know if this word translated ‘meat’ would have been a new word for a new phase in the relationship between God and man and God’s creation, or if it had been used already for the eating of non-animal matter.  That’s by the way, and anyone interested enough can obviously do the study).  I think ‘God’ would have given this as an allowance which was undesirable to Him, if He gave it at all, like the bill of divorce.
I’m having problems at the moment with the idea of animal sacrifice, and with the concept of a God who, the Bible says, hates human sacrifice, testing Abraham by asking him to kill Isaac.  Actually, this is just the resurrection of problems I was having just before I committed myself to being a vegan, 2 years ago.  I have been taught that God is not inconsistent with Himself, and that He won’t ask anyone to do anything which is inconsistent with His written instructions in the Bible.  On that basis, whether or not he had the Bible or any written instructions, it would make sense to say that Abraham must have misheard God, just as the rest of us can today, because he believed that God had told Him to do something which, the Bible says, God considers evil, and I think (again, please check this) that in the New Testament (or, out of respect for any Jewish people who might read this, the Christian scriptures), it says that God doesn’t tempt anyone with evil, and I think it is dangerous to take an account which is in every way inconsistent with what is revealed about God in the Bible with regards to human sacrifice, accept it as somehow extraordinary and OK, and as being truth about God, and make it a basis for the formation of a principle in the light of which it is considered to be safe for other decisions to be made, either personally or corporately.
Isaac was a ‘he’, not an ‘it’ or a ‘that’, unlike what I heard Bruce Atkinson, of Kensington Temple, saying in his sermon yesterday afternoon [‘that which was precious to him’], and it seemed obvious to me that Bruce was himself beginning to feel and understand how outrageous the concept is, and to be embarrassed about having to teach it.  Or maybe I misinterpreted his body language.  Sometimes a bolt of understanding can make you cry, as this has me.  And that can be good, it can be a sign of progress and healing. (I just got a strange and unfamiliar whistle on my laptop, which I believe to be being hacked.  That’s not an unusual kind of occurence when I manage to make any kind of healing type of statement I can connect with. With a language warning for the end of the entry, please read the first entry of my blog.)   I can see what Bruce has done.  He has objectified and mythologised a human being in order to avoid expressing the pain of his received theology, and that is what most theologians do who hold this view.  The, ‘that’s too heavy, it has to be a type and shadow, there’s no other way of justifying it’ approach.  You can watch it online at, the 5pm service, unless it was the offering talk or I have got the time wrong, but it was definitely yesterday).  I think that is where some of the ‘mystery’ of suffering comes in.  You accept what is obviously stupid or outrageous, and the application of sense becomes impossible.  The ‘sufferer’ is ‘out there’ with all your attempts to make sense of it or justify it according to your theology.  Add to that the confusion caused by everyone insisting on their own theology, and I see good reasons for getting away from ‘body ministry’ altogether.
On the same basis as what I have written already, even though the whistle on my laptop has had the effect of making me lose personal connection with it when I had it clearly a few moments ago, I also have a problem with Jesus being a sacrifice for sin.  If I have a problem with the ‘type and shadow’ animal sacrifice system, that has to follow.  I haven’t read Steve Chalke’s book with his approach to the crucifixion, but I know that to say, ‘Jesus died for our sins’ is too simplistic and offensive without a body of understanding, which many people in our society don’t have these days. And even IF (I can’t make the ‘if’ any bigger) it is true to say that “God offends the mind to reveal the heart”, it doesn’t mean that those of us who are not omniscient should have a right to think and assert that that is what is happening when people take offense at US.  I don’t believe that “the offense of the cross” has anything to do with the offense of a God who, the bible says, hates human sacrifice, requiring a human sacrifice for sin.  Even if Jesus WAS “fully man and fully God”, and even if God really was in Christ, reconciling man to Himself.  He did not require the death of His Son to do that.  God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself because He loved us and wanted to forgive us for the wrong, not because the wrong was necessary.  The act is and was eternally wrong, and though God knew it would happen, He did not require it and it can never be justified.  I think there came a time when Jesus said, “OK, I’m taking the rap.  If you want to kill me, then to let you do it is the only way to get through to you and allow you to make sense of my life and teaching.  You can only be saved by repentance, and your consciences can only be moved that far by realising what you have done, and you have to be allowed to do it”.  Or as Proverbs puts it, “if a man persists in his folly, he will become wise”.  It is a good teacher who affirms a person in his folly.   I believe the surest way for a beloved teacher to see a person change is to affirm them in their folly, not to tell them they need to change.   Or does the person who needs to change need to be wise enough for that?
. . .
Hmm . . .
Jesus is reported to have said, ‘no one takes my life, I lay it down myself’.  But someone did take His life, physically speaking, so how and when did He lay it down Himself first?  I think, in doing the right thing in the full knowledge of what the consequences would be.  That is our example and the offense of the cross.  But no, I still don’t understand.  If, when the soldiers first came to arrest Him, they fell backwards when He said, “I am He”, and if that was an expression of the power of God, Jesus would not have had to use physical force, and neither would anyone else, to stop people from crucifying Him, so what was the point?  Was it an act of love and identification?  After His other miracles, it can’t be doubted that he had the power to call angels to put a stop to it.  So maybe it was an example to us, that sometimes people will kill you even if you love them, and that is what is meant by ‘dying for our sins’.  Taking our sins away by letting them play out, first, on Himself.  That way, He was qualified, both as God and as man, in a way which no one else could be, to forgive and blot out our sins.  We can’t forgive on someone else’s behalf. We don’t have the right.  The sin was the actual betrayal and killing, He did not resist the sin of other people in the taking of His life.  And that is what made those people’s repentance so easy and inevitable, maybe, when Peter confronted them with what they had done.
This belief is part of my anti-war stance, which I am actually, personally, coming to feel more separated from these days.  My convictions are changing, without my approval.  That is brainwashing.  That is what it is and what it does.  I love Jesus.  Jesus said, ‘love your enemies’, not kill them and make retaliatory war against them.  I am grieved, seriously, bodily and emotionally, not just in my head, that, in practice, it looks as if I am losing my strength of conviction about this.  It is a great embarrassment to me.  I am close to seeing the war with Iraq as a good and right and necessary thing, if I haven’t already crossed the line.  The position I find myself in at the moment is that the grief can be easily dispensed with and invalidated.  In fact, I am feeling, how could I ever have been grieved?  The war is so obviously right.  This is what is happening in my thinking.  It is completely against my beliefs.  But you cannot “be the change that you WANT to see” if you change both your beliefs and your behaviour for what appear to be pragmatic reasons. You cannot be the change you WANT to see if you use ways and means inconsistent with the change you want to see.  You can’t be anti-war and say you don’t want to see war continue, and at the same time, say that war can be justified.  Apart from anything else, it’s an illogical and irrational position.
