The Pope and the real problem....

The Pope, Fuhrer of Vatican plc, has made yet another ridiculous statement which ignores the reality of human existence. He doesn't seem to have recognised that his ancient fairy tale of creation was superseded by scientific knowledge including the reality of sexual orientation, accepted by all major medical and psychological academic bodies.

He also doesn't seem to realise that sex is not the same as gender, and that one's sexual orientation has nothing to say about one's gender or one's sex. So, a gay man is every bit as male as a straight man, in terms of sex, but their sexual orientation is not that which is dominant within the male gender . A minority variant - the world is full of them,nt only in the area of sexuality.

There really is nothing wrong with the pope that a good heart attack wouldn't put right.

Loathsome Nazi scumbag. Never did leave the Hitler Youth, did it?

And in the meantime, Catholic seminaries are full of gay men skulking in their closets. I can't sympathise or respect them. hey should speak out and be prepared to face the consequences. Otherwise, they are quite simply hypocrites

In any case, there is a problem greater than climate change. It isn;t people's sexuality, which is no threat to anyone. Indeed, having more open gay people would do wonders for the real problem facing the world - the elephant in the room which the Left, in particular, fails to talk about.

I mean, of course, overpopulation

The first start should be the removal of all overseas aid and all publicly funded assistance or support for any country which actively promoted overpopulation. hird world aid is largely wasteful in any case - most of it ends up in the hands of tinpot dictators propped up by the regimes they claim to loathe. And their problems are down largely to one issue. Too many people. Overpopulation. There should be a universal one child policy in particular for countries who have to pathetically bring out the begging bowl at every conceivable opportunity. And of course, promoting this overpopulation is Vatican plc and its Gauleiter, Ratfinger!

Irresponsible

I don't know who is more irresponsible.

The woman who thinks it is quite acceptable to have 18 children in the USA, or the TV company which no doubt helps to pay for the circus by making a TV programme about them

Lillian Ladele ruling overturned

The judgment which justified Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar, in not carrying out an essential part of her job - civil partnership ceremonies - has been overturned.

Quite right too - but lets not have any more shoddy procedure from local councils, please, which meant that the person wanting to discriminate can present themselves as a victim

Police authorities

I served as an independent member of a police authority for four years. It was an interesting experience and I think was worthwhile, although the reliance on the same organisation one is meant to be 'critical friend' to for one's information does limit effectiveness.

The selection process isn't ideal, although it is quite exacting. I applied twice and was successful on second application after quite a gruelling interview process. As an independent member with experience of being part of a minority community, I felt I had some distinctive perspectives to bring. The problem was that it was very hard to remain independent. I declared that I knew the Chair of the authority, and whilst for the first two years of serving I was a party member, never felt any loyalty to that party's position. This was probably my downfall, particularly when I left the party and it became pretty clear that I wouldn't be reappointed.

However, further politicisation of the police via direct elections would be a very bad idea - and I think would undermine the authority of the Chief Constable. It would mean that police governance would be in the hands of one party, and this could easily be an extremist party unwilling to enforce the very important commitment of the Police to serve the whole community.

There are other ways of enabling people to influence the police without placing them further into the hands of party politicians of any colour.

I just don't get it

Journalism is full of the nostalgic 'things are going to hell in a handcart' brigade. So is blogdom. There seems to be something about a certain class of people who are, on the surface, often very different in their concerns, but share a basic loathing of contemporary life and a longing for something better.

So, the concerns are usually about lack of liberty, which seems to mean obsessing about the tyranny of the ID card proposals, or Islam, or loss of the socially conservative Catholic politics they associate themselves with, or whining on about the destruction of civilisation as they knew it

They share a nostalgia for the past and a social order where what they approve of dominates, and where every single 'negative' incident is used to amplify their personal fears

I wonder why they feel like this? What is it about the past or a strangely unappealing utopia (often linked to curious constructs about Englishness, and often linked to Christian religionism) which motivates these people?

