Too much monkey business

[Mock Turtle]

Confessions of an English AvPD-beater?

Apologies to Thomas de Quincey, and for the long post(s) - just a necessity I'm afraid.

From the title one can assume that I am almost certain that I did have AvPD (Avoidant Personality Disorder) for a long period (perhaps three of four decades) but which now appears to have essentially gone. I have never been diagnosed with any mental health issues although I did take anti-anxiety medication for many years after an apparent panic attack. The medication probably did more harm than good. I probably had other issues, such as depression and possibly social anxiety/phobia, for long periods too (certainly depression). It might just be age or fortuitous circumstances as to why I seem to have changed - but I doubt it is the former, since I did notice significant changes occurring at various points in the past. And these did seem to be related to certain events happening then or prior to this. I am male and retired now.

I self-diagnosed AvPD retrospectively some years ago, since my symptoms did accord with much of what would be seen in someone with the disorder and they didn't with all other likely conditions. I spent much of my childhood down at the library, becoming an avid bookworm and subsequently an eclectic web browser, so it has been quite natural to seek out that which interests me. I had been reading much psychology, psychiatry, and related subjects for decades since I did know that I had a problem but not really being able to pin it down properly, so perhaps I was able to recognise AvPD in myself quite quickly when I came across the symptoms online (about 2012). I have since read much material concerning AvPD, some of the relevant books available, and looked at as much material online as I am able (including some forums), dealing with this and other issues, so I am reasonably confident in my diagnosis. I am in no way qualified professionally to utter anything other than my own opinions about this of course. An online calculator, looking back to when I was at my worst, put me in the moderate to high spectrum for having the disorder (80%). Now, I feel relatively normal (16%). Hardly a substitute for a professional diagnosis though and I doubt the online tests are that reliable anyway.

The following, from one website, give the major symptoms likely for anyone having AvPD, with my symptoms highlighted and discussed (asterisks indicating degree of severity - out of five), which mostly have now gone:

* Hypersensitivity to rejection/criticism ****
* Self-imposed social isolation ****
* Extreme shyness or anxiety in social situations, though the person feels a strong desire for close relationships *****
* Avoids physical contact because of association with an unpleasant or painful stimulus ****
* Feelings of inadequacy ***
* Severe low self-esteem *****
* Self-loathing
* Mistrust of others ****
* Emotional distancing related to intimacy *****
* Highly self-conscious *****
* Self-critical about their problems relating to others ****
* Problems in occupational functioning ***
* Lonely self-perception, although others may find the relationship with them meaningful **
* Feeling inferior to others **
* In some extreme cases, agoraphobia *
* Uses fantasy as a form of escapism to interrupt painful thoughts *****

How my avoidance related to some of these issues and changes seen:

Hypersensitivity to rejection/criticism - I had noticed this to be the case quite a lot in the past, whether at work or elsewhere. At work I had often been somewhat offended by criticism of my work, much of it quite legitimate too. I noticed that I would often reject others before they even had a chance to reject me, and they might not have actually done that anyway, but it was the perception of them doing so that often made me react. On a course once, I saw this clearly when I felt criticised by one person, and subsequently just ignored him. Something that he obviously noticed, and for which he later tried to make amends, probably baffled as to why I might react so. The changes might be seen in how I can now accept or reject criticism in person or on the internet, although I do also know when to refrain from just wasting time, so I usually will not persevere when it becomes obvious that nothing will be gained. Similarly, when dealing with others, I generally have no problems, and will apologise for example when I do feel I have overstepped the mark.

Self-imposed social isolation - I was not exactly out-going in the choices of my social interacting, apart from the few friends I had. In fact, all through my life I have never really gone out of my way to meet others, apart from those I would meet through mutual activities. I suppose the natural tendency for any friends to get married and/or move away, and possibly lacking motivation to stay in contact hardly helps here. Travelling abroad, often alone, I would usually meet others, and here I was perhaps more relaxed. In such circumstances, I have even placed myself in possible danger purely out of curiosity. And often abroad, on holiday, there are many people who actually approach you, so it generally becomes easier to socialise. At least that is what I have found. But then, some often approach one with nefarious intent, particularly towards lone travellers! A few years ago, when feeling more natural after so many years in the wilderness, I even went so far as to join some dating sites but, being rational, I soon became disillusioned with these - my age hardly helping! Although I often did have one special friend (as a child and later) I doubt this actually helped, and mostly just kept me isolated from others - the one friend usually just reflecting my own personality.

Extreme shyness or anxiety in social situations, though the person feels a strong desire for close relationships - Simply an inability to approach others, especially females, and more so if I was actually attracted to them. But I did actually want close relationships with others, particularly the many females strewn along the path of life - where I inevitably tripped over them rather than having any meaningful encounters. I generally had no problems with being intimate with any females that I did meet, and I had no problems with making male friends - often having one good friend at least. This has changed too, such that I do not feel anxious in most situations, and have no qualms about posting on the internet as much information as appropriate, for example. But, I doubt I am ready for Stand-Up comedy just yet!

Avoids physical contact because it has been associated with an unpleasant or painful stimulus - The early teenage years were quite problematical due to some sexual abuse I suffered as a child, such that I withdrew from physical contact with most males. This was probably because I thought it might reawaken memories of the actual sexual abuse, and perhaps it would have done. It did take quite a while to let others in, and this probably came about from being less guarded, but also from the sexual intimacy I had with some females later in life and having more natural emotional reactions to others. There also were issues concerning questioning my own sexual orientation, which had been heterosexual and subsequently was just this, but the abuse did question this. See later.

Feelings of inadequacy - It was hard to escape from this since I was so inadequate socially, and even conversationally, since my emotional expression was so poor. My thoughts were just not translated into behaviour, or not at the time it seems, which was doubly frustrating. I think this is one major problem for avoidants, that spontaneity is often lacking, and which I would propose is probably due to emotional issues rather than anything else. Even amongst friends, unless I had imbibed a few pints, I was not exactly loquacious if there were more than one or two present. As in many situations perhaps, the more extrovert tended to dominate the conversation. This has definitely changed, since it is often quite difficult to stop me talking now, and is something I am still having to work at! Doing a lot of writing (an autobiography and finding suitable arguments for any thinking) has perhaps helped in being able to frame my thoughts better when I didn’t have a real necessity to do this before. And having to rewrite constantly to make any writing intelligible and sufficiently cogent has perhaps also made my thinking sharper. I did of course have to do much research related to this, concerning my own life and the lives of others. Writing is something that I would recommend to others, just to place all the relevant information on the table, and to perhaps enable one to recognise likely reasons as to why one might behave as one does. I also keep a journal so as to be able to store any information that seems pertinent to the things with which I am interested.

Severe low self-esteem - Why wouldn't I have this, since I was just not performing to the capabilities that I knew I had - quite intelligent (passed entrance test for Mensa, for example), reasonably good-looking, and performing well physically. Now, I just accept what I am - good, bad, indifferent - and I’m not bothered how others view me. Perhaps the internet has helped here, in that it provides many platforms for anyone to debate and argue with others without perhaps feeling too much pressure, particularly when one can remain anonymous if one chooses to do so. Chatrooms too will no doubt be of value to many. Since I have been active on quite a few forums, perhaps this has boosted my own self-esteem and self-confidence. I know that I rarely come away knowing that I have won any debates, but that doesn't really matter, it is the process of arguing that usually matters. As mentioned above, no doubt preparing one’s thoughts by writing them down, and constantly reviewing them, does help here.

Self-loathing - This didn't really apply, although I might have been disappointed in myself, my behaviour and the possibilities that I invariably missed. I did have a very loving and capable mother together with siblings with whom I got on quite well, so I don’t think I have ever felt this way about myself, and I have had many friends throughout life so as not to make me feel this way. Plus the fact that I am actually quite a nice person, or try to be, so why would I self-loathe? I have also achieved many or most of the things I have actually set out to do, so this will undoubtedly have had an effect. No lack in that direction.

Mistrust of others - The generally self-defensive posture that most avoidants have - seeing much of life as threatening, including most other people. I think it quite likely that my sexual abuse did contribute to my lack of trust in others, although there were a few traumatic incidents that might have affected this too. Such mistrust will undoubtedly be more serious when it derives from betrayal by one formerly seen as a good friend or from a loved relative, and this person was regarded as a friend. As I’ve seen mentioned elsewhere, I think this boils down to having an adult sense of trust rather than a black-and-white sense of trust that a child might have, that is, that we just become aware that people are fallible but that doesn't necessarily define them or apply to others. Like many in my situation, perhaps lack of trust was the main reason why I never really approached others, particularly any professionals, for any help.

Continued next.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Emotional distancing related to intimacy - Again, this will probably be related to the sexual abuse, and which seems to have gotten much better after some intimate sexual moments with others, and my eventually realising that I was definitely not a homosexual. However, perhaps the most likely explanation for my emotional side returning came when I felt the pain of others in rather tragic circumstances. A friend died in a mountaineering accident and I became close to his wife and children. I might have been emotional and tearful before, but when one is so regarding others this does seem to make a big difference - I was with him when he died. I had lost some empathy at one time too, which again has returned to normal levels it seems. I think the closeness I felt for others, and which made me more vulnerable to their pain, did have a significant effect on me subsequently - and noticed as such. I was quite a shy child and which seemed to turn into introversion during secondary school, but I was sufficiently proactive to have some friends for much of my youth and later life. It was probably when many of these had moved on that I began to have real issues. I seem to be emotionally normal now and will be as emotional as the next person, and probably more so than most males.

Highly self-conscious - As for the mistrust, there is always the consideration of being watched, and judged, by others. My inability to have any dance skills was undoubtedly due to this factor, and almost being forced to take a bit-part role in a school production was more than enough excitement for me - which was why I would never have got anything more than this, and no doubt recognised by the teacher involved. Now, I am certainly less self-conscious. Perhaps understanding that most people are more interested in their own lives, rather than ours, would help here since that undoubtedly is the case. Whereas before I would definitely have been placed in the introvert camp when self-tested, I seem to be much more balanced now, but still not exactly extrovert. These days I have relatively little apprehension when meeting others, even as part of a group and will get on with others regardless of any differences.

Self-critical about their problems relating to others - This was perhaps just being realistic, since of course I was completely lacking at times whilst relating to others. As mentioned above, I am less so now, and generally will accept what others think of me. And of course, I never really discussed any of my feelings or issues that I might have had with my friends - well, apart from a few times, and even then I held much back.

Problems in occupational functioning - The inevitable self-questioning probably has to have an affect on all those with AvPD, including aspects of their work, and of course it did have an affect on my work. Constant self-questioning often meant that work was delayed or not done on time. Even the simple task of seeking information from others often became a self-instigated drama. I know that many people during the worst years did know that I had issues, and invariably they tried to avoid me, which is rather ironic for someone with AvPD. Not being in work any more, this no longer applies, and no doubt it wouldn't be an issue anyway. Because of the writing, and where hopefully some of it will eventually be published, this has perhaps helped me concentrate on specific targets rather than just ruminating or worrying about irrelevant issues. Hopefully I am more productive now than I used to be as well. My work, involving more technical aspects rather than being involved with others, didn’t bring me into that much contact with others either.

Lonely self-perception, although others may find the relationship with them meaningful - Perhaps this applied, but I was usually fine in the company of most of my friends - few that they were. And I still do have friends. One of the things in being avoidant perhaps is that is does tend to make one self-reliant - out of necessity.

Feeling inferior to others - Less of this applied, since I did know I was (am) quite intelligent, and capable in many ways. But most of my friends were equally intelligent or more so, hence I did regard myself as being at the bottom end of the scale of abilities even amongst friends. I rarely let others down when in a team or group, and often did display leadership when required. I might not have sought a leadership role, but I did take any responsibilities seriously when required, as when I was the next person in line or the only person to fulfil such a role. And, as mentioned previously, I have achieved many things that most will not have achieved. So one can understand why this particular factor might not apply as much to me.

In some extreme cases, agoraphobia - Less so for this too, although I never liked crowds, probably knowing that many do often abdicate any responsibility for their own actions when being part of a crowd, and I have been the victim of gang violence a few times too, so I am wary of such groupings. So, just the common sense appraisal of the dangers that are inherent in such situations really.

Uses fantasy as a form of escapism to interrupt painful thoughts - I suppose I did indulge in this quite a lot at times, not having that many successful relationships with females being the main issue. Seeing one’s friends and acquaintances having relatively normal relationships was always a little painful to witness, when I knew that this was probably not something that would ever happen for me. Too old now, and not that bothered, but I would have liked it to be otherwise.

So, there are some of the details as to why I did diagnose myself as having AvPD.

I know that there are different views as to the probability of this disorder being a lifelong condition, and the effectiveness of any available therapy, but I just have my own experiences to go on. We know that the history of psychiatry is as troubled as the flowering tree of so many religious beliefs (more prickly hedgerow than tree though), so I doubt we have come to a definitive understanding of this condition yet. I suggest any who are interested read the book, Shrinks: The Untold Story of Psychiatry, by Jeffrey Lieberman (2015), detailing the many horrendous mistakes made up to the present in the field of psychiatry. And few would probably believe that we actually have nothing left to learn with regards AvPD. The book is well worth reading, but there is nothing specifically about AvPD.

