Wednesday, 26 December 2012

Britain's Celestial Monarchy

Jesus Christ Our Leader
Jesus Son of God was born to the royal House of David to bring Redemption to mankind. Born as King and High Priest to Israel and to all nations on Earth, Jesus is at the head of our Church, of all national Churches of the British Isles. He is our Monarch In High! From the High City of Zion, the Place of the Heavenly Temple, comes Prosperity. Our future Prosperity is with Jesus Son of God.

Our National Flag the Union Jack
Our Union Jack is dedicated to the Christian Faith, bearing the emblems of three Christian Saints. It is the flag of a Christian nation bearing testimony to the Christian Faith and to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our future Constitution shall be based upon the Faith in Christ, our Leader and King in High.

The Road to Christ's Church
The road from the Church of our Fair Lady leads to the Foundations of Christ's Church, and upon these foundations our Christian Nation shall prosper. On entering the Church, people are not to make any symbolic signs, nor make any symbolic gesture of crucifixion, for Christ rose from the dead on the third day, he being the Lord of Resurrection.

Inside the Church, people are to listen to the sermon, without talking to one another, for we must love the words which the priests speak of Jesus from the Holy Scriptures. This is the sole Command that we have concerning the sermon.

Our Fair Lady is Mother of Love, and She stands next to the Almighty Father.
Her road leads to Christ's Church.

Written by D. Alexander

Tuesday, 25 December 2012

UK Unemployment in 2013

The Remedy to Unemployment
Has the British Government found the remedy to solve Britain's unemployment in the year 2013?
The answer is plainly: no!

The Government has no strategy to create jobs and significantly reduce the numbers of people in search of work, neither for the year 2013 nor for any year thereafter. Indeed the numbers of the unemployed in the UK are likely to rise.
However, the Government may be ready to jump on a quarterly decrease in unemployment by, let's say, a few ten thousand people, in order to release big-time statements claiming the “problem is solved” and that the Government was right all along, that Britain is on the road to fantastic recovery.
But seriously, who would believe that?

If there should be a quarterly increase in the unemployment figures, perhaps the Government will place the blame on the euro-zone crisis. Either way, it will not be the fault of the elected authorities, but always someone else's fault.

EU Solution to Unemployment
So let us ask the next best question: does the EU have a solution to unemployment in the year 2013? After all, Britain is a member state of the EU and is regulated by EU employment laws.
The answer is plainly: no!

The European Union does not have a strategy to reduce unemployment, other than millions of Eastern Europeans finding jobs in the western EU countries, including Britain, receiving in return the minimum wage.

Britain to leave the EU in 2013?
So now let us ask the most obvious question: Does the British Government have a plan for Britain to leave the EU in the year 2013?
The answer is simply: no!

The British Government has repeatedly stated that Britain must remain in the EU, and that the European Union must continue to expand. It is widely expected that before long, millions of Bulgarian and Romanian EU citizens will come in mass over to the UK and start searching for minimum wage jobs, competing with the Poles and Baltic citizens.

A new British Government in 2013?
So, in conclusion, we may ask one more question: will Britain have a new Government in the year 2013, a Government that will significantly reduce unemployment in Britain?
The answer here is, although the Government's mandate expires in 2015, the Coalition of Conservatives and LibDems is crumbling, and the Conservative party is crumbling from within, while UKIP's popularity has increased from 3.5% in May 2010 to 14% in November 2012.

Germany 1945 - 1948
So what to do?
Well there is talk in Government circles of replacing jobseekers allowance with a credit card that would see the equivalent to vouchers being given to the unemployed in Britain in place of cash. It would effectively mean unemployed people who are receiving jobseekers allowance would only be able to purchase what is permitted on their credit card, but no alcohol, no tobacco and, most importantly, no drugs.

This is the easiest way out for a failed Government, to place all the blame on the unemployed, and pretend that, with £71 a week, they can afford to buy large quantities of alcohol, tobacco and, yes, drugs. That they are in fact the cause of their own unemployed situation. So why not demand a denazification certificate in order to obtain such a credit card? Alcoholics, drug-addicts, unmentionables. Indeed, untouchables!

Oh, lest we forget, unemployed people in the UK under the age of 25 signing on and receiving jobseekers allowance receive significantly less than £71 a week. And they have already been told by the Government that they will receive less housing benefit, that they should go and live with their parents.