I have lost touch with both my humanity and my divinity.  Just because we accept that we are fallen, that is not a reason, excuse or justification for willingly and deliberately embracing fallen ways and the line of least resistance, as individuals or as communities.  And the line of least resistance against our own fallennesswhen we perceive our country to have been attacked, or to be vulnerable to attack, is to engage in retaliatory or preventative war.  I believe that, as Christians, we should just let them kill us, because that is consistent with the example and teaching of Jesus.  We should let the aggressors have something, in our responses, that will so move their own consciences, that repentance will be the outcome for them, even if it costs us our lives and lifestyle and civilisation.   Our lives, lifestyle and civilisation are not so important and so perfect that, if someone threatens them, they must die.  I, as a Christian, don’t want politicians, or priests, using the Christian religion to the nation, in any way, shape or form or by any device, to justify what, I believe, goes against Jesus’ teaching.  When He said, “these things must be”, I believe He meant that they must be, of necessity, because not everyone would embrace his teaching and example.  I’m afraid it’s a bit late for me to make this kind of statement now.  When it should have been being made I was too self-centred to make it.  I haven’t read anything else like it, or heard anything like it, but I hope that others have made this kind of statement, and am sure that they must have done.  In my defence, I was too busy dealing with the effects of stalking and mental hospitals.  In fact, on the day of the 9/11 bombings, I was gambling online in an internet cafe.  It felt like a contact with reality and a way of trying to establish some control over what was happening to me.  I don’t believe I could have walked into a church at that time, even though it was what I naturally wanted to do.  Here endeth the expression of this line of thought, at least for now.  And that is another act of cowardice and evasion.
I didn’t intend to come this far with this discussion, I had no idea I was going to end up here.  I intended only to present the Daniel question as a point for thought and consideration.  It has turned into quite a big discussion, and I hope people will be interested.   In fact, it has turned almost into a blog entry.  I invite you to take what you want from it, for what it is worth.
11 May 2010 7:29
Subject: Dates in my diary – second post (1st removed without notification) with extra material

I first posted this 6 days ago.  I just discovered it had been removed without telling me.  I don’t think this is right or honest, whether it is normal procedure for Premier or not.  I’m posting it again, I expect it might be removed again, if it is allowed to appear at all.  I have since found out that my old sixth form college, after I left, had a principal called Gordon Brown.  Also there I had a music teacher called Andrew Burnham, who is now a bishop, and Gordon Brown’s 2 sons are called John and Fraser, 2 of the main leaders at St Barnabas Church, Woodside Park. Also, at College I had a teacher whose last name was Offord, and there is an MP of that name, and there is a Barry Shearman in Parliament (see David Shearman of Christian Centre, Nottingham, my church during my teens.  There are more, but I haven’t yet had time to go through all the Thursday night coverage of the election to put names and faces together.  I think it is available until this Thursday evening, and if anyone wants to download it, you should find that, from the point of downloading, you have 28 days to watch it, so the later the better, for time.
I found out about Gordon Brown the college principal by doing a search on Martyn Offord at Bilborough College Nottingham.  That was at 10.30 am on Saturday morning.  I think it was straight after that that BBC1, at least, started holding extraordinary news meetings.  I say ‘I think’, because I don’t know if they were doing it before.  Please check them out on the BBC iPlayer.  And that grey t-shirt David Cameron was wearing, and even the way he was walking, was me.  Believe me, I know.  They were talking about a crisis in the constitution.  If it isn’t, it should be.  Hopefully it will be.  This is the real reason that Gordon Brown has stepped down.  Again, believe me, I know.  I wouldn’t say so if I didn’t.  Jesus is Lord and this is wrong.  They have taken me and mine hostage, slapped a diagnosis of mental illness on me, are hitting me with every embarrassment and character assassination in the book, and are making me feel guilty for accepting the benefits.  This is serious, not cute and sweet and loving and cosy, because there is no way that I am the only person this is happening to.  I might start a blog on WordPress.  Hopefully this kind of censorship wouldn’t happen on there, but I don’t know.  Maybe you are required to speak in code and metaphors everywhere, even if, like me, really you are a victim and should be entitled to stir it openly.  Apologies for the difference in the colour of the typeface.  I’m not sure how this has happened or how to correct it.
These are significant dates in my life which have been used consistently over the last few years, to my awareness and much of it recorded on hard drives, (unless my flat has been burgled. How’s that for an invitation?), by the church and the media, including Premier, for arranging events.
This month, as Kensington Temple leaders themselves observed on Sunday, is particularly rich. They got hold of this because I sent an email to the Christian People’s Alliance on Sunday morning. At least, after years of this, I have believed that that is how they got hold of it. I might be wrong. It might be a constant stream of words of knowledge. I am now ready to believe that. If anyone more qualified believes that would be wrong of me, please help me, or at least communicate your belief.
1st Grandfather’s birthday (Frank)
8th Grandmother’s birthday (Ethel, known as Dorothy. She has been referred to as Edna, but the context makes it obvious)
12th Uncle (Frank’s) birthday, also birthday of Diane Bombroffe, a lady I knew at the Christian Centre, Talbot Street, Nottingham, senior minister David Shearman. All 3 of these are regularly portrayed in the media. Notice how often people get onto something and say ‘frankly’. Watch the whole communication. Last Wednesday on BBC1, on The One Show, Ronnie Corbett was on. They showed footage of a sketch he did years ago, him and 2 other men, can’t remember who they were. They were lined up tallest to shortest. Ronnie Corbett was my uncle, perfect representation – stammering, bearing (notice how often and how strategically the politicians put together these things, and their ‘frankly’s. Ronnie Corbett said, as if it was my uncle, ‘I know my place’. My father had contact with people in show business, though I’m not sure to what extent. He dictated a begging letter to me once to send to either Anne Shelton or Tessie O’Shea, I can’t remember which. They are both dead now. Vera Lynn was on the news last night, with a reference to Anne Shelton.
Also, on last week’s Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, Jonathan was doing my uncle. Flat cap, expression, bearing, stammering, frankly-ing it. I’m saying all this in the hope that some of my readers will care enough to notice when it happens, and understand.
22nd A double anniversary date, my father’s death by overdose of sleeping tablets in 1972, and the date of the splitting of Tottenham Community Church in 1988. I used to go to that church. Until recently it never occurred to me that the fact it was the same date could be anything but coincidence. Obviously, I don’t know. But in light of everything else it would make sense. On that date, at the time of my final exams for my degree, I turned up at the house I had been told the meeting was at, having got up late and not having been told before, only to be met at the door by Loxley Ford and told he didn’t believe I was committed, or something along those lines, and I wasn’t welcome (I had been there, regularly, for about 6 years). I collapsed in tears. They later held a communion service which was by invitation and the function of which seemed, to me, to be about affirming covenant relationship between the leader, Alan Woodroffe, and those who were invited. I wasn’t one of them. I believe it was a closed service. Certainly, as I remember it, it was by invitation.
26th Anniversary of my grandmother’s death in 1976. David Shearman officiated at the funeral service, at my request. Because of the teaching I received at the church (which I am not saying was good or bad, I still prefer burial over cremation) I persuaded my family to have her buried. But my brother told me what we didn’t realise at the time, that she had been buried in a pauper’s grave (do they still call it that) and there were 3 other people on top of her.