As mentioned, I do quite a lot of writing and have written the core material for an autobiography. I realise that any account of my life might not mean that much to others as it stands and hence I will most likely be seeking collaboration with someone suitably qualified to assess my life as to the how it might be relevant to others. I am pretty certain in my own mind but no doubt any message I might wish to send out would be stronger if backed by relevant professional opinion. Although I have had no official diagnosis or any specific therapy, I have looked into some of what is available, and to my mind, any group environment, along with exposure therapy, Schema therapy (from what I have seen) and Emotion Regulation Therapy (from indications), might be worth a look as much as one-to-one therapy, including of course CBT. But that is really just an opinion.

That’s it. Perhaps this will give hope to some, although I do realise that many are resigned to what they see as being, and probably what many professionals regard as being, a lifelong condition. Not my experience, and if the information and possible therapy was around decades ago, then I might not have wasted so much of my life. I can understand why many might just dismiss my account offhand - their right to do so - but they can hardly accuse me of not being honest.

Also, I did notice many of these changes going on - the increased emotionality, empathy for others, ability to withstand criticism, self-confidence, and lessening of self-consciousness, for example, which anyone experiencing such would hardly have not noticed.


A summary of some of the factors that have possibly enabled me to become less avoidant:

1. As mentioned earlier, I think the larger part of regaining my emotional nature came from the trauma of losing a friend in a climbing accident and becoming close to his wife and children for quite a while. And possibly the fact that I was tearful for others, rather than it being in any way self-pity, affected me the most. I had been tearful when recounting my sexual abuse as a child to others but this was different, and quite new for me. The children of my friend were just so open about their feelings of loss that one could hardly have not been affected by this.

2. The confidence, trust, and self-esteem gained from sharing the most intimate details and feelings whilst in a small group of similar people. This also no doubt helped in becoming much less self-conscious too. The physical activities I have been involved with, many being quite dangerous, will probably have built a base for confidence though.

3. Expressing deeply held views on internet forums, and where the vast majority on one particular forum, supportive of some rather controversial views, were hostile to my own views and often to myself as well. Battling alone against so many others did impact my self-esteem, particularly since I was more intelligent than many, but not all, and I can’t claim to have won all the arguments. This last, did require me to do much thinking and gathering of evidence to oppose quite well argued points, even if I did perceive them as being (and were) wrong.

4. Surviving the usual disapprobation from society often meted out to those who are confronted by the law (don't ask!). And I had very little support whilst this was occurring, so basically down to my strength of character to withstand this. Hence a likelihood for myself being able to withstand criticism better - as for the above.

5. My first feelings of love towards another, which I had never experienced before, but easily recognised as such, so that it did reinforce the view that I had become more attuned to my emotions and feelings of empathy, the latter actually being quite missing for a number of years.

6. Having the courage and honesty to recognise change.

7. The ability to eventually stop the destructive and often circular thinking that usually interfered with my behaving in any normal manner with others. This last point is I think an essential requirement to rid oneself of any avoidance issues, such that we let our feelings determine much of what we do rather than be too inhibited by any over-thinking, which does tend to interfere far too much for those with avoidance issues. And this brings us back to the first point, in being better emotionally connected and expressive.

That's all folks!

Almost Since, as I might have mentioned, I find myself in as good a place mentally as I ever could be, and could hardly envision myself being any better - the physical side - well that compensates for the increased mental health by slowly deteriorating - but not drastically so.

Happiness, happiness, the greatest gift .. etc. probably quite appropriate, eh Doddy?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Weeds rather than flowers - on beginnings.

The other day, I was ascending some stone steps returning from a visit to town - these will have been about 10m high. At the top I passed a man and his sweet toddler daughter about to descend. She was probably about a year old or so, tiny and really pretty. She was holding daddy's hand as she began descending the steps and one could see the excitement and sense of adventure on her face. She smiled at me which of course I returned. I doubt a mother would have done this, probably carrying her down the steps instead. But surely the little sweetie was gaining far more from her experience, with daddy safely there to prevent any falls, than by being carried? Although not so frequent these days, such moments - a smile from the very young - can often brighten one's day immeasurably. Perhaps it made up for the female train guard, who I found so attractive and who gave me a smile earlier, but who, because of her age, was beyond my reach. Sob! She also had that brightness shining from her that makes one's day.

The beginnings aspect has been troubling me for some weeks (always has done), since I met someone who has had essentially a very contrasting childhood with myself. As I've mentioned, my earliest times as a child were mostly quite happy and trouble-free, with no lack of love ever being felt and being mostly positive apart from a few traumatic incidents. He seemed to suffer from a lack of love and much discord in the family, such that by the age of 11 he was already embarking on his later quite extensive life of crime and angst. My life changed at a similar age, 11, because of sexual abuse, and although our lives have been very different, I really can empathise with him and have not a single thought as to judging him or what he might have done. Over the years, I have probably been very much against societal views in this regard - when children do really horrible things like murder for example - since I just cannot divorce their past history from how they subsequently became to be. I am thinking here of child murderers such as Mary Bell and the Bulger killers amongst many others. Like many I am sure, I hate it when so many parents are so aggressive to their children in public, often being mothers, and where one would like to intervene but of course never would. One can often see the flowering of weeds rather than flowers - weeds, as in not developing to their potential, rather than being 'worse'.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The origins of ideas and/or insights?

At college doing a Mechanical Engineering course, the lecturer set a problem to solve relating to Structural Design and Materials. There appeared to be some information missing, and I tried my best that evening to solve the problem, eventually giving up about midnight and going to bed quite frustrated since I seldom gave up on any problem. An hour or so later, I suddenly awoke with a eureka moment (just an insight perhaps), and found I had a possible solution to hand, so that the problem could be solved by taking into account other relevant information. I did indeed get the correct answer, and I was somewhat surprised to find that when I went to college the following day I was the only one who had solved the problem. I think my street cred went up a notch at this point, although it was really an indication of my imagination as much as my intelligence, which I suppose is one measure of intelligence - an ability to think outside the box. It did give me an enormous sense of pleasure to have been the only one to have solved the problem, even though it was one of my better subjects, since coming first in an exam is fine, but being the only one to solve a specific problem is even better. I was used to others copying some of my work (such as lab reports), which was repaid later when I had girl issues and college work came second. I had no qualms about others copying, or my doing so, since I knew that mostly, time issues were the problem rather than anything else. I never felt the need to cheat in any exam or to falsify any CVs.

Another idea (or insight) that came unannounced, so to speak, but perhaps just an idle thought anyway, came whilst riding my bike in the peaceful countryside. The thought suddenly occurred to me, where might the origins be for any belief that there was some kind of external controlling influence, such as a god. I mean, why would any proto-human being even think there was a controlling force in the first place? Perhaps it came from a wish to separate one tribe from another - to treat them as lower life - such that they could obtain the other tribe’s resources. The tribe which had such a belief could beg or placate this supposed controlling influence, a god, to intervene on their behalf, perhaps offering sacrifices, and would give them the justification for treating the others as they chose - since they were obviously superior to these others. They in essence saw any without their beliefs as animals, or closer to the other animals, whilst they themselves were human (or proto-human, at least). So, rather than the biblical version, the actual version could be that a separation from the lower life forms was more at work, and mostly just about controlling any resources. I think perhaps that religions are often about this - the controlling of resources. Our separation from the animals still continues, much to their detriment. The existence of thunder and lightning, and of the regular appearance of the sun each day, might have been other reasons for forming such beliefs.



To add to this - perhaps there is something to karma or such. As a youth, working in a drawing office, I used to spend my spare moments drawing the profiles of future cars - one of which I am sure would match the car I presently own.

And, long before computers or the internet, I did envision there being a central repository for accessing all the music that one might want. Mmmmh

 

[Mock Turtle]

More on beginnings (mine).

Apart from the physical trauma I suffered as a child, and not being that exceptional really apart from the fractured knee which was quite traumatic, there were various knockbacks from interactions with girls. I seemed destined to never getting even close to any females throughout my childhood, and later, each adding to my conditioning no doubt, even though I had many opportunities, but there were some successes amongst the many failures:

* New girl who moved into a house on our road, and where she almost immediately got the cold-shoulder by many of the other kids because she put her hand down the front of her shorts and an older girl said she was dirty - said possibly because the older girl had been religiously indoctrinated. I was just too shy to ignore what she had said. There was no indication that the girl was anything other than being a nice girl. She was probably 11 or 12 at the time. If I had made friends with this girl I think my fear of girls would have vanished - being a catalyst perhaps, as she seemed quite forward - enough to overcome any of my hesitation at least. I really do regret not having had the gumption to ignore the views of others then. Living in an all-male household, I had little opportunity to find out the differences between boys and girls. Once, when a younger girl wanted to pee in a front garden, I (and another) might have had a chance to at least see what a girl had down below, but even that was thwarted by a nosey woman shouting from a window.

* Blamed for harming a younger girl (who was a twin) by her father (he came round to our house and almost hit me) when it was entirely an accident - she turned suddenly and ran into a wall, grazing her face badly, but we were never closer than a few metres - she did nothing it seems to tell the truth about the incident. My mother believed my side of the story and defended me vehemently, knowing I would never intentionally harm a girl. The girl had been flirting with me and I was quite attracted to her since she was quite pretty. She was probably 11 or 12 at the time - me a little older. Of course I kept well clear of her subsequently. I had to go past her house on the way to primary school, and fortunately I was then going to secondary school, which was in the opposite direction.

* Attracted to several girls at secondary school (some in the year below), and a few made attempts to let me know they fancied me but I was such a wimp as not to make any moves when I probably knew this. One was a gorgeous redhead who always seemed to be ill when school photos were taken - but I fancied her, as did most, more than I think she fancied me. One other girl, about two years younger, I think was also attracted to me - quite vivacious, and possibly a very lost opportunity. Had brief relationships with two girls, and a longer one of a few months with another. She was probably my first real girlfriend. Pity it never lasted since I did have taste in choosing very nice girls, and she was just about as good as it gets - pretty, intelligent, kind and gentle, laughed at my jokes - what more could anyone have wanted?

* At a Youth Hostel once, on a cycling holiday, two girls began to talk about sexual matters, with the prettier one talking about how the boys at her school had had her naked over a desk. They even asked if it was OK to ‘get naked,’ and I just wondered what they thought when I just panicked and bolted. The other boy there at the time must also have thought I was simply mad. On the same holiday, I met a very nice girl, Pauline, from York. She was very nice, intelligent, was pretty, had the most beautiful accent, and I played some board games with her. She and her friend were walking in Swaledale, and I almost gave up my next day’s cycling to join them, but of course I didn’t.

* Another incident, involved a younger girl whilst I was on holiday in Ireland with a friend - her asking, ‘Would I like to go for a ride on the beach.’ - should have been understood better, even if she was somewhat younger than myself. I did later see what 'ride' meant, as it seemed the place for all sorts of unions - and not the industrial sort!

* Whilst living in a flat, there was a young girl aged about 13 or 14 in a flat above, who lived with her mother. The girl was quite attractive and a bit wayward. She perhaps knew I fancied her even though she was far too young. Once, she came down the stairs just as I was returning home, and she was really dolled-up - stilettos, black fishnet stockings, mini-skirt, see-through white blouse, mascara, lipstick, etc., such that she really looked like a young prostitute. Perhaps she was, and I think she became pregnant not so long after since she had the most awful row with her mother one day. I think she did have an older boyfriend. I purposely held on to a communal vacuum cleaner once to get her to come to my flat, but I chickened out with actually trying to approach her when she did indeed appear.

* Before taking up residence in the flat mentioned above, three friends and myself shared a room for a month. In one of the flats below there were two girls aged about 16 or 17, one was quite attractive, named Denise, and she was apparently pregnant. Once when I was there alone, she came up for something, I can’t remember what, but she stayed to play some card games I think, and she might have wanted more than just company. She had shortish hair and was quite pretty. She just had a dressing gown and nightie on. Perhaps this was another lost opportunity. I was 19 then.

* Attracted to a girl at college but completely lacked any ability to contact her - very frustrating. She was attractive but not exactly sexy - there were many more such girls at college that made it into my sexual fantasies - but she just appeared to be so nice and intelligent. The only time I attempted to contact her was at an evening event at college, and where I was quite drunk, which didn’t see me getting anywhere as usual. Driving home in the late hours, I was lucky I wasn’t stopped by the police, although the roads were almost empty. It was also hardly the time to be trying out my clutch-less gear changes - accelerator down to the floor all the time - but I was past caring about anything by then. There were no females on our engineering course and all the females at college were either doing teacher training or chemistry courses.

* Another girl whilst at college met at a pub whilst out with a friend, and where I again got nowhere. She was a cracker, and obviously up for it, so that one was extremely disappointing.

* A further incident occurred when a very attractive petite girl sat at my table at a café and engaged me in conversation. I was rather tongue-tied, but since she did much of the running, I should have been OK, even getting as far as moving to a pub and chatting some more with her. However, I chose college work over a date later at a club, since I had been threatened about late work. I should have chosen her, especially since she was rather delectable, and also appeared to be up for some sexual escapades, and this would have been my first sexual experience. We actually kissed when we parted. She had the overall appearance of a beautiful pale and perfect little doll, and she was 18 apparently, although she did look younger. She came into the café with another fellow a few days later. End of story.

* In a cinema once, a girl behind made it known that she wanted to get to know me, but her manner of doing so, using her feet against the back of my seat constantly, just annoyed me and I just moved. Whilst at school I had a similar experience from a girl in the year above. Standing, during assemblies, she would use her feet to peel my long socks down, and sometimes push me with her hooped skirt, which were all the rage then. She was really pretty too, but since she was older, even by just a year, I never saw her as attainable, as I didn’t for most girls, but being older was a real problem - too many older boys to worry about. That didn’t stop me from fantasising about her however. I patted the bottom of one younger girl I fancied once, and I nearly got beaten up by her older boyfriend. Fortunately I pointed him in the direction of another boy in our class - he did beat me to be top in mathematics after all!