So perhaps "a bad and guilty people" policy and the implied reference to drug-addicts and alcoholics to stigmatise the unemployed in Britain, is the easiest way out for a failed Government. What will come next, mass exile from one third of our lands? And then?
Well hopefully a General Election any time soon, way before the year 2015.
Too many nasty words are being directed at Britain's unemployed people, it has all been seen in history where this leads to eventually, such as in Germany 1918 to 1923 after a nation was devastated by the victors. And the Government has no plan to reduce unemployment, neither in 2013 nor ever. Why would they, if we are treated by them as the despised and guilty people?

British Jobs for Polish People
Tone Blair, Britain's former and worst ever prime minister, is given an award in Poland for giving British jobs to Polish people.

And Polish is the second language in Britain, (but in some British factories it is the only spoken language):

Democracy and Prosperity in 2013
So Democracy should decide. And with Democracy must come illuminated ideas for Britain's future and our Prosperity. These ideas cannot be based on hateful stigmas that shun and humiliate young people and unemployed people in general. Only the Christian Faith can inspire Prosperity. Indeed, all Prosperity comes from High.

So will the Establishment in Britain, with the characteristic human head of the State, that is also head of the Government, the same head that is head of the Church of England, of the Army, and of so much more of our institutions, bow to the High City, so that we can have a new Constitution?

Well, in answer to this, a question: is the Establishment capable of giving us Prosperity? No!
So this leaves the door open to the High City, and in Jesus Christ we remain faithful!

Written by D. Alexander

UK Unemployment in 2012:

Britannia Fair

Saturday, 15 December 2012

The British Isles: Our Celtic Origins

Celtic origins in the British Isles date back thousands of years, emerging from a prehistoric era shrouded in mystery.

The Celtic origins of the people inhabiting the British Isles go back thousands of years, when Celtic was spoken from Kent to Cornwall in the south of England, in Wales – of which the Welsh name is Cymru, in Scotland, and in Ireland.

Prehistoric Populations in Britain and Ireland

Prehistoric populations lived in Britain and Ireland during the Stone Age, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. The Celts may have been among the first inhabitants, but they could also have arrived at a later time and integrated with older populations. There is no historical evidence to exclude either of these possibilities.

According to John Davies, author of The Celts, until the 1950s, the introduction of the Celtic language to Britain and Ireland was believed to have come about after the seventh century BC as a result of an invasion. The absence of any descriptive historical reference to a Celtic invasion of Bronze Age Britain exposes the invasion theory as speculative, and indeed the author of The Celts notes that archaeological research offers no evidence of significant immigration either in Ireland or Britain during the centuries following 700 BC.

During the first millennium BC, three Celtic populations were established in the British Isles. The Brythonic speaking Celts lived in modern England and Wales. The Goidelic speaking Celts inhabited most of Ireland and the western regions of Scotland, where they became known as Scots, while the Picts had settled in eastern Scotland and in the north of Ireland. Various theories have been presented as to the origins of the Picts and the language they spoke, but a number of factors indicate that they were probably Brythonic speaking Celts.

In the pre-Christian era, the Celts did not make use of an alphabet. As a result, no written documentation can be found to determine the details of the Celtic origins of the peoples of Britain and Ireland. Even the idea that the Brythonic speaking people arrived in a later period than those of Goidelic tongue can not be historically certified.
The oldest reference to the Brythonic people of Britain, or Britons, stems from the voyages of the Greek explorer Pytheas of Marseilles in the fourth century BC. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the Britons as Celts who arrived in Britain at an unknown date, possibly in the seventh or sixth century BC, who beyond doubt mixed with the original inhabitants.

As there are no earlier written references to the Britons, it is impossible to determine when they first became manifest as a distinct people. This is also the case of the Goidelic speaking Celts of Ireland and western Scotland, who may have been living in the British Isles a thousand, or even several thousands of years before the advent of the Christian era.

Linguistic Definition of Celtic
The definition of Celtic in British and Irish history is based mainly upon linguistic considerations, as all the populations of the British Isles were speaking one or other form of Celtic when the Roman Empire came in contact with Britain in the year 43 AD. In The Celts, John Davies notes that the ancestor language of Brythonic could have been spoken in Britain as early as 4000 BC, and that the same could be true of the ancestor language of Irish in Ireland and of Gaulish in Gaul.

Although the British Isles were inhabited thousands of years before the Christian era, nothing is known in regards to the language that the Stone Age and Bronze Age people spoke. If they were not of Celtic origin, then it is certain that the Celtic speech became the language of Britain and Ireland through cultural assimilation. In this case, the people who were not Celts gradually adopted the language that would later be commonly spoken in its various forms.

Brythonic, which was spoken in Britain and probably among the Picts of Scotland and Ireland, is referred to as P Celtic, whereas the Goidelic speaking Irish and the Scots who settled in western Scotland spoke what is known as Q Celtic. The main difference between these two branches of the Celtic language is that the pronunciation of the k sound of the Goidelic tongue becomes a p sound in Brythonic. In addition to this, the f sound in Goidelic is pronounced as gh in Brythonic.

