There are all sorts of stories about people who are simply too lazy to work and would rather sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle while collecting their benefits. And then there are even some who do a bit of work every now and then get cash in hand to avoid coming off of benefits because of all the recent cuts. Bottom line is, there are some cases where it is better to be living on benefits than being in a minimum wage job. However, what the government has currently been doing is trying to is reduce benefits so much that you can barely live on them. But what do I think the answer is? Paying better living wages. That way, these people will pay tax and national insurance and cost the country less.
Tax evasion costs the government about 10 to 15 billion pounds a year. Benefit fraud costs another 1 billion. Around 10 billion has been cut from welfare spending. If these disability cuts which have been debated in the House of Commons are passed through, 3-4 million people who are unable to work because of disability or illness will make up to £9000 less each year.
We pay tax and national insurance every time we work. This acts as a sort of insurance policy so we will still get money when we are off sick or unemployed and looking for work. So that we don’t have to pay upfront for medical care. We might not need this, some people never do need this, but we pay in no matter how wealthy or poor we are. It’s like saving up for a rainy day. There are many other benefits such as child benefits and even funeral benefits to help with various other things.
The Welfare State is predominantly made up of the NHS and benefits system. It was brought in at a time we needed it most; just after the Second World War. Obviously, cutting benefits at the same time as cutting so many jobs will make tens of thousands of people homeless and poor
The NHS reforms that were introduced a few months ago were described by many doctors as damaging because it is allowing private business to infiltrate the service. Everyone who does economics will know that the private sector is full of firms that run for profit so this threatens to create a system with making profit better, not people, as its main aim.
“It was the most important maths lecture of the century. Two hundred mathematicians were transfixed. Only a quarter of them fully understood the dense mixture of Greek symbols and algebra that covered the blackboard. The rest were there merely to witness what they hoped would be a truly historic occasion.”
- Simon Singh (Author/Presenter/mathematician)
Pierre Fermat, French lawyer and mathematician, lived from 1601 to 1665. In terms of mathematics, he was an amateur and made no noticeable discoveries. Even if he did, the works of Blaise Pascal (who also lived during the 17th Century) attracted all the attention, pushing Fermat’s discoveries to the side. However, it seemed as though Pierre Fermat made on final claim to fame. He had proved what soon got referred to as Fermat’s Last Theorem.
Fermat’s Last Theorem is a simple equation. It simply states the following:
a^n + b^n ≠ c^n [n > 2]
Fermat proposed that the equation does not work when n is any value greater than 2. Of course, when n=2 you get the Pythagorean Theorem, which has been proved over four hundred times!
However, in the textbook where he scribbled down his claim he also added “I have a truly marvellous demonstration of this proposition, which this margin is too narrow to contain” Wow. What a twit.
Fermat managed to assign a momentous task upon all people who labelled themselves as Mathematicians.
The task was easy, the formula had been given. All you had to do was confirm it and you would be considered one of the greatest minds in mathematics. That was the motivation!
If you asked me to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem, I would laugh, slap you and go home. But when I first encountered this theorem I was asked to prove it and, ignorantly, I gave it a go. This was because at first glance it doesn’t look too complicated. I employed all the methods I knew for proving the Pythagorean Theorem but I concluded that my maths was simply not good enough.
It was then that I looked into the story behind Fermat’s Last Theorem and found that proving it was not as simple as I’d ever imagined.
All the greatest minds over three centuries had been baffled by this simple equation, but the proof was finally completed in 1995 by a researcher at Oxford University named Andrew Wiles.
The key to solving Fermat’s Last Theorem was obvious once the link was made between the Fermat’s equation and something called the modularity theorem. This is an extremely complex geometric theorem that only works on the assumption that Fermat was correct! It was then that Andrew Wiles realised that to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem he must first prove the modularity theorem!
Unfortunately, one of the two Japanese mathematicians who created the modularity theorem, called Yutaka Taniyama, committed suicide before he found out how useful his ideas were. Some say that his depression was imposed by the pressure he had put himself under to prove his own theorem.