* At other times, I just wasn’t that attracted to some of those who indicated an interest - such as two check-out girls at supermarkets - but at least I was honest and didn’t string them along.

In addition to these, I did have a few sexual escapades but none of them meant much to me or the girls involved I imagine. I managed to have a poor showing with one girl whilst my friend had sex with another (the prettier one) on the floor of my flat - both picked up in a pub. On another occasion at a party, a girl arrived quite late, so that I was almost drunk, but she didn’t mind me grabbing her immediately to kiss. She came back to my flat quite quickly, but I was just too far gone to perform. Instead she came over the next day and we had sex several times. My first experience of full sex came about after being dragged to a dance-hall by my friend. I met a lovely 19-year-old Irish girl by accident, and subsequently saw her again a couple of times before going back home to where I lived, several hundred miles away. She came to stay for a weekend and we had as much enjoyment as we could fit into the time available, but that was it, no further contact.

But even if these did not actually contribute to my likelihood of having AvPD, they certainly ensured that I didn't have the means to lessen the chances - as in having someone close enough so as to be emotionally involved with, and to share my thoughts and feelings with them. Without such a companion I did just tend to keep much to myself and to just meander on in life without any real sense of purpose.

Fortunately the latter has changed for the better, but not the former.

 

[Mock Turtle]

More bits of history.

Once, on the motorway, I was travelling on a coach when we all saw an explosion some way ahead. The coach slowed and stopped near the accident, and a few of us got off to help. It appears that a car and a towed caravan had both been blown apart by a gas explosion. The caravan had disintegrated almost completely, and the car had been ripped open, the roof gone. The driver had the steering wheel embedded in his chest and was obviously dead, whilst his wife, although shocked, was alive and sat by the side of the road. It seems that there had been a gas leak. We cleared up the mess as best we could. Another time on the same motorway, I was travelling as a passenger in a car, when we spotted a car on its roof by the side of the road, one wheel still spinning. I don’t know if it had just happened, but we were in the overtaking lane I think, going quite fast, so the driver decided not to stop, and there was quite a lot of traffic too. I think the first time I had seen someone dead was when an old woman was knocked down by, of all things, a milk float, which happened in our road. The second time was when we were all on a school trip once. We were taking a boat trip to or from Hampton Court Palace or the Tower of London, I think, and across near the other river bank we could see a police launch recovering what appeared to be a woman’s body from the water, and she looked quite dead.

An incident that caused some amusement, but which might have been serious, happened whilst I was coming back from the Lakes on a single-decker bus. The driver had to brake sharply for some reason. In front of me on the other side was a rather plump middle-aged woman. She was sitting in a single seat with quite a space in front of her, presumably for prams and such. When he braked, she might have been dozing or her mind was perhaps elsewhere, so that she was catapulted from her seat about two metres, rotating about her feet but keeping her sitting attitude, and she ended up, knees and head on the floor with her head jammed up against the front wall. She just stayed like that for several seconds as myself and a few other passengers took in what had just happened. It was just so funny watching this, as if in slow-motion, but we knew she might have hurt herself, so I and another quickly went to help her up. She appeared to be alright, with no injuries apart from her loss of dignity. Very unexpected, and something that tends to stay in one’s memory for a long time. If I needed to put a smile on my face, this was the event that did it for me for quite a while, although the scene in the film Inbetweeners 2 where one of the intrepid four is chased down a water flume by some turds is so disgusting but also very funny.

If I really needed to feel sad then just thinking about the murder of Jill Dando or the accident to Kirsty MacColl was enough. Once, on a holiday to Greece, I had been snorkelling on my own in a quiet bay (no boats about), often diving quite deep, 30 or 40 feet, and on one occasion I saw a speedboat go hurtling along above me. It was quite disconcerting, and I might have ended up as Kirsty had - such a tragic accident to a lovely singer.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Some more about our climbing adventures - and problems.

Although many of our outdoor activities were quite dangerous, especially mountaineering, and a few of my friends did have accidents which necessitated being rescued by helicopter, none of my close friends with whom I climbed had any such accidents - apart from myself breaking an ankle in a rather unlucky incident on one alpine mountain, which did also require the use of a helicopter. This was my first visit to the Alps and subsequently I never had any further trouble. There were compensations for this though - some lovely nurses at the hospital in Visp - nuns I believe. A girl in our party on a trip to Skye, fell and broke her leg rather badly, and had to be helicoptered off to hospital. She was with her boyfriend, and it was probably due to inattention that she fell since otherwise it was inexplicable - it being quite easy terrain. Two of the more experienced and more bold climbers had accidents too. On one occasion, one of them fell quite high up on a route in the Alps - injuring his knee, not too badly, but it necessitated them bivvying out overnight so that he then caught some frostbite to one hand. They managed to avoid a helicopter rescue on this occasion, getting down on their own. The second incident involved the other guy. Also in the Alps, they had been descending a glacier after completing their route when a slip occurred, causing the pair of them, roped together, to go cart-wheeling down the steep glacier. Again, they both escaped what might have been much more serious injuries or worse, but one of them did sustain a major shoulder injury, which necessitated a helicopter call-out.

The main reason why my usual climbing companion and I never had any major problems was probably because we did not over-stretch ourselves, we were both of equal ability and confidence, and we rarely took risks. Carry on regardless was not one of our mottos. Our climbing the Matterhorn together was one of my best experiences probably because I trusted my friend so much, we were perhaps as fit as we could ever get (although we never did much training), and we were lucky with the conditions (very little snow), the weather, and the relatively low number of other climbers. Generally, whenever my friends and myself were out on the hills or when we went mountaineering, we were all equipped properly, sufficiently skilled, and seldom came to harm because of this aspect.

I did the Cuillin Ridge on Skye, with four others, and over two days since it was so hot that year. It was whilst doing this route, that I had one of my few accidents in the mountains, although not fortunately at all serious. We were climbing un-roped up to the ridge to place some water stashes, in preparation for an attempt later to traverse the whole ridge. My friends were above me climbing the final corner to gain the ridge, and the leader dislodged a large rock about the size of a football down on to us. It fell on to a female above me, knocking her off, and she fell on top of me. I fell then, and we landed in a heap several metres below. Fortunately she was not hurt badly (me being a cushion), sustaining some bruising, and I managed to get away with a few bruises too - my borrowed helmet fortunately taking much of the impact. Luckily that was the only incident for the rest of the trip, and we eventually set off and completed the route over two days (it's normally done in one day) - and very enjoyable it was too. It did make me aware of thirst however, since we were at the limits whilst undertaking a quite strenuous route. It happened to be one of the hottest summers that year. The beers in the pub later never tasted better. We bivvyed on the ridge twice, and it was the first time that I had been above the clouds waking one morning, with us in perfect sunshine.

 

[Mock Turtle]

 

[Mock Turtle]

The more important actual events, and personal ones, that might have some meaning for me are as follows (hopefully accurate):

2017 Mugabe resigns; Robot does first somersault; Sexual harassment claims abound.
2017 58 killed by wealthy lone gunman during concert in Las Vegas.
2017 Ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.
2017 ISIS removed from most regions that they had occupied.
2017 New Zealand wins the America’s Cup; Chris Froome has his 4th TDF win.
2017 The usual terrorist attacks, including 22 killed at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester.
2017 Deaths - Chuck Berry; 88 killed in London tower-block fire.
2017 Tories returned to power after snap election.
2016 The UK votes to leave the EU - so much for referendums!; the USA gets Trump - Hahahahahaha!
2016 Zika virus spreads to North America; Cameron resigns as PM, May takes over (Thatcher MkII).
2016 Murray wins second Wimbledon title; Olympics in Rio De Janeiro; Military coup in Turkey fails.
2016 Astronomers discover earth-like planet around nearest star, 4 Light Years away.
2016 Panama evidence released showing the mass scale of tax evasion; TAFKA Prince dies.
2016 Gravitational waves detected for first time; The usual terrorist **** occurring!
2016 David Bowie dies; FriendsReunited closes; Zika virus declared global health emergency by WHO.
2015 Widespread flooding in the UK.
2015 Muslim couple kill 14 in USA; Women allowed into office in Saudi Arabia - hip-hip-hooray!
2015 Terrorists kill about 130 in Paris; Russia suspended from athletics competition because of doping.
2015 About 100 people killed by bombs at a peace rally in Ankara, Turkey; China ends one-child policy.
2015 Over 700 killed in stampede at Mecca during Hajj - over 1400 died similarly in 1990.
2015 Volkswagen found falsifying emission levels for their diesel cars; Evidence of water found on Mars.
2015 11 killed as Hunter jet aircraft crashes at Shoreham air show; Corbyn is new Labour (RIP) leader.
2015 Terrorist bomb atrocity kills 21 at Hindu shrine in Bangkok, Thailand.
2015 Devastating explosions at port of Tianjin, China, killing more than a hundred, possibly from errors.
2015 The USA adopts gay marriage across all states; The USA restores contact with Cuba.
2015 Islamic extremist kills 38 in Tunisia, 30 from the UK, with more terrorist acts carried out elsewhere.
2015 First attempts, by Chinese, to genetically modify embryos; Earthquakes in Nepal, over 8,000 dead.
2015 Worst year for migrant deaths in Mediterranean so far, one incident involved 800 being drowned.
2015 Islamic extremists from Al-Shabaab kill 148 Christians at a college in Kenya.
2015 Suicide and murder of 149 by deranged co-pilot of an A320 plane, crashed in the French Alps.
2015 Islamic extremists attack the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in France killing 12.
2014 The rise of Islamic State (IS, ISIS, ISIL, etc.); Gay marriage legalised in the UK.
2014 Robotic spacecraft Rosetta lands probe on comet; Taliban kill 132 children at a Peshawar school.
2014 Flight MH370 disappears mysteriously; Major ebola outbreak in Africa; Russia annexes Crimea.
2013 Wimbledon win for Murray; Chelyabinsk meteor; LHC confirms existence of Higgs boson.
2013 Rana Plaza garment factory collapses in Bangladesh killing 1134 workers; Snowden disclosures.
2013 Oscar Pistorius kills his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp who was locked in the bathroom.
2012 Tour de France win for Bradley Wiggins; London Olympic Games; Sandy Hook school massacre.
2012 Costa Concordia, an Italian cruise ship runs aground and capsizes, 32 people dead.
2012 Lance Armstrong stripped of all his Tour de France wins after admitting extensive past doping.
2011 Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear incident, 18,000 killed.
2011 Libyan Civil War, Gaddafi killed; Mass killing of 77 in Norway by Anders Breivik.
2010 Beginnings of the Arab Spring; Osama bin Laden killed; 12 killed in Cumbria by Derrick Bird.
2010 Iceland's Eyjafjallajökull volcano erupts; Haiti earthquake, probably about 100,000 killed.
2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig accident in the Gulf of Mexico, largest ever oil spill.
2010 David Cameron becomes PM in the UK.
2009 Michael Jackson dies; Josef Fritzl sentenced after raping and imprisoning his daughter for 24 years.
2008 Global recession; Large Hadron Collider (LHC) operational; Earthquake in China kills 70,000.
2007 The British clipper ship Cutty Sark damaged by a major fire during restoration work.
2007 Gordon Brown becomes PM in the UK.
2006 Saddam Hussein hanged; Mumbai train bombings, 209 killed; Earthquake in Java kills over 5,000.
2005 Islamist terrorist bombings in London (7/7), 52 dead; Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes killed.
2005 Earthquake in Pakistan kills over 80,000; The Millennium Dome renamed The O2.
2005 Hunting wild animals with dogs banned in UK; Hurricane Katrina; Gay partnerships legal in UK.
2004 Tsunami in South-East Asia, where about 230,000 died; John Peel dies aged 65.
2004 Beslan school incident where at least 385 died; Madrid terrorist train bombings kills 192.
2004 Flash floods cause extensive damage in Boscastle.
2003 Human genome mapped for the first time.
2003 Invasion of Iraq by coalition forces; Saddam Hussein captured; Columbia space shuttle disaster.
2002 My mother dies; Ian Huntley murders two 10-year-old girls; Bali nightclub bomb kills 202.
2001 Twin Towers Islamist extremist attacks, 2,977 dead; Douglas Adams dies aged 49.
2001 Earthquake in India kills 20,000; Nepalese Royal family massacre.
2000 Kirsty MacColl killed whilst swimming; Global stock markets crash; Millennium Dome opens.
2000 Kursk submarine accident, 118 dead; Concorde accident during take-off at Paris, 113 dead.
1999 Columbine High School shooting, 13 dead; Jill Dando killed; Earthquake in Turkey kills 17,000.
1998 Death penalty for all offences abolished in UK.
1997 Princess Diana dies; Deep Blue computer beats Kasparov at chess; SO register starts in UK.
1997 My father dies; Hong Kong handed back to China; Tories out; Tony Blair becomes PM in the UK.
1996 The first animal cloned - Dolly the sheep, and in the UK; Six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey killed.
1996 Dunblane school attack, 16 children and two teachers shot dead; IRA bombing in Manchester.
1995 Beginnings of the internet appear; Oklahoma City bombing, killing 168 people.
1994 Rwandan genocide, where more than 500,000 Tutsis were killed by rival Hutus.
1994 The ferry MS Estonia sank in heavy seas in the Baltic. 852 people died; Channel tunnel opened.
1994 The comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 collides with Jupiter; Ayrton Senna dies at San Marino Grand Prix.
1994 Major earthquake in Los Angeles, 57 dead.
1993 South African apartheid ends; Nelson Mandela becomes president; Czechoslovakia dissolves.
1993 Waco siege, 76 die in confrontation with the FBI; Jamie Bulger murdered by two 10-year-old boys.
1992 The UK exits the ERM after Black Wednesday.
1991 71 teenage girls raped by boys at a co-ed boarding school in Kenya, 19 died attempting to escape.
1991 First Gulf war, during which all Iraqis removed from Kuwait; USSR dissolves; Miles Davis dies.
1991 Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupts, largest since 1912; Yugoslavia begins to split.
1990 Thatcher gone; Iraq invades Kuwait; Strangeways Prison riot.
1990 The Hubble space telescope launched; Earthquake in Iran kills 40,000; John Major becomes PM.
1989 Fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe.
1989 Tiananmen Square massacre; Marchioness-Bowbelle disaster.
1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster; Burma becomes known as Myanmar; Ceaușescus executed.
1988 Aircraft bomb atrocity over Lockerbie; The Satanic Verses published, followed in 1989 by a fatwā.
1988 One pound note removed from circulation in the UK; Three Prov. IRA members killed in Gibraltar.
1987 Origins of GPS system launched; Herald of Free Enterprise car ferry sank, 193 people died.
1987 I climb Mont Blanc solo; Hungerford massacre by Michael Ryan, 16 dead; BSE confirmed in UK.
1986 Near-fatal accident (motorcycle); Chernobyl nuclear disaster; Challenger space shuttle disaster.
1985 First computer bought, an Amstrad 6128; Earthquake in Mexico kills 9,500.
1985 39 football fans die at Heysel stadium in Belgium, after trouble between rival supporters.
1985 Fire at Bradford City’s football ground kills 56 people; Gorbachev is leader of the Soviet Union.
1984 A friend and I climb the Matterhorn; Brighton bomb attempt on Thatcher; Murder of Indira Gandhi.
1983 One pound coin introduced in the UK; First music CDs generally available.
1982 The UK defeats Argentina in a war over the Falkland Islands.
1982 Cycle Haute Route (Geneva to Nice) and Corsica; Thelonious Monk dies; The Mary Rose raised.
1981 First case of AIDS discovered in the UK; SDP founded.
1980 Buy 31 foot yacht; Rhodesian independence; John Lennon murdered; Death of Steve McQueen.
1980 Southern Rhodesia eventually becomes Zimbabwe, Northern Rhodesia becoming Zambia (1964).
1980 Smallpox eradicated worldwide; Beginning of Iran-Iraq war.
1979 Fastnet yacht race disaster, 18 dead including three rescuers, several yachts abandoned or sunk.
1979 Three Mile Island nuclear incident; Pol Pot ousted from Cambodia after Vietnam/Cambodia war.
1979 Lord Mountbatten killed by an IRA bomb whilst aboard his boat; Airey Neave killed by car bomb.
1979 Margaret Thatcher becomes PM in the UK; Iran becomes an Islamic Republic; Second oil crisis.
1978 Break ankle climbing; Breakdown; Mass suicide/murder at Jonestown, Guyana, with 918 dead.
1978 Louise Brown, first IVF baby born - in the UK; Cold winter in UK; Earthquake in Iran kills 15,000.
1978 The Black and White Minstrels TV show ends.
1977 Land’s End to John O’Groats cycle ride; Death of Marc Bolan; M1 motorway completed.
1976 Earthquake in China kills about 240,000 people; Earthquake in Guatemala kills 23,000.
1976 Manned missions by the USA to the Moon end; James Callaghan becomes PM in the UK.
1975 Skye Ridge traverse; Vietnam war ends; Moorgate train accident, 43 killed.
1975 Earthquake in China kills 10,000.
1975 Pol Pot comes to power, Cambodia renamed People’s Republic of Kampuchea - Cambodia in 1991.
1974 Discovery of Terracotta Army in China; Provisional IRA pub bombings; Three-Day week imposed.
1974 Cumbria formed from Cumberland and Westmorland; Earthquake in China kills 20,000.
1974 Harold Wilson is PM in the UK; Greek coup d'etat, Turkish invasion, and division of Cyprus.
1973 Britain joins the EEC; Arab-Israeli (Yom Kippur) war and oil embargo (First oil crisis).
1972 Munich Olympics massacre; Ceylon renamed Sri Lanka; School leaving age raised to 16, from 15.
1971 Jim Morrison dies; Creation of Bangladesh from what was East Pakistan; OZ magazine trial in UK.
1971 The UK transitions to decimal currency; First use of Lunar Roving Vehicle by Apollo crew.
1970 Voting age in UK lowered from 21 to 18; Gay Liberation Front formed; Edward Heath PM in UK.
1970 Pakistan cyclone Bhola kills at least 300,000 people; left college; Jimi Hendrix dies; Equal Pay Act.
1970 Landslide on Mount Huascarán in Peru, precipitated by an earthquake, kills over 60,000 people.