  • The Celts, by John Davies, based upon the S4C television series The Celts, published by Cassell & Co, 2002 edition;
  • New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 2007.

Written by D. Alexander

Tuesday, 25 September 2012

State Owned Business Bank UK

The State Ready to Establish Business Bank
Business Secretary Vince Cable has announced the imminent creation of a State-owned business bank to help Britain's productive economy. Speaking from the 2012 LibDem party conference in Brighton, the Liberal Democrat Minister announced the Government is set to invest £1 billion of taxpayers' money into the project, a sum which the Treasury will not claim back. It is expected that this sum will be matched or exceeded by private money. The objective is to increase lending capacity to small and medium-sized firms in the British productive sector.

According to Sky News on 24 September 2012, Mr. Cable intends to boost British manufacturers, announcing: “We need a new British Business Bank with a clean balance sheet and an ability to expand lending rapidly to the manufacturers, exporters and high growth companies that power our economy.”

No More Property Speculation and Financial Gambling
In a bid to signalise a break from Britain's notorious system of financial speculation within the economy, Vince Cable went on to state: “We are so good at so many things in this Country – but for too long the mirage of growth based on property speculation and financial gambling has hidden the harder virtues of making things productively.”

The project for a new State-owned business bank, which could start operating in late 2013 or early 2014, has met the enthusiastic support of the British Chambers of Commerce, whose Director General, John Longworth, said: “We are pleased that ministers are heeding our call to create a business bank that goes well beyond a re-badging of existing schemes.”
According to the British Chambers of Commerce, 60% of firms say they would be more confident with a State-backed business bank in the United Kingdom.

Accountability in the Banking System
The UK banking system essentially crashed in 2008 as a result of speculation-driven investments, whereby the debtors, both in Britain and abroad, were faced with artificially high mortgages and high interest rates and could not pay back their debt, thus leaving many banks to declare a state of insolvency. The banks had progressively participated in the creation of a pyramid debt in the property market, whereby profits were made through the systematic and relentless increase in house prices, steadily pushing property values far in excess of their real value.
Other forms of financial gambling, often interlinked with the property market, and with no anchor in the real economy, were all designed to assure consistent profits to the banks, and, not least, to ensure consistent bonuses to bankers.

However, since 2008, British banks have done nothing to reverse the artificial prices of properties, and many people in Britain are burdened with mortgages and other forms of private debt, in many cases coupled with high interest rates. The uncertainty attached to regular repayment of debt has led the banks to become reluctant in giving out loans, even to businesses, with the banks preferring to sit on their stock of cash.

As all this is proof of fake accountability on the part of UK banks towards the real economy, the business bank envisaged by the British Government must surely be based on accountability, on economic reality, and not less importantly, on the basis that a lending bank cannot make enormous profits if it is to serve free market enterprises, such as small and medium-sized businesses.

Furthermore, in the free market sector of private businesses striving to perform in the economy, there can be no scope for self-serving bankers attempting to line their pockets with annual bonuses that by far exceed their top-salary. Whenever bankers collectively detract billions of pounds a year in bonuses from the banks' balance sheet, surely this money must come from the customers who have been grossly over-charged, or misled into investing in schemes that later become toxic debt.

In conclusion, the British productive economy cannot afford to rely on private banks whose first and foremost objective is to garner billions of pounds a year in bankers' bonuses, as this money would have to come from free enterprise, which in turn would tend towards bankruptcy.

Written by D. Alexander

Read on:
Britain's future Prosperity:

Wealth tax coming to Britain:

Sunday, 23 September 2012

Wealth Tax Coming to Britain

The LibDems Call for a Wealth Tax
Britain has never had a wealth tax, apart from the Window Tax of 1696, which was based on the assumption that only wealthy people could afford large houses with numerous windows.
However, from their 2012 party conference in Brighton, the Liberal Democrats have announced plans for a Wealth Tax on houses worth at least £1 million. According to Sky News on 23 September 2012, the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, stated: “the vast majority of people in this country won't find it acceptable if further fiscal austerity was implemented on the backs of the poor”.

Wealth Tax as a Condition for Further Spending Cuts
The LibDems have made it clear they will not support any further spending cuts proposed by the Conservative Coalition partners unless some form of Wealth Tax is agreed upon. But what would happen if the Tories refuse? This would imply that, in order to push through a new round of cuts in budget expenditure, the Conservatives would need to bring to an end the Coalition with the Liberal Democrats, or await the next General Election and attempt to go it alone.

