One Fairly Good, and A Second Excellent Dispatches Documentary of Which I have Pasted the youtube.com Links at the Beginning of this Article

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNEj-aUEqeE&feature=hp_SLN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vWazRB5uHM&feature=related

Please watch these two very good Dispatches documentaries. The first documentary, about the Unions - whilst I don't agree with all of it - in order to summarise makes three main points, criticisms, complaints, and protests.

The first point it makes is that many Unions are undemocratic, because only a third of their members agree with or want to strike as a protest against the Tories public and service spending-cuts, their increasing job-cuts, and their welfare and benefits-cuts, and that this is also very wrong because some of these Union members are carers and if they strike they will be neglecting the very poor and vulnerable.

On the first point of this matter and issue, I disagree with this first Dispatches documentary, because I think the Unions have to strike and protest against the jobs, services, benefits and welfare-cuts of the Tory government, even if only a third of their members disagree with this (otherwise they would all be like the Bolshevik political Party in Communist Russia, where they could only strike and so on, if the majority of workers and/or Union members agreed to this), when it is a very strong and powerful point of both necessity and principle that the Unions strike against the Tory government's job, services, welfare, and benefit-cuts), whilst I also disagree with the bullying, coercion, and threats and actions of ex-communication and expulsion of other or all other union members, who disagree with their Unions and of whom for whatever valid reasons don’t want to go on strike.

The second point, criticism, complaint, and protest which this first Dispataches documentary makes, is that some Union leaders and thier members, are being given million-pound homes by their Unions, which I agree with this documentary is very wrong, because it is elitist, and unfair and unequal privilege, which the Unions say and are not supposed to believe, encourage, create, or support.

The third point, criticism, complaint, and protest of this documentary, is that many male Union members are being paid much higher wages by some Unions via their councils than many women Union members, and who are being expelled from their Unions if they criticise, complain, or speak out about this.

The male Union member street-cleaners and so on, and their work, are seen by some of these Unions via some councils, that these men and male-workers both deserve and need much higher and more wages, than the cooks and carers, because they say and believe that this will make these men more productive - that these men’s work is also seen as the home providers, whilst the women’s work is seen as pin money jobs and roles - and these women's and female Union members work is not seen as real work and deserving equal pay to these men and male Union members.

Whilst this sex and gender discrimination, sexism, and economic inequality between men and women by some Unions does undoubtedly exist, this might have come across as over-generalising about these Unions or about some of them, but as I have always said, socialism and communism is still very much and too patriarchal, and this Dispatches documentary in their points, criticisms, complaints, and protests about some of these Unions sexual and gender discrimination and economic inequality, beween some fo these female and male Union members, exposes and reveals all of these injustices, contradictions, and gender inequalities, which still exist by some Unions, and which the Unions must all come clean about all of this and make amends and corrections.

Despite some of this first Dispatches programme's criticisms of the Union organisation Unite, the second Dispatches documentary I have also pasted a youtube.com link to here, shows and reveals, that the migrant women's domestic workers rights group - are all an integrated part and members of the Union-organisation Unite - and who are all very vital and a most excellent organisation, and who all fight for and defend the rights, freedom, protection, sociai justice and safety of the quite literally enslaved, extremely verbally abused, bullied, extremely exploited, sexually and physically abused, tortured, and in some cases even murdered by their employers, and that what’s more, both child and adult-slavery - child slave-labour and the slavery of women - have not been abolished neither in the world, nor in this country and society.

Anyone who is racist and/or makes sweeping-statements and over-generalisations about all immigrants who come to this country stealing white British workers jobs, or of all being benefits scroungers and taking white British working people’s tax paying money - and that they all supposedly do not want to and refuse to work - should watch this second excellent Dispatches documentary, in order to know and realise that the very real and literal slavery of women and children, and child-slave labour, have not been absolished in the world nor within this society, and they should watch this second Dispatches documantary, in order to get the real and whole facts and reality of all of these things, matters and present-day events, and to get the complete truth and picture on all of this.

The Distinctions Between Truth and Reality

Reality can be verified, tested, and objectively and scientifically proven. However, truth, is essentially both an assumed subjective notion, a philosophical notion, and something which cannot be proven one way or another in a purely past or present context, reality and sense, because it is existentially and essentially, a process and, very much a progress of events.