Continued ..

 

[Mock Turtle]

1969 Women’s Liberation Movement formed; Troops deployed to Northern Ireland.
1969 First test flight of Concorde; Manson Family murders in the USA, including the actress Sharon Tate.
1969 First Moon landing, by the USA; Death of Judy Garland; Gaddafi comes to power in Libya.
1968 My Lai village atrocity in Vietnam, several hundred civilians murdered by US soldiers.
1968 Mary Bell aged 10/11 murders two toddlers; First single-handed Round-the-World yacht race.
1968 Jim Clark dies at Hockenheim; Prague Spring; Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King killed.
1968 USS Scorpion, a US nuclear-powered submarine sank, 99 dead; Three other submarines also sunk.
1968 Enoch Powell sacked after rivers of blood speech; The film 2001: A Space Odyssey made.
1967 Foot-and-mouth outbreak in UK; First human heart transplant by Christiaan Barnard.
1967 BBC Radios 1, 2, 3, and 4 formed from older stations Light, Home and Third; John Coltrane dies.
1967 Arab-Israeli war; Homosexuality made legal in the UK; Donald Campbell killed on Coniston Water.
1966 England win football World Cup; Aberfan spoil heap slip kills 116 children and 28 adults at school.
1966 Bob Dylan’s Manchester Free Trade Hall concert; Decade-long cultural revolution in China begins.
1965 Brady and Hindley child murders discovered (Moors Murders); Post Office (BT) tower completed.
1965 Bob Dylan’s London Albert Hall concert; First space walk by Alexei Leonov.
1964 Tanzania formed from Tanganyika and Zanzibar; Last two persons hanged in UK.
1964 Harold Wilson PM in the UK; Brezhnev replaces Khrushchev as leader of the Soviet Union.
1963 London/Edinburgh/London cycle ride; Malaysia formed; JFK killed in Dallas; Aldous Huxley dies.
1963 USS Thresher, a US nuclear-powered attack submarine sank during tests, 129 killed; Profumo affair.
1963 Great Train Robbery in UK, over £2 million stolen; Sir Alec Douglas-Home PM in the UK.
1962 Telstar, the first generation of communications satellites launched; London smog.
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis; left school; Death of Marilyn Monroe; Third coldest winter ever in UK.
1961 Berlin Wall erected; Birth control pill developed; Thalidomide withdrawn after many birth defects.
1961 Yuri Gagarin, from the USSR, is first human into space, orbiting the Earth.
1960 Lady Chatterley’s Lover published; Death of Eddie Cochran; Eichmann found in Argentina.
1960 Earthquake in Agadir, Morocco killing 10,000; End of conscription in the UK.
1959 Lolita published in the UK; First section of M1 motorway opened; First Hovercraft SR-N1 tested.
1959 Buddy Holly and others killed in plane crash; London smog.
1958 Munich air disaster involving Manchester United football team; Laika the dog dies in Sputnik 2.
1957 Near-fatal accident (cliff slide); Windscale incident; left primary school; CND formed.
1957 The UK tests its first Hydrogen bomb; Harold Macmillan becomes PM in the UK.
1956 World’s first commercial nuclear reactor, at Calder Hall in the UK.
1956 Hungarian uprising; Soviet troops invade Hungary; Suez crisis; Clean Air Act.
1955 Sir Anthony Eden becomes PM in the UK; Khrushchev is leader of the Soviet Union.
1954 Total (partial in UK) solar eclipse - viewed at school; Fractured my knee; All food rationing ends.
1953 Mount Everest climbed; Queen Elizabeth II Coronation.
1952 Death of King George VI; Last tram ride in London; First UK nuclear bomb test; London smog.
1951 Festival of Britain; Sir Winston Churchill becomes PM in the UK.
1948 Lost at seaside.
1945 Birth. (Conceived while the war was still going on, so a war-baby perhaps, rather than one of those nasty baby boomers, who it seems, can be blamed for almost all our woes - by some.)

Some events that will have escaped my notice - often as a result of my being a child at the time:

1961 Bay of Pigs episode; Central Pillar of Freney tragedy involving Walter Bonatti.
1959 Fidel Castro forms new government; Billie Holiday dies; Dalai Lama flees Tibet for India.
1955 Jazz great Charlie Parker dies; James Dean dies in a car crash; Ruth Ellis, last woman to be hanged.
1955 Over 80 killed in Le Mans 24 Hour race crash, including Mercedes-Benz driver Pierre Levegh.
1955 Polio vaccine introduced in the UK; First TV adverts introduced.
1953 Korean war ends; Rebellion in Cuba by Fidel Castro.
1953 Crick, Watson, Wilkins, and Franklin discover nature of DNA; Stalin dies.
1952 29 killed at Farnborough air show when DH 110 prototype jet broke up and crashed into the crowd.
1952 Worst smog in London as thousands more die than normal; Cold winter too - 52/53.
1950 Korean war begins; China invades Tibet and annexes it a year later.
1949 Uranium mine explosions in East Germany kills 3,700; Siam finally renamed Thailand.
1949 HMS Amethyst escapes down the Yangtze river; USSR performs first nuclear test.
1949 People's Republic of China proclaimed by Mao Zedong; Taiwan is formed; Berlin airlift stops.
1948 Berlin airlift starts; Mahatma Gandhi assassinated; London Olympic Games; Israel formed.
1948 NHS and Welfare State established.
1947 India gains independence from the UK, Pakistan created; Communists seize power in Hungary.
1947 Claims of sighting Flying Saucer objects over Mount Rainier by pilot Ken Arnold.
1947 Alleged and disputed Roswell UFO incident; Cold winter in UK; Coal industry nationalised.
1946 Beginnings of war in Vietnam; Ku Klux Klan murder four blacks at Moore’s Ford bridge.
1945 Founding of United Nations; First use of nuclear weapons, by the USA against Japan.
1945 Clement Attlee becomes PM in the UK; Influenza vaccine developed.

 

[Mock Turtle]

My first job was in a technical drawing office in the centre of London, and involved me undergoing a five year engineering apprenticeship. I spent many of my lunch breaks at Dillons or Foyles for browsing books, HMV or Dobells for music, or at Heals on Tottenham Court Road for just ogling - artists like Hockney often being exhibited. If I could have afforded to buy one then it might have been a very good investment.

When the head office, which was where I worked, moved up north to where the main site operated, I had to make the decision either to end the apprenticeship or to move north. I chose the latter, and so left home at age 19, before both my older brothers. Whilst there, as part of the apprenticeship, I spent periods in many different departments and on the shop floor. Much of this was very enjoyable, particularly made so by the many Polish workers who were more than helpful with us apprentices. It seemed they were all very hard workers too. The UK government might have had a very questionable policy towards Poland after the war (betrayal perhaps), but it seems that many Polish were more than happy to work in the UK, and I am sure they were very much appreciated, as much as any others. It is often the case that what our governments do doesn’t always reflect on the attitudes of their citizens. There were advantages in travelling around and working (not much of that done!) in the various departments during my apprenticeship, like - making boomerangs in the casting pattern shop; making a propeller shaft and thrust bearing for a friend’s speedboat; modifying the cylinder head for my souped-up car; and making the ingenious links for our caving ladders.

It was whilst I was working in one shop floor department, the toolroom I think, that I met Terry Downey. His 10-year-old daughter Lesley Ann was abducted, raped, and murdered by Brady and Hindley, the Moors Murders duo. We all felt for him as he was a nice guy, and we couldn’t imagine how anyone could harm such a young girl, especially since the pair seemed to get pleasure from torturing their victims. Some years later, I found out that a colleague of Terry’s had lashed out at a 6-year-old girl in a fit of rage and had killed her, and I knew him too - he seemed such a quiet chap. The Moors Murders case really shocked many at the time, since it was so despicable, and the psychopathy of Brady was quite evident to all. Hindley, being a woman, was despised even more perhaps because many could not conceive of a woman actually aiding or doing such evil acts. Presumably Terry was separated or divorced at the time from Ann, the mother of Lesley, since Terry’s name cannot be found anywhere in the history of these murders, not even on the young girl’s headstone, where her stepfather’s name Alan appears.