But with the Liberal Democrats losing public support in Britain, many see it as a forgone conclusion that this party will rather choose to hold a firm stance and confront the Conservatives at the ballot box, than give up their attempt to introduce fairer laws in Britain concerning the distribution of wealth. So the only safe way forward for the Coalition is to agree on the introduction of a tax on accumulated private assets.

The Conservative Party and Wealth Tax
Supporters of the Conservative party are generally opposed to any form of tax on accumulated wealth, no matter how rich a person may be. To push through Parliament some form of taxation on accumulated assets would constitute a precedent in British history, something completely new, possibly opening the door to a social society where limits are fixed on how far an individual can go in storing private assets.

Such a law could be built upon, increasing the tax percentage on higher amounts of personal wealth, including financial securities such as gilts and bonds, as well as shares. It could see Britain's aristocrats being taxed on their mansions, palaces and estates. All things adverse to Tory philosophy could be achieved once a Wealth Tax were introduced, as Conservative way of thinking in Britain is to preserve the wealth of the rich while inflicting spending cuts on the masses.

And yet, in order to appear successful in the eyes of the public opinion, the Coalition Government needs to be reciprocal. It must agree on at least some major principles of each of the parties comprising the Coalition. So perhaps we will soon see a change of heart in the Conservative way of thinking, an acceptance that, in times of harsh austerity, the Country must come first, and that individual hoarding of wealth needs to be addressed. 

Written by D. Alexander

See also: David Cameron to clamp down on company directors:  

British Government suggests prison for reckless bankers:

Austerity destroying Britain:

Thursday, 20 September 2012

Britain's Future Prosperity

British Party: Britain's Future Prosperity
Page 2
The Public Debt
Britain's public debt, also known as national debt, is the money the State owes to purchasers of UK bonds and gilts. In 2002, Britain's national debt was equal to 29% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As of August 2012, the money the State owes stands at around £1.032 trillion. That is one trillion and 32 billion pounds, equivalent to just over 65% of GDP. This is an increase of £150 billion from May 2010, when the present Coalition took office. At that time, the public debt was £850 billion.

The Coalition's spending cuts in the economy, which include a programme to reduce public sector employment by around 700,000 people over a period of several years and to drastically cut council budgets, have had no effect in reducing our Country's Debt. In fact it would appear that public spending cuts can do nothing to change the financial ruin Britain is facing, as the roots of the problem have not been analysed by the economists.

The economic reality is indeed worse: the official figures for Britain's national debt do not include the Net debt, which equals around £2.3 trillion, to be precise, two trillion and 311 billion pounds. The Net debt includes a series of factors relating to State interventions in the financial sector, such as the costs for the bailout of a number of British banks in 2008, and is equivalent to 147% of GDP.

Cost of Public Debt
The cost for servicing the national debt is the interest the State pays to purchasers of government bonds and gilts. Currently, the interest paid by the British State on the public debt is between £40 billion and £50 billion a year, but as the debt is expected to increase to 100% of GDP by 2015, the interest will progressively go up by tens of billions of pounds a year, reaching possibly £70 billion and more by 2015.

This means that, as things stand now, over a four year period from the start of 2012 to the end of 2015, we will have paid between 200 and 250 billion pounds on public debt interest. These figures do not include any further interest which is owed by the State on the total Net debt of £2.3 trillion.

The money to pay the interest on Britain's national debt comes partly from taxing the Public in general, including businesses. Further money is raised through the sale of State assets, such as British commercial ports to give just one example. And in part the money comes simply through the sale of more UK bonds and gilts, thus increasing the public debt even more for future years!

A result of this debt, and the interest paid on it, becomes manifest through increased poverty within the economy caused by spending cuts, generally known as austerity. This involves scaling back the number of public employees, reducing public sector pensions, reducing benefits, cutting back on council budgets and essential services. The general financial recession in Britain and many other countries means that the private sector cannot offer sufficient employment or bring in extra revenues to compensate for the financial gap brought about through austerity.

Local Economic Administration
Britain's future Prosperity will come about through responsibility on the part of Local Government towards their own community. This is an essential part of British Party policy, and it is based on the principle that the local treasury must always be in positive, and never in debt. Councils would enjoy a larger share in revenues deriving from the local economy, with a smaller percentage of revenues going to the State treasury.

Economic boards run by Local Government will have the duty to create productive employment in their administrative areas whenever this can be of local and national benefit: in the fields of agriculture and industry, in the efficient running of public services and in employment-training programmes. The days when the vast amount of revenues were administered by Central Government will come to an end, to be replaced by close accountability on the part of District and County Government.