Andrew Wiles dedicated seven years of his life to prove the modularity theorem, something that almost nobody at the time had the audacity to do. This meant there was little competition involved – he could take his time so long as he made sure all his work was conducted in private. This seven year journey involved many other less significant proofs, all of which helped form his final ideas. However, he could not get these proofs officially recognised without publicising his plans with Fermat’s Last Theorem; therefore he had to resort to proving them at lectures “for no apparent reason” so that he could slyly get confirmation of his mathematical techniques. Still, he avoided answering any question regarding the application of these proofs.
He finally, yet unexpectedly, stated his proof at one of his lectures in 1993. But there was one fatal error.
In the summer of 1993, Nick Katz, who was verifying the proof, found a huge error hidden deep within the reasoning behind the proof.
Immediately, Andrew Wiles set out to amend his proof, but due to the publicity of his 1993 lecture, so did everyone else!
In September 1994, Wiles was prepared to abandon his efforts, but before he did so he decided to check through the roots of his initial proof one last time.
Amazingly, he found the flaw in his proof. It was validated in 1995 and made all the newspapers. A question that is often thrown at Andrew Wiles is a simple one: “Did Fermat really prove his own theorem?” Andrew Wiles, the man who had proved Fermat’s Last Theorem was then able to confirm it.
No. Fermat could not have proven that a^n + b^n ≠ c^n when n > 2.
Pitched as the next tween sensation, I, among many others, was not expecting much of this young-adult novel adaptation. Well… the first thing I have to say is this film was pitched at completely the wrong angle. I went into the cinema completely unprepared, having not read the books, for what was to come. I expected poor acting and loud bangs; instead I saw real emotion from young actors, an amazing plot and a truly whole cinematic experience. It’s usually the case that the books are far superior and from what I’ve heard it’s true in this case too. Even if you’re not a fan, however, I guarantee you’ll enjoy it as a film that manages to please its audience on many different levels.
For those, like me, who haven’t read it, here’s the background. In the nation of Parem there was an uprising against the wealthy city ‘Capitol’ staged by the 12 (poor) outer districts. This uprising was defeated and every year since, as a reminder of the ‘crimes against the innocent people of Capitol’, each district must send a boy and a girl to battle the others until only one survives. That one is crowned the winner and is showered in wealth. The punishment grew to become a blood sport watched by the people of Capitol and the districts. This is the Hunger Games. The plot then follows Katniss Everdeen, a girl from district 12 who volunteers to play the 74th Annual Hunger Games in place of her sister who was chosen by the random lottery.
At this point I know what you’re thinking. Isn’t this Battle Royale meets The Running Man made to look like Twilight? The author, Suzanne Collins, claims that she had not heard of Battle Royale until after she wrote the book. Well I won’t try to dispute that but it is essentially the same thing except this is far more accessible and more science-fictiony. The links with The Running Man are too obvious, though, and I highly doubt Suzanne Collins hasn’t seen it or read the Richard Bachman (cough, Stephen King, cough) novel. The dystopian world in both novels is very similar, as is their futuristic style. As for Twilight, well I have no idea what these people are on about. It seems to me that the producers just wanted to tap into the huge tween fanbase Twilight had which is poor judgement in my opinion as the film is far more intelligent and actually has substance on screen.
The cast is full of young actors and actresses with X-Men: First Class’s Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss and Bridge To Terabithia’s Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark, the boy from district 12 who was selected via the lottery. Also in the mix are Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket and Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy. Effie is an annoying representative from the Capitol who manages district 12’s representatives in the Hunger Games. She is extremely superficial and represents the gullible public who are desensitised by the government – more on this later! Haymitch, on the other hand, plays the alcoholic winner of a previous Hunger Game from district 12 who becomes Katniss and Peeta’s mentor. Harrelson was perfect for what was the first time I’d actually seen him play a role where he wasn’t a psycho. He appears tough, but wise and his rugged appearance fits in perfectly with the overall atmosphere. The character is extremely relatable and the relationship he forms with Katniss and Peeta works wonders for the film.
The action scenes are fantastic with the effect not being action you watch but action you feel. The entire film, like the book from what I’ve heard, is in the perspective of Katniss and so what she experiences, you experience. When she is disorientated, you are. When she is nervous, you are. And when she is happy, you are. This is reflected very well in the film with subtle changes in lighting, the level of shake in the camera, the music and, above all, the soundtrack. The sound mix is where I think this film excels with every explosion, every arrow, slash, stab and every breath used to make audience become Katniss and feel the joy, pain and sorrow of the Hunger Games.