When I was at college I had a flat in a house where three of my college classmates also had flats. The house was owned by a relative of (HH), who was from Iran, and the others were (GG), from Greece, and (HK) from India, so it was quite a cosmopolitan mix. We all got on fairly well together, and (GG), (HK), and myself often went across the road to the British Council to use their facilities. They had a table-tennis table there, and (GG) used to wind up (HK) all the time by exaggerating his shots, and winning, much to our amusement, since (HK) was usually so serious about his playing. I got on well with (GG), he had a great sense of humour, and when we picked up a couple of girls at a pub, mine being especially gorgeous, it was very disappointing to find myself completely inadequate as usual, and they just left my flat not long after arriving. (HH) was very flamboyant, and very intelligent, but he did have dubious morals, not seeing much wrong with claiming for lost baggage whenever he travelled by air. He had a nice girlfriend, who I suspect he treated quite badly. He also had a cousin Janet, 16-years-old, who also lived there, and she was very attractive. Another lad who lived there, walked in on her as she was in the shared bath once - I just wished it had been me. This was a decade before the Iranian Revolution, so I don’t know how (HH) and his relatives fared later.

It was while living at this flat that I went through a succession of old cars. One, an old Vauxhall Victor, I bought for parts and spares for another I owned. Two friends and I cut it up in the road, taking the bits I wanted, and we dumped the rest. This consisted of driving to a likely location, most of the heavy bits loaded on to the cut-off roof of the car in my van, and tying a rope to this and to a tree. Driving off, and then quickly shutting the rear doors left the mess behind. Rather unsociable of us all really, but that is what one often does as a youth. Much later in life, I hired a van to take some stuff to the local council waste disposal, but was refused entry because it was a commercial vehicle. Blôôdy jobsworth! I dumped the lot, was caught by some identifying rubbish, but when I explained they let me off - which was nice of them - but this wouldn’t have happened if someone had not been so blôôdy-minded in the first place. With the same van, I helped a friend dispose of some of his waste at his local tip, and we had no problems there. The council also decided to close down my local tip making it more likely for fly-tipping than before.

In the early 1970s, a good friend and I visited his friend’s flat. His friend was married, with quite an attractive wife, and they had a young baby. I seemed to get on quite well with her, and when offered the baby to hold, I responded as naturally as I could and did so. I seemed to be able to calm the baby quite naturally from any possible crying and they commented on this. I had no intentions towards his wife, but later, my friend told me that I was off-limits to her. Her husband had become extremely jealous it seems. Quite an amusing episode since my friend could not see how this might have happened, and neither could I, since I was just being friendly, although I must admit she was quite nice. I was just so naive really. Perhaps he was abusive towards her, and sensed a threat when anyone was just friendly. At a party whilst rather inebriated, I did try to kiss the wife of a friend, which she rebuffed rather well, and neither she nor he ever said anything about it. She was rather attractive and perhaps expected such attention, and I certainly fancied her, but that was a rare occasion since I seldom did such things.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Definition of a dirty dog?

Should I? (Hee-hee)

(For those who don't recognise the female, she is a well-known adult glamour-puss, with the image coming from a typical photo-shoot)

 

[Mock Turtle]

Cycling - the good, the bad, and the ugly - and mostly the latter.

Once, on the Land's End to John O'Groats ride, my companion and I were cycling up a fairly steep straight narrow country lane towards our destination, a Youth Hostel - not abreast I should add. A long empty low-loader lorry decided to overtake us without warning. He crawled past us with less than a foot gap between his lorry and us. It was extremely difficult to keep the bike straight, as anyone who has cycled up a steep hill knows, and the option to stop by then was not even safe. His driving was just psychotic and lethal since it would have only taken a nudge and either myself or my friend would have been under his wheels. It seemed to be an eternity as he crawled past us. My friend and I were both furious. I don’t know what the driver was thinking, but perhaps he thought that he had an inherent right of way over us cyclists and damn the consequences. On a second occasion, again on a quiet country road, I stopped on a small single-track hump-backed bridge to peer into the stream below. A milk lorry, with no warning, just came thundering through, so that I had a few seconds to get my bike and myself out of his way, being missed by inches this time. Perhaps it was stupid to stop at such a location, but it was potentially murderous to do what he did. Many of these drivers seem to behave like psychopaths, doing this purely because they can - their word against others - until eventually they do actually cause a death and probably come to justice.

I think it is the case that very few cyclists jump red lights, I never did, or ride on pavements routinely, I never did, but cyclists in general are tarred by the deeds of the few morons, just as motorists could be by the behaviour of the reckless few. It should be noted that in some countries, cyclists are allowed to cross red lights, whilst in others, riding on the pavement is allowed - both to lessen the accident rate for cyclists, which often is the case. In some countries, the liability for accidents involving cyclists will normally be the other party unless it can be proven that the cyclist is at fault. As mentioned previously regarding the near-death experience on my motorbike, I would not ever ride two abreast where it would be dangerous or when it might inconvenience others, even if we were legally entitled to do so. I think cyclists who do this are often just blóódy-minded, and contribute to the bad feeling that many motorists have for all cyclists. I went on one forum to explicitly state the case for not riding two-abreast, even when it appeared quite safe to do so, but wasn’t, and all I got in general was abuse from the pro-cycling lobby.

Some of the comments about an article reporting a recent case (May 2015), where a 24-year-old male cyclist riding on the pavement quite badly injured a three-year-old girl as she was about to cross from her home to a car, surprised me a bit. There was no defence for the cyclist, as he was entirely in the wrong - he didn’t even stop to check how badly injured she was - but some of the comments blamed the child as being at fault too. I do know when blame should be apportioned and in this case he was 100% to blame. He shouldn’t have been riding on the pavement at all - it is illegal, at least for adults, in the UK - and he was obviously riding too fast, with little care shown for pedestrians. How on earth anyone could blame a child of this age is beyond me. It is this type of cyclist that tends to give all cyclists a bad name - along with all those who try to defend such behaviour. What an idiot. The few comments not condemning him completely perhaps show how easy it is to be partisan about such issues - cyclists vs the rest - when the situation resulted from his actions, illegal ones at that, and where the child was entirely innocent. It should be noted that the age of criminal responsibility in the UK is age ten (as of 2015), so theoretically children below this age cannot be charged for riding on the pavement, and mostly a blind eye is taken over this - as long as they are not riding dangerously. Those older are expected to obey the law.

Probably most cyclists will be the subject of road rage at some point in their lives. The extent of hatred towards cyclists by car-drivers and others is often shown by the amount of bile generated in comments regarding any article concerning cyclists. I can sympathise to some extent since a small minority of cyclists do behave like complete dicks a lot of the time (mostly in cities), but in general, if one wants to be safe on a bike then one is likely to come up against the frustrations of many motorists, with some simply not understanding the safety issues for cyclists. Many seem to think that cyclists deliberately set out to annoy other road users when mostly their actions result from safety considerations alone. A typical example is when passing parked cars. Any sensible cyclist will give plenty of room because of the few idiots who don’t bother checking when opening their car doors. Such incidents might be rare, but the possible injuries or even death that such an action might cause, is something that a cyclist should not have to put up with, and hence they should be allowed the space they need. The Highway Code allows them such room. This will, however, possibly aggravate motorists who might be held up where it is then not possible to overtake safely, although many will do so anyway. I seemed to be having a constant battle with some motorists on one particular stretch of road. It was a small bridge over a railway line in town where cars were always parked (legally) on one side of the road. Even if I made it clear that I was not going to cycle a foot or so away from the parked cars, thus avoiding danger and indicating not to overtake, many would still do so, and dangerously. They probably just thought I was being deliberately obstructive, and saving a few seconds counted more to them than simply being patient.

Having been a motorist for almost as many years as for being a cyclist, I hope I can be reasonably impartial with my attitude towards either, and the few motorists that I have come across who were complete dicks has not made me see all other motorists in a similar vein, since most are sensible and obey the law even if most also do break the speed limit, as I often did. Many motorists are inconsiderate to pedestrians, to other road users, and especially cyclists, but I don't therefore pass this on to the rest - I just get irate with that particular person. Most cyclists do seem to be seen in the same light as the few cyclists who are just as dickish as the motorists (by some), so I think this is hardly fair. The problem with being a cyclist, almost anywhere, whether that is in a major city, an urban area, or in the countryside, is that often motorists will insistently not give enough room to cyclists so as to ensure their safety. Inevitably many cyclists will react to such inconsideration. For myself, I have chased after a car that passed much too close, banged hard on its door and rode off - and it felt good expressing my anger at his stupidity. It is tough for both cyclists and other road users to exist on the same road network, but it might be well to remember that neither designed the system - it is just a relic of past planning.

Things are better in many other countries, but the UK is definitely not a cycle-friendly country - not yet at least.

The common negative attitude to cyclists is hardly helped by the likes of TV personalities such as Jeremy Clarkson publicly venting their ire on them, as if cyclists were all of one mind and behaviour, but then many might see Clarkson for the over-bloated, over-paid, loud-mouthed, bellicose, relic-of-the-past, right-wing bully and bore that he is - but let’s not talk about all his best points, even though I do quite like him. He often does seem to represent and influence many however, even if much of what he does is merely for effect, but I doubt many dead cyclists will be laid at his feet. Regardless of this, he is/was still mostly entertaining to watch, and not a complete fool, as were the other two at Top Gear likewise, and it is the interplay between the personalities of the three that make/made the TV programme so popular around the world. The producers of Top Gear had a winning programme format and then just let it slide into a caricature of itself by ever more preposterous and provocative scenarios however, possibly by encouraging more absurd behaviour from the three, and letting Clarkson get too inflated with himself. Why should anyone have to tip-toe around this egotistical prima donna money-spinner - Oh, the answer lies in those last few words. Of course I have watched, and mostly enjoyed, all the (original) programmes, but that doesn’t mean I have particularly enjoyed the arrogant two-fingered salute shown to many others featured in the series, particularly regarding some of the countries visited, and I doubt the Argentina number plate incident was purely coincidental. There might be a fine line between humorous needling and arrogant posturing, but Top Gear in its later episodes surely crossed the line many times. I’m not surprised that it all ended in a mess, and perhaps it was inevitable anyway. If anyone was to cause its demise, Clarkson was the man. The success of the programme I think, apart from the personalities of the three, has largely been down to the popular mix of areas covered - from its borrowing of Jerome K Jerome’s Three Men In A Boat theme (but mostly in various other transport systems), and the very real dangers that the often absurd scenarios put them in, to its range of car testing (many too expensive for most to buy, so dream machines), and the vast number of celebrities doing their track laps. The parade of prohibitively expensive luxury or performance cars, let’s face it, is just two fingers from the three presenters who can actually afford any of these.

It’s hardly surprising that those who rise to any sort of influence or power, whether that be monetary, political or celebrity, often feel that they are entitled to treat others as they choose rather than in any acceptable or civilised fashion, and we have seen quite a bit of this lately. Peanuts served plainly or just the lack of a desired meal seems to drive some to distraction - such is the inflated notion some apparently get from their position. The BBC is not good at holding on to talent however, for example, Angus Deayton should not really have been sacked from Have I Got News for You and Frankie Boyle shouldn’t have left Mock The Week. It now seems that Tim Wonnacott is another to go, for whatever reason - and he will be missed by many too. Clarkson, like Russell Brand, is a bit like Marmite, as are many these days. The support and petition for Clarkson not to be sacked was rather reminiscent of those who supported Polanski and the rape affair - reason flies out of the window when their particular interests are threatened. I think all the Top Gear team, but especially Jeremy, should be assigned to exclusively test and then use all the self-driving (or autonomous) cars that are being developed - ah, what hell for them.

One has to be a real petrol-head and/or masochist to watch the reincarnated Top Gear.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Careful with that spear, mngani wami!

Like many probably, one of my favourite films is Zulu, because it does seem to portray the two sides involved reasonably well, even if the events shown were not exactly as happened, and even if the whole incident was exaggerated to draw attention away from the earlier losses at Isandlwana. The Zulus were not portrayed as savages, and were up against some generally superior technology and tactics, so it was basically down to logistics as to how the battle turned out, but the clash at Isandlwana showed that even the supposedly superior British could get it wrong, when, as often, the wrong people are in command or wrong decisions made. No doubt there was much bravery shown on both sides, but those defending the post had little choice since if they had tried to escape they would almost certainly have all been killed. The British had apparently used about 20,000 rounds of ammunition during the encounter at Rorke's Drift, and were close to exhausting all that remained, so they came close to being wiped out completely. Since about 350 Zulus were killed by gunfire, the ratio of shots to kills seems rather high (at least 50:1), but apparently is to be expected in battle. Also, the relief column appears to have slaughtered all the wounded Zulus left on the battlefield, so that as many as 850 Zulus were killed in total, but they had just seen the same kind of treatment of the British force at Isandlwana (which was the norm for Zulus in battle), so this might be understandable. The Zulus didn’t have the use of all, or any, of the rifles taken earlier at Isandlwana, although apparently some (or all) of the British dead were killed by gunfire. The weapons they used were much inferior to those used by the British too. The Zulus didn’t give the ovation as depicted at the end of the film, and were probably swayed to withdraw after seeing a British relief column approaching, or just being weary of the battle, particularly after they had suffered horrendous losses at both Rorke’s Drift and at Isandlwana. Many of the people actually involved in the incident were nothing like as portrayed, including the Witts, with relatives of a few even claiming defamation of character, and the regiment at the time wasn’t Welsh, but English, nevertheless, the film was a sight closer to reality than the film Braveheart.

The performances in the film were generally good, and even Michael Caine presumably will not be too disappointed with his first major role. The sounds, chants, and singing from the Zulus, I am sure, everyone will find affecting, as are most of the battle scenes, especially the last stand - where it really was stand and fight or die, even if the British did have technology on their side.