As a higher percentage of public revenue will go to these councils, including a percentage of income tax and corporation tax, it will be in their own interests to ensure that local prosperity, including employment, is open to the whole community and not out-sourced to cheap foreign labour. This will be particularly imperative as Local Government would never be allowed to incur a public debt of any kind, and would be responsible for paying all unemployment-related benefits in their own area.

It will be the duty of Council Government to monitor every instance of unemployment-related benefits, to help every resident entitled to employment – and in need of employment – to also gain fair access to the work market.
Britain will be free from the European Union and from any foreign parliament or foreign legislation. Accountability in the management of public finances will be a priority, and will start at the smallest level of Government.

Who Will Pay the Public Debt?
How the national debt will be paid off, and how the interest on this debt will be paid for, is a question that needs to be answered. 
Will high interest rates on private debt pay off the State's shortcomings? Will stamp duty on artificially high house prices pay for it? Will the Government sell Britain's remaining public assets to cover the costs of Public Debt?

None of these solutions would ever work, and none of them are part of British Party policies. Speculation and greed within the economy are unacceptable, as too is the idea of lack of accountability in managing the State's finances.

Written by D. Alexander

Link to page 1 of Britain's Future Prosperity:

Prosperity Coming to Scotland:

Tuesday, 18 September 2012

British Party: Britain's Future Prosperity

British Party: Britain's future Prosperity
Page 1
Economic Prosperity in Britain
The British economy needs to be redefined through a Constitution of Economy, a set of regulations that would ensure a prosperous future for our Country.
Free market decisions could be taken and free trade would be guaranteed, but within fair regulations upholding citizens' rights. Currently there are rules and regulations governing the economy, including trade and commerce, as well as taxes, so the idea is nothing new. But we do need a new book of rules, in the form of a Constitution, in order to avoid the catastrophic desolation to which our Country is heading.

At present there are thousands upon thousands of EU rules and regulations regarding economic matters, far too many, and the sheer number of regulations often leaves scope for loopholes that can be exploited to the detriment of our Society. One of the results of the current legislation is that many factories in Britain have closed down and transferred production abroad, while others have opted for employing almost exclusively non-British workers. This is generally known as exploitation of cheap foreign labour, the result of which is millions of people in Britain being consigned to unemployment.

In order to achieve Prosperity, we need a Constitution of Economy that would safe-guard our Country from the interference of Big-Government and from the interference of foreign parliaments, such as the European Union Parliament.

Local Administration and Accountability
One of the foundations of Prosperity consists in accountability, where an administrative authority has an overview of the economic situation within its own boundaries, has precise obligations towards its residents, and depends to an important extent on revenues from the economy present within these same administrative boundaries.

Central Government is not in a position to be accountable for all the unemployed people in the Country, whereas Local Government at County and District level is fully aware of all the general circumstances regarding unemployment within their area. For this reason, Local Government should have the legislative authority to ensure that its residents have the possibility to find employment.

Central Government should not pay unemployment or housing benefits, as these should be at the sole expense of the local community, such as the County or the District. This could only work if a percentage of income tax and corporation tax were paid directly to the councils. Once this percentage has been calculated, it would become the sole duty of Local Government to make sure that its incomes are sufficient to pay for all benefits relating to unemployment and low incomes.

Local administration would have the duty to require all employers registered within their administrative boundaries to comply with the constitutional laws. Employers who discriminate against British people by recruiting – out of principal – Eastern Europeans, as is the case in many minimum-wage factories in England, would be summoned to Court to respond to charges of ethnic discrimination against British citizens. They would be held accountable owing to the fact that the local community is responsible for paying unemployment and housing benefits to the unemployed.

Local Government would be able to reach the roots of unemployment by enforcing the Law that forbids ethnic discrimination, which is one of the main causes of unemployment among people in Britain. The councils would be encouraged, and indeed obliged, to run training courses for the resident citizens that would enable them to find work in factories and warehouses - or in any other sphere of the economy - present within the administrative boundaries.

Therefore, an important incentive to motivate Local Government in reducing unemployment is by including in the Constitution a law requiring that unemployment-related benefits are not paid by the State Treasury, but by the councils. Reducing unemployment by monitoring how employers recruit workers, ensuring they do not apply discrimination against British nationals, would lead to less money being paid for unemployment-related benefits, as the cost of unemployment would rest on the local community. 

This would guarantee all British citizens a fair chance in finding work and receiving a decent income, rather than being abandoned to living on benefits owing to the absence of accountability on the part of Central Government.

