Restoration 10:10

There would have been a lot of corpses under arrest if Guy Fawkes had succeeded in blowing up the Commons. The reason is that it’s against the law to die in the Houses of Parliament. I don’t think it’s an absurd law. It’s a class law related to snobbishness and royal arrogance. The coroner of the queen’s house hold still has to hold the inquest into the death of anyone whose body is lying 'within the limits of any of the Queen's palaces; or within the limits of any other house where Her Majesty is then residing'. As parliament is still classed as a royal palace, any death of an MP would in theory require members of the royal household to sit as the coroner's jury. And this raises all sorts of questions of parliamentary privilege. The queen is not subject to any legal action, at least on civil grounds. Well if someone should die in her majesty’s house I do hope it doesn’t inconvenience her too much. Hopefully under the circumstances her majesty would accept an apology if such a terrible thing did befall her. After all we can’t just go and die where we want you know. There are laws against this kind of thing. Who do you think you are? The same goes for our burial too. Eunice Fitch’s family have lost their campaign to get permission to have her buried in Christ Church, Gentleshaw.They were refused permission because she lived just outside the parish boundary by about 500 yards. Her family appealed to the Queen and Archbishop of Canterbury to make an exception for the 65-year-old. Huh as if they’d show compassion on a nice kind fundraiser who raised thousands of pounds for charity saving government money and improving lives. Apparently there wasn’t enough space to bury this stalwart of the community in Christ Church. I could take this as an insult, but I won’t. Eunice had a big heart and that’s what I will focus on. Not the little community pettiness and small-mindedness of conceited office holders. Our prayers and thoughts are with the family, as Eunice’s funeral is set to take place on June 24, with the service at St Luke’s Church, Cannock and her burial at Stile Cop Cemetery in Rugeley.

Truckers have planned a go slow on the M6 Saturday. The action will most likely cause grid-lock on the longest motorway in the United Kingdom. Elsewhere overseas, the Presidential Palace in the Philippians has been besieged, fishermen in Thailand burn their boats and Spanish supermarket shelves are empty. A policeman was battered by a crowd in Almeria. A burnt out coach slumbers on a road in Portugal and a dead man is carried in a coffin in Granada. We have seen public disruptions like this before. Say at football matches; anti-war campaigns and civil rights marches. Violent scenes like this are quiet normal in our crazy world. But all these recent disturbances have one thing in common. They erupted because of people protesting about the rising cost of fuel. Next thing you know we’ll be going to war for a barrel of oil. But what can we do about this latest global fuel crisis?

First don’t panic. Hopefully the government’s emergency plans for keeping the petrol pumps in business will work and disruptions will be kept to a minimum. (I say this unsure grimacing with gritted teeth)

Secondly this global fuel crisis should motivate us to invest more into finding alternative fuel energies. Funding for this should come from the government’s purse. If they can find money to fund an unplanned war in Iraq they can also find cash for some important deliberate research. But money for this project should also come from the billions of pounds profit which rich oil companies make each year.

Thirdly there should be a sense of urgency about the development of Bio-liquid fuels, solar power systems, and any other potential fuel substitutes. We should not underestimate the race against the clock regarding this matter.

Fourthly, no stone should be left unturned. Everything that can be done must be done to find alternative fuels for the future. Otherwise the future turmoil will be much worse than the present recent disturbances.

If the Dudley Mosque was built on the derelict ground in Hall Street, it would rob the town of prime building land. After all there’s only 27 acres of development space left in the borough. However, if the Mosque was built it would generate jobs as well as providing training and development opportunities for the whole community. This is what we are told about the public inquiry taking place over the Dudley mosque. But the town is not being true to itself with this debate. Do we really think that angry words are being exchanged in the public gallery and twenty police officers and extra security are present because everyone’s falling out over a few jobs and a bit of land? I don’t think so. Much of the public unrest involves a faith issue. Not a race issue. But there is definitely a religious concern. A mosque is a place of public worship. But we are debating the whole thing in a secular sense as though planners propose to build an air field or a supermarket on the site. Personally I wish Donald Trump would come to Dudley and build his £1 billion golf course. Not to forget the one thousand holiday homes and five hundred private houses he’s planning to go around the 1,400 acre site. Dudley would become a golfer’s paradise and reap £100 million a year. But it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for Donald to build his golf course here in the West Midlands. In fact, Donald can’t even get his plans through a small committee. Scottish councillors have rejected his flamboyant proposal to keep their unspoilt coastline. That’s what it’s all about isn’t it? We don’t like people spoiling things for us. According to the Muslim Association the mosque is ‘an ideal employment site’. They don’t want anyone to stand in the way and spoil this great service and vision for the community. On the other hand it’s been argued that a huge mosque would be out of character with the town of Dudley and spoil its skyline. I think it would also spoil some people’s Christian views. Unlike the Muslims Christians believe Jesus is more than just a prophet. They believe Christ is the unique Son of God. That’s why some people are opposed to the building of the Mosque. But I can’t say this, can I? Otherwise I might spoil the wonderful image of religious tolerance we have in our nation.

"I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric" said President George Bush. The US leader is regretting the choice of words he used to deal with Osoma Bin Laden and the Iraq situation. Perhaps he could have spoken differently when challenging Iran over the issue of its uranium enrichment. ‘Bring them on’, ‘dead or alive’, 'all options are on the table' are just some of the phrases fired in the important global debate  about the Middle East problems. George is not the only leader to speak imprudently either. The newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad coined a phrase that he might regret. "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” This was misunderstood as ‘Israel must be wiped off the map’. But apparently it means ‘this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Either way it sounds as though Mahmoud is looking for a final solution to a problem in Jerusalem. Whoops did I say ‘final solution’? Sorry that phrase sends tingles down my spine. It reminds me of another politician who wanted to permanently deal with Jews. His name was Hitler. He was adamant that the European Jewish community vanish from the pages of time. Consequently people were brought alive on trains to concentration camps. And there an unimaginable number of men women and children ended up dead. Of course George Bush didn’t really mean bring them on dead or alive. The USA has been misunderstood that’s all. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wouldn’t dream of wiping Israel off the map. Iran’s nuclear ambitions are only for domestic purposes. We believe them; don’t we?