Despite all this, however, there is one very serious problem with the film; the look and feel of Capitol. The ‘cheap plastic’ look found everywhere does not fit well with… anything and the glossy paint rubbed on top of everything just makes things worse. With the potential to create a futuristic universe similar to the sinister ones in films like Blade Runner or the white, soulless ones found in films like Gattaca. If you’re comparing the look to other films, the director has, for some reason, chosen to make Capitol look like it was stolen from The Cat In The Hat. The people look as fragile as porcelain decorations wearing clothes so colourful and nothing short of ‘funky’. So much so that Lady Gaga would have to dress normally to look out of place. Worse still is the fact that the supposedly poor teenagers competing in the Hunger Games actually dress like you and I would!
I can, however, see why this is the case. I’m not sure whether this is part of the book but it seems that the ‘plastic doll’ look represents the ignorant people of Capitol who do not see the pain and suffering that exists in the districts. They are made to look pretty and eat the government propaganda served to them. That’s right. I told you there was substance to this film. Still, I do feel it goes over the top and after a while it just gets plain annoying to watch.
This is made worse by the amount of time spent in Capitol. Although there is significance in what happens, it is presented in a way that is extremely tedious and boring. This is where the film loses its audience with things happening that you don’t particularly care about. There are also problems with the flow in this part with some parts moving too slowly and other parts rushing by. Still, it’s worth sitting through this because the film feels completely different after the Game begins. I would say that everything before the Game is just scene setting but it’s too long before that and I feel that not enough emphasis is put on the story. Despite this, I don’t think that the first part of the film is that much of a disappointment. At least, the rest of it balances it out.
The Verdict
I would say that this is one film that deserves to do well in the box office because it’s fun and exciting for people of all ages while still having enough substance to be worth watching for more than cheap thrill. It really is pitched badly as it’s nothing like your typical tween movie. It has something for everyone with the very human characters, clichéd but adorable romance and two scenes where you can’t help but choke back tears. I would highly recommend you watch this and come to your own conclusions. I loved it and plan to read the books when I have a chance. You may think this is a hyped up children’s film but I really do feel that this is something that shouldn’t be dismissed too quickly.
This was a budget that was “unashamedly pro-business” and was a sign of “Britain earning its way in the world”, not to mention that it supported “working families and helps those looking for work” according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne. So where did it all go wrong? The Chancellor awoke on Thursday morning to a chorus of negative headlines (even from traditional allies in the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph) lambasting the Tory party for unleashing a secret “granny tax” thanks to the freezing of the tax-free personal allowance for pensioners and labelling them as a party of the rich for cutting the of the top rate of tax from 50 to 45p. By contrast, there was no mention of the increase of the tax-free threshold to over £9000 for all other taxpayers earning under £100,000 and the cutting of the corporation tax rate, in addition to further investment in infastructure.
It would seem that the Chancellor bit off more than he could chew; the Prime Minister warned him for weeks that the Conservatives could not afford to be stigmatised with the old damning association of protecting vested interests and rich donors, yet Osborne pushed ahead with his top-rate tax cut, determined to prove that Britain was “open for business” and confident that newly released figures from HMRC that signalled that the 50p tax rate only raised around £100 million compared to the £3 billion promised by the last Labour government would prove him right and justify his move in the eyes of the public. Alas, it was not to be; Ed Miliband actually turned in a fiery and passionate performance in response, ranting about how “out of touch” the Cabinet was with the “squeezed middle” which left the parliamentary Labour party fired up in a potent mixture of joy at the apparent confirmation of their suspicions of the Tories, combined with fury at Osborne for even daring to cut taxes for the “top 1%”.