So long as taxes are paid almost exclusively into the national Treasury, Central Government will continue to fail in accountability when managing and distributing our finances, ignoring the regional problems affecting the British economy. The Government will only continue adding to the Public Debt, and we will be heading into a situation where the interest we pay on this Debt becomes unsustainable. If this is not indeed already the case.

In order to ensure strict discipline in guaranteeing accountability within a fair society, Local Government would never be allowed to create a public debt, nor to circulate bonds or other paper value. However, council administrations would be encouraged and obliged to enhance the local productive economy with which they are in direct contact, not through projects encouraging immigration, but for the sole purpose of guaranteeing employment and prosperity for the local community. 

Written by D. Alexander

Link to page 2, Britain's future Prosperity:

Friday, 14 September 2012

Do Cancer Cells Have an Immune System?

Do cancer cells have an immune system of their own to counter the body's immune system?

Professor Douglas Fearon, Cambridge University
Researchers at Cambridge University have conducted a study on a cancer immune system that prevents the body's own immune system from destroying tumour cells. The study, led by the immunologist Professor Douglas Fearon, was carried out on genetically modified mice.

Stromal Cells in Tumours
The online publication NHS Choices (5th November 2010), citing a report from the peer-reviewed journal Science, reveals that the research team focused their attention on stromal cells, which form the connective tissue of tumours. Stromal cells contain a protein called fibroblast activation protein alpha (FAP), which prevents the body's immune system from destroying cancer cells.

Stromal cells carry out important functions within the body, such as in the healing process of a wound. These same tissue cells, however, have been found essential for the survival of cancer cells. A tumour manifests itself as a wound, whereby the FAP contained in the stromal cells does not protect the body from the tumour, but instead protects the cancer cells from the body's immune system that would otherwise destroy the cancer.

The FAP contained within the stromal cells becomes a shield and source of nourishment that maintains the tumour cells and in so doing allows these to continue dividing and spreading unhindered by the body's natural defences. The tumour cell's strategy lies basically in presenting the tumour as an injury that needs protecting and healing, and not as a cause of illness to the body.

Regulating FAP
The object of the research carried out at Cambridge University consisted in modifying in various ways the FAP response in mice in order to prevent the protein from protecting lung cancer cells. This resulted in the tumour cells being gradually destroyed by the natural immune system of the mice. According to Professor Douglas Fearon, an important piece may have been found within the jigsaw to healing various kinds of cancer.

The success achieved in regulating FAP in mice could become the basis for a vaccine for cancer treatment in humans, and would involve a process of training the body's immune system to confront and eliminate a tumour through FAP regulation within stromal cells. The important function that these tissue cells have on the body's natural healing process means that they have a positive value, yet they are equally important in preserving different forms of tumours, which, of-course, is detrimental to the body.

Once the FAP protein can be cut off from tumour cells in humans, a great step forward will have been achieved in cancer cure by breaking down the immune system of cancer cells. According to Professor Fearon, although the research is at an early stage, it is possible that the results achieved on mouse tumours will also work in human versions of the disease.


Online publication NHS Choices (5th November 2010)

Written by D. Alexander

Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Monarchy in Britain

Can a Human Family Require Worship of the People?
In Britain there is one family which claims to be the head of just about everything. The Windsor family. They claim to be the head of the English Church, the head of the Government, the head of the State, the head of the Armed Forces, and the head is always seen on money and postage stamps.

But are we required to worship this family? It is unelected yet claims to be omnipresent in our lives, over our institutions, and is surrounded by thousands of guards. The same family has at its exclusive disposal palaces, castles and vast estates, and receives payments in money from the British State and even from the European Union.
However, for all their luxury and financial wealth, no-one is obliged to worship them, for they cannot rule over the soul of other people.

The Celestial Monarchy
Prosperity comes from High, from where life on earth has its origin, namely from the High City that is House to the Throne of God. Our Saviour is Jesus Christ, whom the Father sent to us as Shepherd, showing us the gate to Life Eternal. He did not say that we have to worship a human family and call them head of the Church and head of the State.

For this reason alone the Windsor family cannot require worship from us, as they have not been given divine authority to do so. They do not receive our prayers and do not give prosperity, they cannot command the Spirit, and their luxurious way of life is not even in consonance with the message of the Gospel.

The Windsor family is not the founder of the English Church, which came into being through the Kentish king Ethelbert and his Christian wife Bertha, precisely in Kent, and also in Northumbria through the Celtic missionaries from the Scottish island of Iona.

Elected Government in Britain
Our chosen form of government in Britain is democracy and the House of Commons. Through democratic election we are entitled to periodically elect the Lower House of Parliament, where elected common people are expected to govern our Country to the benefit of the British People.