1st Mother’s Birthday (Doreen)
10th Brother’s birthday (Steven) I happened to be watching the television one night and there was a documentary on about a murder enquiry in Nottingham, where my family lived. So I watched, and next I saw my brother with two other men, and they did a reconstruction of him walking a couple of girls back to their respective homes after an evening out somewhere. He wishes he hadn’t got involved with the media situation, he was angry that they had been given his address. I don’t know if he was made to feel obliged to participate or not. He had felt at the time of the investigation that the police were trying to blame him.
OCTOBER 15th (I think) Father’s birthday (Keith, called himself Ken)
NOVEMBER 24th My birthday Last Friday, BBC One showed a film which was first shown on 24th November, about a mother who had to rescue her daughter from a cult obsessed with cars and bloodletting. It is listed on the BBC 1 schedule on the iPlayer. It is also unavailable for watching or download. I don’t know how that decision was made, I haven’t used the iPlayer much in the past. But the connection and its deliberateness seem obvious to me. I have reported things like this to Ofcom before, giving the best account I can as someone who is qualified to understand, and they won’t accept it as stalking. Even though references in look-alikes and namesakes to my family, neighbours and situations were obvious. The last I knew, Gerald Coates was on the board of Ofcom, and as far as I know, he might even be blessing this, let alone be aware of it.
DECEMBER 14th Tommy Boyd’s birthday
25th My sister’s 1st and 3rd children’s birthdays, Louise and Gary
31st My teacher, Rusty’s, birthday (Nick Ferrari’s as well. Not really personal, like Tommy Boyd is also not really personal, but they have both been involved with this and used, at least, by Winning in Life, Robb Thompson. So it’s worth being aware of).
FEBRUARY 18th birthday of my youngest sibling, Jason, who died after 22 hours back in 67/68. Apologies for the imprecision, my family, with all this stuff going on, didn’t manage to keep these memories active. My mother had a really hard time over this period up to 1976 in terms of family deaths. First Jason, then her grandmother a year or 2 later, then my father, her husband, 2 years later, then her mother, 4 years later. If anyone cares, my mother needs help.
8th My great-grandmother’s birthday
9th My sister Lorraine’s birthday
26th Anniversary of my first admission to a mental hospital in 1996
Significant names: Loretta, Linda, John And Anne (Finchley St Barnabas Church). Michael Ball I saw recently on Jonathan Ross’s show doing a complete impression of my Scottish English lecturer. I didn’t know until then. Michael is a significant name. He is a New Age musician that I was corresponding with for a year. The church and Premier like to suggest that he is now a Christian and in agreement with them. The headshaking that has recently flooded the television when people are speaking? – that is from one of his videos, which they only know about because they got it from my computer, I think.
Darren, Emma, Brenda, Anne, Tim, Josh, all immediate neighbours or involved with in the area. Darren, Emma and Brenda are used a lot, both names and lookalikes. Someone played a really raucous Brenda Lee song on the radio once – that’s how Brenda sounds, and she directs it at me sometimes. Anne’s house is 55, my birthday is 1960, the last part of Play Radio’s phone number was 556060 for a while. My house is 53, Brenda’s is 51, One of Premier’s numbers has 5252 as part of it. Knowing how much else is deliberate, there is no way that isn’t.
LBC’s frequency is 97.3. I was given a telephone number which ended 9073 shortly afterwards. They have a Darren and a Barnett and a Christo (Christ, or Chrysta at Winning in Life). This cannot be innocent coincidence. It isn’t. I just don’t know what to do about it. I knew someone called Jason Lee Mitchell, and immediately Jason Lee Collins appeared.
A few years ago my local House of God of Prophecy came to my door with a leaflet for a showing of ‘Passion of the Christ’. I told them I had seen it and wasn’t interested, because I just saw a man acting, not Jesus, and I didn’t really see the film as being the best thing that had happened to evangelism. We had a friendly enough conversation, I thought, but I told them I didn’t want the leaflet, but the slipped it into my hand, surreptitiously, below the threshhold of my resistance, or so I felt. I was really upset by that, because I thought they should have had enough respect to take no for an answer. Apparently my sister was given a hard time at Talbot Street for not being able to do just that. Anyway, I later saw the date. It was the date of my mother’s birthday, and I felt confused and guilty. It took a long time for me to realise that this had been a deliberate pairing, and I have seen many more of them since. Premier and Kensington Temple have a few going right now. The thing is, it is without my consent and totally against my wishes, and they have known this for years. In effect it is an act of molestation. One of Kensington Temple’s preachers on Sunday said something about holding a rope for someone until they came through. But I told them years ago that, while they continue to stalk me and enforce and support their mental health theories/hiding places as they do, I don’t want any part of their church. I don’t believe in the mental health theories and practices they promote, and having gone through what I have with them, there is no way I could sit in one of their services while they have it in their arsenal. Because they have certain things they hit people with, and that is one of them. And it’s not OK, towards me or towards anyone else.
So taking over the elements of my life like this, while I am so desperate I am grateful, I know it is not OK. This is what they have done with pagan festivals, taking the dates and using them for Christian festivals. It’s an act of spiritual force. I have read about the flipside of it and been told it is something occultists do. They take something specific to another person and use it as a point of access. I have been told it is witchcraft and can make people sick. I know what I have experienced, and I believe that is true. Often I have had local Christians pass by my door on a significant date in my life, when I felt happy. But they didn’t see me. Possibly they weren’t even thinking about me, if they were not using that date knowing it was significant for me. But it’s as if they were holding on to those dates in the belief that they were praying for me and ‘holding a rope’ for me (perhaps I am being too charitable), but the rope was a noose, and continues to be. It leaves me mentally and spiritually vulnerable to all kinds of attack. And while they have been doing this they yell and scream and mix and match my material so it is baarely recognisable, but I have ‘aha!’ moments. It’s shock and awe tactics. And they seem to know all about my life here with my neighbours, and my landlord, who is a church person. When I reveal in a note to someone that I am being mistreated, they react with surprise, because they have been told a different story, and believed the other person, and this is what they have always done, believed the worst that they heard about me until it was contradicted. They haven’t changed, for all their overtures. They are talking about setting boundaries for me and looking embarrassed now they realise they haven’t got the whole story and that they are supporting people who are trying to get from me at knifepoint money for a bill which isn’t mine. But it has ever been thus. But it always takes me by surprise to realise what is going on. They also told me there were garden tools, but there aren’t, and everyone shouts outside my house and the old women look at my garden with undisguised disapproval, and I crumble inside. I don’t speak their language.
They’re mixing the dates around now. separating months and days sometimes, but they are still there. But while they are doing this, it’s as if I don’t exist, even while I hear them talking about me and appropriating everything about me.
The song by Portland, which John Pantry plays on his show, or used to – Carry You. that’s a reference to Michael, who lives in Oregon. It’s a constant patchwork quilt, incorporating everything I do which is new to me, very quickly after I do it. I had a website, an online store, called Lifestyle, and suddenly it became a major word on Premier. Everything I do they make a feature of. Green is one of those themes, and probably part of their coding. In fact, a couple of days ago, I recognised a new use I thought they had for it.
There are 2 things they are holding me to ransom with. One I can’t talk about, because if I do it non-specifically, everyone involved will be worried, and if I do it specifically, it will identify the people. And then they will add to it accusations of irresponsibility.