However, looking beyond the immediate headlines, it doesn’t seem to be all that bad for the Conservatives. Indeed, it was actually thanks to the Lib Dems (hands up who is honestly suprised) that such a mess of leaking all of the positive aspects of the budget beforehand occured, leaving only the horrible bombshells for the press to find out about that Labour have targeted thus far with some success. Cameron and Osborne STILL poll comfortably ahead of their shadow counterparts when it comes to questions regarding economic competence and which team is better in a crisis, despite the negative reaction from the country in general when any policies are actually announced; such as this week. This is due to a mixture of apathy felt towards the Labour front bench comprised of the largely lethargic Ed Miliband and the disconcerting and occassionally frightening Ed Balls, in addition to fact that the Chancellor has brillaintly managed to label the Labour party as spending obssessed maniacs who are drunk on waste and pointless beauracrats. The public already know that the left are more concerned with absolute fairness than the right, it’s competence that will decide the 2015 election and it seems that on that note, the government seems to know what they are doing. Politically speaking of course…
Time will tell whether Osborne’s massive political gamble will pay off, but for now he and the PM must steady the ship and protect it from barrages from both the left and right. Of course, the irony of all this is that there’s very little that he could have actually done to alter the course that he had set for the country back in 2010 with his very first budget. Ultimately, the world economy’s recovery will play a far bigger role in the future of British politics than the tinkering around the edges that the Chancellor performs in his fiscally neutral budgets, but for his sake he must keep the criticism at arm’s length and push onwards. Hesitating now would be political suicide, if not an economic one.
Robert Bales, a staff sergeant of the United States Army, shocked the world when news broke of his cold-blooded execution of seventeen Afghan civilians in the middle of the night.
Described as a “mild-mannered man”, Bales stalked through a compound near his army base in the Kandahar province, methodically murdering the sleeping residents. Witnesses attributed much brutality to his actions, recalling his having “dragged the boys by their hair and [having] shot them in the mouth” as well as having shot five of the child victims once each in the head.
Seventeen innocent civilians died, and five more injured. Bodies were set alight, including those of children.
Bales calmly walked back to base and turned himself in. He was subsequently arrested and moved to Kuwait before being expelled from the country by the Kuwaiti government. He was then moved back to the US Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he was placed in a cell awaiting a military tribunal.
Coming at a time when US-Afghan ties could not be weaker, due in no small part to copies of the Muslim holy book being burnt as well as multiple “friendly-fire” incidents and many grievances dealt to the Afghan people by US troops, Bales throws up a storm of prickly issues.
The Afghan government demand justice for this latest obscene act against its people. It demands Bales be tried in Afghanistan, as well as claims that Bales could not have acted alone. Hamizai Lali, one of a team sent by the Afghan government to probe the murders, stated his scepticism over the likelihood of one man having carried out the murders on his own: “We are convinced that one soldier cannot kill so many people in two villages within one hour at the same time.”
Assuming that Lali’s argument is true, and there were many killers, it would not be in the US military’s favour to expose many troops to be murderers – that would send out the signal that such mindsets as Bales’ are widespread throughout the ranks. Therefore, it would be favourable for the authorities to pin all of the blame on Bales.
Then comes the issue of charging Bales in an Afghan court. To do so would probably contravene half a dozen human rights that Bales is supposedly obliged to have. After all, there jury would have heard of him and would seek to find him guilty and punish him severely. Then there’s the fact that he’d be in danger every step of the way – surely the common man, let alone the Taliban, thinks ill of him already? And finally, there’s the can of worms regarding shariah courts of law, where Bales would be (depending on your point of view) prosecuted unfairly and given a punishment disproportionate to his crime.
I would expect that the standard punishment handed down in that part of the world for such a grave crime would be death. As it should be when he is found guilty in front of the military tribunal in the US.
And why not? Bales did murder seventeen people. He murdered them in their sleep, even women and children. He desecrated corpses by setting them alight. He went about his talk with utmost efficiency, wasting no more bullets than was needed to kill a victim.
It would be wrong to argue that he was ‘unhinged’ at the time: he received training as a sniper, a role for which candidates must be tested to see if they are psychologically stable. He had reached the position of staff sergeant, showing that he was trusted enough to be in charge of a squad of men. He walked out of his military base before the murders and walked back in calmly before turning himself in. There was no indication of anything untoward in his behaviour before he walked out of the base, and no foul play was suspected until he turned himself in. Clearly this was a man who either premeditated his attack or is just plainly a stone-cold killer.
Opponents of the death penalty would say that rather than executing Bales, the military should send him to prison for the rest of the duration of his life. They argue that the power of isolation confinement and loss of human contact would break him and cause him far more anguish than a quick death would.