Written by D. Alexander
The Origins of the English Church:

Tuesday, 14 August 2012

Austerity Destroying Britain

The financial crisis is having a negative impact on Britain's society, effectively destroying people's health and even physically destroying Society.

Choosing Desolation
Britain's economy could prosper, we could be planting more orchards, increasing agricultural output, producing textiles and electronics and so many other things our economy once excelled in; but instead, our society is degenerating into poverty and desolation.

An article published on Sky News on 14 August 2012, under the title: Health Suffering in Austerity Britain, reveals the results of a survey among British GPs. According to this survey, an increasing number of women are requesting abortion because of their financial situation.

Children who would be born into our society are being aborted, their developing phase of life within the womb is being terminated as a result of Britain's fall into desolation. All this is happening while bankers and chief executives of large share-companies are battling to maintain their right to receive millions of pounds a year in annual bonuses to add to their top wages.

An End to Sport Activity in Return for Anxiety
Three quarters of the 300 GPs involved in the survey stated that the economic situation is making their patients unhealthier.
Doctors are saying that 60% of their patients have given up sports activities through lack of financial means, while an increasing number of people are seeking medical help for anxiety-related problems caused through financial stress. Indeed, they have reported a rise in heart disease and cancer for these very reasons, caused by stress and anxiety.

Britain's Families at Risk of Breaking up
Another cause for concern is an increase in alcohol abuse owing to finance-related stress problems. Unemployment is one major cause for stress, and so too is the knowledge that one may become unemployed any time soon. Parents with children, with rent or mortgage bills to pay, or who risk having to mortgage their house in order to access money, are at risk of falling into Britain's increasingly vicious private debt spiral.

Shark loans are common practice in Britain, when banks decline to give a loan and people turn to the shark loan scene. British Law does not pose any limit on interest rates, and so extortionate interest rates can be exacted on loans, such as 40% interest a month, or 4000% interest a year.

In Britain, this is perfectly legal, and the result it has on people's health, and on the breaking up of families, does not seem to bother in the least the high-class wealthy society of the rich. The money-lenders are quite happy to exact their pound of flesh on desperate folk, squeezing blood from a stone, as our society is being sacrificed to poverty, home-eviction and desolation.

Written by D. Alexander

For Sky News article see the following link:

Flowers of the Forest played by the Scots Guards:

Friday, 3 August 2012

The English Civil War: Battle of Edgehill

In 1642, at the start of the English Civil War, two English armies headed into battle to solve a constitutional dispute between King and Parliament.

On Sunday 23 October 1642, the first major battle of the English Civil War was fought at Edgehill in Warwickshire. On one side stood the army loyal to King Charles I, who was marching on London; on the other were the forces sent out by the English Parliament to prevent him reaching the capital.

Military Preparations Prior to the Battle of Edgehill

After falling out with Parliament, King Charles departed from London on 10 January 1642 and with his retinue travelled around England, testing the level of support among the people in his cause against Parliament. Having failed to gain possession of an important military arsenal in the walled port of Hull, the King left Yorkshire and headed south to the Midlands, with a military force numbering 2,000 men on horse and as many infantry.

Charles reached Nottingham, where he raised his standard on 22 August, declaring his intention to march on London and confront Parliament with force of arms. The King's cavalry was under the command of his nephew, Prince Rupert of the Rhine, the twenty-three year-old son of the Elector Palatine. Having seen combat in the Netherlands and in Germany's Thirty Years War, Rupert was considered the most experienced cavalry commander in the King's service.

As Summer drew into Autumn, thousands of volunteers assembled at the Royalist encampment, and the army's numbers swelled to over ten thousand, many equipped with standard fighting weapons, others with implements such as pitchforks and cudgels. During this time, aristocratic families all over England were sending donations of money and silver to the King's headquarters, thus enabling the commanding officers to provide for their men and purchase fodder for the horses.

Meanwhile, London's local militia, known as the London Trained Bands, had been mobilised by Parliament. Numbering around 7,000 men at arms, the capital's Trained Bands rapidly developed into a standing army, with thousands more men arriving in London to increase the numbers.

From the outset of the military preparations, the English Parliament lacked sufficient funds to finance a large and improvised military force, and having gained the loyalty of the English Navy in a preemptive move before it could pass over to King Charles's cause, the treasury was obliged to meet the combined costs of both the fleet and the army.

Command over the parliamentary army had been assigned to the Earl of Essex, a veteran who, like Rupert, had seen action in the Netherlands and in Germany. At the outbreak of the war, Essex's forces numbered 21,000 infantrymen and 4,200 cavalry, and with 46 pieces of field artillery and numerous horse-drawn supply wagons, his army was effectively a fully fledged fighting force.