The follow-up movie Zulu Dawn, concerning the prior humiliation of the British at Isandlwana needed to be told, but I think it never had the potential that Zulu had to become a great movie, simply because we tend to empathise with those fighting the odds to survive, often heroically, and Zulu had this in spades. Perhaps Zulu Dawn did at least point to the various factions that influenced historical events, rather than there being a simple explanation for such conflicts. If we were to look objectively at this affair, then the British had far fewer rights than the Zulus in the matter, and as always, it was just a conflict of interests, with the more technologically advanced usually winning, but not in this case, where numbers and strategy mattered. The film did also show the ineptitude of many of those in charge, who probably gained their position by favour or bribery, rather than accepting that those who understood warfare, of whatever kind, were the most likely to achieve any set objectives. Also, it appeared to show that some of those in charge in the region were not actually following government policy, or orders, but were just progressing their own particular agenda. One perspective about the event:

Rorke's Drift battle was war crime scene

A good book on the Zulu Wars, including the disaster at Isandlwana and the stand at Rorke’s Drift is Zulu Rising by Ian Knight (2010), which goes into great detail about how we arrived at this momentous confrontation between the British and the Zulus. The book paints a vivid portrait of many of the individuals involved and of the events, which mostly exonerates the film, since it did follow what actually happened quite well, although, as mentioned previously, there were some anomalies. Looking back, it is quite apparent how conniving and ruthless many of those British in charge were at the time, but this could be applied to many similar situations, in time, and shared by many other countries. An advantage that one powerful nation has is often turned into aggression if it fulfils some territorial or resource acquisition. The concept of morality seemed to have been inadvertently lost or misplaced, or simply conveniently ignored when a prize was at stake. And of course, the British, and their Christianity were just so much better than any savage nation. I think those who are proud of the British Empire and those who are a little embarrassed by our relatively successful history will often form the dividing line that shows where their political leanings lie. I think we all know on which side of history the truth belongs.

 

[Mock Turtle]

A dark moment in history.

When Kennedy was assassinated on Friday 22nd November 1963, I was painting (the art sort) at the time, and when I learnt that he was dead, my anger was expressed in the painting - so dark and horrible was it that I soon destroyed it. Apart from 9/11, this is about the only date that sticks in my memory. On the following Monday morning going to work on the underground, I seemed to loathe all around me, as if any of these people had anything to do with it - how absurd was that. Most probably many felt just like myself, and that a force for good had been eliminated. Information that has come out since seems to contradict some of the hope that many placed in him, but he was still perhaps better than many others who have followed him since. There are still arguments to this day as to who was actually responsible for his death, with the official version blaming the sole gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, but many do see several others also being involved. Oswald being killed shortly afterwards was a little too convenient for many. The theory that an FBI agent in the car behind accidentally killed Kennedy has some merit, but others being involved is more likely.

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories - Wikipedia

Numerous conspiracy theories surround the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. These theories posit that the assassination involved people or organizations other than Lee Harvey Oswald. Most current theories put forth a criminal conspiracy involving parties as varied as the CIA, the Mafia, sitting Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Cuban President Fidel Castro, the KGB, or some combination of those entities. Some conspiracy theories claim that the United States government covered up crucial information in the aftermath of the assassination. In 2013, Vincent Bugliosi estimated that a total of 42 groups, 82 assassins, and 214 people have been accused in the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.

The theories as to who killed Kennedy started as early as 1964, possibly fuelled by the rather inexplicable killing of Oswald a few days after Kennedy's assassination. The theories usually involved at least one other shooter apart from Oswald, often by professionals such as the security services or the Mafia, and even including the possible accidental shooting of Kennedy by one of his own bodyguards. It appears that even today, more than two thirds of Americans do not believe the lone gunman official version. One of the more bizarre theories is that Kennedy asked for information relating to UFOs be made available to him about ten days before the event. The fact that the various three-letter agencies in the USA had so many failed attempts to kill Fidel Castro might indicate that they were not involved in the Kennedy assassination, or perhaps they were just lucky. This, from November 2015, true or not, would hardly surprise anyone, and would fit in with what many people actually believe - excuse me for quoting from The Express :

I shot JFK from the grassy knoll: Mafia hitman claims to be missing piece in assassination

A Mafia hitman who claims to have fired the bullet that assassinated US President John F Kennedy is due to be freed from prison after 36 years next spring. James Files, 72, has been moved from a high-security jail to a less secure one in Illinois in preparation for his release. His extraordinary claims in a filmed prison interview have become an internet sensation since being put on the web by Dutch film-maker Wim Dankbaar. Now the CIA and other US secret agencies are bracing themselves for a fresh wave of conspiracy theories as Files identifies himself as the missing piece of the jigsaw in the Kennedy plot. Controversially, he says there was collusion between the Mafia and the CIA to kill 46-year-old Kennedy, claims which could lead to him being called to give testimony on oath in Washington. The Vietnam war veteran was part of the CIA team that trained a militia for the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba in 1961, which turned many in the agency against Kennedy when he called a sudden halt to the clandestine operation. After being kicked out of the military, Files joined the “outfit” in Chicago, becoming a right-hand man to Mafia chief Charles “Chuckie” Nicoletti, a hitman for Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana. Files said he also had a now-dead CIA handler. Files, who is serving time for being an accessory to a mob murder, claims that CIA men felt betrayed over the Bay of Pigs fiasco and feared Kennedy was going to shut the agency down because it was out of control. They called in mobsters to carry out the killing in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, which is 52 years ago next month. Files claims ex-marine misfit Lee Harvey Oswald, 24, teamed up with him in Dallas where they fired weapons together and checked out positions at the Dealey Plaza, where Oswald worked in the Texas School Book Depository building. On the morning of the assassination Files says he was joined by Nicoletti, who took up a sniper’s position with another Mafioso, Johnny Roselli, in the Daltex office building, near the book depository. Files, a back-up shooter, says he took up position behind a fence at the top of the infamous grassy knoll. Mercury in the tip of the fatal bullet would make it explode on impact. His instructions were to go for a head shot if Kennedy had not been hit by the time the cavalcade came into view. Files told Dankbaar: “I fired one shot and one shot only. Mr Nicoletti hit him as I squeezed off my round. I hit him and blew the head backwards.” Official inquiries into the assassination suggested only one bullet was used, fired by Oswald from the book depository. Oswald denied being the assassin but was shot dead by nightclub boss Jack Ruby before he could go on trial. British author Matthew Smith, an expert on the assassination, said: “I have always thought there were two shooters on the grassy knoll. I have no doubt the CIA was involved.” Giancana was shot dead in 1975 shortly before he was due to give testimony about collusion between the Mafia and the CIA to have Cuban leader Fidel Castro assassinated. He called the CIA and the Cosa Nostra different sides of the same coin. Speaking from his home near Amsterdam, Mr Dankbaar said: “I have hours of interview with James Files. “I believe his story. He has given a very detailed account of what happened and named CIA people.”

Whilst climbing a Via Ferrata in Italy once, I came across a few live rounds from World War I on a scree slope (deactivated by a chap at work), which apparently was the same ammunition used by Lee Harvey Oswald to kill President Kennedy using his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The art of caving.

When I first started work, I planned to go to the USSR on holiday to see for myself the society with which I had some interest, but not much support I might add, although perhaps 1962-3 was not the best period to have been planning such a trip. In fact my first few months at work were rather unsteady since many thought they might not be living much longer owing to the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. The good news of a possible war being averted was relayed over the Tannoy much to our relief. This was one of the few times in history when the prospect of catastrophic human destruction was actually possible, given the number of nuclear weapons available then to the USA and the USSR, and where the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy was in force - how aptly titled, and simply Mad! The 1964 film Dr Strangelove, was an eminently relevant and enjoyable film of the time. Peter Sellers was at his best in this film, and such a great and versatile actor. The fact that the British had even fewer safeguards than the USA for rogue operators controlling the deployment of nuclear weapons only emerged much later on - relying on the assumed integrity of the officers in charge - how very British. Fortunately the Cuban Missile Crisis ended peacefully, but it subsequently came out that a Soviet submarine might have come close to using a nuclear weapon against an American ship, and it was only one man (Vasili Arkhipov) who avoided action being taken that might have resulted in a nuclear conflict. The events described in the following account have been disputed by some as not being as serious as depicted however. From Wikipedia:

On 27 October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a group of eleven United States Navy destroyers and the aircraft carrier USS Randolph located the diesel-powered nuclear-armed Soviet Foxtrot-class submarine B-59 near Cuba. Despite being in international waters, the Americans started dropping practice depth charges, explosives intended to force the submarine to come to the surface for identification. There had been no contact from Moscow for a number of days and, although the submarine's crew had earlier been picking up U.S. civilian radio broadcasts, once B-59 began attempting to hide from its U.S. Navy pursuers, it was too deep to monitor any radio traffic, so those on board did not know whether war had broken out. The captain of the submarine, Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky, believing that a war might already have started, wanted to launch a nuclear torpedo. Three officers on board the submarine had to agree unanimously to authorize the launch: Captain Savitsky; the political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov; and the second-in-command Arkhipov. An argument broke out among the three, in which only Arkhipov was against the launch. Although Arkhipov was only second-in-command of submarine B-59, he was commander of the entire flotilla of submarines, including B-4, B-36 and B-130, and equal in rank to Captain Savitsky. According to author Edward Wilson, the reputation Arkhipov gained from his courageous conduct in the previous year's K-19 incident also helped him prevail in the debate. Arkhipov eventually persuaded Savitsky to surface the submarine and await orders from Moscow. This presumably averted the nuclear warfare which could possibly have ensued had the torpedo been fired. The submarine's batteries had run very low and the air-conditioning had failed, so it was forced to surface amidst its U.S. pursuers and head home. Washington's message that practice depth charges were being used to signal the submarines to surface never reached B-59, and Moscow claims it has no record of receiving it either.

As for the holiday, instead of the USSR, I did have an alternative, the Pyrenees, which would have included some nice cycling in the mountains and visits to the many cave systems, such as Altamira and Lascaux - both of which had some very special cave art, and were still open at the time. The latter was closed to the public in 1963 after having been open for 20 years (so my last chance but unknown to me at the time), and the former in 1977. The Lascaux cave system was discovered in 1940, and opened to the public, but the changes in temperature and humidity apparently allowed bacteria and mould to damage the cave paintings, which possibly date from 35,000 years ago. It appears that the same mistake has not been made with another similar cave, Chauvet, since they have not allowed public access to the cave but built a replica instead. I think they have done so too with regards the Matterhorn - in the USA?

I don’t see how we can assume that cave art was spiritually-inspired or that they had religions from any of the artefacts left to us, including cave paintings. It is quite possible, and more likely, that all such cave paintings could be seen in the role of teaching others about life, and especially hunting, that is, these caves were more like classrooms and libraries than churches. I fail to see how religion, or even art, is almost automatically assumed to be a reason for such paintings, when a more obvious explanation is at hand - survival. Teaching one’s children how to hunt I think would be better than imbuing them with some religious belief, just as it is today. So I believe they were just realists - not necessarily worshipping their prey, just making it more likely to be successful when hunting and killing that which they depended upon to survive. Caves were the obvious places for such work to survive over time, and since knowledge is power, the locations of such information would probably be kept from foes no doubt. It seems that stalagmites and other cave formations can reveal much about past conditions on Earth:

Remote cave study reveals 3000 years of European climate variation

This cycling plan also fell flat, and I eventually decided to cycle to Scotland and back, which I did, cycling to Edinburgh via Lincoln, York, and Richmond. My interest in caving and cave art probably came about from the fact that there were many books about caving in the local library - by Balch, Balcombe, Casteret, Chevalier, etc., all of which I read - plus the fact that I went caving in the Mendips on two occasions with the Scouts, which I very much enjoyed. Acetylene lamps were used at the time, which often went out whilst descending wet pitches. Later, electric lamps, as used in the mining industry, tended to be used more, and these often had a nasty habit of leaking acid or alkaline liquid to burn one’s skin, so the possibility of being burnt was there in both cases. These days, the older Lead-Acid or Ni-Cad batteries will probably be replaced by Lithium-Ion ones, and LEDs used. One of the Scout leaders took some photographs underground using magnesium flash powder, which was probably most effective when photographing the larger spaces. All our gear was usually carried in waterproof ex-army metal ammunition boxes.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Never seen the musical, but ......

As a child, I rarely got into fights, usually initiated by the other party, but possibly my sarcastic tongue caused a few - I have so changed. It took me quite few years to keep silent occasionally and not to provoke those who might be more inclined to use their fists before their mouths. I have always tended to be a good judge of character, so my assessments usually allowed me to evade violence or to disarm any likely situation. I never felt the need to learn any particular self-defence skill, such that when I was forced to box with another boy at primary school, him being a bit of a dimwit, I am sure he enjoyed it much more than I did. Stick this in ya mouth smart-aŠŠ! A few years later, a friend (BH) and I were attacked by two boys, not too aggressively since we ended up wrestling, and I got the better of the one I fought - which he seemed to respect and I had no further bother with him - we were at the same school. I had a similar experience in the mid 1970s when a few youths attacked my friends and I after a night out at a pub. Again, no provocation, they were just looking for some fun. The one who attacked me got more than he bargained for and I nearly had him upended in a garden hedge. I found out later he had used a razor blade to slash my clothes. If I had known at the time I might have reacted differently - I hated this kind of unprovoked mindless assault.