The other was that I urinated on the steps at St Barnabas. St Barnabas never talked to me about this, but very quickly everyone knew, and they have been using it ever since. The only reference to it that St Barnabas made to me was purely on a psychological level, when John Coles told me he wanted to talk to me, ordered me really, and sat down on the row in ront of me physically confronting me, with two other leaders either side of e, and pointed to the corner of the church where it happened and said sternly that in future he wanted me to sit right there at the back.  I think I was in hospital at the time, and afterwards I kept deciding not to go to church because I didn’t think I could handle it.  It was after my first hospital admission, and accusations I didn’t know about were flying around about me, but I felt at the time I was being accused of witchcraft by Colin Dye’s church, Kensington Temple. For various reasons I felt unable to talk about it, but I spoke to someone at St Barnabas about it a few years ago. Henry Kendal, the new vicar. He stepped to one side and moved away from me.  I also spoke on the phone to a policeman and told him what I had done and that I felt guilty, and he said to forget it, and because I was sleeping rough that night and he thought I was vulnerable he said I should phone social services and they would be able to find me somewhere to sleep, but I did and they said they couldn’t.  That was in Chichester.  I also told one of the nurses at the hospital, but I don’t know what she did with the information, if anything.  So that is one of the things they are using, and as far as I know they haven’t reported it as a crime or anything, and it seems to me that they should have done.  I have been given no explicit or formal opportunity to answer this accusation and have it dealt with appropriately, but I have been taken by force with no reference to it.  I also told one of my nurses, at least, a woman called Angie Perry, who also has a lookalike in Parliament, that if I were to commit a crime or hurt anyone, I wanted a proper trial and to go to prison, and not to be treated as mentally ill.  I told her I believed in personal responsibility and that was what I wanted.  She made no mention of any accusations at the time, if she knew about them, and to my memory she hasn’t since either.  But she has often been contemptuous, or at least inappropriate, towards me since.  The other is the thing I wrote about in my first post, that I went to the police about twice. Premier knows this, as do the other churches. I’m not sure how, because I didn’t tell them. I told 3 other people, by email. I have since told a couple who were responsible for the house I was in when I first came here to Bulgaria. But the church knows, and I know they know, Gordon Brown in the debate last Thursday kept using the speech patterns of the people involved. I’m not going to say who I’ve told, because I don’t want it to be used as an opportunity for more fabrication. But I know they know.
They make clear that thye know this stuff, and on the basis of what they have gained from stalking me, they make out to me that it is still my resposnbility to try and take this further and that I have failed in not doing so.  But they are not supporting me in that.  The fact that I agree with them is neither here nor there, in this situation.  The whole thing has taken on an air of complete unreality and psychological impossibility.
Mon, 3 May 2010 13:54
Premier post ‘why do some people insisit on kjv’?
John, have you thought that not all new believers are uneducated in the language of the King James Version?  You could equally ask, why impose mixed up, dumbed down modernity on people who don’t want it.
There are many languages of today, determined by all kinds of factors.  There is not only one, and they are of equal value.  Some people find the King James language more helpful and appropriate to who THEY are and how THEY want to express and educate themselves in Christianity, even life itself.  For one thing, it helps them stay connected with previous generations.  And every new version, if accuracy is its purpose, claims to be more accurate than what has gone before.  That doesn’t validate the claim.  Maybe it just means it fits more easily with what you want to embrace, if you decide it is more accurate.  The past is a foreign country, we don’t really have access to it, in terms of living there.  We don’t have full access to our OWN time.
By the way, both wicked and naughty are to be found in the King james version, and mean approximately the same thing.  Today people say ‘wicked’ meaning it for ‘good’, and that, I believe, at a psycholinguistic level, is dangerous, and might explain a lot of the confusion in society, which sometimes we mistake for corruption, believing that is what it is.  The Bible says, in whatever translation you choose, that it is bad to call evil good.
This started out as a reaction to believing that you are stalking me, and that is how you managed to start this discussion while I was in the middle of starting my own, which starts with a KJV quotation.  This isn’t an accusation, but I know I’m being stalked (see my blog).  The KJV is the way I learned the Bible, and I have come back to it after the NIV, Good News and Living.  It is more consistent with who I am and want to be.  I love the language.  I wanted to go back to the roots of my own understanding.  Shakespeare is the same language of the same time.  I love that too.  I was brought up in Church, there was never a time that I didn’t believe, that I can remember.  Apart from anything else, the KJV IS a link with history, and I think that is valuable.  I am glad that it is the way that I first learned to read the Bible as a child and that it issomething I have been able to come back to, and it has greater worth for its part in my history.
Cross cultural communication is about 2 way learning, ideally.  I have used both old and modern translations.  I prefer the old, you prefer the modern, there are many people in each category, but more valuable, I believe, is to be familiar with and have an appreciation of both, if communication is your purpose, in order to establish a good bond with the person and not dismiss them in conversation because they value older or newer.
Not sure if this or anything else I write will be answered, last time I looked nothing else had been.  I’m wondering if people have been told not to get involved with me.  That’s what used to happen at Church.  or maybe some of you are agent provocateurs, Christian or otherwise, and lure people to communicate then, when they do, act as if they don’t exist.  Please check out my other posts and my blog.  It would be nice to have some feedback.
Subject: I thought Pentecostals believed the bible blog post Premier (13)
People can combine all kinds of factors to make you feel intimidated when it comes to challenging them.  We all have our own issues that people can pin us with so they can pass off something which doesn’t bear scrutiny.
I watched the Kensington Temple 11 am service yesterday.  They actually start at 9am.  Sometimes it streams on my recorder, sometimes it doesn’t, but it is never displayed on the website.
Praise Olatona was preaching.  I don’t know if he saw the suicide thread started by Premier, he did seem to draw together in his sermon many things I raised last week.  But I had never expected that, when push came to shove, a Pentecostal leader would stand in the pulpit and show complete disregard for something which he must know to be clearly stated in the Bible, basically saying to the person who has tried to avail themselves of the right to say it, ‘get stuffed, the Bible doesn’t say that’.  Or would a more accurate interpretation of his position be, ‘I will say that the Bible doesn’t say what it obviously DOES say, if it enables me to keep control and throws a spanner in your works’?
He said ‘who has called you a bastard?  There are no bastard children, only bastard parents’.  On the suicide thread I was so furious I asked if it was OK to call someone a bastard in the biblical sense, and say that I hated them.
The word ‘bastard’ is in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, also known as the Authorised Version (or the AV).  It is to be found in Hebrews 12.  It says that if we are without chastisement, we are bastards:
8But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
I think the context makes it clear that it has the children in mind here, not the parents.  At least, I understand that to be the accepted interpretation of the pentecostal tradition.
In another version, it says ‘discipline’, not chastisement.  However we interpret ‘chastisement’ and ‘discipline’, it is clear that what is being said is that children without it are (that word which everyone will be up in arms at me for using, even though used properly, in its proper context, from the preferred version of many traditional, and especially black, Pentecostals.  But I can’t use it.  Why’s that?  Because I’m a woman?  Because I’m white?  Because I’m not ‘a leader’?  Or just because people don’t like me anyway if I won’t recognise that THEY are the source against which I have sinned, and not God, who perhaps doesn’t need their interference to deal with it both justly and kindly?