Military training among the soldiers, however, was far from complete, and there were as yet no reconnaissance units that could give the commanders vital information on the movements and numbers of the Royalist forces. When on the march, Parliament's army used forced requisition of food as a means to supply the troops.

Heading Towards English Civil War

In the month of September 1642, the two opposing English armies began to march out of their bases, located respectively at Nottingham and London, to fight what they believed would be a single battle to solve the constitutional dispute. Neither side knew that the first battle would give way to a prolonged civil war.

The Royalists crossed through the Midlands, reaching Stafford and then Shrewsbury, continually increasing in numbers as more men joined King Charles's regiments. As was the case with Essex's army, the Royalist forces were not fully trained and were equally without any form of intelligence network.

The Earl of Essex assembled his troops at Northampton, and on 14 September headed towards Coventry. He then turned west towards Worcester in order to block the road to London, this being his first and foremost objective in order to prevent Charles from reaching England's capital, London.

On 23 September, advancing cavalry units of the opposing armies engaged in combat near the Worcestershire village of Powick. In this first skirmish of the English Civil War, Prince Rupert was able to demonstrate his commanding abilities, routing a large column of parliamentary cavalry while leading a surprise attack.

The Royalist army continued to slowly advance on London, and by 22 October Charles approached Banbury, commanding an army of 15,000 men, including over 3,500 cavalry, and an artillery train of 20 cannon of various calibres. On their arrival, no-one in the Royalist army was aware that the Earl of Essex, after marching out of Worcester, had assembled the larger part of his army – around 12,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry – outside the nearby village of Kineton.

About one third of the parliamentary army was still heading towards Kineton when news reached Essex's headquarters that the King's army was encamped only four miles away upon a ridge, holding a strong defensive position overlooking the road to London. The parliamentarian soldiers abruptly realised that the King had overtaken them along the route to England's capital.

Edgehill, the Opening Battle in the English Civil War

The following day, 23 October 1642, the Earl of Essex paraded his infantry on the plain below the ridge known as Edgehill, hence the name of the battle that was about to take place there. Twelve parliamentary regiments were deployed in three brigades, flanked on each side by the bulk of the cavalry; two more regiments of horse remained in reserve, spread out among the infantry.

Rather than conducting an uphill attack on the strongly defended positions held by the Royalists, Essex gave orders to hold firm on the plain, as the rest of the infantry and artillery would arrive within a day. He knew that the King's forces entrenched on the heights would be obliged to come down in order to have access to food from the surrounding villages, and, more importantly, to avoid being surrounded from two sides after the arrival of the parliamentary reinforcements.

It was around 2 in the afternoon when King Charles's regiments marched down in full force, advancing within half a mile of the opposing army. Three brigades held the front line, with two behind flanked by Rupert's cavalry. Several regiments of horse were kept in reserve, with orders given them by Rupert to actively support the infantry as soon as they engaged in battle.

The footsoldiers on both sides included units of musketeers and pikemen, the 16-foot long pikes being an effective defence against a cavalry onslaught. With both armies remaining immobile, the only contact came about through exchanges of artillery fire. At 3 o'clock the first hand to hand fighting took place as Rupert, moving from the right with a great number of the King's cavalry, took on Essex's left flank, careering head-on towards the parliamentary cavalry gathered on that part of the field.

Then the left flank of the Royalist horse charged down, sweeping upon Essex's right flank and taking on all his cavalry positioned there. Within minutes, the parliamentary riders on both flanks turned and fled, heading back in the direction of Kineton towards their base, some three miles away. Rupert's mounted men pursued them, riding far from the battlefield and eventually coming upon their opponents' supply wagons in Kineton.

Unknown to Rupert was the spontaneous decision of all the mounted Royalist reserve units to join in the pursuit. In so doing they disobeyed his orders, for King Charles's infantry had meanwhile moved forward engaging the opposing foot regiments, but found themselves exposed to Essex's two reserve regiments of horse, which, being positioned among the infantry, had avoided the Royalist cavalry onslaught.

The tables were turned, and now it was Essex's remaining cavalry charging upon the king's infantry and artillery, unopposed by Rupert and his cavalrymen who had effectively abandoned the field. The Royalist riders returned shortly before nightfall, exhausted, to find the two contending armies in a position of stalemate, with neither side having obtained a military advantage.

The battle rapidly concluded as the parliamentary army withdrew from the field under cover of darkness, heading back to Kineton. King Charles's army withdrew to the heights, and one thousand five hundred men lay dead and dying below Edgehill.

Written by D. Alexander