What's more, truth is not a noun thing, but it is actually a verb, and to do with action. Truth has in the past, seemed to described an objective thing, or a subjective notion and subject-object relation, but truth it is essentially what we do, in the continuing progress of past, present, and future, and it is neither what metaphorical or ironic descriptions imply.

This is not to rule out lies, myths, and distortions of reality, but a subjective and superstitious creation of either an objective or subjective truth, covers up and distorts our relation, involvement, and the force or chosen non-participation in our interaction with reality, ourselves, and other people.

The other thing, is that legalistically, truth is very strongly associated with events, but separated from reality, this belies and abstractly represents a notion that truth itself is a myth connected from reality to another reality, and this denies the dialectical nature and reality of how the two things - of both reality and truth - are both separate and related.

Of course, truth cannot be separated from prejudice, belief, and distorted and impartial interpretations, but truth essentially implies that it is opposed to falsity or original sin in a religious context, when the superficiality of this creates a polarity between truth, myths, and lies, which in these ways then thus denies or assumes the social and personal reality and so-called nature of events.

What is true can be described as a straight line, without natural irregularities or inconsistencies, or a pure, simple, and unrealistic superficial loyalty. This is essentially and existentially, a projection of human qualities, upon a ejaculated speculation of what is true, unfounded, and pre-disposed to internally externalised and introjected feelings, sensations, and notions.

There is also, never a connected nor disconnected aspect of truth - as often instructed by deluded and false teachers - as this all implies a teacher and disciple, or a hierarchical relationship, when all relationships are a combination of falsity and truth, loyalty and betrayal between lust and love, and the combined desire and love for intimacy, detached and displaced longing, and then betrayal.

On the matter of the legalistic reality, essence, and existence of truth, this consensus can at times seem overwhelming, but no-one asks, protests, or considers, whether those judging the passive and blamed recipients and assumed creators of truth, such as judges, are being true themselves to the whole or fragmentally displayed and influentially or ideologically conditioned nature of truth.

The other thing, is that those who exhibitionist display, or make a fictional corrective and involved pretext and pretence of truth, without any active personal participation, never realistically portray, and perceive how this is layered and disconnected from the truthful nature of actual reality. If reality was true, it wouldn't be full of contradictions, resolutions, and somewhat continual hypocritical material events.

There is indeed a truthful reality, but can there be a reality truth? This all seems plausible and laughable to me, but then again I am full of irony, deliberately obscurantism, and I am not the judge or jury or a philosophical prince or princess.

The Limitations of Political Self-descriptions and Self-Labelling and Labels

Many people very ostentatiously and very superficially describe to themselves and others, and very theatrically tell others and present to others about themselves, that they are a conservative, or a liberal or libertarian, a socialist or a communist, or a fascist or an anarchist, but why should anyone believe these very tendentious, very partial, and very limited and abstract superficial labels and self-descriptions that people tell others about their so-called being and their existence?, and what’s more, why should anyone else believe them about any of any of this or what they say and tell others about any of this?

I say all of this, firstly, because if many people say and describe these things about themselves, are they talking about their social, material, and economic influences and conditions?, their so-called human essence or human nature?, or their existence which as an somewhat partial existentialist I believe precedes essence and being?

Whilst I disagree with Marxist political solutions - not least because like very right-wing socialism, Marxists haven’t progressed much, only in a superficial and deluded academic sense - the part of existentialism and Marxism that I believe in, is Dialectical Materialism - which some may say is the engine-block of Marxism, because I believe that we experience the material world and the thing first, and then we name and describe it, ourselves, and others.

There is also a big difference between experiences - again which are primary and come first - and actual perceptions, which are secondary like language, descriptions, and the vast majority of written, spoken, and language so-called meanings and explanations.

Shared meanings and language are still very important though - as in a lot of ways language is all we have got - and as Thomas Szasz says, language is also a like the material world in that it is another body, existence, and then a being that we all live within, but that this being or beings is both created by our material world and language and also created by ourselves by our actions, thoughts, feelings, desires, our experiences and then our perceptions, and then also created and re-created by the words and language that we use, which re-influence, re-creates, and which all then effect and affect our secondary experiences termed as our perceptions.