People who don’t even accept the discipline of the law in the way they relate to people weaker than themselves are bastards in the truest sense.  Discipline is not only so they can ‘excel’, in terms of win in the rat race, but it is something they should accept for the sake of people who are weaker than themselves.  Maybe there would be no ‘weaker’ people if everyone accepted the disciplines designed to protect people from other people’s excesses and transgressions.
The law I have in mind in relation to me is obviously the anti-stalking law.  I could also say laws about slander and defamation.  To some extent that could possibly be put down to gossip and human weakness, but stalking is aggressive and deliberate, and with intent.  gossip on its own I could possibly have dealt with, had I known about it, but coupled with stalking and other physical, spiritual and psychological abuse and dishonesty, I’m really not sure what I can do or could have done.
To return to the point, the issue is not whether or not the hearer believes that the Bible is true, but whether the speaker claims to believe that the Bible is true, and the guide for life and conduct (that’s the AOG statement of faith, I think, or just what I have heard in sermons).  I think this is the verse it comes from:
2 Peter 1:3  According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Here it says ‘God’s divine power’, not the Bible.  I’m not differentiating nor should it be taken for granted that I am just because I don’t go into an analysis and interpretation here.  I’m just saying the words are different from what I believe were given to me in the sermons I’ve heard.
Here is a problem:  should I refrain from saying this, because the person guilty of the offence is a church leader?  I feel I should.  But there are two things to consider.  I’ll take the quickest one first, that way people won’t forget there were two, and neither will I.
First, they are stalking me, and that is illegal.  The first part of that statement I am sure of, the second part I am not sure of anymore.  It is also unspiritual.  The Bible says that leaders should not lord it over people (see 1 Peter 1).  They should have approached me, person to person, and spoken to me and asked me anything they wanted to ask.  That way, they would have found out earlier, and I would not have lost decades of my life under their censure.  As an almost 50 year old woman who has not achieved her hopes of marriage and children, apart from everything else I have already detailed, I don’t know how these men can be so indecent and insensitive as to insist on gazing on this kind of shame and doing everything they can to increase their ability to wield it, whatever they attest to the contrary.
Second, Paul wrote, ‘If any man comes to you, bringing a gospel other than that I have preached to you, let him be accursed, even if it be an angel from heaven’.  So ‘even if it be an angel’, I suppose that covers ‘even if it be a leader’, especially in light of the fact that some people interpret the ‘angels of the churches’ in Revelation to mean the leaders.  John wrote, in a similar vein, ‘do not wish them ‘God speed’, or you will partake in their sin.  This is talking about false teachers.  If someone wanted to find a loophole on Paul’s statement it could be argued that Paul said ‘my gospel’, not the gospel of the writer of Hebrews, who is, I get the impression, generally held not to be Paul.
‘False teacher’ has two meanings to me immediately, which I am sure will be recognised, although for a long time, I only recognised the first.
The first, and most obvious, is that the message is wrong.  The second, is that the person is wrong.  Practically it might not be possible to separate the two.  Simply put, you can say the wrong thing, or you can say the right thing with the wrong heart.  So to shift the illustration, a false prophet is someone who either gets it wrong, or someone who doesn’t care, even though they are right.  It is relationally wrong.  So to blast someone saying ‘I’m right, you’re wrong, get over it’, to me makes a false prophet.  The Bible says treat others as you wish to be treated.  The least we can do is refrain from treating others in ways we would NOT wish to be treated.
Knowingly, and without humour, saying the wrong thing, with an appearance of sincerity, or ‘the right attitude’, is deception and hypocrisy.  I’ll have to think about that one a bit more, I’m not sure.  I think the best it can be called is ‘aloof’.
Subject: Is suicide a sin post in reply to thread started by Premier staff

I know you’ve taken other things deliberately pertaining to me and mine, over the years, is this another? If so, it shows an appalling level of – I don’t know what I dare call it. Most of the things I haven’t told you about directly and you seem to have got from my phone conversations or something, or even people in my family whose names you freely use, though we are vulnerable and private, not public, and have said we don’t want this. But since we are not public people anyway, your access to us has been, on the whole, criminal? We aren’t terrorists or anything. We have just said either we are atheists, or we don’t want to belong to a church which hasn’t apologised for treating people the way it has treated my sister and me as vulnerable individuals, both bereaved by suicide as a result of your kind of stalking, on hindsight, and having tried to commit suicide ourselves. By the way, I am no longer suicidal, but I don’t really believe that is any thanks to you. I suppose I ought to be sweet, submissive and respectful and say, oh what an apposite subject, I’m glad you are talking about it. And will this get posted? If it is, I hope anyone who reads it will also read my discussions, contributions and blog, maybe acknowledge my existence. That would be nice . . .
Fact, faith, feeling blog post
That’s the way I was taught to see it.  Fact is the engine, pulling faith and feeling, in that order.  That’s what I was taught.  That’s all I’m saying.  I’m not saying it is right or wrong.
I was also taught that truth is truth, whatever its source.
I was also taught that, if you sin, betray Christ, the world won’t care, and the world won’t be interested in helping you to recover.  That is why I have seen what Premier and the Church have done in my situation as betrayal.  I believe the people they went to saw it the same way as well, betrayal either of themselves (the people Premier/the Church went to), or me, or both.  I say I believe because I really DON’T know, and to say that I did really WOULD be proud.
But I find the outrage and shock/surprise/offence expressed by the Christians who were involved in this towards the non-Christians they involved a bit baffling in light of the fact that it must surely make sense to them that people who do not profess faith would not have the slightest interest in helping someone else recover theirs and be reconciled to God and the Church.  Maybe to say I find it ‘disingenuous’ would be too strong, so while that word is in my mind, I’m not choosing it as my final understanding.  Maybe naive – did John say that it was agreed that the secular world, whoever that involved, could deal with it, but they wanted me back?  Or did I make that up?  If I didn’t then – duh?  I had already come to a point anyway that I could see no way to continue in a relationship with the church, even before the mental hospital.  I’m not a dead agent here, I make my own decisions.  It was never up to anyone else to ‘give me back’.
A note for Tommy Boyd, if he reads this – the link to my Premier page has been posted on his own blog, I gave it to him – I don’t know what was going on in the background before you broke cover and spoke to me while you were broadcasting.  You said you understood (which I didn’t believe and was offended by, because I have been taught that no one can understand another person, only God, hence my resistance to counselling and therapy), you said ‘how stupid do I feel?’ and as I remember it, you cried.  When you said ‘how stupid do I feel?’, I could have cried.  Stupid was an adjective I would never have chosen for you.  I was deeply moved and I thought you were awesome.
That’s just the positive.  We both know there have been plenty of negatives.  I’m through apologising.  I believe I have come to a lot of right conclusions (maybe you have deliberately led me to them, I don’t know), through listening to you, even when it has seemed that you have been poaching and appropriating my material.  I don’t know what your motive has been in that, it might have been variable, like my own.