If I had the choice, I would prefer to live in our present situation than look back towards this mythical past. I wonder if it is the knowledge that their ideal will never be fulfilled which makes these people so very angry?

Life and death

I watched the programme on assisted suicide earlier this week. It was well put together and honest - wonder why we are still so squeamish about death? Actually, I don't - it is the product of religion and its influence, yet that doesn't manifest itself in the same way everywhere. It is clear that the CPS are unlikely to pursue prosecutions of those who go to Switzerland - and absolutely clear that there will need to be accommodation for the overwhelming sympathy that people in the UK have towards voluntary euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Margo MacDonald MSP put the case forward eloquently on Monday's Panorama.

I don't think Parliament can stand against this very necessary change forever. We cannot continue to enable keeping people alive via medical advance if we are unable to also offer quality of life. And we need to make clear that the sub-text of the value of suffering, promoted by Vatican plc and many of the advocates of failed palliative care , is something which has no place in contemporary society. Suffering is neither beneficial nor compulsory, and people should have the right to end their suffering should they so choose.

As far as the life of Jean Charles de Menezes, though, the situation is far more unclear. I don't think that the police can be entirely blamed, given the situation and febrile atmosphere which existed at the time - but I think they would do themselves a favour or three if they admitted to having made mistakes (they should have stopped him going down into the tube station, for a start, but its easy to say after the event, and he shouldn't have run away, perhaps fearing arrrest because of his illegal immigration status). Fact is, though, that they really did believe that he was carrying a bomb, and given the events of just days before, mistakes with tragic consequences would be made. It was a mistake, I don't think that anyone thought that the police actually thought it wasn't the suicide bomber. And lets not forget that the suicide bombers are the real villains of the piece. But, the police should have been upfront and said - yes, we made mistakes. Why didn't they? Perhaps because there seems to be a wish not so much for 'justice', but money and having a go at the police.

Rights, not liberties

I note that the 'civil liberties' lobby are often associated with the furtherance of 'rights'. But there are others, almost all social conservatives, who are actually opposed to clear legal rights and prefer the nothingness of what they refer to as 'traditional British liberties'. This assumes that our common-law system works well (it doesn't), that religionists, for example, should have the 'liberty' to discriminate against others outside the private sphere (they shouldn't), and that majoritarian views are always correct (they aren't)

English common law is a failure: it cannot cope with the contemporary society we live in, and it is no surprise that it is people who generally hate that contemporary society and long to bring back past values who equally fetishise the idea of 'English liberty'.

'Liberty' to discriminate and enforce majoritarian prejudice - no thanks

Nothing better to do

So-called "Labour" MP and full time moral majority member Claire Curtis-Thomas MP, facing the almost certain loss of her constituency at the next election , has returned to her obsession of "lads mags" , this time suggesting they should carry an age limitation.

I find it incredible that this MP, who has virtually disappeared from local public view, cannot deal with things of some importance, rather than indulge her religionist convert mentality. I do not particularly like these sort of magazines but this is just another excuse for her nanny-state Vaticanist moralism.

The idea that people lap up the media in a way which reflects a hypodermic syringe is too simplistic. Lads mags are not particularly intelligent but are hardly hard-core porn.

Karen Matthews and the 'underclass'

Its always the case that any such story brings out the "broken families" nonsense, and provides many opportunities for simplistic grandstanding, and this one is no exception. I do not pretend to have any easy answers. But the following points appear relevant

1. Reducing benefits for larger families will not necessarily prevent the children from being born. Whilst the gaining of benefits may be one of many stated reasons for having children , there is very little evidence that this is the only reason. I think those who consider that removing benefits will automatically lead to less children is naive. Also, what happens to the children themselves? Will they be automatically placed in care? This will be far more expensive than providing benefits, if cost is the ultimate concern. Is there very much evidence that care is better than a dysfunctional family?