Sometimes it is a very good thing to transcend or break-out from shared language, shared communication, and shared meanings, especially is there is a very false, misconceived and misinterpreted, very rigid, and very limited or fake consensus with these things, although a person can get labelled as insane for doing this, but again, shared language, shared communication, and shared meanings and a genuine creative and scientific consensus and understanding of all of this are very important as well.

Getting back to the ostentatious, very superficial, very tendentious, very partial and very abstract labels and self-descriptions which many people have of themselves, when they tell and very theatrically present to others that they are a conservative, or a liberal or a libertarian, a socialist or a communist, or a fascist or an anarchist - firstly, these things can only be validated and verified albeit still very limitedly - by a person’s actions, and not by their very ostentatious, abstract, very limited, partial, and very reversible descriptions of themselves, and how they want to see themselves to themselves and others in these ways.

What’s more, it is usually the case, them when many people self-describe themselves as a conservative, a liberal, a social or a communist, or a fascist or an anarchist, in their actions they are usually quite the opposite of all these things, as these self-descriptions which they superficially and theatrically present and project to others about themselves, are to a great extent very partial, limited, and deceitful to themselves and others, about both what they actually do and what they actually are as individuals and as existent human beings.

All these very partial, very reversible, and very theatrical self-descriptions many people make of themselves and present to others, as kind of actors playing a role or part in a rather outdated, boring, and tired play, are all actually some aspects of ALL human beings - even though again they are still all very partial, very theatrical, and limited descriptions - and if anyone tells you or anyone else otherwise, then they are lying about all of this.

I am not being very anarchistic or nihilistic about all of this, as I do accept that in some ways people have a sort of right, and are in a way accurate about these so-called political self-descriptions and very partial and limited labels about themselves, but I personally feel and believe, that it is not up to people to tell others what they are, when these things deny the somewhat totality of all of these aspects of every single human being, and because it is up to other people to decide about all of this about individuals and people collectively, and for others to evaluate and/or judge or describe people upon their actions, and not upon their very abstract self-descriptions.

Another reason why many people just use one part of all these partial aspects of all human beings - and which I agree with some so-called socialists are all influenced and conditioned by social, material, and economic or class factors - is that people choose one aspect of all these factors of human beings, and they decide that this is the path they want to follow - and which then makes them feel superficially very high in self-esteme and very good about themselves, and which also makes them feel very safe and secure amidst the somewhat uncertainty, flows, breaks, and changes, and the somewhat chaos and meaninglessness of many aspects of nature, society, the universe, and life.

Everyone has a conservative, a liberal, a socialist and communist, and an anarchist and a fascist character trait, which again, often than not because they deceive themselves and others about all of these things, deny and suppress these other aspects of themselves, and then project this onto others and protest too much, and then the reversal of all these aspects of every human being then come out with a vengeance, revealing their ignorance, extreme hypocrisy, superficiality, tendentiousness, very superficial and very poor and bad-acting theatrical role-play, and their inautheticity to be fairly honest about, realise, act upon, and present to others their real true selves, as individuals, social, material, and mindful beings.

What’s more, as existentialism reveals to us and says, and in order to realise their material and social influence and conditions, they and we all need to first realise that their and all our existence is primary - it is experienced and comes first - and then after they or we all experience the material thing, they and we all then name it and describe it to themselves, ourselves, and others.

OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER (OCD): Some causes, strategies, and coping-mechanisms (Updated Article)

In my late childhood and early teenage years, I acquired a habit of thinking that if I didn't repeat certain patterns, such as walk over a certain spot, or touch a certain object more than once, then certain bad or harmful consequences would follow: injury to myself or others. However, this is not mere irrationality or superstition, but is rooted in social causes, and rooted in personal coping-mechanisms and strategies. Whilst in secondary school, I noticed and discovered that at separate times, two completely different school friends had exactly the same habitual fear.

One friend of mine, who had the same habit, fear, or negative thought-pattern, when he once asked a voluntary mental health worker what it was he was experiencing, this person replied, "If you think negatively about things, then negative things might happen, and so you have to think positive." This reply was a layman's version of the cognitive-behavioural psychiatric model, and is fairly accurate, but there are all kinds of different ways of doing this that need to be explored, and for some people, dissociation, distraction, or diversion, isn't enough, and like me, they might need to reverse the negative analogy or thought-pattern they've been using, instead of replacing it altogether with a positive one.