I started writing this post because I wanted to say that I have a problem, in that I don’t believe half the things I say.  But I also know that the fact that I don’t believe them doesn’t make them wrong.  To me they are right, they are clearly right.  It can’t be otherwise, my conscience won’t allow it.  Some of the things I say, I started off believing, when I first said them, and felt as if I had lost the right to them, or never had the right to say them in the first place, because I was so disrespectful of my authorities in the way that I said them, and so maybe they were wrong.
Now I am wrong, because while I have been wrestling with this, and you and other people, other people have been abused in the same way, and people have died, one of whom I knew, a man called Augustine, in the same hospital.  He was on my ward.  He committed suicide.  He was lovely, quiet, gentle, a really nice person, and when I heard he was dead . . . it didn’t seem right.  It is the grief I feel for all sorts of reasons that needs me to say this, and I know it’s going to sound crass, but he was black.  I have no idea what was going on in his life, I didn’t know him, I don’t think I ever heard him speak.  But we said hello, even if he only nodded and smiled, and I wish I had known him.  (Anyone who needs to at this point can rush for the puke bucket.  I’ll stick with my tears).
From the way you have presented things to me, what I believe you have taught me to see is, to me, obviously right, whatever else is wrong.  Unless you were just role-playing at me and didn’t really believe any of it yourself, in which case I’m the fool.
So a simple question, Tommy, if you read this.  Do you still want to help?  Not in spite of the fact that you were not, the last time you said anything, a Christian, not even as spiritual person, but as someone who is well-qualified, kind, generous and intelligent, clear-sighted and an excellent communicator (in my opinion).  Am I being stupid here?  I think I am.  Please, get me to the nearest nut-house!  There is a lot about my time listening to you that I have really valued.  I feel betrayed when I think you have been acting for the church, because I thought it was you out of who you SAID you were, and that you cared.
Tommy, please help me.  This is a desperate plea from a drowning person.  Desperate, for one thing, that this should not be seen as just a faith issue, and that the position that the only way out of mental illness is to become a Christian, or that good, upright, co-operating citizens/Christians are the only people who deserve not to stay lumbered with a mental health diagnosis, should not win the day.
You know there is an apology I’m not giving here.  It is too heavy, and it might hurt you as well.  But I love you and I need you in this, and I believe that you have said you need me too.  When I first came to see you, and was having trouble communicating, before it all went wrong you said, ‘there is something you are trying to do, and you’re trying to do it without me’.  I understood that as referring to that specific communication, but it occurs to me now that you might have meant it even wider than that.  I’m losing confidence in this already.  I can’t go any further with this post, but that doesn’t invalidate what is already in it.  Forgive its inadequacies, and mine.
It’s Not About Me
I think people are trying to make out I’m just self-centred, proud and egotistical, and that I am the only person I am thinking about.
But I have said in emails, I represent people in the same situation, not legally, but that is the way it should be to the people criticising (hmm, royal pinkness – you get me?)
One of those people is my father, who killed himself when I was 11 years old.  This is not an exaggeration, it is true for me and for many like me, I died when he died.
It’s not about it being OK for me to come home and there being nothing to fear.  It’s about having people make an open, verbal committment to recognising that what they are doing/have done/allowed is wrong and dealing with the whole thing in society and in the media world.
It should not have been the case that, until I was prepared to talk and give facts, they were not prepared to listen or respond.  Because they had left me so denigrated in their presence, and so much under physical threat, and already shown such distrust of and disrespect towards me, they have added (more) insult to injury, and with their devious, cowardly dishonesty lunged again for the core of my being.
If I had agreed to their terms, I don’t believe so much progress would have been made.  I believe they would have indulged in cover up and wool-pulling at a much earlier stage, because that is what they are doing now, they are still doing it.  I do believe progress has been made, not only for me, but for others like me.
With the Shearmans I learned that faith follows facts.  But if the facts are being withheld in a power relationship, what you have is delusion and oppression.  Not everyone in my position can analyse their situation as I am and have been able to.  That is why I require a recognition and an apology, for those who can’t speak as I have, no less than for myself.  That is right, and that is reasonable.
I thought Esther was a good kid.  The way I have heard her speak this morning, I have wanted to do her damage.
Is God a Killer? Premier blog post (latest edit)

Good morning!
I read something not too long ago, about a celebrated Christian leader a couple of centruries or so ago, that he was sitting at a table with a group of people, and someone spoke to oppose him in some way. Apparently he addressed the people with him and said something like, ‘watch what God is going to do’, and the man dropped dead.  OK, I can’t remember who that was.  Here’s one I CAN remember.  He used to present a programme on Premier every day with Julia Fisher – is she still around?  His name is Colin Urquhart, He is the senior minister of a church in Horsham, Surrey, and I think he has been involved in the stalking (technically and legally, that is what it is and in this situation, must be).  I read one of his books back in the 80s, a work of fiction called ‘My Father Is the Gardener’.  In it there is a story of a minister who was being opposed in what he was saying by one of his church members.  He had to have a church meeting at which this member, who may have been in some form of leadership under this man, was to be present.  The leader was expecting the man to raise his opposition at the meeting, but instead the man said nothing, and at the end of the meeting the man was found to have had a stroke, and couldn’t speak.  While he was in hospital, there is a scene at his bed where he points to a verse in his Bible, something to do with speaking evil of a leader, or submission, or something, made some sort of sign that he understood that what had happened to him, including the loss of his speech, was because he had opposed this leader and that he was sorry, and his power of speech returned.  This is a fictional promotion of and upholding of the kind of thing which was reported in my first example to have been fact.  Both the writers present this kind of scene as present day work of God and acceptable, even though Colin’s is fictional, and for all I know may be based on a real experience he was part of, whether he has misinterpreted it or not.  But Colin, as far as I know, is still alive, and I know where he is, or was in recent years.  And I suppose it is still possible to buy his book, for anyone who wants to check this out, and who can do so without being overcome and influenced by any textual lovebombing.  The scene I have recounted is one that I accepted for years, and have believed is an accurate account of how God works in that kind of situation.  The Bible does say that if anyone is sick he should call for the elders of the church, and if he has committed any sins, they will be forgiven him.  But it doesn’t say what kind of sin, and I believe you have to question why this particular type of leader needs to major on ‘sins’ (so perceived and presented) against leaders.
Why have I written this? I was provoked. I think John Pantry set me up in his prayer again this morning, and I was angry. I think his prayer was a response to my blog post last night, it went along the lines of ‘there are things human eyes can never see, music human ears can never hear’. As a musician, I assume he knew what he was doing building it up to that pitch before his voice took on its familiar firm, insistent and disciplinary tone to say, ‘you meet all our needs’. I am used to hearing this as saying, ‘you are getting your benefits, you should be grateful’. They keep pumping out all these words, but the Bible says love in deed and in truth, not in word only. Are they REALLY surprised that I find their approach inadequate and unacceptable and won’t respond to it in any practical way? That goes for my government, too. I get slugged about receiving benefits, but it is easier for them, and more convenient, to keep me on benefits than to deal with what they have done to me and allowed to happen to me. So that is double dishonesty and betrayal. If you betray someone like this, you do something to make it right, not try and challenge them or bully them for not living in an expression of total forgiveness (see R T Kendall). That is evasive and irresponsible leadership, preaching about the need to forgive but not making amends for what you have already done to your listeners. It is pure cowardice, and I find it disgusting. And so does God.