Capital punishment is said to be inhumane and based on humanity’s cruel desire for revenge, it is said. The idea of “an eye for an eye” is said to be wrong, harking back to a bygone age; depriving a person of life is meant to be far less preferable to depriving them of human contact with others: “moral superiority” sets us apart from, and above, other animals.
I fail to see why Bales should not be put down. The Afghan government would probably give him the death penalty if given the chance to try him in an Afghan court of law, as happened to Saddam Hussein under the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal. Monetary compensation will not recompense the families and communities of those who died in full. This isn’t a case of Bales having burnt down a house or a warehouse of grain.
It would be unjust to the Afghan people to allow yet another foreigner get away with killing an innocent person. If the US truly wants to bring Bales to justice, it would allow the Afghan government to hold a court within the US – for Bales’ safety – and charge Bales using Afghan judiciary and jury. Or it could hand Bales over to the toothless International Court of Justice to eliminate some of the vested interest and influence that the US government would have in wanting to lessen Bales’ sentence. Either way, the chance of the death penalty being handed down to Bales would be next to zero, but at least Bales would be held up as an example of US aggression abroad and all that US foreign intervention has led to – civil wars, corruption and, in this case, murder.
The first thing we normally associate with disability isn’t sport but in fact, there are many sports available that cater for people with various disabilities. Most of these sports are played at the Paralympics by professional athletes and they create a wonderful spectacle for the audience; a spectacle which is just as great as the one created by the equivalent Olympians. Despite this however, the Paralympic Games have received far less media exposure in comparison to the Olympics and, in other countries, there has a been a history of not giving equal funding between Paralympic and Olympic Sports.
A possible reason for this is that sport isn’t readily available for disabled people to participate in. However, like I mentioned earlier, there are lots of sports that cater for many different disabilities. For example, sports such as football, cycling and equestrian are performed by the visually impaired at the Paralympics, whilst those suffering from any type of cerebral palsy are able to play boccia whilst representing their nation at the Paralympics. Wheelchair users can play wheelchair rugby and basketball and those that have amputated one or more limbs can take part in athletics.
The Paralympic sports as a whole encompasses six different disability categories, which therefore means that many disabled people in the UK can participate in at least one sport.
On the other hand, are there sufficient facilities for disabled people to participate in sport? In their report, “Harnessing the power of sport for development and peace” (2008), international charity organisation Right to Play stated that “persons with disabilities often experience problems securing practice time, accessible facilities, coaches who are knowledgeable on how to adapt sport, or equitable access to the services and resources available to athletes without disabilities.”
For example, sports centres may not have ramps or lifts for disabled people or they might not have the equipment to cater for specific disabilities. Transport facilities may be more difficult for disabled people to access. Competent coaches for disabled people are also hard to find, mainly because opportunities to play sport with other disabled people are equally as scarce.
In addition, there are many other obstacles in the way of disabled people participating in sport. In a memorandum to the House of Lords in November 2010, the English Federation of Disabled Sport stated: “Lack of money, health status and the unsuitability of local sports facilities for disabled people are cited as the main barriers to participation in sport.” The lack of money as a main barrier is not surprising considering that three quarters of the disabled population in the UK are on state benefits, meaning that there isn’t enough money to spend on participating in sport. Health status is also cited as a main barrier; however this is partly due to the fact that there is a lack of credible information on sports for disabled people. People that cite health status as a reason for not participating in sport, with more information, might find that they can take part in different sports – depending on the nature of their disability.
As well as a lack of suitable facilities, money and information, disability sport in the UK has a lack of funding from the Government. The Government announced, in its plan for the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy for London 2012, that out of the £135m investment only £8m was being specifically set aside for disabled sport. This makes it even more arduous for the National Disability Sports Organisations who are trying to increase sports participation amongst disabled people. The lack of a priority from the Government for disabled sports implies that the barriers surrounding disabled sport will not be lifted. Rectifying the lack of facilities at grassroots level for disabled people requires a lot of money but unfortunately this money does not look like it will be coming from the Government.
In conclusion, is sport readily available for disabled people? The answer is no, simply because whilst there are enough sports for disabled people to take part in, there aren’t enough facilities to facilitate participation nationwide. There is also a lack of information for disabled people that are interested in sport as well as a lack of affordable coaching facilities, all of which further hinders opportunities for disabled people to take part in sport.