I seemed to have been quite advanced as a child since I can remember being able to tell the time (at the infants school) when most of the other children couldn’t. I also won a prize, a book, for something - can’t remember what for - and I can’t remember if it was at primary school or secondary school. We never lacked for books at home, including encyclopedias, and our father often brought home games and intellectual puzzles for us to play with (such as metal interlocking puzzles), along with our staple of the various comics then available - Eagle, The Beano, and The Dandy. We had the usual Hornby train-sets and Meccano sets, as did many then. I also spent much of my time down at the nearby library doing homework, and reading whatever grabbed my attention, which has often been the case. Like many other kids at the time, I went regularly to the Saturday matinee at the local Odeon cinema, close to the library, and one of four cinemas in the area - the others being the Granada, the Coliseum, and the Picardy. Flash Gordon was one of our favourite serials, along with the Tarzan films. Tom and Jerry and Popeye were often the usual cartoons shown.

Arcade games at this time, the shoot-em-up variety, although quite primitive, would it appears have had camera footage from actual fighter aircraft taken during the many dog-fights of World War II, and the firing buttons were also probably from real aircraft. Since the footage of planes being hit was actually real, there must have been no actual skill involved, and a hit was purely coincidental with one’s aiming - which seems to agree with my perception at the time. After the war and for decades later, there were many shops selling army surplus equipment of varying degrees of usefulness, and often quite cheap compared with civilian versions. The bus fare to the Odeon, a mile and a bit away, was about one and a half pence (240 pence to the pound) whilst I was a child, but we probably walked there, as I did when I went to Secondary school, slightly further away. My first wage on leaving school was £6 7s 6d a week. When I started work there seemed to be the view that in the future we would work fewer hours because of the impact of new technology. My starting hours then were 36¼ whilst later working hours were 37 or 40, so I guess they got that wrong. We did have flexible working in a later job, whereby we could start work between 8am and 10am, leaving between 4pm and 6pm, so there was some progress over the years. This did allow for small jobs to be done as needed, which might have required time off otherwise.

These were the days when hopscotch was probably the most common form of entertainment for girls, and playing marbles for boys. When we often played tiddlywinks, a Rupert Bear annual was likely as a Christmas present, and photographs were in black and white, taken by a Kodak box Brownie. We listened avidly to The Goon Show, The Navy Lark, or Hancock’s Half-hour on the radio - no TV for many then - and the streets were so empty of cars as to be safe to walk to school or to be treated as the local playground. Much safer for children too, since there were often many people looking out for them from all the terraced houses nearby. This was also the era, however, when stink bombs and peashooters might be the most common form of amusement for those less social kids, along with perhaps a catapult, home-made bow and arrow, or an air pistol. I believe the ammunition for the peashooter was dried maple seeds obtained from a pet shop.

There was also more playing around with fireworks than there is now - something that seems to have gotten better, since many of us then were extremely anti-social with little thought for others. Whilst the game we knew as knock down ginger - knocking on an unknown person’s door and running away - was relatively harmless, if certainly annoying, popping a banger (firework) through the letterbox was rather more dangerous and might have caused a fire or other damage, apart from the possibility of giving someone a heart attack. As always, children will often fail to understand the consequences of their actions, perhaps simply being unable to place themselves in the position of any adults, especially the elderly. I think I did see one boy holding a banger by the tip until it exploded, but most of us knew not to tempt fate by doing such things, and we left them well alone once lit. I think they only cost a penny at the time. On some waste ground once, I can remember two boys standing several metres apart having a duel with some Roman candles, the type of firework that emit small bangers every few seconds that then explode. I believe battles with rockets were also carried out by some, but at a greater distance hopefully if one had more than a few brain cells. On another occasion, someone threw an almost empty petrol can on a fire, but he at least gave a warning, which we all heeded and scarpered before it inevitably exploded. Climbing trees was common, as was scrumping (stealing) any apples or pears within range of the hands of little boys - we were fortunate as there were a few such trees in our road. Many of the delights that we children had then still endure, as they ever will - snowball fights, slides in the school playground during winter, all the various fads and crazes of the time, and perhaps less so, conkers. Although perhaps more socially minded than many, that didn’t stop me from stealing a few small items from Woolworths when dared to do so - also a favourite venue for dropping stink bombs.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why I think religions have probably been the worst invention of mankind.

Many will probably be bored with such arguments, but this is basically an exercise, in developing reasons for any particular proposal, and no doubt others can come up with a few more reasons as to why they might support my arguments or have opposing arguments. The more the merrier - so please wade in!

Some of the reasons why I think that religions have been the worst invention of mankind - in no particular order of gravitas, and obviously some or many of these might not apply to any particular religion or individual. I have no particular bias towards any religion, although I do see some as being better than others in how they affect the individual (and society), and of course some being worse in certain ways. It is almost inevitable that we have to look at all religions as a group since it would be a monumental task to look at them individually.

Of course I am not saying that religions have not provided, and still do provide many benefits for those who believe in them. They probably have ensured that societies have become more civil, with perhaps less discord within societies - although the extent of this is debatable - and that they do give much meaning and comfort to huge numbers of people - like 85% of the world apparently. Religious buildings are often some of the most beautiful in the world and much of art, literature, and music too wouldn't even exist without religion, such that religious beliefs cannot be questioned as to the value they have provided over the centuries. I do appreciate much of this and would never argue that religions haven't been an enormous benefit for mankind.

I obviously will not discount the benefits that religions have brought but I still assert that overall they have produced less than the amount they have damaged us as a species. We just don't know how we might have fared had religions not been so dominant in so many countries over the last few millennia. So, the reasons why I see more deficits than benefits:

1. They often refute reality: That is, many of the claims made, for example, Jesus being the Son of God, miracles, resurrection, angels, the soul, an afterlife, prayer, salvation, Satan, Heaven, Hell, etc., just cannot be verified as existing or being true, such that one essentially does just accept them by having faith in such things. And this, of course, does just open up this area into having all sorts of false but not falsifiable claims. They essentially make a mockery of reality, especially when they claim for instance that religious writing from the past is just factual evidence without distortions or bias. To be honest, it baffles me why anyone would expect anything written so long ago could be factually correct or not be open to so many different interpretations - which often accounts for all the various splits and factions within most religions. Even today, where sources of evidence are numerous to afford a better appraisal of events and such, we still have many not apparently believing in the most rational explanations given - those who believe in conspiracy theories, for example - such that why would we believe in historical accounts being accurate when often it is just survival of the fittest, in popularity terms, rather than truthfulness. And it is not as if much of this material is entirely unbiased since it exists to promote a particular belief system and hence does have an agenda. This cannot be said about science, since, although few expect science to provide all the answers, and much of it is revised as we gain more knowledge, overall, the aim of science is to mirror the real world by explaining why things happen rather than having any particular agenda.

2. They often tend to stifle progress: Many religions are just a ball-and-chain to the past, tied to the beliefs when they originated, and often stifling any progress or slowing any attempts to do so. This applies to both thinking and behaviour, which might have seemed relevant to the time, but since they could not have foreseen future developments (even if some claim so) they often become less and less relevant to the current times. Asceticism, a simple, strict way of life with no luxuries or physical pleasures, might have been appropriate a very long time ago, but it hardly accords with what even the most modest person would find appropriate now, or for the lives of those who do have quite fundamentalist religious views still, unless one thinks a tent and a camel are more than enough pleasures in life. Religions do adapt and change over time of course, but this might be seen as necessity due to pressures within the religion rather than anything else, and where the survival of the religion might be seen as being more important than sticking to past dogma. The very splitting of so many religions speaks of this, and the failures often to adapt. But again, the very nature of religions changing tells us nothing about the initial truth of any religion but mainly about the survival mechanisms operating inevitably in such organisations. Probably many religions start out as being quite radical, with only the passage of time rounding off and eliminating the more outlandish claims when by doing so they can gain more support or lose fewer to alternative beliefs.

3. Their claims to be the moral authority: Many religions tend to usurp or claim to be the authority on moral and/or ethical behaviour, but often conflicting with the beliefs of other faiths. We know that moral behaviour almost certainly predated all religions because one of the central tenets of most religions is the Golden Rule which has existed for a very long time (Confucius, 6th century BC, for example), and also because rudimentary moral behaviour exists in more advanced animal species. And, of course, although most religions will have core values much in common, there will still be differences to separate one from another when this would not be the case with a universal moral code. One might cite the Humanist code for such a moral system, which seems to make eminent sense, and just relies on some reasonable thinking rather than any divine source. Also, some of the worst atrocities that have ever been carried out in history, and usually coincident with a religious belief, have stemmed from a belief that their morals were superior to those they targeted. According to some evidence, the differences between moral belief, often being seen as superior by one party, is also the driving mechanism for revenge attacks too, when the victimised side usually sees things rather differently than the targeting side, and hence the inevitable revenge cycle.

4. They tend to promote division: For all the benefits of religious belief in providing a like-minded group as support, what it actually does, as with many hard beliefs, is that it separates one from others with either a different belief or those having no such beliefs. It also makes one more likely to be a target too, as many have found out throughout history and all around the world. Religion may not be the dividing line between peoples, but it is nevertheless a convenient banner for forming battle lines - as in the long-running Northern Ireland situation (Catholics/Protestants), or in the enmity between India and Pakistan (Hindus/Muslims). The very nature of such fundamental beliefs promotes conflict, regardless of any doctrine to treat others as equal to oneself - it often just doesn't happen in reality. The very thing that initiated my disbelief in the truthfulness of religions (as a child), being the sheer number of different beliefs, surely is evidence as to not one of them being likely to be the true picture. What rational person would choose one particular belief system over another, apart from weighing the pros and cons for benefits to oneself perhaps? Which, like Pascal’s Wager, I find rather pathetic and morally repulsive. One shouldn’t choose to believe something just because it appeals more than other beliefs but because it makes the most sense from the available evidence, regardless of its impact on us.

5. They tend to promote hierarchies: One aspect of religions, which is more political, is the way that many seem to advocate subservience to others, whether that be to a higher authority or the voice-pieces of the particular religion, or just in accepting that the hierarchical nature of societies - which does seem to be the norm in most societies - is quite natural and not something ever to be changed. This, for example, can often be seen in monarchies (a supreme example of human hierarchies) being allied to a particular religion, where both gain by doing so. This can be especially annoying for those who have no religious beliefs but who then must bow to the will of those so influenced by any prevailing religion and for those who don’t see monarchies as at all beneficial for future progress. These too are a ball-and-chain to the past.

6. They waste resources: They seem to waste valuable resources, in that much of the activities - praying (doesn't work according to much evidence), church worship, and the building of churches themselves, all take resources that could be used to build better societies. This is not forgetting the innumerable conflicts between the various faiths that have destroyed the lives of so many during the lifespan of many religions, which still continue to this day and no doubt will do so until religion becomes less important in the lives of so many people. When there is conflict between two groups having different religious beliefs, the first things to suffer are often the religious buildings or religious artworks of one side or the other.

7. They often promote false beliefs: Many religions, by their teaching, and which is often so tied to the past, often project false or irrelevant beliefs such that these influence current behaviour at odds with what most rational people would tend to believe, such as, not allowing blood transfusions, eating certain foods and not allowing others, not allowing the correct treatment (at the time) for various ailments, or in condemning (or worse) those with different sexual orientations, notably homosexuality. Even being of another faith can make one appear as of less value than a true believer in the eyes of many. It is almost like the act of believing in religion itself makes one more likely to accept other beliefs that, to someone without any such beliefs, might mean that these people just do not have a functioning adult rationality - that is, that they prefer more childish explanations. Or, explanations given to them rather than worked out for themselves - which we know is not always possible (scientific understanding, for example) - but when it doesn’t come from a consensus of the most knowledgable, one should be wary of such explanations.

Continued

 

[Mock Turtle]

8. They tend to appeal to the lowest common denominator: Religions tend to appeal, in general, to the less educated and/or less intelligent, which can be seen by firstly, those with higher intelligence being less likely to have any religious belief - it tends to be the case amongst scientists or intellectuals, for example - and secondly, the fact that religious belief tends to be declining in the more educated and advanced countries, apart from where immigration tends to skew such figures. The countries which do tend to have an overwhelming religious belief all tend to be the poorer and less educated ones, apart from a few exceptions, like the USA, but even here we apparently see declining belief in religions. Why would this be the case? Are we to believe that as people have better education they tend to shun religions because they become more foolish, selfish, less interested, and/or less moral, or is it more likely they simply reject religions because they do not believe they reflect the truth, as so many of us have believed for a long time. The fact that religions have been formed in virtually all communities all around the world says nothing about the truthfulness of any of these. It just tends to imply that they are formed because essentially we are much the same, having the same striving for meaning, and also, having the same capacity for making errors. Theft and murder are also common to most societies, but few would argue as to their essential validity or being in any way a benefit to societies. The argument by numbers (Argumentum ad populum) is simply fallacious, as is the most other common argument, Appeal to nature, that is, that it is just natural to believe in such things. The argument from numbers is much like belief in UFOs, that is, that at least some of these sightings are plausible, such that at least one religious belief reflects the true reality. But the same dismissal can be made for both - that it is entirely possible for every case to be false. Two reasons for why religions persist are that children are often indoctrinated in the faith of their parents and/or because the particular country has an overwhelming commitment to one faith and this is sanctioned by the authorities in charge. So it is more inertia that keeps religious beliefs alive than anything else. If both of these had less of an influence then we would probably see less religious belief overall.