Interestingly, the prayers had a lot about rent and disability allowance. If he is saying this stuff, it is desperation measures, and I hope he can see that. If he can’t, maybe he has lost his social conscience, if he ever had one.
I am on benefits because I have been wrongly diagnosed as schizophrenic. The way I have been treated during that time, by just about everyone, has left me traumatised and outraged in a way which no one seems prepared to validate or help me resolve. Every new situation I try to go into, including employment, goes bad as a result of the stalking, and I decided, for my own sake because I am sick of being blamed, and for other people’s sake, because I don’t want to draw them into what is happening to me beyond the absolute necessities of living, like food, clothes and shelter, which are my absolute right without permission and consent of anyone, to stay on the benefits that go with my diagnosis as a right and necessity, not a privilege or a favour. And any media person who tries to present a different picture is a hateful, dishonest thug, or ill-informed and not qualified to assert an opinion. Or too frightened or cowardly to stand up to the pressure put on them to uphold the picture.
In immediate terms, I am relatively fortunate in that I have a better standard of financial provision than people on Job Seekers Allowance, but the truth is, if I save more than £6,000 I start to lose benefits. I can’t get a mortgage. I have to tell the authorities if I am going away, and I think it is limited to just a month before I am supposed to come back. If I went self-employed and got tax credits because of a low income, anything over £6,000 I would start to lose those benefits, and if I wanted to buy a property, as was my original intention to try and let it out, if it is valued over £6,000 and is not my own home, I start to lose then as well on tax credits, as well as having to pay taxes on the property itself. And John wants me to believe I am being provided for in this isolation.
Also, John, and David Shearman, John Coles, Robb Thompson, R T Kendall and Colin Dye, all know that I have been sexually molested, some of it in church, and instead of offering solid help to deal with it, they are angry with me for having said so. In the early days when I started listening to and watching Robb Thompson, he said, ‘there are some people God wants dead’. I felt frightened and hurt, I thought, if he believed that kind of thing, he might believe it about me. I brought it up with him in an email he never answered, and he has never taken it back.
And everyone keeps going on about ‘mene, mene’ at the moment. There was a time a few months ago when that started. And I have been believing it was me that said it, but it wasn’t. It is from Daniel, the writing on the wall, and it was part of the answer to a quiz which Mark Blades ran when Premier first started, and I phoned in with the answer. I think I got a demonstration CD of Beautiful Or What?, about the way a disabled girl perceived the way she was treated. I can’t remember the name of the composer at the moment, I have premier wittering on, and it is hard to think.
I think Mark was sacked, and he said he was going to tell us why, but the next day he said he had changed his mind, or maybe he was gagged or persuaded, I don’t know. But he said that Premier was going down a bad route and it would become more and more apparent. I was upset when he went. I enjoyed listening to him and participating in his quizzes.
Oh my God, Premier speech . . . blippety, blippety, blippety, blip. I’m surprised anyone can think sensibly and constructively about anything.
Day of the Zombies blog post on Premier
Right, this is MY blog, even if it IS courtesy of Premier, so I’m going to have a moan and deliver a piece of my mind.
I’ve been watching the BBC news channel.  Their language is poisonous narrowcasting based on stalking, as ever, and all the other stuff.  They are taking full advantage of the fact that, if you only have a laptop, like me, you can’t record their programmes, and they are not available for playback.  This is what they do, to my perception – they provoke, they get all my alarm bells ringing and all my outrage and distress juices going, I back off and get angry and think it is outrageous, maybe pray, that seems to disturb them (but who is doing the provoking in the first place?) then they have a coded go at me.
But anyway, that is just par for the course, and has been for years, and I get the impression that that too is courtesy of Premier.  Thanks, Premier.   And as far as I am concerned, Dave Rose is not fit to be on the station because he deliberately uses sexually molesting language.  He set up a spanking scenario the other week, in his introduction, and kept coming back to it, and I know and he knows it’s aimed at me.  Nasty little fat slug.  Sorry, Dave, I’ve been listening to Steve Allen on LBC, and I fully believe that, in this instance, following his example is completely appropriate.  And if it’s good enough for you, mate, it’s good enough for me.  Me being a woman and all, and probably quite a bit your senior.  I know you know your language is molesting, and you have no excuse.  I also know that, when I was sending an email to Michael Mish a couple of years ago, you were watching it, and one to my vicar’s bishop as well, because you are obviously not that clever when it comes to hiding that kind of fact.  In fact, none of you are, but if I say anything, you don’t acknowledge it, yet you seem to want me to know what you are doing.  Even though it is illegal.  I can’t make that out.  If you want to tell me, the comments facility is open.  But I decide what gets posted, and I’m not telling you my criteria.  And that goes for any reader, obviously, not just Premier staff, and not just Christians.  If any of you want to answer this outpouring of crap and vitriol, as you might want it to be seen, the facility is available.  I haven’t rejected anything, no one has posted a comment on anything, even though I know they have been reading.  Only one, ‘don’t worry, be happy’, and I have displayed it.  Apart from that there is nothing to display.
But the reason I started this blog post was this.  As I said, I’ve been watching BBC News, and i’ve been looking at the make up on the women.  And I’ve been wondering, it seems to have got worse.  I’m wondering if they have been told, or decided among themselves, to make their make up as cadaverous and blank as possible, and to keep a blank expression.  I really think this.  They stand there, belching out their garbage, ditch for bitch, and all that, sounding as offensive as they can then doing everything they can to look and sound as if they are forcibly vomiting into my throat (the ‘into my throat’ bit is just how it feels to me), all the while keeping a totally blank expression to the point of contempt.
As I also said, they are taking full advantage of the fact that I can’t record them, but if it is ‘my BBC’, and if I am paying a fee to watch them, why don’t I have the facility to record them?  In my opinion, it is exactly so they can do this kind of thing and get away with it, not only with me, but other people who don’t have a tv.  And that is an abuse of the medium and of the viewing public.  They get paid with our money, and we have to take their abuse, including stalking (which is probably where they get what they consider to be their best material from these days), and if all we have is a computer we can’t even record it to analyse and satisfy ourselves about what we are seeing and hearing.  After i had been watching a few minutes, they started on about the Barnett Formula, whatever that is.  That was a Welsh politician and the interviewing.  Their faces were wreathed in smiles.  That doesn’t make it OK.  I have asked the right questions of the right people and been met with obstruction.  This is appalling behaviour, most particularly on the part of the politicians, who are supposed to work for everyone without differentiating.