When this friend told his mum what this preoccupation, habit, fear, or phobia was all about, (that if he didn't touch or repeat certain patterns, then he felt bad things would happen), she said she thought he was mad or stupid, which made him feel mad and stupid in the first place for telling her about it. It does sound ridiculous for people who've never experienced such a fear or preoccupation, but from the increasing amount of people on TV chat-shows admitting they experience this, it is something far more common than is admitted to or realised by many people.

My way of eventually coping or curing myself of this negative thought-pattern or phobia termed Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, was not to deny myself of any autonomous thought or action, to distract myself, or replace it with an entirely positive analogy, but to reverse the strategy or analogy, and to convince myself that if I DID carry out the repetitive action, then certain harmful or bad things would happen. In this unconventional use of positive thinking, I reversed the negative-pattern of the thought, eventually bringing myself back to complete control and autonomy.

Maybe this strategy or method I used of reversing the original analogy, is less authoritarian, because it concentrates on self-control, whereas the absolutist method of purely positive-thinking used in conventional cognitive therapy, often relies upon being told what to think and do, and is a control imposed by others, unless it is a shared strategy and coping-mechanism between diagnosed patients.

What has previously been called Obsessive Compulsive Disorder by psychiatry, is in my experience a fear or phobia, and not an entirely unreasonable human fear, because it is based-upon both negative past experiences, and a present fear of irrational, unreasonable, or immoral social-repression, negative social control, and imposed social compulsion.

So what Obsessive Compulsive Disorder really is, is a repetitive or habitual phobia, and even some modern psychiatry now, sees it as far more helpful for people to realise and understand their phobias as negative or habitual patterns of thought, in line with cognitive behavioural therapy, although cognitive behavioural therapy is not very good at realising the combination of social causes and personal coping-mechanisms, and it resorts to the psychologism of presuming everything is motivated by merely personal behaviour which needs to be socially isolated and controlled from the outset.

My Past Experiences of a Female Counselling Professional

...who was initially Very Good and Loving To, With, and Towards Me, but Who Then also in Some Ways Abused me Emotionally, Verbally, and Sexually (Mentally, Emotionally, Verbally, and Erotically)

A female counsellor, about ten years ago, helped me in many practical and emotional ways, for quite a long period of time, as part of our initial social friendship, and our counselling sessions together. She gave me a fair bit of support, sympathy, empathy, love and understanding, about the fact that I am and was born, a natural love and sexual masochist towards women, that I have been unjustly and unreasonably persecuted, punished, and abused for this many times in the past, in my childhood, teens, and adult life - and that I still am being persecuted and abused now, in a very similar way to how and why this female counsellor abused me, by another female professional who isn't a counsellor - and that I am a child and teen abuse, school bullying and teacher abuse, and a social worker and psychiatric abuse survivor.

This female counsellor, was and is, in many ways a very beautiful and creative, clever, unique, brave and lovely woman, person, and human being, who I would have liked to have kept in touch with, been fairly constant friends with, and lived with for a while as her friend and/or masochist lover, and/or married her.

This female counsellor, also had no idea that I am an absolute genius as a writer, as she was very defensive and jealous of my writing talents and articles, and she used this jealousy of hers towards me, as an excuse for some of her sexual and erotic dominance, and role-play towards me, during a few of the counselling sessions - which I very much loved, liked, and enjoyed, and which was fine - although I also thought and felt, that she didn't necessarily have to excuse herself for this, in that way - but she also used her jealousy towards me, as an excuse for her abuse against me - again, in order to feel superior to me, in a way, about me as a great writer, who shares his very unique and shared knowledge with others, from all walks of life.

I still very much loved and understood this female counsellor, and despite the fact that she in some ways deeply hurt me, emotionally, verbally, and in some ways mentally and emotionally sexually and erotically abused me - and which I didn't ask for, want, deserve, or like - I still genuinely and sincerely love and desire her, deeply and immensely, and wherever she is - and whatever she freely chooses in life - I will always love her and wish her well.

I cannot excuse the deep hurt, in the form of emotional, verbal, and in some ways the sexual and erotic abuse by her against and towards me though, as again, it has happened to me again recently, in some ways, by another female professional who isn't a counsellor, and I feel I must speak out about all of this - not least because I want to understand all the real reasons why the female counsellor did this to me - and which I think I already know - the ways it has in some ways still affected me, and because I want to write and share about all of this with the female counsellor and others.