9. They often oppose more rational thinking: Many religions over history have opposed more rational thinking and any scientific progress going on at the time, often condoning more primitive and fallacious ways of seeing the world. The witch trials that were common in one period is just one example among numerous others, where the authority of the church just rampaged over common sense, as was the selling of remedies that were about as effective as prayer - which isn't. In fact, religious beliefs seem to exhibit about a dozen or more examples of fallacious reasoning. Although there is apparently some medical evidence for the benefits of circumcision (disputed though), there are none for female genital mutilation, and both of these have been advocated or are indeed carried out from a religious belief perspective. And both of these are often carried out on children having no say in the matter, hence essentially being child abuse.

10. They tend to promote unfalsifiable claims: Whether there is a God or not we might never know, but just postulating the very existence of such an entity has opened up a whole area for exploitation, such that many intermediaries, being the voice of any particular belief, or so designated, such as prophets, might proselytise to others that which they believe is appropriate, being the word of God, but then not available for criticism or in being disproved since it just is just the word of God. The numbers believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible attests to this. For all the attacks on science not be able to describe everything, this one thing has tended to separate science from religion, in that science does exactly the opposite. If something cannot be proved then it tends to stay on the shelf as being just a theory, although, as in the theory of evolution, when few other sensible explanations appear, it does tend to have more credibility than most other explanations.

11. They often negate individual responsibility: Many religions take away any individual responsibility, where many of us might have to question our own behaviour constantly, but where a religious believer is often just commanded to act or behave in a certain way based on certain laws taught by the religion. Hence, a strict believer might be acting more like a slave than having any freedom of action, if they just abide by the rules set by their particular religious belief. This can obviously cause conflict when such rules do tend to go against what many naturally feel is the right thing to do. Additionally, many will see the actions of some, or their misfortunes, as being due to the Will of God, a rather suspicious view when so many bad deeds or humans could equally be said to be such. Tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., could be placed alongside all those who have achieved good things in their life so as to make one wonder why would anyone believe this at all. Would God really allow such bad individuals to thrive such that they impact so many others? The answer usually from those who believe is, God works in mysterious ways - a rather easy way out I must say.

12. They often tend to espouse inequality: Because of this last point - the rules set by any religion - the treatment of others is often determined by the other person's similar, or lack of, belief rather than seeing all humans as being essentially equal and deserving of the same respect and treatment as one expects for oneself. The history of violence between the various faiths attests to this. As mentioned previously, the Humanist Code seems to provide a rather better basis for equality and fairness for humans than many of the religions, particularly when these often conflict in their beliefs.

13. They tend to define and commandeer the spiritual experience: Although no doubt many believers will feel the spirit within, and in how they experience their religious devotion - singing in church, for example - such that this confirms their belief to be correct, there are explanations, not of a religious nature, that could account for such feelings. And so-called spiritual experiences are quite common - flow experiences, appreciation of art and music, drug-induced experiences, etc. - with this even being possible by stimulating the brain by external means. This last fact alone, that there does appear to be one region of the brain that is involved in the process should indicate a non-religious basis for such experiences, but often it is used to mean that we actually have a God spot, that is, that we are innately built to know God. I find the latter explanation to be extremely unlikely, given the commonality of such experiences, as mentioned.

14. They often promote an arrogant dominance over other lifeforms - anthropocentrism: Some religions appear to espouse an arrogance regarding human value over the lives of all other lifeforms on Earth - the dominion over all other creatures from the Bible, even if it is interpreted differently. This can be seen in how we factory-farm so many, treat some as pets and most as not, continue to contaminate their environment, etc., and where much of this has come about because we do see ourselves as superior in virtually all regards, and which religion has often fostered. But then, when some just do not have the same respect for other humans, due to their religious beliefs, why would we expect them to even consider the welfare or right to exist of more lowly creatures. The indisputable fact that we are quite closely related to other primates (sharing about 98% of our DNA), is perhaps rather disconcerting for many faiths, such that they would rather not countenance the fact that we did indeed evolve from a common ancestor.

15. They often expect to be above criticism or questioning: Apart from religions, what other belief system expects to be above criticism, or at least, not to be disrespected, even when those not having any such beliefs have to endure living in a world so permeated by such thinking? The inability to criticise and/or ridicule such beliefs, together with such things as blasphemy, apostasy, excommunication, etc., would be seen by many as just being protective mechanisms for the survival of the particular religion - something not available for non-religious beliefs, or lack of them. No belief should be above criticism or questioning. Besides believing in the sacred, many religious people expect their beliefs to be sacred too and beyond criticism or ridicule, with the latter probably being seen as abuse even when targeted at the more ludicrous notions of some religious beliefs. This is a privilege too far in my opinion, and although I wouldn’t personally ridicule any religion, as in the Charlie Hebdo case, I would defend their right to do so, simply because, as mentioned above, no belief system should be above any other, even if this is not exactly a popular view at the moment. But, would any rational person think that death for apostasy, which is the punishment in some countries apparently, is at all appropriate?

16. They can promote beliefs in an afterlife which are often detrimental to the believer or others: Many religions espouse a life after death, in some form or other, which, unfortunately often enables those who believe such to carry out actions that they might not commit if they had no such belief, for example, terrorism or the suicidal expecting to go to a better place, and where they often coincide. A belief in an afterlife might appear to some of us as a perk for believing in that particular religion, given that death is often viewed as being such a dismal end to our lives - I can distinctly remember the shock of learning about our fates as a young child. And perhaps the concept of reincarnation goes one better in the perk stakes, although in fact it actually comes closer to reality in some respects because we do know that matter just recycles in general rather than being destroyed. That doesn’t necessarily mean however that any part of our human existence is also recycled in some way. I also get the impression, from what many say, that it is comforting to believe in an afterlife, but I would simply respond - have some courage, life is what it is! Plus all this, a belief in an afterlife can often make one not make the most of this life, or to influence some into unreasonable behaviour, such as accepting one’s apparent fate when this might not be inevitable.

Continued

 

[Mock Turtle]

17. The dogma alone often pushes aside more reasonable explanations: Having a religious belief might make it more likely for one to believe other false beliefs, in that many will have to reject much of reality in order to defend the correctness of their particular beliefs. The Young Earth Creationists are one example of this, as are those who seem to dismiss the commonly believed and eminently reasonable theory of evolution, even when it has few rivals as to explaining how we evolved from our primitive ancestors. Unfortunately this often doesn't accord with the religious beliefs of some. Many dismiss other aspects of science too when they just cannot fit the apparent evidence into their particular schema of how the world and all life exists. Events and natural phenomena are also frequently cited as being due to the Will of God or perhaps because any individual involved deserved their particular misfortune.

18. They tend to deify even the voice-pieces of the religion: The deifying of any so-called messengers also has a negative effect, almost raising them to god-like status too. Witness the Islamic habit, for some, to utter 'Peace be upon Him' every time they mention the Prophet's name, which might sound rather odd to a non-believer, but much the same happens in many other religions too. The Pope, for example, also gets more than his share of adulation, even when he is just a person filling a role. Raising any up to this sort of status hardly helps in our having a more equal society or one where we can question all.

19. They can provide environments for abuse to occur: Although children are abused in all sorts of areas by those who wield power over them, which means most adults and adolescents, the platform of religion is perhaps the ultimate power where children will have few ways to defend themselves. A priest telling a child that this is what God wants or that they will go to Hell otherwise is probably something that many young children just cannot sensibly resist or combat. Some religions will be opposed to having sex and/or relationship education for children in schools, where this might conflict with other beliefs taught, but doing so often places the children more at risk of being abused by others when they are kept so in the dark concerning such matters. Also, recent cases in the UK concerning the sexual abuse of teenage girls by mostly Muslim Asians, although perhaps more related to culture, would probably not have occurred if the perpetrators had not been Muslim and had not viewed the girls as being inferior. Of course, abuse happens regardless of beliefs, but this particular case, as for many, did seem to be related to religious beliefs - the morals of the perpetrators being seen as so much better than the victims, which is a bit ironic.

20. Religious teaching is often akin to child abuse: Similarly, the teaching of religion to children could be compared to child abuse, since again, the children will not be in a position to question such teaching. Although mostly it is the case that decent moral values are instilled into children via religion, this could be done without any attached religious belief, and quite often it is indoctrinated belief that occurs, where a religious belief is passed from parent to child without consent even being an issue. This is part of your culture and it is the way we do things. We know that children are vulnerable in all sorts of ways, but being taught just one way to see the world (and espoused as being correct), through the lens of that particular religion, and which often occurs in faith schools, is I would propose just another way to separate one child from another, and hence one adult from another possibly. Overt religious teaching should only occur when they are old enough to appreciate what is being taught. But of course the religious know that they have to indoctrinate children because if they don’t do so then the children might just grow up to be free-thinkers, choosing not to believe in such things.

21. Religions often tend to be controlling and/or restrictive: It is obvious this applies in so many religions all around the world, where often, their particular beliefs, and usually based on particular writings from long ago, do prescribe a particular way of life and behaviour. This is often at odds with the values of freedom, democracy, and equality, which tends to be espoused by most of the more advanced and liberal countries. In many cases, in more fundamentalist versions of Islam for example, the religious belief tends to be placed higher than anything else. For example, believing that one’s duty to God comes before anything, which might conflict with other values shared by all and where many do not have such a belief or any religious belief. Hence conflict might arise between one’s duty as a citizen and a duty to one’s faith. Similarly, the equality that many would espouse for females is often not seen in a particular religion because the religion places them in some area not conducive to this happening, perhaps seeing a need to protect them when this is not how many females would want to be seen. True equality, or freedom, might not be possible for females with such a religious belief - Wahhabi Islam, for example.

22. They can often erode societal aims: That is, that the beliefs of any particular religion can undermine and/or erode the very concept and direction of the society within which it exists. This might happen, for example, when the societal norm is to promote freedom of speech and expression, for equal rights, for toleration, and for democracy, etc. (so-called Western values), but where a religious belief might oppose some or all of these, and by doing so, could bring about a degradation of that society. And this could happen, rather like the slippery slope, by gradual changes that might not get noticed until they do become a much larger problem. Is this a sensible thing to do, to be tolerant of something that destroys the very toleration itself? It is hardly rational to allow this to happen surely, but we can often see this process happening in many countries. Enclaves form in many circumstances but they rarely do so without friction or conflict following on behind.

23. There is probably as much or more evil done in the name of religion as without: This hardly needs any further comments since we do know that throughout much of history many of the religious have carried out violent acts towards those of another faith or those without any faith. The notion of them having the moral right to do as they wish seems to be one of the main things that causes many to treat others how they see fit, and when it is officially sanctioned, or even unofficially, then many people will do the most horrible things when, if they had no such belief, they would think twice about doing so. And, when one can see others not as individuals but as being part of some group or other - not one of us - then it seems to be easier for many to abandon any rational moral behaviour in order to wreak whatever they see fit on others.

24. Religions are often usurped by others to control or suppress: As in the hierarchy case, there are many religions that are essentially used by the governing authority, whether that be legitimate or not, to control and/or suppress the population. And this is often made easier when the particular religion is the dominant one or the only one. One might think of some Islamic countries here. An alliance of such authorities is often difficult to counter, such that a dictatorship is often what forms if not in name then by nature. And I don’t think it is the case that religions were ever the main driving force for greater equality and/or fairness in many criminal justice systems - not for much of history at least.

25. Religions often promote an inconsistent view of life: I think it is rather illogical, and inconsistent with reality, when some religious beliefs embrace that which they wouldn’t apply elsewhere. I am thinking here about ghosts, fairies, angels, the soul, witches, etc., and where the lack of, or very flimsy evidence for the existence of any of these, can be at the same time reconciled with a particular religious belief that might too have such a belief within the teaching. As in negating reality and promoting false beliefs above, they often just don’t make sense in the grand scheme of things, so to speak. And if there is anything that should make anyone less likely to believe any particular proposal it is inconsistency with the known available information. If something sticks out like a sore thumb then best be wary of it. Many religious beliefs might be compared with belief in aliens, in that it is possible, probable even, that aliens do exist (or alien life in some form, at least), but we have no real evidence, other than some rather flimsy stuff at the moment. And simple mistakes, wishful thinking, attention-seeking, or sheer fraud might account for much of this. Which I think has happened with many religions too over the ages.

26. The power they wield is often unaccountable: Few would argue that religions do not often wield enormous power over any believers, and over others too quite likely, by affecting the societies within which they exert such power. This of course varies greatly, from mostly token influences in some societies to very much a controlling and/or dominating influence in many others. And, as proposed, most of this power is entirely unaccountable - to those which the religion mostly affects. One might see this as just being a benevolent power and endorsed by the vast majority of religious believers, but it still stands that it is unaccountable in most cases. I am sure we can all think of a few countries where religion is the dominating influence and where the average citizen has little say in any rules or codes that they are obliged to follow. The same could be said for any regime or authority, but at least with democratically elected governments we do get to vote for any policies the parties are likely to implement.

27. Religions often produce as much angst as they might relieve doubts: It seems, from some of the evidence I have come across online, that many belief systems associated with religions tend to cause just as much angst and/or worry than not having any such beliefs, and even very much more so in some cases. This might be because there are conflicted messages arising from the particular belief system, between the various religions, or perhaps because of worries concerning living up to the demands made upon one. Not having any such beliefs in general thus causes fewer of such conflicts, especially when a moral code of one’s own - hopefully applied throughout life - can have the consistency that doesn’t cause such conflicts.

Done.