So here, guys – HUEY!!!!  ya can have it back.  🙂
2 or 3 years ago I got mail from people claiming to be the illuminati.  Some sort of elite group, with secrets of how to achieve just about anything you want in terms of money, power, influence and relationship.  Working on laws of attraction or something, I’m not sure.  The literature asked me to forgive them, but they had been studying my profile and believed I had the qualities needed to be part of their group, and that I would be amazed if I knew just who had been studying my profile.  I can’t quite remember, but I think it spoke in terms of my having the right qualities to make an outstanding kind of contribution to society, in some way or other.  It said that, if I wanted the introductory booklet, I just had to fax a copy of the form back to them within a certain time period, and it said to do it immediately, or I would somehow break the dynamic.  I was curious, I don’t think I did do it immediately, but waited until almost the last moment, and I got a booklet back.  I can’t remember how much of it I read.  It basically said that, to be mentored at the highest level, I had to send a fee within a certain period, and that the invitation would never be repeated.  It was about £200 or something.  I didn’t do it.  I had heard them talked about on a radio station, and mocked a bit, so I was a bit wary, but also I thought, if I am that valuable, why the deadline, and why a once only invitation?  I thought that, if I entered into a relationship on those terms, whoever the people said they were, they would always have power over me which they could turn against me any time they wanted to.
The reason I am mentioning this is, I wonder if the stalking has something to do with it?  And also if they are responsible, in any way, or at least have a say in, who gets chosen to run as an MP, for example.  Also media staff, perhaps.  Because all these namesakes and lookalikes, they haven’t employed themselves, and some of them might not even know how they are being used.  People in politics have, ostensibly, at some level, at least, freely chosen a political career, but who decides who is going to make it, who decides on who is going to be used and placed how and where?  There are too many coincidences in my personal experience, and as much as some media people like to insist that such a controlling body with an agenda does not exist, I think it has to.  I’ve heard some people on the radio dismiss the idea as a conspiracy theory, and basically ridicule it and anyone who brings it up.  Just because someone has a theory about a conspiracy, it doesn’t mean the theory is wrong.  The term ‘conspiracy theory’ can’t be used honestly as a dismissive thing.  My good friend Michael (even though we are not in touch anymore) introduced me to the film ZEITGEIST, which can be watched in full online.  It starts off with some anti-religious stuff, which is pretty old hat as far as it goes, but it introduced me to some ideas after that which were new to me.  Why has Gordon Brown left politics?  I thought he said (unless I’m mixing him up with someone else) that even if Labour lost the election, he would stay on as party leader.  I suppose he might have decided it was untenable, and that, for personal reasons, he didn’t want to take a backward step, as it might have been perceived.  But the coincidences.  Loads of them.  The only thing that makes sense is that they are orchestrated, deliberately, and I could well owe an apology to some of the people I have targeted with my anger and distress, because they, personally, might have no idea at all about how they are fitting into the picture being presented.  If that is applicable to anyone reading this, please accept my apology, for at the very least, overloading you.  I am sorry.
What worries me a bit is, if our politicians have been approached in the same way that I was, on the same terms, by ANYONE, and accepted those terms, and basically, manipulative flattery, I am upset for them and afraid for us.  Because, if anyone has accepted those kinds of terms, it must have been either under threat of some kind, or just evidence of an appalling lack of good judgment and principle.  If so, and some of these guys are leaving some of us to rot in the mental health system, for example . . .
So is the stalking of my family something to do with a dark side of the Illuminati?  Their literature said they normally got their way and had ways of dealing with their enemies – honestly, no kidding.  So maybe I’m stupid writing this, I or someone I love might get hurt, or accidents and attacks might happen incorporating details of my recent interests, activities or other significant material.  Also, my sister said she used to now a satanist, and she was frightened of him and believed he was controlling her at a distance.  Maybe that is a form of stalking that she hasn’t recognised for what it is.  And I think I offended some local Wiccans a few years ago, when I hadn’t learned to try and live my life in spite of the stalking, which I didn’t recognise for what it was at the time.  And while I’m going in this direction – sorry, Tommy Boyd – some of Tommy’s videos on Youtube show evidence of information he could only have got from my neighbours, whether through relationship or through stalking, phone bugging or something.  The nature of some of the information itself is weird and invasive in the extreme.
Anyway, enough.  I know people in positions of responsibility are reading this.  I hope some of them will make proper contact to offer help.
Wed, 12 May 2010
Subject: Another Day, Another . . . Premier blog post

Good morning New Britain!
I’m listening to John Pantry, 15 minutes in delay. I thought he was great when he came to Tottenham, back in the 80s. I bought one of his tapes, ‘It’s For You’, and for a long time it was one of my favourites. ‘Hello, It’s Me Again’ – I’ve come just to see/ If there is any forgiveness for someone like me . . . Oh Lord, I said I loved You, and that is no lie/ I’ve held on to living when I’ve wanted to die/ I was tempted, I fell, and there I’ve remained/ Lost in this emptiness, calling Your Name/ But because I know You never change/ Hello . . . It’s me again’.  I think this is such a great song, expressive of the fact that, when there is absolutely no one else we can turn to, we can go to God, and He never changes.  That’s how I used to feel and understand it, anyway, until everyone, including John, I think, got on my case and wouldn’t leave me alone.  And a song that says, ‘Nothing’s gonna change, til we fall on our knees and we cry for forgiveness, and rise up as men prepared. Then who can stand in silence? Does anybody dare?’ Those are two of his best songs on that tape, I think. There’s another I can remember which I used to like, but now I think it is horrible and insulting: ‘You don’t need a doctor unless you’re feeling sick/ You don’t need to join us if you’ve got your problems licked’. It seems to me it is an underhand way of saying, ‘if you don’t want to join us, perhaps you think you are too good for us and have your act together, and really you are proud’. Admittedly I can’t remember the whole song, if I could, I might not see it that way, but it still seems to me like an unnecessary dig for openers, maybe even a little bit mean and sadistic. It is cold comfort, for someone who has had devastating experiences of church, for it to be followed up by, ‘We’re a fellowship of sinners, a rough and ragged crew/ But we’ve all got Jesus in us and we’re learning what to do’. Like, wink, wink, come on, you’ve got to love us.
He still seems to be into unneccesary digs for openers, like one of his favourites seems to be asking God to deliver ‘us’ from a spirit of laziness. I don’t understand, maybe I’m misinterpreting it, but I heard him praying for David Cameron, and the emphasis he put on his name, in the wake of his (apparently) ‘I’m asking God to deliver us from a spirit of laziness, but really I’m having a dig at you, but you can’t prove it’ – frankly, I was horrified. I felt he was setting him up as an object of awe and reverence, taking from me and maybe targeted others in doing so, and if I understand anything, he’s just doing it to protect his own position, to cause so much pain and anger in others they are disempowered when it comes to standing up against him. If David Cameron’s speech was honest yesterday, I’m not sure he would want to be set up in that way by someone who is either deliberately and deviously thuggish, or just plain stupid. That is the pain of my own experience speaking.
Esther was wondering, the other day, how come her name is so much in vogue at the moment, on the back of my ‘Dates in My Diary’ post. Esther, if you read this, when I realised my phone was being bugged I decided to take control of the situation, and decided that, if they were going to bug me, they were going to get the Bible. I sat down and read whole books at a sitting into my unconnected, off-the-hook phone, and the book of Esther was one of them, and I felt a close identification with it. The book of John was another one, and since doing that, I found people were preaching from the opening verses, and reading them with my exact phrasing, intonation and interpretation.