During one of our fairly early counselling sessions - and without me asking her to do this - at some stage this female counsellor, touched me with a very gentle, sympathetic, and sensual touch and stroke, on my shoulder with her hand, and which at the time, I thought and felt, was very loving, kind, and absolutely fine, and in a way, like a very subtle and partial form of tantric-sex type sexual-love healing.

Some counselling sessions later, this female counsellor, asked me about my heterosexual masochist experiences and so-called fantasies, and then she smiled and drooled over me sexually from across the room, licking her lips, and simulating a kind of external French kissing, heavily seducing me, in some sexually or erotic ways that I very much like, love, and enjoy.

Then in our next counselling session, she seduced me again, by pretending to me that she was a female Mistress and a Queen, who I had to crawl to, bow down before, kiss her almost bare and very beautiful feet, and grovel to, love, adore, respect, and worship her, in this way. I naturally loved, liked, and enjoyed this, and I felt very much obliged to do this for her and me. To this day, I regret that I never did this for HER in particular, and for some other similar women, and that I didn't physically and completely show her my true feelings towards her, in that way, at that particular duration and time, and which in a big way, she wanted in exchange for the previous touching and stroking, gentle and warm sensuality and love, by her hand, upon my shoulder that other time, and for the friendship, support, caring and understanding she had previously shown and given me.

In these and this way in particular, she then she made me further fall in love with her, and adore and worship her, but without any real verbal satisfaction, as she was quite cold when she played the role of a female Mistress and a Queen, and she just stared at me like she controlled and owned me, and/or like I had to serve her - but she was very, very, clever with her eyes, face, head, and body language and expressions - because she could communicate and tell me exactly what to do, without speaking verbally at all when she did this, and I'm not sure I'll ever meet another woman quite like her, who can do that, in such a very clever, very creative, and skilful way.

This female counsellor, was obviously, saying, and trying to tell me, that she had some very unique, and most amazing, talents and abilities as well in this way, equal to my very good conversational, discussion and debate, and my writing talents and abilities, and that in this way, we were both more or less of equal talent, skill, worth and value, as individuals, and together as men and women, and as human beings and people, interpersonally and in society.

Again, this female counsellor did not speak at all, when she pretended to be a female Mistress and a Queen to and towards me, and this was also without any other physical individual or mutual contact, apart from her previous loving and slightly sensual, stroking of my shoulder with her hand. In her somewhat wild and frustrated anticipations, thoughts, and feelings, and in some of her very inaccurate prejudices and assumptions, about me being emotionally and sexually repressed, connected to her work-role labelling, prejudices, and training, she couldn't - or didn't want to - combine, connect, and/or integrate her previous very warm and gentle, sympathetic, and sensual touch and stroke, on my shoulder with her hand, with her somewhat separate and fragmented erotic, sensual, and sexual dominance desire and love as a female Mistress and a Queen, towards me, and in this respect I think she was somewhat lacking for and with me, although I could have taught, integrated, connected, and in some ways progressed and shared this with her, if she had let me at the time, or if I still knew her socially, and/or as her very special client, student and teacher, and her friend.

At the next following counselling session, whilst I had to wait for this female counsellor, outside the building and counselling room, a lot later than our usual agreed meeting time, and before she let me into the building and counselling room, she then had some sexual-love type making and sexual intercourse, with another person, in the counselling room, before our session, and before she actually saw me, I could tell immediately afterwards, when I saw her in the counselling room, by her body language, facial expressions, and her initial very awkward and repressed stammering speech - and because she was erotically and sexually charged and breathing quite heavily, mostly and initially towards me during this session and time - and because who she really sexually desired and loved was me.

Because of the male and female control, social, political, and sexual exploitation, and coercion, over her by some others, in her social and work-life and role, the social, political, and sexual and love exploitation, and the very false love and sexual repression used against her in this way, she therefore couldn't express her true thoughts, feelings, and her true love, erotic, and sexual feelings towards me, and so she tried to love and desire me in this way instead, and which was the closest and nearest thing she could get to me.

