3rd October, 2025: Speaking in Tongues.
Yesterday was Yom Kippur: the Jewish Day of Atonement, the holiest day of the Jewish year.
The day when Britain’s Jewish community would be praying, fasting and seeking forgiveness for the sins of the past year.
And the day when an attacker killed two people at a Manchester synagogue: something police are calling a terrorist attack.
It’s …
I’m having to think about wording, here.
You and I may not like the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza.
I know I don’t: I think the actions of Netanyahu’s government border on religiously-motivated genocide.
I disagree with that government’s actions.
That does not give me the right to kill, injure, or maim, people for being Jewish, nor does it give me the right to kill people at prayer.
It gives no-one the right to kill!
I’ve long felt killing in the name of a cause is a bad way of promoting it, is tantamount to invalidating it.
That’s what the killer did, yesterday.
In taking the lives of at least two people, he has not promoted cause of the people of Gaza.
He’s killed it: as certainly as he’s killed Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz, his victims.
~≈✡️≈~
A few days ago … ?
I told you of the government’s proposed digital ID: and of how there was a petition against it.
I object: largely on the grounds of cost.
But also as I feel that making it mandatory — as Sir Keir Starmer was proposing — is a bad move.
And a waste of effort: as most of us who are hunting, already have valid ID.
At any rate, if you’re in the UK, I’d appreciate you signing that petition.
Every little helps, and all that!
But I should add a few things.
The web site tells us enough signatures have been gathered: and that the petition must be debated in Parliament.
And tells us that the government has responded.
By telling us:
“We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies. We will consult on details soon.”
They also tell us:
“… there are too many people who are excluded, like the 1 in 10 UK adults who don’t have a physical photo ID, so can struggle to prove who they are and access the products and services they are entitled to.”
And that:
“It will not be compulsory to obtain a digital ID but it will be mandatory for some applications.”
There’s possibly a ton of things, there.
The one in ten adults the response tells us “don’t have a physical photo ID”?
Do they have smart phones?
That’s the point that my objections hinged on: if you don’t have/can’t afford a smart phone, you can’t have this ID.
An ID that the response tells us isn’t compulsory to have … but whose use is mandatory.
Either the government has no idea what it’s saying.
Or its use of double speak is improving.
Or … ?
It’s all mouth and trousers.
~≈⏫≈~
In the midst of all that … ?
I’m actually up, early: and was hoping to get out early.
I’ve an optician’s appointment, today!
Heigh ho!
~≈🤓≈~