Despite this, I believe that this will not be the case forever. Even though there hasn’t been a substantial investment from the Government in disabled sport, I firmly believe that the Paralympics in London this year will have a great impact on the awareness of disabled sport. Many disabled people will be able to see disabled athletes perform on the international stage at home and this will only serve to encourage more participation in sports and better sports facilities for disabled people in the future.
Although the recession had finished in 2010, some would say that by most qualitative indicators it is by no means over. Nowhere is this more evident than for the 16-24 age group. The recession has been particularly unforgiving to these groups.
There are one million 16-24 year olds unemployed. For those that dropped out of school, 26% are unemployed. For those who stayed and completed a degree, 25% of them are unemployed. This means that that there is no significant benefit in terms of likelihood of employment for this group. (This excludes the income potential for these two groups.) Contrastingly at aged 24 or older only 5% of graduates were unemployed. For this same group only 13% of those who left with GCSEs are unemployed. We can see a recession that has been particularly harsher on young people. It is argued that this is due to this group not having as many job opportunities as the next age group. This would explain why older groups were more likely to be employed rather than this age group.
The government is trying to increase support for young people. It first tried to bring in state-paid work experience, where companies would offer work experience but the state would continue paying benefits to that worker. However the furore whipped up on the internet, particularly the blogosphere, meant that many companies had backed out of supporting it in fear of tainting their image.
Ed Miliband weighted in today by suggesting a scheme where young people would be guaranteed a job if they had been unemployed for more than six months. Critics say that this ignores other problems, such as fresh school leavers who should be given immediate support instead of having to wait six months to receive it. They also argue that by waiting six months, they become less attractive as many of the skills acquired begin to fade away.
Both parties are trying to avoid a similar fate of the 1980s where graduate unemployment continued well after the recession had ended, thus a large group of unemployed 16-24 year olds unfortunately relied on benefits with a decreasing likelihood of employment, because of their poor employment record at the start of their working life.
The news broke on Friday 18th of March 2012 that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams would be resigning from the post of Archbishop in order to take up a post as Master of Magdalene College at the University of Cambridge in January 2013.
Dr Williams was appointed in 2002, as the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury and his decade long tenure has been moderately successful. However certain issues such as gay clergy, marriage and female bishops have all presented great challenges to the Archbishop who has had to prevent the church from dividing over these issues. Dr Williams admitted that “crisis management” was not his “favourite activity” but he denied that rows over homosexuality were a major overshadowing issue during his tenure. “It has certainly been a major nuisance. But in every job that you are in there are controversies and conflicts and this one isn’t going to go away in a hurry. I can’t say that it is a great sense of ‘free at last’.”
He went on to thank those in the Anglican Community: “I am abidingly grateful to all those friends and colleagues who have so generously supported Jane and myself in these years, and all the many diverse parishes and communities in the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion that have brought vision, hope and excitement to my own ministry,” .He described the Church of England as a “great treasure”. He added “At the end of this year I will have been 10 years in post as Archbishop and just over 20 years as a bishop – that is part of it, feeling that after 10 years it is proper to pray and reflect and review your options.”
Dr Williams mentioned various “watersheds” which he deemed to be reasonable for contemporary times, such as the upcoming vote at the General Synod, the National Assembly of the Church of England, which is debating on whether to give the final approval to legislation that will allow women to become bishops. Church of England General Synod member Alison Ruoff commented on Dr Williams retirement and said: “He’s a kind, wise, warm, godly man, but had he actually stood up and been counted as a leader, I think we would be in a very different place in the Church of England from where we are now, and that is thoroughly regrettable.”
The obvious question now is: Who will be the next Archbishop of Canterbury? All fingers are pointing in the direction of the Archbishop of York, the outspoken, yet highly respected Dr John Sentamu who paid tribute to Dr Williams. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, said: “It is with great sadness that I received the news that the Archbishop of Canterbury will be stepping down at the end of this year. “Our partnership in the gospel over the past six years has been the most creative period of my ministry. It has been life-giving to have led missions together, gone on retreats and prayed together.
“In his company I have drunk deeply from the wells of God’s mercy and love and it has all been joyful. He is a real brother to me in Christ.”
We have moved our website to www.peaktimesonline.co.uk
Please visit this website to access our new and improved website, still containing all past articles!
Posted by skankera 