When I then indicated and suggested to her, in the counselling room, in my body language, and with some of my verbal speech and communication, that I knew that this is what she had done and in some ways why, whilst I was waiting outside for quite a long time before the session - and when she then rushed, and very frustratingly and desperately needed to see me after this, outside the building and room, to let me in, for her to conform to, and in some ways to fulfil and satisfy this type of sexual fantasy of some others, she then looked at me with self-disgust, as if I was trying to judge or humiliate her for this - perhaps like she had just done to me in some ways - and which I wasn't trying or wanting to do to her, in any way, shape, or form.

This female counsellor, then directed and projected, the disgust and hate for this person who had quite coercively and exploitatively had sex with her, onto me, because having to have sex with someone who controlled her, in this rather dominant unwanted way against her, obviously really very much repulsed and disgusted her, and because she really loved, cared for, and most desired me.

This female counsellor, couldn't entirely understand, admit, or be honest about this very deep, in some ways intense, and slightly complex love and desire, that she had for me, and so it developed, in some ways, into a fragmented form of pure lust, by her towards me, in this way, whilst she still at the same time - and still probably does - very much love and miss me.

This is also a big part of the way, that she dealt with, having to pretend to herself, myself, and some other people in her social and work roles and life, that she never loved nor desired me, that she didn't and never cared about me at all - as a professional, women, and human being in society - and this was also her failed pretence and deceit to myself and others, that she never ever wanted to see me, nor in some ways know and care for me again.

This female counsellor, did sort of cheat on me sexually and socially, or TRIED to cheat on me in this way, and she also fantasised about me in a way, in this way, and which I still don't mind if that's what she likes and enjoys in some ways, but obviously, in some other ways, she was forced into this sexual activity and fantasy, in order to deny and repress, her care, true love, and desire for me, and our very unique way of communicating, loving, and relating; as if she was depriving herself and others from reality, and as if it all never ever actually happened.

When I was initially back, in this so-called particular counselling session with her, after I waited long outside, when she had got her breath back, after the so-called romp she'd just very recently had and experienced - and before I heavily hinted to her, part of what I knew about, what she had actually done and why - she then very aggressively, and sadistically, objectified and stared at me, as if it was me who had actually cheated, or tried to cheat, on her in those ways, and as if it was actually me, who was dirty and disgusting in this way, but which she actually felt and thought about herself and others, and which I never actually said or suggested to her, in any way.

At the next following counselling session, this female counsellor, then mocked or tried to mock me, very scornfully and sarcastically, and she laughed at me, and then bullied me and shouted me down, with very false and inaccurate, very negative, and very ignorant and prejudiced views, about heterosexual male masochism - that she had very repressively and coercively learnt and copied, from some of her male and female work-life and social role "superiors", and from other men and women, who had quite a bit of control over her life socially, politically, mentally, emotionally, creatively, erotically and sexually, and in terms of true love or loves, and creative and social skills, abilities, and knowledge.

This female counsellor, at the next following counselling session, then that said that all my mental health and masochism articles, were "defences", and at the next following counselling session, she very coldly and abruptly abandoned me, stating that she was ending the counselling sessions permanently, very soon - without giving me any real notice or time to prepare for this, other than one week - and then she refused to show me her any of her case-notes about me, but which I still would still like to read.

In spite of the abusive things this female counsellor did to me, whatever she decides to do in her life, I still wish her well, and I very much love and desire her very deeply, and immensely, and in a way she taught me a great deal, and she will always be my Mistress and my Queen.

My Responses On The New Policies and Promises of the Labour Party on Their Website

I just read the entire Labour Party website, and if this is all true what they say, it seems that they do now admit that a fair lot of the old ideas and policies they had, under the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown Labour governments, had become quite stunted, non-progressive in many ways, and quite incomplete.

The Labour Party, in many respects and on these matters, have genuinely and sincerely re-thought and worked through all this, integrated some continuation of some of their good old ideas and policies under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - and what's more - they have come up with some much better, politically and socially constructive ideas and policy plans or promises; including more genuine moral, ethical, and creating more progressive policies ideas and plans.

Again, I very much agree with The Labour Party, on their new revaluation and new policies on their main website, and I am also very concerned, opposed to, and worried along with them all, about the public services and benefits cuts, as proposed and threatened by the Conservatives. Also, if the Conservatives are threatening to bring back fox hunting, then that is absolutely evil, cruel, abhorrent, and repulsive, and is another reason why I more than likely will vote Labour next time round.