2. Early intervention is vital and this may appear to be repressive in that it may involve the removal of the children. I think there remains a conflict, largely the fault of the family values campaigners, who on the one hand, eulogise the family and kick up a fuss whenever a family is split up by social work intervention, yet who suggest the very same intervention and removal if the family is not to their liking. Things like Sure Start in its early guise may help but it appears to have been so diluted that it may now make little impact

3. Undoubtedly there are people who are intergenerationally unemployed. But given that there is not enough work to go around, and that a minimum wage job will not be financially viable to maintain a family of a large number. any solution that focuses on paid work as the only solution is not going to be effective. It would have to include a reform of welfare benefits to ensure that part time and low paid work is actually worthwhile and does not leave the family worse off. Also, good parenting is a full time job and I think it a mistake not to see this as a suitable activity as well.

4. The friends and neighbours of Matthews rallied round and displayed a close knit and supportive community. The idea of the "underclass" may well be faulty. Its originator saw it as referring to whole areas - but this is not the case in Dewsbury (where I used to work) where many people are in low paid work. Its probably not a very helpful term in that it ends up labelling whole groups of people, although there are definitely people who have fallen into a lifestyle which does not include work and who are reliant on benefits. But be realistic - we don;t have jobs for all who want them - and do you think employers are going to be queing up to employ Karen Matthews and others who are long-tern unemployed?

5. If this problem is as serious as suggested, is there a case for restricting the fertility of those unable to care for their own children? I can hear the cries of anguish already - but what other solutions have been suggested which will work? Reducing benefits will only harm the children. If it is irresponsible to have large families, then should smaller families be encouraged? How much coercion do we consider appropriate?

Welfare reforms

I listened to James Purnell today, defending the government's proposed welfare reforms.

Labour have the amazing ability to introduce something I disagree with every time I decide that I realy should join the party again. Sure enough, its not only taking the entirely wrong stance on sex work and mercy-killing, but now the welfare reforms of Purnell.

I am no dinosaur on this matter, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with making the finding of employment a far easier and supported process. But there is a problem with this latest batch of reforms.

First, it assumes there is full employment for all. There isn't. Were it not for the fact that women largely didn't work until the 1970's, the full employment figures of the past would have been rather less full too.

The current plans appear to be particularly targeted on single parents and disabled people, particularly those who have been out of the workforce for a while. But since when has bringing up a child not been a job? Is it really going to benefit lone parents to force them to take work when their children are still small?

And let's get real. In a time of recession, does purnell really think that employers are going to prioritise the employing of people with child care responsibilities and no other carer on call, or people who have been out of the workforce for a while, or those who may be less 'productive' according to the rules of the profit motive? Of course not. If there are not the jobs to go round - and there are not - then those at the back of the queue certainly do not need the sort of pressure which these reforms suggest.

On top of this, it remains a fact that employers remain hostile to part-time employment, and I include supposedly 'progressive' employers in that. Employers want full time staff who they can rely on being 'in position' all week. Once one gets part-time work it is made clear enough that the agenda is for you to go full time as soon as possible - but this simply isn't either feasible for many, or perhaps not what they feel to be best for their well-being? Of course, sharing out the available work is inherently fairer, but the benefit system currently makes matters very difficult for part-time work to pay.

Anyway, there is a petition against the reforms. Please sign it
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/campaigns/campaign.asp?n=3451

The blame game

When will it be accepted that there is absolutely nothing short of removing all children at risk from their parents, which will prevent them killing them if they have a mind to, and public policy wants to keep families together?

Haringey and many other inner-city boroughs are woefully short of staff and will be even more so now - who in their right minds would want to be the fall guy? Their job is impossible

As for the pathetic whining of Damien Green, seems pretty obvious that he used a Tory Boy placeman in the relevant department, to feed him titbits. Iu is NOT an MP's job to leak official documents nor use public servants to do so. he should be ashamed of himself, and would appear a whole lot less culpable if he would shut up and let the police find out what really went on. If he had any moral scruples at all, he would resign not let his pet Tory Boy in the civil service take all the blame.

Tories. Scum, when all is said and done.