Along with what the The Labour Party now say about this on their website, I also don’t like the hierarchical leadership of the Liberal-Democrats turning to the right-wing, and the fact that they rather spinelessly and irresponsibly, have no opposition to the public spending and benefits cuts which the Conservatives propose and threaten to carry out.

In many ways, with their so-called big society ideas and plans, the Conservatives, have stolen, elaborated, and enlarged on the state-decentralised partial communitarian ideas of The Labour Party under Tony Blair and in some ways Gordon Brown, as an integral part of public services as Labour at least intended this.

The trouble is with the Conservatives though on this policy idea, issue, and matter, is whilst they are also concerned with civil rights and legitimate and ethical protection against the Police state - in terms of actual public services and fair benefits for those who need it, they make no distinction between the Police and Military state, and the public and/or political state via services and fair benefits for those who need them - as the Police and Military state, and the public state, are both separate aspects, and are also connected or related strata’s of the state, as the public state is also a separate aspect and strata of government, and of actual society.

Again, now Labour have promised to protect individuals and people from pernicious and unethical state-power and coercion, and the aspect of the Conservatives communitarian ideas and policies that will cut public-state and government public services and benefits, will create chaos and more crime and is totally unacceptable.

I also very pleased, that The Labour Party, have now said on their website, and admitted that there is a serious lack of participatory democracy, which they promise or plan to change, and that they also promise or plan to protect individuals and the public from the state, and which is the first time they have every mentioned the vital and crucial issue and matter of this.

However, I was very disappointed that equal civil and human rights, dispelling and challenging discrimination are only planned and promised by The Labour Party, for gay, bisexual, and trans-gender people, but not also for free and consensual BDSM civil and human rights and non-discrimination in society, and for natural biological heterosexual masochists such as myself.

Anyway, on their re-evaluated and new ideas and policy plans or promises, and the fact that the Labour Party are also now not alienating people such as Diane Abbot, means I will vote Labour again next time round. My own choice for a new Labour Party leader goes to David Milliband, because so far I have been quite impressed with much that he has said in Prime Ministers Question time, but I am also very pleased that Diane Abbot is not being excluded from the Labour Party leader election process and contest.

The Issue of the Conservatives Coalition Government Thinking about Possibly Cutting Benefits

I read and received today, a circular email from my local female Conservative MP, who said that she was holding a meeting soon about joblessness and deprivation in this local area, although she said that there were however plenty of jobs in the public sector in this local area (which I just don’t know how true or not that statement is), and she also mentioned that high numbers of people were claiming incapacity benefit in this local area too.

She didn’t say that she or her government were thinking of, or going to, cut these and other benefits, or that she agreed with doing this, but I’m concerned if this was what she was partly intending in and by her email, because whilst it is true as she pointed out that this country is in debt, there are still rich and poor or so-called class inequalities in this country, with one solution being a redistribution of wealth one way or another, possibly through the tax system.

The local female politician suggested in her circular email, that the benefits system, or aspects of it were actually causing, adding to, or making deprivation worse, when if this is the case, we also need other solutions, but cutting benefits with force and state-coercion is not the solution.

People need long-term benefits, if their problems are due to long-term psychological damage, mental health problems which are both biological, genetic, and environmental, and if their incapacity and disabilities are physical and incurable.

I agree with her that there is a problem, if people’s incapacity and disabilities are just caused by deprivation, and if they have been forced and wrongly state-coerced into the benefits system, without choices and options of well or decent paid jobs and/or further education for skills, and without any social support.

However, things and these matters are not that simple, as people’s incapacity and disabilities, can be a combination of many different conditions and factors, and I hope that she realises and takes these things into account, before, during, and after her meeting, which I will be interested to hear from her what conclusions she has come to about all this for her self and with others, including her own personal perspective.

Whilst I have sometimes and only voted Labour, - and if I do vote again, it will more than likely be for the Labour Party again, if they progress, and if they also put a stop to their own policies and psychological behaviours of force and misused state-coercion - I take some interest in this local female Conservative MP, because she does seem genuinely concerned about joblessness and deprivation, and she also has some very good principles against force and misused state-coercion, but she also needs to realise the different mechanisms and misuses of force and misused state-coercion, be consistent and coherent in her principles and policy intentions on this, see the full-picture, and be somewhat self-critical about her own political party if they are also intending to do this.